1
10
20
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c401c9a2a6d4fc22b85f9c2f2ec3c67f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ecXKvG9aRYyfH30u3AOLblaNUQuMc9BZsmCaqqY-LJmPIA7sOnZnRTz65xQY6CR1EjdQLBQscwM1bvkCauociX9wN4fvXxKstj2l8UcRXy%7EZ4IuHn1S3uAfZeIDMWj-eipDEM2zzEPZ1Z3opKkdQVCWZ9-27SnUZUkQDxkTAq-e%7Er8WsJJgVrJSQhoJVr50UbF3jWn12qYTiL-eDdioALs-EKBPo%7Eron4SoYmZvp2wxT-V2xmdTh1paKWt9YEavCXiZ2-TwwNxeRHGC8hP65e0GaYar2-1SQMJyX5-ILKgWCPnEFnQ8nmQUhcK7Zvdtqo8FaskW3z-MhPsUlA5Ba6A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4514408fb976e1d1ed98584dbdc245c4
PDF Text
Text
DISCOURSE
UPON
CAUSES FOR THANKSGIVING:
PREACHED AT
WATERTOWN, NOV. 30, 1862.
By JOHN WEISS.
BOSTON:
WRIGHT & POTTER, PRINTERS, 4 SPRING LANE.
1 8 6 2.
�J
�DISCOURSE.
Make: iv: 28.
FIRST THE BLADE, THEN THE EAR, AFTER THAT- THE FULL CORN IN THE EAR.
The content and thankfulness of New England are committed
every spring to her soil by fee hand! oft farmers, who find it
again spreading the color of California gold over their autumn
fields. And what an alchemist is a former, to get that color out
of land so poor and climate so harshgwhefe, what with the
prices of labor, the expense of implements;,;' of draining, manur
ing, keeping of stock and buildings,; and a comfortable life
through a tedious winter not a great deal of feat color finds its
way into his pockety however much he may store in his bins
or send to market. And W;herever.,a ploughmans, from the
Kennebec to the Mississippi, turniiig^fat or meagre soils to the
sun of a temperate summer^ there springs the beautiful thanks
giving harvest of New England# and of the North. Manufac
tures, shoe and leather dealing, all. the trades and inventions,
eat the pumpkins and the corn of fee farmer. And the pursuits
which are closely allied to^agideulture,such as, the breeding
of cattle and the growing of wool, foelp the farmer to create
and feed a North. Lawrence# and Lowell can consume all the
cotton they get, when the farmer of the East and West dumps
his potatoes at the ^factory door. ■ When the great arm of the
engine vibrates, and a million spindles and the hearts of those
who tend them sing, see how fee sJendentferead goes up from
the ball, carrying all the. crops of the year wife it to spin them
into Wamsutta or Merrimac, or other famous brands. The morn
ing tattoo which the Lynn shoemakers beat on their lap-stones
is the echo of flails in a thousand barns. Genesis says, that the
Lord God took a little earth to make the first man ; now man
�4
breathes his own breath of life into the earth again, and it
makes him and sustains him every day.
There is not much land, even among the rich river-bottoms
and prairies of the West, so genial that man has “ only to tickle
it with a hoe to make it laugh with a harvest.” What would
our farmers think of that great tract of black earth in the
empire of Russia, “ lying between the fifty-first and fifty-seventh
parallels of latitude, comprising about 247,000,000 acres, so rich
that if manured the first years of culture, the crops often prove
abortive from excessive vegetation. The thickness of this deposit
varies from three to six feet, and in many places it runs to an
unknown depth.”* But how hard it is to evoke civilization and
knowledge out of that depth, because neither of them cultivate
it. Yet it is in that great temperate plateau of Russia, called
“ The Industrial Region,” that freedom and religion when
planted may be expected to subdue the rankness of the soil.
Here freedom and religion coax and flatter sterility till it fairly
forgets itself and smiles.
In a still autumn morning, when the brown roads have
drift-heaps of red and yellow leaves, and the air seems to be
nothing but a mingling of shine and warmth, what a ride
it is to take up and down the valleys here, through the north
part of Watertown, where the first farmers of New England
sowed their English grass, and across Beaver brook through
the uplands of Waltham, and behind Prospect-hill, where
the farms and wood-lots stretch pleasantly away. Perhaps you
turn off towards Lexington, and cross the famous turnpike
down which the farmers “fired the first shot heard round
the world,” when, as minute-men, they top-dressed their
fields with English blood, and were not chary of their own.
Religion and liberty have grown well ever since. You ride past
their manifest tokens; you pause at their memorial when you
hitch your horse at a farmer’s door, and ask the price of his
potatoes and pumpkins which lie there, great heaps of plenty,
before barns bursting with corn-shucks and upland grass, the
sinews of war and of peace. No sharp-shooting behind the stone
fences now, nor irregular firing up and down the road. The
cricket chirps from the door-step a tranquil song, whose burden
Patent Office Report, 1861. Agricultural.
�5
’seems to be that Nature is laying in sunshine, with good hus
bandry, for another spring. The children break out of the little
primary school-house, where New England planting is carried
on too,—boys and girls trained to grow straight and sturdy, to
handle some day the plough, the loom, or the musket, as the
country needs. Now they are the finest of all the crops on the
slopes which they shall one day inherit. What a ride you can
take through the country lanes, bordered with nothing finer
than the pendent barberry and the purpling sumach, unless you
have an eye for the comfort, and thanksgiving, and popular
Liberty, whose stateliness lines all the road, and stretches far
away between the hills.
When a people own the land, wd own themselves, and conse
quently do not depend upon oiid product and one employment
for their means of intelligence and happiness, they are superior
to bad luck, and know little of the discomforts of a crisis. In
this respect what a different sight meets the traveller who is
passing to-day through the cotton districts of Lancashire,
England, where a population offl nearly three millions have
their welfare entangled in the will-machinery, and cease to
hope as the factory ©fiimnies Q,ease to smoke. They are as
piuch the slaves of thll cotton-plant as the negroes who hoe it
and gin its blossoms. They belong to a style of civilization
*
which thinks little of man, but a great deal of trade ; which
dooms a man all his life, and his? children after him, to make
the head of a pin, to pick under grouffl. at a stratum of coal, to
pull and ripple flaxjfe1 tend a machine in a mill. Take away
his pin-head, his pick-axe, or fail to. feed his machine with
cotton, and he is a p^w^ef| he,,comes upon the parish for his
daily support, or has a^frowl of soup ladled out to him at the
door of some charity. In Manchester, which has a population
of 357,604, the pauperism is-Bow 10f per cent., and out-door
relief is distributed to 16,334 persons at the rate of Is. 4d. per
head per week—about two shillings of ©Mr money. Out of
eighty-four cotton mills, twenty-two
are
**
stopped, and thirty are
working short time. But Manchester is comparatively well off.
The town of Stockport, about six miles from Manchester, has,
out of a population of 54,681, 18,000 engaged in the factories,
in good times; but now there are only 4,000 working on full
�6
time, 7,283 are wholly unemployed, and 7,000 are working on
short time. Then 1,000 people belonging to other trades
depend upon the staple trade, thrown out of work. 30,000
people in Stockport receive relief. But what an amount of
misery do those figures represent. The more able-bodied men
go tramping over the country to seek work, but spinners and
weavers are not able-bodied, and a day’s march often lays them
up. Some of them who can sing form a little company, and
go singing glees, “ with nobody minding,” and few farthings for
their half-starved music. The women also try to win a’bitter
meal with the sweetness of their voice. A spectator describes
a scene of this kind : “ One young woman, about thirty years of
age, with a child in her arms, was standing in a by-street,
singing in a sweet, plaintive voice, a Lancashire song. It was
her first song in public ; and the tremulous voice and downcast
look, as she hugged with nervous grasp her little one, was very
touching. When the song was over, the poor creature looked
round with a timid air to the bystanders ; but she had miscalcu
lated her strength—the occasion was beyond her power of
endurance—and she burst into a passionate flood of tears.”*
I see m that womaU, the patient England held in slavery by a
selfish Toryism, which would be. glad to-morrow to recognize
another slavery in order to keep its own fed and quiet. A
relieving officer in Stockport, says : “ I have gone into the
rooms of the English operatives when they have not had a
mouthful of bread under the roof, and perhaps not had what
you may call a meal the whole $ay, and nothing but shavings to
sleep on through the night, yet they talked as cheerfully and
resignedly as if there was every prospect of employment on the
morrow.” These are subjects of a government which has
trained their bodies and souls to do only one thing, to mind the
brutifying monotony of one machine, and is now exulting over
what it calls the failure of a Democracy, as it lets arms and
steamers for a Southern aristocracy slip through one hand, and
a little soup for its starving poor through the other. This,
then, is the largess of a constitutional monarchy,—piratical
cannon and comfort for slave-drivers abroad, and the great
institution of Soup for slaves at home I
* A Visit to the Cotton Districts, 1862, p. 4.
�7
Even this latter is grudgingly bestowed. Many of the richest
mill-owners have not yet subscribed a farthing to the relief
funds, so that it is a difficult matter to secure a shilling a head
per week to the poor applicants. Yet who subscribed to the
“Alabama?” Whose money fits out steamer after steamer with
munitions to keep the life in Southern slavery ? What capital
is it that buys Confederate bonds at eighty-four cents, and that
is willing to take the risks of sea and a blockade to help in
undermining the great Republic whose manifold prosperity it
dreads ? Thank God, the elements of an American Thanks
giving, material and spiritual, are, and forever will be, beyond
the reach of open levy dr secret m^lfe'e of itsjiearty haters.
In Ashton-under-eLyne, whose population is 36,791, there are
10,933 hands employed tdfi^^MH^^^iting a population of
nearly 22,000. The existing means Of relief reach only 9,000
of these; that is, there are moi^thanb 10,000 dependent on
private charity, or their own eesoffm^ The 9,000 cost <£480
per week. The mill-owners in this place have been disposed to
help the operativestfff'Someof thdm have allowed their unem
ployed hands as much as two^and^shipen'c’e a week, some lend
them money, others maintain a daily distribution of food.
In Preston the progress of the distress is shown by the fol
lowing figures : in August of this year fehe number of poor
relieved by the rates was fe,2'0l| and by' the Public Relief
Committee, 21,616 ; but in September the number had swelled
to 14,289 relieved by the rates, and 23,932 by the Committee.
“ During the week ending September 13, the Relief Committee
distributed 16,832 loaves, weighing;, 601:6 lbs.; 11,301 quarts
of soup, and 4,820 qaaafts' of coffee.” There are seventy-one
firms owning mills imPr^stbff ^ ofthese,. forty-eight contributed
the pitiful sum of :£l,9f8
a re^ifwd of £12,000. Yet
there are 27,600 factory operatives; whose actual financial loss
per week amounts to mop® than £11,00'0. This happens every
week, and one in every seveii and a half of the entire popula
*
tion of Preston become entirely pauperized. To counterbalance
this, forty-eight rich mill-owners contributed less than £2,000,
not per week, but their definitive subscription for the year !
See how these poor men were obliged to take their money
out of the savings banks. In the single town of Blackburn
�8
the annual deposits, from 1855 to 1861, “ had risen from
£18,118 to £49,943, or more than £30,000.” But what was
that sum to the working classes who had lost since August,
1861, at least £350,000 in wages, “ and that amount is now
being increased at the rate of £12,000 per week.” During six
months, down to last May, the withdrawals from the banks were
£10,000 in excess of the usual amount. These savings have
been all swallowed up by this time. “ A lass, thinly clad, but
bearing evidence of better days, saw a dog with a bone. She
tried to take it away. The dog snarled—would not give it up ;
and she stood foiled, in hungry attitude. A tradesman seeing
her said, £ What did you want with that bone ? ’ c I could have
swapped it for salt,’ she replied, £ and the salt I might have
swapped for a bit of bread.’ As she said this she burst into
tears.”
In the midst of this distress, the painful and touching
instances of which need not be repeated, the Boards of Guard
ians in many places have established what is called the ££ Labor
Test,” to protect the parish funds from the poaching of profes
sional paupers and vagabonds. They commence an excavation,
or provide work in stone-yards and on the roads, where every
unemployed man must do his choice in order to draw his relief.
These honest and unfortunate operatives are reduced to labor
at these aimless tasks by the side of vagrants, ragamuffins, gam
blers, “ and corrupt old hucksters,” to get a miserable dole of
parish bread. Whiat a poisoned mess is this which the proud old
monarchy tosses jealously to her plain, straightforward children,
who have woven, spun, carded,, drawn and pieced her million
bales of goods, which stock the markets of the world !
The resort to Indian cotton, which is carelessly gathered and
imperfectly cleaned, appears only to have aggravated the pre
vailing wretchedness. Overseers and ££ managers report the
most harrowing scenes in the factories,
o
*wing
to the exhaustion
of the patience of the men and the women who £ cannot go on
with their work, owing to constant breakages.’ The machines
which they tend stand idle, whilst innumerable threads break
rom sheer rottenness, and almost before the wheels are again
in motion the work is again required to be suspended, from a
cause which had but the moment before been remedied. The
�9
worry of such work is exhausting; it depresses the physical
energies and wears the heart. Some give up in despair, and
leave the factory to beg or work on the moor or in the stone
yard ; others grow haggard or pale under the trial; the strong
men grow weak,—the weak, ill. The men curse, and the
women sit down and cry bitterly. A manufacturer resident in
Manchester, who is by no means a tender-hearted gentleman,
said, that instances of the kind were of daily occurrence in his
factory, and that he had ceased to go into most of the rooms,
4 for the women were all crying over their work.’ ”*
The London 44 Times” informs jks, tl«from the first of Sep
tember to the twenty-fifth of October, the number of persons
receiving parochial relief in all the cotton districts had increased
by 68,456, and that there <ere in ^11
^
*08,621.
In addition to
this, there are 143,870 persons who receive their aid from local
committees. Total, 352,491. jfTJie weekly loss of wages is
estimated at ^136,094,- and th^amou^at^to <^7,000,000 a year.
44 Nor does this prodigious sunu| says the 44 Times,” 44 represent
the whole loss incurred by, these districts, for the ordinary
*
receipts of a manufacturer mutst be such as to cover not only
wages, but the expense of machine^, and the interest of capital
sunk in buildings and land, besides a^handsome^ofit.” It is the
loss of this handsome, profit wshich, more than all the suffering of
the men and women who used to egtrn it, inspires the 44Times”
to unroll its columns of appalling figures in the interest of inter
vention and Southern slavery. The l$ss5..of this profit, and the
discomfort of having- 40.0.,000 gjesh (paupers added in one year
to its list of vagabonds, isthe on® .d^w^ack to English satisfac
tion at seeing the great Republic ,shrivelling from loss of blood,
and sinking from the menace of^its, former estate to insignifi
cance beneath debt, dismembermenti. ^nd national disgrace.
But it reminds me of. .the. principaL.cause for thanksgiving
which we have to-day. J>i;^rea.dmgt;.b,efQye you a few facts in
relation to the distress o%ihe^ng^jwofci^n, my object was
not only to contrast it with the suhgtap^al comfort which the
institutions of a Democracy sustain, at the same time that it
can wage war at the rate of $2,000,000 a day, and deaths and
* Visit to the Cotton Districts, p. 75.
2
�10
wounds incomputable, but to bring that rebellious aristocracy,
to whose bad cause this distress is incidental, before the tribunal
of our grateful thoughts.
Men of New England never had such a reason for returning
thanks as to-day, when they can perceive so clearly that the
whole history of their country has inevitably led to this death
struggle between two ideas as incompatible in the same civil
society as deceit and sincerity in the same heart; an Aristocracy
founded upon depriving men of natural rights, and a Democracy
founded upon securing them to men. We are thankful that
the issue is honestly and squarely made at last, and lurks no
longer behind politics and compromises, and that every measure
of the past which expected to stifle it has distinctly led, by the
logic of a God who cannot bear iniquity, to a great historical
situation, which tears the mask from the evil tendency, and bids
a good tendency assume its grand proportions. The first Revo
lution of ’76 was only a graft upon the rugged American stock,
which blossomed in these latter years, and is now maturing
its fruit. It will be the task of some future pen to show how
the divine thought has picked its way through the political
confusion and disgraces of a generation, to finish its work of
founding a Republic.
How premature were all our notions that we were citizens
of an America. We have been in our minority all the time
—a lusty, passionate and unsettled one, out of which we are
stepping now, to the rights and privileges of an honest demo
cratic manhood. To show how we grew to this, will one
day be the task of some man who will devote to it the flower
and prudence of his life. He will have to divide it into three
epochs—the first comprising the establishment of the Constitu
tion, and the subsequent years to the abolition of the slavetrade. This was the epoch when the rights of man were the
accepted theory of the country, slavery was supposed to be a
self-limited disease, and the Revolution slumbered after resisting
one aristocracy, till it was awakened by another. The second
epoch will tell the great material and political story of the
growth of slavery, in a generation which forgot the feeling of
the fathers from interest and ambition. It will show how
adroitly the new aristocratic ideas helped themselves to power
�11
witir the country’s great watchword—Democracy—by relating
the successive encroachments of an unconstitutional tendency
1 in the name of the Constitution, in each of which free-labor
voted to extend and protect slave-labor, and our mother, with
the Revolution’s blood yet hallowing her starry garments, was
scorned and almost turned out of her own children’s house.
This epoch, with its three sub-divisions of nullification, the
territorial questions, and the reaction of Republicanism, will
extend to the election of Abraham Lincoln. The third epoch
will open with secession, and tell the story of the reappearance
of the rights of man in the reawakening of the Revolution, *
1
when the Democrat and the Aristocrat see each other clearly at
last, only a bayonet’s length
as they did at Bunker’s
Hill and Yorktown. And as-it 4s •jushjis impossible to write
history without idea® as it iatqinake nations and epochs without
them, so the idea of thist, history will be to show how provi
dential and inevitable was the -rise of thisparistocracy and the
resistance of this democracy, with all the triumphs, disgraces,
defeats and miseries qf their irrepressible conflict, with all the
accidents, treasons, indecisions and weaknesses of the people’s
war ; and that these things were for the sake of having a People
at last to illustrate, uphold, and organize.the rights of mankind,
first for America, but no less for th©wo$id^ It will be a history
of two necessities born^of ,£ws> incompatible tendencies: the
necessity of aristocracy, born of slavery, and the necessity of
democracy born of freqdqm. Those, two necessities not only
account for all that ha$ happened, but show how nothing could
*
have happened otherwise^ not eyen military disappointments,
delays and imbecilities;, how, in short, slavery would never
have been destroyed by freedom in any other way, or upon other
terms, or at any other period.
We never believed thi®, and yet we see that it comes true,
and every fresh bulletin ‘^nfirms it; for if, out of all the
crowd of events which makes the history of a country, a few
of them happened by chance alone, the whole series of events
would be vitiated, and the divine intentions, if there are any
such, would be spoiled. If even one event occurred by chance,
that is, illogically, shoved in, on slovenly, like the dropping
of a stitch, the splendid web which we call history would
.1
�12
be shoddy. All the great forces of the world make all their
slightest movements in obedience to law. The only mistake
which slavery makes is in being slavery; that will destroy it,
but in the meantime it is consistent and fatal as consumption.
And God means that it shall be, for consistency’s sake, to
show the necessity of health and freedom. Therefore, we
shall find that there was never a moment previous to the war
when slavery could have been overcome by freedom, and never
a moment during the war. We return thanks for the presence
of God in every disappointment of our history.
Let us look at this point a little closer. When the Constitu
tion became the charter of a Federal Union, slavery had just
strength enough to prevent freedom from destroying it, and not
strength enough to pique freedom in making the attempt. The
two tendencies were neutral, but it was because one tendency
was felt to be evil and unrepublican, and short-lived. In 1790,
’91 and ’92, only 733,044 pounds of cotton were exported from
the United States, a great deal of which was foreign cotton which
had been previously imported.
*
The total value of this export
was only $137,737 ; an amount that would not keep an aristoc
racy in tobacco. But the development of the cotton-crop has
been unchecked and regular ever since, excepting in the year
of the embargo, 1808, and the three years of war, 1812, ’13 and
’14. In 1805, the value of the export was $32,004,005; in
1821, it was $64,638,062; and in 1850, it was $118,393,952.
The “ cotton zone ” extended from the Atlantic to the Rio del
Norte, including the States and portions of States lying between
the 27th and 35th parallels of latitude, “and all of the State
of Texas between the Gulf of Mexico, and the 34th parallel of
* Before the Revolution, hemp and silk competed with cotton for preponder
ance. In a copy of Nathaniel Ames’s Almanac for 1765, I find the following
item : “March 14; above 20,000 cwt. of|iemp has been exported from South
Carolina since Nov. 1. Several stalks measured 17 feet long and 2 inches
diameter at the base.” Thus hemp was exported while foreign cotton was
imported, and more pounds of hemp were raised than of cotton. In a copy of
the Almanac for 1766, is another item: “June 30. Last Triday voted by ye
House of Commons of ye Province (S. Carolina) £1,000 towards establishing a
Silk Filature in this town under the direction of Rev’d Mr. Gilbert. Mrs.
Pinckney of Belmont Plantation, within four miles of Charleston, has made
near 50 bushels of Cocoons this season, which are esteemed of the best kind.”
�13
North latitude.” In this vast area of upwards of 450,000 square
miles, nearly a third is adapted to the growing of cotton.
*
Here,
if any where, was the development of a geographical party with
sectional politics. But at the same period, in 1850, the value
of the crop of Indian corn was $456,091,491; of wheat, $156,786,068 ; and of hay, $254,334,316.f Cotton was smaller than
each of these great staples, being only one hundred and eighteen
millions. Why did no aristocracy spring from those enormous
figures, whose growth is maifilylNorthern ? Because the men
who owned the crops raised them^ and therein lies the difference
between a sectional party and tw national life.
At what period during tliS’ great development of the cotton
staple would yoUr-haw expected ’slavery to come to an end by
the operation of natural laws ?' Wei
®
* sbd
to hear a good deal
about letting slavery alone Mhat it might die out. Why, the
operation of natural laws-was faWrafole ‘to slavery—to the
protection both of slaves and cotton. We might have expected
to see Northern agriculture die out as soon.
The abolition of the slave-trade, in 1808, which the South
regarded at the timAas' a hostile mewurwhas proved immensely
favorable to slavery. It was indeed the first act of positive
legislation with a tendency to ncMrish and protect that institu
tion. For when artohial cargoes of half-barbarous Africans are
introduced into a eoiaAffy, local ' disturbances occur more
frequently, the- mortalitynin'ong' the sWbi W greater, and their
increase comparativelyTeebl'S. t The abolition of the trade gave
•t «
* Andrews’ Report on Colonial, and Lake Trade... 1852.
f These figures, taken from the Agricultural Report, 1861, vary from those
which had been previously given in the Census for 1850. Of wheat alone, the
two States of Pennsylvania! and New York, raised of course more bushels than
the aggregate of all the Southern and Middle Slave States.
t In 1714, the number of slaves; was 55,850; and 30,000 of these had been
brought from Africa,
Between 1715 and 1750 there were imported 90,000 slaves.
cc
6t
■ CC
1751
1760 CC
35,000 11
Cl
Ct
1761 “ 1770 CC
74,000 “
CC
CC
CC 1
1771 “ 1790 CC
34,000 “
CC
CC
1790 “ 1808 CC
70,000 “
These amount to 303,000; but the total number of native and imported slaves
in 1808, was only 1,100,000, showing a feeble increase for a century. But from
1808 to 1850 the number leaped to 3,204,373. The slave-ships always landed
more men than women.
�14
to Southern slavery all those peculiarities which the masters
are pleased to call patriarchal. Plantation life has reared two
generations of American slaves, in a climate comparatively
temperate, where they have preserved and propagated all
their native excellencies undisturbed by the annual relays
of native vices which the slave-ship brought. A good many
savage habits have dropped away from them. Fetichism
and serpent-worship lingers only in a few places in Mississippi,
and perhaps in Louisiana, where the slave-trade lasted longer.
The natural religiousness of the negro is more healthily devel
oped by Methodism aiid the Baptist sects, as in Jamaica, than
by Catholicism, as in Hayti, or by the half-savage rites of
Africa. When the “ Wanderer,” in 1858, landed a cargo of
native negroes on the coast of 'Georgia, the better portion of the
Southern press and people were alarmed and indignant; many
disliked the violation of law; the rest felt that it was an infrac
tion of law which brought harm instead of benefit to the insti
tution. A few papers were clamorous with approbation, but the
more influential recorded their disgust at the sight of the sickly
and savage cargo.
*
In 1850 it was calculated that not more
than eight or ten thousand of originally imported Africans were
yet alive.
It was not long before the polities of the South represented
its controlling interest, in the doctrine of State rights, the
interpretation of the Constitution, the jealous safeguards thrown
around the property in man, the absolute necessity to encroach
and domineer, to invent new compromises, to abolish old ones,
to thrust the fatal tendency into the courts and every depart
ment of government. The South never did a single act that
was not strictly in harmony with the exigencies of its position.
It had recovered from the amiable expectation of the fathers,
that slavery would disappear. Figures, which are said to never
lie, began to prove slavery a divine institution. It was the
cotton crop which sent Southerners to the Old Testament after
a divine sanction for slavery, and to the New, to applaud Paul
for remanding Onesimus to his master. Washington, Jefferson,
Lee, and Lowndes and Mason never cared to build a hedge of
* See Charleston and Savannah papers of that date.
�15
texts around the institution. If they thought there was no
attribute of God that could take the part of the slaveholder, they
would not dare to search their Bibles for slaveholding texts.
But their sons of the next generation saw an undoubted law of
God whitening all their fields with the cotton-bloom. Then the
Bible texts became pods that burst with the doctrines of Cal
houn and his descendants ; for men search the Scriptures to
justify their interest as often as to control their passions *
There was an anti-slavery party in Virginia as late as 1832.
Worn out tobacco-fields helped it to chew the cud of bitter
fancy, as it revolved the sentiments of Jefferson and Mason. An
act of emancipation narrowly escaped passing the legislature of
that State. Why did it not pass,
the prosecution of slave
labor was hostile to the interest of Virginia? We have heard
that the efforts of anti-slavery men in that State were paralyzed
by the commencement, of an anti-slavery agitation at the North.
Slavery was just on the point of dying out, when the publica
tion of the “Liberator,” infused a new and antagonistic life into
its decrepit frame. How farmen have to go for nothing, when
their prejudices, drive! That publication heralded a great
awakening of the republican. tendency, but the Southern
tendency was already pledge^ to its own laws and obedient to
their direction; a “ Liberator < in ^verytown and village of the
North could have neither accelerated nor retarded the march of
natural laws. Just look at ..the facts. In 1832, while the legis
lature of Virginia was discussing, laws relative to emancipation,
the slaves rose immensely ^.pripe- They should have fallen.
The discussion itself was in conseqpence ,of their being worth so
little. Why did they rise ? Did slaveholders give three or four
times as much for able-bodied negroes,- against their own
interest, and to spite the “ Liberatoy
It was the increasing
demand for slaves, the growing activity of the internal slavetrade, the imperious necessity of slave labor, the prospect of new
territory and an expansion of the cottorf zone, that caused the
* Descourtilz, a French. Naturalist, was in Charleston in 1798, and heard a
Quaker declaiming in the square, to quite a gathering of people, against the
enormity of separating and selling some slaves who were exposed there on a
platform. The sale went on, and so did the Quaker. But the snake had a full
equipment of rattles by the time of Mr. Hoar’s mission.
�16
price to rise and emancipation to be shelved as a Virginia
abstraction. It was found to be against nature, and against the
dreadful fatality of Southern wants. An act of emancipation
would have been as much waste paper in Virginia, as if it had
been passed in Massachusetts. The “ corner-stone ” would have
fallen upon it and ground it to powder. It was not the aboli
tionist alone who was antagonistic to slavery, but the spirit of
the age itself.
*
The savage instinct of slavery divined this
enmity which pervaded the air; steadily but resolutely, because
pushed on by the necessity of self-defence, and the necessity of
working out its bitter problem, it sought for guarantees and
for expansion, and stuck at nothing to attain its end. Only
revolution can bleed and pacify such passion ; its logic will not
come to the ground until i bipod does. The whole long story of
*
Southern aggression is a story of Southern self-defence, from the
expulsion of Mr. Hoar, through the annexation of Texas, Fugitive
Slave bills, Kansas-Nebraska, bills, border and senatorial ruffian
ism, Ostend conferences, Illlibusterfsm, to the secret treason
which armed and comforted" secessabSa.
Slavery gradually dying out! Slavery was a system which
decreed its own expansion. It was mightier than 350,000 slave
holders. Do we suppose1 it is that insignificant body of men
which has controlled the politics of this country for fifty years,
and is now dashing its arahed' columns against the bosses of the
shield of Liberty ? It ds a naturafl»8brce hidden in slave-labor,
and enslaving the slaveholder. It ensnared him through his
lust, his pride, his political ambition, his tocal prejudices, and
his pocket. It invigorates his arm, and employs all his gifts to
enforce the extremity of its passion against the vigor of liberty.
The moment when slavery can Jbe artestecl is the moment when
it bleeds to death, and not before.
*How clearly this is shown 'by the scorn and contempt with which for
twenty years the prominent men and journals of the South met the most con
servative advice which its own Northern friends ventured to offer. The vitriol
dashed into the face of the abolitionist was not diluted before being used to
asperse the genteelest remonstrants. The Southern exigency was long ago
betrayed by the passionate tone of able editors. For specimens of rhetoric
hitherto unequalled at the North, see the Richmond “Examiner,” 1853, “The
Paramount Question; ” March 7 and 31, 1854; May 19, “ Every Northern Man
a Swindler;” July 4, 1854; October 16, 1855, etc.
�What moment of the past would you select now, upon delibe
rate afterthought, when, if things had turned out differently,
you can imagine that the Southern tendency would have been
checked ? When great natural elements are at their work of
making history, things happen naturally, and could never
happen differently ; they express with mathematical accuracy
the state of the elements. To suppose a change in the circum
stances you must previously suppose a change in the forces that
are at work, including the mental and spiritual condition of the
people. Sometimes men speculate that if the events of a period
had been different the results would have been different.”*
There is but little virtu© in that “ If,” for an event, by occur
ring, shows that it could not have been different. Events are
always the products of all the forces at the period of their occur
rence. While one force checks, and another force propels, still
another must lie dormant? and others do little but appear upon
the field. And masses of men are butw®§ embodiments of the
forces, which they help at every moment to create, and which
illustrate their period. It is as absurd to wonder what would
have happened if William the Conqueror had not invaded
England, or Washington had not organized the spirit of ’76, or if
Daniel Webster had made a different speech on the 7th of March,
1850, or if Fremont had been elected'President six years ago, or if
Buchanan had garrisoned the Southern forts, as to wonder what
*
the movements of the solar system would have been if the
planets had no moons, or if the sun were half its present bulk.
The good and ill of history combine to repeat the wondrous tale
of the divine necessities. England was invaded, Washington
arose, Webster fell back before advancing slavery, Fremont
lacked three hundred thousand votes, and Buchanan loaded the
first gun and trained it on Fort Sumter, from combinations and
foregoing influences and momentary moods that expressed
themselves thus, in scorn of all ifs and buts, and leaving the
future to explain them. Even the disgraceful things which men
do at critical moments are nice expressions of an evil tendency,
show how far it is disposed to go at every point where a good
tendency does not yet suflice, and are the unconscious menials
* See, for instance, Niebuhr’s Lectures, ii. 59.
�18
of goodness. The vices of men finish up a great deal of
scavenger-work in the housekeeping of God.
Examine any political moment of the past thirty years, when,
if there had been a united and indignant North, you think that
the career of slavery would have been checked, and you will
find nothing out of which to make your supposition. Such a
North was an impossibility. Examine the same period of time
for the moment when the natural decay of slavery might have
commenced, and you will find that the natural growth of slavery
forbade that supposition also. When the Republican party
triumphed in 1860, its leaders thought that slavery was hemmed
in. by a permanent change in Northern sentiment, expressed by
a majority of votes, and that the time had at last arrived when
we should see slavery commencing its decline. This shallow
expectation was soon corrected, because it underrated the logical
necessities of slavery, and overrated the vitality of republicanism.
The triumph of the latter was a moment most dangerous for
real democracy, because the North proposed to be content with
the election of a president. The danger was that republicanism
would have burnt itself out in four years with making a Cabinet
pot to boil. Any Secretary of State might keep that fire well
fed with old speeches that were once plump with generous
abstractions, but served at last only for a crackling of thorns.
After the pot had boiled itself dry, and republicanism had
shrivelled all up inside and scorched sadly to the bottom, it
would have been lifted off the political crane, and a new demo
cratic pot hung in its place, with the South to blow up a fresh
fire of cotton-waste and bagasse, and the North to watch and
stir the new pottage of compromise for the the homely Esau of
liberty. It was a dangerous and almost fatal moment, not only
because the North was disposed to be content, but because a
large portion of the South was disposed to wait for the reaction
in its favor which would have certainly taken place. But
slavery is stronger than the -South, just as liberty is stronger
than the North. And there is always one place where a tendency
comes to its focus of white heat which shrivels up reserve, pru
dential consideration, and all respect: a moment and a place
where a domineering passion breaks through every restraint to
ravish its object. The focus of slavery was in South Carolina.
�19
FEvery channel in her body sent the black blood rushing to her
brain, and congested it with fatal suggestions. How plain it is
now that the temporizing policy, which was always the trait of
half-living republicanism, was the instrument in the hands of
Mr. Buchanan to conjure liberty out of republicanism, decision
out of uncertainty, and draw the bolt out of the gates of the
great North-wind. History will return thanks that the Southern
forts were left without their garrisons, seeing that God meant to
garrison them with liberty. At first it seems clear that there
was a moment when the whole Revolution was in the power of a
few hundred men to be judiciously posted where slavery under
stood itself the best, and was thwbbing with evil purposes. No,
we do wrong to say there was iSBCh a moment. If such a
moment had been essential or possible, it would have become
actual. But the strength of slavery appeared just as much in
the weakness of Mr. Buchanan as in the determination of
Jefferson Davis; it was , against the divine logic that a few
hundred men should tear a glorious page of history.
Seeds are not ready to germinate in April, but after the first
thunder how they swell and burst their flinty husks and send
up shoots like sword-blades over all -the . soil I Liberty was
waiting for the thunder. The awful-looking cloud that blotted
out half her sky and the stars whieh ought to shine there,
gathered and gloomed continually, rolling in upon itself as if
to concentrate and fiercely hearten,
till!
*
the passion that red
dened its great edges could not, bide there another moment, and
forth it sprung. The lightning, Was. neither premature nor
disastrous. It sub^yed the needs/.of liberty, which had lain
frost-bound through a long northern winter, waiting for a genial
hour.
But green shoots do not make a.harvest. There is never a
moment in the summer when the corn might stop growing, with
the delusion that it was ready to furnish food for man. What
moment would you select to break off your corn-tops, expecting
to leave full ears upon the stumps.to ripen in the sun,—when the
joints send forth their ribands, or when the mealy tassels come,
or when the first silk is spun out of the future husk ? Sum
mer’s sun is a growing sun, fierce and almost intolerable.
Autumn points with long shadows to the ripening hours.
�20
Was the corn ripe in the early July sun of the first Manassas;
was it ripe at New Orleans, or ready to be picked at Shiloh ?
Was it mildewed at Ball’s Bluff, or blasted on the Peninsula, or
did the husbandry of God come to nought in the sunless and
chilly days of the second Manassas ?
You cannot mention a single moment in this thunderous
war-summer when liberty could have found her crop. If the
war had closed with early successes, the cause of the war would
have been preserved. Every mistake that we have made,
especially the mistake of underrating the power of slavery,
every lukewarm general who has been commissioned for the
field, every traitor in the cabinet or the camp, every check
experienced by our arms, every example of mediocrity holding
critical command, has precisely represented our immature and
growing condition, and was its logical necessity.
Beauregard hammering at Sumter nailed a flag to the mast
in every village of the North. But though a Republic ran up
all its bunting and had none to spare, it was not till summer
and winter had weather-stained those brave flags and almost
fretted them from the poles, that they began to signalize the
rights of man to every portion of the country, and to stream
like a torn aurora with true American influence from the lakes
to the gulf. Death and sorrow pry up the lids of the heaviest
sleepers; we are all awake now; but when General Banks said
to the North, “ Rais® fl©0,000 men and hold the South as a
conquered province till she is regenerated,” we were astonished
at his exaggeration. And when, still later, General Fremont
said, “ The strength of slavery is in slave-labor, and the sinews
of war are concealed beneath black skins,” the North shuddered
at the bold invasion of property in man, and was not prepared
to see the country itself th© sole owner of its men and women.
So that if a Wellington had gained a complete and subjugating
victory at any of the points where we fondly expected one, he
would have subjugated liberty, and clapped the North again into
the harness of compromises and adjustments. The dreariest
moments have seemed to me the lightest, because I heard the
corn filling with milk under the shadow of the cloud. The
bloodiest days have yielded the finest growing weather to
liberty.
�21
“ Then,” you say to me, “ you do not care for the loss of men
and the anguish of women ? Your liberty is a hyena which
snatches a loathsome feast from lost fields of battle ? ” No
more than she was when Washington seized her hand as he
retreated, and nourished her in his winter-tent upon the gloom
and foreboding of America. No—I am so little careless about
the bloQd which has been shed, that I want to see for what use •
it has gone forever out of the dear hearts of Northern homes.
It is not enough for me that you repeat the hackneyed senti
ment that it is beautiful to die for one’s country. There must
be use as well as beauty, or there is no such thing as a country
to die for. Things that are useful lay the corner-stones of a
great Commonwealth, and build the shafts around which beauties
cluster. If you wish to see thernen who care nothing for the
blood of your kindred, look at those who shout how beautiful it
is to die to keep the cause of death alive, the men who could
stretch a hand to slavery across; three hundred thousand graves,
with a welcome back into a country full of the widows and
orphans she has made. We thank God that His thoughts are
not as such thoughts. A balance in His hand has held a scale
weighted with the glorious truths of this Republic; into it He
has thrown free-labor, knowledge, art and beauty, the common
school, the pulpit and. the plough^ all of these moulded into
liberty in the shape of a winged victory. Into the other scale
the lacerated days of two campaigns! have dripped with blood ;
every precious drop has been marked by that unslumbering
eye to be heavy with New England and Western homes, and
rich with privileges dearly bought y the scale sinks slowly—they
are almost even—the winged victory rises to its equivalent of
blood.
And what thought of the most.ardent worshipper of the liberty
that costs so much can embrace the future which waits at the
outposts of this emancipating "war! After every field-battery
has rolled away into the distance of peace, and the bayonet
hides a strange blush within its sheath, and the last tent is
folded, that future shall step from grave to grave, bringing new
life, new duties, great trials and appropriate joys into the heart
of America. Nations who have been astonished to see how a
free people can organize war by sea and land, will admire its
�22
greater victories over the embarrassments and trials which must
still dispute its path to the highest glory.
When peace returns, it will prove to be a heavy assessor of
our common sense and patience. The problem of self-govern
ment will include the governing and rearing of four millions of
people, richly endowed with affection, veneration and docility,
• but ignorant and awkward, superstitious, full of childish tricks,
and unconscious of the duties of a freeman. Their feeble
ambition has been hitherto one of the advantages of the slave
holder in perpetuating their servile state. But it is also
fostered by the tone of religious instruction among their own
preachers, who represent and confirm the gentle tendencies of
the African. Mr. Pierce describes, in his first report to Secre
tary Chase, a sermon which he hea^d at Port Royal, from the
text, “ Blessed are the meek.” The slaveholder may well
tremble for his acres when he recalls the promise of that text.
It was characteristic of the American slave that the preacher
urged upon his hearers not to try to be “ stout-minded.” How
congenial this advice is to the average negro is shown by the
infrequency and feebleness of all insurrectionary movements. It
was not possible for the slave to organize a formidable insurrection
while the South was in full strength, nor will he ever be disposed
to hazard the attempt, except, perhaps, in case the Proclama
tion of Emancipation is recalled, or hampered with gradualism,
or local efforts are made to reestablish or continue the status
of slavery. Then their scattered condition and the geography
of the country would be less unfavorable to a successful rising
than the slave’s inborn predisposition for bloodless and pacific
ways. Not that the negro dreads death: his mobile and flutter
ing imagination becomes fixed in the presence of a real danger.
He is impassive or frenzied^ and will charge up to the very
mouths of cannon and coil about them. He is singularly cool
to meet what he cannot avoid, but night-fears and fancied
terrors make a child of him. The threat of a novel mode of
torture is too much for him. It is imagination only that makes
a coward of a negro.
If the Proclamation wins, we shall find among the slaves a
general deference to the plans of Government for confirming
their freedom, to make it useful to themselves and to the
country.
�23
And mixed with these four millions of children are the poor
whites, a great horde of immature and stupid boys instead
of men, who never sat at the forms of liberty nor worked out
one of her sums. The North must call its master-builders
together, and those whose business it is to raise and trans
port habitations, for the primary school-house must be shifted
South, and in the little wake which it creates the people’s
chapels must follow, till along that highway of our God, the
court and the jury, the ballot-box and printing-press can safely
pass to disinfect all half-civilized neighborhoods. And wherever
a plough can run, the power-wheel shall follow, and its band
shall turn new wants and enterprises, and hum worthy ambi
tions into ears that have been tuned only to slavery’s lash. And
the great turbine shall go down to put to perpetual labor the
streams that have carried so much of our blood into the sea.
Everywhere the North shall take its revenge, deep, thorough, to
the uttermost farthingJby imposing all the firm and gentle arts
of liberty, with the uplifted ferule of the school-master, at the
edges of reaping-blades, and beneath the weight of every
material and mental instrument that can crush clods, pulverize
a soil, And scatter seed.
There will be a new meaning for. the phrase “ a geographical
party,” for the new Union will circulate by all the great chan
nels of internal navigation, arteries which God opened for
distributing the red blood of an undivided heart. Geography
itself, with mountains, streams, lakes, prairies and defiles, shall
write a people’s creed; and all platforms, whether made at
Buffalo, Chicago, Baltimore or Charleston, shall be supplanted
by the square miles of the national domain. And it seems as if
nature, foreseeing that not cotton but man would be king of this
domain, had sealed up craters, cleared out earthquakes, warned
off the hurricane, and spread a firm soil for every product, from
kitchen comforts to sovereign luxuries—a zone for the orange
and the fig, a zone for cotton, rice and sugar, for flax, for wool,
for wheat, for cattle ; districts for grapes, for the silk-worm and
the cochineal, so that the democrat can dress for dinner and
dine in his own house, if he will; and when he wants to ship his
surplus to feed and clothe the English pauper, every spar that
the wind can stretch without breaking grows, from the live oak
�24
to the mountain pine. Florida and Georgia will lay the ribs
and knees, North Carolina will careen and caulk the democrat’s
vessel, Lake Superior mines will bolt and sheathe it, Maine will
send its suit of spars, and Kentucky strain them with her hemp.
Pennsylvania shall build the boiler and feed the fires beneath it,
and the Great West shall victual New England sailors as they
go floating round the world with a cargo of Rights, Intelligence
and Freedom, samples of the failure of a Democracy.
What a house this is to build, furnish and stock with com
forts, to set wide open to starving spinners and weavers, colliers,
peat-burners, all the landless and the hopeless, where they can
come to hear our mother’s daily lessors of thrift, usefulness and
the true dignity of man, as she goes in and out of all her rooms,
cleanly, cheerily, helpfully, with fends whose touch is order,
with a shape whose noble lines are full of grace, with a counte
nance that can leap from serenity to power, and unchain pure
lightnings at those eyes. She is the mother of us all, Thanks
giving America, divorced from hideous wedlock with slavery, all
her beauty coming back to her, all her gifts enhanced, and with
a deeper meaning in her I-ace than ever when she bids all her
children again to the glittering board which she spreads between
the Atlantic and Pacific seas..
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A discourse upon causes for Thanksgiving: preached at Watertown, Nov. 30, 1862
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Weiss, John [1832-1907.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 24 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references. Sermon taken from the Bible. Mark, IV,28
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Wright & Potter, printers
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1862
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5352
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A discourse upon causes for Thanksgiving: preached at Watertown, Nov. 30, 1862), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sermons
Slavery
USA
Conway Tracts
Sermons
Slavery-United States
Thanksgiving Day
United States-History
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d69bde3551c04ef141ef0415adebe641.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RlOgfiixPJ4vIoCaOEZLcMFJQg4ZpFsW5Q%7EDL77ZKKhlX0lml6aTl%7EIQtIQ2H3ddMqbHE6RQR0C2tuhsU7GcAbp%7E8%7E36qzDkFmfWE03YsBrG8PZ85eGNH0cC5t-nvAjYpq-wbZ11%7E9Noq80rSs2QIlEt9uGfBeb-bzjDYxeXjEiA4%7Ez1FRPv9JQ5skFXtR%7EXx2ML6p00yLEn6PRpuVAHAm9UBu4O89aIB9%7EpV6U8CfLndVuMLEUwS4wtjrDIitctcEtTfdd8ktOQvbajpj6LwS3rv9DK1hZYMk58YeNJEJYgqbgv%7EspYQ7dNXKm%7EknFYZmZ1MFxnt-4vXpJXmMp1fw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
de68338dfa8c1e783d8667b9a48f94f6
PDF Text
Text
A NEW YEAR’S LETTER
FROM
JONATHAN TO JOHN.
Cassius. You love me not.
Brutus.
I do not like your faults.
Cassius. A friendly eye could never see such faults.
Brutus. A flatterer’s would not, though they do appear
As huge as high Olympus.
Julius Ceesar.
LONDON:
CHAPMAN AND HALL, 193, PICCADILLY.
1868.
��A NEW YEAR’S LETTER
♦
FROM
JONATHAN TO JOHN.
Dear John,—-I hope I need make no apology for
addressing you, in these critical times, on matters pro
foundly concerning us both. The wine-makers have a
belief that in the season of the blossoming of vines the
wine in its bottles ferments anew in sympathy, and then
chiefly breaks its bottles. Blood, John, is thicker
and more fiery than wine. Ours long ago flowed
from your heart, and it has never failed to be
stirred when your periods of change and agitation have
arrived. It was not by accident that our fathers
named their bleak home on these shores New England.
When your people were sending King James the
Second adrift to sea, the happy tidings thereof found
our ancestors at Boston doing precisely the same for
that monarch’s sub-king in New England. The stamp
of Cromwell’s foot, when he cried, “Take away that
�4
bauble !” was echoed along our coasts ; and when
Charles came back, and gave Whitehall its ghastly
coronet of skulls, there were few in this land who did
not hear above the ocean’s roar the groan of Bunyan in
his prison, and of Milton in his hiding-place. Then we
took to growing our own wine, and, somehow, it has
been imported by your people, and ever since you have
been visibly affected by our flowering season. Nature
makes very little of our lands and seas. The earthquake
at Lisbon toppled down a hundred chimneys in our
Boston. The revolution of America for independence
shook down a throne and an aristocracy in France, and
it formed a democratic party in England which has
been slowly and steadily revolutionising your society
and government from that day to this. We may as
well face the facts, John: we are one and the same
people; twenty millions of us have English blood in
our veins; our history is English history. We never
more plainly showed ourselves chips of the old block
than when we rebelled against the old block. And, on
the other hand, we cannot fail to perceive that, under
whatever disguises your internal troubles come, each,
when unmasked, is sure to turn out American. Trades’Unionism, Beales-ism, Fenianism—they are all, best and
worst, Americans. Abu Taleb wrote:
“ He who has one enemy shall meet him everywhere.”
You feel, and I know, that every step of the English
people away from feudal forms is the later Mayflower
�5
struggling through storms to its New England. The
voices of the Robinsons and Standishes in your Par
liament are unmistakable; their Plymouth Rock is
ahead. And, in the converse, your instinct is equally
clear as to your feudal friends in this country. Old
England was planted here, in the South, alongside
of New England in the North; it battled stoutly
for two hundred and fifty years, until, in its final
struggle — notwithstanding your instinctive sympathy
and aid—it perished. We understood your sympathy
well enough. There are a dozen chapters of our history
through which the story of the Alabama runs. No
one man or generation is to blame for this antagonism.
We are in the hands of fate, which has its own remorse
less methods of providing that the New World shall not
be a mere duplicate of the Old. “ Perhaps,” said our
chief philosopher, on his return from England—“perhaps
the ocean serves as a galvanic battery to distribute acids
at one pole and alkalis at the other. So England tends
to accumulate her Liberals in America, and her Con
servatives at London.” All this involves the repulsion
of positive and negative; but it should mean only the
awakening of certain talents that have slept in our En
glish race, which is a magazine of the powers of many
races. And, in fact, John, whilst in our workshops
and telegraphs we make a good thing out of action and
reaction, positive and negative, I fear that, politically,
the new year finds us both, not the masters, but
the fools of fate. I have heard Mr. Seward and Lord
�6
Lyons speak to each other across a dinner-table in a
humanlike way; but in the Alabama correspondence
there is snarling and the show of teeth. Eighteen
hundred and sixty-eight finds us with a great cable
binding us together for good ends by means of positive
and negative poles; but when I read our Blue-Books, I
have to turn and see if they were not printed a hundred
years ago, when we were getting ready to fight. Are
we never to reach a new year which shall ring out
those sad years of the seventeenth century, when the
farms of our poor settlers were given away to English
noblemen ; when the English Church pursued over the
ocean and tried to crush the religion it had banished;
when the Charters of American Colonies were taken
away; when all that our fathers could wring from the
rock on which they had settled was taxed to carry on
wars and sustain projects which they detested ?
The appearance of your greatest novelist on our
shores at present reminds us that, above our feudal, or
monarchical, or democratic forms of society and govern
ment, there is a great commonwealth of thought which
owns loyal citizens in every civilised land. Fortunately
for us both, we are a reading people; and, fortunately
for all but your authors, we Americans have appro
priate your library to an extent that will, I trust, cause
astonishment and contrition in our coming generation.
We have crammed ourselves and our childreu with Mill,
Spencer, Grote, and Arnold; Thackeray, Dickens, and
George Eliot and Hughes have woven your country
�7
seats and your city dens into romance for us; Tennyson
has for some time filled up the poets’ corners of all our
papers; our babies lisp Carlylese; the other day I found
our soldiers, by their camp-fire on the Mississippi,
gathered around a fellow who was reciting to them, with
appropriate gesture, “ How they brought the good news
from Ghent to Aix,” as related by Robert Browning.
You produced these fine spirits; we welcome and love
them. With this friendly cloud of witnesses around,
let us sit down, this New Year’s Day, and look over our
unsettled accounts. The common heart and brain of
•our respective countries shall be our court of arbitra
tion.
And, first of all, John, let me say that I have, after
much severe experience, discovered that an ounce
balances an ounce. The assertion may seem to you
paradoxical, but I am quite serious in making it.
Lately, I read in one of your weekly journals the
question, “Why is it that with America France may
steal a horse, where England must not look over the
hedge ?” The question is most pregnant, and is answer
able thus: France’s theft comes at the end of two and
a half centuries of benefits; England’s look comes at
the end of two and a half centuries of unfriendliness.
The usurper in Mexico had behind him the help ren
dered by the French in Canada to the pinched and
freezing pilgrims of Plymouth, the free-trade between.
Nouvelle France and Boston, the sword of Lafayette,
the earliest recognition of American independence.
�8
This was the accumulated capital in the American heart
which he had to trade upon. England did not earlier
recognise, nor her rulers more sympathise with, those
who lately tried to destroy the United States; she did
not do anything half so offensive to the American
people as he who tried to establish the throne of a
Hapsburg in Mexico; but what she said and did was
added to a column of historical oppressions, unbalanced
by any entries of generosity. Do not turn red and
deny this, John; it is true. There are, indeed, long
neutral years in which you did us no wrong; you had
no occasion in them to do us any wrong; but neither all
this while has it occurred to you that there is a balance
against you among us. The traditional policy of Eng
land toward America required to be distinctly reversed.
I know how your living generation speaks of these
old days—how it repudiates the persecutions which,
having driven the Pilgrims from England’s side, still
pursued them, which robbed them of manufactures
and stifled them with Navigation Acts, and the hard
days of taxation which ended in the revolution; and
how it protests against having these sins of their
fathers visited upon the Englishmen of to-day. But
you cannot cancel your national debt, John, because it
was contracted by your dead ancestors. I observe that
your present family is comfortable and satisfied. I
looked in on your Pan-Anglicans the other day, and
was impressed by the unctuous way in which your
rotund Bishops, addressing Heaven, said, “ We have
�9
done those things that we ought to have done, and have
left undone those things that we ought to have left
undone, and are in a thoroughly soun.d condition.” I
was not trained in “ the Church,” and may not quote
the words exactly, but am quite sure that I give their
tone and spirit correctly. And I must say that I can
trace the same comfortable assurance in the way your
people have of throwing off their consciences the wrongs
they have inherited, while lifting no finger for their re
moval. A generation adopts every wrong it inherits,
and does not its best to redress. But if this is so,
what shall be said of a generation that steadily follows
instead of reversing the bad precedents of the past ? It
was not you, the contemporaneous John, who stoned
the Puritans, taxed our colonies, imprisoned our
sailors at Dartmoor, and burned our capital; but in
taunting the defenders of our Union, and helping those
who were seeking to establish a vast Slave-empire on the
ruins of our Republic, did you not prove yourself the
legitimate child of those who stoned our ancestors ?
The present cannot escape being interpreted in the
light of the past. Your people of the lower orders
sympathised with us in our dark hour—that is to say,
the unemigrated America in Europe sympathised with
its pioneer wing on this side of the Atlantic. And no
wonder, for our defeat would have moved back the
shadow on their dial many, many years. But their
interest in us is the other side of your instinctive dislike
of us and oppression of them.
�10
The fact is, John, the more we scrutinise your part
in our recent struggle the darker it appears. When
the rebellion broke out, you said you were with us, and
we believed it; we were grappling Slavery under the
watchwords of your own great emancipators—men
whom you bitterly persecuted, it is true, while they
were alive, but whose sons you have made baronets.
At last, we said, the Anglo-Saxon heart is one; pro
gressive America and Conservative England will be
hereafter right and left hands, working harmoniously
for great human ends. A mere accident was the spear
touch that revealed the hypocrisy of your sympathy.
An American officer seized two Confederate envoys on
one of your ships; instantly all England (rather impe
riously) demanded their restoration, and they were
restored; but under cover of the popular unanimity
against that act, your old and real hatred of America
grasped the sceptre again, and, in the face of former
declarations, maintained and wielded it to the end with
an enthusiasm, beside which your early Federal sym
pathy was ice. The newspapers with their ante-Trent
and post-Trent articles are no doubt on file at the
British Museum ; you will find them instructive read
ing. The former are stammering, the latter easy and
eloquent.
Thus, then, after eight generations, for each of which
your government had left some scar upon mine, the
ninth began with a kiss and a stab. You were defeated,
John; the Southern Confederacy was not more severely
defeated in our civil war than you were; and I do
�11
believe that you are sorry you were found on the
losing side. But it is the honest way to let you know
the full extent of the dangers that have been brought
upon us both by the course you then took. If
you could not free yourself from eight generations
of antipathy to a Republic which your persecu
tions established and made strong, neither can we
escape from the accumulated illustrations of the spirit
of feudal society etched in the shadow of every chapter
of our history, and every institution of our country.
Quisque suos patimur manes. You have managed to
make England the dark background of our Forefathers’
Days, our Thanksgiving Days, our Independence Days;
and every child is inevitably trained to associate his
holidays with, and fire his crackers at, English oppres
sion. (Ah, had you given us the right to say : “ Child,
that was the England of the far past: the England of
to-day does not tax Dissenters, nor burthen its colonies
(witness Jamaica), for the advantage of a class; it sees
how both parties won in our Revolution, and rejoices in
American Independence, not simply endures it, much
less welcomes its dangers!”
Consider the ingenuity by which the freest firstclass power of the Old World has become to the
United States the agent of all the annoyance that
despotism can inflict upon liberty! It is only about
seventy-five years since people were suffering in English
prisons for selling works which rehearsed the A B C of
the United States Government, and their author—poor
Tom Paine—fled from a State trial to France and to
�12
America. So into our diary it goes: In England
assertion of the “ Rights of Man” = imprisonment or
exile. Ben Franklin, welcomed in France, is snubbed
in England. Thomas Jefferson is slighted at Court.
These men gave Washington City its traditions, and
the Honourable Messrs. Chandler, Robinson, and others
are at this day, in their speeches against England, quite
unconsciously, avenging slights put by George III.
upon the representatives of a government he had been
forced to treat with, but never forgave.
Lately I was reading with peculiar interest, in
Howell’s State Trials, an account of the proceedings
against Henry Redgrave Yorke, James Montgomery,
and Joseph Gales, for some alleged seditious proceedings
and speeches at Sheffield, toward the close of the last cen
tury. This Mr. Joseph Gales, a man of great ability,
fled with his wife and child (seven years of age) to
Hamburg, and thence to America, and so escaped
the term in York Castle awarded to “ Citizen Yorke,”
to Montgomery “ the Christian poet,” and others. He
(Gales) was nearly penniless when he arrived at Phila
delphia, where the Congress of the United States then
sat. But he was soon editing the leading newspaper of
the city, a paper which afterwards migrated with Con
gress to Washington. There it became the chief journal
in America, and was, as the National Intelligencer, for
over forty years edited by the son who had fled from
England with his parents. The same refugee esta
blished a newspaper in North Carolina. American
�13
journalism was at its beginning more influenced by
these men, father and son, hunted out of Hallamshire,
than by all others. What is that influence, so far as it
affected American feeling toward England, likely to
have been ? When you burned our capitol in 1812,
one other house you thought worth burning, and did
burn—the office of Mr. Gales.
I tell you, John, there remain in our cities old
men who witnessed some of the events that have
left skeletons in your closets; men who have seen the
insides of your prisons ; who saw that recruiting officer
plunge with his horse among men, women, and children
at Castle Hill, Sheffield, cutting them down with his
sword; still more who heard those shrieks at Peterloo
which have never died out of the air. These men may be
poor and vulgar; but they are strong-headed men, who
have tongues touched with some of that flame which shot
out on your walls in the songs of the Corn Law Rhymer.
Thus you have been ever careful to keep our ancient
memories green. Many Mayflower ships, with fleeing
pilgrims aboard, have followed the track of the first;
and we all know that, when your troops were driven
hence, it was still against America they were let
loose, whether in France or England. There were
not wanting those among us who maintained that
a certain class in England was quite ready to treat our
people as rebellious subjects, if they got a chance;
that the spirit was willing, though the arm was weak.
Well, a kind of opportunity came ; and is it wonderful
�14
that the blood of ’76 stirred in our veins when we saw
the Alabama sailing from an English port by acknow
ledged connivance of English officials, with the boast of
its owner in Parliament, and, despite the affected
deprecations of ministers, entertained by your represen
tatives in every English port of the world, and cheered
on her voyage of destruction ?
A pound will only be balanced by a pound, John;
and—think me not transcendental—the rule holds when
it comes to tons.
The Alabama was no common ship. There was a
soul in it, breathed out of two and a half centuries. Its
hull sank to the bottom, but its ghost still sails the
seas, and I fear will haunt them for some time yet.
It is this “ Flying Englishman” that is now the spectre
ship. At this particular moment it has the Fenian flag
nailed to its mast.
We both know, John, that if you had not longed for
the overthrow of this Republic, the Alabama would
never have sailed from Liverpool; and, in our hearts, we
both know that if the Alabama had not sailed Fenianism
would never have been permitted to plot against you
openly in our cities. “ Its proper power to hurt each
creature feels.” You showed a marvellous alacrity in
discovering our vulnerable point, and we would not be
your genuine scion if we had not discovered yours. It
is surprising how much of this kind of thing can be
done within the precincts of municipal law—how much
war can be waged with the weapons of peace!
It so happens that there is but one nation on earth
�15
that can suppress Fenianism; and that nation is not
yours, John!
Do not throw down my letter at this point; I have
good reason to know your feelings on this matter, and
hasten to declare at once that I am no Fenian. If there
is anything that runs dead against the average native
American’s faith about his own country, it is the whole
Fenian theory. What America means to say to the
whole world is—“Your free Germany, your liberated
Ireland, your Tae-ping China, are here; all your
utopias are provided for here !” The mere fact that
the Fenians are making a tremendous ado about a
bit of Old World land, not by a tenth so big or fruitful
as the lands we are offering them for nothing out
West, is enough to settle the matter with our lower
classes. But we all have an inborn contempt for people
who foster interests and enthusiasms of clan or race,
separate from the aggregate of us, or who think it
nobler to be Irish than to be American, that is, of the
fraternity of races. The other day a wealthy citizen of
New York, being applied to for a subscription to help
some Fenian expedition to Ireland, took down his
check-book and said to the deputation, “ I will give you
one thousand dollars, provided no Fenian that goes shall
ever come back again !” I assure you he spoke our
average sentiment. With all our combing and washing
we have never been able to make a decent American of
the Irishman. On our most important questions he
seems to be utterly without principle, and votes with
.this or that party, according to its declarations about
�16
the internal politics of Great Britain! Fancy our Ger
mans testing us with Bismark or the mysterious hyphen
between Sleswick and Holstein! The worst of it is
that the Irish are so numerous that they are able to
bribe parties and demoralise our national politics.
There is something in all this, no doubt, more un
pleasant to you than if I should say we sympathised
with Fenianism and its objects; you detect that the
part we have in this ugly business — the part of a
masterly limitation of ourselves to the letter of our
restrictive laws—is one of simple unfriendliness to your
Government. It is even so. Were there a conspiracy
here to crush Garibaldi, we should certainly prevent it.
There is no feeling in America which can be depended
upon to sustain any officer who should go one hair’sbreadth beyond the law-line, or who should be very
officious even there, for the sake of England.
That is a sentence I have written with heaviness of
spirit, John I I pause upon it. And let it stand. Be
tween us be truth! We like your people personally:
we admire and try to imitate your beautiful homes: we
worship your poets, scholars, thinkers. But your Govern
ment seems to us a great apotheosis of Jesuitism, a hard
systematised selfishness, and we hate it. The utter abo
lition of the English Constitution from the face of the
earth would not evoke a sigh from a hundred of our
people; whilst tens of thousands would weep at the
death of certain of your poets and thinkers. No one of
us believes that anything but powerfully organised
�17
selfishness would give greater privilege and power
to a titled idiot than to an untitled Carlyle. None
among us imagine that it is anything but that ineradi
cable virus of Jesuitism, with which Europe has been
fatally inoculated, that taxes a man for a religion he
abjures, or admits a chimpanzee to the highest scho
lastic advantages, can he chatter the Thirty-Nine Ar
ticles, whilst excluding Martineaus and Mills. We
inherit your great history, and are proud of it; but
all of its bright epochs are to us those in which your
Government was defeated by some small untiring
band of reformers. With what groans you abolished
slavery! How you consoled the master with money,
without thought of the helpless negro! And when
opportunity offers, how eagerly do you take to the old
sport of negro-hunting you were forced to give up! No,
John, we never think of your Government as doing
a noble or humane thing except under the compulsion
of fear. We see you just now preparing to do some
thing for Ireland, and we understand it. It is the
old story. “ Because this widow troubleth me.”
Nevertheless, little as we love your Government,
it might, but for our late quarrel, have depended
upon a determined defence of its rights of national
amity in this country. Were France, or Switzer
land, or Italy, or Prussia, the object of a conspiracy
in the United States, our laws would harden into ada
mant before the conspirators. The whole theory of
foreign politics with America is summed up in “ Nonc
�18
intervention” and the 11 Monroe Doctrine,” which are
obverse and reverse of the same determination to avoid
all complications with the Old World, and to prevent the
repetition of its regime and its balance-of-power struggles
in the New World. So we have always been bin died
against any attempt to organise here movements against
foreign countries, even when advocated by the elo
quence of Kossuth, and at this very moment Mazzini
and Garibaldi are appealing to our strongest sympathies
in vain, so far as any material aid beyond private con
tributions of money is concerned. I do not contend
that this vehement antipathy to all intervention in
foreign affairs is right; but it exists, and Fenianism is
the only case in which it has not animated the law.
Fenianism passed eastward through rents in our fence
made by the prow of the Alabama when sailing west
ward. (How would those laws of yours have bristled
along the Mersey had the Alabama been starting out to
destroy Belgian or Danish commerce !)
While I am no Fenian, John, and while there is no
comeliness in Paddy that I should desire him, I do not
wish to vindicate myself from a suspicion of pity for
him. I feel a dull pain as I see him carted out West
to be manure for my seeds of civilisation, or as often as
I drive my coach over roads paved with his brains. (I
understand that you are drawing a metaphysical dis
tinction between Paddy and the Fenian; but you will
get nothing by that—there is a potential Fenian in
every Irish man and Irish woman.) I have before me
�19
at this moment the last cartoon of the Fenian in
Punch: it represents a huge monster of an Irishman
astride a barrel of gunpowder, to which he has applied
a fusee, whilst prattling children play around him, and
a mother nurses her babe behind him. I recognise the
portrait; it is the same ugly foreheadless fellow who
has repeatedly burnt the homes of poor negroes in
our large cities, slaying some and driving others into
the streets. He once dragged my foremost reformer
through the streets of Boston with a rope around his
neck, and hurled a huge stone at the head of my finest
orator, which would have killed had it struck him.
His shillelagh has here succeeded the tomahawk. Yes,
I recognise this Fenian on his, barrel; but when the
cartoon arrived in America there was just behind him
the figure of a man with round, full paunch and heavy
watch-seals, erecting a gallows, and of this latter the
Fenian was plainly the shadow! Who was it, John,
that, through long ages, pressed down that forehead
and weighted that brutal jaw? Who was it that shotted
those eyes with blood, and sank those gaunt, hungry
cheeks? You see no alternative but hanging your
Manchester and Clerkenwell prisoners; yet is it not sad
that you have assiduously reared children with one
hand for whom you must now rear a gallows with the
other ? I will not dwell on the ancient cruelty of British
rule in Ireland, or the law that men treated like savages
have a tendency to become such in reality; I am more
likely to be understood when I remind you that your
C2
�20
course has not been business-like. Your country is
now swarming with special constables; you have had
to refit your old castles and replenish your armaments,
as if suddenly relapsed into feudal ages; any Yankee
would have been ’cute enough to show you how the
money these things cost you might have been better
invested. With it and your church endowments in
Ireland you might even have transplanted Ireland,
might have given to every poor family a free transit
across the ocean, a snug farm on their arrival upon
your unutilised lands in Canada, planting in each
a kindly feeling toward England, in place of hate.
The swallows, it is said, shove their young out of the
nest to die when there are no flies with which to
feed them ; but men and women are of more value,
John, than many swallows; and the swallow-plan is
hardly a good model for English statesmanship. Your
nest is small—especially considering the room demanded
by your aristocracy—and there are more swallows than
flies; but your fledglings are of a kind that will not
die quietly, and, unprovided with another nest, propose,
at Cork, Sheffield, and elsewhere, to fight you for yours.
They will not get it for a century or so yet, I think;
but it will be many a long year before you and Mrs.
Bull will be able to rest quietly in your well-lined nest
with these exasperated, hungry home-exiles fluttering
and screaming around you. For I do not think so
hardly of you as to suppose that you can find any
deep repose under these circumstances. I have not
failed to observe the crumbs you have occasionally
�21
thrown out for the starvelings. But it evidently never
occurs to them that your gifts have higher motives than
your own desire for quiet and comfort; and the cla
morous demands have increased with their successes.
And, alas!—I cannot help reverting with pain to
what might have been—the only hand that could
have supplemented yours and satisfied them you have
estranged!
Nevertheless, to that estranged hand some millions of
them have appealed; and—despite your taxation in one
age and Alabama depredations in another—that hand
has been full enough to feed them, occasionally, on both
sides of the ocean. Having fed, it might have soothed
them, had you not paralysed it. As it is, all the
strength they have gained here has been converted into
animosity toward you ; and this, by slow accumulation,
has gathered to the dark and angry cloud which your
New Year’s sun of 1868 tries vainly to surmount.
You can hardly be in earnest in hoping that such
stupid blunders as that Clerkenwell explosion can have
any material effect in putting an end to Fenian ism.
It will no more perish from such stigmas , than the
British Government from the firing of Sepoys from
mortars, the burning of Kagosima, the butchery of
negroes in Jamaica. Nay, the immediate danger to
your and my relations in the future arises from that
crime which for the time is a blunder For you are now
plainly seized with fear, and fear is cruel. Your reta
liation promises to be not only severe, but blind; and
such retaliation will be followed by retaliation; for the
�22
men you fight with will, if you try to hide your own
cruelties under it, see at Clerkenwell only a more swift
and concentrated specimen of disasters chronic in their
own country: for every dying child or woman at
Clerkenwell they will recall one, or perhaps more, at
home. But when their retaliation becomes as furious as
it is likely to be—striking high—you may recur under
some form or other to your old weapon, martial law.
Now, it is just here, John, that it becomes my duty
to warn you that there is danger ahead. It is hardly
possible that you can take that weapon down without
using it upon Americans; and it is utterly impossible
that it can, however disguised, be used upon Americans
without firing the train which, in the way I have
shown, has been ingeniously laid between your Capitol
and mine.
The indignant appeals of Irish-American criminals
to the United States for protection as American citizens,
recently uttered in your court-rooms, reached our shores
at a peculiar political juncture. The old Democratic
party, long excluded from power, had just seen the
tide turn in its favour at local elections, and was
gathering its forces for the great national campaigns
of 1868. But it was in want of a new “ platform,”
and a taking party cry. For many reasons its former
watchword—“ States’ Rights”—is not yet a safe one;
on the question of Protection parties are divided and
confused; but what better could there be than the
cry coming from English prisons—“ Protection to
�23
American citizens”? It was at once caught up, and
the Democrats called a great meeting in New York to
proclaim it through the land. But the Republicans
were too shrewd not to see that a monopoly of such
a telling cry must not be permitted to its opponents;
and so when the great meeting was held the leaders
of both parties were present—Horace Greeley sat
beside Fernando Wood—and then ensued a grand com
petition in enthusiasm for the new watchword. Similar
meetings, marked by the same unanimity and enthu
siasm of all parties, followed in the largest cities of
the Union. When Congress assembled, it at once re
solved itself into a similar meeting, and no sooner had
the theme been started by the Democratic Mr. Robin
son, of New York, than he was distanced by the fulminations of the Republican Mr. Judd, from the West.
In short, at this moment it seems probable that we
are about to enter on a presidential campaign, wherein
the contest shall be which party shall get hoarsest with
shouting: A Truce for Domestic Strifes, and Pro
tection to Americans everywhere, or fight !
Now it were a serious error, John, to regard this as
one of the many bubbles that appear and disappear on
the surface of American politics. It is because of a
wide and deep popular feeling on this subject that
these politicians and parties are competing for the
representation of it. It is not a new subject between
us; and, since our struggle of 1812, our position on it
has been becoming what it is now—compulsory. When
�24
0
the Fenian prisoners called to us for protection, there
were two reasons why we could not take up their cause;
first, because formally they were criminals; second,
because our code of citizenship is the same with yours.
As a “ nation,” originally meant those born (nati) in a
country, we in America, inheriting the ideas and laws
of citizenship corresponding to that principle, were
satisfied with maintaining so much. But the great
tide of emigration, which has within this half-century
trebled the population and the power of the United
States, has deposited here a new kind of nationality
altogether. When the laws and principles of alienation
are to be decided by a nation of the alienated, the
result may be anticipated. One-third of the American
people are patriotic expatriates. The other thirds are
the descendents of those who were. The doctrine of
once a citizen always a citizen is one that is for us
excluded by a more unalterable constitution than any
that can be contained in precedents or written on paper.
There are sufficient reasons why only now we have
discovered that the right of a man to be protected in
the transfer of his allegiance is to us a vital one. The
first thought of the immigrant was to accumulate some
money, and get the habit and feeling of an independent
man; but having now accomplished that, it seems that
his next thought is to try and visit his old home and
early friends, and to enjoy some of the pleasures which
he remembers keenly, because they were longed for,
but never reached. The German yearns to visit his
�25
Fatherland, and the Irishman dreams of walking, in
proud independence, the streets that once knew him
only as a pauper. That these on their several wan
derings should be liable to interference, to conscrip
tion, and the like, the United States, of course, cannot
permit. A century ago you, John, were struggling
with Spain for the free right and security of an Eng
lish ship in any and all waters, even those solemnly
donated by the Pope to other powers. You did not
recognise any confirmation by the Universe of such
donations. The inducements of the naturalised, and the
disposition of the native, American to roam through
other lands, make each to his country somewhat the
same as her ship was to England in those days. But
I need hardly quote the past; a nation which has an
army defending the immunity of Englishmen from
wrong amid the perils of Abyssinian deserts, will not
require much apology for the hereditary sensitiveness of
Americans on a similar point; nor is there need that
either of us shall be blinded to the true nature of the
flame newly kindled in this country by the partisan
smoke mingled with it.
When we first began to look into this matter, two or
three years ago, we saw at once that there were but two
foreign nations with whom it could bring us into any
serious collision—England and Germany. No other
countries had a sufficient number of their former sub
jects naturalised in America, to induce them to take
any determined stand on the letter of the common law
�26
of nations in this matter. About two years ago some
American-Germans were claimed whilst visiting Prussia
for the ordinary military service, due from the subjects
of that power; but they were released after a careful
consultation between our governments, and the ques
tion has been probably postponed between us. Count
Bismark saw that our position was a necessary one,
and that all Prussia could gain by pressing us to defend
it was thirty millions of enemies, for which a half dozen
impressed and reluctant soldiers would be but a poor
compensation.
The question, then, for the moment, practically re
mains open only between England and America. We
have always demanded of every citizen naturalised in
this country a solemn abjuration of his allegiance to all
other countries; and that we shall now proclaim our in
tention of protecting such in all countries from any
claims arising out of former allegiance is absolutely cer
tain. In ordinary times, and as affecting ordinary
questions, I should have no apprehension of any im
portant disagreement between us about a modification
which America is forced to demand in laws made before
its discovery. Your own Canning showed us the neces
sity of our “Monroe doctrine,” and our new movement
does but contemplate an environment of every indi
vidual American with a Monroe doctrine. Your com
mon sense will suggest that laws good for the times that
produced them may be as useless as ruined castles for
other times. In ancient times the right of alienation
�27
would have been paramount to the right of desertion.
But now, whilst emigration is as useful to your over
crowded islands as immigration to our untilled lands,
you must see that the feudal law can never bring you a
shilling, a subject, or a soldier whom you would not be
safer and stronger without. What a farce were it, for
example, to hold as British subjects, for any national
purpose or trust whatever, your Fenian visitors, whom
you would rejoice to know were all in Walrussia! And
behind these particular aspects of the question lies the
general fact, that the principle of inalienable citizenship
is referable to a period of European history when no such
ideas of personal independence as now prevail existed;
when also steam and exploration had not yet distri
buted through the world those great centres of com
merce and civilisation, whose amity is secured by
their equality, and which really form a commonwealth
transcending national divisions.
All this, I say, might ordinarily, notwithstanding cer
tain difficulties of detail, be trusted to reach a natural
adjustment before the tribunal of our common reason.
But it may happen, I fear, John, that the very occa
sion for our strenuous determination to affirm the new
principle at this moment will constitute the obstacle to
your complete concession of it. For that principle would
not suffer us to stand aloof and see American citizens
punished under any kind of martial law. If they were
punished, it would have to be under laws and formulas
common (substantially) to England and America, and
�28
to all civilised countries. I fear we could not appreciate
your emergencies, nor agree, in our present mood, to
the necessity of extra-judicial trials for wandering Ame
ricans. You could not, you will remember, see the jus
tice of our taking from the Trent envoys journeying for
the avowed object of destroying the American Union.
The excitement produced here, even by the arrest of
that charlatan Train—whom you have made the hap
piest man in your dominions—justifies a fear that these
insurrectionists may succeed, after years of effort in that
direction, in dragging us into some kind of collision.
But be assured of this, John : if the Devil is to have
another triumph of that kind on this planet, it will not
be more than incidentally due to Fenianism, nor to any
real difference between us on the question of citizen
ship; nor will it be due to the Alabama depredations
in themselves; it will be beneath all ascribable to a
general feeling in America that you hate us — consti
tutionally, instinctively, bitterly hate us—and to a
suspicion, that will then have ripened to conviction, that
the peaceful development of our Republic is incompati
ble with your continued naval and commercial supre
macy. We are made up here of all the races of the
world, and in such questions are very apt to identify our
commonwealth with that of humanity; and there is a
question arising whether, on the whole, England is
using her supremacy and power for the welfare of man
kind, or the reverse.
Is it true, John ? Are you really our natural
�29
enemy? It were dreadful if our conceit and your
pride should trick us into thinking we are mortal
enemies, if at bottom we are allies or even friends.
We cannot get out of our ears those ringing shouts
with which your Parliament greeted every disaster to
the army of the Union; nor the sneers about the North
fighting for Empire, and the founding of a great nation
—coming as they did from your “Liberal” leaders.
They think differently now; yes, the mouse having dis
appeared, the cat is woman again; but we cannot forget
what was revealed in those terrible moments, and no
one of those men will ever again be looked upon as
other than a foe of the United States so long as they are
too meanly proud, too cowardly before party taunts, to
confess the wrong, despite the wounds it has inflicted,
or the evils to which it may lead.
On the other hand, the news has come to us that
your Parliament, at the end of its said hilarities, has, at
your suggestion, committed hari-kari before you. It has
under compulsion decided that it is a body which has
shown itself unrepresentative of you, and is now passing
out of existence. The direction from which the new
Parliament is coming seems for us to be signified by
the proposal of a Tory minister to concede us that
arbitration which a Liberal minister had denied. If
this is done in the dry leaf, what will be done in
the green ? I am already becoming suspicious of
my first hasty conclusions about your natural enmity
to us, John! There must be a great, friendly, and just
�30
people where such men as your Mill, Bright, Hughes,
Forster, Taylor, Stansfeld, Fawcett are produced, and
that sturdy crop of Radicals, Frederic Harrison, Goldwin Smith, Beasley, Morley, and the rest, whose rising
glow is visible across the ocean. There is a cry from
Chelsea, too—a cry sharp with the summed-up sorrows
of all your brakesmen, from Strafford to Robert Lowe—
suggestive of something else than the “republican bubble”
bursting. I see, too, that instead of getting slower, as you
get older, you are gathering momentum. It was but
yesterday, when the life of a nation is considered, that the
gentle officers of the first gentleman in Europe charged
upon that crowd of men, women, and children, in St.
Peter’s-field, at Manchester, with the, cry “ Strike down
their banners!” and struck them down with their
mottoes which demanded “ Extension of franchise,”
“Abolition of Corn Laws,” and the like: now I see
nearly every one of those banners, risen from their bap
tism of blood, floating in triumph on the old walls of
Westminster!
After due reflection, John, I mean to wait. I know
well, that in the end we are to be firm friends or
warring enemies; and remembering that one of your
philosophers says that hatred is inverted love, and
another that the unforeseen always comes to pass, I
mean to wait.
So I mean; but I must candidly say that I have still
fears that my intent may be thwarted. That Fenian,
sword, whetted on your stony past, is in the hand of
�31
a madman, and he cares little whether it is wielded
against feudal or democratic England. Our politics are
threatened here just now with another equinoctial storm,
wherein the balances of the elements may be held by
the race whose hatred of you has become their one
motive of existence. And my helm of State is in
the hand of a trickster who has taken a fancy that
|he phantom cruiser shall still be kept afloat. While
the majority of us mean peace, there is a strong and
subtle party here that means war.
Do you with me recoil from that poisoned weapon,
and from all imaginable laurels to be won by it ? Then
hold your pride in abeyance for a little; ascribe my
frankness to something better than Yankee insolence.
Own for a moment that there may be something more
important than u understanding the feelings of English
men ” even ; and give heed to counsel which is offered
in the sacred interest of Peace.
First of all, John, checkmate my ingenious Secretary
at Washington by paying the Alabama claims. I will
not urge that you can do it without perceiving that the
amount has gone out of your heavy purse; I will not hint
that it will cost you more to let the bill run on gathering
political interest. But it is of importance to maintain,
as I do, that you can do it without servility or loss of
dignity. The Minister under whom that infernal ship
got out has declared in Parliament that its escape is a
reproach and scandal to British law, and was effected
through the treachery of British officials. That is
�32
Q
ground enough on which to pay for its devastations.
Cash payment may commit you less than arbitration.
You can still hold your own views about the techni
calities of the matter; you have a perfect right to say
that you do it in the interest of peace; you are strong
enough and rich enough to be beyond the suspicion of
having any dishonourable motive; there is nothing mean
in saying, “ I think I am right, but, at any rate, I will be
rid of a bore ! ” This seems to me the wise plan, John ;
but if your chrysalid Government is not up to doing in
the large way what is so likely to be done in some way,
large or small, I do not see that it would be a humilia
tion to you to agree even to that stupid demand of Mr.
Seward that the recognition of the Confederacy as a
belligerent should also be submitted to arbitration.
“That is,” you said, “inadmissible;” but why? You
had good reasons for such recognition; in it you were
simultaneous with France, and a little later than Pre
sident Lincoln. You could not have lost on such a
question, and you would have given Mr. Seward a
severer fall than he has yet had — he, more than
all men living, being responsible for the early and re*
peated recognition by this Government of the belli
gerency of the South. You cannot, you may say,
admit the principle of submitting to foreign judgment
the internal policy and political course of Great Britain.,
But you have admitted that principle in offering to
submit the Alabama claims at all; they involve the
adequacy of your municipal laws and the policy of your
public servants. Still, I think your safest and most
�33
honourable course is to pay the money, and reserve
your position in your own terms. My fine Secretary
would certainly try to dodge this also; but the American
people are not fools nor heartless, John; and the day
when you pay or offer that money without external
compulsion will lay something stronger than a cable
between your shores and mine!
From that day the other side looms into view. You
cease to be in debt to us; and if we owe any debt to
you, that must begin to press. Let the beam lie level
between us once more, and at least the hand that seeks
to disturb it will bear its own responsibility. And if the
base shall attribute base motives, will it not be compen
sation enough that you have drawn around you, for all
emergencies, the undivided sympathy of your own
people ? Your working men, and their friends in Par
liament, have decided against your rulers in this
matter, John, and reduced you to petition for the arbi
tration you denied. What can you gain by allowing
tricksters to trade on this thing ? Will men say you
act from fear ? There is nothing dishonourable in fear
ing a calamity to mankind; still less in fearing to bear
the responsibility of causing one. Your history and
security enable your people to despise a charge of
cowardice; that, at least, America can never make.
The next thing, John, for you to do is to search your
Irish trouble to the bottom, and to do it at once.
Those executions at Manchester show, I fear, that you
are very far off the right track. The men ought to
have been set to break stones in the streets. The fear
D
�34
of death preponderates with all human beings—Irish
men excepted: to the average Fenian mind your gallows
in Manchester did but suddenly carry three poor men
from their Curraghs to Paradise—did but transform
three obscure men into Emmets, into martyrs and
heroes. Have you heard of John Brown ? He made
an armed attack on slavery a few years ago; he and
those of his comrades who had not perished in the
attack were executed; but we now know that what his
raid could not effect, his execution did much toward—
the abolition of slavery. It never pays to execute on
the gallows men who have not in them the malignity
and selfish passions for which the gallows was reared.
Your Manchester victims were not of the stuff of
murderers. You committed a blunder in hanging
them that might have proved more serious had it
not been for the offset given by the Fenians at
Clerkenwell. You will be wise now to present
your Manchester gallows to the British Museum,
and turn your energies to secure the fair thing for
Ireland. If your existence as a first-class Power is
is necessary, your retention of Ireland is necessary.
But the retention of Ireland as a chronic insurrection
no retention at all. There is a story of a man who
went about all his life with a serpent inside of him;
when it was hungry he must feed it, or it would start
into his throat and threaten to suffocate him, as it did,
I believe, at last. The world sees you, John, as the
man with a snake in his bosom; it sees that your
legislation for Ireland for many years has been food
�35
given for your own exigency, which has only strength
ened the snake. It has grown at length to be Fenianism,
and your question now is, Cannot the fearful thing be
disgorged? I do not hope for you that it will be an
easy matter, for it is plain to me that the grievances of
Ireland are profoundly involved in your entire govern
mental system. The principle of the Irish Church and of
the English Church is the same, only the prevalence of
Roman Catholicism in Ireland makes it there a heavier
burden and insult, because a Protestant Church is as
odious to them as an Atheistic Society would be to
English Dissenters. What would your English Metho
dists and Presbyterians say if they were made to support
a National Comtist Establishment? The Catholic be
lieves your Church as soul-destroying as Atheism; it is,
to him, a lie planted on the ruins of Truth. Similarly,
your British land laws and privileged class happen to
bear more heavily on agricultural Ireland than on manu
facturing and shopkeeping England; but it is all one
system, and it bears heavily on the working people every
where. It is only a question of time, of the increase of
population, when your English people will cut up your
estates and parks, and compel your lands to support
men and women instead of rabbits and pheasants.
So, I fear that, having taken hold of this Irish
trouble, and found how profoundly it is entangled with
institutions resting on social superstitions—how in
evitably the English Church must follow the Irish
Church, and the English land monopoly that of Ireland—you will betake yourself to your old habit of ad
�36
Q
,
ministering opiates. The Irish difficulty, if thoroughly
traced, must lead you to the very heart of your heri
tage of wrong. Are you, after your Christian centuries,
equal to losing your life that you may find it ? At any
rate, John, disgorge that Irish viper, whatever may
have to be disgorged with it.
Your endowments ? Throw them into the sea—any
thing—rather than let them longer send this stench
through the world. Were Paul alive, he would surely
find another Church to which he must say, “ The name
of God is blasphemed through you!” Here at least in
America the Jesuit sharpens his most effectual arrows
on that miserable wrong in Ireland. “You speak of the
cruelties of the Church of Rome in the past; read in
the history of the establishment in Ireland how Pro
testantism has improved upon Popes ! Or would you
illustrate Romish oppression of conscience ? Compare
it with the liberty which Protestant England allows
the poor Catholics of Ireland — how much is their
humiliation of to-day better than that which denied
them citizenship in the past!” In both Ireland and
America Romanism has at present no other bulwark so
strong as your Irish Church, Protestantism no darker
disgrace, and Christianity no deeper shame !
Away with that, John, and then let your living gene
ration address itself to retrace the inglorious victories
by which preceding generations have forced it into an
attitude of despotism towards Ireland, whose natural
sceptre is the gallows, whose kindest provision is the
right of self-exile. All that through centuries you
�37
sought and in the end happily failed to do with America,
you have, by many disastrous successes, had the misfor
tune to accomplish in Ireland: down the fatal necessary
grooves of injustice your conquest came, confiscating the
lands, destroying the manufactures, making penal the
worship of Ireland. The continuous effort to do exactly
the same by Puritan New England trained America to
be a nation. Ireland is not yet a nation; but what
ever elements of nationality it has have been distilled
from traditions of common sorrows and vainly resisted
wrongs
Through sad six hundred years of hostile sway,
From Strongbow fierce to cunning Castlereagh !
If these shall not at length crystallise into nationality
it will not be your fault, unless indeed you discover that
beating a child in order to make it love you, little likely
as it is to secure the object aimed at, is apt—if the child
have any fire in him—to quicken it to independent life.
There is enough land in Ireland to employ and feed
all the Irish that remain to you, John; there are the
sinews, there the soil; if you cannot in some way end
their unnatural divorce, the gods themselves cannot
save you I Your landlords? Make those men look
you in the eye, John ! Not one of them could trace
his land-title, but he would find it was once a trust
for his king and country, perverted by some self-seeker
to the advantage of himself and family; not one fee
or feu, but was originally a fides, or trust for the advan
tage of Great Britain; by no means for any absolute
advantage of Lord Holdfast, who is now making of
his trust a danger to the State, sowing in it dragons’
�38
teeth, to spring up as armed enemies instead of the
valiant retainers which it was given his ancestor to
furnish! It has been for some time becoming apparent
that your land-aristocracy are trying to outwit the laws
of the universe. Let them try to shut up the sunlight
in their mansions, and amid the darkness that ensues
they may meditate on the fact that when humanity at
large really requires their land it will be as impossible
for any one man to maintain it for private ends as to
appropriate the sun for his gaslight. If you will stand
by old principles, John, let them be the oldest. No
landlord is to be regarded as fulfilling the conditions of
the deed whereby your Queen gives him land, who
proposes to maintain an interest in it separate from, or
antagonistic to, the general welfare of his country. He
may not burn his house, nor turn it to a powder-mill,
ad libitum; nor may he turn it, as many of the Irish
landlords do, into a manufactory of explosive Fenians.
If in times of danger the charters of liberty can be sus
pended, surely those of property may be also. Ah!
could you enter upon your Irish task, asking only what
is right for all—emancipated from your superstitions
about class and about land, you could make of Ireland
England’s prairie-land, you could so establish prosperity
there that whatever unassimilable Celtdom survived
must betake itself (and by your aid would speedily
betake itself) to these eupeptic regions which are able
gradually to digest even Irishmen.
Fenianism, then, has two causes. One of these is the
general weakness of your system, John, predisposing
�39
you to the disease; the other, and incidental, cause is
that the general unfriendliness to you in America has
made us wink at its practical projects, that is, has
paused us to deal with the conspiracy according to the
letter, but not the spirit, of the law. In other words,
America and Ireland, with very different aims, have
to some extent made common cause about their griev
ances ; about as much, we think, as you made with
the Southern Confederacy. These two sources of
the evil will grow by neglect, a recognised Fenian
belligerency with its cruisers being not at all un
imaginable. There are a great many mean and
selfish men, John, in your country and mine, and our
squabbles play into their vile hands sadly. But let
England remember our long dreary past of wrong with
which she is associated; let her attest her repudiation
of that past by a deed reversing it, all the better if it
be one beyond arbitrated justice, a deed of magna
nimity; let her make of America an ally; then one
brave session of Parliament can lay the axe to the
root of the tree which poisons your air. Our national
disgust at the whole theory of Fenianism; our hatred
of intervention in Old-World quarrels ; the indifference
to clan-interests and race - antipathies which steadily
grows into something sterner than indifference in a
union of races; our impatience as a people with all fuss
about purely visionary and impracticable schemes; the
English history, speech, and literature we have inherited
and still cherish; all these, veiled for the moment by the
shadow you have thrown athwart our politics, would
�40
-
resume their •'vigour. Nothing entirely unpopular can
live in this country; and I know of no other thing
which, in a normal condition of American feeling, has
so many of the elements of unpopularity in it as Fenianism. I do not defend our coquetting with it; I
wish we had been mature enough to repel such help;
but we are very crude in many respects, John, and we
have not had the best paternal examples of magnani
mity to guide us. It takes us both a sadly long time
to get the civility of our homes into our legislatures,
our fleets, and our international dealings. Had it only
been that Earl Russell’s dog had bitten Mr. Adams’s leg,
what scented notes and inquiries had passed! If any
one had stolen Sir Frederick Bruce’s hat, Mr. Seward
had deputed the American army, if need be, to find it!.
But.it is a navy destroying our commerce; it is treason
aiming at your life ; so fang and claw are claiming their
right to settle the question. Cannot our sixty or seventy
millions manage together to show mankind that there
may be rays of humanity carried into the dismal swamp
of diplomacy ? May we not startle the world by show
ing that, while the Pope is canonising the Chassepot
Rifle, England and America can raise the Golden Rule
to be International Law ?
That the New Year may bring that sorrow for devils,
and triumph for angels, is, John, the honest desire of
Jonathan.
the
END.
• . . ’ -I
LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND.
Y
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A new year's letter from Jonathan to John
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway, Moncure Daniel, 1832-1907
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Attribution from Virginia Clark's catalogue based on the content (Anglo-British relations) and a comparison to another 'Jonathan to John' letter, titled 'Lunatics', attributed to Conway by the 'Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals'. Printed by C. Whiting, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Chapman and Hall
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5623
Subject
The topic of the resource
International relations
USA
UK
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A new year's letter from Jonathan to John), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Foreign Relations-United States of America
United States-Foreign Relations
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b34d0544de239037aa7c3d912933884d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=lnMpzbR1Mz-K9xAHlVbFPiOSo%7EmnXxCeH2eG%7EotY7uINdwlw4A1R6Xwj5GiaLLiUkWnU9M9OLvypBy77IBV3K4orLdnbC3XVnlexp%7E7ZEhwhdGeQTqZ1DOfb4yTEetOHrYl3bSqYCLTRhiwad2P9cvQE4hKTdXuC0dBU2S-AHynBF35tX%7EsjEMdGWbPwcCoQHhDCo4nCKldcsNzEHW6VLFMmwB9dWs96ME-KYffLYvS%7EhhwNkxZEOIbJID-A7PE5J8TAU-7fqVDJb556RnG5tlEoAUQdrCCeJBNGecQ3ZH2YLTHVT%7ElGBnoQlsaMAWAe4gfWOe9e3RsYETGnpJf2AQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
060c030f8b49f49278ea2e7093583363
PDF Text
Text
^onalsecularsociety
ABRAHAM
LINCOLN
AN ORATION
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
Price Threepence.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1893.
�LONDON .*
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 14 CLERKENWELL GREEN, E.C.
�N) 3
4
ORATION ON ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
EiGHTY-FOUR years ago to-day, two babes were born—
one in the woods of Kentucky, amid the hardships and
poverty of pioneers ; one in England, surrounded by
wealth and culture. One was educated in the University
of N ature, the other at Oxford.
One associated his name with the enfranchisement
of labor, with the emancipation of millions, with the
salvation of the Republic. He is known to us as
Abraham Lincoln.
The other broke the chains of superstition and filled
the world with intellectual light, and he is known as
Charles Darwin.
Because of these two men the nineteenth century is
illustrious.
A few men and women make a nation glorious—
Shakespeare made England immortal ; Voltaire civilised
and humanised France ; Goethe, Schiller, apd Hum
boldt lifted Germany into the light ; Angelo, Raphael,
Galileo, and Bruno crowned with fadeless laurel the
Italian brow ; and now the most precious treasure of
the Great Republic is the memory of Abraham Lincoln.
Every generation has its heroes, its iconoclasts, its
pioneers, its ideals. The people always have been and
still are divided, at least into two classes—the many,
who with their backs to the sunrise worship the past ;
and the few, who keep their faces towards the dawn—
the many, who are satisfied with the world as it is ;
the Jew, who labor and suffer for the future, for those
�( 4 )
to be, and who seek to rescue the oppressed, to destroy
the cruel distinctions of caste, and to civilise mankind.
Yet it sometimes happens that the liberator of one
age becomes the oppressor of the next. His reputation
becomes so great, he is so revered and worshipped»
that his followers, in his name, attack the hero who
endeavors to take another step in advance.
The heroes of the Revolution, forgetting the justice
for which they fought, put chains upon the limbs of
others, and in their names the lovers of liberty were
denounced as ingrates and traitors.
In our country there were for many years two great
political parties, and each of these parties had con
servatives and extremists. The extremists of the
Democratic party were in the rear and wished to go
back; the extremists of the Republican were in the
front and wished to go forward. The extreme Democrat
was willing to destroy the Union for the sake of
slavery, and the extreme Republican was willing to
destroy the Union for the sake of liberty.
Neither party could succeed without the votes of its
extremists.
This was the political situation in 1860.
The extreme Democrats would not vote for Douglas,
but the extreme Republicans did vote for Lincoln.
Lincoln occupied the middle ground, and was the
compromise candidate of his own party. He had
lived for many years in the intellectual territory of
compromise—in a part of our country settled by
Northern and Southern men—where Northern and
Southern ideas met, and the ideas of the two sections
were brought together and compared.
The sympathies of Lincoln, his ties of kindred, were
with the South. His convictions, his sense of justice,
and his ideals, were with the North. He knew the
horrors of slavery, and he felt the unspeakable
�(5 )
ecstacies and glories of freedom. He had the kind
ness, the gentleness, of true greatness, and he could not
have been a master; he had the manhood and
independence of true greatness, and he could not have
been a slave. He was just, and incapable of putting a
burden upon others that he himself would not
willingly bear.
He was merciful and profound, and it was not
necessary for him to read the history of the world to
know that liberty and slavery could not live in the
same nation, or in the same brain. Lincoln was a
statesman. And there is this difference between a
politician and a statesman. A politician schemes and
works in every way to make the people do something
for him. The statesman wishes to do something for
the people. With him place and power are means to
an end, and the end is the good of his country.
The Republic had reached a crisis.
The conflict between liberty and slavery could no
longer be delayed. For three-quarters of a century
the forces had been gathering for the battle.
After the Revolution, principle was sacrificed for the
sake of gain. The Constitution contradicted the
Declaration. Liberty as a principle was held in
contempt. Slavery took possession of the Government.
Slavery made the laws, corrupted courts, dominated
presidents and demoralised the people.
In 1840, when Harrison and Van Buren were candi
dates for the Presidency, the Whigs of Indiana issued
a circular giving reasons for the election of Harrison
and the defeat of Van Buren. The people of Indiana
were advised to vote against Van Buren because he,
when a member of the New York Legislature, had
voted to enfranchise colored men who had property to
the extent of two hundred and fifty dollars. This was
the crime of Van Buren.
�( 6)
The reason why the people should support Harrison
was that he had signed eleven petitions to make
Indiana a slave State.
Mr. Douglas voiced the feeling of the majority when
he declared that he did not care whether slavery was
voted up or down.
From the heights of philosophy—standing above the
contending hosts, above the prejudices, the senti
mentalities of the day—Lincoln was great enough and
brave enough and wise enough to utter these prophetic
words : “A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I believe this Government cannot permanently endure
half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union
to be dissolved ; I do not expect the house to fall; but
I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become
all the one thing or the other. Either the opponents
of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and
place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its
advocates will push it further until it becomes alike
lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as
well as South.”
This declaration was the standard around which
gathered the grandest political party the world has
ever seen, and this declaration made Lincoln the leader
of that vast host.
In this, the first great crisis, Lincoln uttered the
victorious truth that made him the foremost man in
the Republic.
The people decided at the polls that a house divided
against itself could not stand, and that slavery had
cursed soul and soil enough.
It is not a common thing to elect a really great man
to fill the highest official position. I do not say that
the great presidents have been chosen by accident.
�( 7 )
Probably it would be better to say that they were the
favorites of a happy chance.
The average man is afraid of genius. He feels as
an awkward man feels in the presence of a sleight-ofhand performer. He admires and suspects. Genius
appears to carry too much sail—lacks prudence,
has too much courage. The ballast of dullness inspires
confidence.
By a happy chance Lincoln was nominated and
elected in spite of his fitness—and the patient, gentle,
and just and loving man was called upon to bear as
great a burden as man has ever borne.
II.
Then came another crisis—the crisis of Secession,
and Civil War.
Again Lincoln spoke the deepest feeling and the
highest thought of the Nation. In his first message
he said : “ The central idea of secession is the essence
of anarchy.”
He also showed conclusively that the North and
South, in spite of secession, must remain face to face
—that physically they could not separate—that they
must have more or less commerce, and that this com
merce must be carried on, either between the two
sections as friends, or as aliens.
This situation and its consequences he pointed out
to absolute perfection in these words : “ Can aliens
make treaties easier than friends can make laws ? Can
treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens
than laws among other friends ?”
After having stated fully and fairly the philosophy
of the conflict, after having said enough to satisfy any
calm and thoughtful mind, he addressed himself to the
hearts of America. Probably there are few finer
passages in literature than the close of Lincoln’s
inaugural address : “ I am loth to close. We are not
�(«)
enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.
Though passion may have strained, it must not break,
our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory
stretching from every battle-field and patriotic grave
to every loving heart and hearthstone all over this
broad land, will swell the chorus of the Union when
again touched, as surely they will be, by the better
angels of our nature.”
These noble, these touching, these pathetic words,
were delivered in the presence of rebellion, in the
midst of spies and conspirators—surrounded by but
few friends, most of whom were unknown, and some
of whom were wavering in their fidelity—at a time
when secession was arrogant and organised, when
patriotism was silent, and when, to quote the expres
sive words of Lincoln himself, “ Sinners were calling
the righteous to repentance.”
When Lincoln became President, he was held in
contempt by the South—underrated by the North and
East—not appreciated even by his cabinet—and yet he
was not only one of the wisest, but one of the shrewdest
of mankind. Knowing that he had the right to enforce
the laws of the United States and Territories—knowing,
as he did, that the secessionists were in the wrong, he
also knew that they had sympathisers not only in the
North but in other lands.
Consequently he felt that it was of the utmost
importance that the South should fire the first shot,
should do some act that would solidify the North and
gain for us the justification of the civilised world. He
so managed affairs that while he was attempting simply
to give food to our soldiers, the South commenced hos
tilities and fired on Sumter.
This course was pursued by Lincoln in spite of the
advice of many friends, and yet a wiser thing was
never done.
�( 9 )
At that time Lincoln appreciated the scope and con
sequences of the impending conflict. Above all other
thoughts in his mind was this : “ This conflict will
settle the question, at least for centuries to come,
whether man is capable of governing himself, and con
sequently is of greater importance to the free than to
the enslaved.’*
He knew what depended on the issue and he said :
“ We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best
hope of earth.”
III.
Then came a crisis in the North.
It became clearer and clearer to Lincoln’s mind, day
by day, that the rebellion was slavery, and that it was
necessary to keep the border States on the side of the
Union. For this purpose he proposed a scheme of
emancipation and colonisation—a scheme by which the
owners of slaves should be paid the full value of what
they called their “ property.” He called attention to
the fact that he had adhered to the Act of Congress to
confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes
—that the Union must be preserved, and that, there
fore, all indispensable means must be employed to
that end.
If, in war, a nation has the right to take the property
of its citizens—of its friends—certainly it has the
right to take the property of those it has the right to
kill.
He knew that if the border States agreed to gradual
emancipation, and received compensation for their
slaves, they would be for ever lost to the Confederacy,
whether secession succeeded or not. It was objected
at the time, by some, that the scheme was far too
expensive ; but Lincoln, wiser than his advisers—far
wiser than his enemies—demonstrated that from an
economical point of view, his course was best.
�( 10 )
He proposed that 400 dols. be paid for slaves,
including men, women, and children. This was a
large price, and yet he showed how much cheaper it
was to purchase than to carry on the war.
At that time, at the price mentioned, there were
about 750,000 dols. worth of slaves in Delaware. The
cost of carrying on the war was at least two millions
of dollars a day, and for one-third of one day’s expenses
all the slaves in Delaware could be purchased. He
also showed that all the slaves in Delaware, Kentucky,
and Missouri could be bought at the same price for
less than the expense of carrying on the war for eighty
seven days.
This was the wisest thing that could have been pro
posed, and yet such was the madness of the South,
such the indignation of the North, that the advice was
unheeded.
Again, in July, 1862, he urged on the Representa
tives of the border States a scheme of gradual com
pensated emancipation ; but the Representatives were
too deaf to hear, too blind to see.
Lincoln always hated slavery, and yet he felt the
obligations and duties of his position. In his first
message he assured the South that the laws, including
the most odious of all—the law for the return of
fugitive slaves—would be enforced. The South would
not hear. Afterwards he proposed to purchase the
slaves of the border States ; but the proposition was
hardly discussed, hardly heard. Events came thick
and fast; theories gave way to facts, and everything
was left to force.
The extreme Democrat of the North was fearful that
slavery might be destroyed, that the Constitution
might be broken, and that Lincoln, after all, could not
be trusted; and at the same time the radical Repub-
�(11)
lican feared that Lincoln loved the Union more than
he did liberty.
The fact is that he tried to discharge the obligations
of his great office, knowing from the first that slavery
must perish. The course pursued by Lincoln was so
gentle, so kind and persistent, so wise and logical, that
millions of Northern Democrats sprang to the defence,
not only of the Union, but of his administration.
Lincoln refused to be led or hurried by Fremont or
Hunter, by Greeley or Sumner. From first to last he
was the real leader, and he kept step with events.
IV.
On July 22, 1862, Lincoln called together his cabinet
for the purpose of showing the draft of a Proclamation
of Emancipation, stating to them|that he did not wish
their advice, as he had made up his mind.
After the Proclamation was signed Lincoln held it,
waiting for some great victory before giving it to the
world, so that it might appear to be the child of
strength.
This was on July 22, 1862. On August 22 of the
same year Lincoln wrote his celebrated letter to Horace
Greeley, in which he stated that his object was to save
the Union ; that he would save it with slavery if he
could; that if it was necessary to destroy slavery in
order to save the Union, he would; in other words, he
would do what was necessary to save the Union.
This letter disheartened, to a great degree, thousands
and millions of the friends of freedom. They felt
that Mr. Lincoln had not attained the moral height
upon which they supposed he stood. And yet, when
this letter was written, the Emancipation Proclamation
was in his hands, and had been for thirty days,
waiting only an opportunity to give it to the world.
Some two weeks after the letter to Greeley, Lincoln
was waited on by a committee of clergymen, and was
�( 12 )
by them informed that it was God’s will that he should
issue a Proclamation of Emancipation. He replied to
them, in substance, that the day of miracles had passed.
He also mildly and kindly suggested that if it were
God’s will this Proclamation should be issued, certainly
God would have made known that will to him—to the
person whose duty it was to issue it.
On September 22, 1862, the most glorious date in
the history of the Republic, the Proclamation of
Emancipation was issued.
Lincoln had reached the generalisation of all argu
ments upon the question of slavery and freedom—a
generalisation that never has been, and probably never
will be, excelled : In giving freedom to the slave, we
assure freedom to the free.
This is absolutely true. Liberty can be retained,
can be enjoyed, only by giving it to others. The
spendthrift saves, the miser is prodigal. In the realm
of Freedom, waste is husbandry. He who puts chains
upon the body of another shackles his own soul. The
moment the Proclamation was issued, the cause of the
Republic became sacred.
From that moment the
North fought for the human race. From that moment
the North stood under the blue and stars, the flag of
Nature—sublime and free.
In 1831 Lincoln saw in New Orleans a colored girl
sold at auction. The scene filled his soul with
ndignation and horror.
Turning to his companion, he said, “ Boys, if I ever
get a chance to hit slavery, by God I’ll hit it hard I ”
The helpless girl, unconsciously, had planted in a
great heart the seeds of the Proclamation.
Thirty-one years afterwards the chance came, the
oath was kept, and to four millions of slaves, of men,
women, and children, was restored liberty, the jewel
of the soul.
�( 13 )
In the history, in the fiction of the world, there
is nothing more intensely dramatic than this.
Lincoln held within his brain the grandest truths,
and he held them as unconsciously, as easily, as
naturally as a waveless pool holds within its stainless
breast a thousand stars.
Let us think for one moment of the distance
travelled from the first ordinance of secession to the
Proclamation of Emancipation.
In 1861 a thirteenth amendment to the Constitution
was offered to the South. By this proposed amend
ment slavery was to be made perpetual. This com
promise was refused, and in its stead came the
Proclamation. Let us take another step.
In 1865 the thirteenth^ amendment was adopted.
The one proposed made slavery perpetual. The one
adopted in 1865 abolished slavery and made the great
Republic free forever.
The first state to ratify this amendment was Illinois.
v.
We were surrounded by enemies. Many of the
so-called great in Europe and England were against us.
They hated the Republic, despised our institutions,
and sought in many ways to aid the South.
Mr. Gladstone announced that Jefferson Davis had
made a nation and he did not believe the restoration of
the American Union by force attainable.
From the Vatican came words of encourgement for
the South.
It was declared that the North was fighting for
empire and the South for independence.
The Marquis of Salisbury said : “ The people of the
South are the natural allies of England. The North
keeps an opposition shop in the same department of
trade as ourselves.”
�( 14 )
Some of their statesmen declared that the subjuga
tion of the South by the North would be a calamity to
the world.
Louis Napoleon was another enemy, and he endea
vored to establish a monarchy in Mexico to the end
that the great North might be destroyed. But the
patience, the uncommon common sense, the statesman
ship of Lincoln—in spite of foreign hate and Northern
division—triumphed over all. And now we forgive
all foes. Victory makes forgiveness easy.
Lincoln was, by nature, a diplomat. He knew the
art of sailing against the wind. He had as much
shrewdness as is consistent with honesty. He under
stood, not only the rights of individuals, but of nations.
In all his correspodence with other governments he
neither wrote nor sanctioned a line which afterwards
was used to tie his hands. In the use of perfect
English he easily rose above his advisers and all his
fellows.
No one claims that Lincoln did all. He could have
done nothing without the great and splendid generals
in the field ; and the generals could have done
nothing without their armies. The praise is due
to all—to the private as much as to the officer ; to the
lowest who did his duty, as much as to the highest.
My heart goes out to the brave private as much as
to the leader of the host.
But Lincoln stood at the centre and with infinite
patience, with consummate skill, with the genius of
goodness directed, cheered, consoled, and conquered.
VI.
Slavery was the cause of the war, and slavery was
the perpetual stumbling-block. As the war went on
question after question arose—questions that could not
be answered by theories. Should we hand back the
�( 15 )
slave to his master, when the master was using his
slave to destroy the Union? If the South was right
slaves were property, and by the laws of war anything
that might be used to the advantage of the enemy
might be confiscated by us. Events did not wait for
discussion. General Butler denominated the negro as
a “ contraband.” Congress provided that the property
of the rebels might be confiscated.
Lincoln moved along this line.
Each step was delayed by Northern division, but
every step was taken in the same direction.
First, Lincoln offered to execute every law, including
the most infamous of all ; second, to buy the slaves of
the border states ; third, to confiscate the property of
rebels ; fourth, to treat slaves as contraband of war ;
fifth, to use slaves for the purpose of putting down the
rebellion ; sixth, to arm these slaves and clothe them
in the uniform of the Republic ; seventh, to make them
citizens, and allow them to stand on an equality with
their white brethren under the flag of the Republic.
During all these years, Lincoln moved with the
people—with the masses, and every step he took has
been justified by the considerate judgment of mankind.
VII.
Lincoln not only watched the war, but kept his hand
on the political pulse. In 1863 a tide set in against the
administration. A Republican meeting was to be held
in Springfield, Illinois, and Lincoln wrote a letter to
be read at this convention. It was in his happiest vein.
It was a perfect defence of his administration, including
the Proclamation of Emancipation. Among other
things he said: “ But the proclamation, as law, either
is valid or it is not valid. If it is not valid it needs no
retraction, but if it is valid it cannot be retracted, any
more than the dead can be brought to life.”
�( 16 )
To the Northern Democrats who said they would not
fight for negroes, Lincoln replied: “ Some of them
seem willing to fight for you—but no matter.”
Of negro soldiers : “ But negroes, like other people,
act upon motives. Why should they do anything for
us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake
their lives for us they must be prompted by the
strongest motive—even by the promise of freedom.
And the promise, being made, must be kept.”
There is one line in this letter that will give it
immortality: “The Father of waters again goes un
vexed to the sea.” This line is worthy of Shakespeare.
Another: “ Among freemen there can be no suc
cessful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.”
He draws a comparison between the white men
against us and the black men for'Us : “And then there
will be some black men who can remember that with
silent tongue and clenched teeth and steady eye and
well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to
this great consummation ; while I fear there will be
some white ones unable to forget that with malignant
heart and deceitful speech they strove to hinder it.”
Under the influence of this letter, the love of
country, of the Union, and above all the love of liberty,
took possession of the heroic North.
The Republican party became the noblest organisa
tion the world has ever seen.
There was the greatest moral exaltation ever known.
The spirit of liberty took possession of the people.
The masses became sublime.
To fight for yourself is good.
To fight for others is grand.
To fight for your country is noble.
To fight for the human race, for the liberty of land
and brain, is nobler still.
�( 17 )
As a matter of fact, the defenders of slavery had
sown the seeds of their own defeat. They dug the pit
in which they fell. Clay and Webster and thousands
of others had by their eloquence made the Union
almost sacred. The Union was the very tree of life,
the source and stream and sea of liberty and law.
For the sake of slavery millions stood by the Union,
for the sake of liberty millions knelt at the altar of the
Union ; and this love of the Union is what, at last,
overwhelmed the Confederate hosts.
It does not seem possible that only a few years ago
our Constitution, our laws, our Courts, the Pulpit and
the Press defended and upheld the institution of
slavery—that it was a- crime to feed the hungry, to give
water to the lips of thirst, shelter to a woman flying
from the whip and chain !
The old flag still flies, the stars are there—the stains
have gone.
VIII.
Lincoln always saw the end. He was unmoved by
the storms and currents of the times. He advanced
too rapidly for the conservative politicians, too slowly
for the radical enthusiasts. He occupied the line of
safety, and held by his personality—by the force of
his great character, by his charming candor—the
masses on his side.
The soldiers thought of him as a father.
All who had lost their sons in battle felt that they
had his sympathy—felt that his face was as sad as
theirs. They knew that Lincoln was actuated by one
motive, and that his energies were bent to the attain
ment of one end—the salvation of the Republic.
Success produces envy, and envy often ends in
conspiracy.
In 1864 many politicians united against him. It is
not for me to criticise their motive or their actions®
�.
( 18 )
It is enough to say that the magnanimity of Lincoln
towards those who had deserted and endeavored to
destroy him, is without parallel in the political history
of the world. This magnanimity made his success not
only possible, but certain.
During all the years of war Lincoln stood, the
embodiment of mercy, between discipline and death.
He pitied the imprisoned and condemned. He took
the unfortunate in his arms, and was the friend even
of the convict. He knew temptation’s strength—the
weakness of the will—and how in fury’s sudden flame
the judgment drops the scales, and passion—blind and
deaf—usurps the throne.
Through all the years Lincoln will be known as
Lincoln the Loving, Lincoln the Merciful.
Lincoln had the keenest sense of humor, and always
saw the laughable side even of disaster. In his humor
there was logic and the best of sense. No matter how
complicated the question, or how embarrassing the
situation, his humor furnished an answer, and a door
of escape.
Vallandingham was a friend of the South, and did
what he could to sow the seeds of failure. In his
opinion everything, except rebellion, was unconstitu
tional.
He was arrested, convicted by a court martial, and
sentenced to imprisonment in Fort Warren.
There was doubt about the legality of the trial, and
thousands in the North denounced the whole proceed
ings as tyrannical and infamous. At the same time
millions demanded that Vallandingham should be
punished.
Lincoln’s humor came to the rescue. He disapproved
of the findings of the court, changed the punishment,
and ordered that Mr. Vallandingham should be sent to
his friends in the South.
�( 19 )
Those who regarded the act as unconstitutional
almost forgave it for the sake of its humor.
Horace Greeley always had the idea that he was
greatly superior to Lincoln, and for a long time he
insisted that the people of the North and the people of
the South desired peace. He took it upon himself to
lecture Lincoln, and felt that he in some way was
responsible for the conduct of the war. Lincoln, with
that wonderful sense of humor, united with shrewd
ness and profound wisdom, told Greeley that, if the
South really wanted peace, he (Lincoln) desired the
same thing, and was doing all he could to bring it
about. Greeley insisted that a commissioner should
be appointed, with authority to negotiate with the
representatives of the Confederacy. This was Lincoln’s
opportunity. He authorised Greeley to act as such
commissioner. The great editor felt that he was
caught. For a time he hesitated, but finally went, and
found that the Southern commissioners were willing
to take into consideration any offers of peace that
Lincoln might make. The failure of Greeley was
humiliating, and the position in which he was left
absurd.
Again the humor of Lincoln had triumphed.
Lincoln always tried to do things in the easiest way.
He did not waste his strength. He was not particular
about moving along straight lines. He did not tunnel
the mountains. He was willing to go around, and he
reached the end desired as a river reaches the sea.
IX.
One of the most wonderful things ever done by
Lincoln was the promotion of General Hooker. After
the battle of Fredericksburg, General Burnside found
great fault with Hooker, and wished to have him
removed from the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln
disapproved of Burnside’s order, and gave Hooker the
�( 20 )
command of the Army of the Potomac. He then wrote
Hooker this memorable letter : “ I have placed you at
the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I
have done this upon what appears to me to be sufficient
reasons, and yet I think it best for you to know that
there are some things in regard to which I am not quite
and ^175
L0U*
1 b61ieVe
t0 b* a brave
and skilful soldier—which, of course, I like. I
a so. believe you do not mix politics with your profession-m which you are right. You have confidence
which is a valuable, if not an indispensable, quality.
You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds
does good rather than harm; but I think that during
General Burnside’s command of the army you have
taken counsel of your ambition to thwart him as much
as you could in which you did a great wrong to the
country and to a most meritorious and honorable
brother, officer. I have heard, in such a way as to
believe
of your recently saying that both the army
and the Government needed a dictator. Of course it
was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given
you command. Only those generals who gain
successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you
is military successes, and I will risk the dictatorship.
The Government will support you to the best of its
ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done
and will do for all commanders. I much fear that the
spirit which you have aided to infuse into the army
of criticising their commander and withholding con
fidence in him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist
you, so far as I can, to put it down. Neither you, nor
Napoleon, if he were alive, can get any good out of
an army while such a spirit prevails in it. And now
beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but with
energy and sleepless vigilence go forward and give us
victories.”
�( 21 )
This letter has—in my judgment, no parallel. The
mistaken magnanimity is almost equal to the pro
phecy t “ I much fear that the spirit which you have
aided to infuse into the army of criticising their com
mander and withholding confidence in him, will now
turn upon you.”
Chancellorsville was the fulfilment.
Mr. Lincoln was a statesman.
The great stumbling-block—the great obstruction
in Lincoln’s way, and in the way of thousands, was
the old doctrine of States Rights.
This doctrine was first established to protect slavery.
It was clung to to protect the iner-State slave trade.
It became sacred in connection with the Fugitive
Slave Law, and it was finally used as the corner-stone
of Secession.
This doctrine was never appealed to m defence of
the right—always in support of the wrong. For many
years politicians upon both sides of these questions
endeavored to express the exact relations existing
between the Federal Government and the States, and I
know of no one who succeeded, except Lincoln. In
his message of 1861, delivered on July 4, the definition
is given, and it is perfect: “Whatever concerns the
whole should be confined to the whole—to the General
Government. Whatever concerns only the State should
be left exclusively to the State.”
When that definition is realised in practice, this
country becomes a Nation. Then we shall know
that the first allegiance of the citizen is not to hi&
State, but to the Republic, and that the first duty of
the Republic is to protect the citizen, not only when in
other lands, but at home, and that this duty cannot be
discharged by delegating it to the States.
�( 22 )
„ Lincoln believed in the sovereignty of the people_
in the supremacy of the nation—in the territorial
integrity of the Republic.
XI.
A great actor can be known only when he has
assumed the principal character in a great drama,
ossibly the greatest actors have never appeared, and
it may be that the greatest soldiers have lived the lives
of perfect peace. Lincoln assumed the leading part
m the greatest drama ever acted upon the stage of a
continent.
His criticism of military movements, his correspon
dence with his generals and others on the conduct of
the war, show that he was at all times master of the
situation—that he was a natural strategist, that he
appreciated the difficulties and advantages of every
kind, and that in “ the still and mental ” field of
war he stood the peer of any man beneath the flag.
Had McClellan followed his advice, he would have
taken Richmond.
# Had Hooker acted in accordance with his sugges
tions, Chancellorsville would have been a victory for
the Nation.
Lincoln’s political prophecies were all fulfilled.
We know now that he not only stood at the top,
but that he occupied the centre, from the first to the
last, and that he did this by reason of his intelli
gence, his humor, his philosophy, his courage, and
his patriotism.
In passion s storm he stood unmoved, patient, just
and candid. In his brain there was no cloud, and
in his heart no hate. He longed to save the South
as well as the North, to see the Nation one and
free.
He lived until the end was known.
�( 23 )
He lived until the Confederacy was dead until
Lee surrendered, until Davis fled, until the doors of
Libby Prison were opened, until the Republic was
supreme.
A
He lived until Lincoln and Liberty were united
for ever.
n
.
He lived to cross the desert—to reach the palms
of victory—to hear the murmured music of the wel
come waves.
He lived until all loyal hearts were his—until the
history of his deeds made music in the soul of men
—until he knew that on Columbia’s Calendar of
worth and fame his name stood first.
He lived until there remained nothing for him to
to do as great as he had done.
What he did was worth living for, worth dying
for.
.
He lived until he stood in the midst of universa
Joy, beneath the outstretched wings of Peace the
foremost man in all the world.
And then the horror came. Night fell on noon. The
Savior of the Republic, the breaker of chains, the
liberator of millions, he who had “ assured freedom to
the free,” was dead.
Upon his brow Fame placed the immortal wreath.
For the first time in the history of the world a Nation
bowed and wept.
The memory of Lincoln is the strongest, tenderest
tie that binds all hearts together now, and holds all
States beneath a Nation’s flag.
XII.
Strange mingling of mirth and tears, of the tragic
and grotesque, of cap and crown, of Socrates and
Democritus, of ^Esop and Marcus Aurelius, of all that
is gentle and just, humorous and honest, merciful,
�( 24 )
wise, laughable, lovable and divine, and all consecrated
to the use of man ; while through all, and over all
were an overwhelming sense of obligation, of chivalric
loyalty to truth, and upon all, the shadow of the tragic
Nearly all the great historic characters are impossible
monsters disproportioned by flattery, or by calumny
deformed. We know nothing of their peculiarities, or
nothing but their peculiarities. About these oaks there
clings none of the earth of humanity.
Washington is now only a steel engraving. About
the real man who lived and loved and hated and
schemed, we know but little. The glass through which
we look at him is of such high magnifying power that
the features are exceedingly indistinct.
Hundreds of people are now engaged in smoothing
out the lines of Lincoln’s face—forcing all features to
the common mould-so that he may be known, not as
he really was, but, according to their poor standard, as
he should have been.
Lincoln was not a type. He stands alone-no
ancestors, no fellows, and no successors.
He had the advantage of living in a new country of
social equality, of personal freedom, of seeing in the
horizon of his future the perpetual star of hope He
preserved his individuality and his self-respect* He
knew and mingled with men of every kind ; and, after
all, men are the best books. He became acquainted
with the ambitions and hopes of the heart, the means
used to accomplish ends, the springs of action and the
seeds of thought. He was familiar with nature, with
actual. things, with common facts. He loved and
appreciated the poem of the year, the drama of the
seasons.
In a new country a man must possess at least three
virtues—honesty, courage, and generosity. In culti-
�( 25 )
vated society, cultivation is often more important than
soil. A well-executed counterfeit passes more readily
than a blurred genuine. It is necessary only to observe
the unwritten laws of society—to be honest enough to
keep out of prison, and generous enough to subscribe
in public—where the subscription can be defended as
an investment.
In a new country, character is essential : in the old,
reputation is sufficient. In the new they find what a
man really is ; in the old, he generally passes for what
he resembles. People separated only by distance are
much nearer together than those divided by the walls
of caste.
It is no advantage to live in a great city, where
poverty degrades and failure brings despair. The
fields are lovelier than paved streets, and the great
forests than walls of brick. Oaks and elms are more
poetic than steeples and chimneys.
In the country is the idea of home. There you see
the rising and setting sun; you 1 become acquainted
with the stars and clouds. The constellations are your
friends. You hear the rain on the roof and listen to
the rhythmic sighing of the winds. You are thrilled
by the resurrection called Spring, touched and sad
dened by Autumn—the grace and poetry of death.
Every field is a picture, a landscape ; every landscape
a poem ; every flower a tender thought, and every
forest a fairyland. In the country you preserve your
identity—your personality. There you are an aggre
gation of atoms ; but in the city you are only an atom
of an aggregation.
In the country you keep your cheek close to the
breast of Nature. You are calmed and ennobled by
the space, the amplitude and scope of earth and sky—
by the constancy of the stars.
�(
)
Lincoln never finished his education. To the night
■of his death he was a pupil, a learner, an inquirer,
a seeker after knowledge. You have no idea how
many men are spoiled by what is called education.
For the most part, colleges are places where pebbles
are polished and diamonds are dimmed. If Shake
speare had graduated at Oxford, he might have been a
quibbling attorney, or a hypocritical parson.
Lincoln was a great lawyer. There is nothing
shrewder in the world than intelligent honesty.
Perfect candor is sword and shield.
He understood the nature of man. As a lawyer
he endeavored to get at the truth, at the very heart of a
case. He was not willing even to deceive himself.
No matter what his interest said, what his passion
demanded, he was great enough to find the truth and
strong enough to pronounce judgment against his own
desires.
Lincoln was a many-sided man, acquainted with
smiles and tears, complex in brain, single in heart,
direct as light; and his words, candid as mirrors^ gave
the perfect image of his thought. He was never
afraid to ask—never too dignified to admit that he did
not know. No man had keener wit, or kinder humor,
It may be that humor is the pilot of reason. People
without humor drift unconsciously into absurdity.
Humor sees the other side—stands in the mind like a
spectator, a good-natured critic, and gives its opinion
before judgment is reached. Humor goes with good
nature, and good nature is the climate of reason.
In anger, reason abdicates and malice extinguishes the
torch. Such was the humor of Lincoln that he could
tell even unpleasant truths as charmingly as most men
can tell the things we wish to hear.
He was not solemn. Solemnity is a mask worn by
�( 27 )
ignorance and hypocrisy—is is the preface, prologue,
and index to the cunning or the stupid.
He was natural in his life and thought—master
of the story-teller’s art, in illustration apt, in application
perfect, liberal in speech, shocking Pharisees and
prudes, using any word that wit could disinfect.
He was a logician. His logic shed light. In its
presence the obscure became luminous, and the most
complex and intricate political and metaphysical knots
seemed to untie themselves. Logic is the necessary
product of intelligence and sincerity. It cannot be
learned. It is the child of a clear head and a good
heart.
Lincoln was candid, and with candor often deceived
the deceitful. He had intellect without arrogance,
genius without pride, and religion without cant—that
is to say, without bigotry and without deceit.
He was an orator—clear, sincere, natural. He did
not pretend. He did not say what he thought others
thought, but what he thought.
If you wish to be sublime you must be natural—you
must keep close to the grass. You must sit by the
fireside of the heart : above the clouds it is too cold.
You must be simple in your speech : too much polish
suggests insincerity.
The great orator idealises the real, transfigures the
common, makes even the inanimate throb and thrill,
fills the gallery of the imagination with statues and
pictures perfect in form and color, brings to light the
gold hoarded by memory the miser, shows the glittering
coin to the spendthrift hope, enriches the brain,
ennobles the heart, and quickens the conscience.
Between his lips words bud and blossom.
If you wish to know the difference between an
orator and an elocutionist—between what is felt and
what is said—between what the heart and brain can
�( 28 )
do together and what the brain can do alone—read
Lincoln’s wondrous speech at Gettysburg, and then the
speech of Edward Everett.
The oration of Lincoln will never be forgotten. It
will live until languages are dead and lips are dust.
The speech of Everett will never be read.
The elocutionists believe in the virtue of voice, the
sublimity of syntax, the majesty of long sentences,
and the genius of gesture.
The orator loves the real, the simple, the natural.
He places the thought above all. He knows that the
greatest ideas should be expressed in shortest words_
that the greatest statues need the least drapery.
Lincoln was an immense personality—firm but not
obstinate. Obstinacy is egotism—firmness, heroism.
He influenced others without effort, unconsciously;
and they submitted to him as men submit to nature—
unconsciously. He was severe with himself, and for
that reason lenient with others.
He appeared to apologise for being kinder than his
fellows.
He did merciful things as stealthily as others com
mitted crimes.
Almost ashamed of tenderness, he said and did the
noblest words and deeds with that charming con
usion, that awkwardness, that is the perfect grace of
fmodesty.
As a noble man wishing to pay a small debt to a
poor neighbor, reluctantly offers a hundred dollar bill
and asks for change, fearing that he may be suspected
either of making a display of wealth or a pretence of
payment, so Lincoln hesitated to show his wealth of
goodness, even to the best he knew.
A great man stooping, not wishing to make his
fellows feel that they were small or mean.
�( 29 )
By his candor, by his kindness, by his perfect free
dom from restraint, by saying what he thought, and
saying it absolutely in his own way, he made it not
only possible, but popular, to be natural. He was the
■enemy of mock solemnity, of the stupidly respectable,
of the cold and formal.
He wore no official robes either on his body or his
soul. He never pretended to be more or less, or other,
or different, from what he really was.
He had the unconscious naturalness of Nature's self.
He built upon the rock. The foundation was secure
and broad. The structure was a pyramid, narrowing
as it rose. Through days and nights of sorrow, through
years of grief and pain, with unswerving purpose,
‘ with malice towards none, with charity for all,” with
infinite patience, with unclouded vision, he hoped and
toiled. Stone after stone was laid, until at last the
Proclamation found its place. On that the goddess
stands.
He knew others, because perfectly acquainted with
himself. He cared nothing for place, but everything
for principle ; nothing for money, but everything for
independence. Where no principle was involved,
easily swayed ; willing to go slowly, if in the right
direction ; sometimes willing to stop ; but he would not
go back, and he would not go wrong.
He was willing to wait ; he knew that the event was
not waiting, and that fate was not the fool of chance.
He knew that slavery had defenders, but no defence,
and that they who attack the right must wound them
selves.
He was neither tyrant nor slave ; he neither knelt
nor scorned.
With him, men were neither great nor small—they
were right or wrong.
�( 30 )
Through manners, clothes, titles, rags and race he
saw the real—that which is. Beyond accident, policy,
compromise and war he saw the end.
He was patient as Destiny, whose undecipherable
hieroglyphs were so deeply graven’on his sad and
tragic fate.
Nothing discloses real character like the use of
power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most
people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know
what a man really is, give him power. This is the
supreme test. It is the glory of Lincoln that, having
almost absolute power, he never abused it, except on
the side of mercy.
Wealth could not purchase, power could not awe
this divine, this loving man.
He knew no fear except the fear of doing wrong.
Hating slavery, pitying the master—seeking to conquer,
not persons, but prejudices—he was the embodiment of
the self-denial, the courage, the hope, and the nobility
of a Nation.
He spoke not to inflame, not to upbraid, but tn
convince.
He raised his hands, not to strike, but in benediction.
He longed to pardon.
He loved to see the pearls of joy on the cheeks of a
wife whose husband he had rescued from death.
Lincoln was the grandest figure of the fiercest civil
war. He is the gentlest memory of oui* world.
��WROKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
1 0
Superior edition, in cloth
1 6
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Triai of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by
J. M. Wheeler
0 4
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
0 3
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN d
0 3
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE
..
0 3
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
0 2
TRUE RELIGION ...
0 2
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
0 2
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr Field
0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Ooudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
THE DYING CREED
0 2
DO I BLASPHEME ?
0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE "
0 2
SOCIAL SALVATION
0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? Part II”'
0 2
ART AND MORALITY
0 2
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
0 1
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
0 1
THE GREAT MISTAKE
0 1
LIVE TOPICS
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
0 1
REAL BLASPHEMY
0 1
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
0 1
Read THE FREETHINKER, edited by G.W. Foote.
Sixteen Pages.
Price One Penny.
Published every Thursday.
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Abraham Lincoln : an oration
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Wroks [sic] by Col. R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 3a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N323
Subject
The topic of the resource
USA
History
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Abraham Lincoln : an oration), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Abraham Lincoln
NSS
United States-History
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c0a78d32c32a678a4a95958fffb1b142.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=e7jaPfEvtVzmBESBqdGQoqKJSU%7EnfdMIN4xvFN2g7H-G7wnHpXZATS0%7EWinSFBbx9PI%7EZWTxtLCT-znZSAav5NQnI1xMIoMzyw8%7E9xIgEOyk9GCjRUANDGEbzHEfCLUDl-6v9IVKdNQS%7E-SrsUQjpMnIj0Bhkhe8tnEkVO35EJ1OWXl8iCHMl2ddBdytJ5MMFNeppICIC0NqdKKb4MUlIuNnIxn713%7EMJk8fQ6LGWzhLS90%7ER--3RlyYzq24MieriG8QZGkDMvCQ0wVWnzyh01vtD8Bgv5VgohRJcS1HEkU9uIWUwSAz0KxhN9CPddHlWB7Y2WLY0IzUUG8ibPhQHw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f708ad88e05469109d8fb1d630bd4c2c
PDF Text
Text
I
.fEW J'lt & ■»""-U*1
JW<-
LITTELL’S LIVING AGE.-NO. 1134.-24 FEBRUARY, 1866.
From the Fortnightly Review.
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
concerned would be in certain expectation
of it, were it not for the general belief that
M. Taine speaks of certain conditions there are in America paramount domestic
under which society becomes nothing more reasons against the adoption of such a polithan tm commerce d’affronts. Whilst .there cy. Such a course would increase the
is reason to hope that the relations be financial burdens, already very heavy, un
tween man and man, or class and class, in der which the country is now struggling;
any society of the, present day, cannot be Msvould indefinitely postpone that return to
properly characterised as an interchange of a settled and normal condition of things
insults, it is to be feared that the phrase is, which trade always craves, and especially
to a sad degree, expressive of the relations after the losses consequent upon war; it
subsisting between nations; Here the skies would call again from their homes the sol
seem always angry, and the volleys of can diers who, after the wear and tear of four
non alternate only with the hurtling of years of hardship and danger, are desirous
recriminations. The historian who shall of rest; it would cost more than any prob
live when there is a community of nations, able result of a foreign war could repay;
will probably, in reading the Blue Books of it would involve the possibility of defeat,
these years, think of Saurian growings which would imply a humiliating downfall
and gnashings in primaeval swamps. It is from the position and prestige which the
therefore with a natural anxiety that one of United States has gained by the thorough
the leading nations is seen holding a brand, suppression of the gigantic rebellion that
and hesitating whether, and whither, to threatened its existence. Nevertheless, con
throw it. It is undeniable that the United vinced as the writer himself is, by these and
States stands in this attitude at the pres higher considerations, that it would be
ent moment, and that the world has reason wrong for the United States to enter upon
to await with profound solicitude the deci a war with any foreign power, he is equally
sions of the present Congress as to the foreign' convinced that there are other considera
policy to be adopted by that nation. I tions calculated to tempt the present Gov
cannot conceive, of a, legislative assembly ernment at Washington to an opposite
gathered under more solemn circumstances course, some of which may be briefly stated
than those which surround this Congress, or here.
of one holding in itself more important
It is an old idea with rulers that, in cer
issues.
tain conditions, a foreign war is conducive
Formation, material expansion, centrali to the health of a nation, — an idea which
sation, and an ambition to lead in the, old countries have outgrown, but one that
affairs of the world, may be traced in his is sure to have powerful advocates in a
tory as the successive embryonic phases young_one. A civil war, says Lord Bacon,
through which nations pass. Unfortunately is like the heat of a fever; a foreign one,, is
history attests also many “ arrests ” on this like the heat of exercise. It need be no
line of development. America, however, longer a secret that, in the few months suc
has thus far advanced well, and has now ceeding the bombardment of Fort Sumter,
reached the last form that precedes a set and preceding the actual determination,
tled nationality. Her foreign policy, hith to coerce the South into the Union by
erto relatively of the least, now becomes of military power, there was a powerful influ
the first importance; for while it seems inev ence at Washington seeking to superinduce
itable that she should now be tempted to a war with England, with the object of
aspire to a leading position in the world, uniting the discordant parties and sections
the temptation is reinforced by some pro by a direct appeal to the patriotism of both.
vocations from without, and by certain This concession to the anti-English senti
strong inducements from within. The con ment— which, for reasons, to be hereafter
ditions for a war policy are so obvious that stated, was hitherto confined to the South
I have little doubt the nations immediately and its ally, the Northern Democratic party
THIRD 3ERIES. LIVING AGE. VOL. XXXL
1475.
�546 ,
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
— seemed a fine card to play at that junc
ture ; and if the Trent affair could have
occurred sooner than it did, that card might
have been played. That it was not, at any
rate, is due to the moral character of Mr.
Lincoln, and to the strong friendship for
England of the Chairman of the Senatorial
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Hon.
Charles Sumner. It was plain, too, that
New England, the centre of friendship for
England at that time, would permit no war
to be undertaken on such immoral grounds,
and at the same time that she was deter
mined to make the crisis that had come an
occasion for settling the slavery question
for ever. Thus the foreign war project for
evading the national emergency was smoth
ered. It was essentially a pro-slavery plan
— though it might have encountered a pow
erful opposition from those Confederates of
Virginia and the Carolinas who cared more
for separation than for slavery — and had
it succeeded in uniting the North and
South, slavery would to-day be entering
upon a new lease of existence instead of
being abolished.
Just now the same temptation recurs.
The status of the negro in the South is a
.-subject for agitations and divisions nearly
as .fierce as those which preceded and re
sulted in the civil war. The South and its
old ally, the Democratic party in the North,
are demanding the return of the Southern
States with their governments still commit
ted exclusively to the whites : the Northern
Republicans bitterly oppose this, maintain
ing that.the humiliated slaveholders cannot
be trusted to legislate justly for the blacks,
without whose aid (in the declared opinion
of President Lincoln) the rebellion could
not have been suppressed. The issue is
most important; for, once restored to the
position of equal States, - the Southern
legislatures . could — providing only that
they did not contravene technically the
law against chattel slavery — enact a sys
tem of serfdom, and retain the “ Black
Codes,” which prohibit the education and
Srevent the elevation;of the negroes, the
forth being powerless to interfere unless
another war should arise to arm it with the
abnormal right, which it. now has, to con
trol the section it has ;just conquered.
The security proposed by the Northern Re
publicans is to give the negroes votes, which
the . Southerners and the. Democrats furi
ously oppose. It will ,be seen at once that
.this political situation necessitates the con
tinuance of a bitter sectional strife. The
. arguments of the Southern party about the
constitutional rights of States to regulate
their own suffrage naturally provoke taunts
concerning their four years’ effort to over
throw the constitution; their talk about the
inferiority of the negro leads their antago
nists to place the barbarities of Anderson
ville prison by the side of the long patience
of the negro ; the alleged “ unfitness of the
negro to vote ” is replied to with the tu
quoque based on the disloyalty of the
whites; and so long as this issue is before
the country, the Northern press naturally
parades every current instance of inhuman
ity to the negro, and every expression of
hatred to the Yankees, of which its corre
spondents easily find enough in the South.
All this of course wakes an angry and de
fiant spirit there ; and thus the country is
relegated to the dissension and agitation
about the negro which had prevailed with
out intermission for more than a generation
before the war.
There is no doubt that the late President
Lincoln foresaw this issue, and he has left
on record, in a letter recently published,
his determination to have ended the negro
agitation for ever by demanding equal
rights in the seceded States for the ne
gro. But President Johnson is a very
different man. For more than thirty years
a Southern slave-holder, a Democratic poli
tician, and a steady voter in the Congress
against all New England ideas, he never
theless— simply from a pride in the old
flag — opposed his own section. He vigor
ously resisted the rebellion, though it can
scarcely be said that he clung to the North.
The North rewarded his constancy by elect
ing him to the Vice-Presidency. But,now
that the convulsion is over, he and the
country are discovering that sudden chan
ges are rarely 'thorough. So, in the present
controversy on negro-suffrage, President
Johnson takes the side that might be expect
ed of a Tennessean Democrat, and opposes
the party which elected him. Of course
his cabinet are with him. Nevertheless
President Johnson and his cabinet see that
either by conceding the last hope of slave
ry — “a white man’s government ” — or by
some other means, this controversy must ter
minate, at least for the present, in order
that reconstruction, clamorously demanded
by the national exchequer and by trade,
may take place.
If it has been determined that negro-suf
frage shall not be conceded, what “ other
means ” remain ? Suppose some great and
overpowering national emergency were to
occur— one involving the national pride or
interest — would it not at once divert at
tention from the sectional issue ? If the
�JjjaHfrffii' jwiiuiriiiwij
»
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
I
547
Northern and the Southern man should fight mise of the negro questibn; and if their Gov
side by side for a common cause, against a ernment should attempt to bring on a for
common foe, for some years—the longer eign war for the purpose of suppressing the
the better — would not old differences be agitation of that question, there would not
healed ? And if to carry on such a war be wanting clear-headed men to repeat
Southern States as well as Northern must throughout the country the story of how
furnish quotas of men and money, and raise the original colonies compromised on the
crops for food, then Southern States must be negro question in ord er that they might form
at once reconstituted; and to effect this at a Union “for the common defence,” — that
once, must not the country be persuaded to ■ is, present an unbroken front to George III.
compromise on the negro-suffrage question ? should he seek to subjugate them,—and
The influence at Washington—I need how that compromise has proved to have
not mention names — which four years ago been pregnant with wrongs and agonies
*
urged these considerations to prevent utter which make the tea-tax of our fathers ridic
rupture between North and South, survives ulous. To keep off King George they
to suggest them as furnishing a possible es bowed to King Slavery: their posterity, still
cape from the dilemma of the administra groaning under the terrible results of that
tion which is hardly strong enough to en “policy,” will be very unlikely to extempor
counter the present Congress—the most ise a King George for the purpose of re
radical one that has ever assembled • in peating the blunder. When, however, the
America. And to this influence is now add restoration of the Southern people and lead
ed another, urging a new classof considera ers, and the re-pledging them to the Union,
tions in favour of a foreign war .; chiefly are added to the first consideration, the
this: there are a number of able leading men North-West, to whose prosperity the loyalty
in the South, each influential in his com of the Mississippi river and of both its banks
munity, who are now in disgrace, and who, to the Gulf is esseMQl may not prove to be
if the country settles down to peace, have (^inflexible virtue.
A third reason why a foreign war might
nothing left but to live on in obscurity, una
ble to hold office, and without anything to not be unwelcQme to the Washington Gov
mitigate the deep sense of humiliation or the ernment is, that it has now a large army al
wounds of pride. The flag at which Lee, ready collected and to a certain extent
Beauregard, Johnstone, Mosby, and many drilled, which it is deemed inexpedient, for
others struck, can float only to bring a shad reasous connected with the internal condi
ow upon them. The greatest of them has tion of the country, to dissolve at once, and
already hidden himself in a fourth-class col which is likely to be demoralized if it has
lege. Already the North asks, Which shall nothing to do. Nor would the people of
we prefer, the negro who defended, or the America be willing to support a large army
white who trampled upon, our flag ? A and navy in idleness. And in this connec
foreign war would be the rehabilitation of tion it may be said that whilst the rank and
these Southern men. Indeed, emigration file of the Americm military force would be
seems to be almost the only alternative glad to remain, for a loDg time certainly, in
which would enable them to emerge from their homes, a war would be more welcome to
their disgrace with the American people, the vast number of officers whom the late con
recover position, and claim rights as defend flict raised from obscurity, and for the most
ers of the nation. Moreover, it is not at all part created, and to the large majority of
certain but that they mi"ht— particularly- whom peace is sure to bring the obscurity
in the case of a war with England — be able which it brought them six years ago. The
, ■ to cast a part of the cloud under which they prominent generals of the United States
now sit upon the people and leaders of New were before the war railroad-presidents, sur
' England, who have never applauded the veyors, lawyers, &c.; hardly one of them,
motto, “ Our country, right or wrong,” and excepting Fremont, had a national reputa
• who assuredly could not be brought to fight tion. It need not be a matter of wonder
with anything like the earnestness lately dis-1 that so many among them, General Grant
played in their war with slavery, in an un- ; being of the number, are already widely
necessary or a doubtful war — not at all in ; and justly quoted as favourable to a foreign I
one whose political objects would be precise war policy.
As crowning all these considerations it
ly those which are most repulsive to the
strong moral sense of that section.
must not be forgotten that the old undying
My belief is that New England and the dream of continental occupation, of which
North-West may be relied upon to oppose the “ Monroe doctrine ” is the familiar but
any undisguised postponement by compro- , inexact label, is at present producing more
�548
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
exasperations and is under fewer restraints
than ever before. The Romulus of the
United States, whoever he may have been,
did not surround the country with any fur
row, and the Remuses had not in the first
years even to leap, so long as their filibus
tering expeditions respected those bounda
ries which the average American regards as
the natural ones of his country —i.e. the
Pacific Ocean on the west, the Atlantic on
the east, the Isthmus of Panama on the south,
and the North Pole on the north. Since the
Mexican war, and in recoil from the mean
ness and criminality which led to and at
tended the seizure of Texas, there has been
in the United States a moral sentiment able
to hold in check the disposition to encroach
upon its neighbours, as those representa
tives of a Democratic administration who
met at Ostend a few years ago and pro
posed to obtain Cuba by fair means or foul,
discovered to their cost. But the moral sen
timent which would have continued to shel
ter Mexico would not find a single American to plead its applicability to Maximilian,
unless in the reverse of the obvious sense.
And since it is understood, that the exci
sion of Maximilian by the power of the Unit
ed States means the grateful self-annexation
of Mexico (in some way) to the Union, it
will be at once seen that the passion for ex
pansion and the moral sentiment of the
country jump together in a way that they
never did before. On the other hand,
whilst the desire for Canada is much feebler
than that for Mexico, the restraint of inter
national morality which would have protect
ed it has been removed by the general sense
of wrongs received at the hands of England,
and the representatives of England in Cana
da, and by a current belief that annexation
to the Union is desired by nearly all of the
French Canadians and the Irish.
Whilst these considerations are being
urged at Washington, those who are most
strongly opposed to a foreign war, and were
among the most trusted advisers of Presi
dent Lincoln — as, for example, the Chair
man of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
before alluded to — are now without the ear
of the President, and range in hostility.to
his plan of reconstruction. Of all the rea
sons that have been mentioned, the consid
eration which will weigh most strongly with
the President and his Cabinet will be the
hope of starving off the negro-agitation, and
of securing the ret urn of the Southern States
without negro-suffrage. If negro-equality
were to be placed beyond question by the
present Congress, every cloud of war would
clear away tor the present, and the Mexican
Empire would be the only thing concerning
which one could anticipate, even at a distant
period, any collision between the United
States and any nation of the Old World.
Hence the friends of peace in America are
as anxiously hoping for the settlement of the
negro question on the only basis which can
be final, and that will not remit the country
to the bitter animosities and agitations of
the past, as the friends of war are indiffer
ent to or anxious to' evade such settlement.
The particular danger is that the Congress
will decide to keep out the Southern States
without imposing negro-suffrage as a condi
tion of their return, in which case the Presi
dent might be induced to try and alter the
conditions under which the question would
come before another Congress, by seeking,
as above indicated, to weld the two sections,
and purge the South of the stain upon its
loyalty, with the fires of a foreign war. I
confess that the probabilities affecting the
question of war or peace between Ameri
ca and France or England seem to me
slightly inclining to the side of war; and I
am sure that the internal considerations
enumerated, much more than the claim
against England, or the Monroe doctrine —
whose importance in the case I am far from
undervaluing — will be the mainspring of
the war policy, if it be adopted.
The next question of interest is whether
a hostile movement, if determined upon, will
be directed against France or against Eng
land.
~
There is in America a traditional friend
liness towards France. At a celebration of
the national American Thanksgiving-day,
by Americans in Paris, December 7, the
heartiest applause was awarded to a toast
proposed by General Schofield in these
words: — “The old friendship between
France and the United States; may it be
strengthened and perpetuated ! ” At the
same festival the Hon. John Jay, the chair
man, alluded to some of the associations
which are stirred in every American’s mind
when France is mentioned. “ Our patriotic
assemblage,” he said, “ in this beautiful Capi
tol, amid the splendours of French art and
the triumphs of French science, recalls the
infancy of our country, and the various
threads of association that are so frequently
intertwined in the historic memories of
America and France. The French element
was early and widely blended with our
transatlantic blood, and it is a fact that two
of the five commissioners wdio in this city
signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 —that
treaty by which England closed the war and
recognised the American Republic — were
�<
AMERICA, FRANCj
AND ENGLAND.
\
549
of Huguenot descent. In the war now ever, his perception of a growing feeling for
closed, as in that of our Revolution, French territorial expansion among the Americans.
and American officers fought side by side, But an element of .even paramount import
and side by side in our House of Representa ance in this feeling was a dread that the
tives hang — and will continue to hang, as a American Republic might have to struggle
perpetual memento of the early friendship with powerful and hostile forms of govern
between the countries — the portraits of ment. The Monroe doctrine was really
Washington and Lafayette. The territory that for which few Europeans would give it
. of Orleans, including that vast and fertile credit — a conservative policy. Explicitly
valley extending from the gulf to the limits respecting powers already planted on that
of Missouri, was ceded to us by the First continent, it affirmed the limits of the right
Napoleon almost for a song, and there are of intervention for itself, as well as for lorstill perpetuated in its names, habits, and eign powers. It was meant to be, and was,
traditions, pleasant memories of France.” an especial check upon the westward ag
Mr. Jay did not, in Catholic France, hint gressions of American filibusters, by imwhy the Huguenots happened to be in plying that only their unjust encroachments
America; he did not bring to any rude test from aBtid could justify interference with
■of historic criticism the part played, literal- other nations. It recommended <tself to
. ly, by the Marquis de Lafayette in the first, the most thoughtful men of the last genera
or by the young French chevaliers, who en tion in the United SffieB as the means of
joyed their cigars and champagne with keeping for ever out of the Western hemi
McClellan whilst the soldiers of the Union sphere that grim political idol to which the
were being massacred before Richmond, in peace of the old world had been so often
the second revolution; neither did he in sacrificed — the “ balance of power.” It as
quire whether at that time the Emperor of sumed, indeed, the Predominance of the
the French was making proposals to Eng United States on that continent, but then
land to join him in an inte wention favoura the United States open® its arms, its lands,
ble to the South, nor remenfter the Jiisses its honours to the people of all nations.
and cries in the French Assembly which The Monroe doctrine was, then, conserva
drowned M. Pelletan’s voice when he an tive, in that it put a defiq^M check upon the
nounced the downfall of Richmond (which idea of absorbing surrounding countries, and
M. Pelletan declared — mistakenly, it would limited the United States wtheidea of pre
appear — were so loud, tha®they would be dominance. Even this may seem arrogant,
heard across the Atlantic). But, in ignor but it is difficult to see by what other means
ing such questions and crowning his address the New World could have been saved from
with tue toast “ The Empgror of the becoming the mere duplicate of the Old.
French,” Mr. Jay undoubtedly represented To permit the occupation of countries,
the general determination of his country ■ which the United States has restrained her
men to put the best construction possible self from occupying, by foreign governupon everything that France does, and their, nlents of formstessentially hostile, necessi
instinctive disposition to wink at her plain tates an injurious modification of her own.
est offences. This disposition must be con Any such Power, once admitted and estab
sidered prominently in our calculations of lished, must be Watpied; and to watch it
the probable action of the United States implies Expensive fortifications of long fron
upon the Mexican Empire. There can be tiers, standing armies, and young men sup
no doubt that if any other nation than plying them — things utterly opposed to
France had established that Empire, the end the spirit in which the American Republic
of the rebellion in -America would have been was founded. A few ships might prevent
swiftly followed by the march of Federal the landing on those shores of a Power
troops across the Rio Grande.
which, once fixed there, would require that
The Monroe doctrine was of gradual and the Union should become a centralized and
natural development. The earliest ex military nation. Thus there is no principle
pression of the sentiment out of which it that would protect California, or Texas, or
grew was given by the First Napoleon, Louisiana from French encroachment, that
when he assigned as a chief reason for dis would not haye equally have protected
posing of the territory of Orleans — the Mexico. The south-western states have
greater part of the Mississippi Valley — on only to be weak to become food for the fur
the easy terms in which President Jefferson ther growth of “the Latin race/’and the
obtained it, that it was the manifest destiny glory of its new Cmsar. Hence garrisons,
of that territory to become a portion of the .under General Weitzel, and others, are al- ■
United States. . He did but express, how- ready on the south-western border, where
�550
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
x they must stay so long as the representative
of French power stays. The best men in
America, are persuaded that it would be
more favourable to the peace of the world
if such garrisons should cease to exist,
through the removal of the occasion for
them.
‘
.
The traditional friendship of the United
States with France has undoubtedly, been
strained to the utmost by this invasion of
Mexico, and by the circumstances under
which it occurred. The subversion of the
Mexican Republic was consummated in the
face of three unequivocal declarations to
the American Minister at Paris, that the
Government then existing in Mexico should
not be altered by the invasion; it was. ac
complished at a time when, the United
States was prevented from having any voice
in the matter by the gigantic war which
tied her hands; it was for the avowed pur
pose of building up a rival power on the
North American continent; and it selected
as the representative of that flagrant de
fiance of the principle which in America
has a sanctity corresponding to that of .the
“ balance of power ” in Europe, a prince
belonging to a House more unpopular
among Americans, and more associated with
the oppression of weaker peoples, than any
that has reigned on the continent of Eu
rope.
'
If it should ultimately appear that only
by war can the empire thus attempted be
expelled, war will surely come. But there
are reasons why the United States will
strain every nerve to secure that object by
negotiation before resorting to armed force.
The friendly feeling towards France already
adverted to, the equally strong feeling
among the Irish and the Roman Catholics
generally, and the especial affection and
gratitude to France of the Southerners —
whom the foreign war, if undertaken, is ex
pected to rehabilitate —• would all make
the conflict one for which the American
people tiould have little heart. It would
require repeated refusals of any other set
tlement on the part of Louis Napoleon to
generate the amount of popular exaspera
tion requisite for the war. At the same
time I doubt not but that General Scho
field and others will sufficiently convince
the Emperor of the French that the Ameri
can Government and people will never con
sent to the permanent existence of a for
eign monarchy in Mexico. The willingness
to postpone positive action in the matter is
enhanced by the consideration that non-re
cognition and hesitation on the part of the
United States, encouraging as they do the
Juarists to continue their resistance, in
juriously affecting the Mexican loan, and
accumulating the expenditure of France,
constitute in themselves almost a forcible
attack upon Maximilian. There is also
something like a superstitious belief among
the people that no government will stand
long in Mexico until it is consigned by des
tiny to the United States; and I venture to
predict that in that direction the United
States will pursue the Micawber policy of
waiting for something to turn up, and that
this policy will be presently justified by the
evacuation of Mexico by French troops,
with Maximilian close upon their heels.
Much as I regret to say it, I cannot deny
to myself that a war with England — were
there any pretext for it, or anything to be
gained by it — would unite all sections and
classes in America more effectually than one
with any other Power. The reasons for a
war, so far as they are external, weigh
against France; the feeling., against Eng
land. The traditional feeling in America
toward England has been the reverse of
what it has been toward .France. The ori
gin of this anti-English feeling is not won
derful. NextMo those portraits of Wash
ington and Lafayette, mentioned by Mr.
Jay as hanging side by side in the Hall of
Representatives at Washington, may be
found several pictures of the American gen
erals and English generals standing in less
gentle relations to each other. But the
resuscitation and increase of the ill-feeling
toward England are due to causes which it
may be well to explain, for there have been
strong commercial and other reasons why
all animosities between the countries should
Jong ago have passed away. The jealousies
which existed after the separation of 1782,
were such as are often witnessed between
parties just near enough to each other to
make differences irritating—as the right
and left wings, or old and new schools of
Churches — but these tend to subside as the
parties become more and more set and se
cure in their respective’positions. As a
matter of fact these jealousies had almost
disappeared, and but few traces of them can
be found in the generation that preceded this.
The cause of the animosity between the
Northern and Southern States was the cause
also of the revival of an anti-English feeling
in America—Slavery. English Quakers
were among the first agitators for emancipa
tion in the Union. The first abolitionist in
America — Benjamin Lundy — had. by his
side Fanny Wright, who established in Ten. nessee a colony of liberated negroes with
the intent of proving that they were fit for
�AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
551
freedom. The Anti-Slavery Society, which to his immediate withdrawal from that city,
sprang up in the North, was materially as and a determination to proceed no farther
sisted by the English societies ; its watch into the Slave States. But meanwhile this
words were taken from the great anti-slave feeling had a strong reinforcement. The
ry leaders of England, and the utterances Irish were thronging to America by thou
of Sharpe, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and oth sands, and the Irish vote had become the
ers, were hurled with tremendous effect deciding power in every general election.
against the Southern institution. The It is a dreary fact that the Irish elected
*
Methodists were made to remember that every America^ President from 1844 to
Wesley had pronounced slavery to be “the 1860. To win that Irish vote a political
sum of all villanies ; ” and everywhere it party had simply to take the ground of
was held up as a token of the superiority violent antagonism to England: that sure
of England that her air was “ too pure for card the Democratic party had always been
a slave to breathe.” When the “ pro willing to play, and the Irish, almost with
slavery re-action,” as it is termed, set in — out exception, voted for it and its protege,
that is, when the invention of the cotton- Slavery. The denouncers oft England in
gin (about the first part of this century) the North were notoriously the leading
had gradually quadrupled the value of Democrats, who, for party purposes, fanned
slaves, and the Southern politicians began the hatred of this country which every Irish
to reverse the verdict of Washington, Jeff man was sure to bring with him to the Unit
erson, and Henry against slavery per se — ed States. I have no idea that these dema
mutterings against “ English Abolitionists” gogues really felt any sympathy with the
began to be heard. The anti-slavery ggsits, Irish, or that they knew anything whatever
in later times, of William Forster, Joseph about Ireland or its relations to England^
Sturge, George Thompson, and other distin whilst pouring out their invectives against
guished abolitionists, led to a fierce outcry “British Tyranny.” The Fenians have,
in the South that her rights and institutions perhaps, by this time learned (if a Fenian
were threatened by “ British abolitionists,” can learn anything) how much reality there
“ British emissaries,” and “ British gold.” was in this profuse Democratic sympathy
The writer can remember when every po for Ireland ; but when it is considered that
litical gathering in Virginia, his native there are five million Irish haters of Eng
State, was lashed into fury by the use of land in America, and that to obtain this
these phrases. President Jackson, in a great electoral power the Democratic party
Message to Congress, denounced the inter has committed itself to every anti-English
ference of “foreign emissaries” with the policy, it will be seen how vast an. addition
institution of slavery. Boston, because of to the hatred of the enraged pro slavery
its anti-slavery character, was scornfully men has thus been made in these later years.
called “ that English city.” The pro-slave-S In all this time the only section of Ameri
ry re-action gained a complete sway of the ca that could be called friendly to England
Union about twenty years ago ; since which was New England, such friendliness having
time, until 1860, slavery elected every Presi been frequently made the occasion for
dent, and was represented by large though denouncing thatByoup of States. The
gradually diminishing majorities in Con leading men of New England — Emerson,
gress. ,The commercial classes of the North Channing, Phillips, Sumner, Garrison, Low
were its violent adherents on account of ell — had been guests in the best English
the immense value of the Southern trade; homes, and had entertained English gen
and if any merchant became tarnished by a tlemen. The youth of the colleges and
suspici on of his pro-slavery soundness, the universities of New England were kindling
New York Herald published his name—a with enthusiasm for Carlyle, Tennyson,
proceeding which withdrew all dealings Mill, and the Brownings. Along with her
from him, and threatened him with ruin. anti-slavery influence there, went forth also
Thus a vast majority, North and South, from. New England editions of English
came to nourish a deep hostility toward books and English modes of thought; and as
England, for her policy of emancipation in the country at large was, in the years im
her own colonies, and for her alleged inter mediately preceding the war, gradually won
ference with slavery in America. How to an anti-slavery positions^ England be
furious the South was toward England was came, if not generally liked, at least the
shown in those disgraceful scenes — not to most respected of foreign nations. The
be reported here — which are said to have virtues of Queen Victoria were especially
attended the attempt of the Prince of a subject of frequent eulogium throughout
Wales to visit Richmond, Virginia, and led the North; and everything bade fair tO’
�552
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
bring about a reaction in the feeling to
wards the people over whom she ruled.
Indeed the welcome given to the Prince of
Wales at the time of which I now write,
bore witness to the existence of a friendlier
spirit regarding “ the mother country ” than
any one would have ventured to predict
a few years before. The gradual repres' sion of the anti-English prejudice cost the
' Republicans of the North a long period of
political weakness (for they too might have
bid for the Irish vote) ; it was the result of
the laborious diffusion of English literature,
and I know that it was esteemed by the
reflecting Americans to be a victory for
mankind.
The reasons why this friendliness has
been of late replaced by indignation and an
ger, in New England as well as elsewhere,
are too well known to require much elucida
tion here. I am quite sure that if England
had known as much about the United States
five years ago as she knows now, the pres
ent unhappy relations between the two coun
tries could not be subsisting. England
sneered at those who had been her friends,
who were fighting the last battles of a con
flict begun by herself, and gave her sympa
thies to those who had denounced her for
her love of freedom. Not going far enough
to do more than repress for a moment the
traditional animosity of the South, she
went far enough to fill the North with in
dignant surprise, and has left in both sec
tions a sentiment which might easily find
vent in war, if any sufficient object to be
gained thereby should present itself. If it
were England that had occupied Mexico,
war would have been declared against her
ere now; hitherto, as I have intimated,
whilst the war-interest has pointed to
France, the war feeling in America has
been toward England. The feeling of an
ger towards this country is so universal in
the United States that I believe it would
be impossible to find amongst its public
men, or even its literary men, a single ex
ception from it, — unless it be among a few
who, having constant personal intercourse
with England, know how little any quick
generalisations concerning this country, its
character, or its feeling, are likely to be
correct. A few protests against the very
general denunciation of England may have
been uttered there, or sent there by Ameri
cans resident here; but they have been lost
like chips in the rapids of Niagara. I
write these things with profound regret;
but I think the facts should be known.
There have been many instances in his
tory where such a condition of popular
feeling has required the merest pretext to
initiate war. In the present case there is
something which is already regarded in
America as a sufficient occasion for war
(were war desirable), and may be presently
regarded as an adequate cause for it. The
United States has, although so young as a
nation, presented more than a score of
“ claims ” against other nations; and in
every case, I believe, these claims have
been ultmately adjusted to its satisfaction,
though now and then refused at first. The
late claim upon the English Government
for damages committed by the Alabama —■
for those alone would probably have been
insisted upon-—meant much more than
a pecuniary matter to the Americans. As
*
foi the merchants who had suffered losses
by Confederate cruisers they were gener
ally men who a few years ago were so pa
tient and resigned when slavery was scut
tling human hearts and homes, that many
of us smiled with a grim satisfaction at their '
pathetic emotions when some defenceless
sloop with its innocent family of bags and
barrels was sent to the bottom. But withal
the Alabama was regarded as the palpable
symbol of that anti-American sentiment
which had appeared at the outbreak of the
war — a symbol which not the Kearsage,
but England alone, could sink; and the
claim for the losses by hei’ ' signified also a
reclamation for wounds rankling in every
American heart.
I have no intention of discussing here
the case of the A liibama; but the legal case
as it stands in the correspondence between
Earl Russel and Mr. Adams is so different
from the moral case which is at this moment
powerfully agitating the American mind,
that it seems to me important to mention
a few points recently laid by Mr. George
Bemis, the eminent jurist of Boston, before
his countrymen, which are more likely to
poison the future relations between the two
countries than any question raised in the
diplomatic discussion referred to. This
hitherto unwritten, or rather uncollected,
chapter in the history of the Alabama is
derived from the English Blue Boole, and
refers to the last two days’ stay of that
cruiser in British waters, after the Govern
ment had decided upon her detention, and
after the alleged telegraphic order for her
seizure had been sent to the officials of
Liverpool.
.
The Alabama left Laird’s dock in Liver
pool in July, 1862, under pretence of tak
ing out a pleasure party, and went to sea
without ever returning to that port again.
The American Minister having called upon
�I
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
553
Earl Russell for an explanation of this, be well to remind the reader here that, so
wrote home the following as the statement early as July 4th, the British Government
he received at that interview : —
"had promised Mr. Adams that the Custom
House officials at Liverpool should keep a
“ His lordship first took up the case of the strict watch on the movements of the ex
‘290’ [the name by which the Alabama was pected Alabama, and report any further in
first known], and remarked that a delay in de formation that could be collected concern
termining upon it had most unexpectedly ing her.) The Hercules proceeds to fulfil
been caused by the sudden development of her errand, but has not completed her ship
a malady of the Queen’s Advocate, Sir John
D? Harding, totally incapacitating him for the ping of men and warlike equipment until
transaction of business. This made it neces sometime during the morning of the 30th.
sary to call in other parties, whose opinion had During the forenoon, some hours before the
been at last given for the detention of the gunboat, Hercules starts, the AmcMn Consul has
but before the order got down to Liverpool the vessel placed the following note under the eye of
was gone.” *
the head of the Custom House : —
In the debate on the escape of the Ala
“U. S. Consulate, Liverpool,
bama, which occurred in the House of
July 30, 1862.
Lords, Aprd 29, 1864, Earl Russell gave f“Sir,—Referring to myaPMions communi
cation to you on the subject of the gunboat
.' this further explanation : —
■‘No. 290fl|fitted out by Mr. LaiM at Birken
“ The United States Government had no head, I beg now to inform you that she left
reason to complain of us in that respect [in the Birkenhead dock on Monday night [the
ves^mHmorningMrthe 29th] left
regard to the escape of the Alabama], because 28thl
we took all the precaution we could. We col M^M^^^ycomi^wed by the steilm-tug Hercu
les. The Hercules returned last evening, and
lected evidence, but it was not till it was com
was cruising off
plete that we felt ourselves justified in giving the her master stated
orders for the seizure of the vessel. These orders, Port Iypias, that she had six guns on board
however, were evaded. I can tell your lord ship concealed below, and was taking powder from
from a trustworthy source how theyiwere evaded!?’ another vessel.
The Hercules is now alongside the Wood_[Eaii Russell then proceeded to quote a pass
age from Fullam’s ‘ Cruise in the Confederate side landing-stage, taking on board men (forty
States War Steamer Alabama ’ (p. 5), of which or fifty), beams, evidently for guiMcarriages,
and other things, to convey down to the gunthe last paragraph ran as iollows] : —
“Our unceremonious departure [from Liver bo® A quantity of cutlasses was taken on
pool] was owing to the fact of news being receiv board on Friday last.
These circumstances all go to confirm the
ed to the effect that the customs authorities had
orders to board and detain us that morning.” representations heretofore made to you about
this vessel, in the face of which I cannot but
[Upon which Earl Russell adds] : —
“ That was the fact. However the owner regret she lias been permitted to leave the port,
,and I report them to youH^M you may take
came to be informed of it, it is impossible for
me to say. There certainly seems to have been such steps as you may deem necessary to pre
treachery on the part of some one furnishing the vent this flagrant violation of neutrality.
Respectfully, I am your obedient servant,
information.”
“ Thomas H. Dudley, Consul.
On the morning of July 29th, 1862, the “ The Collector of Customs, Liwrpool.”
Alabama put out from the Liverpool docks,
In response to this urgent appeal, Mr. E.
having on board several ladies,and gentle
men of the family of Mr. John Laird, M. P., Morgan, Surveyor of the Port, seems to
and enough of other invited guests to make have been sent to visit the Hercules. The
a show of a pleasure party, and was towed following is the record of his labours: —
by a steam-tug, the Hercules, to a point
Copy of a Letter from Mr. E. Morgan, Sur
fourteen miles from Liverpool. There the
party was transferred to the Hercules, and veyor, to the Collector, Liverpool.
“ Surveyor’s Office, 30 July, 1862.
the Commander of the Alabama made an
“Sir, — Referring to the steamer built by
appointment with the Hercules to return to
the
Liverpool and bring a large portion of hjs boat Messrs. Laird, which is suspected to be a gun
intendedfor some foreign government, —
crew to Beaumaris Bayljabout forty miles ■ “ I beg to state that since the date of my
distant from ’ the town.
The Hercules last report concerning her she has been lying
reached Liverpool on the evening of the in the Birkenhead docks fitting for sea, and
29th, and anchored for the night. (It may receiving on board coals and provisions for her
*The itaZzes here and elsewhere, in paragraphs crew.
“ She left the dock on the evening of the
quoted from the Blue Book,.are, of course, not in
the originals.
28th instant, anchored for the night in the
i
�554 .
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
Mersey, abreast the Canning Dock, and pro
ceeded out of the river on the following morn
ing, ostensibly on a trial trip, from which she
has not returned.
X “ I visited the tug Hercules this morning, as
she lay at the landing-stage at Woodside, and
strictly examined her holds, and other parts of
the vessel. She had nothing of a suspicious
character onboard —no guns, no ammunition,
or anything appertaining thereto. A consider
able number of persons, male and female, were
on deck, some of whom admitted to me
THAT THEY WERE A PORTION OF THE CREW,
AND WERE GOING TO JOIN THE ‘GUNBOAT.’
“ I have oniy to add that your directions to
keep a strict watch on the said vessel have been
carried out, and I write in the fullest confidence
that she left this port without any part of her
armament on board; she had not as much as a
single gun or musket.
“ It is said that she cruised off Point Lyna,9
1st night, which, as you are aware, is some fifty
miles from this port.
“Very respectfully,
(Signed)
“ E. Morgan, Surveyor.
The Foreign Enlistment Act says very
plainly, that every ship “ having on board,
conveying, carrying, or transporting ” any
person or persons “ enlisted, or who have
agreed or been procured to enlist, or who
shall be departing from his Majesty’s domin
ions for the purpose or with the intent of
enlisting,” “ shall and may be seized by
the Collector,” &c., (Stat. 59 George III. c.
69, s. 6). Mr. Morgan says some of the men
on the Hercules admitted to him “ that they
were a portion of the crew, and were going
to join the gunboat;” he knows that it is
a gunboat, and that it has gone off “ osten
sibly on a trial trip
and yet we find the
following letter sent to the Commissioners
of Customs in London: —
“ Custom House, Liverpool,
30th July, 1862.
“Honourable Sirs,—Immmediately on re
ceipt of the aforegoing communication [not
given, or perhaps Consul Dudley’s, qu. ?], Mr.
Morgan, Surveyor, proceeded on board the
Hercules, and I beg to enclose his report, ob
serving that he perceived no beams, such as are
alluded to by the American Consul, nor any
thing on bourd that would justify further action on
my part.
“ Respectfully,
. (Signed)
“ S. Price Edwards.”
The following • telegram was laid before
The Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s
Treasury on the morning of July 29 : —
“Liverpool, 29th July, 1862.
“ ‘ No. 290.’
“Sir, — We telegraphed you this morning
that the above vessel was leaving Liverpool.
She came out of dock last night, and steamed
down the river between 10 and 11 a. m.
“ We have reason to believe she has gone to
Queenstown.
“ Yours obediently,
“Duncan, Squarey, & Blackmore.”
Lastly, here is the record of how, when
the horse was stolen, the stable-door was
locked: —
I
“ Thirty-first July, 1862, at about |
half-past seven, p. m.
“ Telegrams were sent to the Collectors at Liver
pool and CorL [at above date] pursuant to
Treasury Order, dated 31st July, to seize the gun
boat (290) should she be within either of those ports. • ,
-- “ Similar telegrams to the officers at Beaumaris
and Holyhead were sent on the morning of the 1stAugust. They were not sent on the 3ist July,
the telegraph offices to those districts being
closed. '
“ And on the 2d August a letter was also
sent to the Collector at Cork, to detain the ves
sel should she arrive at Queenstown.”
It is noticeable that only on the evening
of the 31st of July was any word sent to
Queenstown, where, according to the tele
gram of the 29th, the American agents in
Liverpool “ have reason to believe she (the
Alabama) has gone ! ” And why was no
telegram sent to Point Lynas on the night
of the 30th ? Three days were lost when
all depended upon hours. Nay, there have
been cases when England, feeling herself
aggrieved by such ships, has — as those who
remember the cases of the Terceira and the
Heligoland know — pursued and destroyed
them even in foreign waters. The feeling
was of another kind in this case: the Ala
bama .was followed through English and
other waters, but with plaudits.
Now all this is far lrom pleasant read
ing to an American. Earl Russell him
self, as quoted above, has said that there
seems to have been “ treachery ” in the
proceeding. Nay, in “ Hansard ” for Feb
ruary 16, 1864, he will be found to have
classified it as a “ belligerent operation,”
and as “ a scandal and in some degree a re
proach to British law.” Is it wonderful
then that the United States should prefer a
claim, accompanied by a suggestion of ar
bitration, for the losses by this cruiser,
which for a time swept American ships from
the seas ? Is it wonderful that it should in
terpret the refusal to admit the claim or the
suggestion as a moral confession of judg
ment ? Is it wonderful that, irrespective of
the legal points of the case, Americans
should perceive in the above facts the ex
�janet’s
555
questions.
pression of a hostile animus toward her, as
yet unlaid, so far as any official act is con
cerned, and that they, should, with their
deep sense of wrong, be eager to seize an oc
casion for retaliation ?
The liberation of John Mitchell, at the
request of the Fenians, by President John
son, after he (Mitchell) had rendered himself
so especially odious to the people of the
United States by his treason, was attended
with no popular outcry. ' It could never
have been done had there not been a gen
eral feeling of resentment toward England.
It is a straw only, but it shows the wind to
be setting from a tempestuous quarter.
It may be supposedEhat the very causes
which have operated to alienate the
Northern States from England would im
ply a friendship for her in the South; but
besides the old animosity of the South
toward England, on account of her influence
against slavery, she feels bitterly the sym
pathy of the English masses for the North,
the cold shoulder given to her agents at the
English Court, the repeated refusals of the
British Government to join France in an in
tervention, and its refusal of any aid to
prevent the South being crushed. Thus
every class and section in America has a
grievance against England.
There are, indeed, men in that country
whose thoughts reach beyond the vexations
and passions of the moment, who may be
counted on to do what they can to prevent
such a dire calamity as a war between the
two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon
race would be.
But the fact may not
be concealed that by the refusal to submit
the case of the Alabama to arbitration, in
the present state of American feeling, the
wildest Irishman who would fire a hemi
sphere to boil his potatoes is made stronger
than the most thoughtful statesman. To a
point of ministerial dignity — for the dignity
of a nation cannot depend upon shielding
the blunders of a Cabinet or the “ treachery”
of its subordinates — it must be ascribed,
that the entrance into Parliament of such
friends of the United States as Mill, Hughes,
and Fawcett, and of Forster into the Gov
ernment does not mark the meginning of
an era of good-will between the two na
tions; that the sunken AZaframa leaves
a brood of her kind to be hatched out by
the heat of the next English war, and to
resuscitate a semi-baiMSrs mode of war
fare which had seemed about to pass away;
and that even this ugly programme is the
least disastrous alternative to which the
friends of peace can look forward.
Moncuke D. Conway.
/
!
X
JANET’S QUESTIONS.
Janet ! my little Janet!
You think me wise I know;
And that when you sit and question,
With your eager face aglow,
I can tell you all you ask me :
My child, it is not so.
I can tell my little Janet
Some things she well may prize;
I could tell her some whose wisdom
Would be foolish in her eyes;
There are things I would not tell, her,
They are too sadly wise.
I can tell her of noble treasures
Of wisdom stored of old;
To the chests where they are holden
I can give her keys of gold ;
And as much as she can carry
She may take away untold.
But till her heart is opened,
Like the book upon her knee,
What is written in its pages
She cannot read nor see :
Nor tell till the rose has blossomed
If red or white Twill be.
And till life’s book is opened,
And read through every age,
Come questions, without answers, ■
Alike from child and sage :
Yet God himself is teaching
His children page by page.
I still am asking questions
With each new leaf I see ;
To your new eyes, my Janet,
Yet more revealed may be.
You must ask of God the questions
I fail to answer thee.
— Good Words.
�556
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
From the Quarterly Review.
A History of Caricature and Grotesque in
Literature and Art. By Thomas Wright,
Esq.; with Illustrations from various sour-,
ces, drawn and engraved by E. W. Fair
holt, Esq.
Among the many contributions which
Mr. Thomas Wright has made towards Eng
lish antiquarian research, and, in particular,
towards the familiar delineation of the man
ners and customs of our ancestors, none is,
perhaps, so popular or so well known as his
two volumes entitled ‘ England under the
House of Hanover, illustrated from the Car
icatures and Satires of the day.’ The very
spirited woodcuts with which this book is
adorned by Mr. Fairholt might alone have
sufficed to make its fortune. Published
only in 1848, it is already difficult to pro
cure a copy. Encouraged by his success in
this line, Mr. Wright has now attempted
the wider enterprise announced in this title
page. Wd fear that in'doing so he has been
somewhat over ambitious. A history of the
‘ caricature and grotesque in literature and
art,’ extending over all countries and all
time, comprising not only pictorial represen
tations, but poetry, satire, the drama, and
buffoonery of all descriptions, is a subject
which, if it be attempted at all in a single
octavo volume, could only be so in the form
of a compact and well-reasoned essay, to
which Mr. Wright’s entertaining fragmen
tary sketches bear little resemblance. The
‘immeasurable laughter’ of nations, ancient
and modern, cannot be reduced within so
small a compass. We must therefore con
tent ourselves with thanking Mr. Wright
for his desultory but agreeable attempts for
our enlightenment. And we propose, on
the present occasion, to confine ourselves
entirely to the artistic portion of them: en
livened, as it is, by a new series of Mr. Fair
holt’s excellent illustrations. Our inability
to transfer these to our own pages places
us, as we feel, at a great disadvantage:
many words are required to explain to the
reader the contents of a picture, which
a few outlines by an able hand impress
at once visibly on the recollection. De
prived of this advantage, we must confine
ourselves as well as we can to the points on
which caricature touches the history of
social and political life, rather than those by
which it borders on the great domain of
Art, properly so called.
GROTESQUE
course, an Italian word, derived from the verb
caricare, to charge or load; and therefore it
means a picture which is charged or exaggerat
ed. [“Kitratto ridicolo,” says Baretti s Dic
tionary, “in cui fiensi grandemente accresciuti
i difetti.” The old French dictionaries say.
“ c’est la meme chose que charge en peinture.”]
The word appears not to have come into use in
Italy until the latter half of the seventeenth cen
tury, and the earliest instance I know of its em
ployment by an English writer is that quoted
by Johnson from the ‘ Christian Morals ’ of Sir
Thomas Brown, who died in 1682, but it was
one of his latest writings, and was not printed
till long after his death: “ Expose not thyself
by fourfooted manners unto monstrous draughts
(i. e. drawings) and caricatura representations.”
This very quaint writer, who had passed some
time in Italy, evidently uses it as an exotic
word. We find it next employed by the writer
of the Essay, No. 537, of the ‘ Spectator,’ who,
speaking of the way in which different people
are led by feelings of jealousy and prejudice to
detract from the characters of others, goes on to
say “From all these hands we have such
draughts of mankind as are represented in those
burlesque pictures which the Italians call cari
catures, where the art consists in preserving
amidst distorted proportions" and aggravated
features, some distinguishing likeness of the
person, but in such a manner as to transform
the most agreeable beauty into the most odious
•monster.” The word was not fully established
in oqr language in its English form of carica
ture until late in the last century.’ — p. 415.
This, no doubt, is a serviceable, artistic
definition of the word; but • its popular
meaning is, perhaps, a little more limited.
It would be difficult accurately to distin
guish ‘caricature ’in composition, accord
ing to the above description, from what we
simply term ‘ grotesque ; ’ exaggeration,
that is, of natural effects for the mere
purpose of the ludicrous. In using the word
caricature, we generally add to this notion
that of satire; and the best definition for
our purpose, as well as to suit ordinary ap
prehension, though not at all originating in
the primary meaning of the word, will
be, that ‘ caricature ’ implies the use of the
grotesque for the purpose of satire : satire,
of course, of many kinds, individual, moral,
political, as the case may be.
Looking at our subject from this point of
view, we must never eliminate from it all
those amusing details respecting classical
‘ caricature,’ to which Mr. Wright has de
voted the first part of his work, and which
a clever French writer, M. Champfleury,
hasjust illustrated inalittle book, superficial,
‘ The word caricature is not found in the dic entertaining, and ‘ cock-sure of everything,’
tionaries, I believe, until the appearance of that as the manner of his nation- is, entitled
of Dr. Johnson, in 1755. Caricature is, of ‘ Histoire de la Caricature Antique.’ The
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
557
ancients were passionately fond of the gro erical creatures.’ In others, the desired
tesque : the Greeks intermingled it strange effect is produced, not by these mere fabri
ly, but gracefully, with their inimitable cre cations, but by grouping men and animals
ations of beauty: the Romans, after their together in fanciful or ridiculous conjunc
nature, made it coarse and sensual, where tions. And these — conceived and execut
not merely imitative of the Hellenic.
ed with a prodigality of imagination
_ ‘ The discourses of Socrates resemble the amounting in many instances to genius —
pictures of the painter Pauson.’ Some one constitute, perhaps, the favourite, though
had ordered of Pauson the picture of a by no means the only, style of comic art
horse rolling on the ground. Pauson paint familiar to the classical ancients; one of
ed him running. The customer complained which the known examples have of late
that the condition of his order had not been years greatly multiplied, owing to the disfulfilled. ‘ Turn the picture upside down,’ cowries of ancient paintings at Pompeii and
said the artist, ‘ and the horse will seem to elsewhere. There is a pretty description
roll on the ground.’ From this moderately of a picture of this sort in» the ‘ leones ’ of
facetious anecdote of Lucian Mlom a pas Philostratus. It represents a ‘number of
sage of Aristotle, in which it is said that BQpids riding races on swans: one is tight
‘ Polygnotus painted men better thanBjley ening his golden rein, another loosening"it;
are; Pauson;. worse than they are; PionHSisI one dexterously wheeling round the goal:
such as they are ; ’ and, lastly, from a few you might fancy that you could hell them
lines of Aristophanes, in which some Pau encouraging their birds, and threatening
son or other is jeered at for his poverty, as and qtSffilling with one another, as their
sumed to be the lot of Bohemian artists in very faces represent: one is trying to throw
general; M. Champfleury has arrived at the down his neighbour j another has just thrown
rapid conclusion, that Pauson was the doyen down his; another is slipping off his steed,
of all caricaturists. And he vindicates him, in order to bathe himself in the basin of the
eloquently, from the aspersions of the Sta- hippodrome.’ *
gyrite. ‘ Aristotle,’ says he, ‘ preoccupied
But, to revert to our original distinction,
with the idea of absolute beauty, has not ancient art. though rich in the grotesque,
expounded the scope of caricature, and its does not produce on us the effect of carica
importance in society. This thinker, plun ture ; either it has no definite satirical aim,
ged in philosophical abstractions, despised orDM® has such, the satire is lost .upon our
as futile an act which nevertheless consoles ignorance. The attempts of antiquaries to
the people in its sorrows, avenges it on explain its productions byraWig them a
its tyrants, and reproduces, with a satirical supposed libellous meaning are among the
pencil, the thoughts of the multitude.’
most comical efforts of modern pedantry.
Pliny the elder, after mentioning the seri A laughable scene on an Etruscan vase, repous compositions of the painter Antiphilus, resenting a lover. climbing |l ladder to his
informs us that ‘ idem (Antiphilus) jocoso. mistress’s casement,' figures, we are told,
nomine Gryllum deridiculi habitus pinxit. Jupiter and Alcmena. The capital travesUndb hoc genus picturse Gryll^voeabantur. tie of fEneas and Anchises as monkeys
The meaning of this obscure passage — (PQm») is meant tolMBfee the imitative
whether Grylluswas a ridiculous personage style of Virgil! The well-known and amus
who had the misfortune to descend to posteri ing seejSeifn a paMs studio (tW.) is ‘ an
ty in some too faithful portrait byAntiphibus,' allusion to the deMkiM of art.’ A pigmy
or whether Grvllus was a serious person a.jgl and a fox (GreoorBn Museum) are a phi
perhaps the son of Xenophon and hero of losopher and flatterer. An owl cutting off
Mantinea, whose portrait was placed by the the head of a cock is Clytemnestra mur
Athenians in the Ceramicus, whom Anti dering AgameAon;
a^shopper
philus had the audacity to caricature — driving a parrot in a car (Herculaneum) is
has exercised. the wits of plenty of anti
quaries, and will no doubt give occupation
The ‘ leones. of Flavius Philostratus, a
to many more. However, it seems to be of*the age of the’ Flavian Emperors, contain writer
a rhe
from this anecdote of Pliny that grotesque torical description of a series of pictures which he
figures engraved on ancient gems have re saw, or feigns himself to have seen, in, a ‘ stoa,’ or
colonnaded
four or
ceived the name of ‘ Grylli ’ among the ated ‘in a building® ofthe city live stories,’situ
suburb of
Neapolis.’ The
curious in modern times. This title has subjects described are partly mythological, partly
landscape. Someof them are identical with those
been particularlyKapplied to those which of frescoes of Pompeii, overwhelmed at the same
represent figures ‘ composed of the heads period; and the general description of the style of
and bodies of different animals capriciously treatment such as to remind the reader closely of
united, so as to form monstrous and chim- | those beautiful and singular Specimens of the art
of a world gone by.
�558
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE
Seneca conducting Nero! Such are a few I tians, they still found pagan emblems and figamong the solemn interpretations which I ures in their models, and still went on imitat
modern sagacity has put on these ‘ capricci, ing them, sometimes merely copying, and
rather than caricatures,’ as M: Champfleury at others turning them to caricat ure or burlesque.
long that, a
truly calls them, with which the spirit of And this tendency continued sostill existedatre
much later date, where there
Greek antiquity, as playful as it was daring, mains of Roman buildings, the mediaeval archi
loved to decorate the chamber and engrave tects adopted them as models, and did not hesi
the gem.
tate to copy the sculpture, although it might
It is painful, and in some degree humiliat be evidently pagan in character. The accom
ing, to note the transition from the light and panying cut represents a bracket in the church
comparatively graceful character of ancient of Mont Majour, near Nismes, built in the tenth
art, even in its comic forms, to the excessive century. The subject is a monstrous head eat
grossness, meanness, and profanity, which ing a child, and we can hardly doubt that it
characterised the corresponding branch of it was really intended for a caricature on Saturn
in the middle ages in Western Europe. No devouring one of his children.’ — pp. 40-49.
doubt this change was partly a continuation
For our own parts, we should doubt
of that which took place when the brief im
portation of Grecian models into the West greatly whether the sculptor in question had
had ceased, and the coarser Roman style Saturn in his mind at all, any more than
Dante had when he imagined Satan devour
succeeded it.
ing a sinner with each of his three mouths:
‘ The transition from antiquity to what we the illustrations of which passage, in early
usually understand by the name of the middle illuminations and woodcuts, are exactly
ages,’ says Mr. Wright, ‘ was long and slow : like the copy in Mr. Wright’s work of this
it was a period during which much of the tex Mont Majour sculpture. And generally, we
ture of the old society was destroyed, while, at doubt whether Mr. Wright does not attri
the same time, a new life was gradually given bute to classical recollections .too large a
to that which remained. We know very little share in the production of that monstrous
of the comic literature of this period of transi style of art which furnishes our next re
tion ; its literary remains consist chiefly of a markable chapter in the history of carica
miss of heavy theology or of lives of Saints.
. . . The period between antiquity and the ture — the Ecclesiastical Grotesque, such
middle ages was one of such great and general as it exhibited itself especially in France,
destruction, that the gulf between ancient and England, and Germany. It has to our
mediaeval art seem to us greater and more ab minds very distinctive marks of a rougher
rupt than it really was. The want of monu Northern original. However this may be,
ments, no doubt, prevents our seeing the gradu there is something humiliating, as we have
al change of the ooe into the other; but enough, said, in the degradation of skill and esthet
nevertheless, of facts remain to convince us ic perception which is evinced by these rel
that it was not a sudden change. It is now, ics of generations to which we so often as
indeed, generally understood that the knowledge cribe a peculiarly reverential character.
and practice of the arts and manufactures of
the Romans were handed onward from master No doubt its elements, so to speak, may be
to pupil after the empire had fallen ; and this traced in part to some very ordinary pro
took place especially in the towns, so that the pensities of the human mind. It has been
workmanship, which had been declining in said, probably with some truth, that when
character during the later periods of the em the most prevailing of all common motives
pire, only continued in the course of degrada was an intense fear of hell and of evil
tion afterwards. Thus, in the first Christian spirits, the most natural mode of relief, by
edifices, the builders who were employed, or at reaction, was that of turning them into
least many of them, must have been pagans; ridicule. And however impossible it may
and they would fodow their old models of or
namentation, introducing the same grotesque be, to intellects cultivated after the modern
figures, the same masks and monstrous faces, fashion, to reconcile these propensities with
and even sometimes the same subjects from the a strong sense of the majestic and the beau
old mythology, to which they had been accus tiful, yet we cannot doubt the fact that they
tomed. It is to be observed, a so, that this kind were so reconciled. As. Dante could inter
of iconographical ornamentation had been en mingle his unique conceptions of supernatu
croaching more and more upon the old archi ral grandeur with minute descriptions of
tectural purity during the latter ages of the the farcical proceedings of the vulgarest
Empire, and that it was employed more pfo- possible fiends with their pitchforks, so the
•fusely in the later works, fro n which this task same artists who produced, or at least orna
was transferred to the ecclesiasical and to the
domestic architecture of the middle ages. Af mented, our cathedrals, with those glorious
ter the architects themselves had become Chris- | expressions of thought sublimed at once by
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
559
the love of beauty and the love of heaven, I pride, envy; in fact, all the deadly sins comcould furnish them out with the strangest, I bined in one diabolical whole? — p. 74.
meanest, often filthiest images which a de
The goat-like countenance of the arch
based imagination might suggest. Fortu
nately, age has done so much to veil these fiend is a common mediaeval, as well as mod
debauches of skill with sober indistinctness, ern German, type; but whoever wishes to
that they seldom strike the eye of a casual tracq backward the conception of Retsch’s
observer, in a sacred edifice, very offen Mepnistopheles, should look in particular at
sively. But they lurk everywhere, and in an ivory carving, in the Maskell collection
' disgusting multitudes; in the elaborate at the British Museum, of exquisite work
stonework of ceilings, windows, and' col manship, styled the Temptation of Christ, by
umns ; in battlements, bosses, and corbeils ; Christoph Angermair, 1616.
One more instance, and a very striking
in the wood-carving of stalls, misereres,
and often on the lower surface of folding one, may be mentioned by way of exception
subsellia; while they are equally to be found, to the ordinary meanness and vulgarity
strangest of all, where the Donna Inez of which characterise the mediaeval representa
Lord Byron’s ‘ Don Juan ’ found them, in tions of the supernatural. It is noticed and
the illuminated pages of missals, destined for engraved by Malcolm, in his ‘ History of
purposes of daily devotion. So long as Caricature? The missal of King Richard
these were confined to mere burlesque, no II., preserved in the BrMRi Museum, is full
great harm was done, and certainly non,e of grotesque illustrSions ofEhe ordinary
cast, though beautifully executed.
But
intended.
among them is one of a higher and stranger
turn of invention, the exact meaning of
‘ The number and variety of such grotesque which is unknown. It Represents the choir
faces/ says Mr. Wright, ‘which we find scat of a solemn Gothic chapel. A white monk
tered over the architectural decoration of our old is celebrating mass at the altar; another lies
ecclesiastical buildings, are so great that I will prostrate before it; ten of
order, seated
not attempt to give any more particular classifi in iSir stalls, sing the service. Above these
cation of them. All this church decoration was
intended especially to produce its effect upon the appearEeated in a higher range of stalls,
middle and lower classes, and mediaeval art was, five figures dimly drawn, which on examina
perhaps more than anything else, suited to nga tion appear to be robed skeletons — two
diaeval society, for it belonged to the mass and with the Papal tiara, two with coronets, one
not to the individual. The man who could enjoy with a cardinal’s hat. The effect of the
a match at grinning through horse collars, must whole is very terrific, after the fashion of
have been charmed by the grotesque works of the the ghostliest conceptions of Jean Paul
meidteval stone-sculptor and wood-carver; and, Richter, and otheiEGerman masters of the
we may add, that these display, though often spectral and calling back to
mind, at
rather rude, a very high degree of skill in art, a the same: time,(the coincidence the the lines
of
great power of producing striking imagery? —
which Shakspeare has put into the mouth of
p. 1.48.
‘ In all the delineations of demons we have the same monarch —
yet seen,’ he says elsewhere, ‘ the ludicrous is
the spirit which chiefly predominates; and in no ‘For within the hollow crown
one instance have we had a figure which is real That wreathes the mortal temples of a King,
ly demoniacal. The devils are droll, but not Keeps Deith his court: and there the antic sits,
frightful; they provoke laughter, or at least ex Scoffing his state, and grinning at his pomp?
cite a smile, but they create no horror. Indeed,
But when the prevailing and violent quar
they torment their victims so good-humouredly
that we hardly feel for them. There is, howev rels between different classes of religious
er, one well-known instance in which the me persons in the Church perverted the same
diaeval artist has shown himself thoroughly suc tendency into a taste for licentious ribaldry
cessful in representing the features of the spirit — when it was no longer the Devil who was
of evil. On the parapet of the external gallery piously laughed at in these compositions,
of the cathedral church of Notre Dame in Par but monks, nuns, hermits, and so forth, who
is, there is a figure in stone, of the ordinary were introduced as symbols of everything
stature of a man, representing the demon, ap
parently looking wi;h satisfaction upon the in degrading — when grotesque, assuming the
habitants of the city as they were everywhere in attitude of satire, turned, according to our
dulging in sin and wickedness. The unmixed suggested distinction, into caricature prop
evil — horrible in its expression in this coun erly so called — then the practice in ques
tenance — is marvellously portrayed. It is an tion assumed a much darker complexion.
absolute Mephistopheles, carrying in his features The foulest of these representations, and
a strange mixture of hateful qualities — malice, they are only too numerous, can be barely
�560
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
alluded to in a work like Mr. Wright’s. Au
older publication, already noticed, Mal
colm’s very imperfect ‘ History of Carica
ture,’ goes into more details respecting them.
We will only say that those who enter on
the subject had better not carry into the in
quiry exaggerated notions respecting the
decorum or the piety of the so-called ‘Ages
of Faith,’ lest they should be too abruptly
dispelled.
Gradually, and with the progress of en
lightenment, a somewhat more serious,
though still familiar, mode of dealing with
subjects of this description became general;
but the change was not so early as has been
sometimes supposed, since the stalls of Hen
ry VII.’s chapel at Westminster exhibit
some of the very worst of this class of offen
ces against taste and religious feeling. But
in the fifteenth century, under the hands of
its artists, the supernatural, though still
tainted with the grotesque, germinated into
the awful. The union of the two may still
be traced in that marvellous but perishing
series of representations, ranging over all
the known and conjectured regions of life
and eternity, which decorates the Campo
Santo of Pisa—that ‘‘Antechamber of
Death,’ as the Italians call it. From the
same sources of thought arose the profuse
crop of ‘ Danses Macabres,’ dances of death,
coarsely painted on thousands of cemetery
walls, and drawn and engraved by number
less artists, with more or less of spirit; phan
tasmagorias, in which the love of the horri
ble was repulsively mixed with that of the
ludicrous, but still far less ignoble in taste
and character than those early grotesques of
ecclesiastical sculpture, to which our atten
tion has been hitherto drawn.
It is refreshing, however, to turn from this
disagreeable class of subjects to the few
specimens of a freer and healthier turn for
the ludicrous, unmixed with profanity, which
mediaaval art has left us. Probably one of
the earliest specimens of English caricature
drawing, as distinguished from mere gro
tesque, is that described by Mr. Wright, as
follows: — ‘It belongs to the Treasury of
the Exchequer, and consists of two volumes
of vellum, called Liber A and Liber B, form
ing a register of treaties, marriages, and sim-,
ilar documents of the reign of Edward I.
The clerk who was employed in writing it
seems to have been, like many of these of
ficial clerks, somewhat of a wag, and he has
amused himself by drawing in the margin
figures of the inhabitants of the provinces
of Edward’s crown, to which the documents
referred. Some of these are plainly designed for caricature.’ Two of themare evi
GROTESQUE
dently Irishmen, their costume and weapon,
the broad axe, exactly answering to the de
scription given of them by Giraldus Cambrensis. Two are Welchmen — ludicrous
figures enough, whose dress is equally in ac
cordance with contemporary description,
except in one curious particular, which
writers have not noticed. The right legs
are naked, like those of the German hackbutteers in the ‘ Lay of the Last Minstrel ’:—
‘ Each better knee was bared, tr aid
The warrior in the escalade.’
‘ When the official clerk who wrote this tran
script came to documents relating to Gascony,
his thoughts wandered naturally enough to its
rich vineyards and the wine they supplied so
plentifully, and to which, according to old re
ports, clerks seldom showed any dislike; and
accordingly, in the next sketch, we have a Gas
con occupied diligently in pruning his vine
tree.’
From the sculptured and illuminated re
ligious-grotesque of the Middle Ages to the
German and Dutch woodcut-literature of
the period of the Reformation, the transition
is not a very wide one. The style is pretty
similar, the profanity much the same, only
a fiercer element has been added by contro
versial bitterness. Perhaps this class of
works may be justly cited, in chronological
series, as affording the real commencement
of the art of modern political caricature,
properly so called. On both sides of the
question this method of ridiculing antago
nists was most profusely resorted to. The
jovial, popular figure of Martin Luther, in
particular, formed, as it well might, a very
favourite piece de resistance for pictorial sa
tirists in the old interest to work upon. One
cut, preserved by Mr. Wright, ‘ taken from
a contemporary engraving in wood, presents
a rather fantastic figure of the demon play
ing on the bagpipes. The instrument is
formed of Luther’s head, the pipe through
which the devil blows entering his ear, and
that through which the music is produced
forming an elongation of the reformer’s
nose. It was a broad intimation that Lu
ther was a mere tool of the evil one, created
for the purpose of bringing mischief into
the world.’ — p. 251. But, continues Mr.
Wright, the reformers were more than a
match for their opponents in this sort of
warfare. Doctor Martin had been identi
fied, for various cogent reasons, with Anti
christ : —
.
•
‘ But the reformers had resolved, on what ap
peared to be much more conclusive evidence,
�/!
.
561
IN LITERATURE AND ART.-
that Antichrist was only emblematical of the [ he chose, to rank among the most original
papacy : that under this form he had been long | as well as powerful of modern artists — the
dominant on earth, and that the end of his reign I famous Jacques Callot, born at the end of
was then approaching. A remarkable pamph I the century, in 1592 — a man, as Mr.
let, designed to bring this idea pictorially before i Wright truly observes, who was destined
the world, was produced from the pencil of
Luther’s friend, the celebrated painter Lucas j not only to give a new character to the
Cranach, and appeared in the year 1521, under ! then recent art of engraving on copper,
the title of “ The Passionale of Christ and An | but also to bring in a new style of ludic
tichrist.” It is a small quarto, each page of rous and fanciful composition. Inimita
which is nearly filled by a woodcut, having a ble, however, as Callot’s works are, they
few lines of explanation in German below. The belong rathesl to the class of ‘ caprices,’
cut to the left represents some incident in the or ‘ ex-travaganzas,’ than of caricature in
life of Christ, while that facing it to the right the sense in which we have used it; for his
gives a contrasting fact in the history of Papal genius had not the satirical turn, properly
tyranny. Thus, the first cut on the left repre speaking: and the same may be said of his
sents Jesus in His humility, refusing earthly
dignities and power, while on the adjoining page most successful copyisfflDella Bella, a clever )
we see the Pope, with his cardinals and bishops, artist, but who never succeeded in equalling
. supported by his hosts of warriors, his cannon his origin IM The works of Romain de
and fortifications, in his temporal dominion over Hooghe, who, brought up in the merely exsecular princes. On another we have Christ travagant school of Callot, was extensively
washing the feet of his disciples, and in con employed in producing ^satirical and em
trast the Pope compelling the Emperor to kiss blematic representations of English political
his toe. And so on, through a number of illus events after the Restoration, perhaps serve
trations, until at last we come to Christ’s ascen
sion into heaven, in contrast with which a troop as the connecting link between the old
of demons, of the most varied and singular ‘ caprice ’ and the modern political carica
forms, have seized upon the Papal Antichrist, ture.
The need for pictorial representations to
and are casting him down into the flames of
hell, where some of his own monks wait to re stimulate the political feelings of the public,
in times when literature was comparatively
ceive him.’— p. 254.
scanty, had been of course as keenly felt in
This style of pictorial satire, as the ad England as in c®Br errantries $ but it was
*
vancing art of wood-engraving began more kept in check, through the public contests >
and more to multiply specimens, attained, of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
as we have said, much popularity in the six by the great inferioritjalof our artists, and
teenth century in Germany, and extended particularly our engravers, to those of the
itself from religious to political and purely Continent. Here and there we meet with
social subjects. Its latest employment in ’striking exceptions. The vwodcuts to the
those regions on a large and popular scale first edition of ‘Fox’s Martyrs’ contain,
was perhaps during the Thirty Years’ War ; among the fearful scenes which they gener
but the extremity to which that country was ally representkjcaricature likenesses of Gar
reduced by that dreary contest seems to diner, Bonner, and other well-known per
have extinguished its very life. The works sonages of the time, and are singularly pow
of this class, disseminated through broad erful in execution. But the like of these
sides, printed sheets, large illustrated folios are very few. One odd illustration, per
and popular duodecimos, are frequently ex haps, of the need felt for these pictorial rep
ecuted with considerable spirit as well as resentations, and the defectiveness of the
humour. But often, and especially towards ordinary means for supplying it, is to be
the latter portion of the period, they exhibit found in the peculiar taste of that age for
a strong tendency to become pedantic and employing elaborate devices on banners
allegorical. When the art of caricature, borne in procession or carried in the field,
becoming over-learned, addresses itself to in order to stimulate the ardour of partisans.
particular classes only, and requires a spe It will be remembered how the Scottish
cial education in order to make its products Protestant lords took the field against
understood, it may be-safely pronounced in Queen Mary with (among others) a great
a declining condition.
standard, on which the catastrophe of the
Perhaps the most successful result of the Kirk of Field was represented, with the fig
early wood cut-grotesque was, that it led the ure of Darnley lying on the ground, and.
way for greater achievements in art; and the words ‘ Judge and revenge my cause, O
its influence may be especially traced in the Lord.’ In the Great Rebellion such stand
designs of one who deserves, notwithstand ards were abundantly used, chiefly on the
ing the inferiority of the department which Royalist side, with devices both serious and
THIRD SERIES. LIVING AGE. VOL. XXXII.
1476.
V
$
t
�562
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
GROTE.SQUE
of the caricature order. Here is an ex
English specimens of art, at first few and
ample of the latter, taken by the Round far between, began to make their way into
heads at Marston Moor, described by Rush favour among these foreign importations;
worth : —
and it is just at this period (the reign of
George I.) that we find them first exhibiting
‘ A yellow coronet: in its middle a lion couch the well-known advertisements,4 Printed for
ant, and behind him a mastiff seeming to Carington Bowles, next the Chapter House
snatch at him, and in a label from his mouth
written, Kimboltoq: at his feet little beagles, in St. Paul’s Church Yard, London,’—a
and before their mouths written, Pym, Pym, house famous in the same line for full a cen
Pym : and out of the lion’s mouth these words tury afterwards.
4 It was a defect of the earlier publica
proceeding, Quousque tandem abutere patientions of this class,’ says Mr. Wright in his
tia nostra ? ’
earlier work, 4 that they partook more of
Another curious vehicle of political cari an emblematical character than of what we
cature in England, in the seventeenth cen now understand by the term 44 caricature.”
tury, generally of very inferior order, was Even Hogarth, when he turned his hand to
that of playing-cards. 4 The earliest of politics, could not shake off his old preju
these packs of cards known,’ says Mr. dice on this subject; and it would be diffi
Wright, is one which appears to have been cult to point out worse examples than the
published at the very moment of the restora two celebrated publications which drew
tion of Charles II., and which was perhaps upon him so much popular odium,44 The
engraved in Holland. It contains a series Times.” ’ The reader will easily under
of caricatures on the principal acts of the stand the distinction, though^it cannot of
commonwealth, and on the parliamentary course be traced out with absolute accuracy
leaders.’ The ace of diamonds, for instance, in comparing different pieces. A design,
: represents 4 The High Court of Justice, or for example, in which political characters
Oliver’s Slaughterhouse.’ Among other are represented under the guise of various
packs of a" similar character which have animals, is generally emblematic or sym
been preserved, one relates to the Popish bolical in character. This is a simple in
Plot, another to the Ryehouse Conspiracy stance ; but the symbolism is often compli
(published in Holland), another to the cated, and not easy of • comprehension.
South Sea Bubble.
Hence a necessity for long letterpress ex
Romain de Hooghe, already mentioned planations in the form of labels issuing
as a follower of Callot, became, together from the mouths of the characters, or other
with others of his countrymen, as we have wise — a device showing inferiority of skill.
seen, the great exponent of English political The most effective caricature explains it
satires during the events of the last Stuart self, and exhibits point instead of allegory.
. reigns. Their productions must have been The favourite plates of the first part of the
widely circulated in England ; and, in fact, Georgian era, which appeared periodically,
, superseded in public estimation the very about 1740, styled 4 The Series of Euro
. inferior articles of domestic manufacture. pean State Jockies,’ and so forth, were
This period of Dutch supremacy among us compositions of many figures, as hiero
may be said to have continued down to the glyphical as the frontispiece to a prophetical
• date of the South Sea Bubble aforesaid ■— almanac. The gradual way in which Eng
‘ the time,’ says Mr. Wright, 4 in which lish comic art became emancipated from
■ caricatures began to be common in Eng this somewhat pedantic mould may be illus
land ; lor they had been before published at trated by a later instance, out of Gillray’s
rare intervals, and "partook so much of the works. Charles Fox was represented by
character of emblems that they are not the caricaturists of his youth with a fox’s
easily understood.’ The earliest of these, head, as his father, Lord Holland, had al
and the best, were of Dutch manufacture, most invariably been before him. And so
yet these were negligently executed. 4 So he is in one or two of Gillray’s first prints.
little point is there often in these carica But Gillray almost immediately abandoned
tures, and so great appears to have been the the old usage, and gave the patriot his own
call for them in Holland, that people seem burly physiognomy. The gradual passage
to have looked up old engravings destined from the emblematic to the simply satirical
■ originally for a totally different purpose, completes the establishment of the modern
. and, adding new inscriptions and new ex- English school of caricature.
The nature of the change cannot be bet
j planations, they were published as carical tures on the Bubble.’ *
ter exemplified than by reference to a piece
which had prodigious vogue in its day, and
* House of Hanover, i, 71.
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
/
x
,
■
• i
■
<
■
563
is repeatedly mentioned with interest by described in the .verses accompanying the
Horace Walpole and other contemporaries. print, which are wittier than the print
Copies of it are still common in collections : itself. Its great success, however, was
we have seen it even jconverted into the evinced by the numerous rival works of art
mounting of a lady’s fan. This is headed of both political colours which it called,
‘ The Motion, 1741/ and commemorates the forth, ‘ the Reason, ‘ the Motive/ ‘ the
failure of a famous attempt to upset Sir Grounds,’ &c. It may perhaps be said with
Robert Walpole’s government. The back truth to be the prototype of that whole
ground represents Whitehall, the Treasury, class of pictorial satires, great favourites
and the adjoining buildings as they then | with Englishmen, in which the small revo
stood. (The spectator is looking down lutions of ministries and oppositions are
Whitehall from a point nearly opposite travestied as scenes of popular life.
the modern Admiralty : to his left is a dead
We need not delay over the other innu
wall along the east side of the street, be- merable caricatures of the same reign; •
hind it private buildings, Scotland Yard, they are generally very ignoble ones; but
&c., extending as far as the Banqueting ghe comparative novelty of the fashion in
House; in front, the gateway over the en England rendered them extremely popular,
trance of what is now Parliament Street, and there was a kind of frank jollity pre
with the inscription ‘ Treasury.’)
dominant in the English body corporate
*>
just at that epoch — the epoch, as Hallam
‘Lord Carteret, in the coach, is driven to satisfied himself, of the maximum of physi
ward the Treasury by the Duke of Argyll as cal well-being to be traced in our history
coachman, with the Earl of Chesterfield as among the mass of the people — which
postilion, who, in their haste, are overturning peculiarly suited this development of broad
the vehicle; and Lord Carteret cries “ Let me
get out!” The Duke brandishes a wavy national humour. One or two specimens
sword, instead of a whip; and between his may detain for a moment the eyes of those
legs the heartless changeling, Bubb Dodington, who turn them over, rare as they have now
sits in the form of a spaniel. . i. . ' Lord generally become, in the collection at the
Cobham holds firmly by the straps behind, as British Museum, or in that far more valua
footman; while Lord Lyttelton follows on ble one amassed in many a year of busy
horseback, characterised equally by his own collectorship by Mr. Hawkins, formerly of
lean form, and that of the animal on which that establishment. There is a wild force
he strides. ... In front, Pulteney, drawl in the very rough execution of the print on
ing his partisans by the noses, and wheeling a
barrow laden with the writings of the Opposi the original broadside of Glover’s famous
tion, the Champion, the Craftsman, Common ballad, ‘ Hosier’s Ghost,’ in which the spirits
Sense, &c., exclaims, “ Zounds, they’re of ‘ English captains brave,areally form a
ours ! ’” *
very spectral crew. Another may be noted
for the quiet savageness of its insult to
This once famous squib affords, as we Lord George Sackville: it is entitled, ‘ A
have said, a good exemplification of the Design for a Monument to General Wolfe
passage from the old and formal to the (1760), or, a Living Dog better than a Dead
modern style of political caricature. It Lion.’ The dead lion reclines below a bust
bears strongly the type of Dutch origin, of this hero : the living dog at his side is a
but without the carefulness of Dutch ex greyhound, and on his collar is the word
ecution. The idea is clever and suggestive, ‘ Minden.’ And, lastly, one more, for the
but the workmanship at once artificial and very oddity of the conception : ‘ Our late
feeble.
The likenesses were no doubt Prime Minister,’ 1743. It is simply the jolly
sufficiently good to amuse the public of that face of Sir Robert Walpole, without any
day; Horace Walpole calls them 1 admira accessories whatever, thrown back as against
ble ; ’ but they are inexpressive. The wavy a pillow, and the jaws relaxed into a most
sword, a relic of the emblematic school, is contagious yawn, with the words, ‘ Lo,
a clumsy piece of allegory, spoiling the what are all your schemes come to ? ’ and
realism of the piece; and so is the figure the lines from the Dunciad : —
of Pulteney, leading the Tory squires by
cords passed through their noses. The ‘ Ev’n Palinurus nodded at the helm
only fun in the composition is to be found The vapour mild o’er each Committee crept,
in the figures of Bubb Dodington as a Unfinished treaties in each office slept,
spaniel, and Lord Lyttelton on horseback And chiefless armies dozed out the campaign,
— ‘ so long, so lean, so lank, so bony,’ as And navies yawned for orders on the main.’
* House of Hanover, i. 179.
i
We cannot, however, pass over the period
�564
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
of George II. without noticing that it seems
to us to be the first in which that much
enduring animal, the British lion, figures
extensively as a popular character. As
yet, people’s eyes were not open to his
ludicrous side, and artists accordingly made
free with him in every variety of emblema
tic action. We have him roaring with in
dignation at the misdeeds of various Minis
ters ; ‘ hocussed ’ apparently, and with the
Spaniard paring his claws, in allusion to
the matter of Jenkins’s ears: frightening
the Gallic cock, defending the Austrian
eagle, led passive in a leash by the Duke of
Newcastle; and, lastly, ‘ embracing George
II.’ (1745), to the discomfiture of the Pope
and Pretender, who exclaim: ‘ We shall
never be a match for George while that
lion stands by him I ’
Some of the names of the hack carica
turists of this epoch are preserved by Mr.
Wright; most of them of as little notoriety
as merit. Among them< however, are some
amateurs of social position ; and one dame
of quality—a Countess of Burlington.
‘ She was the lady of the Earl who built
Burlington House in Piccadilly; was the
leader of one of the factions in the Opera
disputes at the close of the reign of George
I.; and is understood to have designed the
well-known caricature upon Cuzzoni, Fari
nelli, and Heidegger, which was etched by
Guppy, whom she patronised.’
Such were the very undistinguished
characteristics and history of English art
in the grotesque and comic line, when the
appearance of Hogarth on the stage marked
an entirely new epoch in its history. It
would be superfluous here to recapitulate
the details of the life or achievements of
our great domestic painter; the more so,
as his powers in the line of caricature, pro
perly so called, though very great, were
subordinate to his far higher merits as a
painter of ‘ genre,’ as the French phrase it,1
a delineator of popular scenes and incidents
into which the humorous only entered as an
ingredient, although a very important one.
As a political caricaturist poor Hogarth
made a fatal mistake: he took the wrong
side:—
..
4|<
tjUlW
‘It appears evident,’ says Mr. Wright, ‘that
before this time (October, 1760) Hogarth had
gained the favour of Lord Bute, who, by his
interest with the Princess of Wales, was all
powerful in the household of the young Prince.
The painter had hitherto kept tolerably clear
of politics in his prints, but now, unluckily
for himself, he suddenly rushed into the arena
of political caricature. It was generally said
that Hogarth’s object was, by displaying his;
GROTESQUE
1,4
zeal in the cause of his patron, to obtain an in
crease of his pension; and he acknowledges
himself that his object was gain. “ This,” he
says, “being a period when war abroad and
contention at home engrossed everyone’s mind,
prints were thrown in the background; and the
stagnation rendered it necessary that I should
do some timed thing to recover my lost time,
and stop a gap in my income.” Accordingly
he determined to attack the great minister
Pitt, who had recently been compelled to re
sign his office, and had gone over to the oppo
sition. It is said that John Wilkes, who had
previously been Hogarth’s friend, having been
privately informed of his design, went to the
painter, expostulated with him, and, as he con
tinued obstinate, threatened retaliation.’
‘ The Times, No. 1,’ was the first fruit of
Hogarth’s unlucky fit of loyalty ; a labour
ed emblematic print, after the. older fash
ion, to the glory of Lord Bute and discredit
of Pitt. Wilkes attacked the artist in the
‘ North Briton; ’ Hogarth retorted — only
too successfully—in this admirable print
of Wilkes with the cap of liberty: ‘ eventu
que impalluit ipse secundo,’ for Wilkes,
with all his apparent firn and bonhomie,
was a deadly enemy. The nettled patriot
brought his friend Churchill, and a host
more of libellers in letterpress and in cop
perplate, on the back of his unfortunate as
sailant : —
‘ Parodies on his own works, sneers at his
personal appearance and manners, reflections
upon his character, were all embodied in prints
which bore such names as Hogg-ass, Hoggart,
O’Garth, &c. . . . The article by Wilkes
in the “ North Briton,” and Churchill’s metri
cal epistle, irritated Hogarth more than the
hostile caricatures, and were generally believed
to have broken his heart. He died on the 26 th
of October, 1764, little more than a year after
the appearance of the attack by Wilkes, and
with the taunts of his political as well as his
professional enemies still ringing in his ears.’
— pp. 446-449.
Hogarth left no school of followers; his
genius was of too independent and peculiar
an order to admit of this. Perhaps the
nearest to him was Paul Sandby; described
by Mr. Wright as ‘ one of those rising artists
who were offended by the sneering terms in
which Hogarth spoke of all artists but him
self, and foremost among those who turned
their satire against him.’ Sanby was one
of the original members of the Royal Ac ardemy, and is best known as a topographical
draughtsman; but Mr. Wright terms him
the father of water-colour art in England.
As a caricaturist he led the attack against
Lord Bute and the Princess Dowager, as
�I' * >
IN LITERATURE AND ART.
well as against Hogarth ; his sketch of the
two Scotchmen travelling to London on a
witch’s broomstick, with the inscription,
‘ the land before them is as the Garden of
Eden, and behind them a desolate wilder
ness,’ is one of the best of the witticisms
provoked by the miso-Caledonian movement
of that day.
We cannot quite dgree with Mr. Wright
when he says that, ‘ with the overthrow of
Bute’s Ministry (1763) we may consider the
English school of caricaturists as completely
formed and fully established.’ On the con
trary, it seems to us, from such collections as
we have examined, that the political branch
of the art was at a particularly low standard
for nearly twenty years after that event. The
American war produced very little amuse
ment of this kind; it was an affair into
which the nation entered with a dogged and
reluctant seriousness: and Washington and
Franklin, Silas Deane and John Adams,
afforded but drab-eoloured subjects for the
facetious limner. Social topics were just then
much more in vogue ; the extravagances in
dress of the Macaronies and high-flying la
dies'of the day (the acme of absurdity, in
modern costume, was certainly reached in
the years 1770-1780), the humours of Vauxhall,.and Mrs. Cornely’s masquerades, di
verted men’s minds from the bitter disap
pointment of a contest in which nothing
was to be gained either by persevering or
giving way.
*
Perhaps the best specimen
of the pictorial humour of that time was to
be found, not in the shop window prints!
but in the pages of the numerous magazines;
some of these never appeared without an
illustration or two of the jocose order, like
the comic newspapers of our time. But
when the incubus of the American war was
removed, and domestic faction reappeared
on the stage in all its pristine vivacity, the
simultaneous appearance of the ‘ Rolliad ’
and its fellow satires in literature, and of
Gillray and his fellow-workmen in art,
heralded the advent of a new era.
We must hasten to him whom Mr. Wright
terms, with perfect justice in our opinion,
1 the greatest of English caricaturists, and
perhaps of all caricaturists of modern times
whose works are known — James Gillray.’
His father was an out-pensioner of Chel* In one of the caricatures of this period (repro
duced by Mr. Wright in his former work) Lord
Sandwich is represented with a bat in his hand, in
allusion, we are told, to his fondness for cricket;
but it is a curved piece of wood, much more resem
bling that with which golf is played. And the same
peculiarly shaped instrument is put into the hand
of a cricket-loving lady in a.print of 1778 (Miss
Wicket and Miss Trigger).' What is the date of the
bat now used ?
.
‘ 565
sea Hospital, and sexton of the Moravian
burial-ground at Chelsea, where the carica
turist was born in 1757. Belonging by his
origin, and still more by his loose and Bohe
mian habits, to a very ordinary sphere of
life, it is certainly singular that he should
have acquired such a close observation and
intimate knowledge of events as they oc
curred, not only in the political, but in the
fashionable world. His great sources of
information were, no doubt, the newspa
pers ; but occasionally he seems even to have
anticipated the newspapers; more than one
court scandal and state intrigue seems to
have been blazoned first to public notice
in the well-known shop windows of Hum
phreys or of Fores, always crowded with
loiterers as soon as one of Gillray’s novel
ties appeared. It is no doubt true, and af
fords a curious subject of speculation to any
one who may think the inquiry worth pur
suing, that, when Gillray’s fame was estab
lished, many an amateur of the higher cir
cles seems to have assisted him, not merely
in furnishing hints, but also sketches, which
Gillray etched and sold for his own profit.
Some of his best caricatures, if we are not
mistaken J are from outlines supplied by
Bunbury, others were composed by Brown '
low North. But these are exceptions only,
and do-not invalidate the general proposi
tion as to the singularity of the circum
stance that this drunken son of a sexton was
for many years the pictorial Aristophanes
of his day, and aided, at least, by those who
were behind the sceMs. of much which
took place in the inner recesses of high
life.
His fame as a political caricaturist was
first established by his burlesque prints on
Rodney’s victory (1782). The rueful figure
of the unlucky French admiral De Grasse,
in one of them, is among the most charac
teristic of his performances. As we have
said, it was some time before he thoroughly
emancipated himself from the allegorical
style ; and another peculiarity of inferior ar
tists haunted him a long' time, the fashion,
namely, of overloading his compositions
with quantities of letter-press, oratorical or
jocose, proceeding from the mouths of his
characters, as if his pencil had not been fully
powerful enough to speak for itself. He
rushed with an energy all his own into the
war of squibs which succeeded the Fox and
North coalition, and then conceived those
ideals of the leading patriot, and of his
friend Burke, which he afterwards rendered
popular in every corner of the kingdom by
a thousand repetitions. A very admirable
series of sketches, however, of these two
�566
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE
and Lord North, as ‘War, Peace, and
Neither War nor Peace,’ portraits scarcely
touched with grotesque, though in skilfully
exaggerated attitudes, commonly inserted
in the bound volumes of Gillray’s works, is,
we are satisfied, not his; it bears much
more the appearance of Sayer’s workman
ship. Fox and his personal following were
peculiarly the objects of Gillray’s aversion ;
and, not many years later than this, the
unhappy circumstances of the Prince of
Wales’s matrimonial career provoked him
into a series of the most popular, daring,
and spirited of all his works; some of which,
however, it is not easy in our decent age to
indicate even by reference, though they
seem to have been exposed without scandal
in the most frequented thoroughfares of Lon
don. Gillray, however, was ‘ not a hired
libeller,’says Mr. Wright,‘like Sayer and
some other of the lower caricaturists of that
time: he evidently chose his subjects in
some degree independently, as those which
offered him the best mark for ridicule; and
he had so little respect for the ministers or
the court, that they all felt his satire in
turn.’ After exhausting his power of picto
rial invention against the heir apparent,
he found a still more congenial subject of
1 satire in the peculiarities of his Majesty
George III. himself. Here, however, per
sonal spite is said to have given the induce
ment.
‘ According to a story which seems to be
authentic, Gillray’s dislike of the King was em
bittered bv an incident somewhat similar to
that by which George II. had provoked the
anger of Hogarth. Gillray had visited France,
Flanders, >and Holland, and he had made
sketches, a few of which he had engraved. He
accompanied the painter Loutherbourg, who
had left his native city of Strasburg to settle
in England, and became the King’s favourite
artist, to assist him in making groups for his
great painting of the ‘ Siege of Valenciennes,’
Gillray sketching groups of figures while
.Loutherbourg drew the landscapes and build
ings. After their return, the King expressed a
desire to see these sketches, and they were
placed before him. Louthesbourg’s landscapes
and buildings were plain drawings, and easy to
understand, and the King expressed himself
greatly pleased with them. But the King’s
mind was already predjudiced against Gillray
for his satirical prints : and when he saw his
hasty and rough, though spirited sketches of
the French soldjers, he threw them aside con
temptuously with the remark, “ I don’t under
stand these caricature fellows.” Perhaps the
„ very word he used was intended as a sneer
upon Gillray, who, we are told, felt the affront
deeply, and he proceeded to retort by a carica
ture which struck at once at one of the
King’s vanities, and at his political predjudices.
George III. imagined himself a great connois
seur in the Fine Arts, and the caricature was
entitled “ a connoisseur examining a Cooper’.”'
It represented the King looking at the celebrat
ed miniature of Oliver Cromwell, by the Eng
lish painter, Samuel Cooper. When Gillray
had completed this print, he is said to have ex
claimed, “I wonder if the Royal connoisseur
will understand this!” It was published on
the 18th of June, 1792, and cannot have failed
to produce sensation at that period of revolu
tions. The King is made to exhibit a strange
mixture of alarm with astonishment hi contem
plating the features of this great overthrower
of kingly power, at a moment when all kingly
power was threatened. It will he remarked,
too, that the satirist has not overlooked the
royal character for domestic economy; the
King is looking at the picture by the light of a
candle end stuck on a save-all.’
If there is any truth in the story, certainly
never was artist’s revenge more completeThe homely features of the poor old king
— his prominent eyes, light eyebrows, pro
truding lips, his shambling walk, his gaze of
eager yet vacant curiosity — are even now
better known to us through Gillray’s carica
tures than through anything which theMuses of painting and sculpture, in their
serious moods, could effect for him or
against him. Gillray’s etchings, and Peter
Pindar’s verses, were for years among the
minor plagues of royalty. Not, indeed, in
the estimation of the stout-hearted monarch
himself, as impervious to ridicule as to
argument whenever he thought himself in
the right; no man in his dominions laughed
more regularly at each hew caricature of
Gillray than he ; and a whole set, inscribed
‘ for the king,’ forwarded to him as they
came out, is said to be preserved at Wind
sor. But they were more keenly felt by
his little knot of attached courtiers, and
also by sober-minded people in general,
seriously apprehensive, in those inflammable
times, of anything which might throw ridi
cule on the Crown. One of the coarsest
and most powerful, and which is said to
have given especial offence at head-quarters,
is that which represents Queen Charlotte as
Milton’s Sin, between Pitt as Death and
Thurlow as the Devil. Others, of less
virulence, such as ‘ Affability,’ or the King
and the Ploughman ; the ‘ Lesson in Apple
Dumplings ; ’ the conjugal breakfast scene,
where George is toasting muffins, and Char
lotte frying sprats; the ‘ Anti-Saccharites,’
where the Royal pair are endeavouring to
coax the reluctant princesses (charming
figures) to take their tea without sugar, —
these, and numbers more, held up the Royal
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
567
peculiarities, especially the alleged stingi wild and extravagant now grew on him.
ness of the Court, in a manner in which the Doubtless it was sharpened by the effect on
usual coarseness of the execution rather his brain of constant potations, which grad
tended to heighten the exceeding force and ually brought on delirium tremens. His
latest art-debauches — if such we may term
humour of the satire.
But when this country became seriously them — have often a touch of phantasma
involved in hostilities with France, repub goric-pictorial nightmare, like those of Callot,
lican, and afterwards imperial, a change Teniers, and Hollenbreughel. His last draw
came over the spirit of Gillray’s satire. ing is preserved in the British Museum, exe
Thenceforth he gradually ceased his at cuted when he was quite out of his mind — a
tacks, not only on the Royal family, but on madman’s attempt at a portrait, said to be
domestic objects of raillery in general, and that of Mr. Humphreys, the printseller. He
applied himself almost exclusively to sharp died in 1815 ; and the inscription 4 Here lies
ening the national spirit of hostility against James Gillray, the caricaturist,’ marks, or
the foreign enemy. His caricatures against lately marked, the spot of his interment in
the French are those by which he is best the Broadway, Westminster. His works,
known, especially abroad, and occupy the once so popular, had fallen so much in
greatest space in his works. This was, no fashion a few years ago that the plates were
doubt, the popular line to take, and Gillray about to be sold for old copper, when they
worked for money; but it would be doing were rescued by Mr. J. H. Bohn, the pub
great injustice to the poor caricaturist’s lisher, who gave to the public those now
memory to suppose that money was his well-known re-impressions which have pro
main object. The son of the old pensioner cured for the artist a new' lease of fame.
Gillray was the Rubens of caricature, and
was full of the popular instincts of his class.
It was not the French revolution or con the comparison is really one which does no
quests that he opposed; it was the French injustice to the inspired Fleming. The life
themselves, whom he hated with all the ve like realism of the Englishman’s boldlyhemence of a Nelson or a Windham. rounded, muscular figures, and the strong
These later compositions of his are, indeed, expression communicated to them by a few
marvellous performances. But they are so strokes of the pencil, are such as Antwerp
rather from the intensity of imaginative fu in all her pride might not disdain. Any
ry with which they are animated, than from one who has studied some of Rubens’s
crowds of nude figures which approach
the ordinary qualities of the caricaturist.
They are comparatively destitute of his nearest to the order of caricature — his
old humour and fun. Not that he had out sketches of the4 Last Judgment,’for instance,
grown these. His few domestic caricatures in the Munich Gallery —■ will appreciate the
are still full of them; such are those on justice of the parallel. Gillray was undoubt
4 All the Talents ’ (1806), one of which, the edly coarse to excess, both in conception
4 Funeral of Baron Broadbottom,’ is among and execution ; so much so, as to render his
the most comic of all his productions. The last works mere objects of disgust to many ed
survivor of its procession of mourners, the ucated in the gentler modern school. But
late Marquis of Lansdowne, has now been there are also numbers of a taste more re
dead for some years ; the features of the re fined than catholic, who disclaim all admira
mainder are quite unfamiliar to this genera tion for Rubens on the very same grounds.
tion ; and yet it is scarcely possible to look And one quality Gillray possessed which
at it even now without a smile, such as we was apparently discordant from his ordinary
bestow on the efforts of our cotemporaries character. Many of his delineations of female
Leech or Doyle. But when Gillray tried beauty ■ are singularly successful, and he
his vein on a French subject, he passed at seems to have dwelt on them with special
once from the humourous to the grotesque, pleasure, for the sake of the contrast with
and thence to the hideous and terrible. his usual disfigurements of humanity. His
One of his eccentric powers, amounting heroines are certainly not sylphs, but they
certainly to genius, comes out strongly in often are, like the celestials of Rubens, un
these later caricatures ; that of bringing to commonly fine women. Let us refer to a
gether an enormous number of faces, dis few well-known instances only ; such as his
torted into every variety of grimace, and representations of Mrs. Fitzherbert at her
yet preserving a wonderfully human ex best time, notwithstanding the. prominence
pression. We would signalise particularly of the aquiline feature, which it was his
two, one almost tragical, thh 4 Apotheosis of business to enhance ; of George III.’s daugh
Hoche;’ one farcical, the ‘Westminster ters in the 4 Anti-Saccharites,’ and other
Election’ (1804). The tendency to the prints; the Duchess of Richmond as the
�..
568
1
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE
‘ Height of Fashion; ’ the charming seated
figure entitled ‘ Modern Elegance,’ 1795
(said to be Lady Charlotte Campbell, but
is it not an older person ?), in which, though
the costume is playfully exaggerated, the
features are finely drawn; the beauty (evi
dently a portrait also) who is reading Monk
Lewis’s ‘Tales of Wonder’ to a' bevy of
I very homely gossips (1802); and even the
I common ball-room figures, in ‘ A Broad
1
1'Hint of not meaning to Dance’ (1804), in
which, however, the design is Brownlow
North’s.
Still, we fear that Gillray must be gener
ally comprehended in the somewhat auda
cious assertion of M. Champfleury, that
‘satirists, from Moliere down to Prudhon,
only recognise two conditions for women —
those of courtezan and housewife.’ It will
be seen that several of our instances are
taken from what may be termed social,
in contradistinction to political, caricatures,
many of which are quite equally worthy of
the master, although not those on which his
popularity mainly rests. They are often of
a libellous boldness, inconceivable now-adays, and equally so in earlier times; for
the generation to which Gillray belonged
stood out in bad pre-eminence among all
others in English domestic history in respect
of this particular kind of coarseness — a
generation which could see exposed in the
shop-windows such shameless pictorial sa
tires as those directed against Lady Arch
er, and other dames of gambling celebrity;
or the representation of the dashing daugh,
ters of a countess as the ‘ Three Graces in
a High Wind; ’ or of a titled beauty nurs
ing her infant in a ball-dress, as the ‘ Fash
ionable Mamma; ’ or of Lady Cecilia John
ston, an inoffensive lady, of unobtrusive
style as well as character, against whom it
is said the artist had conceived some grudge,
which induced him spitefully to represent
her in all manner of ludicrous situations.
Others of this class, it may be added, related
to darker scandals behind the scenes, and
may not now be met with in the ordinary
collections of Gillray’s works, though they
excited little comment, and no disgust, in
his day. To pass again, for one moment
only, from Gillray’s merit as an artist,
to his specialty as a caricaturist; his strong
i power of seizing likenesses, and giving them
! a ludicrous expression, was, no doubt, the
1 chief element of his popularity. In this he
surpassed all his predecessors, though he has
been equalled by one or two of his succes
sors. But in one bye-quality we are in
clined to think him unrivalled: the faculty
of giving by a few touches a kind of double
expression to a countenance; cowardice
underlying bravado; impudence, affected,
modesty. See, as a specimen, the exceedingly comic representation of Addington
and Napoleon, sword in hand, daring each
other to cross the Channel which flows
between them. A single figure of Burke
as an ‘Uniform Whig’ (1791), admirably
drawn in other respects, conveys much
of this mingled meaning, though not quite
so easily decipherable. The sage is lean
ing against a statue of George III.; he
holds in one hand Burke’s ‘ Thoughts on
the Revolution,’ in the other a cap of liber
ty ; the motto, ‘ I preserve my consistency,
by varying my means to secure the unity of
my end.’ The caricaturist’s experience
had attained for once to ‘something like
prophetic strain.’ His facility of execution
was wonderful. It must, no doubt, be
added, as a natural qualification of such
praise, that his drawing is often incorrect
and careless in the extreme, even after
all allowance for what we have never seen
fully explained, the vast difference, in point
of excellence, between various copies of
what is apparently the same print. He
is said ‘to have .etched his ideas at once
upon £he copper, without making a previ
ous drawing, his only guides being sketches
of the distinguished characters he intended
to produce, made on small pieces of card,
which he always carried about with him.’
Of Rowlandson (born 1756, died 1827),
Mr. Wright speaks in high terms of praise,
saying that he ‘ doubtlessly stands second to ■
Gillray, and may, in some respects, be con
sidered as his equal.
. He was distin
guished by a remarkable versatility of tal
ent, by a great fecundity of imagination,
and by a skill in grouping quite equal to
that of Gillray, and with a singular ease in
forming his groups of a great variety of
figures. It has been remarked, too, that no
artist ever possessed the power of Rowland
son of expressing so much with so little ef
fort.’ We are sorry that we cannot, for our
own parts, subscribe to these eulogies. As
a political caricaturist — to which line he
resorted as a matter of trade, espousing the
Whig side as others did the Tory — he
seems to us dujl enough. In general sub
jects he succeeded better, yet appears to us
endowed with all Gillray’s coarseness, but
with little of his satirical power and none of
his artistic genius.
James Sayer, cotemporary with these
two as an artist, deserves mention as pos
sessed of a certain amount of original tai-'
ent, though not of a very high order. He
was ‘ a bad draughtsman,’ says Mr. Wright
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
—- surely too sweeping a criticism — ‘ and
his pictures are produced more by labour
than by skill in drawing, but they possess a
considerable amount of humour.’ His like
nesses, generally produced by a small num
ber of hard and carefully-executed lines,
seem to us of great merit as such, though
wanting in life and energy. He was almost exclusively a political caricaturist,
and, unlike the reckless ^but independent
Gillray, he turned his talents to good ac. count, devoting himself to the cause of Pitt,
who bestowed on him in return the ‘ not
, unlucrative offices of Marshal of the Court
of Exchequer, Receiver of the Sixpenny
Dues, and Cursitor.’ His most famous
production was the well-known ‘ Carlo
' Khan’s Triumphal Entry into Leadenhallstreet’ (on the occasion of Fox’s India Bill,
1783), still common in collections. Butthis
succeeded chiefly because it fell in with the
humour of the time; though the idea is
good, the execution is cold, and it is encum
bered with symbolical accessories, after the
older fashion which we have described.
Among his minor works, an unfinished proof
of Boswell, Mrs. Piozzi, and others of the
Johnsonian clique, with the ghost of the
Doctor himself scowling at them from
above, exhibits a good deal of his peculiar
laborious talent.
Our catalogue of cotemporaries would
hardly be complete without including in it
the clever and goodhumoured amateur
Henry Bunbury, though no dabbler in
State affairs, like jGillray and Sayer. Bunbury had (as Mr. Wright says) ‘ little taste
for political caricature, and seldom meddled
with it. He preferred scenes of social life
and humourous incidents of cotemporary
manners, fashionable or popular.’ It may
be added that he does not seem to have
often inserted portraits in his .pieces. He
was rather the forerunner of the modern
French ' school of grotesque artists ‘ de
genre,’ of whom we shall have a word to
say presently. His drawing, says Mr.
Wright, ‘ was often bold and good, but he
had little skill in etching.’ After some
early essays in that line, “ his designs were
engraved by various persons, and his own
style was sometimes modified in this pro
cess.’ We have ourselyes seen original
drawings by his hand, very superior both in
force and refinement to the coarse style of
the ordinary plates which bear his name.
z Perhaps the best known and most ludicrous
t of his compositions are his illustrations of
‘ Geoffry Gambado’s Art of Horsemanship.’
Bunbury was brother to the baronet who
married Lady Sarah Lennox, and himself
569
husband of one of Goldsmith’s’ favourite
Miss Hornecks. He died in 1811, the date
of his last work, ‘ A Barber’s Shop in Assize
Time,’ engraved by Gillray.
Passing over Isaac Cruikshank — a very
prolific artist of the same period with Gill
ray, of whom he was a pretty close imitator
— we arrive at his illustrious son George,
who still survives to connect our era with
the last. He is now almost forgotten as a
political caricaturist, in which line he em
barked, fifty years ago, under the auspices
of his father, but soon abandoned it to
achieve his peculiar andaunique celebrity as
an etcher of small figures, chiefly in the
way of illustrations to letterpress, in which
humour and the most exquisite appreciation
of the ludicrous alternate with beauty and
pathos of no common order. ‘ The ambi
tion of George Cruikshank,’ says Mr.
Wright, ‘ was to draw what Hogarth called
moral comedies, pictures of society through
a series of acts and scenes, always pointed
with some great moral; and it must be con
fessed that he has, through a long career,
succeeded admirably.’ Every one is aware
of the zeal with which the amiable artist
has devoted himself to promote the public
good by this employment of his brain, of
which an amusing illustration is furnished
by the current story — for the truth of
which, however, we will by no means vouch
— that he insisted on formally presenting
his ‘Drunkard’s Progress’ to her Majesty!
And yet, to our taste, George Cruikshank’s
most ambitious attempts in this line are
scarcely equal to the trifling productions
which he has now and then thrown off in
mere exuberance of genius and animal
spirits. The first edition of a little book,
entitled ‘ German Popular Stories,’ which
appeared in 1834 (the letterpress was by
the late Mr. Jardine), contains, on the mi
nutest possible scale, some of the most per-1feet gems, both of humour and gracefulness,
which are anywhere to be found. The
reader need only cast his eye on ‘ Cherry,
or the Frog-Bride ; ’ the ‘ Tailor and the
Bear-; ’ ‘ Rumpelstiltskin,’ and the inimi
table procession of country folks jumping
into the lake after the supposed flocks of
sheep in ‘ Pee-wit,’ to learn how much of fun,
and grotesque, and elegance of figures also,
and beauty of landscape, may be conveyed
in how few lines.
The history of English caricature of the
Georgian era would be incomplete without
a notice of the various printsellers who
supplied the material to the public, and
whose shop-windows furnished, not so many
years ago, favourite stages or stations, as it
�570
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
were, for the wandering Cockney, on his
peregrinations between East and West; and
with this Mr. Wright has accordingly fur
nished us. Perhaps the most celebrated
were Humphreys, of New Bond-street and
Piccadilly (whom, however, Mr. Wright
does not mention), and Fores.
‘ S. W. Fores dwelt first at No 3, Piccadilly,
but afterwards establishe i himself at No. 50, the
corner of Sackville Street, where the name still
remains. Fores seems to have been most fertile
in ingenious expedients for the extension of his
business. He formed a sort of library of cari
catures, and other prints, and charged for ad
mission to look at them; and he afterwards adopt
ed a system of lending them out in portfolios for
evening parties, at which these portfolios of car
icatures became a very fashionable amusement
in the latter part of the last century. At times
some remarkable curiosity was employed to add
to the attractions of his shop. Thus, on carica
tures published in 1790, we find the statement
that “ In Fores Caricature Museum is the completest collection in the kingdom. Also the
Head and Hand of Count Struenzee. Admit
tance, one shilling.” Caricatures against the
French revolutionists, published in 1793, bear
imprints stating that they were “ published by
S. W. Fores, No. 3 ,Piccadilly, where may be
seen a Complete Model of the Guillotine. Ad
mittance, one shilling.” In some this model is
said to be six feet high.’
Mr. Wright closes his list with George
Cruikshank, as the last representative of
the great school of caricaturists formed in
the reign of George HI. But there is anoth
er, still living among us, whose experience
as an artist goes very nearly back to that
reign, and who may be in the most literal
sense called the last of the political caricatu
rists as he is considered by many the best —
Mr. Doyle, the world-famous H.B. of the
past generation. Those who belonged to it
can well remember the height of popularity
which his lithographed sketches achieved,
the little blockades before the shop-windows
in St. James’s-street and the Flaymarket
whenever a new one appeared, and the con
venient topic of conversation which it was
sure to afford to men of the clubs, when meet
ing each other on the pavement. For it was
to critics of this class that H.B. particularly
addressed himself. His productions wanted
the popular vigour of those of Gillray and his
school. But it is to Mr. Doyle’s high honour
that they were also entirely free from the
scandalous coarseness of his predecessors, and
that he showed the English public how the
purposes of political satire could be fully se
cured without departing a hand’s breadth
from the dignity of the artist or the charac
GROTESQUE
ter of the gentleman. As a delineator of
figures, we cannot esteem him very success
ful. They run too much into the long and
lanky; portions of the outline, the extremities
in particular, are often almost effeminate in
their refinement: when he attempts a really
broad, bluff personage, he is apt to produce
the effect of a fine gentleman masquerading
as a Falstaff. But it was in the likeness of
his portraits, and their expression, that his
chief and singular merit consisted. And in
these, again, his success was extremely va
rious. His fortune, in a professional sense,
may be said to have been made by three
faces — those of the Duke of Wellington,
King William IV., and Lord Brougham.
The provoking, sly no-meaning, establishing
itself on the iron mask of the first; the goodhumoured, embarrassed expression of the
second; the infinite variety of grotesque
fancies conveyed in the contorted features
of the third ; these were reproduced, week
after week, for years, with a variety and
fertility perfectly astonishing. In other
cases he never could succeed in hitting off
even a tolerable likeness : of his hundred or
so representations of the late Sir Robert
Peel, we do not recollect one which conveys
to us any real remembrance of the original.
The Peel of caricaturists in general, not
only of H.B.,was a conventional person
age ; .as is, though in a less marked degree,
the Gladstone of our present popular artists.
Still more remarkable was the failure of
H.B., in common with his predecessors, in
catching the likeness of Gtsorge IV. In all
the countless burlesque representations of
that personage, from the handsome youth of
1780 to the puffy veteran of 1827, there are
scarcely any which present a tolerable re
semblance.
The courtly Lawrence suc
ceed in portraying him well enough ; the
caricaturists, usually so happy, never. H.
B.’s published sketches amount to some nine
hundred, and afford a capital key to the
cabinet and parliamentary history of Eng
land, from the Ministry of Wellington to
the end of Lord Melbourne’s. While num
bers of them *o credit to the artist’s politi
d
cal sagacity as well as his skill, we cannot
forbear to notice one which, to our present
notions, illustrates the ‘ nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futurse ’ — produced
when the Tories, to whom H.B. appertain
ed with all his heart, anticipated the tri
umphs of French over English diplomacy
under the conduct of our then Foreign Sec
retary : it is No. 171 in the series, ‘The
Lame leading the Blind: ’ Lord Palmers
ton, guided into a ditch by Talleyrand.
With the renowned H. B. the line of regu-
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
lar British caricaturists closes. The taste of
the nation has sought another direction. But
do not let us be misunderstood. The spir
it of the' art survives, and will do so as long
as England is a free country and Englishmen
retain a sense of the ludicrous ; but its form
is so completely changed, by the substitu
tion of the cheap illustrated newspaper for
the comparatively expensive broad-sheet of
the last century, that a more convenient
moment could not be found, for closing the
old chapter in artistic history and beginning
a new one, than that in. which Doyle ceas
ed his labours and the ‘ Punch ’ school of
satirists began theirs. The very distinct
mode of treatment which the small size of
the modern comic newspaper, compared
with the old sheet, necessarily requires,
combines with other causes of difference to
render this new school something quite apart
from the old one. Its success must needs be
obtained more through skill in the delinea
tion of individual faces, and compactness of
wit in the 1 motive ’ of the composition, than
through breadth of treatment, or (generally
speaking) through talent for grouping. In
the delineation of faces, however, and es
pecially in portrait, which is the specialty
of political caricature, the designers with
whom we are now dealing have an immense
advantage over those of former times, in
being able to use the results of the art of
photography. Photographs of faces and fig
ures, always at hand, are a very superior
class of auxiliaries to those hasty ‘ drawings
on bits of card ’ with which Gillray was wont
to content himself. The popularity which
our present favourites have earned is prob
ably more real, certainly much more exten
sive, than that gained by their most success
ful predecessors, from Hogarth to Cruik-1
shank : with whose names that of Leech, so
lately lost to us, and of his living associates
and rivals, of whom we need only name
Doyle the younger and John Tenniel as
specimens, will assuredly find their places
in the future annals of art. But, arrived at
this turning point, we must take farewell of
our subject, devoting only a few pages more
to the cotemporary history of modern
French caricature, on which Mr. Wright
(to our regret) does not enter. We had
hoped to derive considerable assistance
for this purpose from a new publication
of our friend M. Champfleury, entitled
‘ Histoire de la Caricature Moderne,’ which
has just fallen into our hands ; but although
the title is thus comprehensive, the contents
reduce themselves to a few lively pages of
panegyric on two or three recent artists,
which seem to be diotated’in great measure
by personal feelings.
I
571
The general subject can be nowhere so
well studied in a summary way as in the two
volumes of M. Jaime (‘ Musee de la Carica
ture’), with very fairly executed illustra
tions, to which we can only apply the an
cient reproach, ‘ tantamne rem tarn negligenter; ’ for M. Jaime has but treated' the
matter in a perfunctory way, as if afraid
of dwelling too much on it. It has not,
however, the interest which attaches either
to the coarser but bolder style of art inaug
urated by the Germans in the sixteenth cen
tury, or to that which prevailed in the great
English age of political caricature. Callot
was indeed aJFrenchman, by race at least,
though born in Lorraine, then independ
ent ; but his associations were more with
the school of the Netherlands than that of
France. Nor had he any followers of note
in the latter country. The jealous wake
fulness of French government, and the cold
and measured style which French art de
rived from a close addiction to supposed
classical models, were both alike unfavoura
ble to the development of the artistic empire
of ‘ Laughter, holding both his sides.’
French artists of the eighteenth century for
the most part touched ludicrous subjects in
a decorous and timid way, as if ashamed of
them. As the literature of theEeountry is
said to abound in wit, while it is poor in hu
mour, so its pictorial talent found vent rath
er in the neat and effective K tableau de
genrejlthan in the irregularity of the gro
tesque ; or, to employ another simile, French
cbmic art was to English as the genteel
comedy to the screaming farce. And the
same was the case (to treat the subject
briefly) with that of other nations over
which France exercised predominant influ
ence. Chodowiecki was the popular Ger
man engraver of domesti(?fecenes in the last
century, and his copper-plates have great
delicacy of execution and considerable pow
er of expression. He was in high vogue
for the purpose of illustrating with cuts the
novels and the poetry of the great age of
German literature, and his productions are
extraordinarily numerous. But he habitu
ally shrank from the grotesque. His ad
mirers styled him the German Hogarth — a
comparison which he, we are told, rejected
with some indignation, and which Hogarth,
could he have known it, would certainly
have rejected likewise; for Chodowiecki,
with all his other merits, very seldom ap
proaches the ludicrous, and never soars to
the height or descends to the depth of cari
cature.
The unbounded licence of the first French
Revolution, and the strange mixture of the
burlesque with the terrible which attended
�572
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
its progress, gave of course for some years
the most favourable opportunities possible
for the exercise of pictorial wit, so far as the
nation possessed it. There can be no great
er treat to one who loves to tread the by
ways of history, often the shortest cuts to
truth, than to turn over the series of those
magnificent volumes in the Imperial Libra
ry of Paris, in which the whole pictorial an
nals of the last century or so in France are
preserved; everything arranged as nearly
as may be in order of date, and not of sub
jects : portraits, festal shows and triumphs,
processions, battles, riots, great events, rep
resented under every form down to the
rough newspaper woodcut and street carica
ture, unrolling in one vast phantasmagoria
before the eye. We have much that is val
uable and useful in our Museum, but noth
ing, in the matter of historical art, compara
ble to this collection. An inadequate idea
of it only can be formed from the miscella
neous contents of the well-known three fo
lio volumes of prints, entitled ‘ Tableaux de
la Revolution Francaise.’ The earlier part
of the caricatures of that age are the most
humourous and also the best executed. As
the tragedy deepened, fun became more
and more out of place; and the satirists who
had seen its outbreak having most of them
lost their heads or fled the country, the
business fell into the hands of more vulgar
workmen. One of the first (1788) may be
mentioned, not so much for its execution,
which is tame enough, as because it is (as
far as we know) the real original of a piece
of wit which has since made its fortune in
every language, and been falsely attributed
to many facetious celebrities. Calonne, as a
monkey, has assembled his 1 notables,’ a flock.
of barn-door fowl. ‘ Mes chers administres,
je vous ai rassembles pour savoir a quelle
sauce vous voulez etre manges.’ ‘Maisnous
ne voulons pas etre manges du tout.’ ‘ Vous
vous ecartez de la question.’
But French art, as we have seen, refined
and softened into effeminacy under the class
civilization of the ancien regime, and ren
dered prudish also by its adherence to classi
cal models, had its decorum soon shocked by
too coarse intermixture of the grotesque. In
deed, the reason often given by Frenchmen
of the last generation for the acknowledged
inferiority of their caricatures to ours, was the
superiority of French taste, which could not
accommodate itselfto ‘ignoble’ exaggeration.
On the whole, therefore, those of the revo-<
lutionary series of which we have been
speaking are more interesting, historically,
and also from the keen wit of ten developed
in them, than from their execution. There
GROTESQUE
is no French Gillray or Rowlandson. Here
and there, however, among a multitude of
inferior performances, the eye is struck by
one really remarkable as a work of a higher
order than our English cotemporary series
could furnish. Such is the famous ‘ Arresta-'
tion du Roi d Varennes,’ 1791. The wellknown features of the Royal party, seated
at supper with lights, are brought out with
a force worthy of Rembrandt, and with
slight but marked caricature; while the
fierce, excited patriotic figures, closing in on
them from every side, have a vigour which
is really terrific. Another, in a different
style, is the ‘ Interieur d’un Comite Revolutionnaire,’ 1793. It is said, indeed, to have
been designed by a first-rate artist, Fragonai’S, one who doubtless wrought with a will,
for he had prostituted his very considerable
talents to please the luxurious profligacy of
the last days of the ancient regime, and the
stern Revolution had stopped his trade, an
nihilated his effeminate customers, and re
duced him to poverty. Fragonard’s powers
as a caricaturist are characterised by a wellknown anecdote. He was employed in
painting Mademoiselle Guimard, the famous
dancer, as Terpsichore; but the lady quar
relled with him, and engaged another to
complete the work. The irritated painter got
access to the picture, and with three or four
strokes of his brush turned the face of Terp
sichore into that of a fury. The print now
in question is a copper-plate, executed with
exceeding delicacy of touch. A dozen fig
ures of men of the people, in revolutionary
costume, are assembled round a long table in
a dilapidated hall of some public building.
A young ‘ ci-devant,’ his wife and child, are
introduced through an open door by an ush
er armed with a pike. If the artist’s inten
tion was to produce effect by the contrast of
these three graceful figures with the vulgar
types of the rest of the party, he has suc
ceeded admirably. They are humbly pre
senting their papers for examination ; but it
is pretty clear that the estimable commit
teeman, to whom the noble is handing his
passport, cannot read it. The cunning,
quiet, lawyer-like secretary of the commit
tee, pen in hand, is evidently doing all its
work. At the opposite end of the table an
excited member is addressing to the walls
what must be an harangue of high elo
quence ; but no one is listening to him, and
the two personages immediately behind him
are evidently determined to hear no noise
but their.own. But our favourite figure —
and one well worthy of Hogarth — is that of
the sentinel off duty: he is seated beside a
bottle, pike in hand, enjoying his long pipe,
�iwinM i^i i
IN LITERATURE AND ART.
573
and evidently, from the expression of his tember. It had a brief and feverish revi
face, far advanced from the excited into the val under the Republic of 1848 ; some of
meditative stage of convivial patriotism. A its productions in that period are worth a
placard on the door announces, somewhat moment’s notice, both from their execution
contradictorily as well as ungrammatically, and good humour: we remember two
‘ Ici on se tutoyent: fermez la porte s’il vous of the class of general interest; the 1 Ap
plait! ’ Altogether there is much more of parition du Serpent de Mer,’ a boat full of
the comic than the ferocious about the pa kings, startled by the appearance of the new
triots ; and one may hope that the trembling Republic as the problematical monster of
family, for whom it is impossible not to feel the deep ; and the ‘ Ecole de Natation,’ in
an interest, will this time be ‘ quittespourla which the various Kings and Emperors.of
peur.’
Europe are floundering in a ludicrous, variThe popular governments — Revolutiona ety of attitudes among the billows of revo
ry and of the First Empire — easily tamed lution, while the female rulers of Britain,
the spirit of caricature, as they did that of Spain, and Portugal are kept afloat by their
more dangerous enemies, and it only revived crinolines. But under the decorous rule of
when France was replaced under the. tyran the Empire, no such violation of the re
ny of legitimacy. There is a great deal of spect due to constituted authorities at home
merit in those on the Bonapartist side, of is any longer tolerate^, while ridicule,
1814 and 1815 ; many of them appear to be even of foreign potentates, is permitted
executed by some one clever artist, to us un only under polite restrictions. Debarred
known. We will only notice one of them,' from this mode of expressing itself, French
the ‘Voeu d’un Royaliste, ou la seconde en gaiety finds one of its principal outlets, in
tree triomphante.’ Louis XVIII. is mounted the more innocent shape of social carica
behind a Cossack — the horse and man are ture, which was never so popular, or culti
admirably drawn—while the poor King’s vated by artists of so much eminence, as
expression, between terror and a sense’ of within the last thirty years. And here we
the ludicrous of his position, is worthy of the must notice a singular change in French
best efforts of Gillray or Doyle.
workmanship, which appears to us to have
Caricature continued to be a keen party been occasioned chiefly or wholly by the
weapon in France through the period of introduction of lithography. We have al
the Restoration, and in the early years of ready observed how much difficulty its art
Louis Philippe. The latter monarch’s head ists found in departing from the rules of
especially, under the resemblance of a pear, classical outline and correct drawing, so
which Nature had rendered appropriate, long as the old-fashioned line engraving
was popularised in a thousand ludicrous or prevailed, and the consequent inferiority of
ignominious representations; his Gillray French to English caricature in breadth,
was Honore Daumier, a special friend and its superiority in congjlmess. The intro
favourite of M. Champfleury, but in whom duction and great popularity of lithography
we are unable ourselves to recognize more in'France seems to have altogether changed
than secondary merit. ‘ Entre tous, Dau the popular taste. Artists now dash off,
mier fut celui qui accommoda la poire aux rather than embody, their humorous con
sauces les plus diverses. Le roi avait une ceptions in the sketchiesLof all possible
honnete physionomie, large et etouffee. styles, and that which affords the greatest
La caricature, par l’exageration des lignes licence for grotesque distortions of figure \
du masque, par les differents sentimens and face. Boilly, a clever and fertile lithog
qu’elle preta a l’homme au toupet, le ren- rapher, was perhaps the first to bring
dit typique, et laissa un ineffa?able relief. this style of composition into vogue. But
Les adversaires sont utiles. En politique, to such an extent has the revolution now
un ennemi v.aut souvent mieux qu’un ami.’ gone, while we, on the other hand, have
The genius of Daumier had some analogy been pruning the luxuriance of the old
with that of the sculptor-caricaturist Dan- genius of caricature, that the positions of
tan.
the two countries seem to have become re
But, the liberty of art, like that of the versed, and England to be now the country
Tribune, degenerated into licence, and of classic, France of grotesque art; in the
France has never been able in her long age comic line of which any reader may judge
of State tempests to maintain the line be for himself, by comparing the style of the
tween the two. Political caricature was cuts in ‘ Punch,’, for instance, with those in
once more extinguished in the Orleans the ‘ Charivari.’ We cannot say that we
reign, with the applause of decent people find the change on the other side of the
in general, by the so-called laws of Sep- Channel an improvement, or that we have
�I
574
/
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE.
been enabled to acquire a taste for the
hasty lithographed caricatures of popular
figures and scenes which encumber French
print-shops. The works of Bunbury, among
English artists of this kind of renown, per
haps most nearly approach them ; but these,
rough though they are, have, at all events,
a body and substance, and consequently a
vigour, which their Gallic successors appear
to us to lack, and which they endeavour too
often to supply by loose exaggeration.
However, it is idle to set up our own canons
of taste in opposition to that of a nation,
and a foreign nation into the bargain ; and
we may do our readers more service by
giving them a few short notices of the
leading artists who have risen to popular
ity in modern France by this style of com
position.
Nicolas Toussaint Charlet had an educa, tion and parentage somewhat like those of
our Gillray; born in 1792, the son of an
old dragoon of Sambre-et-Meuse, he began
his career in a not very noble occupation,
being employed in the office where military
recruits were registered and measured: and
it was in that function, possibly, that he
picked up and stored in his memory those
thousand types of grotesque young con
scripts and old grognards, ‘ enfants de
troupe,’ ‘ tourlourous,’ and ‘ gamins,’ with
which he filled the shop-windows while
amusing the multitude with their darling
‘ scenes populaires.’ He was not exactly a
caricaturist in the peculiar sense which we
have given to the word, but an artist‘de
genre; ’ in his own peculiar line few have
surpassed him. It must be noticed that his
sturdy Bonapartism evinced itself in some
ambitious attempts at more serious compo•sitions ; one of which, ‘ La Garde meurt et
ne se rend pas,’ established his fame in 1816,
while an ‘ Episode de la Campagne de
Russie ’ (1836) is ranked at the head of his
works by some of his admirers. But for
our part, we greatly prefer the exquisite
naivete, though without much of the Eng
lish vigour, which characterises some of his
popular scenes; such — to quote one among
a thousand — as that in which a peasant,
looking down with the utmost gravity on a
comrade who is lying in the road, helplessly
drunk, exclaims, ‘ Voilh pourtant comme je
serai dimanche ! ’ Charlet, who died in
1845, left some two thousand lithographed
designs, besides numerous water-colours and
etchings.
Paul Chevalier Gavarni, born in 1801,
ranks at the head of the living caricaturists
of France, unless the Vicomte Amedee de
Noe (under his nom de plume, or rather de
crayon, of ‘ Cham,’ Ham the son of Noah) be
supposed to contest with him that eminence.
The journal ‘ Les Gens du Monde ’ (1835),
and subsequently the ‘Charivari,’ owed to
him the greater part of tlaeir celebrity. If not
equal to Charlet in the ‘ naif’ and simply
popular style, Gavarni excels him in satiri
cal force and in variety. Twenty-five
years hence (says Theophile Gautier) ‘ it is
through Gavarni that the workhwill know
of the existence of Duchesses of the Rue
du Helder, of Lorettes, students, and so
forth.’ Gavarni visited England in 1849,
where, according to his biographer M. de
Lacaze (in the ‘ Nouvelle Biographie Ge
nerale ’), he took so profound a dislike to our
English aristocratic social system (it was
the year, be it remembered, in which the
doctrine ‘la propriete c’est- le vol,’ took
some short hold on Parisian spirits), that
he fell into a fit of‘le spleen,’ became
misanthrophic, and produced nothing fora
long time but sketches of ‘ gin-shop frequent
ers, thieves, street-sweepers, Irishmen, and
the beggars of St. Giles’s and Whitechapel;’
but we are happy to learn, from the same
authority, that he soon recovered his gaiety
in the less oppresive atmosphere of Paris.
His ‘ CEuvres Choisies’ were published as
long ago as 1845, in four volumes. ‘ Deja,’
says Champfleury, ‘ son oeuvre est curieuse
h consulter comme l’expression d’un peintre
de moeurs epris d’ideal elegant dans une
epoque bourgeoise.’
Completing these brief notices of modern
French caricaturists with the mere mention,
of the great artist Gustave Dore, who has
lately condescended to some clever extrava
gances allied to caricature, and of that ec
centric novelty Griset,.we must now con
*
clude our hasty retrospect of the art in
general. The institution of the ‘ comic
illustrated newspaper ’ has now made the
tour of the world ; the United States fur
nish abundant specimens; Germany and
Italy toil manfully in the wake of France and
England; we have even seen political carica
tures from Rio de Janeiro nearly as good as
the ordinary productions of either. But it
is impossible to follow a subject so greatly
widening in its dimensions; and as cheap
ness of execution, while it extends the
popularity of this class of compositions,
diminishes the labour expended on them,
we have not to expect for the future either
productions of so much interest, or artists
of such celebrity, as some of those dealt
with in this article.
�575
REST FOR THE WEARY.
I
,arest for the weary.
“ TRere remaineth therefore a rest to the people of
God/’— Heb. iv. 9.
Dear the storm-won calm of autumn
Brooding o’er the quiet lea;
Sweet the distant harp-like murmur
Trembling from the charmed sea.
Nestling breezes clog the branches;
Leaves lie swooning on the air;
Nature’s myriad hands are folding
O’er her gentle heart, for prayer.
Make the lean grave sleek with treasn
Whilst they, weary, take their rest.
Dead they are not; only sleeping,
Dull although their senses be,
Yet they for the summons listen,
Calling to eternity.
Brothers, sleeping in the Saviour,
Sound their dreamless sleep and ble
But we trust, when this is broken,
There remaineth still a rest !
New-born on the lap of silence,
Cradled on a hoary tomb,
Lo 1 babe evening craves a blessing
As the day forsakes the gloom;
As one lingering sunbeam flushes
The grey spire to golden red,
And the motto “ peace ” is blazoned
Glorious o’er the resting dead.
Peace be to the shapeless ashes,
Perfect once in valour’s mould;
Once on fire for truth and duty,
Now without a spark, and cold..
Smiting was the hero smitten,
Swordless hands now cross his breast;
Share we his mute supplication ;
Weary, may the soldier rest!
Peace to him who braved the tempest,
Polar ice, and tropic wave;
Long the homeless sea who traversed,
Then came home to find a grave !
In this calmest roadstead anchored,
May no more the sailor rove,
Till he lose himself for ever
“ In the ocean of God’s love! ”
Peace to him, the tried and saintly;
Wise to counsel, apt to cheer;
With a sober smile for gladness,
With a hope for every tear.
Earth lies lightly on his bosom,
Faith bedecks his priestly tomb
With the sacred flowers that symbol
Life, and light, and deathless bloom.
Peace to him who bears no legend
Carved above his lowly bed,
Save that he was found, unsheltered
From the storm and winter, dead.
Peace to him, that unknown brother,
Quit of want, and woe, and shame;
Trust we that the nameless stranger
Bears in heaven a filial name 1
From the four winds assembled,
Kindred in the fate to die ;
Eld and infant, alien, homebred,
Neighbours now, how calm they lie!
Valour, beauty, learning, goodness,
With the weight of life opprest,
THE BITTER AND THE SWEET.
Come, darling Effie,
Come, take the cup:
Effie must drink it all —
Drink it all up.x
/
Darling, I know it is
Bitter and bad;
But ’twill make Effie dear .
Rosy and glad.
Mother would take it all
For her wee elf— ,
But who would suffer then?
Effie herself.
If Effie drinks it,
Then, I can tell,
She will go out to play
Merry and well.
' Drink, and then, darling,
You shall have this, —
Sweet after bitter:
Now, first, a kiss.
Ah, darling Effie,
God also knows,
When cups of bitterness
His hand bestows,
1
How His poor children need
Urging to take
Merciful draughts of pain,
Mixed for their sake.
He, too, gives tenderly
Joy after pain,
Sweet after bitterness,
After loss gain.
— Sunday Magazine.
I,
�WERE WOLVES.
From the Spectator.
WERE *
WOLVES.
. A i >; i
In this remarkable little book, remarkable
for a power its external aspect does not
promise and an interest its name will not
create, Mr. Baring-Gould, an author known
hitherto chiefly by his researches in North
ern literature, investigates a belief, once
general in Europe, and even now enter
tained by the majority of the uneducated
class. In widely separated places, and
among races the most distinct, a belief has
been traced in the existence of beings who
combine the human and the animal char
acter, who are in fact men changed either
in form or in spirit into beasts of prey. The
belief, though strong still, was strongest in
the Middle Ages, when men were more un
restrained both in their acts and their cre
dulities. In the extreme North it was so
powerful that Norwegians and Icelanders
had a separate name for the transformation,
calling men gifted with the power or afflicted
with the curse men “ not of one skin.” Mr.
Baring-Gould pushes his theory far when
he connects the story of the Berserkir with
the theory of were wolves, the Berserkir be
ing extant to this day in Asia, calling them
selves Ghazis, and keeping up their fury as
the Berserkir probably did, with drugs ; but
all Scandinavia undoubtedly believed that
men had upon occasion changed into ani
mals, and exhibited animal bloodthirstiness
and power. So did the Livonians. So
down to the very end of the sixteenth cen
tury did all Southern Europe, where the
Holy Office made cases of metempsychosis
subject of inquiry and of punishment. The
very victims often believed in their own
guilt. One man in 1598, Jacques Roulet,
of Angers, stated in his confession that
though he did not take a wolf’s form he was
a wolf, and as a wolf committed murders,
chiefly of children. Even now the peasants
in Norway believe as firmly in persons who
can change themselves into wolves as the
peasants in Italy do in the evil eye, the
Danes think persons with joined eye brows
liable to the curse, the people of SchleswigHolstein keep a charm to cure it, the Slo
vaks, Greeks, and Russians have popular
words for the were wolf, and Mr. BaringGould was himself asked at Vienne to as
sist in hunting a loup garou, or wolf who
ought to have been a human being. In In
dia the belief is immovable, more particu
larly in Oude, where the mass of evidence
collected is so extraordinary that it shook
-for a moment the faith of a man so calm as
the Resident, Colonel Sleeman, and induced
him to give currency to a theory that
wolves might suckle and rear the children
of human beings, who thenceforward would
be wolves. Ultimately, we believe, he
abandoned that notion, but not before he
had puzzled all India with his collection of
exceptional facts, and riveted the supersti
tion of the people of Oude.
A belief so universal and so lasting sug
gests some Cause more real than a supersti
tious idea, and Mr. Baring-Gould believes
he has discovered one. He hold^that in
every human being there is some faint
trace of the wild-beast nature, the love of
destruction and of witnessing the endurance
of suffering. Else why do children display
cruelty so constantly, string flies on knitting
pins, and delight in the writhings of any
animal ? In the majority this disposition is
eradicated either by circumstances, by
training, or by the awakening of the great
influence we call sympathy. In a minority
the desire remains intact but latent, liable
to be called out only by extraordinary inci
dents or some upset of the ordinary balance
of their minds. In a few it becomes a pas
sion, a sovereign desire, or even a mania
entitled to be ranked as a form, and an ex
treme form, of mental disease. It was the
latter exhibition which gave rise to the be
lief in the were-wolves, who were, in Mr.
Baring-Gould’s opinion, simply raving mani
acs, whose wildness took the form either of
a desire to murder or of a belief in their own
power of becoming beasts of prey. So late
as 1848 an officer, of the garrison in Paris
was brought to trial on a charge of rifling
graves of their bodies and tearing them to
pieces, and the charge having been proved
on conclusive evidence, his own confession
included, was sentenced to one year’s im
prisonment. He was mad, but had he lived
before madness was understood he would
have been pronounced either a vampire or
a loup garou. Madness miscomprehended
was the cause of the facts which supported
, the monstrous belief, a theory almost de
monstrated by the history of the case of
Jacques Roulet. The extract is long, but
the story is complete:
“ In 1598, a year memorable in the annals of
lycanthropy, a trial took place in Angers, the
details of which are very terrible. In a wild
and unfrequented spot near Caude, some coun
trymen came one day upon the corpse of a boy
of fifteen, horridly mutilated and bespattered
with blood. As the men approached, two
* Were Wolves. By Sabine Baring-Gould. Lon wolves, which had been rending the body,
bounded away into the thicket. The men gave
don : Smith, Elder, and Co.
�7
\
WERE WOLVES.
577
chase immediately, following their bloody tracks
Jacques Roulet would have been found in
till they lost them; when suddenly crouching sane by any modern jury, and there is scarcely
among the bushes, his teeth chattering with in mediaaval literature a case of lycanthropy
fear, they found a man half naked, with long which cannot be explained upon this sim
/
hair and beard, and with his hands dyed in
blood. His nails were long as claws, and ple theory, — the one at last adopted, and
were clotted with fresh gore and shreds of hu in our judgment proved, by Colonel Sleeman flesh. This is one of the most puzzling man in Oude, but a more difficult question
and peculiar cases which come under our no remains behind. Is it quite certain that all
tice. The wretched man, whose name was cases of long-continued and outrageous cruel
Roulet, of his own accord stated that he had ty presuppose madness ? Is cruelty in fact
fallen upon the lad and had killed him by a natural quality, which can be cultivated,
smothering him, and that he had been prevent or an abnormal desire, the result of extreme
ed from devouring the body completely by the and gradual depravation of the passions
arrival of men on the spot. Roulet proved and the reason ? Take the well known case
on investigation to be a beggar from house to of Gilles de Uetz in 1440. If evidence
house, in the most abject state of poverty. His
companions in mendicity were his brother John can prove anything it is certain that this
and his cousin Julien. He had been given man, head of the mighty House of Laval,
lodging out of charity in a neighbouring vil lord of entire counties and of prodigious
lage, but before his apprehension he had been wealth, did throw up a great position in the
absent for eight days. Before the judges, public service to wander from town to
Roulet acknowledged that he was able to trans town and seat to seat kidnapping children,
form himself into a wolf by means of a salve whom he put slowly te death to delight
which his parents had given him. When ques himself with their agonies. He confessed
tioned about the two wolves which had been himself to eight hundred such murders, and
seen leaving the corpse, he said that he knew
perfectly well who they were, for they were his his evidence was confirmed by the relics
companions, Jean and Julien, who possessed found. He was betrayed by his own agents,
the same secret as himself. He was shown the and in the worst age of a cruel cycle his
clothes he had worn on the day of his seizure, crimes excited a burst of horror so profound
and he recognized them immediately; he de that he, a noble of the class which was be
scribed the boy whom he had murdered, gave yond the law, so powerful that he never at
the date correctly, indicated the precise spot tempted to escape, «vas burnt alive. Was he
where the deed had been done, and recognized mad, or only bad beyond all human ex
the father of the boy as the man who had first perience ? Mr. Baring-Gould inclines evi
run up when the screams of the lad had been dently to the former theory, and it is at all
heard. In prison, Roulet behaved like an idiot. events a pleasing one, but it is difficult for I
When seized, his belly was distended and hard;
in prison he drank one evening a whole pailful thinking men to forget that power has in oth
of water, and from that moment refused to eat er instances produced this capacity of cruelty,
or drink. His parents, on inquiry, proved to to refuse credence to all stories of the cruelty
be respectable and pious people, and they proved of Caesars, and Shahs, and West Indian slave
that his brother John and his cousin Julien holders. It is possible, and we hope true,
had been engaged at a distance on the day of that the genuine enjoyment of pain is rare
Roulet’s apprehension. ‘ What is your name, among the sane, though the Roman popu
and what your estate ? ’ asked the judge, Pierre
Herault. — ‘My name is Jacques Roulet, my lace felt something like it, and though we
age thirty-five; I am poor, and a mendicant/ are ever and anon startled by cases of wil
— ‘ What are you accused of having done ? ’ — ful cruelty to animals, but genuine indiffer
‘Of being a thief—of having offended God. ence to it is frequent, and granted the in
My parents gave me an ointment; I do not difference, any motive may give it an ac
know its composition.’—‘When rubbed with tive form. The thirst for domination is the
this ointment, do you become a wolf? ’ — ‘ No • most common impulse, but in well known
but for all that, I killed and ate the child Cor instances jealousy, fear, hatred, religious
nier : I was a wolf.’ — ‘ Were you dressed as a bigotry, and even vanity, have been equal
wolf?’ — ‘I was dressed as I am now. I had
events the passion
my hands and my face bloody, because I had ly efficacious. At all that it is restraina
been eating the flesh of the said child.’ — ‘ Do differs from madness in
your hands and feet become paws of a wolf ? ’_ ble. Hardly one genuine case on a great
‘ Yes, they do.’ — ‘ Does your head become like scale has been recorded in a civilized coun
that of a wolf — your mouth become larger ? ’ — try for many years, and it seems certain
‘ I do not know how my head was at the time; I that the restraints of order prevent it from
used my teeth; my head was as it is to-day. I acquiring its full sway, and that therefore it
have wounded and eaten many other little is rather the depravation of nature than na
children; I have also been to the sabbath.’ ”
ture itself which is its origin. Gilles de
THIRD SERIES. DIVING AGE. VOL. XXXII.
1477.
V
�578
SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
,Retz is possible, if he were sane, only in a
class which can indulge every impulse with
impunity, and at a time when law is no
longer to be feared. It may be true that he
belonged to the were-wolf genus, the men
afflicted with homicidal mania, but he may
also have belonged to a class now almost as
exceptional, the men in whom unrestricted
power has developed that thirst for testing
it in its highest, its most frequent, and its
most visible form, the infliction of slow
death-agonies upon powerless human beings.
It was, we fear, the madness of a Ceesar
rather than of a were wolf which influenced
Gilles de Betz, and Mr. Baring-Gould
would, we think, have exemplified his theo
ry more perfectly had he excluded stories
which testify not so much to the instability
of human reason as to the depths of evil
lurking in the human heart. He argues in
deed that Gilles de Betz is the link between
the citizen and the were wolf, but then in so
doing he assumes one tremendous datum,
that madness always shows itself in the ex
treme development of the latent heart, and
not in its radical perversion. One of its
■ commonest forms nevertheless is intense
hatred of those whom the patient has most
genuinely and fondly loved, and the bal
ance of probability is that insanity as often
perverts as intensifies the secret instincts of
its victim. Mr. Baring-Gould has, we
■ think, demonstrated that madness misap
prehended was the root of the were-wolf
delusion, but not that homicidal mania is
the ultimate expression of an inherent ten• dency in universal human nature.
From the Spectator.
SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
Professor huxley, in the remarkable
lecture on “ improving natural knowledge ”
delivered to the working classes at St. Mar
tin’s Hall, and since published in the Fort
nightly Review, states with a candour and
moderation worthy of all praise, certain
notions destructive of all worship, — ex
cept that very impossible kind of worship
recommended by Professor Huxley, worship
■ of the Unknown and Unknowable, — which
have been gaining more and more hold of
■ merely scientific men for many generations,
and which, we need not say, are absolutely
inconsistent with admitting the activity of
: any supernatural will in the Universe, and
.•.still more the actual occurrence of miracle.
Now it is a matter worth a little considera
tion how far men of pure science are trust
worthy on matters of this kind, how far
their evidence is what we should call on
other subjects the evidence of experts, or
not. On a medical subject, we should never.think of adopting absolutely any theory
rejected by a very large and, perhaps in
creasing, number of the most eminent men
in the medical profession. On a historical
subject, we should think it absurd to take
up with a view against which every fresh
historian of learning and eminence began
with clearer and clearer conviction to pro
test. How far, then, even if it be true, as
it possibly may be, that the tendency of
the highest and calmest scientific thought is
increasingly anti-supernatural, can we con
sider this the tendency of a class entitled
to special intellectual deference, or the re
verse ? Mr. Brooke Foss Westcott, in a
very thoughtful volume which he has just
published on the Gospel of the Resurrec
tion” * freely admits that “ a belief in
miracles decreases with the increase of
civilization,” but maintains, amidst other
weaker and less defensible positions, that
the accuracy of comprehensive views of
nature as a whole, is not only not secured,
but may be even specially endangered, by
too special and constant a study of given
parts of nature. “ The requirements,” he
says, “ of exact science bind' the attention
of each student to some one small field,
and this little fragment almost necessarily
becomes, for him the measure of the whole,
if indeed he has ever leisure to lift his eyes
to the whole at all.” And undoubtedly the
man who has been studying, say, for the
sake of a definite example, the chemical
effects of light all his life, and who knows
that every different substance when burnt
yields a different spectrum, so that you may
know by the number and situation of the
dark lines exactly what substance it is that
is burning, might be inclined to look at the
possibility of miracle, and at faith in the
supernatural will, from a narrow point of
view. He will say to himself, ‘If one of
these spectra were suddenly to change its
appearance, if such a dark line vanished,
and such others appeared, should I not
know with a certainty to me infallible, — a
certainty on the absoluteness of which I
should never hesitate to risk my own life
or that of my family, — that some other
element had been introduced into the burn
ing substance ? Could anything persuade
me that the change was due to divine
volition apart from the presence of a new
* Macmillan.
�SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
'
'
j
■
579
element or new elements in the burning be equivalent to the positive alteration in
substance ? Must not the Almighty him the essence of a mighty whole, as really
self, if He chose to make the change, make astounding in itself as the change which
it by providing the characteristic element could made oxygen burn (that is, oxidize)
for the purpose,—just as if He chose to or two and two equal to five.
alter the moral traits of a human character,
Now this is, we take it, something less
He could only do it by a process that would than conjecture, — indeed demonstrable
alter the character itself, and not by mak scientific error, if science be taken to in
ing a stupid and ignorant man give out all clude anything more than the laws of physi
the characteristic signs of wisdom and cal phenomena. It is probably true indeed
learning, or a malignant and cruel man put that in some sense the physical forces of the
forth all the moral symptoms of warm be- Universe are an invariable quantity, which
nevolence and charity.’ Sb the scientific only alter their forms, and not their sum
man would argue, and we are disposed to total. If I move my arm, the motion, says
think would argue rightly. For, admitting the physiologist, is only the exact equiva
that the physical qualities of things are lent of a certain amount of heat which has
realities at all, we should say that to make disappeared and taken the form of that
the physical qualities of one thing inter motion. If I do not move it, the heat re
change with the physical qualities of an mains for use in some other way. In either
other, without interchanging the things, is, case the stock of force is unchanged. This
if it be logically and morally possible, as is the conviction of almost all scientific
the Transubstantiationists believe and most men, and is probably true. But whether
other men disbelieve, a piece of divine the stock of physical force is constant or
magic or conjuring, and not a miracle. But not, the certainty that human will can
then, do not many great scientific men like change its direction and application — can
Professor Huxley really infer from such transfer it from one channel to another —
trains of reasoning far more than they will is just the same. And what that really
warrant ? All that such reasonings do tend means, if Will be ever free and uncaused,
to show, is, that if you truly conceive the though of course not unconditioned,—
natural constitutions of things, there are which is, we take it, as ultimate arid scienti
changes which you cannot make without fic a certainty as any in the Universe, — is
destroying those very things altogether, no less than this, — that a strictly super
and substituting new ones. As a miracle natural power alters the order and constitu
which should make two and two five is tion of nature, — takes a stock of physical
intrinsically impossible (Mr. Mill and the force lying in a reservoir here and transfers
Saturday Review in anywise notwithstand it to a stream of effort there, — in short,
ing), so also (though less certainly) a mira that the supernatural can change the order
cle which should make oxygen a combusti and constitution of the natural, — in its
ble gas instead of a supporter of combus essence pure miracle, though miracle of hu
tion, and quite certainly a miracle which man, and not of divine origin. For ex
should make it right to do what is known ample, almost every physiologist will admit
to be wrong, or wrong to do what is known the enormous power that pure Will has
to be right, is intrinsically impossible. But over the nervous system, — that it can pro
the modern scientific inference goes much long consciousness and even life itself for
further than this, and immediately extends certain short spaces, by the mere exertion
the conception of these inherent constitu of vehement purpose. Physicians tell you
tions of certain things and qualities to the constantly that such and such a patient
whole Universe, — assuming, for instance, may no doubt, if it be sufficiently impor
that it is just as impossible, just as much tant, by a great effort command his mind
a breach in the inherent constitution of sufficiently to settle his affairs, but that it
some one or more things, for one who has will be at the expense of his animal force,
been dead to live again, for the phenomena — in short, that it will be a free transfer of
of decomposition to be arrested, the heart force from the digestive and so to say vege
once silent to begin to beat, as for oxygen tating part of his system, to that part of
itself to burn without ceasing to be oxygen. his physical constitution, his nervous system,
The way in which this view would *e de which lies closest, as it were, to the will.
b
fended would be that all matter and all its Nay, we have heard physicians say that
qualities are now almost proved to be modes patients, by a great effort of pure will,
of force, and all force indestructible, so have, as they believe, prolonged their own
that any kind of supernatural change in life for a short space, that is, have imparted,
the phenomena of matter would appear to we suppose, through the excitement pro
�580
SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
duced by the will on the nervous system
and so downwards, a certain slight increase
of capacity to assimilate food to the failing
organic powers of the body. In other
words, we conclude, just as the organism is
failing to draw supplies of physical force
from the outward world, its power of doing
so may be slightly prolonged,—the out
ward world drained of a small amount of
force it would otherwise, have kept in stock,
and the organism compelled to absorb it —
by a pure volition. Can there be a clearer
case of action of the supernatural on the
natural, — even granting that the sum
total of physical force is not altered, but
only its application changed ?
What more do we want to conceive
clearly the room for Christian miracle, than
the application of precisely the same con
ception to God and Christ ? The students
of the Universe appear to us to be in pre
cisely the same condition with regard to
the Universe, as a scientific observing mind
secreted in some part of a human body
(not the mind moving that body, but some
other) would be in with relation to the
structural, chemical, mechanical laws of
that body. Suppose an atom of your
blood able to retain its identity constantly
in a human body, and to travel about it on
a tour of scientific observation. It would
very soon arrive at the conclusion that
there were great laws of circulation of the
blood and the fluids which supply it,—
such as we see in nature in the astronomi
cal laws, — great laws of force by which
the legs and arms are moved, like the forces
of tides or falling waters in the Universe,
— great structural laws, by which different
tissues, like the hair, the skin, nails, the
nervous and muscular tissues, grow up out
of the nourishment supplied them, just as
we notice the growth of trees and flowers
out of the earth, —and great though some
what uncertain laws of alternation between
activity and repose, — like the laws of night
and day; — and such a scientific particle
as we have supposed would undoubtedly
soon begin to say that the more deeply it
studied these things, the more the reign of
pure law seemed to be extended in the
universe of the body, so that all those un
certain and irregular phenomena (which
we, however, really know to be due to the
changes effected by our own free self-gov
erning power), must be ascribed, it would
say^ not to any supernatural influence, but
to its own imperfect knowledge of the
more complex phenomena at work. And
such a scientific particle would be perfectly
justified in its inferences; for we have sup
posed it only an intellectual observing ma
chine, not a free will with knowledge of its
own that there is a power which is not
caused, and which can effect real modificacations in the relation even of physical
forces which never vary in amount. But
nevertheless it would be wrong, and could
never know the truth, namely, that the
ordering of the succession in these physical
forces, — the interchanges between one and
the other, — the physical influences over
the body exerted by the command of the
appetites and passions, were all of them
really traceable in great part to super
natural power, though to supernatural pow
er which does not either add to or subtract
from the sum total of physical force present
in the Universe. And we maintain that
the men of pure science, as they are called,
—the men who study everything- but Will,
— fall into precisely the same blunder as
such a rationalizing particle of a human
body, and for the same reason. They are
quite right in their inferences from their
premises, but their premises are radically
defective.
In truth the room for miracle remains as
wide as ever. Admit all the discoveries
of science, and still they only prove a cer
tain constancy in the amount of physical
force, and a certain invisible law of suc
cession between the same phenomena. But
just as a man who puts forth a great effort
to retain his consciousness and reason or
even life for a short time longer than he
would otherwise do, may succeed, — suc
ceed, that is, in pumping up the failing
supply of physical force from the Universe
to his system for a few minutes or hours,
when without such an effort it would have
fled from his body and passed away ipto
other channels, — so miracle only assumes
that a supernatural power infinitely greater
than man’s will might, on sufficient reason,
— which every Christian believes to be far
more than sufficient, — do the same thing
infinitely more effectually, and for a far
longer time. Miracle is in essence only the
directing supernatural influence of free
mind over natural forces and substances,
whatever these may be. In man we do 'not
call this miracle, only because we are ac
customed to it, — and in nature scientific
men refuse to believe that any such direct
ing power exists at all. But nevertheless,
every accurate thinker will see at once,
that free will, Providence, and Miracle do
not differ in principle at all, but are only
less or more startling results of the same
fact, — which true reason shows to be fact,
— that above nature exist .free wills, pro-
�THE DURATION
OF OUR SUPPLY OF COAL.
shall readily understand that the vital ques
tions for the wealth, progress, and greatness
of our country are these : — “Is our supply1
of coal inexhaustible ? and if not, how
long will it last?” — Mr. Jevons enables
us to answer both these 'questions. It is
very far from being inexhaustible ; it is in
process of exhaustion ; and, if we go on
augmenting our consumption from year to
year at our present rate of increase, it will
not last a hundred years. Our geological
knowledge is now so great and certain, and
what we may term the underground survey
of our islands has been so complete that we
know with tolerable accuracy both the ex
tent, the thickness, and the accessibility
of our coal fields, and the quantity of coal
annually brought to the surface and used
up. The entire amount of coal remaining
in Great Britain, down to a depth of 4,000
feet, is estimated to be 80,000 millions of
tons. Our annual consumption was in 1860
about 80 millions. At that rate the avail
able coal would last for 1,000 years. But
our consumption is now steadily increasing
at the rate of
per cent, per annum, and
will in 1880 be, not 80 millions, but 160
millions ; and, if it continues thus to increase,
will have worked out the whole 80,000 mil
lions before the year 1960. Nay it would
reach this climax probably some time earlier ; for our calculation includes all the coal
down to 4,000 feet; and no coal mine has
yet been worked at a greater depth than
2,500 feet; and we do not believe that mines
can be worked profitably, and we have lit
tle reason to think they can be worked at
all, at such a depth as 4,000 feet.
Of course we know that, practically, our
coal-fields will not be worked out within this
period. Of course we are aware that our
present rate of annual augmentation cannot.
be maintained. Every year we have to go
deeper for our supply; and going deeper
means incurring greater and greater ex
pense for labour, for machinery, for ventila
tion, for pumping out the water, for acci
dents, &c. Going deeper, therefore, implies
an enhanced price for the coal raised, and
that enhancement of price will check con
sumption. But it is precisely this imminent '
enhancement of price, and not ultimate ex
haustion, that we have to dread; for it is this
enhancement which will limit our rate of
progress and deprive us of our special ad
vantages and our manufacturing supremacy.
Let us see a little in detail the modus ope
rands The difficulty of working and raid
ing coal increases rapidly as the mine grows
deeper, or as inferior mines have to be
worked ; the heat grows more insupporta
bably of all orders of power, which do not,
indeed, ever break the order of nature, but
’ can and do transform, — as regards man by
very small driblets,— but as regards higher
than human wills in degrees the extent of»,
which we cannot measure, — natural forces
from one phase of activity into another, so
as greatly to change the moral order and
significance of the Universe in which we
live.
?
k
THF DURATION
k’
From the Economist, 6 Jan.
OF OUR SUPPLY OF
COAL.
U$der the title of “ The Coal Question/
Mr. Jevons * has furnished the public with
a number of well-arranged and for the
most part indisputable facts, and with a
series of suggestive reflections, which every
one interested in the future progress and
greatness of his country will do well to pon
der seriously. Few of us need to be re
minded how completely cheap coal is at the
foundation of our prosperity and our com
mercial and manufacturing supremacy.
Coal and iron make England what she is ;
and her iron depends upon her coal. Other
countries have as much iron ore as we have,
and some have better ore ; but no country
(except America, which is yet unde
veloped) has abundant coal and ironstone
in the needed proximity." Except in
our supply of coal and iron we have no
natural suitabilities for the attainment
of industrial greatness; nearly all the
raw materials of our manufactures come to
us from afar ; we import much of our wool,
most of our flax, all our cotton and all our
silk. Our railroads and our steamboats are
made of iron and are worked by coal. So
are our great factories. So now is much of
our war navy. Iron is one of our chief arti
cles of export; all our machinery is made
of iron; it is especially in our machinery
that we surpass other nations ; it is our ma
chinery that produces our successful textile
fabrics; and the iron which constructs this
machinery is extracted, smelted, cast, ham
mered, wrought into tools, by coal and the
steam which coal generates. It is believed
that at least half the coal raised in Great
Britain is consumed by the various branches
of the iron trade.
With these facts present to our mind we
I
* The Coal Question. By W. Stanley Jevons, M.
A. Macmillan, 1865.
581
�582
THE DURATION OF OUR SUPPLY OF COAL.
ble, the shafts and passages longer, the dan
Nor does there seem any escape from
ger greater, the ventilation more costly, the these conclusions theoretically, nor any way
quantity of water to be kept out or got out of.modifying them practically. We may,
more unmanageable. A very short period it is said, economise in the use of coal.
may raise engine coal and smelting coal But, in the first place, the great economies
from 5s to 10s per ton. Now a cotton mill that can be reasonably looked for have been
of ordinary size will often use for its steam- already introduced. In smelting iron ore
power 80 tons of coal per week. This at 5sis we use two-thirds less coal than formerly,
l,000Z a year; at 10s per ton, it is 2,000/. and in working our steam engines one-half
But the cotton mill is full of machinery; less;. and, in the second place, it is only a
and one great element in the cost of this rise in the price of coal that will goad us
machinery is the coal used in smelting and into a more sparing use of it; and this
working the iron of which the machinery is very rise of price is the proof and the meas
made. The railroads which bring the cot ure of our danger. “ Export no more
ton to the mill and take the calico and yarn coal,” it is suggested, and so husband your
back to the place of exportation are made stores. But we could not adopt this expe
of iron and worked by coal: so are the dient, even if it were wise to do so, or con
steamboats which bring the cotton to our sistent with our commercial policy, without
shores and export the yarn to Germany; — throwing half our shipping trade into ton
the cost of carriage, therefore, which is a fusion by depriving them of their ballast
very large item in the contingent expenses trade; and even then the evil would be
of our factories, will be greatly increased scarcely more than mitigated ? “ Why,”
both directly and indirectly by a rise in the ask others, “ should we not, when our own
price of coal. An advance in that price stores of coal are exhausted, import coal
from 5s to 10s per ton, maybe estimated to from other countries which will still be rich
be equivalent to 2,000/ a year on the work in mineral fuel, and thus supply our need ?”
ing cost of a good-sized cotton mill. That Simply because of all articles of trade and
is,, as compared with the present state of industry coal is the most bulky in propor
things, and as compared with foreign coun tion to its value; and that it is the fact of
tries, every manufacturer wouid have a having it at hand, of having it in abundance,
burden of 2,000/ a year laid upon him, and of having it cheap, of having it without the
would have to raise the cost of his goods to cost of carriage, that has given us our manu
that extent. .How long could he continue facturing superiority. With coal brought
to compete with his rivals under this disad from America, with coal costing what coal
vantage, or (it would be more correct to then would cost, we could neither smelt our
say) with his present advantage taken away iron, work our engines, drive our locomo
from him ? And how long would coal con tives, sail our ships, spin our yarn, nor
tinue to be supplied even at 10s a ton ?
weave our broad cloths. Long before we
And, be it observed, the check to the had to import our fuel the game would be
consumption of coal— the retardation i. e. up.
in our progress towards ultimate and abso
Of 136 millions of tons now annually
lute exhaustion — can only come from in raised throughout the world, Great Britain
crease of price, and the moment that it does produces 80 millions and the United States
come, the decline of our relative manufac only 20. But this is only because we have
turing pre-eminence has begun. We shall had the first start, and because our popula
avoid the extinction of our coal in the short tion is far denser, and because our iron and
period of a century ; but we shall do so only our coal lie conveniently for each other and
by using less now; — and using less now conveniently for carriage. As soon as
means producing less iron, exporting less America is densely peopled, to America
calico and woollens, employing less ship must both our iron and our coal supremacy
ping, supporting a scantier population, — and all involved therein — be trans
ceasing our progress, receding from our rela ferred ; for the United States are in these
tive position. We may, it is true, make our respects immeasurably richer than even
coal last a thousand years instead of a hun- Great Britain. Their coal-fields are esti
dred, and reduce the inevitable increase in mated at 196,000 square miles in extent,
its price to a very inconsiderable rate; while ours are only 5,400. But this is not
but we can do so only by becoming stationary ; all: their coal is often better in quality and
and to become stationary implies letting incomparably more accessible than ours, es
other nations pass us in the race, exporting pecially in the Ohio valley. In some places
our whole annual increase of population, the cost at the pit’s mouth even now is 2sjper
growing relatively, if not positively, poorer ton in America, against 6s in England.
'
and feebler.
�HAIR-DRESSING IN EXCELSIS.
From the Spectator.
'583
a man’s hair is naturally as long as a woman’s
strikes them with a sense of surprise, and
have almost ceased to dress it. They use
It is not easy to understand the differen pomade still, or at least hairdressers say
ces in the popular appreciation of the mi so, and a few of them, unaware that a
nor trades. Why is a tailor considered rath mixture of cocoa-nut oil and thin spirit is
er contemptible, when no idea of ridicule in all ways the absolutely best unguent,
attaches to a bootmaker ?
Both make waste cash upon costly coloured oils, but
clothes, and in trade estimation the tailor, hairdressing for men is out of fashion. The
who must always be something of a capital average hairdresser contemptuously turns
ist, is the higher man of the two, but the over the male head to some beginner, who
popular verdict is against him. Nobody snips away till hair and tournure are got
calls a hosier the eighteenth part of a man, rid of with equal speed. Up to 1860, too,
yet strictly speaking his business is only a women wore their hair, even on occasions
minor branch of tailoring. No ridicule at demanding a grand toilette, after a very
taches to a hatter, notwithstanding the lu simple fashion, one which the majority of
natic proverb about his permanent mental them could manage very well for them
condition, but everybody laughs internally selves, and which required only careful
as he speaks of a -hairdresser. Is it because brushing. This fashion was not perhaps
.hairdressers were once popularly supposed altogether in perfect taste. Simplicity has
to be all Frenchmen, and therefore share charms, but still a custom which compelled
the contempt with which dancing-masters women with Greek profiles and complex
are regarded by people who, while they ex lions of one shade only and girls with cherry
press it, would not for the world fail to profit cheeks and turned-up noses equally to wear
by their instructions ? A singing-master is their hair like Madonnas, was open to some
allowed to be an artist, often one of the slight attack on artistic grounds. Madonnas
first class, but a dancing-master is consider should not have laughing blue eyes, or pout
ed a cross between an artist and a monkey. ing lips, or flaxen hair, or that look of esOr are hairdressers despised, like men mil pieglerie which accompanies a properly turn
liners, because their occupation, especially ed-up nose, — not a snub, that is abomina
in modern Europe, where men have aban ble, but just the nez retrousse which artists
doned wigs, long locks, and the careful ar detest and other men marry. The Second
rangement of the hair, is essentially femi Empire, however, does not approve simpli
nine ? That may be the explanation, for city, and gradually the art of dressing hail'
nobody despises the lady’s-maid more or has come again into use. The fashion of
less because if she is “ very superior ” she wearing hair a I’Imperatrice was the first
- can dress hair as well as any hairdresser. blow to the Madonna mania, and young
Or is the sufficient cause to be sought in women with no foreheads, and with pointed
their pretensions, in their constant but un foreheads, and with hair-covered foreheads,
successful claim to be considered artists, all pulled their unruly locks straight back
something a little lower than professionals, because an Empress with a magnificent
but a great deal higher than mere trades forehead chose to make the best of it. Any
men, a claim which induces them to indulge thing uglier than this fashion in all women
in highflown advertisements and the inven with unsuitable foreheads and all women
tion of preposterous names, usually .Greek, whatever with black hair it would be hard
but not unfrequently Persian, for totally to conceive, and the mania did not as a
useless unguents ? The claim is allowed in mania last very long. Then came the day
France, but in England, like the similar of invention, the use of false hair, the in
one of the cook and the confectioners, sertion of frisettes, the introduction of gold
it has always been rejected, a rejection en dyes, the re-entry of the vast combs prized
which excites the profession every now and by our great grandmothers, the admiration
then to somewhat violent and therefore ri of pins stolen from the Ionian and Pompe
diculous self-assertion. They perceive an ian head-gear, and a general attention to
opportunity just at present. For a good the head-dress which we can best describe
many years past the business of the coiffeur by quoting from the Manners and Customs
has been comparatively a very simple affair, of Ancient Greece a paragraph on the hair
rising scarcely to the dignity of a trade and dressing of Athenian women : — “ On noth
entirely outside the province of art.x Men ing was there so much care bestowed as.
all over Europe have adopted the fashion upon the hair. Auburn, the colour of Aph
of the much ridiculed Roundheads, cut their rodite’s tresses in Homer, being consider
hair habitually close, till the assertion that ed most beautiful, drugs were invented in
HAIRDRESSING IN EXCELSIS.
�584
HAIR-DRESSING IN EXCELSIS.
which the hair being dipped, and exposed incident in the annals of modern folly. Some
to the noon day sun, it acquired the covet thirty women had their hair dressed in pub
ed hue, and fell in golden curls over their lic by the, same number of men — not, we
shoulders. Others, contented with their,. are sorry to say, to the accompaniment of
own black hair, exhausted their ingenuity slow music,— an improvement we recom
in augmenting its rich gloss, steeping it in mend to Mr. Carter’s attention — and some
oils and essences, till all the fragrance of two hundred men and women looked on and
Arabia seemed to breathe around them. applauded the result. There was in the
Those waving ringlets which we admire in middle of the room a long table covered
their sculpture were often the creation of with a white cloth, as it were for some sort
art, being produced by curling-irons heated of experiment, but upon the table could be
in ashes ; after which, by the aid of jewel seen nothing but hand-mirrors, which look
led fillets and golden pins, they were ed indigestible. So long were other visitors
brought forward over the smooth white incoming that one visitor, who was con
forehead, which they sometimes shaded to scious of wan ting the scissors and of a total
the eyebrows, leaving a small ivory space absence of bear’s grease, was afraid that one
in the centre, while behind they floated in of the many gentlemen who in winning cos
shining profusion down the back. When tume, and faultless “ ’eads of air,” and un
decked in this manner, and dressed for the mistakable hairdressing propensities, hover
gunascitis in their light flowered sandals ed near the door, would insist upon his
and semi-transparent robes, they were having his hair cut and dressed forthwith,
scarcely farther removed from the state of merely to wile away the time. But fortu
nature than the Spartan maids themselves.” nately, just as a gentleman with a “ ’ead of
The grand triumph of the Ionic barbers, air” which would have done credit to any
the invention of a mode of plaiting which wax figure in any shop window, was ap
occupied many hours, and could therefore proaching with sinister looks, visitors, mas
be repeated only once a week, and requir culine and feminine began to pour in. Then
ed those who wore it to sleep on their backs there was diffused around the room an
with their necks resting on wooden trestles, odour of bear’s grease, and probably cost
hollowed out lest the bed should derange lier unguents, and from the look of the
the hair, has not indeed been repeated, ladies’ hair the writer was under the im
though under the fostering care of Mr. Car pression that he beheld the victims who
ter even that perfection may one
be had been immolated •upon the shrine of
attained. Still we have the auburn dyes, hairdressing, and who were to exhibit the
and the pins, and all the Athenian devices, effects of the sacrifice. But not so. Awhile,
and it is not quite certain that the “ chig and then there came in, each leaning upon
non,” the nasty mass of horsehair and hu the arm of the cavalier who was to “ dress
man hair which women have learnt to stick her,” about thirty-two ladies, from an age to
on the back of their heads, and which is ac which it would be ungallant to allude down
tually sold in Regent Street attached to to (one can hardly say “ bashful ”) fifteen.
bonnets, is not an additional triumph over Their hair was in some instances apparently
nature. We have a picture somewhere of just out of curl-papers, but for the most part
a chignon more than three thousand years hanging unconfined except at the back, where
old, but if we are not mistaken there are it was fastened close to the crown, and then
feathers on it as well as hair, the very idea hung down like a horse’s tail. Among the
which the President of the Hairdressers’ thirty were one or two magnificent cheveAcademy on Tuesday reinvented, and for lures, but we did not see one that quite
which he was so heartily applauded. Of realized the painter’s ideal, one which the
course, with the new rage for artificial ar wearer could have wrapped round her as
rangement, false hair, dyes, chignons, hair Titian’s model must have done, or one on
crepe, hair frise, and we know not what, the which the owner could have stood, as on a
hairdresser’s art is looking up, and the sen mat, as Hindoo women have been known to
sible tradesmen who practise it, sensible in do. Their comic appearance, and the clap
in all but their grandiloquence — which is, ping of hands which arose thereat, showed
we take it, half-comic, half a genuine effort one at once that they were the victims or
at self-assertion — are making the most of (if you please) the heroines. They sat at the
their opportunity.
white-cloth-covered table, and the cavaliers
The soire'e, or “ swarry,” as the doorkeep drew from black bags combs, arid puffs, and
er persisted in calling it, of the Hairdress hair-pins, and what looked like small roll
ers’ Academy, held in the Hanover Square ing-pins, and tapeworms, and bell-ropes,
Rooms on Tuesday, was really a noteworthy and cord off window-curtains, and muslin
�mmM-
/
’
'
•.
'
'
FRENCH AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
>
585
and tissue-paper, and flowers and fruits of sheAvould entice oui’ “ golden youth ” (or
the earth imitated in green and gold. Then our golden age, for the matter of that) ?
the “ dressing ” began, and the spectator What manner of woman, then, would set
saw with awe and amazement what art can the fashion in hairdressing ?
And we
do for hair, then one repented of ever hav know what has been the consequence in
ing doubted the truth of ladies who at balls France (if we are not nearly as bad here)
say, with a significant glance at head-dresses, of following in small matters the lead of the
“ Why, how do you do, dear ? I really did demi-monde. On the other hand, two con
not know you.” Some people may think victions at all events we acquired from the
that hair, however plenteous or however spectacle. One is that modern hairdressing
scanty, looks better in its natural state than in its highest form is a branch of jewelling,
when it is made into a flower garden ; and the real art being shown not in the arrange
others may hold that no kind of hair is im ment of the hair, but in the addition of
proved by being interwoven with tape things which are not hair — combs, rib
worms or bell-ropes, or even the cord off bons, flowers, dewdrops, and gilt insects —
window-curtains. But it is certain that by the last a taste essentially inartistic and de
the use of muslin and other materials already praved. The other was that it is not safe
spoken of a result may be obtained which for any man to make a proposal in the
would justify a man in cutting his mother evening.
So utterly were some of the
(on the score of non-recognition, if on no “ subjects” changed by the act of the ope
other), and which would lead one to believe rators, that the possibility of not knowing
that so long as a lady has a couple of hand in the morning the betrothed of the even
fuls of hair left she may, with the help of ing seemed very real indeed, and the mis
art, hold her own against Berenice. When take would be an awkward one for both
all the ladies were “ dressed ” one of the parties.
“ dressers ” made an unexceptionable little
speech in unexceptionable English (for
which our experience of hairdressing had
not prepared us), concluding by saying
that the ladies in their “ dressed ” state
would walk round the table each leaning
From the Economist, 27 January.
on the arm of her “ dresser,” so that the
spectators might all have a full view. As THE ANALOGY BETWEEN THE FRENCH
he said, so did they; nay, they went fur
AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
ther, and walked round twice, amidst the
applause of (he assembled witnesses. We
The Emperor of the French has said
were disappointed that no prize beyond many remarkable things, but few more
applause was given; we had thought that remarkable than the short sentence in
at least a small-tooths comb, after the fash which he hints that there is some analogy
ion of those said by Miss Emmeline Lott to between the Constitution of France and
be used in the Turkish harems, would have that of the United States. The statement
been bestowed. But perhaps it would have has been received in England with an
been dangerous to have given so decided a impatience which is. a little unjust, and
preference to the hair of one lady over that is caused by too exclusive an attention
of another, for after all it must be with some to surface differences. Those differences
difficulty that the subjects of the exhibition are of course patent to every one ; but the ■
are collected. After the b< swarry ” came a analogy is not the less real and striking.
ball, at which whosoever danced with the The key-note of the American Constitution
ladies who had their heads powdered was, is the existence of an Executive which dur
if he disliked dust, to be pitied. The com ing its term of office is irresponsible to the
pany seemed to be, for the most part, or at people, which acts by its own volition,
any rate to a considerable extent, connect which can pursue if necessary a policy dia
ed with the hairdressing interest, and that metrically opposed to the wishes of those
they should do all they could to bring their who elected it. That also is the key-note
craft to perfection is not only pardonable, of the system established by the Second
but commendable. Would it, however, be Empire. The President does as he pleases
well if society in general should patronize in all matters within his province just as
such exhibitions ? Opinions happily differ, the Emperor does, and like him is irrespon
but we cannot help thinking evil would come sible to the Legislature — need not, indeed,
of it. What manner of woman, is it that explain to the representatives of the people
must study such matters as hairdressing, if | his own official acts. His ministers are his
�586
FRENCH AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
ministers or clerks, bound to obey his or
ders; not bound to pay any heed, and fre
quently not paying any heed, to votes
passed by the popular body. Of course,
in America as in France this absolute
disunion between the Executive and the
body which controls the purse is very
inconvenient, and it has in each country
been met in the same way. In France the
Minister without a portfolio explains to
the Corps Legislatif the plans of depart
ments which he does not control, and in
America a friend or connection or political
ally of the President performs the same
function, Mr. Raymond for example occupy
ing as nearly as possible that position in
Congress, which M. Rouher occupies in
the French Chamber. It is true the French
spokesman is a recognised official, and the
American spokesman is not, but the recog
nition does not diminish “ responsibility ” in
the English parliamentary sense, but rather
increases it. It is true Mr. Johnson cannot
effect through Congress what the Emperor
can effect through his Legislature, but that
is because he has not a majority and the
Emperor has. In theory the French Cham
ber has as much right to reject a bill pro
posed by the Imperial Government as Con
gress has, and were the Emperor less dread
ed it would frequently do so. At the pres
ent moment Mr. Johnson is trying to
“ make a majority ” to support his policy b^
means quite as strong as those used in
French elections. He has ordered that
no radical recommendation for office shall
be listened to, and has it is said threatened
that unless his opponents give way he will
dismiss every official throughout the Union
who owes his election to the recommenda
tion of an opponent, a measure which has
daunted his stoutest adversaries as fatal
to their re-election. They will be in fact,
as in France, struck out of the Government
list. Indeed the prerogative of the Presi
dent is in many ways greater than that
of the Emperor. Each is commander-inchief, but the President can deprive any
officer of his commission by decree, and
the Emperor cannot. A French officer’s
grade is his “property,” and though the
law has once or twice been violated, it
/could not be broken through except for
a State necessity. Emperor and President
are alike masters of the Civil Service, but
the President can and does dismiss at will,
and the bureaucracy of France is perma
nent. An order, such as Mr. Johnson is
said to have threatened to give, would in
France have aroused an unconquerable re
sistance. No doubt the Emperor of the
French can do things infinitely more highhanded than the President could attempt,
but that is not by virtue of the idea of
the French Constitution, but by reason
of his control over a system essentially and
radically despotic, which he did not make,
and which his predecessors also used, the
French police. Mr. Johnson has no such
organisation at his disposal, but when it ex
isted during the first two years of the war it
was used without much regard to anything
but the safety of the Federation. Without
the police aud the immense army, and with
a hostile majority in the Chamber, the Em
peror would be almost precisely in the po
sition of the President.
But the latter is subject to removal at
the expiration of his term ? No doubt Mr.
Johnson is, and has therefore a great temp
tation to make his policy accord with the
policy approved by the electors, and so has
the Emperor Napoleon, who follows opinion
quite as anxiously; but. that deference is no
part of the Constitution, which provides for
change in the individual, but not for change
in the absolute independence of the office.
In changing our Premier, we ensure a
Change of policy, because if the new man
disobeys, he also can be dismissed next day;
but in changing the President, America
merely places one independent and irre
movable official in place of another. The
theories of the Imperial and Republican sys
tems are identical, except in the illogical
peculiarity of the French Constitution, that
it introduces the hereditary element into the
Executive, whereas the right of election
logically includes a right of dismissal at
periods fixed by mutual agreement. But
the freedom of the Press, of speech, of asso
ciation ? Well, these things exist in Amer
ica and do not exist in France; but it is
not in consequence of the Constitution, but
of the popular will. Nothing prevents an
American President, with Congress at his
back, from subverting the freedom of the
Press, by means, for example, of remissible
taxes, if they think that policy sound. The
Emperor and his first Chamber did think it
sound, and so freedom in France ended, a
fact greatly no doubt to be regretted, but
in, no way proving that the principles of the
American and French Constitutions are not
analogous. One very remarkable power
indeed is possessed by the American Legis
lature which is not possessed by the French,
and that is the right of passing a law by a
two-third vote, in defiance of the President.
But the French Chamber is theoretically
just as strong, for it could insist on a certain
law being passed, under penalty of a rejec
�/
/
xico.
s
587
tion of the Budget, and the Emperor must by which alone a constitutional monarch
. either yield, or appeal to a plebiscitum, that can acquire great individual power. At all
is, strike a coup d’etat upsetting the Consti events, should circumstances ever compel
tution, which gives the Chamber such a the Emperor to relax the overstrictness
right of control. That the two sets of insti of his regime, it is to the American rather
tutions are worked in a different way, and than to the British form of freedom that
with a different spirit, is too obvious for re he appears likely to feel his way.
mark ; but that does not destroy the theo
retic analogy to which the Emperor points.
The truth is that apart from the operation
..of the State system, which with many faults
' still organises popular resistance, the Presi
dent of the United States is, during his
From the Saturday Review, Jan. 27.
term of office, an excessively powerful mon
MEXICO.
arch, and the fact, revealed only by the
war, has evidently struck forcibly on the
The position which the Government of
imagination of the Emperor of the French. the United States is prepared to take up
As he acknowleges in his speech he still dis with regard to Mexico is at last clearly and
likes Parliamentary Government, for which finally established, and it is one that is cal
he is himself singularly unfitted, and he culated to excite some apprehension for the
glances at the Union with a passing thought future peace of the world. During the au
that if he ever grants “ liberty,” it will be in tumn months of last year, Mr. Seward was
the American and not in the English form. continually urging on the Federal Govern
Should the thought ever become active, it ment the expediency of the speedy with
is astonishing how little he will have to do drawal of the French troops; and, with
to restore “liberty” after the American many sincere protestations of the most frienimodel as it would appear were the Union ly feeling towards France, he gave the Em
a republic one and indivisible. He would peror to understand that, if his troops were
have to introduce laws establishing the free to stay much longer where they were, a
dom of the press, and the right of associa rupture between the two countries was inev
tion, and the liability of all officials to pros itable. The Emperor would be only too
ecution for illegal acts done in their official glad to get his troops away if he could do so
capacities; and the exemption of all citizens without compromising his own honour, and
from arrest except on criminal charges, and that of France ; and it seemed to him that
the constitutional change would be theoret the best way of arranging the matter would
ically alinost complete. The remaining bethat the French troops. should go, and
changes which would be necessary — such that the United States should recognise the
as abstinence from interference in the elec Emperor Maximilian. • The Mexican Em
tions, recognition of the right of debate, pire, being thus placed on a friendly footing
and restoration of the legislative initiative with the only Power it has to dread, might
to individual members — are scarcely con hope to establish itself and prosper, if pros
stitutional. These changes once accom perity in Mexico is possible for it. France
plished, France would be in possession of a would have succeeded, or, at least, would
great amount of practical liberty, of the not have openly and conspicuously failed;
control of her own Legislature, and of an and all jealousy between Washington and
Executive terribly strong indeed, but not Paris would have been at an end. But Mr.
stronger than that of the American Union; Seward has distinctly and decisively re
rather less strong, because hampered by the jected this proposal. The United States
legal rights of the army, and the customary will not recognise the Emperor Maximil
rights of the civil bureaucracy. That is not ian, nor treat him on any but a hostile foot
a form of Government we admire, because ing. lathe eyes of the Americans, he is
it lacks the one strength of the Parliamen an intruder, and an enemy of an injured and
tary system, the absolute identity of the friendly Republic, and they can never be
Legislature and the Executive power; but content until his enterprise has wholly failed.
it is one which might suit France for a time, Congress, as Mr. Seward remarks, must
and would have the immense advantage of exercise its legitimate influence on the Gov
permitting free thought and its expression, ernment of the President ; and the Pres
and some activity of Parliamentary life ident has not only to announce his own de
without the previous dismissal of the Napo cision, but that of the American people and
leonic dynasty, which will never, we fear, its representatives; and the opinion of the
consent to that incessant intellectual conflict American people is violently against the
�588
MEXICO.
Mexican Empire. Of this there can be no withdrawn; but if this is not done, the time
doubt; for even if the accusations continu must come when they will insist on having
ally brought up in Congress against the Em their wishes fulfilled.
peror Maximilian were true, instead of
This uncompromising language of the
being, as for the most part they are, gross American Government has placed the Em
misrepresentations, still the vehemence and peror of the'French in a very difficult po
pertinacity with which they are urged show sition. He cannot seem to yield to threats;
clearly enough how deep is the animosity but still he knows that, if any way of with
that prompts them. If the whole question drawing his troops with honour can be found,
were simply one of the continuance of the he must use it. He has, therefore, set ear
Mexican Empire, it might be worth while nestly to work to disprove the view which
to discuss these accusations, and to show how the American Government has adopted.
very slight is the basis on which they have He denies altogether that he ever wished to
been reared ; but all matters of detail are set up a Monarchy in Mexico, or to crush a
swallowed up in the gravity of the declara Republic. But the Republican Govern
tion which the United States have now is ment had insulted and offended him, plun
sued. The view of the Government of the dered and murdered his subjects, gave no
United States is, that the French have vio compensation, and perhaps was too weak,
lated the Monroe doctrine in its proper poor, and anarchical to give any. He inter
and original sense. There was a Republic fered merely to get redress, but he did not
established in Mexico, holding its territory see how it was possible to hope for redress
unopposed, in harmony with the country, from, such a Government as then existed in
dear to the inhabitants, and in the most Mexico. Several leading Mexicans pro
friendly relations with the United States. posed to establish a Monarchy, and he con
The French came to pull down this Repub curred in the idea because he thought a Mon
lic, and to set up a Monarchy, and they per archy, which had long been a favourite no
sist in remaining in Mexico to force this tion of many Mexicans, offered the best
alien Empire on an unwilling Republican chance of getting a Government strong, du
people. This is the mode in which the rable, and enlightened enough to pay him
United States have determined, after full what he was owed. This is all. He no
deliberation, to regard the recent history of more wishes to put down a Republic in Mexi
Mexico; and they will not allow any com co than he does to put down a Republic at
promise by which their adherence to this Washington; he merely wished, and wishes,
view might seem to be weakened. So long to have an instrument ready to provide him
as France stays in Mexico, forcing an Em with the redress he asked. The Emperor
pire on the Republicans of a contiguous Maximilian and his Court, and his Orders
State, America will treat France exactly as of the Eagle and Gaudalupe, are only pret
she would expect France to treat her if ty bits of machinery for the recovery of
she sent a fleet, and landed troops, to set up money owing to Frenchmen; and it must
a Republic in Belgium. Much, it is ac be owned that, if this is all, they are about
knowledged, is to be borne from France, as expensive a pi^ce of machinery, in com
which would not be borne from any other parison with the object to be effected, as
country. It will be only in the last resort was ever invented. But then, as the Em
that the language of America would be peror said in his speech, this machinery
come hostile to a country endeared to her has answered, or very nearly answered.
by so many traditions, and bound to her by There is now in Mexico an enlightened
so many ties. The tone of Mr. Seward’s Government triumphant overall opposition,
letter is very conciliatory, and the Govern with a French commerce trebled in an in
ment of President Johnson has been reso credibly short space of time, plentifully sup
lute in preventing any indirect breaches of plied with troops, and quite ready to pay off
amity. The export of arms from California all that is due to France. A few more ar
has been prevented, and still more recently rangements have still to be made with the
a considerable portion of the troops in Tex Emperor Maximilian, so that the stipulat
as has been disbanded. France has nothing ed payments may be fully secured, and then
to complain of in small things; there is only the French troops will be finally and hon
the one great point of difference between her ourably withdrawn. The ecstatic visions of
and the United States, that she has violated M. Chevalier, and the ardent proclama
a doctrine to which the United States at tions of Marshal Forey, are forgotten, or
tach the greatest importance, and which utterly neglected. We hear no more of the
they are resolved to uphold. They now spread of French influence over the West
merely ask that the French troops shall be ern hemisphere, of the necessity of enabling
�MEXICO.
tv
*
589
the Latin race to confront the Anglo-Saxon his own resources. If the Emperor Maxi
race in the New World. The Americans milian would but announce that he was
are told that all that has been done in Mexi- now quite, sure of his throne, and that
. Co has been done simply to redress the French aid was no longer necessary to him,
wrongs and support the claims of French the French might undoubtedly retire with
men; the French’themselves are told that out dishonour. They could not retire at
this most desirable end has been accom once, but it may be presumed that the
plished, and that the troops who have ren Americans would be quite satisfied if a Con
dered its accomplishment possible may soon vention like the September Convention
be expected home. But it is scarcely neces with Italy were agreed on, and if it were
sary to say that neither the Americans nor arranged that all French troops should have
the French will be satisfied. The Ameri quitted Mexico by the end of the present
cans think, and think with perfect truth, year. If the French went, the Austrians
that the experiment of recovering French and Belgians must go too— not necessarily
debts by shooting Republicans until the at the very same time, but before very long;
Austrian Archduke was made Emperor as it is obvious that, if the French have been
would never have been tried unless it had guilty of coming to American soil to tram
been supposed that it could be tried with ple down a Republic and set up a Monarchy,
out the United States being able to inter so have they. The Emperor Maximilian
fere with it. The French know that at least would therefore have to decide whether he
twenty millions of French money have been could possibly hold his own with native
sunk in the experiment, and that if their troops against his domesticV’enemies; and
troops were withdrawn it would be a great secondly, whether, if he thought it possible
deal more difficult to"recover the new debt to succeed, he would also think it worth
than it was to recover the old one. The while to try. It may be assumed, perhaps, that
Emperor, by adopting the view that he is the Emperor of the French would be able
merely trying to get his just dues from Mexi to provide that Mexico should be left alone,
co, has done something to conciliate the and that, if he did not go there, neither
Americans; yet he has made it even harder would the Americans. But if all foreign
than before to justify to France the with troops were withdrawn, the Emperor
drawal of the troops. To throw away twen would have to fight Mexicans with Mexi
ty millions in the attempt to get back a cans. His Mexicans would feel no enthusi
tenth of that sum is as deplorable an invest asm for him, would regard him as a foreign
ment, and as conspicuous a failure, as he er, and would with difficulty be induced to
could well make. The last Mexican loan of believe that his cause was the winning one.
about six millions sterling was almost entire His adversaries would be ardent, stimulated
ly subscribed by the French poor, on the by the encouragement of the Americans,
direct solicitation of the local officials of the panting for revenge, and able to take ad
Government, and it would most seriously vantage of that general disposition to go
impair the confidence of the lower classes in against the existing Government, whatever
the Emperor’s policy if it ended in a loss it may be, which pervades all nations of
to them of money which they only sub Spanish descent. But even if the Emper
scribed because he seemed to ask for it him- or thought that, after a very long and pro
self.
tracted fight, he might possibly hold his own,
The Emperor must, therefore, risk some and retain a precarious possession of some
thing. He might risk either a war with of the richer parts of the Mexican territory,
America, or a blow to his prestige in France. he might very probably hesitate before he
His speech was very judiciously worded, and embarked on so dangerous an adventure,
he seemed to be preserving a firm attitude, and might begin to examine whetherit could
and consulting the dignity of his country, possibly answer to him to take the risk. If
while he prepared a mode of escape from his he stayed as long as the French stayed, and
Embarrassment by asserting that his work found that the pressure of the Americans
was done in Mexico, and that the Emperor was depriving him even of his Austrians 1
Maximilian was firmly established there. and Belgians, he would incur no- disgrace
It will now naturally be his first object to by resigning a position that he might fairly
get the Emperor Maximilian to share this consider untenable. But the French could
opinion ; and the story may be true that he .scarcely withdraw altogether if he went.
has sent over a special envoy to represent They could not acknowledge that their at
to the Emperor of Mexico that he must tempt to obtain redress had been entirely in
consent to the withdrawal of the French vain, and all their money wasted ; and they
troops, and tTy his chance of empire from would naturally seek to make some arrange-
�THE EMPERORS SPEECH.
From the Spectator, 27th January.
ment with the United States by which, if a
Government favoured by the United States
THE EMPEROR’S SPEECH.
was set up, a return to mere anarchy should
be prevented, and the right of the French
The Emperor of the French has opened
to enjoy some sort of guarantee for the settle the Session of his Chambers for the thir
ment of their claims should be recognized. teenth time, and for the thirteenth time his '
speech is the political fact in the European
history of the week. Its interest turns
mainly upon three paragraphs, those relating
[From another article in the same paper, we to Mexico, to Italy, and to his pledge of one
copy the French Emperor’s address.]
day “crowning the edifice” by conceding
liberty. Of course he says other things,
The French Emperor’s address to his but they are so vague or so formal that they
Legislature is generally an interesting study. add nothing to our knowledge either of his
It is feebler and less clever this year than purposes or his position. He will “ remain
usual, but still it is interesting/ The au a stranger” to the internal disputes of Ger
gust author of these compositions has the art many, “ provided French interests are not
of touching all great questions of European directly engaged,” but as he is the sole
concern in a tone of frankness and gener judge whether they are so or not, this
osity, and noble sentiments in a Royal or amounts only to a pledge that France will
Imperial speech are always pleasant and re not interfere with Prussia until her Em
freshing. What, for example, can be more peror chooses, an assertion which makes a
considerate or delicate than the manner in very small draft upon our political faith.
which he handles the Americans? They He promises to restore the right of associa
are reminded of a century of friendship, and tion for industrial purposes, but the liberty
it is politely suggested that Imperialism is thus regained is to be “ outside politics,”
only the Constitution of the United States and to be limited “ by the guarantees which
in a French Court dress. The Mexican ex public order requires ” i. e., by any guaran
pedition is explained in a manner that tee the Emperor thinks expedient. He an
ought to disarm the most suspicious Yankee, nounces a reduction of the Army, but it has
and it seems as if all had been a mistake been effected without a reduction of num
about the Latin race, as it was about the bers, and declares that a financial equili
proposed recognition of the South. Some brium has been secured by the surplus of
body did say something about the Latin revenue, for which surplus his Minister of
race, which has evidently been misconstrued Finance only just ventures to hope on con
a good deal; but the “ American people” dition that everything goes right for two
will now comprehend that “ the expedition, more years. He suggests that France is
in which we invited them to join, was not governed very much like the United States,
opposed to their interests.” France “prays” but does not attempt to explain wherein he
sincerely for the prosperity of the great Re finds the analogy between a Constitution
public, and, just as a French Emperor is only which changes its Executive every four
an American President in disguise, so Im years, and leaves the entire legislative power
perialism in Mexico has been founded “ on to the representatives of the people, and a
the will of the people.” Mr. Seward very Constitution which was intended to make
Hkely never swears. His talent lies chiefly the executive power hereditary, and which
in the line of making other people swear. intrusts the initiative of legislation entirely
But it is possible that some less courteous to the man who is to carry that legislation
Anglo-Saxons in Washington and in New out. On all these subjects, Germany, fi
York, who are anxious about the Monroe nance, co-operation, and the Constitution,
doctrine, after reading all these high-mind the Emperor’s utterance is suggestive, with
ed expressions, and especially the one about out clearly instructing either his subjects or
the French praying for them, will feel in the world. No one, for example, could tell
clined, in the language used in the School without knowing facts which the Emperor
for Scandal by the friends of Joseph Sur does not reveal whether his paragraph on
face, to observe, “ Damn your sentiments.” Germany is a hint to Count von Bismark to
However this may be, and whatever may be go on in his course and prosper, or a.men
the turn the Mexican difficulty is taking, ace that France would not bear a Union, of
one thing is clear, that the French Emper Northern Germany against which its in
terests are directly engaged.
or puts his sentiments neatly and well.
�THE EMPEROR ’S SPEECH.
591
Even on the three points we have excepted die course, and the object of this part of
the Emperor, as his wont is, gives the world his speech is simply to soothe Americans
a riddle to read. What, for instance, is the into waiting until he can retreat with hon
meaning of the sentence which says that our. He who three years ago spoke only of
France “ has reason to rely on the scrupulous strengthening a branch of the Latin race to
execution of the Treaty with Italy of the 15 th resist Anglo-Saxon aggression, now anxious
September, and on the indispensable main ly repudiates any idea of hostility to the
tenance of the power of the Holy Father ? ” Union. He recalls to the Americans “ a
Does it mean that Napoleon regards the noble page in the history of France,” her
temporal power as indispensable, or only assistance to the Republic in its great rebel
the spiritual; that he will put down internal lion, reminds them that he requested them to
revolt in Rome, or suffer Italy to garrison take a part in reclaiming Mexican debts,
the city, provided only the Pope is left spir and almost implores thein to recollect that
itually independent ? Is his dictum a threat “ two nations equally jealous of their inde
to the Revolution or a threat to the priests | pendence ought to avoid any step which
Reading it by the light of the Emperor’s would implicate their dignity and their
character, we should believe the sentence honour.” Is that an assurance or a menintended only to ward off opposition until 1 afte ? For a French Sovereign to speak
the evacuation of Rome was complete, but of possible contingencies as “ implicating
read by the facts in progress, blithe re French dignity and honour ” is a very
cruiting for Rome going on in France, and ^serious thing, but then why these unusual
the pressure employed in Florence to make professions of regard for the Union ? It is
Italy accept the Papal debt, we should be true in a preceding paragraph Napoleon
lieve it implied that while Napoleon will re has affirmed that he is arranging with the
tire, the Pope must remain independent Emperor Maximilian for the recall of his
King of Rome. The maintenance of the army, bumhen their return must be effect-'
Pope’s power is declared indispensable, but ed when it “will not compromise the in
nothing is said of the invisible means by terests which France went out to that dis
which it is to be maintained.
tant land to defend.” When is that ? Do
So with the Mexican declaration. The the interests to be defended include the re
Emperor, we admit, is upon this point placed invigoration of the Latin race ? Nothing is
in a most difficult position. He made the clear from the speech, and according to
singular blunder made by the Times and by the Yellow Book, which is always supposed
the majority of English politicians, but not to explain the speech, the French Army is
made by the people he rules. Careless of only to return from Mexico when the Presi
principle and forgetting precedent, reject dent of the Union has recognized the Mexi
ing the idea that freedom must conquer can Empire, an act which he has refused to
slavery, and overlooking his uncle’s adage do, and which Congress has specifically for
that twenty-five millions must beat fifteen if bidden him to perform. There is nothing in
they can once get at them, he convinced the speech inconsiste^; with that interpreta
himself that the South must break up the tion, and if it is correct the Americans will
Union. Consequently he invaded Mexico, simply contrast the compliments offered
and placed his nominee on its throne. As them in words with the impossible proposal
his subjects, with the strange instinct which submitted in fact, and be less content than
supplies to great populations the place of ever. All they obtain is a promise 'that at
wisdom, had from the first foreseen, he some time not specified, when a result they
erred in his first essential datum. The dislike has been accomplished, the Emperor
South did not break up the Union, but the will, if consistent with his honour, withdraw
Union broke up the South, and Napoleon the troops through whom he has been able
finds himself compelled either to withdraw to accomplish it — not a very definite or
from a great undertaking visibly baffled and very satisfactory pledge.
repulsed, or to accept a war with the oldest
It is on the “ crowning of the edifice ’
ally of France — a war in which, if defeat alone that the Emperor is partially explicit.
ed, he risks his throne, and if successful, can He will not grant a responsible Ministry.
gain nothing except financial embarrass That system of government, always abhor
ment. Neither alternatiye seems to him en rent to him, has not become more pleasant
durable — the former as fatal to the reputa of late years, and he declares for the tenth
tion for success which is essential to his per time that “ with one Chamber holding with
sonal power, the latter as bringing him into di in itself the fate of Ministers the Executive
rect conflict with the wishes of all his peo is without authority and without spirit,” the
ple. He strives therefore to find some mid- “ one ” being inserted either to avoid a di-
�592
BEAU-MONDE AND THE DEMI-MONDE IN PARIS.
ers by an anouncement for which, after
all, both should have been prepared. No
one who is at all conversant with the ordina
ry course of Parisian life — we do not say
familiar with its inner mysteries — ought to
have been astonished at hearing that cer
tain grandes dames of French society had
sought for invitations to a masqued ball
which was to be given by a distinguished
leader of the demi-monde. We have had, in
our own country, certain faint and partial
indications of the same curiosity, revealed
in an awkward and half-hesitating sort of
way. English great ladies once made an
off-night for themselves at Cremorne, in
order to catch a flying and furtive glance,
not of the normal idols of those gay gar
dens, but of the mere scenic accessories to
their attractions and triumphs. But as yet
we have never heard that the matrons of
English society have sought an introduction
to the Lais of Brompton or the Phryne of
May-fair, even under the decorous con
cealment of mask and domino. Nor has it
yet been formally advertised here that the
motive of so unusal a request was a desire
to learn the arts and tactics by which the
gilded youth — and, it might be added, the
gilded age — of the country is subjected to
the thrall of venal and meretricious beauty.
That such a rumour should be circulated
and believed in France is — to use the cur
rent slang — “highly suggestive.” It sug
gests a contrast of the strongest, though it is
far from a pleasing, kind between the
society of to-day and the society of other
days. It was long the special boast of the
French that with them women enjoyed an
influence which in no other part of the
world was accorded to their sex, and that
this influence was at least as much due to
their mental as to their physical charms.
The women of other nations may have been
more beautiful. To the Frenchwomen was
specially given the power of fascination ;
and it was the peculiar characteristic of her
fascination that its exercise involved no dis
credit to the sense or' the sensibility of the
men who yielded to it. A power which
showed itself as much in the brilliance of
bons mots and repartee as ip smiles and
glances, a grace of language and expression
which enhanced every grace of feature
and of attitude, a logic which played in
the form of epigram, and a self-respect
From the Saturday Review.
which was set off rather than concealed by
THE 1 BEAU-MONDE AND THE
DEMI the maintenance of the most uniform cour
tesy to others — such were the arts and
MONDE IN PARIS.
insignia of the empire which the most cele
The Paris journals lately surprised their brated Frenchwomen, from the days of
French, and startled their foreign, read Maintenon and De Sevigne to those of
rect sarcasm upon the English Constitution,
or from a sudden recollection of the part
played by the Prussian Chamber of Peers.
He believes that his system has worked well,
that France, tranquil at home, is respected
abroad, and, as he adds with singular au
dacity, is without political captives within or
exiles beyond her frontiers. Are, then, the
Due d’Aumale, M. Louis iBlanc, and the
author of Labienus at liberty to return
to France ? Consequently nothing will be
changed, but the Emperor, resolving to “ im
prove the conditions of labour,” will await
the time when all France, being educated,
shall abandon seductive theories, and all
who live by their daily toil, receiving in
creasing profits, “ shall be firm supporters
of a society which secures their well-being
and their dignity.” No one can complain
of any obscurity in that apology for the
Empire. Its central ideas are all expressed,
and all expressed with truthful lucidity.
The Emperor is to rule “ with authority and
spirit.” There is to be no political freedom,
no discussion even of “ theories of govern
ment, which France for eighty years has
sufficiently discussed.” Intelligence and cap
ital are still to remain disfranchised, but in
return the labourer’s condition is to be im
proved. “ Bread to the cottage, justice to
the palace,” was the promise of the Venetian
Ten, and Napoleon, if he changes the
second, adheres to the first condition. His
offer is also bread to the cottage, provided
only that there is silence in the palace. It
is for France to decide whether she accepts
an offer which is not a small one, which if
honestly made is capable of fulfillment, and
which would pledge her Government to the
best ad interim occupation it could possibly
pursue. Only we would just remind her
that education in the Emperor’s mouth has
hitherto meant only education through
priests, and improvement in the condition
of the labourer only a vast expenditure out
of taxes which the labourer pays, that the first
result of these works has been the reckless
over-crowding of all towns, and that of these
promises there is not one which liberty
could not also secure.
�BEAU-MONDE ANDTPHE DEMI-MONDE IN PARIS.
593
Madame Deffand and Madame Roland or of the roturier ; the conflicts of science and
those of Madame Recamier, exercised over theology — all these furnished materials for
the warriors, sages, and statesmen of France. the tongues of the clever women, materials
The homage paid by the men to the brilliant of which the clever women fully availed
women who charmed the society which they themselves. The final result was not, in
had helped to create may not always have deed, wholly satisfactory. How many a
been perfectly disinterested. The friend short sharp sarcasm, shot from the tongue
ship of the women for their illustrious ad of brilliant causeuses,‘rebounded on the gil
mirers may not always have been perfectly ded rooms wherein it first hurtled! How
Platonic. There may have been some im many a satire, sugared with compliment, at
propriety—or, as our more Puritan friends which rival beaux chuckled in delight,
would say, some sin — in the intercourse of came back with its uncovered venom to the
some of the most celebrated Frenchmen hearts of those whose admiration had first
and Frenchwomen. Yet even this could provoked it! How many a gibe of reckless
not have been predicated of all. Madame truth, aimed at courts and nobles, distilled
de Sevigne’s reputation comes out. clear through laquais and waiting-maids into the
and spotless even from the foulest assault of streets of Paris, to whet the after-wrath
wounded vanity and slighted love. We do of that fierce canaille! Many of those
not forget the comprehensive loves and the clever women had better been silent; many
deliberate inconstancy of Ninon. But Ni of those pungent epigrams had better been
non, corrupt, as she may have been, was unsaid. Still, while the spirited talk went
not venal. She did not ruin her lovers by her on, life was illumined by no common bril
covetousness, and then receive their wives liance ; and vice not only decked itself, but
and sisters in her salons. She was courted forgot _ itself, in the guise of intelligence
by elegant and virtuous women, because she and wit.
was the single and solitary instance as yet
But what a change is it now! There are
known of a woman possessing every grace drawing-rooms in Paris which are more
and every charm save the grace and charm brilliant and gorgeous than any that De
of virtue. Whatever may have been the Sevigne or Recamier ever satin
*
But their
relations between the sexes in those days, brilliance and splendour are not of such
it was at least free from grossness. The airy impalpabilities as genius or wit. They
charms which attracted men to the Maison are solid, substantial, tangible. They are
Rambouillet were not those of sense alone, the brilliance and the splendour, not of able
or in a special degree. They were those of men and clever women, but of the uphol
conversation at once spirited, graceful, sterer, the mechanician, and the decorator.
elegant, and vivacious. To an accom There is gold, there is marble, there is lapis
plished man there is perhaps no greater lazuli; there are pictures, statues, ormolu
social treat than to hear good French clocks; there are rich velvets and cloud
spoken by an educated and clever French like lace, and a blaze of amethysts, rubies,
woman. In her hands a language of which and diamonds. There are trains of Impe
both the excellences and the defects eminent rial dimensions and tiaras of Ijnperial bright
ly qualify it for the purposes of conversational ness. And in whose honour is all this grand
combat becomes a weapon of dazzling fence. display ? To whom is the court paid by
Those delicate turns of phrase which imply this mob of sombre-clad and neatly-gloved
so much more than they express fly like men of every age, from twenty to sixty ?
Parthian shafts, and the little commonplaces Who have taken the place of the great
which may mean nothing do what the female leaders of society whose names have
pawns do when manipulated by a clever added lustre to France ? Strange as it
chess-player — everything. And in the age may seem, their successors are secondwhen the empire of Frenchwomen rested rate or third-rate actresses, opera-dancers,
upon their grace and power in conversa and singers at public rooms and public gar
tion, there was ample matter to task their dens. We do not intend to undertake the
remarkable talents. It was an age of new superfluous task of penning a moral dia
ideas. Government, religion, and philoso tribe, or inveighing against the immorality
phy: the administration of the kingdom of the age. Sermons there are, and will
and the administration of the universe ; the be, in abundance on so prolific and provok
rights of kings to be obeyed by their people ing a theme. In every age actresses and
and the right of the Creator to the adora ballet-girls have had their admirers. In
tion of his creatures; the claims of privi every age, probably, they will continue to
lege and the claims of prerogative; the have admirers. But what is worthy of note
pretensions of rank and the pretensions is this. Formerly this admiration was of
THIRD SERIES. LIVING AGE. VOL. XXXI [.
1478.
�594
BEAU-MONDE AND THE DEMIMONDE IN PARIS.
an esoteric kind. The worshippers adored
their divinities in secret. The temples of
the goddesses were, at any rate, not obtrud
ed on the public eye, nor in possession of
the most open, public, and splendid streets.
The cult, too, was confined to a narrower
circle. But now all this is changed; the
fanes of the divinities ‘are splendid and in
the most splendid streets ; the cult is open,
avowed, public. The worshippers are of
every age, and are all equally indifferent to
secrecy. There is no restriction and no ex
clusion, save on two grounds — those of
poverty and intelligence. There is a kind
of intellect admitted into this gorgeous cote
rie, but it is intellect in livery. The dra
matic author and the dramatic critic are
now as much appendages to the dramatic
courtezan as her coachman and her femme de
chambre. Where professional reputation
depends on scenic effect, and scenic effect
depends upon the equivoque put into the
.actress’s mouth, and the applause with
Tvhich their delivery is received, the man
who concocts the equivoque and the man
•who criticises their delivery become equally
•objects of attention to the actress who is
looking ou^ for a clientele. Saving these
necessary exceptions, these assemblies are
• comprised of rich old men anxious to dissi;pate the money which they have made, and
•rich young men as anxious to dissipate the
•wealth which they have inherited. And
;now we hear that the wives and sisters of
these men seek admission to these Paphian
jhalls.
Jt is, indeed, not an unnatural, though it
iis far from a decent, curiosity which prompts
ladies entitled to the reputation of virtue
do examine something of the life and dounestic economy of those ladies whose very
• existence presupposes an entire repudiation
< of virtue. The married women naturally
•■desire to know something of the manners
and mein and language of the-rivals whose
■arts have diverted their own husbands’
■treasures into alien and obnoxious channels.
'When a wife hears that her husband has,
at one magnificent stroke on the Bourse,
(Carried off one or two millions of francs,
; she is curious to ascertain the process by
which no inconsiderable proportion of these
-winnings has been “ affected ” to the payiment of Madlle. Theodorine’s debts or to the
■purchase of Madlle. Valentine’s brougham.
.And the anxious mother, who has long
■dreamed of the ceremony which might
unite the fortunes of her dear Alcide with
"the dot of her opulent neighbour’s daughter,
Is tortured between the misery of frustrated
Slopes and curiosity to understand the mo
tives which impel Alcide to become the
daily visitor of Mdlle. Gabrielle in the Rue
d’Arcade, and her daily companion when
riding in the Bois de Boulogne. Certainly
the subject is a very curious one. But does
the solution of the problem quite justify
the means taken to solve it? Might not
enough be inferred from the antecedent
history of those who are the subjects of it
to dispense with the necessity of a nearer
examination? Take a number of women
of the lower classes from the different
provinces of France — with no refinement,
with a mere shred of education, and with
but small claim to what an English eye
would regard as beauty — but compensating
for lack of knowledge, education, and re
finement by a vivacity and a coquetry pe
culiarly French. Take these women up to
Paris, tutor them as stage supernumeraries,
and parade before them the example of the
arts of the more successful Eorettes. The
rest may be imagined. From these general
premises it is not difficult to conjecture the
product obtained; to conceive that manner
on which jeunes gens dote, a manner made
up of impudence and grimace ; that repar
tee which mainly consists of ,a new slang
hardly known two miles beyond the Made
line ; those doubles entendres of which per
haps memory is less the parent than instinct,
and that flattery which is always coarse and
always venal. It would be erroneous to say
that we have here given a complete picture
of the class which certain leaders of Paris
fashion wish to study. There are, in the
original, traits and features which we could
not describe, and which it is unnecessary
for us to attempt to describe, as they are por
trayed in the pages of the satirist who has im
mortalized the vices of the most corrupt city
at its most corrupt era. Juvenal will supply
what is wanting to our imperfect delinea
tion. English ladies may read him in the
vigorous paraphrases of Dryden and Gif
ford ; ’ while their French contemporaries
may arrive at a livelier conception of what
we dare not express, if only they stay till
the supper crowns the festal scene of the
masqued ball. If they outstay this, they
will have learned a lesson the value of
which we leave it for themselves to com
pute.
.
. .
It is idle to say that curiosity of this kind
is harmless because it is confined to a few.
Only a few, indeed, may have contemplated
the extreme step of being present at the
Saturnalia of the demi-monde. But how
many others have thought of them and
talked of them ? To how many leaders of
society are the doings of these women the
�THE COVERT.
subjects of daily curiosity and daily con
versation ? How many patrician. -— or, at
all events, noble — dames regular attend
ants at mass, arbiters of fashion, and orna
ments of the Church, honour with their in
quisitiveness, women of whose existence,
twenty years ago, no decent Frenchwoman
was presumed to have any knowledge ?
And do these noble ladies suppose that this
curiosity is disregarded by the adventur
esses from Arles or Strasburg, Bordeaux or
Rouen, whom successful prostitution has
dowered with lace, diamonds, carriages,
and opera-boxes ? Do they suppose that
the professed admiration of the young
Sardanapali for the ex-couturieres and bal
let-girls of Paris has not a more potent ef
fect when combined with the ill-concealed
interest of their mothers and sisters ? And
what that effect is on the men in one class,
and on the women in another, a very slight
knowledge of human nature is sufficient to
suggest. That girls of moderately good looks
will contentedly continue to ply the shuttle
at Lyons, or to drudge as household servants
in Brittany, or to trudge home to a supperless
chamber in Paris with the bare earnings of
a supernumerary or a coryphee at a small
theatre, when a mere sacrifice of chastity
may enable them not only to ruin young
dukes and counts, but to become the theme
and admiration of duchesses and countesses,
is a supposition which involves too high a
U 1 •-■! .
belief in human virtue; and the conditions
we have named are found to be fatal to the
virtue of the poorer Frenchwomen. And
as for the men, what must be the effect on
them ? Debarred from the stirring conflict
of politics; exiled, so to speak, from the
natural arena of patriotic ambition ; know
ing no literature save that of novels in
which courtezans are the heroines, and
caring for no society but that of which
courtezans are the leaders; diversifying the
excitement of the hazard-table and the
betting-room with the excitement of the
coulisses; learning from their habitual asso
ciations to lose that reverence for women
and that courteous attention to them which
are popularly supposed to have at one time
characterized the gentlemen of France —
they partially redeem the degradation which
they court by showing that even a mixture
of vapid frivolity, sensual indulgence, and
senseless extravagance is insufficient to cor
rupt a nation, unless also the female leaders
of society conspire to select for their notice
and admiration those creatures for whom
the law of the land would better have pro
vided the supervision of the police and
the certificate of professional prostitution.
When virtuous women of birth and position
rub shoulders with strumpets, protests are
useless and prophecies are superfluous; for
the taint which goes before destruction is
already poisoning the heart of the nation.
',fl. J
i.
••• • .
‘
bn .
••
' r
'
«
------ — W.’tWUS. •» .(<
‘i
{f, •
bill f>
too’t ito <I> ;!•>.. j vf'jqUiH wto
-w
. *' fl-r< —W
RO
aw; al p
to
’
sir
fi:
THE COVERT.
The eagle beats his way
Strong-winged through the burning blue:
All through the heat of the day
In the covert the wood-doves coo.
Take the wings of the dove, my soul!
Take the wings of the dove!
For the sun is not thy goal,
But the secret place of love. <
Close to the earth and near,
And hidden among the flowers,
By the brink of the brooklet clear,
The dove in her covert cowers.
>‘ni Wq XT
. .ih
Take the wings of the dove, my soul I
Take the wings of the dove!
For the sun is not thy goal,
But the secret place of love.
<•
--.ml.
Flee not afar, my soul
Flee not afar for rest 1
.
The tumult may round thee roll,
q
Yet the dove be in thy breast.
Take the wings of the dove, my soul!
Take the wings of the dove!
--X
For the sun is not thy goal,
But the resting place of love.
"ir Mw
U
yi iv
Good Words'
�596
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
IN MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE in her inmost nature, she disenthralled re
MARTYR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED ligion from bondage to temporal power,
STATES.
that her worship might be worship only in
Oration of the Hon. George Bancroft,
at the request of both Houses of Congress,
in the Hall of the House of Representa*v lives of the United States, on Monday,
Feb. 12, 1866. !
Senators, Representatives, ofAmerica: —
GOD IN HISTORY.
That God rules in the affairs of men is
as certain as any truth of physical science.
On the great moving power which is from
the beginning hangs the world of the senses
and the world of thought and action. Eternal
wisdom marshals the great procession of the
nations, working in patient continuity
through the ages, never halting, and never
abrupt, encompassing all events in its over
sight, and ever affecting its will, though
mortals may slumber in apathy or oppose
with madness. Kings are lifted up or thrown
down, nations come and go, republics flour
ish and wither, dynasties pass away like a
tale that is told; but nothing is by chance,
though men in their ignorance of causes may
think so. The deeds of time are governed
as well as judged, by the decrees of eterni
ty. The caprice of fleeting existences bends
to the immovable omnipotence which plants
its foot on all the centuries, and has neither
change of purposes nor repose. Sometimes
like a messenger through the thick darkness
of night, it steps along mysterious ways ; but
when the hour strikes for a people, or for
mankind, to pass into a new form of being,
unseen hands draw the bolts from the gates
of futurity; an all-subduing influence pre
pares the mind of men for the coming revo
lution ; those who plan resistance find them
selves in conflict with the will of Provi
dence, rather than with human devices;
and all hearts and all understandings, most
of all the opinions and influences of the
unwilling, are wonderfully attracted and
compelled to bear forward the change which
becomes more an obedience to the law of
universal nature than submission to the ar
bitrament of man.
GROWTH OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
In the fulness of time a republic rose up
in the wilderness of America. Thousands
of years had passed away before this child
of the ages could be born. From whatever
there was of good in the systems of former
centuries she drew her nourishment: the
wrecks of the past were her warnings.
With the deepest sentiment of faith fixed
spirit and in truth. The wisdom which had
passed from India through Greece, with
what Greece had added of her own; the
jurisprudence of Rome; the mediaaval mu
nicipalities ; the Teutonic method of repre
sentation ; the political experience of Eng
land ; the benignant wisdom of the exposi
tors of the law of nature and of nations in
France and Holland, all shed on her their
selectest influence. She washed the gold
of political wisdom from the sands whereever it was found; she cleft it from the
rocks; she gleaned it among ruins. Out of
all the discoveries of statesmen and sages,
out of all the experience of past human life,
she compiled a perennial political philoso
phy, the primordinal principles of national
ethics. The wise men of Europe sought the
best government in a mixture of monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy; and America
went behind t^ese names to extract from
them the vital elements of social forms, and
blend them harmoniously in the free Com
monwealth, which comes nearest to the illus
tration of the natural equality of all men.
She intrusted the guardianship of establish
ed rights to law; the movements of reform
to the Spirit of the people, and drew her
force from the happy reconciliation of both.
TERRITORIAL EXTENT OF THE REPULIC.
Republics had heretofore been limited to
small cantons or cities and their dependen
cies ; America, doing that of which the like
had not before been known upon the earth,
or believed by kings and statesmen to be
possible, extended her republic across a
continent. Under her auspices the vine of
liberty took deep root and filled the land;
the hills were covered with its shadow ; its
boughs were like the goodly cedars, and
reached unto both oceans. The fame of
this only daughter of freedom went out
into all the lands of the earth; from her
the human race drew hope.
PROPHECIES ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF
SLAVERY.
Neither hereditary monarchy nor heredi
tary aristocracy planted itself on our soil;
the only hereditary condition that fastened
itself upon us was servitude. Nature works
in sincerity, and is ever true to its law.
The bee hives honey, the. viper distils pois
on ; the vine stores its juices, and so do the
poppy and the upas. In like manner, every
thought and every action ripens its seed,
each in its kind. In the individual man,
�ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
. 597
and still more in a nation, a just idea gives position of Virginia and the South that the
life, and progress, and glory; a false j®pn- clause of Jefferson was restored, and the
ception portends disaster, shame, and death. whole Northwestern Territory — all the
A hundred and twenty years ago, a West' territory that then belonged to the nation
Jersey Quaker wrote : “ this trade of im — was reserved for the labor of freemen.
porting slaves is dark gloominess hanging
over the land; the consequences will be DESPAIR OK THE MEN OF THE REVO’‘£l
" lution.
grievous to posterity.”. At the North the
growth of slavery was arrested by natural
The hope prevailed in Virginia that the
causes; in the region nearest the tropics it abolition of the slave trade would bring
throve rankly, and worked itself into the with it the gradual abolition of slavery ; but
organism of the rising States. Virginia the expectation was doomed to disappoint
stood between the two; with soil, and cli ment. In supporting incipient measures
mate, resources demanding free labour, for emancipation, Jefferson encountered
and yet capable of the profitable employ difficulties greater than he could overcome;
ment of the slave. She was the land of and after vain wrestlings, the words that
great statesmen ; and they saw the danger broke from him, “ I tremble for my coun
of her being whelmed under the rising flood try, when I reflect that God is just, that his
in time to struggle against the delusions of justice cannot sleep forever,” were words
avarice and pride. Ninety-four years ago, of despair. It was the desire of Washing
the Legislature of Virginia addressed the ton’s heart that Virginia should remove
British king, saying that the trade in slaves slavery by a public act; and as the pros
was “ of great inhumanity,” was opposed to pect of a general emancipation grew more
the “ security and happiness ” of their con and more dim he, in utter hopelessness of
stituents, “ would in time have the most the action of the State, did all that he could
destructive influence,” and “ endanger their by bequeathing freedom to his own slaves.
very existence.” And the king answered Good and true men had, from the days of
them, that “ upon pain of-his highest dis 1776, thought of colonizing the negro in
pleasure, the importation of slaves should the home of his ancestors. But the idea of
not be in any respect obstructed. “ Phar colonization was thought to increase the dif
isaical Britain,” wrote Franklin in behalf of ficulty of emancipation; and in spite of
Virginia, “to pride thyself in setting free a strong support, while it accomplished much
single slave that happened to land on thy good for Africa, it. proved impracticable as
coasts, while thy laws continue a traffic a remedy at home. Madison, who in early
whereby so many hundreds of thousands are life disliked slavery so much that he wished
dragged into a slavery that is entailed on “ to depend as little as possible on the labor
their posterity.” “A serious view of this of slaves ; ” Madison, who held that where
subject,” said Patrick Henry in 1773, “ gives slavery exists “ the republican theory be
a gloomy prospect to future times.” In the comes fallaciotis; ” Madison, who in the
same year George Mason wrote to the Leg last years of his life would not consent to
islature of Virginia: “ The laws of impar the annexation of Texas, lest his country
tial Providence may avenge our injustice men should fill it with slaves ; Madison, who
upon our posterity.” In Virginia, and in said, “ slavery is the greatest evil under
the Continental Congress, Jefferson, with which the nation labors, a portentous evil,
the approval of Edmund Pendleton, brand an evil — moral, political and economical —ed the slave trade as piracy; and he fixed a sad blot on our free country,” went mourn
in the Declaration of Independence as the fully into old age with the cheerless words:
corner stone of America: “ All men are “ No satisfactory plan has yet been devised
created equal, with an unalienable right to for taking out the stain.”
liberty.” On the first organization of tem
NEW VIEWS OF SLAVERY.
porary governments for the continental do
main Jefferson, but for the default of New
The men of the Revolution passed away.
Jersey, would, in 1784, have consecrated A new generation sprang up, impatient that
every part of that territory to freedom. In an institution to which they clung should be
the formation of the National Constitution condemned as inhuman, unwise and unjust;
Virginia, opposed by a part of New Eng in the throes of discontent at the self-re
land vainly struggled to abolish the slave proach of their fathers, and blinded by the
trade at once and forever; and when the lustre of wealth to be acquired by the cul
ordinance of 1787 was introduced by Na ture of a new staple, they devised the theo
than Dane, without the clause prohibiting ry that slavery, which they would not abol
slavery, it was through the favourable dis ish, was not evil, but good. They turned
�598
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
on the friends of colonization, and confi
dently demanded, “ Why take black men
from a civilized and Christian country, where
their labor is a source of immense gain and
a power to control the markets of the
world, and send them to a land of ignorance,
idolatry, and indolence, which was the home
of their forefathers, but not theirs ? Slav
ery is a blessing. Were they not in their
ancestral land naked, scarcely lifted above
brutes, ignorant of the course of the sun,
controlled by nature ? And in their new
abode, have they not been taught to know
the difference of the seasons, to plough, to
plant and reap, to drive oxen, to tame the
horse, to exchange their scanty dialect for
the richest of all the languages among men,
and the stupid adoration of follies for the
purest religion ? And since slavery is good
for the blacks, it is good for their masters,
bringing opulence and the opportunity of
educating a race. The slavery of the black
is good in itself; he shall serve the white
man forever.” And nature, which better
understood the quality of fleeting interest
and passion, laughed, as it caught the
echo: “ man ” and “ forever 1 ”
SLAVERY AT HOME.
A regular development of pretensions fol
lowed the new declaration with logical con
sistency. Under the old declaration every
one of the States had retained, each for itself,
the right of manumitting all slaves by an
ordinary act of legislation ; now, the power
of the people over servitude through their
legislatures was curtailed, and the privil
eged class was swift in imposing legal and
constitutional obstruction, on the people
themselves. The power of emancipation
was narrowed or taken away. The slave
might not be disquieted by education. There
remained an unconfessed consciousness that
the system of bondage was wrong, and a
restless memory that it was at variance
with the true American tradition, its safety
was therefore to be secured by political or
ganization. The generation that made the
Constitution took care for the predomi
nance of freedom in Congress, by the ordi
nance of Jefferson ; the new school aspired
to secure for slavery an equality of votes in
the Senate; and while it hinted at an or
ganic act that should concede to the collec
tive South a veto power on national legisla
tion, it assumed that each State separately
had the right to revise and nullify laws of
the United States, according to the discre
tion of its judgment.
SLAVERY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.
The new theory hung as a bias on the for
eign relations of the country; there could be
no recognition of Hayti, nor even the Amer
ican colony of Liberia; and the world was
given to understand that the establishment
of free labor in Cuba would be a reason for
wresting that island from Spain. Territo
ries were annexed; Louisiana, Florida, Tex
as, half of Mexico; slavery must have its
share in them all, and it accepted for a time
a dividing line between the unquestioned
domain of free labor and that in which in
voluntary labor was to be tolerated. A few
years passed away, and the new school,
strong and arrogant, demanded and recived an apology for applying the Jefferson
proviso to Oregon.
SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.
The application of that proviso was inter
rupted for three administrations; but justice
moved steadily onward. In the news that the
men of California had chosen freedom, Cal
houn heard the knell of parting slavery7; and
on his deathbed he counselled secession.
Washington, and Jefferson, and Madison,
had died despairing of the abolition of slav
ery ; Calhoun died in despair at the growth
of freedom., His system rushed irresistibly
to its natural development. The death
struggle for California was followed by a
short truce; but the new school of politicians
who said that slavery was not evil, but good,
soon sought to recover the ground they had
lost, and confident of securing Texas, they
demanded that the established line in the
territories between freedom and slavery
should be blotted out. The country, believ
ing in the strength and enterprise and ex
pansive energy of freedom, made answer,
though reluctantly: “ Be it so ; let there be
no strife between brethren ; let freedom and
slavery compete for the territories on equal
terms, in a fair field under an impartial ad
ministration ; ” and on this theory, if on any,
the contest might have been left to the de
cision of time.
DEED SCOTT DECISION.
The South started back in appallment
from its victory; for it knew that a fair
competition foreboded its defeat. But where
could it now find an ally to save it from its
own mistake ? What I have next to say is
spoken with no emotion but regret. Our
meeting to-day is, as it were, at the grave,
in the presence of Eternity, and the truth
must be uttered in soberness and sincerity.
�ORATION OF THE. HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
In a great republic, as was observed more
than two thousand years ago, any attempt
to overturn the state owes its strength to aid
from some branch of the government. The
Chief Justice of the United States, without
any necessity or occasion, volunteered to
come to the rescue of the theory of slavery.
And from his court there lay no appeal but
to the bar of humanity and history. Against
the Constitution, against the memory of the
nation, against a previous decision, against
a series of enactments, he decided that the
slave is property, that slave property is en
titled to no less protection than any other
property, that the Constitution upholds it in
every territory against any act of a local
Legislature, and even against Congress it
self ; or, as the President tersely promulgat
ed the saying : “ Kansas is as much a slave
. State as South Carolina or Georgia ; slav
ery, by virtue of the Constitution, exists in
every territory.” The municipal character
of slavery being thus taken away, and slave
property decreed to be “ sacred,” the au
thority of the courts was invoked to intro
duce it by the comity of law into States
where slavery had been abolished; and in
one of the courts of the United States a
judge pronounced the African slave trade
legitimate, and numerous and powerful ad
vocates demanded its restoration.
TANEY AND SLAVE RACES.
Moreover, the Chief Justice, in his elabo
rate opinion, announced what had never
been heard from any magistrate of Greece
or Rome — what was unknown to civil law,
and canon law, and feudal law, and comm on
law, and constitutional law; unknown to
Jay, to Rutledge, Ellsworth and Marshall
— that there are “ slave races.” The spirit
of evil is intensely logical. Having the au
thority of this decision, five States swiftly
followed the earlier example of a sixth, and
opened the way for reducing the free negro
to bondage; the migrating free negro be
came a slave if he but touched the soil of a
seventh ; and an eighth, from its extent and
soil and mineral resources, destined to in
calculable greatness, closed its eyes on its
coming prosperity, and enacted — as by Ta
ney’s decision it had the right to do — that
every free black man who would live within
its limits must accept the condition of slav
ery for himself‘and his posterity.
SECESSION RESOLVED ON.
Only one step more remained to be taken.
Jefferson and the leading statesmen of his
day held fast to the idea that the enslave
ment of the African was socially, morally
599
and politically wrong. The new school was
founded exactly upon the opposite idea;
and they resolved first to distract the demo
cratic party for which the Supreme Court
had now furnished the means, and then to
establish a new government, with negro
slavery for its corner stone, as socially, mor
ally and politically right.
THE ELECTION.
As the presidential election drew on, one
of the old traditional parties did not make
its appearance; the other reeled as it sought
to preserve its old position; and the candi
date who most nearly represented its best
opinion, driven by patriotic zeal, roamed
the country from end to end to speak for
union, eager at least to confront its enemies,
yet not having hope that it would find its
deliverance through him. The storm rose
to a whirlwind ; who should allay its wrath ?
The most experienced statesmen of the
country had failed ; there was no hope from
those who were great after the flesh; could
relief come from one whose wisdom was like
the wisdom of little children ?
EARLY LIFE OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
The choice of America fell on a man born
west of the Alleghanies, in the cabin of poor
people of Hardin county, Kentucky — Abra
ham Lincoln.
His mother could read, but not write ; his
father could do neither ; but his parents sent
him, with an old spelling-book, to school,
and he learned in his childhood to do both.
When eight years old he floated down the
Ohio with his father on a raft which bore
the family and all their possessions to the
shore of Indiana; and, child as he was, he
gave help as they toiled through dense for
ests to the interior of Spencer county.
There in the land of free labor he grew up
in a log cabin, with the solemn solitude for
his teacher in his meditative hours.
Of
Asiatic literature he knew only the Bible;
of Greek, Latin, and medieval, no more
than the translation of 2Esop’s Fables; of
English, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.
The traditions of Georgfe Fox and William
Penn passed to him dimly along the lines .of'
two centuries through his ancestors, who
were Quakers.
HIS EDUCATION.
Otherwise his education was altogether
American. The Declaration of Independ
ence was his compendium of political wis
dom, the life of Washington his constant
study, and something of Jefferson and Madi
son reached him through Henry Clay, whom
�600
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
he honoured from boyhood. For the re^t,
from day to day, he lived the life of the
American people; walked in its light; rea
soned with its reason, thought with its pow
er of thought; felt the beatings of its mighty
heart; and so was in every way a child of
nature—a child of the West—a child of
America.
HIS PROGRESS IN LIFE.
At nineteen, feeling impulses of ambition
to get on in the world, he engaged himself
to go down the Mississippi in a flat boat,
receiving ten dollars a month for his wages,
and afterwards he made the trip once more.
At twenty-one he drove his father’s cattle
as the family migrated to Illinois, and split
rails to fence in the new homestead in the
wild. At twenty-three he was a captain of
volunteers in the Black Hawk war. He
kept a shop ; he learned something of sur
veying ; but of English literature he added
to Bunyan nothing but Shakespeare’s plays.
At twenty-five he was elected to the Legis
lature of Illinois, where he served eight
years. At twenty-seven he was admitted
to the bar. In 1837 he chose his home at
Springfield, the beautiful centre of the
richest land in the State. In 1847 he was
a member of the national Congress, where
he voted about forty times in favour of the
principle of the Jefferson proviso. In 1854
he gave his influence to elect 'from Illinois
to the American Senate a democrat who
would certainly do justice to Kansas. In
1858, as the rival of Douglas, he went be
fore the people of the mighty Prairie State,
saying: “ This Union cannot permanently
endure, half slave and half free ; the Union
will not be dissolved, but the house will
cease to be divided.” And now, in 1861,
with no experience whatever as an exec
utive officer, while States were madly fly
ing from their orbit, and wise men knew
not where to find counsel, this descendant
of Quakers, this pupil of Bunyan, this
child of the great West was elected Presi
dent of America.
He measured the difficulty of the duty
that devolved on him, and was resolved to
fulfil it.
HE GOES TO WASHINGTON.
As on the eleventh of February, 1861, he
left Springfield, which for a quarter of a
century had been his happy home, to the
crowd of his friends and neighbours whom
he was never more to meet, he spoke a
solemn farewell: “ I know not how soon I
shall see you again. A duty has devolved
upon me, greater than that which has de
volved upon any other man since Washing
ton. He never would have succeeded, ex
cept for the aid of Divine Providence, upon
which he at all times relied. On the same
Almighty Being I place my reliance. Pray
that I may receive that Divine assistance,
without which I cannot succeed, but with
which success is certain.” To the men of
Indiana he said : > “ I am but an accidental,
temporary instrument; it is your business
to rise up and preserve the Union and lib
erty.” At the capital of Ohio he said:
“ Without a name, without a reason why I
should have a name, there has fallen upon
me a task such as did not rest even upon
the Father of his country.” At various
places in New York, especially at Albany
before the Legislature, which tendered him
the united support of the great Empire
State, he said: “ While I hold myself the
humblest of all the individuals who have
ever been elevated to the Presidency, I
have a more difficult task to perform than
any of them. I bring a true heart to the
work. I must rely upon the' people of the
whole country for support; and with their
sustaining aid even I, humble as I am, can
not fail to carry the ship of State safely
through the storm.” To the Assembly of
New Jersey, at Trenton, he explained: “ I
shall take the ground I deem .most just to
the North, the East, the West, the South,
and the whole country, in good temper,
certainly with no malice to any section. I
am devoted to peace, but it may. be neces
sary to put the foot down firmly.” In the
old Independence Hall of Philadelphia he
said: “ I have never had a feeling politi
cally that did not spring from the senti
ments embodied in the Declaration of In
dependence, which gave liberty, not alone
to the people of this country, but to the
world in all future time. If the country
cannot be- saved without giving up that
principle, I would rather be assassinated on
the spot than surrender it. I have said
nothing but what I am willing to live and
die by.
IN WHAT STATE HE FOUND THE
.COUNTRY.
Travelling in the dead of night to escape
assassination, Lincoln arrived at Washing
ton nine days before his inauguration. The
outgoing President, at the opening of the
session of Congress had still kept as the
majority of his advisers men engaged in
treason : had declared that in case of even
an “ imaginary ” apprehension of danger
from notions of freedom among the slaves,
“ disunion would become inevitable.” Lin-
�ORATION OF THE HOI . GEORGE BANCROFT.
601
coin and others had questioned the opinion of of th© South, or any decision of the Su
Taney; such impugning he ascribed to the preme Court; and, nevertheless, the seced
“ factious temper of the times.” The fa ing States formed at Montgomery a provi
vorite doctrine of the majority of the sional government, and pursued their re
democratic party on the power of a terri lentless purpose with such success that the
torial legislature over slavery he condemned Lieutenant-General feared the city of
as an attack on “ the sacred rights of pro Washington might find itself “ included in
perty.” The State Legislatures, he insist a foreign country,” and proposed, among
ed, must repeal what he called “their un the options for the consideration of Lincoln,
constitutional and obnoxious enactments,” to bid the seceded States “ depart in peace.”
and which, if such, were “ null and void,” The great republic seemed to have its em
or “ it would be impossible for any human blem in the vast unfinished capitol, at that
power to save the Union ! ” Nay 1 if these moment surrounded by masses of stone and
unimportant acts were not repealed, “ the prostrate columns never yet lifted into
injured States would be justified in revolu their places: seemingly the monument of
tionary resistance to the government of the high but delusive aspirations, the confused
Union.” He maintained that no State wreck of inchoate magnificence, sadder
might secede at its sovereign will and than any ruin of Egyptian Thebes or
pleasure; that the Union was meant for Athens.
perpetuity; and that Congress might at
tempt to preserve, but only by conciliation;
HIS INAUGURATION.
that “the sword was not placed in their
The fourth of March came. With inhands to preserve it by force; ” that “ the stincftve wisdom the new President, speak
last desperate remedy of a despairing peo ing to the people on taking the oath of
ple ” would be “ an explanatory amend office, put aside every question that divided
ment recognizing the decision of the Su the country, and gained a right to univer
preme Court of the United States.” The sal support, by planting himself on the
American Union he called “ a confederacy ” single idea of Union. That Union he de
of States, and he thought it a duty to make clared to be unbroken and perpetual; and
the appeal for amendment “ before any of he announced his determination to fulfil
these States should separate themselves “the simple duty of taking care that the
from the Union.” The views off the Lieu laws be faithfully executed in all the
tenant-General, containing some patriotic States.” Seven days later, the convention
advice, “ conceded the right of secession,” of confederate States unanimously adopted
pronounced a quadruple rupture of the a constitution of their own; and the new
Union “ a smaller evil than the reuniting of government was authoritatively announ
the fragments by the sword,” and “ eschew ced to be founded on the idea that slave
ed the idea of invading a seceded State. ry is the natural and normal condition
After changes in the Cabinet, the Presi of the negro race. The issue was made up
dent informed Congress that “ matters were whether the great republic was to main
still worse; ” that “ the South suffered se tain its providential place in the history of
rious grievances,” which should be redress mankind, or a rebellion founded on negro
ed “ in peace.” The day after this message slavery gain a recognition of its principle'
the flag of the Union was fired upon from throughout the civilized world. To the
Fort Moultrie, and the insult was not disaffected Lincoln had said: “ You have
revenged or noticed. Senators in Congress no conflict without being yourselves the ag
telegraphed to their constituents to seize gressors.” To fire the passions of the South
the national forts, and they were not ar ern portion of the people the confederate
rested. The finances of the country were government chose to become aggressors;
grievously embarrassed. Its little army and on the morning of the 12th of April
was not within reach — the part of it in began the bombardment of Fort Sumter,
Texas,' with all its stores, were made over and compelled its evacuation.
by its commander to the seceding insur
UPRISING OF THE PEOPLE
gents. One State after another voted in
convention to go out of the Union. A
It is the glory of the late President that
peace Congress, so-called, met at the re he had perfect faith in the perpetuity of
quest of Virginia, to concert the terms of the Union. Supported in advance by
capitulation for the continuance of the Douglas, who spoke as with the voice of a
Union. Congress in both branches sought million, he instantly called a meeting of
to devise conciliatory expedients ; the ter Congress, and summoned the people to
ritories of the country were organized in a come up and repossess the forts, places and
manner not to conflict with any pretensions property which had been seized from the
�602
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
Union. The men of the North were trained
in schools; industrious and frugal; many
of them delicately bred, their minds teem
ing with ideas and fertile in plans of enter
prise ; given to the culture of the arts;
eager in the pursuit of wealth, yet employ
ing wealth less for ostentation than for de
veloping the resources of their country;
seeking happiness in the calm of domestic
life; and such lovers of peace that for gen
erations they have been reputed unwarlike.
Now, at the cry of their country in its dis
tress, they rose up with unappeasable patri
otism : not hirelings'— the purest and of the
best blood in the land; sons of a pious
ancestry, with a clear perception of duty,
unclouded faith and fixed resojve to succeed,
they thronged round the President to sup
port the wronged, the beautiful flag of the
nation. The halls of theological semi
naries sent forth their young men, whose
lips were touched with eloquence, whose
hearts kindled with devotion to serve in the
ranks, and make their way to command
only as they learned the art of war. Strip
lings in the colleges, as well as the most
gentle and the most studious; those of
sweetest temper and loveliest character and
brightest genius passed from their classes to
the camp. The lumbermen sprang forward
from the forest, the mechanics from their
benches, where they had been trained by
the exercise of political rights to share
the Hfe and hope of the Republic, to feel
their responsibility to their forefathers,
their posterity and mankind, went forth re
solved that their dignity as a constituent
part of this republic should not be impaired.
Farmers and sons of farmers left the land
but half ploughed, the grain but half plant
ed, and, taking up the musket, learned to
face without fear the presence of peril- and
the coming of death in the shocks of war,
while their hearts were still attracted to the
charms of their rural life, and all the tender
affections of home. Whatever there was of
truth and faith and public love in the com
mon heart broke out with one expression.
The mighty winds blew from every quarter
to fan the flame of the sacred and unquench
able fire.
in an eminent degree attained to freedom
of industry and the security of person and
property. Its middle class rose to greatness.
Out of that class sprung the noblest poets
and philosophers, whose words built up the
intellect of its people; skilful navigators,
to find out the many paths of the ocean;
discoverers in natural science, whose inven
tions guided its industry to wealth, till it
equalled any nation of the world in letters,
and excelled all in trade and commerce.
But its government was become a govern
ment of land, and not of men; every blade
of grass was represented, but only a small
minority of the people. In the transition
from the feudal forms, the heads of the so
cial organization freed themselves from the
military services which were the conditions
of their tenure, and throwing the burden on
the industrial classes, kept all the soil to
themselves. Vast estates that had been
managed by monasteries as endowments for
religion and charity were impropriated to
swell the wealth of courtiers and favorites;
and the commons, where the poor man once
had his right of pasture, were taken away,
and, under forms of law, enclosed distributively within their own domains. Although
no law forbade any inhabitant from pur
chasing land, the costliness of the transfer
constituted a prohibition; so that it was the
rule of that country that the plough should
not be in the hands of its owner. The
church was rested on a contradiction,
claiming to be an embodiment of absolute
truth, and yet was a creature of the statute
book.
HER SENTIMENTS.
The progress of time increased the terri
ble contrast between wealth and poverty;
in their years of strength, the laboring peo
ple, cut off from all share in governing the
State, derived a scanty support from the
severest toil, and had no hope for old age
but in public charity or death. A grasping
ambition had dotted the world with military
posts, kept watch over our borders on the
northeast, at the Bermudas, in the West
Indies, held the gates of the Pacific, of the
Southern and of the Indian Ocean, hover
ed on our northwest at Vancouver, held the
THE WAR A WORLD-WIDE WAR.
whole of the newest continent, and the en
For a time the war was thought to be trances to the old Mediterranean and Red
confined to our own domestic affairs; but Sea ; and garrisoned forts all the way from
it was soon seen that it involved the desti Madras to China.
That aristocracy had
nies of mankind, and its principles and gazed with terror on the growth of a com
causes shook the politics of Europe to the monwealth where freeholds existed by the
centre, and from Lisbon to Pekin, divided million, and religion was not in bondage to
the governments of the world.
the state ; and now they could not repress
GREAT BRITAIN.
their joy at its perils. They had not one
There was a kingdom whose people had I word of sympathy for the kind-hearted
�ORATION OF THE HON
poor man’s son whom America had chosen
for her chief; they jeered at his large hands,
and long feet, and ungainly stature; and
the British' secretary of state for foreign af
fairs made haste to send word through the
palaces of Europe that the great republic
was in its agony,, that the republic was no
more, that a head stone was all that remain
ed due by the law of nations to “ the late
Union.” But it is written: “ Let the dead
bury their dead ; ” they may not bury the
living. Let the dead bury their dead; let
a bill of reform remove the worn-out gov
ernment of a class, and infuse new life into
the British constitution by confiding right
fill power to the people.
HER POLICY.
GEORGE BANCROFT.
603
land. Thrice only in all its history has that
yearning been fairly met; in the days of
Hampden and Cromwell, again in the first
ministry of the elder Pitt, and once again in
the ministry of Shelburne. Not that there
have not at all times been just men among
the peers of Britain — like Halifax in the
days of James the Second, or a Granville, an
Argyll, or a Hdughton in ours ; and we can
not be indifferent to a country that produces
statesmen like Cobden and' Bright; but the
best bower anchor of peace was the working
class of England, who suffered most from
our civil war, but who, while they broke
their diminished bread in sorrow, always en
couraged us to persevere.
FRANCE AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE. ■
*
The act of recognizing the rebel belliger
But while the vitality of America is inde
structible, the British government hurried ents wagLconcerted with France ; France, so
to do what never before had been done by beloved in America, on which she had con
Christian powers, what was in direct con ferred th® greatest benefits that one people
flict with its own exposition of public law in ever conferred on another^ France, which
the time of our struggle for. independence. stands foremost on the continent of Europe
Though the insurgent States had not a ship for the solidity of her culture, as well as for
in an open harbor, it invested them with the bravery and ■ generous impulses of her
all the rights of a belligerent, even on the sons ; France, which for centuries had been
ocean; and this, too, when the rebellion moving steadily in its own way towards in
was not only directed against the gentlest tellectual and policial freewom. The poli
and most beneficent government on earth, cy regarding further^ponization of Ameri
without a shadow of justifiable cause, but ca by European power®!, known commonly
when the rebellion was directed against Ma as the doctrine of Mowoe, had its origin in
man nature itself for the perpetual enslave France; and if it takes any man’s name,
ment of a race. And the effect of this re should bear the name of Turgot. It was
cognition was that acts in themselves pirati adopted by Louis the Sixteenth, in the cabi
cal found shelter in British courts of law. net of which Vergennes was the most imThe resources of British capitalist^ their portant member. It is emphatically the poliworkshops, their armories, their private ar cy of France^ to which, with transient de
senals, their shipyards, were in league with viations, the Bourbons, the First Napoleon,
the insurgents, and every British harbor in the House of Orleans have ever adhered.
the wide world became a safe port for British
ships, manned by British sailors, and arrngfl THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON AND MEXICO.
The late President was perpetually har
with British guns, to prey on our peaceful
commerce ; even on our ships coming from assed by rumors that the Emperor Napoleon
British ports, freighted with British pro the Third desired formally to recognize the
ducts, or that had carried gifts of grain to States in rebellion as an independent power,
the English poor. The prime minister in and that England held him back by her re
the House of Commons, sustained by cheers, luctance, or France by her traditions of
scoffed at the thought that their laws could freedom, or he himself by his own better
be amended at our request, so as to pre judgment and clear perception of events.
serve real neutrality; and to remonstrances But the republic of Mexico, on our borders,
now owned to have been just, their secreta was, like ourselves, distracted by a rebellion,
ry answered that they could not change and from a similar cause. The monarchy
of England . had fastened upon us slavery
their laws ad-infinitum.
which did not disappear with independence;
RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND.
in like manner, the ecclesiastical policy es
The people of America then wished, as tablished by the Spanish council of the In
they always have wished, as they still wish, dies, in the days of Charles the Fifth and
friendly relations with England; and no Philip the Second, retained its vigor in the
man in Europe or America can desire it Mexican Republic. The fifty years of civil
' more strongly than I. This country has al war under which she had languished was
ways yearned for good relations with Eng- I due to the bigoted system which was the
�604
ORATION OF THE HOnJ GEORGE BANCROFT. '
legacy of monarchy, just as here the inheri
tance of slavery kept alive political strife,
and culminated in civil war. As with us
there could be no quiet but through the end
of slavery, so in Mexico there could be no
prosperity until the crushing tyranny of in
tolerance should cease. The party of slav
ery in the United States sent their emissa
ries to Europe to solicit aid; and so did the
party of the church in Mexico, as organized
by the old Spanish council of the Indies,
but with a different result. Just as the re
publican party had made an end of the re
bellion, and was establishing the best gov
ernment ever known in that region, and giv
ing promise to the nation of order, peace,
and prosperity, word was brought us, in the
moment of our deepest affliction, that the
*
French emperor, moved by a desire to erect
in North America a buttress for Imperial
ism, would transform the republic of Mexico
into a secundo-geniture for the house of
Hapsburgh. America might complain ; she
>could not then interpose, and delay seemed
justifiable. It was seen that Mexico could
not, with all its wealth of land, compete in
cereal products with' our northwest, nor, in
tropical products, with Cuba; nor could it,
under a disputed dynasty, attract capital, or
create public works, or develop mines, or
borrow money; so that the imperial system
of Mexico, which was forced at once to rec
ognize the wisdom of the policy of the repub
lic by adopting it, could prove only an un
remunerating drain on the French treasury
for the support of an Austrian adventurer.
THE PERPETUITY OF REPUBLICAN INSTI
TUTIONS.
Meantime, a new series of momentous
questions grows up, and forces themselves
on the consideration of the thoughtful. Re
publicanism has learned how to introduce
into its constitution every element of order,
as well as every element of freedom; but
thus far the continuity of its government has
seemed to depend on the continuity of elec
tions. It is now tobe considered how per
petuity is to be secured against foreign oc
cupation. The successor of Charles the
First of England dated his reign from the
death of his father; the Bourbons, coming
back after a long series of revolutions,
claimed that the Louis who became king was
the eighteenth of that name. The present
emperor of the French, disdaining a title
from election alone, is called the third of his
name. Shall a republic have less power of
continuance when invading armies prevent
a peaceful resort to the ballot box ? What
force shall it attach to intervening legisla
tion ? What validity to debts contracted
for its overthrow ? These momentous
questions are by the invasion of Mexico
thrown up for solution. A free State once
truly constituted should be as undying as its
people; the republic of Mexico must rise
again.
THE POPE OF ROME AND THE REBELLION.
It was the condition of affairs in Mexico
that involved the Pope of Rome in our dif
ficulties so far that he alone among temporal
sovereigns recognized the chief of the Con
federate States as a president, and his sup
porters as a people; and in letters to two
great prelates of the Catholic Church in the
United States gave counsels for peace at a
time when peace meant the victory of se
cession. Yet events move as they are or
dered. The blessing of the Pope at Rome
on the head of Duke Maximilian could not
revive in the nineteenth century the eccle
siastical policy of the sixteenth; and the re
sult is only a new proof that there can be no
prosperity in the State without religious
freedom.
THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
When it came home to the consciousness
of the Americans that the war which they
were waging was a war for the liberty of all
the nations of the world, for freedom itself,
they thanked God for the severity of the
trial to which he put their sincerity, and
nerved themselves for their duty with an
inexorable will. The President was led
along by the greatness of their self-sacrifi
cing example; and as a child, in a dark
night on a rugged way, catches hold of the
hand of its father for guidance and support,
he clung fast to the hand of the people, and
moved Calmly through the gloom. While
the statesmanship of Europe was scoffing
at the hopeless vanity of their efforts, they
put forth such miracles of energy as the
history of the world had never known.
The navy of the United States drawing into
the public service the willing militia of the
seas, doubled its tonnage in eight months,
and established an actual blockade from
Cape Hatteras to the Rio Grande. In the
course of the war it was increased five fold
in men and in tonnage, while the inventive
genius of the country devised more effec
tive kinds of ordnance, and new forms of
naval architecture in wood and iron. There
went into the field, for various terms of
service, about two million men; and in
March last the men in service exceeded a
million; that is to say, one of every two
able-bodied men took some part in the war;
and at one time every fourth able-bodied
I man was in the field. In one single month.
�ORATION OF THE HO-N.
GEORGE BANCROFT.1
605
one hundred and sixty-five thousand were Mississippi, which would not be divided,
recruited into service. Once, within four and the range of mountains which car
weeks, Ohio organized and placed in the ried the stronghold of the free through
field, forty-two regiments of infantry — Western Virginia and Kentucky and Ten
nearly thirty-six thouand men; and Ohio nessee to the highlands of Alabama. But
was like other States in the east and in the it invoked the still higher power of immor
west. The well-mounted cavalry numbered tal justice. In ancient Greece, where ser
eighty-four thousand ; of horses there were vitude was the universal custom, it was
bought, first and last, two thirds of a mil held that if a child were to strike its parent,
lion. In the movements of troops science the slave should defend the parent, and by
came in aid of patriotism ; so that, to choose that act recover his freedom. After vain
a single instance out of many, an army resistance, Lincoln, who had tried to solve
twenty-three thousand strong, with its ar the question by gradual emancipation, by
tillery, trains, baggage and animals, were colonization, and by compensation, at last
moved by rail from the Potomac to the Ten saw that slavery must be abolished, or the
nessee, twelve hundred miles in seven days. Republic must die; and on the 1st day of
In the long marches, wonders of military January, 1863, he wrote liberty on the ban
construction bridged the rivers; and where- ners of the armies. When this proclamaever an army halted, ample supplies await tion, which struck the fetters from three
ed them at their ever changing base. The millions of slaves reached Europe, Lord
vile thought that life is the greatest of Russell, a countryman of Milton and Wil
blessings did not rise up. In six hundred berforce, eagerly put himself forward to
and twenty-five battles, and severe skir speak of it in
name of mankind, saying:
mishes blood flowed like water. It streamed “ It is of a very strange nature ; ” “a meas
over the grassy plains ; it stained the rocks; ure of war of a very questionable kind; ”
the undergrowth of the forest was red an “ act of vengeance on the slave owner,”
with it; and the armies marched on with that does no more thanEErofess to emanci
majestic courage from one conflict to anoth pate slaves where the United States authorer, knowing that they were fighting for God ities cannot make emancipation a reality.”
and liberty. The organization of the medi Now there was no pa™ of the country emcal department met its infinitely multiplied braced in the proclamation where the United
duties with exactness and despatch. At the States could not and did hot make emanci. news of a battle, the best surgeons of our jfflffipn a reality. Those who saw Lincoln
cities hastened to the field, to offer the most frequently had nev^fibefore heard
zealous aid of the greatest experience and him speak with bitterness of any human
skill. The gentlest and most refined of being ; but he did not conceal how keenly
women left homes of luxury and, ease to he felt that he had been wronged by Lord
build hospital tents near the armies, and Russell. And he wrote, in reply to another
serve as nurses to the sick and dying. Be caviller: “ The emancipation policy, and
sides the large supply of religious teachers the use of colored troops/gvere the greatest
by the public, the congregations spared to blows yet dealt to the rebellion. The job was
their brothers in the field the ablest minis a great national one ; and let none be slight
ters.
The Christian Commission, which ed who bore an honorable part in it. I hope
expended five and a half millions, sent four peace will come soon, and come to stay;
thousand clergymen chosen out of the best, then there will be some black men who can
to keep un soiled the religious character of remember that they have helped mankind
the men, and made gifts of clothes and food to this great consummation.”
and medicine. The organization of private
RUSSIA AND CHINA.
charity assumed unheard of dimensions.
■The Sanitary Commission, which had seven
The proclamation accomplished its end,
thousand societies, distributed, under the for, during the war, our armies came into
direction of an unpaid board, spontaneous military possession of every State in rebel
contributions to the amount of fifteen mil lion. Then, too, was called forth the
lions, in supplies or money — a million and new power that comes from the simultane
a half in money from California alone — ous diffusion of thought and feeling among
and dotted the scene of war from Paducah the nations of mankind. The mysterious
to Port Royal, from Belle Plain, Virginia, sympathy of the millions throughout the •
to Browsnville, Texas, with homes and world was given spontaneously. The best
lodges.
writers of Europe waked the conscience
of the thoughtful, till the intelligent moral
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.
sentiment of the Old World was drawn
pi The country had for its allies "the River to the side of the unlettered statesman
�606
ORATION OF THE HONF GEORGE BANCROFT.
of the West. Russia, whose emperor had
just accomplished one of the grandest acts
in the course of time by raising twenty mil
lions of bondmen into' freeholders, and thus
assuring the growth and culture of a Rus
sian people, remained our unwavering
friend. From the oldest abode of civiliza
tion, which gave the first example of an im
perial government with equality among the
people, Prince Kung, the secretary of state
for foreign affairs, remembered the saying
of Confucius, that we should not do to
others what we would not that others should
do to us, and in the name of the Emperor
of China closed its ports against the war
ships and privateers of “ the seditious.”
CONTINUANCE OF THE WAR.
The war continued, with all the peoples
of the world for anxious spectators. Its
cares weighed heavily on Lincoln, and his
face was ploughed with the furrows of
thought and sadness. With malice towards
none, free from the spirit of revenge, victo
ry made him importunate for peace; and
his enemies never doubted his word, or
despaired of his abounding clemency. He
longed to utter pardon as the word for all,
but not unless the freedom of the negro
should be assured. The grand battles of
Mill Spring which gave us Nashville, of
Fort Donelson, Malvern Hill, Antietam,
Gettysburg, the Wilderness of Virginia,
Winchester, Nashville, the capture of New
Orleans, Vicksburg, Mobile, Fort Fisher,
the march from Atlanta and the capture of
Savannah and Charleston, all foretold the
issue. Still more, the self-regeneration of
Missouri, the heart of the continent; of Ma
ryland, whose sons never heard the mid
night bell chime so. sweetly as when they
rang out to earth and heaven that, by the
voice of her own people, she took her place
among the free ; of Tennessee, which passed
through fire and blood, through sorrows and
the shadow of death, to work out her own
deliverance, and by the faithfulness of her
own sons to renew her youth like the eagle
— proved that victory was deserved and
would be worth all that it cost. If words
of mercy uttered as they were by Lincoln
on the waters of Virginia, were defiantly
repelled, the armies of the country, moving
with one will, went as the arrow to its
mark, and without a. feeling of revenge
struck a deathblow at rebellion.
ing him to a second term of service. The
raging war that had divided the country
had lulled; and private grief was hushed
by the grandeur of its results. The nation
had its new birth of freedom, soon to be
secured forever by an amendment of the
Constitution. His persistent gentleness had
conquered for him a kindlier feeling on the
part of the South. His scoffers among the
grandees of Europe began to do him honor.
The laboring classes every where saw in his
advancement their own. All peoples sent
him their benedictions. And at the mo
ment of the height of his fame, to which his
humility and modesty added charms, he fell
by the hand of the assassin; and the only
triumph awarded him was tb,e march to the
grave.
THE GREATNESS OF MAN.
This is no time to say that human glory
is but dust and ashes, that we mortals are
no more than shadows in pursuit of shadows.
How mean a thing were man, if there were
not that within him which is higher than
himself—if he could not master the illu
sions of sense, and discern the connections
of events by a superior light which comes
from God. He so shares the divine impul
ses that he has power to subject interested
passions to love of country, and personal
ambition to the ennoblement of man. Not
in vain has Lincoln lived, for he has helped
to make this Republic an exatnple of jus
tice, with no caste but the caste of humani
ty. The heroes who led our armies and
ships into battle — Lyon, McPherson, Rey
nolds, Sedgwick, Wadsworth, Foote, Ward,
with their compeers — and fell in the ser
vice, did not die in vain ; they and the my
riads of nameless martyrs, and he, the chief
martyr, died willingly “ that government of
the people, by the people, and for the peo
ple, shall not perish from the earth.”
THE JUST DIED FOR THE UNJUST.
The assassination of Lincoln, who was so
free from malice, has from some mysterious
influence struck the country with solemn
awe, and hushed, instead of exciting, the
passion for revenge. It seemed as if the
just had died for the unjust. When I think
of the friends I have lost in this war — and
every one who hears me has, like myself,
lost those whom he most loved — there is
no consolation to be derivedftom victims on
the scaffold, or from any thing but the es
tablished union of the regenerated nation.
Lincoln’s assassination.
„ CHARACTER OF LINCOLN.
I
Where, in the history of nations, had a
Chief Magistrate possessed more sources of
In his character Lincoln was through and
consolation and joy, than Lincoln? His through an American. He is the first nacountrymen had shown their love by choos I tive of the region west of the Alleghanies to
�ORATION OF THE HON . GEORGE BANCROFT.
i
607
attain to the highest station; and how hap
Lincoln was one of the most unassuming
py it is- that the man who was brought for of men. In time of success, he gave credit
ward as the natural outgrowth and first for it to those whom he employed, to the
fruits of that region should have been of un people, and to the providence of God. He
blemished purity in private life, a good son, did not know what ostentation is; when he
a kind husband, a most affectionate father, became President he was rather saddened
and, as a man, so gentle to all. As to in than elated, and his conduct and manners
tegrity, Douglas, his rival, said of him, “ Lin showed more than ever his belief that all
coln is the honestest man I ever knew.”
men are born equal. He was no respecter
The habits of his mind were those of of persons ; and neither rank, nor reputa
meditation and inward thought, rather than tion, nor services overawed him. In judg
of action. He excelled in logical statement, ing of character he failed in discrimination,
more than in executive ability. He rea and his appointments were sometimes bad;
soned clearly, his reflective judgment was but he readily deferred to public opinion,
good, and his purposes were, fixed; but and in appointing tne head of the armies he
like the Hamlet of his only poet,, his will followed the manifest preference of Conwas tardy in action, and for this reason, and gressBu
A good President will secure unity to his
not from humility or tenderness of feeling,
he sometimes deplored that the duty which administration by his own supervision of
devolved on him had not fallen to the lot of the various departments. Lincoln, who acnever governed
another. He was skilful in analysis, dis cepted advice ^adily
cerned with precision the central idea, on by any member of his Caftnet, and could
which a question turned, and knew how to not be moved from a purpose deliberately
disengage it and present it by itself in a few formed; but his supervision of affairs was
homely, strong old English words that would unsteady and incomplete |Jand sometimes,
be intelligible to all. He delighted to ex by a sudden interference transcoding the
press his opinions by apothegm, illustrate usual forms, he rather confused than adthem by a parable, or drive them home by a vanced the public business. If he ever
story.
failed in the scrupulous regard due to the
Lincoln gained a name by discussing relative rights of Congress, it was so evi
questions which, of all others, most easily dently without design that no conflict
led to fanaticism; but he was never carried could ensue, or evil precefent be estabaway by enthusiastic zeal, never indulged lished. Truth he would receive from any
in extravagant language, never hurried to one ; but, when impressed by others, he did
support extreme measures, never allowed not use their opinions till by reflection he
himself to be controlled by sudden impulses. had made them thoroughly his own.
During the progress of the election at which
It was the nature of Lincoln to forgive.
he was chosen President, he expressed no When hostilities ceased w he who had al
opinion that, went beyond the Jefferson ways sent forth the flag with every one of its
proviso of 1784. Like Jefferson and Lafa stars in the field, was eager to receive back
yette, he had faith in the intuitions of the his returning count^men, and meditated
people, and read those intuitions with rare some new announcement to the South.”
sagacity. He knew how to bide his time, The amendment of the Constitution abolish
and was less apt to be in advance of public ing slavery had his most earnest and un
opinion than to lag behind. He never wearied support. During the rage of war
sought to electrify the public by taking we get a glimpse into his soul from his
an advanced position with a banner of privately suggesting to Louisiana that “ in
opinion; but rather studied to move for defining the franchise some of the colored
ward compactly, exposing no detachment people might be let in,” saying: “ They
in front or rear; so that the course of his would probably help, in some trying time
administration might have been explained to come, to keep the jewel of liberty in the
as the calculating policy of a shrewd and family of freedom.” In 1857 he avowed
watchful politician, had there not been seen himself “ not in favor of ” what he improp
behind it a fixedness of principle which erly called .“ negro citizenship: ” for the
from the first determined his purpose and Constitution discriminates between citizens
grew more intense with every year, consum and electors. Three days before his death
ing his life by,its energy. Yet his sensibili- he declared his preference that “ the elect
ties were not acute, he had no vividness of ive franchise were now conferred on the
imagination to picture to his mind the hor very intelligent of the colored men and on
rors of the battle-field or the sufferings in those of them who served our cause as
hospitals ; his conscience was more tender soldiers;” but he wished it done by the
than his feelings.
States themselves, and he never harbored
�608
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
the thought of ^exacting it from a new government as a condition of its recognition.
The last day of his life beamed with sun
shine, as he sent by the - speaker of this
House his friendly greetings to the men
of the Rocky Mountains and the Pa
cific slope; as he contemplated the return
of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fruit
ful industry; as he welcomed in advance
hundreds of thousands of emigrants from
Europe; as his eye kindled with enthusi
asm at the coming wealth of the nation.
And'so, with these thoughts for his country,
he was removed from the toils and temp
tations of this life and was at peace.
PALMERSTON AND LINCOLN.
Hardly had the late President been con
signed to the grave, when the Prime Minis
ter of England died, full of years and hon
ours. Palmerston traced his lineage to the
time of the conqueror: Lincoln went back
only to his grandfather. Palmerston re
ceived his education from the best scholars
of Harrow, Edinburgh, and Cambridge;
Lincoln’s early teachers were the silent
forest, the prairie, the river, and the stars.
Palmerston was in public life for sixty
years ; Lincoln for but a tenth of that time.
Palmerston was a skilful guide of an estab
lished aristocracy; Lincoln a leader or rather
a companion of the people. Palmerston
was exclusively an Englishman, and made
his boast in the House of Commons that the
interest of England was his Shibboleth;
Lincoln thought always of mankind as well
as his own country, and served human na
ture itself. Palmerston from his narrowness
as an Englishman did not endear his coun
try to any one court or to any one people,
but rather caused uneasiness and dislike;
Lincoln left America more beloved than
ever by all the peoples of Europe. Palm
erston was self-possessed and adroit in
reconciling the conflicting claims of the fac
tions of the aristocracy; Lincoln, frank and
ingenuous, knew how to poise himself on the
conflicting opinions of the people. Palm
erston was capable of insolence towards the
weak, quick to the sense of honour, not
heedful of right; Lincoln rejected counsel
given only as a matter of policy, and was
not capable of being wilfully unjust. Palm
erston, essentially superficial, delighted in
banter, and knew how to divert grave op
position, by playful levity. Lincoln was a
man of infinite jest on his lips, with saddest
earnestness at his heart. Palmerston was a
fair representative of the aristocratic lib
erality of the day, choosing for his tribunal,
not the conscience of humanity, but the
House of Commons ; Lincoln took to heart
I the eternal truths of liberty, obeyed them
as the commands of Providence, and accept
*
ed the human race as the judge of his fidel
ity. Palmerston did nothing that will en
dure ; his great achievement, the separation
of Belgium, placed that little kingdom
where it must gravitate to France; Lincoln
finished a work which all time cannot over
throw. Palmerston is a shining example of
the ablest of a cultivated aristocracy; Lin
coln shows the genuine fruits of institutions
where the laboring man shares and assists to
form the great ideas and designs of his
country. Palmerston was buried in West
minster Abbey by the order of his Queen,
and was followed by the British aristocracy
to his grave, which after a few years will
hardly be noticed by the side of the graves
of Fox and Chatham; Lincoln was followed
by the sorrow of his country across the con
tinent to his resting-place in the heart of
the Mississippi valley, to be remembered
through all time by his countrymen, and by
all the peoples of the world.
CONCLUSION.
As the sum of all, the hand of Lincoln
raised the flag; the American people was
the hero of the war; and therefore the re
sult is a new era of republicanism. The dis
turbances in the country grew not out of any
thing republican, but out of slavery, which is
a part of the system of hereditary wrong,
and the expulsion of this domestic anomaly
opens to the renovated nation a career of
unthought of dignity and glory. Hence
forth our country has a moral unity as the
land of free labour. The party for slavery
and the party against slavery are no more,
and are merged in the party of Union and
freedom. The States which would have Ieff“*
us are not brought back as conquered States,
for then we should hold them only so long
as that conquest could be maintained ; they
come to their rightful place under the Consti
tution as original, necessary and inseparable
members of the State. We build monu
ments to the dead, but no monuments of
victory. We respect the example of the
Romans, who never, even in conquered
lands, raised emblems of triumph. And
our generals are not to be classed in the
herd of vulgar conquerors, but are of the
school of Timoleon and William of Orange'
and Washington. They have used the
sword only to give peace to their country
and restore her to her place in the great
assembly of the nations. Our meeting
closes in hope, now that a people begins to
live according to the laws of reason., and re
publicanism is intrenched in a continent.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
America, France and England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway, Moncure Daniel, 1832-1907 [1832-1907]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Boston, Mass.]
Collation: [545]-608 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From Littell's Living Age, vol. XXX11, third series, no. 1134, (24 February 1866): re-published from Fortnightly Review 3: 442-459 (January 1 1866). From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed in double columns. Includes comment and letters on the Alabama debate in the House of Commons.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[T.H. Carter & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1866
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5438
Subject
The topic of the resource
International relations
France
England
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (America, France and England), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
France
Great Britain
United States-Foreign Relations
United States-Politics and Government
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/db24c60c3cab575c232622438bf67356.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uPE4uQKtNNrSMCylsDoV6X1M0S%7E3UUA7LjxnaFmsoNNcD6SyLdwnPhiNjMqRV2%7Ep6xC1mNfuZRYYJghCZQaXr0Ap86qeTu7JyT2%7EEryTFwy-ia1eC5ncRpJzmMR-wwPW3oV7dCORTtdiHKTjyUk724KzbhqSkZlDec3GKCO4FAH410X0b5wlSRP57qbN2AeuoHcV%7Ejyt9YPLHRSz7Ioo4SqZ4C4GoyJxq3OKpt9RdlrhBOqSpqOAzx%7ED3iIS5DIuyzFL1GxiGKqA0BRptr%7EaKEUPNibxqBuU5pEg4X9ZDKNx1I6WEJsshKilupjEGNylQSctsRfXEgfctYe20f9v2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1b60d76defd1e3f7805804184579a4d9
PDF Text
Text
SECOND EDITION. SIXTH THOUSAND.________
------ =—7—-
=
MR. CHAS. BRADLAUGH, referring to this Orat.icrth. ¿fy
says in the National Reformer of J uly 2nd, 1882 ¡-MJ». "L
“As a sample of eloquence it should be read by evRf^.. <4 •.
admirer of fine clear oratory.
*
<$
<0 ¿X. •
NATIONALSECtJLARSOCIETY
nJ
COL. INGERSOLL’S
LONDON:
Printed at the Paine Press, 8, Finsbury-street, e.c.
1882
Price One Penny.
i
�( 2 )
-Ht IJ'i’FRODUC’FISjV.
ECORATION DAY, the occasion upon which the following
Oration was delivered in June, 1882, is a national commemora
tion of the dead heroes of America, of the men who fought and died
for the great republic. It is observed throughout the country, and
the tombs of the departed great ones are decked with flowers and
other symbols of remembrance and respect. Col. Ingersoll, whose
fame as an orator is world-wide, was requested to deliver the com
memorative discourse. The Colonel accepted the honorable post, and
the oration given below was the result. The Academy of Music was
thronged on the evening of Decoration Day. The gay dresses of the
ladies and the bright uniforms of military men gave the audience a
brilliant appearance. The Academy was profusely decorated with
flags. Amidst thunders of applause, Colonel Ingersoll advanced to
the reading desk, and delivered the
ORATION.
'T'IIIS day is sacred to our heroes dead. Upon their tombs we hav
A lovingly laid the wealth of spring.
This is a day for memory and tears. A mighty nation bends above
its honored grave and pays to noble dust the tribute of its love.
Gratitude is the fairest flower that sheds its perfume in the heart.
To-day we tell the history of oui' country’s life—-recount the lofty
deeds, of vanished years—the toil and suffering, the defeats and
victories of heroic men—of men who made our nation great and free.
We see the first ships whose prows were gilded by the Western
sun. We feel the thrill of discovery when the new world was found.
We see the oppressed, the serf, the peasant, and the slavemen whose
flesh had known the chill of chains—the adventurous, the proud, the
brave, sailing an unknown sea, seeking homes in unknown lands.
We see the settlements, the little clearings, the block-house, and
the fort, the rude and lonely huts. Brave men, true women, builders
of homes, fellers of forests, founders of states !
Separated from the Old World—away from the heartless distinctions
of caste—away from sceptres, and titles, and crowns, they governed
themselves. They defended their homes, they earned them bread.
Each citizen had a voice, and the little villages became almost
republics.
Slowly the savage was driven, foot by foot, back in the dim forest.
The days and nights were filled with fear, and the slow years with
massacre and war, and cabins' earthen floors were wet with blood of
mothers and their babes.
But the savages of the New World were kinder than the kings and
nobles of the Old ; and so the human tide kept coming, and the
places of the dead were filled.
�( 3 )
Amid common dangers and common hopes, the prejudices and
feuds of Europe faded slowly from their hearts. From every land,
of every speech, driven by want and lured by hope, exiles and
emigrants sought the mysterious continent of the West.
Year after year the colonists fought and toiled, and suffered and
increased.
They began to talk about liberty—to reason of the rights of man.
They asked no help from distant kings, and they began to doubt the
use of paying tribute to the useless. They lost respects for dukes
and lords, and held in high esteem all honest men.
There was the dawn of a new day. They began to dream of in
dependence. They found that they could make and execute the laws.
They had tried the experiment of self-government. They had
succeeded. The Old World wished to dominate the New. In the
care and keeping of the colonists was the destiny of this continent—
of half the world.
On this day the story of the great struggle between colonists and
kings should be told. We should tell our children of the contest—
first for justice, then for freedom. We should tell them the history
of the Declaration of Independence—the chart and compass of all
human rights—that all men are equal, and have the right of life,
liberty, and joy.
This Declaration uncrowned kings, and wrested from the hands of
titled tyranny the sceptre of usurped and arbitrary power. It super
seded royal grants, and repealed the cruel statutes of a thousand
years. It gave the peasant a career; it knighted all the sons of toil;
it opened all the paths to fame, and put the star of hope above the
cradle of the poor man’s babe.
England was then the mightiest of nations—mistress of every sea—
and yet our fathers, poor and few, defied her power.
To-day we remember the defeats, the victories, the disasters, the
weary marches, the poverty, the hunger, the sufferings, the agonies,
and, above all, the glories of the Revolution. We remember all—
from Lexington to Valley Forge, and from that midnight of despair
to Yorktown's cloudless day.
We remember the soldiers and thinkers—the heroes of the sword
and pen. They had the brain and heart, the wisdom and the courage
to utter and defend these words, “Governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”
In defence of this sublime and self-evident truth the war was waged
and won.
To-day we remember all the heroes, all the generous and chivalric
men who came from other lands to make ours free.
Of the many thousands who shared the gloom and glory of the
seven sacred years, not one remains. The last has mingled with the
earth, and nearly all are sleeping now in unmarked graves, and some
beneath the leaning, crumbling stones, from which their names have
been effaced by Time’s irreverent and relentless hands.
But the nation they founded remains. The United States are still
free and independent. The “government derives its just powers
�( 4 )
from the consent of the governed,” and fifty millions of free people
remember with gratitude the heroes of the Revolution.
Let us be truthful; let us be kind. When peace came, when the
independence of a new nation was acknowledged, the great truth for
which our fathers fought was half denied, and the Constitution was
inconsistent with the Declaration. The war was waged for liberty,
and yet the victors forged new fetters for their fellow-men. The
chains our fathers broke were put by them upon the limbs of others.
Freedom for all was the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night,
through seven years of want and war. In peace the cloud was for
gotten and the pillar blazed unseen.
Let us be truthful; all of our fathers were not true to themselves.
In war, they had been generous, noble, and self-sacrificing ; with
peace came selfishness and greed. They were not great enough to
appreciate the grandeur of the principles for which they fought.
They ceased to regard the great truths as having universal applica
tion. “ Liberty for all ” included only themselves. They qualified
the Declaration. They interpolated the word “ white; ” they obliter
ated the world “all.”
Let us be kind. We will remember the ag-e in which they lived.
We will compare them with the citizens of other nations.
They made merchandise of men. They legalized a crime. They
sowed the seeds of war. But they founded this nation.
Let us gratefully remember.
Let us gratefully forget.
To-day we remember the heroes of the second war with England—
in which our fathers fought for the freedom of the seas, for the rights
of the American sailor.
We remember with pride the splendid victories of Erie and Champ
lain, and the wondrous achievements upon the sea—achievements
that covered our navy with glory that neither the victories nor defeats
of the future can dim.
We remember the heroic services and sufferings of those who
fought the merciless savage of the frontier. We see the midnight
massacre, and hear the war-cries of the allies of England. We see
the flames climb round the happy homes, and in the charred and
blackened ruins we see the mutilated bodies of wives and children.
Peace came at last, crowned with the victory of New Orleans—a
victory that “ did redeem all sorrows ” and all defeats.
The Revolution gave our fathers a free land—the war of 1812 a
free sea.
To-day we remember the gallant men who bore our flag in tri
umph from the Rio Grande to the heights of Chatultepec.
Leaving out of question the justice of our cause—the necessity for
war—we are yet compelled to applaud the marvellous courage of our
troops. A handful of men—brave, impetuous determined, irresist
ible—conquered a nation. Our history has no record of more daring
deeds.
Again peace came, and the nation hoped and thought that strife
was at an end.
oi
�( 5 )
We had grown too powerful to be attacked. Our resources were
boundless, ^and the future seemed secured. The hardy pioneers
moved to the great West. Beneath their ringing strokes the forests
disappeared, and on the prairies waved the billowed.seas of wheat
and corn. The great plains were crossed, the mountains were con
quered, and the foot of victorious adventure pressed the shore of the
Pacific.
In the great north, all the streams went singing to the sea, turning
wheels and spindles, and casting shuttles back and forth. Inventions
were springing like magic from a thousand brains. From laboi s
holy altars rose and leaped the smoke and flame, and from the count
less forges rang the chant of the rhythmic stroke.
But in the South the negro toiled unpaid, and mothers wept while
babes were sold, and at the auction black husbands and wives speech
lessly looked the last good-bye. Fugitives, lighted by the Northern
star, sought liberty on English soil, and were by northern men thrust
back to whip and chain.
The great statesmen, the successful politicians, announced that law
had compromised with crime, that justice had been bribed, and that
time had barred appeal. A race was left without a right, without a
hope. The future had no dawn, no star—nothing but ignorance and
fear, nothing but work and want. This was the conclusion of the
statesman, the philosophy of the politicians—of constitutional ex
pounders. This was decided by courts and ratified by the nation.
We had been successful in three wars. We had wrested thirteen
colonies from Great Britain. We had conquered our place upon the
high seas. We had added more than two millions of square miles to
the national domain. We had increased in population from three to
thirty-one millions. We were in the midst of plenty. We were rich
and free. Ours appeared to be the most prosperous of nations. •
But it was only appearance. The statesmen and the politicians
were deceived. Real victories can be won only for the right. .The
triumph of justice is the only peace. Such is the nature of things.
He who enslaves another cannot be free. He who attacks the right
assaults himself.
The mistake our fathers made had not been corrected. The found
ations of the republic were insecure. The great dome of the temple
was bathed in the light of prosperity, but the corner-stones were
crumbling. Four millions of human beings were enslaved. . Party
cries had been mistaken for principles—partisanship for patriotism,
success for justice.
But pity pointed to the scarred and bleeding backs of slaves;
mercy heard the sobs of mothers reft of babes, and justice held aloft
the scales, in which one drop of blood, shed by a master’s lash out
weighed a nation’s gold.
There were a few men, a few women, who had the courage to. at
tack this monstrous crime. They found it entrenched in constitu
tions, statutes, and decisions, barricaded and bastioned by every
department and by every party. Politicians were its servants, states
men its attorneys, judges its menials, presidents its puppets, and upon
�( 6 )
its cruel altar had been sacrificed our country’s honor.
It was the crime of the nation—of the whole country—North and
South responsible alike.
To-day we reverently thank the abolitionists. Earth has produced
no grander men, no nobler women. They were the real philanthrop
ists, the true patriots.
When the will defies fear, when the heart- applauds the brain, when
duty throws the gauntlet down to fate, when honor scorns to com
promise with death—this is heroism.
The abolitionists were heroes. He loves his country best who
strives to make it best. The bravest men are those who have the
greatest fear of doing wrong.
Mere politicians wish the country to do something for them, true
patriots desire to do something for their country.
Courage without conscience is a wild beast; patriotism without
principle is the prejudice of birth—the animal attachment to place.
These men, these women, had courage and conscience, patriotism
and principle, heart and brain.
The South relied upon the bond—upon a barbarous clause that
stained, disfigured, and defiled the Federal pact—and made the mon
strous claim that- slavery was the nation’s ward. The spot of shame
grew red in Northern cheeks, and Northern men declared that slavery
had poisoned, cursed, and blighted soul and soil enough, and that the
territories must be free.
The radicals of the South cried, “No Union without slavery!”
The radicals of the North replied, “No Union without- liberty!”
The Northern radicals were right. Upon the great issue of free
homes for free men a president was elected by the free states. The
South appealed to the sword, and raised the standard of revolt. For
the first time in history the oppressors rebelled.
But let us to-day be great enough to forget individuals—great
enough to know that slavery was treason, that slavery was rebellion,
that slavery fired upon our flag, and sought to wreck and strand the
mighty ship that bears the hope and fortune of this world.
The first shot liberated the North. Constitutions, statutes, and
decisions, compromises, platforms, and resolutions, made, passed, and
ratified in the interest of slavery, became mere legal lies, mean and
meaningless, base and baseless.
Parchment and paper could no longer stop or stay the onward
march of man. Tire North was free. Millions instantly resolved
that the nation should not die—that freedom should not perish, and
that slavery should not live. Millions of our brothers, our sons, our
fathers, our husbands, answered to the nation’s call.
The great armies have desolated the earth; the greatest soldiers
have been ambition’s dupes. They waged war for the sake of place
and pillage, pomp and power, for the ignorant applause of vulgar
millions, for the flattery of parasites, and t-he adulation of sycophants
and slaves.
Let us proudly remember that in our time the greatest, the
grandest, the noblest army of the world fought—not to enslave, but
�( 7 )
to free ; not to destroy, but to save ; not simply for themselves, but
for others; not for conquest, but for conscience ; not only for us, but
for every land and every race.
With courage, with enthusiasm, with devotion never excelled, with
an exaltation and purity of purpose never equalled, this grand army
fought the battles of the republic. For the preservation of this
nation, for the destruction of slavery, these soldiers, these sailors—on
land and sea-—disheartened by no defeat, discouraged by no obstacle,
appalled by no danger, neither paused nor swerved until a stainless
flag, without a rival, floated over all our wide domain, and until every
human being beneath its folds was absolutely free.
The great victory for human rights-—the greatest of all the years—
had been won ; won by the Union men of the North, by the Union
men of the South, and by those who had been slaves. Liberty was
national—slavery was dead.
The flag for which the heroes fought, for which they died, is the
symbol of all we are, of all we hope to be.
It is the emblem of equal rights.
It means free hands, free lips, self-government, and the sovereign
ty of the individual.
It means that this continent has been dedicated to freedom.
It means universal education—light for every mind, knowledge for
every child.
It means that the school-house is the fortress of liberty.
It means that “ governments derive their just powers from the con
sent of the governed ”—that each man is accountable to and for the
government—-that- responsibility goes hand in hand with liberty.
It means that it is the duty of every citizen to bear his share of the
public burden—to take part in the affairs of his town, his county, his
state, and his country.
It means that the ballot-box is the ark of the covenant—that the
source of authority must not be poisoned.
It means the perpetual right of peaceful revolution.
It means that every citizen of the republic—native or naturalised
—must be protected; at home, in every state ; abroad, in every land,
on every sea.
It means that all distinctions based on birth or blood have perished
from our laws—that our government shall stand between labor and
capital, between the weak and the strong, between the individual and
the corporation, between want and wealth—and give and guarantee
simple justice to each and all.
It means that there shall be a legal remedy for every wrong.
It means national hospitality—that we must welcome to our shores
the exiles of the world, and that we may not drive them back. Some
may be deformed by labor, dwarfed by hunger, broken in spirit, vic
tims of tyranny and caste, in whose sad faces may be read the touch
ing record of a weary life ; and yet their children, born of liberty and
love, will be symmetrical and fair, intelligent and free.
That flag is the emblem of a supreme will-—of a nation’s power.
Beneath its folds the weakest must be protected, and the strongest
must obey.
�It shields and canopies alike the loftiest mansion and the rudest
hut.
That flag was given to the air in the Revolution’s darkest days.
It represents the sufferings of the past, the glories yet to be ; and like
the bow of heaven, it is the child of storm and sun.
This day is sacred to the great heroic host who kept this flag above
our heads—sacred to the living and the dead—sacred to the scarred
and the maimed—sacred to the wives who gave their husbands, to the
mothers who gave their sons.
Here in this peaceful land of ours—here where the sun shmes,
where flowers grow, where children play, millions of armed men
battled for the right, and breasted on a thousand fields the iron storms
of war.
These brave, these incomparable men founded the first republic.
They fulfilled the prophecies; they brought to pass the dreams;
they realized the hopes that all the great and good and wise and just
have made and had since man was man.
But what of those who fell?
There is no language to express the debt we owe, the love we bear,
to all the dead who died for us. Words are but barren sounds. We
can but stand beside their graves, and, in the hush and silence, feel
what speech has never told.
They fought, they died, and for the first time since man has kept
a record of events the heavens bent above and domed a land without
a serf, a servant, or a slave.
NOTICE.
*
*
Read THE REPUBLICAN, Id. monthly, each number containing
Portrait and biography of some well-known reformer.
By G.
a^URT FLUNKEYS: Their “Work” and Wages.
W Standring. An exposure of aristocratic sinecures. Id. 4-. .. „
BiFE of C. BRADLAUGH, M.P., 12 pages, with Portrait &
* autograph. By G. Standring. Id.
LIFE of^tL. INGERSOLL, with Portrait, Autograph, and Extracts
froworks. In neat wrapper, Id.
By orderlhroug^uy nmAvnt; or by post from 8, Finsbury-st., London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Col. Ingersoll's Decoration Day oration, June 1882
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "Printed at the Paine Press, 8 Finsbury-street, E.C." Stamp on front cover: Freethought Publishing Co., Printing Office, 68 Fleet Street, E.C., A. Bonner, Manager. Publisher's advertisements on back cover include The Republican [periodical] and other republican works. Not in Stein checklist, but cf his No. 155. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Paine Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N336
Subject
The topic of the resource
USA
Memorial Day
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Col. Ingersoll's Decoration Day oration, June 1882), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Memorial Addresses
NSS
United States-History
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d0e8b77bdbc2259d592588db6f5a8fd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=QElGwVy8eORj%7EsgJHFa-bEp%7EYYi1CzblSmkGdQF9xwVBqoT2WhHQDkfXPPKP5XepMCjPnCT4zQyC3GdaA5VYUiOOMapxUe2T0Gky-FeCH0SPA59GihFUqCW1p8FqvFe5x6qc36uHgDuZibGkbtAUiPC%7ElEExnqbzWYO%7E6zMqOX8h8C1ZwlNSj7H%7EZ4dbAjFOMwNYkBaQ5T0B%7E5DY6fDdrjqTy2z8-lIJiT5ocij-WewZ0z0Kll1HqQ21qgwWSKTWpbHCsoiKEyrTNpgFTjfwxIwNMCb9wNQi9DrIr5CMAqPCUyVcxqXEtvLmlIIBSzQNg2g2vMU-Sy8WsXkVPDy-TQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c7885a4ec726c263675b38c1bd225ea3
PDF Text
Text
437
(fhnijrants in America.
BY EOBERT TOMES.
When New York, not many years ago, was “ a handy little town,”
as Irving used to say, “ when, if your friends did not live opposite,
they were sure to live round the corner,” the Battery was a smiling
expanse of verdure, shaded by groves of willow, hickory, and sycamore.
Though the space was small, there was room and verge enough for the
'
whole population of the then little town to congregate and breathe at
ease, the southern wind, as it came, bearing the fresh but soft and
soothing influence of tropical seas. Banned by the gentle breeze, lulled
by the whispering ripple of the waves, and looking through an atmos
phere of hazy indistinctness upon the calm bay, with its anchored fleet
■of great ships and skimming small craft, verdant isles and forest shores,
a past generation here enjoyed a dreamy repose of which its widek awake, restless, and over-busy successors can hardly form a conception.
The willows, sycamores, and hickories are fast disappearing, and
�438
Emigrants itt America*
the green grass has been long since trod by careless and bnsy feet into
bald spots of clay and gravel. The defiant fortress, first changed into
a resort of pleasure, known as the Castle Garden, and which echoed
not many years since with the melodious voice of Jenny Lind, has been
finally turned, by a still happier transformation, into a great hall of
reception for newly-arrived emigrants. Here the first welcome is
given to the thronging Germans, Irish, English, and other people of all
nations whom Europe is emptying into the broad embrace of America.
During the last twenty years nearly four millions of emigrants, about
the number of the combined populations of London and New York,
made their first landing on American ground at this place known as
the Castle Garden. Of these persons one million, four hundred and
eighty-five thousand, and one hundred (1,485,100) were from Ireland]
one million, three hundred and seventeen thousand, and sixty-nine
(1,317,069), from Germany; 435,171, from England; 86,890, from
Scotland ; 68,390, from Erance, and the rest from all the other parte
of the globe. China, during these twenty years, sent three hundred
and thirty-three of its natives, Greece eighty-seven, Turkey eighty-two,
Arabia eight, and Japan seven.
The largest number of arrivals during one year was 319,223, in
1854, and the smallest 65,539, in 1861. The emigrants from Ireland
formerly greatly preponderated, but now the Germans surpass them in
numbers. Of the 233,418 emigrants who arrived during the whole
of 1866, 106,716 were from Germany, 68,147 only from Ireland,
36,186 from England, and 22,469 from other countries.
The first aspect of Castle Garden is certainly not very cheering,
presenting, as it does, with is shabby wooden structures, a dismal con
trast to the bright and beautiful bay of New York. The old stone
fortress, once so picturesque an object, still exists, but its walls are now
hidden from external view by projecting roofs and contiguous build
ings of shingle and pine board, either painted or white-washed.
The scene is a busy one, both inside and out. Crowds are constantly
coming and going. The people are generally young and vigorouslooking, but here and there is an occasional decrepit old man or wo
man, or some more youthful person sapped by disease, showing that the
emigrant in coming to a new world, with all its bright hopes, has not
entirely thrown off the trials and responsibilities of the old. There is
a wonderful silence in all that great crowd and an expression of startled
wonder upon each face, as if all were subdued and even alarmed byJ-he
great event of recommencing life in an untried land.
�Emigrants tn America,
439
The emigrant may at first turn his eyes, filling with tears, away
from the shabby-looking Castle Garden and seemingly inhospitable
structure, and look over the smiling bay longingly towards the ocean
he has just crossed, which separates him from the land of his birth.
He, however, soon ceasing to indulge in sentimental and useless regrets,
and seeking for practical comfort, finds all that he can reasonably ask
for in that ugly but kindly building.
Nothing can be better adapted for the purpose designed than the
New York State Commission of Emigration. The legislature of New
York, in consequence of the impositions to which emigrants from
Europe to the United States were exposed in the course of their long
voyage by sea and by land, passed an Act for the appointment of Com
missioners, to watch over and protect their interests. Six of these Com
missioners are appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the
Senate. The Mayor of New York, the Mayor of Brooklyn, and the
Presidents of the German and Irish Emigrant Societies are ex-officio
members, and make up the full number of ten, who compose the board.
The services of these gentlemen are gratuitous, and they have been
always selected with an exclusive regard to the public welfare, and with
out any consideration of pecuniary or political advantage.
Before the organization of this Commission in 1847, about twenty
years ago, the emigrant was at the mercy of a band of plunderers,
who, scattered along the whole of his lengthened route, so robbed and
maltreated him that he was not only deprived of all his money and
health, but often of life. These highwaymen, disguised as shipping
merchants, boarding-house keepers, ticket-agents, and canal-boat cap
tains, but familiarly known as “ baggage-smashers,” “runners,” and
scalpers,” had in the course of time enriched themselves with the
spoils of the emigrant, and by means of their wealth acquired a corrupt
but vigorous political influence. They resisted with all their might the
appointment of Commissioners, and were only beaten at last after a long
Struggle. “ The warfare, however, did not end here,” says one* who
took a foremost and honourable part in it, “ the ticket-agents trans
ferred themselves to Europe, commencing and successfully carrying on
their depredations on the other side of the Atlantic. Thousands of
emigrants arrived with their rail-road tickets purchased abroad, for
which they had paid not only double and treble the regular fare, but
upon their arrival here [New York] they found themselves with bogus
tickets and bogus drafts. Innocent and unprotected girls came con* The Hon. Thurlow Weed, of New York.
�440
(Emigrants tn America,
signed to houses of prostitution.” These practices became unendurable,
and the Commissioners decided promptly to send to Europe an agent
who succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of its various governments,
and thus breaking up the foreign ticket agencies.
Ever since, the long passage of the emigrant from his old home to
his new destination, guarded by a beneficent care, has been of compa
rative safety, comfort, and enjoyment. He no sooner arrives in Ame
rican waters than he is brought under the protecting influence of the
Commissioners at New York.
Their agents, always on the alert,
board each vessel as it comes up the bay, and take immediate charge
of the poor emigrant passengers, with whom no one else is allowed to
have any intercourse lest their ignorance and inexperience should be
preyed upon by the designing.
As soon as the vessel has anchored and complied with the require
ments of the law, in regard to quarantine and the customs, great barges,
towed by little steamers, are sent to bring off the emigrants and their
luggage. These, on being landed at Castle Garden, are immediately
disposed of. Each article of luggage is “ checked,” that is, a leaden
check or token with a number is attached to it and a similar one given
to the owner, to be returned by him on reclaiming his property.
The emigrant himself, after his luggage has been thus checked and
stowed away in the great “ baggage room,” is ushered into an immense
circular reception hall, which is the eviscerated interior of the old fort,
the embrasures of whose walls, being but partly closed, are still appa
rent. In this large apartment there is always an immense throng of
newly-arrived men, women, and children of all nations, many of whom
find an immediate welcome from friends and relations who are here in
attendance. Here parents and children, husbands and wives, brothers
and sisters, lovers and sweethearts, who had parted in other worlds
with hardly a hope of seeing each other again, meet once more. The
imagination can picture such touching scenes as here daily arise.
In the centre of the great hall there is a circular enclosed
space, occupied by three or four brokers, who, licensed by the com
missioners, are ready to exchange all foreign into United States money;
. projecting from this central enclosure, there is a pulpit, ever and anon
occupied by an energetic speaker, who is listened to with eager atten
tion. His words have a greater effect than ever had the eloquence of
a Chatham or a Webster. He is announcing to his breathless audience
the names and addresses of inquiring friends and relatives in America.
Along the walls of the same circular hall are stretched long refresh*
�Emigrants in America*
441
meat bars, where coffee, tea, fresh milk, bread, pies, and cake, are
for sal®. The quality of the articles and their prices are regulated by
the Commissioners, and the poorest emigrant need hardly deprive him
self of a satisfying morsel or a refreshing drink, when a good large loaf
of bread can be bought for ten cents, and a cup of excellent coffee or
fresh milk for five cents in paper money. From the posts everywhere
hang directions, in all languages, for the guidance of the emigrant;
there are also baths and wash-rooms in convenient proximity.
If the emigrant is sought after and found by his friends, he leaves
with them whatever may be his destination; if not, and he has the
means and desire to go immediately to some place in the interior, he
finds at the receiving depot, where he at first disembarked, railway
agents ready to sell him tickets, and take him and his luggage at once
to the proper station. If the emigrant desires to remain awhile in New
York, he finds boarding-house keepers, licensed by the Commissioners
and wearing their badge, awaiting him, and he is advised to beware of
all others. If the new comer seeks immediate occupation, he will find
it by applying at the “ Labour Exchange,” where the demand for work
is almost always beyond the supply. If he wishes to commnnieate
with his distant friends, and is unable to write himself, he has only to
enter the letter-room, where there are writers prepared to do it for him.
If the emigrant, though passing muster at the quarantine, has some
disease requiring medical or surgical treatment, he is sent at once to
the Commissioners’ hospital on Ward’s Island, a structure which
Florence Nightingale pronounced to be “ an admirable building, and
much better than any civil hospital of the size in this country ” (Eng
land), and added, “ It is a noble thing to do, to build such a building
not for your poor, but for ours.”
If the friends of the expected or arrived emigrant want informa
tion of him, he will get it in what is called the “ Information Ofiice,”
where a register is kept of the names and addresses of the inquirers for
and inquired after.
These various departments supply some curious and interesting
statistics. While a few years ago most of the emigrants came to the
United States in sailing vessels, much the larger number now arrive
in steamers. During the last year, 1866, the latter brought 156,931
steerage passengers, and the former only 74,898. The more rapid
transit by steam produces a very sensible effect upon the mortality.
There were only 816 deaths out of the large number of those
arriving in steamers, and 851 of the comparatively small number who
�442
Emigrants in America,
camft in sailing vessels. The number of steamers arriving in the year
1866 was 401, and that of other craft 349. There were 668 vessels in
all sailing from eighteen different ports. The average number of pas
sengers in each was 345.
Of the whole number of emigrants who arrived in 1866, 97,607
reported their destination to be the State of New York; 32,751
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 18,743 New England; 5,333 the
various Southern States ; 71,485 the Western States of Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and California; and
2932 Kansas, Nebraska, and Canada.
During the year 1866 there were 2754 letters written for newlyarrived passengers, and 1551 answers were received with remittances,
amounting to 24,383 dollars ; 57,350 dollars were sent by friends and
relations in the United States in advance, to await the arrival of
expected emigrants, and be placed at their disposal; 50,751 dollars in
addition were obtained from the German and Irish emigrant societies
and other sources, to be appropriated to the same purpose.
10,771 persons, of whom much the larger proportion were females,
were provided during the year 1866 with labour at the Castle Garden,
or by the agents of the Commissioners at Albany, Rochester, Buffalo,
and elsewhere in the interior.
In the same year 249 persons were sent back to Europe at their own
request, and 272 were forwarded into the interior, at the expense of
the Commission ; 8783 patients were admitted into the hospital at
Ward’s Island ; 109 lunatics into the insane asylum; and 179 into the
small-pox hospital.
The chief source of the large sums expended annually by the
Commissioners of Emigration, is what is called the commutation-tax.
This amounted in 1866 to 471,008 dollars. The consignee of each
vessel is obliged by law to pay 2 dollars 50 cents (formerly less) per
head for all passengers brought to New York, in lieu of executing a
bond as security against their becoming a burthen to the State,
during the five years subsequent to their arrival. This applies only
to the able-bodied ; for the sick and disabled, a special bond is exacted.
Though the larger proportion of emigrants hasten away immediately
on their arrival, to the interior, a great number remain permanently in
New York. It is thus that this city has such an immense foreign
population, which is now computed to amount to 600,000 inhabitants,
or 200,000 more than the native born.* The Germans count above
* The whole population of the city of New York is about 1,000,000.
�Emigrants in America,
443
300,000, and the Irish nearly the same number. New York is thus,
in fact, the third largest German city in the world, ranking next to
Berlin and Vienna, and the next largest Irish after Dublin.
This large foreign element, of course, reveals itself by its charac
teristic indications. There are, indeed, whole quarters of the city of
New York, and of its suburban towns, Brooklyn, Jersey City, and
Hoboken, almost exclusively inhabited by Germans. Here, with their
breweries and beer-houses, their gardens and dancing-saloons, their
peculiar churches and synagogues, their sauer kraut and sausage
shops, their theatres, music and gymnastic societies, they remain in
as full enjoyment of their Teutonic tastes as if they had never left their
Fatherland. They have as well German newspapers and German
schools, and German aidermen, German tax-receivers, and, in fact,
German representatives in every department of public life.
The Irish, who bating the brogue, speak the same language as the
native Americans, are of course more easily identified with them, but
even they, to some extent, retain certain national peculiarities. These
ar© chiefly manifested by the free use of whiskey and the shillalegh, and
by the Hibernian readiness for a fight or a row. The Irish too have
their newspapers, and their political and other representatives.
The foreign population holding the balance of power in the city of
New York, is much petted by the political demagogue. The Irish and
Germans become as rapidly as possible citizens of the United States ;
but in the State of New York* they cannot vote until five years after
they have declared their intention to become citizens, though in the
meantime they can hold real property and enjoy the other privileges
of citizenship. As most of these foreigners have not been properly
educated, either morally or intellectually for the exercise of the right
of suffrage, they become the leading instruments of the unscrupulous
demagogue. Thus political intriguers have obtained the control of the
municipal government of New York, and made it one of the most
corrupt ever known. They take care not to lose hold of the foreigner,
for upon him depends theix1 political existence. He is accordingly
flattered by petty officers, or bribed by profitable jobs and liberal grants
to the institutions of the religious sect to which he may belong, which
is generally the Roman Catholic,f and his vote thus secured.
* In other States the requirements are much less. In most of the Western
States the alien can become a citizen immediately.
t Of 150,000 dollars granted in one year, 2,500 dollars only were given to
Protestants.
�444
Emigrants in America.
The hereditary puritanism of the American, though he generally
agrees tolerably well with his Teutonic or Celtic neighbour, has brought
him into collision lately with his German fellow-citizens. A law was
passed by the State of Hew York prohibiting the sale of beer, wines,
and liquors of all kinds on the Sunday. This, the German who loves
his lager beer, and does not like to go to church, feels to be a great
hardship, and he is determined to do all in his power to get rid of the
obnoxious law. The Germans have, it is understood, resolved to withhold
all political support from those who refuse to strive to obtain its repeal.
De Tocqueville remarked that while the native Americans formed
the aristocracy of the United States, the foreigners were Vae prolétaires.
It is so ; the labouring portion of the community is almost exclusively
composed of German and Irish. They are the servants and journey
men. It is seldom that an American of mature age is ever seen in any
capacity below that of a master workman.
It must not be supposed, however, that foreigners do not thrive in
the United States. On the contrary, they are among the most success
ful and wealthy of its citizens. John Jacob Aster, who, at the time of
his death, w~as by far the richest person on the American continent,
was born in Germany, and did not leave his native Hesse-Cassel until
he was a full-grown man. Taking London on his way, where he had
a brother, a not very prosperous manufacturer of musical instruments,
he obtained from him, as a present, an old piano. On arriving at New
York this worn out and asthmatic instrument was his sole dependence,
but it became the foundation of his huge fortune. He died leaving
some ten millions of dollars ; his eldest son is supposed to possess nearly
treble that amount, and pays tax upon an income of about a million.*
Stewart, too, the great dry-goods merchant, or haberdasher, who
shows a ledger with one year’s profit of four millions of dollars, and
who pays an annual income-tax amounting to four hundred thousand
dollars, arrived in New York a poor Irish emigrant less than forty years
ago. He is now sixty years old.
Each Irish emigrant cannot expect to become a millionaire, or
rather billionaire like Stewart, but he may be sure of getting every
where in the United States a hearty meal of something more substantial
than potatoes, and what seemed so greatly to surprise Dickens, a whole
coat to his back.
* Another foreigner, Gerard, was long at the head of the rich men of the United
States.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Emigrants in America
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tomes, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 437-444 p. : ill. (engravings) ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Broadway 1 (1868). Attribution of journal title and date: Virginia Clark catalogue.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1868]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5342
Subject
The topic of the resource
Migration
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Emigrants in America), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Emigration and Immigration-Moral and Ethical Aspects
United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/52a4309cd87d381f1468954ca02302be.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ePMQETnJctqM9Q8MFM0pXrSAChqyZlA1Q8EfrBKcamPOVdbSXexw-TqFxCVAAWLxUBNPMqPci--krNAaSyePgMbv3jecmx540AUeDAdquMSgJyv7xbqvnvYtZxLGUXFXRLI0b7Mb7BIprLaED-Aq3uFN6VbWbTLoD4KAA275Lf0%7EvK9Tf3FbeKY1ggHNfsO-66EOiKPhlXfsIcQEXoTkopgU-3QqDf7SqB1AT496Aa0M0LsqHCfYoY0uR-lX1k-fpQ4R63fKhf%7EIJkCoA4eQu4hS0ugiujGmmw1WA7iqp%7EK9O0AE1v1kttLDHEh%7EIUm5Ul9e1rxgVFFEDe7LdofQtA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b9c34375ff2eb8f7bfe75c9ee952c53d
PDF Text
Text
KING WEALTH COMING.
BY D.
GOODMAN.
HE following article was published by the writer in the Gal
axy for November, 1869. It sets forth briefly what he believes
to be the solution of the political problem in this country.
We live in an industrial age, of which the natural leaders are
the bankers, manufacturers, and merchants. We all complain of the
demoralization and corruption of our political life; what we mean is
that wealth is becoming as powerful in politics as it is in industry.
The great corporations, or rather the wealthy men who control them,
are the real rulers, and not the characterless lawyers and politicians
whom universal suffrage sends to our legislative halls. There is not a
State in the Union through which runs a great railroad, but what is
practically in the power of the corporation which controls it. The
manufacturers could do what they please with any Congress that has
sat for the last eight years, and it is quite safe to predict that for the
next fifteen years the owners of the Pacific Railroad and the giant con
solidated roads which feed it, will be the real masters of the American
people. That is to say, no Congress can by any possibility be elected
which they will not be able to control.
To this state of affairs no complete Positivist objects. We submit
to the inevitable, and can only hope to modify it by a sound philoso
phy, and the wise, practical activity it enforces. What is needed is the
moralization of wealth, and to effect this it must become personal and
responsible.
But here is the article:
T
Nearly all the evils connected with our system of government ean oe traced to
one primary cause, to wit: the influence of wealthy corporations and individuals in
controlling legislation and executive action for purely selfish ends. In other words,
in modern civilization, wealth has become an enormous power, while in this coun
try at least, it has no recognized political responsibility or well-defined public
duties. The lobby notoriously controls legislation—wealth controls the lobby, but
what controls wealth ? Nothing but the purely selfish aims of its possessor.
How is this difficulty to be met ? Shall we organize against wealth ; bind it in
fetters, legislate it out of existence, or exile its influence to some sphere outside of
political action ? We are entering upon an era when all this will be attempted;
'but, however well meant, every scheme to limit the power of wealth will inevitably
fail, and, in the opinion of the writer, ought to fail.
For we must remember that the capitalist is the true king of the industrial era
�46
KING
WEALTH COMING
When war was the normal condition of the race, the great warrior was the ruler,
and all the honors in the State were based upon military merit ; but among the
advanced natives of Christendom, industry, and not war, is now the absorbing
business of the mass of the population, and hence the banker and the manufacturer
are destined to be—nay, are the real rulers of the people. This may seem to be a
preposterous statement, in this age of equal rights and the sovereignty of the
people ; but it is nevertheless true. Who to-day is supreme in the financial, com
mercial, and manufacturing world ? Who owns the telegraph, the railway, the
manufactory, the newspaper, the land ? The capitalist, of course. He is our boss
in the shop, our employer in the field, our landlord, out care-taker on the railroad
and steamship ; he keeps our money in his bank, and looks after our souls in his
churches ; for the church of to-day, of all denominations, is the church of the capi
talist. People are under the curious hallucination that the only power which con
trols them is that exercised by the State or the nation, whereas they touch us
scarcely at all in the most intimate relations of life.
But the capitalists, the owners of the wealth, are not content with all this recog
nized authority ; they desire to control also the political power of the State and
the nation. Well, they are right. They ought to have it. There will be a
struggle against it, and the most impassioned protests will be made when their
right to rule is formally recognized ; but recognized it will be in time. While the
struggle is going on, the capitalist will rule all the same. Our legislators are
nearly all lawyers ; now, the lawyer is a creature of the capitalist. He is trained
by him, and his wit and tongue are at the service of his employer in the court, and
his vote is at his command in the législative body. Wealth, as a power unrecog
nized, without responsibility or moral accountability, is simply another name for
hideous corruption. Hence the lobby, and the sickening legislative history of our
City, State and National Government for the last fifteen years.
Now wealth, and the enormous social and political power it wields by its very
existence, is one of those facts which cannot be ignored. We must accept it, and
see what can be done about it. To destroy wealth, or take away the power it
naturally gives its possessor, is impossible. If it could be done, civilization would
perish.
What, then, are we to do ?
Accept the inevitable. Capital has the power. Make it personal, responsible.
Put the capitalist in authority instead of his creatures, the lawyers and politicians,
and then—
What then ?
Hold him responsible. The next greatest power in modern civilization, after
wealth, is public opinion. As yet it is unmoralized, unorganized ; but its influence,
even now, is mighty. When this spiritual power has its. proper recognized organs,
which it will have under Positivism—then will we be able to control wealth.
Public opinion cannot be brought to bear upon corporate bodies ; “ They have
neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned.” What does the ring or the
lobby care for public opinion ? Once install the individual who is the soul of the
lobby into some recognized public position, and he is sensitive enough. Abuse the
Erie Railroad Company, and who cares ? Attack Jim Fiske, Jr., and he is after you
with a sheriff’s posse or a libel suit.
Here, then, is the Positivist’s solution of our political and industrial problems.
Wealth, under the foul shapes of the ring or lobby, controls our legislation. We
say, Put the holders of this wealth in authority. Make this irresponsible power
responsible. You cannot get rid of the power ; it is one of the most enormous facts
of modern times. It exists, and will control, whether we like it or not, and hence
we must make the best of it.
The capitalist has his excuse for using the ring and the lobby. He says, “ What
else can I do? There are certain great industrial enterprises to be undertaken,
�KING
WEALTH COMING.
47
which cannot even be begun without legislative authority. The lawyers and small
politicians, who form the great bulk of the assemblies and senates, cannot rise to
the height of the great schemes which I have on foot; they oppose me ; but the
work must be done—the times demand it; and so I hire the lobby, who buy those
fellows up. I am in the habit of employing lawyers to do my business, and when
you can hire a man’s brains with money, his vote follows, as a matter of course.
Take the case of the great railway consolidations, which are so necessary: why, I
am compelled to buy the legislators outright, or these essential changes could not
be made.”
So there are two sides to the story. The capitalist has his excuse for making
our legislators scoundrels.
But how is this change to be brought about ?
The writer gives that conundrum up at once. He really does not see how it is
possible to change our republican representative system without a political con
vulsion. Hence he looks for years of grievous misrule ; of future legislative con
duct worse than any in the past. A possible solution of the trouble is a bold seizure
of the government by some representative of the capitalist class. The very men
who have made our legislative bodies dens of thieves, are just the ones to make
that corruption an excuse for seizing the government themselves ; for be it remem
bered, it is not the kings of the lobby who will be held responsible, but the politi
cians—the legislators whom they have debauched.
Our government, from natural and inevitable causes, has got to be one of exces
sive powers. The maladministration of the federal power under Adams or Jackson
was not of much account, so little were the people at large affected by its action;
but now it is very different. The authority of the central government has grown
so enormously large, that its action upon the business of the country has become
vital. Hence the necessity of a more scientific government than that we had before
the rebellion.
Let it be distinctly understood, then, that there is a class of thinkers in this
country who are profound disbelievers in the whole republican or democratic theory
of government. But we are not, therefore, either Imperialists or Monarchists. We
do not advocate going back to any obsolete political institutions. Progress is our
motto. There is something in the future as much better than republicanism as
republicanism is better than monarchy, and that is the rule of wealth controlled by
moral considerations; in other words, the capitalist in responsible authority, and he
under the dominion of a wise, all-powerful public opinion.
Our King has come. He rules already, but it is in such hideous shapes as the
Lobby—the Ring. Let us recognize, tame, ennoble him, so that he may serve the
highest interests of humanity.
�48
THE
SOCIAL
EVIL.
SERIES of articles on Prostitution in the Westminster Re
view have deservedly attracted a good deal of attention.
Without containing anything very new, they sum up the
results of past inquiries, and seemingly set at rest several
vexed social questions. Among the most important of the points
brought out by Dr. Chapman, the writer, are the following:
1. Each new crop of prostitutes does not die out in from four to
seven years, as is generally supposed. While it is true that the personnel
of that class is replaced in that time, the women do not, as a rule, die
of their riotous living, but are absorbed back into the community.
2. The amount of disease engendered by the illicit relation of the
sexes is appalling. This is one of the most serious perils of modern
civilization. While the danger to the women themselves in the matter
of longevity has been absurdly overrated, the damage done to the
health of the community by the prevalence of prostitution has scarcely
been suspected.
3. Governments from time to time have attempted to suppress and
limit prostitution, but have invariably failed. Every possible expedient
has been resorted to, but the history of legislation and government
action, though it extends over centuries, is a record not only of disap
pointment but disaster. Nor have they fared any better when recog
nizing and regulating prostitution. Notwithstanding the encomiums
which have been passed upon the French and continental systems, it
seems now to be tolerably well settled that recognition has led to wide
spread immorality, while as a check to the spread of disease, it has
bad less than no effect at all.
The remedy proposed by Dr. Chapman will hardly be deemed
satisfactory. He says the public should get rid of the notion of sin
or disgrace in connection with the illicit relations of the sexes or
the diseases they entail, and that those sick of syphilis should have the
same care and consideration as if the disease was typhus fever or dysen
tery. The best hospitals are now closed to persons afflicted with sexual
disorders, and the woman who would readily seek medical advice for
an ordinary illness, such as diarrhoea or rheumatism, is deterred from
doing so when the disorder is venereal. So she punishes society for its
non-recognition of the legitimacy of her business and its inhumanity
to her in her affliction by plying her wretched trade when diseased,
thus propagating to the innocent as well as to the guilty the most cruel
contagion known to our civilization.
It is all very well to say that society ought to recognize prostitu
tion as a legitimate because necessary business, and should treat the
strumpet with the same consideration it does the decent women, but
the difficulty is that society won’t do anything of the kind. The truth
is, prostitution is a part of the great sexual problem which science
must yet solve ; all we can do at present is to furnish the data for the
final settlement.—D. G.
A
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
King wealth coming
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Goodman, D.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: [45]-47 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The article was first published in Galaxy, November, 1869 and later published in Modern Thinker, no. 1, 1870.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5427
Subject
The topic of the resource
Industrialisation
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (King wealth coming), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Industrialization
United States of America
Wealth
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ff94ae82cfa93bc62cb6231f5266c5b7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=omrLZNWiY9j-J1P5exdKGRU1p3cOdbT42Kw4jPCHP%7EYr7sYwWz1UYa25vo7LIl%7ECx99-XZ7zLB5U1I1p9LVDz3RMVlUNp%7E7A9aJTpl4s3HhjHzcBHnyA%7EP2LCX9qXazT9ra0AUm73zUyBZ1lC8Kgb5BDOJ6rDcX5cZtSRhg9-Zsw3UEjAAO9w0pgLXnPxigVbcMySYt2cc-JHRjrAT59t21xroFhWt6Wnga5PqwI0lcyxNIgoJcvLMUfzxdSj9UHSJVIUVrXw1YsmXpnjJXVmjQNhUz5A5ImBFIY5y7w2%7EqPbObymZELdJjrPrDL4Oo2b7UOouUWwc6k0IoPQpaXdA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
28987daa3c73222b47ee2ec0cd3870ce
PDF Text
Text
hj STA
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
ON
CHRISTIANITY AND THE SABBATH,
BY
HORATIO PRATER, Esq.
“ Religious insincerity—commonly called cant—is one of
our special vices.”—Cox’s Sabbath Laws, $c., p. 214.
Les Maws, qui regnent aussi imperieusement que les lois.”
Montesquieu.
Although faith and hope abide in the human mind, yet
greater than these is charity—and greater far than this favourite
sentiment of the Apostle, is justice.”—E. P. Hurlbut, Coun
sellor at Law, New York, Of Constitutional Limitations, p. 26.
“ Thou shalt not entertain, much less enforce any religious
dogmas, which divide mankind into distinct classes, and create
animosities between them.”—Lewis Gompertz, Esq., Tract,
War Considered.
LONDON:
J. CI.AYTON AND SON, 223, PICCADILLY ; HOLYOAKE AND CO.,
147. fleet street; truelove, 240, strand,
TEMPLE BAR ; FARRER, 21, JOHN STREET,
FITZROY SQUARE.
1856.
�iv
ADVERTISEMENT.
by many first rate authors. I have consequently
endeavoured to show what this change should be,
and thus attempted also the work of reconstruc
tion ; hereby endeavouring to make my book
conservative. T beg the evangelical reader, there
fore, to turn towards the close of Letter IV., to
see what these propositions are, when fatigued or
annoyed, he asks, “ What have you put in its
place ?"
I have referred once or twice to my Historical
Sketches of some of the Roman Emperors, but
this Essay is at present in M.S.; nor is it neces
sary to read the passages referred to in this
M.S. Essay, in order to understand any part of
the present work. They are merely facts or de
tails on which my opinions rest.
In conclusion, I feel that in this publication, I
address only the few; but shall, like the eloquent
Beccaria, consider myself fortunate, if I obtain
even their secret thanks. “ Me fortunato, si potro
ottenere, com’esso(Montesquieu),i segretiringraziamenti degli oscuri et pacifici seguaci della ragione I” (Dei Delitti, Sect If
22, Beaumont Street,
Marylebone, Nov.,
th, 1855.
�TO THE MEMORY
OF
THE
EMPEROR
JULIAN,
THE
LAST OF THE ROMAN EMPERORS,
WHO RESTORED
THE POETICAL AND SO HIGHLY TOLERANT
PAGAN RELIGION :
THIS
WORK
HUMBLY RECOGNIZING THE SUPERIORITY OF THIS
WORSHIP,
—ALL NATURE PERSONIFIED—
BOTH FOR ITS TRUTH AS WELL AS FOR ITS BEAUTY OVER
EVERY OTHER RELIGION THAT HAS EVER
YET
IS
EXISTED,
INSCRIBED.
�il
�ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
LEITER I.
As English divines and laymen have now for some years
written in favour of the Sabbath being not of divine in
stitution, and as Puritanical Christianity is the estab
lished religion of Great Britain, the American people are
addressed on the subject.
Quotations from Mr. Hurlbut’s work, showing, as he says,
the “ infant state of religious freedom in the cradle of
libertv.”
.
Should a Republic enforce natural religion as the paid re
ligion of the State, or not? answered in the affirmative.
Hunbut on the Sabbath in the United States, with the
author's remarks.—Pages 1 to 16.
LETTER n.
Christianity not a useful creed.—Reasons.—1st.—The great
uncertainty as to its real meaning.
2ndly.—Christianity enslaves the immortal mind ; since
its mode of “ purifying the thoughts,” is on every point to
set up faith before reason.
3rdly.—The scriptures may induce savages to murder inno
cent people, while such positive commands as—u Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live,” remain in them. Mis
sionary labours of Christians, therefore, deprecated,
particularly among ignorant nations, and Theism com
bined with physical science, preferred as a means of
civilization.
4thly.—~The belief in Christianity, existing as it does in
the United States, under the most favourable circum
stances, is not conducive to human happiness.
�vili
contents.
Sthlv.—Reasons for considering the Rev. Theodore Parker's
liberal view of Unitarianism, not so beneficial to the
world, as mere natural Theism.
fithly.-—The belief of Christianity is at the bottom of the
very strict observance of the' Sabbath in the United
States and Britain. This puritanical view is fraught with
the practical injustice of allowing debtors to escap'e on the
Sabbath—ot preventing the poor man doing that work
on a Sunday, which the fatigue or want of time pre
vents him doing on a week day, and also of avoiding to
take measures to suppress syphilis, which being heredi
tary, causes the innocent to suffer for the guilty. Theism
adopted by Penn. The.injustice to Catholics residing in
Protestant States, to leave no theatre open on Sunday
evenings.—Pages 17 to 34.
LETTER HI.
The good that Christianity, with the greatest show of
reason, may be said to have done in the world.
1st.—Its influence on despotic power, comparison of the
reign of Henry VIII., with that of some of the worst
Roman Emperors, and the good influence of Christianity
in this respect, though acknowledged, considered to be
greatly over-rated.
Its exhorting to “ obey the powers that be,” and forbidding
tyrannicide, has caused it to be supported byTyrants, and
has given such tyrants a sort of justification, when they
themselves were disposed to evil.
2ndly.—The assertion that it has tended to abolish animal
and even human sacrifice ; and to introduce a more hu
mane treatment to captives taken in war.
Quotation from the Middle Ages, showing that Paley has
over-rated the influence of Christianity on this latter
point.
Also in reference to polygamy, and its having “ pro
duced a greater regard to moral obligations.”
Paley’s sophistry when lie attempts to show that Chris
tianity has not added to the intolerance of human nature.
Religious fanaticism more unjustifiable than political fanati
cism, in reference to the first French revolution.
Paley’s observations on a day of rest.
'The certainty with which a future state is advocated bv
Christianity would be an excellent effect were it not
vitiated by promising too great reward to “ faith.”
�CONTENTS.
IX
Its denunciation of war also good, but altogether vitiated
by its reprobating even defensive war.
Commentary on Lord Brougham’s opinions on religious
establishments, and attempted refutation of his view that
these “ secure instruction,” at least while Christianty is
the established religion of a country. Beccaria a freer
writer on religion than Brougham.—Pages 35 to 64.
LEITER IV.
Examination of the question whether the commencement
of the first French revolution was to be ascribed to the
diminution in the belief of Christianity by the influence
of the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau.
Decided by the author in the negative, with a quotation
from Lord Byron to the same effect : the most potent
causes of the outbreak being famine, national bankruptcy,
political tyranny of the bastile, &c., and the return of
a successful revolutionary army from the United States
under Lafayette.
Question, whether the legal suppression of Christianity
after the revolution had fairly begun, was the cause of the
wanton atrocities in question, also answered in the nega
tive. Long quotations from Lord Brougham’s Political
Philosophy in reference to the French Revolution.
The suppression of Christianity does not appear to be con
sidered by him as connected with these atrocities: they
are ascribed to the too democratic form of constitution,
that of ’93 being much more so than that of ’95.
Extracts from Brougham’s life of Carnot, in support of the
position that this defect rendered increased severity and
despotism necessary.
Details from Sir A. Alison’s work, in which, generally
speaking, the same view is taken. His chapter on the
war in the Vendee in parts not favourable to this position,
examined, and refutation attempted.
His previous censure of the slaughter of 40,000 unresisting
inhabitants of Jerusalem by order of Godfrey de Bouillon
(in his own view a pious Christian), totally incompatible
with some passages in the chapter alluded to, and such mur
der more unjustifiable than the slaughter in the Vendee,
since, in this case, the opposition was “most determined."
Evidence that a great number of Republicans were put to
death in cold blood, when at times the Royalists were suc
cessful in the struggle ; that at the very commencement.
�CON I E NTS.
the former tried ineffectually means of conciliation, and
at all events did not resort to the horrors of the “ Bap
tisms, Marriages, &c.,” till, goaded almost to madness
by the approach of foreign armies, extreme severity
seemed absolutely necessary for the safety of the Re
public.
The above atrocities, however, were the sole work of Car
rier, whose “ authority,” Alison admits, “ was un
bounded ” in the Vendee; and he was subsequently
justly guillotined for these crimes, though, I admit, not
till Robespierre’s fall. No evidence, however, to show
that Robespierre would have recommended the putting
of women and children to death by wholesale, or any
cruelty (torture, &c., so prevalent in the Christian mid
dle ages) in the mode of death to men, seeing the guil
lotine was expressly adopted, as apparently the quickest
and easiest mode of execution for the real or supposed
criminal.
Increased humanity commenced in 1795, not because
Christianity was then allowed by law, but because the
constitution also was made less democratic, and because of
the reaction which always takes place in such circum
stances. Humanity, however, only gained full force
when the supreme power of the state became still more
secure, by being placed in the hands of military leaders,
viz., Barras and Napoleon.
Outward forms of any new Theistic church should be simi
lar rather to those of the Catholic than the Protestant,
as suggested by Sir T. More, who, in his Utopia, obvi
ously prefers Theism and Plato to Christianity.
Extracts from the work proving this curious point in re
ference to the distinguished Chancellor under Henry VIII.
A brief outline of some general changes in the laws, which
appear necessary or expedient if a government substitute
Theism for Christianity.
Thus a reply found to the ignorant question—“ TFZmf are
ice to put in its place ?” and, in the author’s opinion, a far
more just and useful code proposed.
Necessity for the use of moral restraint, or other “ checks”
on population, according to the views of Malthus, Mill,
and others, before the condition of the poor can be
greatly ameliorated ; and of some alteration of opinion
generally on the sexual question, before the amount of
female prostitution can be diminished. Christianity has
done no good on this subject, or that of infanticide.
Pages 65 to 119.
�CONTENTS.
xi
NOTES.
-A--—Vindication of Roman toleration even as regards the
Druids. That Hume gives no solid reason why natural
Theism could not be a religion of the state. Religious
toleration probably less at Rome under the Republic'than
under the Empire.
B-—That the imprisonment of Richard Carlile and others
contributed to the freedom of the press rather on poli
tical than on religious matters ; but that Hartley’s Will
case, &c., &c., shows, that government retains still even
a legal power to punish the authors of writings against
Christianity.
” °
C. —Details as to the punishment of death for witchcraft.
D. —Details as to the so-called Reformation. Vast supe
riority of Gibbon in this respect to Luther and Calvin,
yet still does not go far enough. Charles V. and the
Reformation ; bad effect of Christianity on his mind.
Luther’s absurd doctrine of justification by faith, without
works. D’Aubigne’s and Scott’s false views. The true,
vet remarkable confession of the latter, that infidel phi
losophy and not Christianity diminished the number of the
victims of the Inquisition. The Reformation succeeded
because Henry VIII., Albert of Prussia, and others in
power chanced to advocate it; and though it effected
some useful increase of civil liberty, it was no reforma
tion in religion. Sir T. C. Morgan in 1822 justly wrote
the same.
E. —-Remarks on the passages in Suetonius, Tacitus, and
Pliny, in reference to Christianity.
F- State of debtor and creditor, and of lawyers, under the
ancient Roman government.
�il
�LETTERS
TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
LETTER I.
ft It is not possible to destroy political servitude while
allowing religious servitude to remain ; the political springs
by necessity from religious slavery. In that place where
the priest may say to an entire people, ‘ Surrender to me
your reason without conditions,’ the Prince, by an infallible
logic, may repeat also, ‘ Surrender to me your liberty with
out control.’ ”—Quinet.
Citizens,—After having read the laborious
and learned work of Robert Cox On Sabbath
Laws and Sabbath Duties, and observed therein
that Dr. Arnold, in 1834, and Archbishop Whately,
so late as 1849, have both given their opinion
*
* Cox, p. 22L It is now a long while (viz., from Sep
tember, 1853,) since Cox’s admirable book has been pub
lished , and I am sorry to say that, although written in
such a spirit of moderation, that the author nowhere directly
puts scripture authority aside, yet scarcely one of our quar
terly or monthly journals has ever mentioned the book ! !
In consequence of this disposition to treat scripture with
respect, Cox has been often forced into those same ambi
guous views, which we see in the scripture itself: and this
B
�2
LETTERS TO
that Sunclav is a holiday, not by divine, but only
by ecclesiastical institution—an opinion amply
confirmed by others as well as by Cox himself—
it is, I think, useless to anticipate for the present
any change in the puritanical mode of keeping
that day in England ; or otherwise the writings
of men of such influence as Arnold and Wbately
would long ago have tended to make it with Eng
lish Protestants what it actually is with German
Protestants (their theatres being open on the Sab
bath), a day of innocent recreation and amuse
ment, as well as of rest.
*
The day, however, reis the great fault of his book. He, like most of us, has
been obliged to sacrifice to “ conventional hypocrisy.”
(p. 390.) Surely, then, if such amiable objections to our
creed are no better received by the press, it is time to
speak out the full truth.
* It is also to be remembered that George Combe’s
Constitution of Man and also the Vestiges of Creation have
now been published many years, and both sold to the ex
tent of many thousand copies, and though Deistical, have
m»t diminished clerical influence among us, or in the
slightest degree altered our gloomy Sunday. Chapman,
AV atson, and Holyoake have also, for many years, sold
thousands of copies of free-thinking books and tracts (still
more confessedly Deistical and revolting to opinion than
the above,) without effecting an acknowledged and open
avowal of Deistical views in even what is worthy to be
called a minority of our population. Thousands, no doubt,
in this country are merely Deists in reality ; but as the
public confession of such views injures their reception in
society, they feel obliged to keep their views private. While
I admit, therefore, that the freedom of the press in these
matters, is now, and has been since the death of Carlile
(a martyr to the cause,) the “glory of England,” I still
see no hopes of o»?/ great practical change in religion
among ourselves. We are. of course, in a “ false position”
on account of our Established Church : so, indeed, I think
are you Americans, even without any national church esta
blishment, solely on account of the public opinion in your
country being too favourable to, at all events, some form of
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
o
O
mains still ■with us a “ heavy day ” as even
Wilberforce, {Evidences of Christianity,) called
it, the Calvinistic moral gloom adding tenfold to
the physical gloom of our London fogs.
Under such circumstances, 1 propose to address
the “pars altera” of the Anglo-Saxon race on
this subject; I mean the American people, who,
having wisely separated Church and State, are
in a better position than ourselves to effect ecclesi
astical reforms. And should they wisely attempt
such, I doubt not that the spirit of rivalry between
the two nations, will soon induce ourselves to
strive to follow their example—at least, indeed, I
should hope such would be the effect.
One of yourselves, my friends, in his Treatise
on the Philosophy of Evil, (Philadelphia, 1845,)
has a section on The Mischief of our Gloomy
Sunday ; and yet, though written so lately, has
produced no change in your Sabbath. Indeed,
Lyman Coleman publishes years afterwards, (in
1852,) in the same city of Philadelphia, his
Ancient Christianity, and says, “ The whole
English race, wherever found, alone have a SabChristianity. But the difference between us is, that it
seems far easier for you to effect reforms in this matter
than it is for us.
In vain again did the Edinburgh Preview, for 1850, say
that free discussion on religion “ is discountenanced on all
sides, and branded with reproachful names.” It is the
same still; though it is some years since a journal of swcA
great influence wrote as above! In 1852 the Sabbath
Alliance boasted of our superiority over other countries, on
account of the ‘ freedom with order,” attributing this
chiefly to our Puritanical observance of the Sabbath. But
The Edinburgh states what is still a fact. I deny our
“ freedom” in reality. It also appears, that a reprehensible
pride, (viz., to be different from the continental people,
whether they be right or wrong,) is concerned in this strict
Sabbath observance.
�4
LETTERS TO
bath, a Christian Sabbath, holy unto the Lord.
With all else, throughout Christendom, the Sab
bath is a holy day, a festival.” (Quoted in Cox,
p. 536.)
Coleman rightly gives the Puritans “ the im
mortal honour,” as he calls it, of introducing this
austerity into the “States,” -which, no doubt, is
their due ; for Cox shows that even Knox and
Calvin could only have indirectly influenced the
custom. Of course Luther was too wise (though
not a liberal-minded man in reality) ever to have
given sanction to such a movement, and seems in
stinctively to have adopted Burke’s wise maxim,
viz., “That lawful enjoyment is the surest way to
prevent unlawful gratification.” (Cox, p. 448.)
Accordingly, as already observed, the Lutheran
Protestants have at this day their places of amuse
ment open on Sunday evenings: by which means
no doubt, in accordance with Burke’s maxim, they
prevent much of the drunkenness that vitiates a
little the sanctity of our English and American
Sabbath. Poor hard-worked wretches ! what re
mains for them on a Sunday evening in a dense
London fog, but to dissipate the vast moral and
physical gloom by a little gin or more beer; and
no wonder in such circumstances, after once feel
ing the exhiliration, if they almost instinctively
take too much and retire to the new world of sleep
wholly or partially intoxicated ; and, of course, in
either case with more or less injury to their health.
Hence it is, all in accordance with this view,
that Cox has wisely put the following in succession
in his Table of Contents (p. xviii.) “Knowledge
of Human Nature needs to be diffused. Causes
of the comparative sobriety of lhe French. Im
portance of recreation as a means of demolishing
intemperance. Gloomy religious views foster this
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
5
vice. Religious Insanity. Drunkenness can be
cured only in accordance with the maxim : Sublatd causa, tollitur effectus”
In the work itself the reader will find these
points fully elucidated, and will, I think, come to
the conclusion that “ Temperance Societies ” are
perfectly or nearly useless, while our “heavy
Sunday” is suffered to remain.
Drunkenness and illicit intercourse of the sexes,
and increased tendency to suicide and madness,
are the bad effects of Calvinistic austerity, and
perhaps the only shadow of any good in its favour
is, its supposed tendency to increase respect for
rational religion.
But while I acknowledge any institution that
has this effect is useful, I maintain that the auste
rity in question overshoots the mark, and more
often produces mere national hypocrisy, or abso
lute disgust, than additional respect for religious
worship. It may, to a certain extent, increase the
outward respect of religion in all classes, but this
is almost always purchased at the too dear price of
increased aversion to practice the moral duties of
life. It actually becomes a sort of substitute for
the same, as the Hon. W. Pitt says in his Letter
on Superstition “by setting up something as
*
religion which shall atone and commute for the
want of virtue.” It renders hypocrisy in fact
fashionable—no more. It affects the life, not the
heart; and certainly has a tendency to produce
that most odious spectacle—a nation of sanctified
cheats. And. for my own part, I cannot help re
garding the man who cheats you under the mask
of religion as a far greater villain than he who
* Holyoake, 147, Fleet Street. An unanswerable pro
duction, and worthy the man who favoured the liberalminded Frederick the Great.
�6
LETTERS TO
discards religion before he plunders his prey ; since
in the former case he is truly “ taking God’s name
in vain ” in the strictest sense, and then adds one
sin to another.
As in England we have a national religion,
there is with us, my friends, perhaps more excuse
than with you for upholding our Puritanical Sab
bath. Our very sovereign cannot turn Catholic
without acting illegally and risking her throne;
and our saints would be sure to construe any re
laxation of Sabbatarian discipline on her part,
into a secret leaning towards Catholicism. With
probably, therefore, the most liberal tendency in
this respect, Her Majesty feels herself compelled
to wear the gilded fetter in order to prevent any
thing like civil commotion.
*
And as in Monar
chies, the Sovereign is naturally enough, “ the
fountain of honour,” few of consideration in the
country feel inclined to do that which the Sove
reign forbids herself to do. Our aristocracy, too,
here, cling to religion as to the firmest support of
the State; and while reluctantly yielding to the
Corn Law Bill, they still refuse Jewish Emanci
pation ; as if even the slightest alteration in the
Constitution, as regards religion, were a change
more to be deprecated than one which—as the
Corn Law Bill—more decidedly affected their
material interests. This prejudice extends—in a
feebler degree certainly—to the Commons, and
* We must also not forget that it was, in great part, for
attempting to do the very same thing, viz., promote rational
recreation for the Sunday, that Charles I. was beheaded.
Therefore, in Britain, any Sovereign who even indirectly
appeared to aid in such a change would, by the masses,
who seldom reason justly on nice moral points, be consi
dered as wishing to restore Despotism. Yet, in reality,
such Sovereign would be acting just the contrary now.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
throughout the country generally ; and as a proof
of it, I may state that playing on the piano, or at
chess or draughts, on a Sunday is almost as much
in general abhorrence, in strict Protestant families,
as going to the theatre or a ball on the same day.
Now this shows the great influence of mere opinion
on the subject, (see Sir Robert Peel’s speech, 1835
—quoted in Cox, p. 348,) as there is no actual
law to prevent such amusements in private. The
suppression of Sunday trains for passengers be
tween Edinburgh and Glasgow (which caused
Cox's book to be written) was also effected by the
influence of opinion only, (the law itself rather in
clining the opposite way,) which opinion has been
formed chiefly by the constant repetition in our
churches of the Jewish inscription: “Remember
thou keep holy the Sabbath day.” Yet Sunday is
not the Sabbath day ! /
*
Although in this latter respect, you Protestants
of the States are probably in the same predicament
as ourselves, this is not the case as regards your
temporary Sovereign or President. He, at least,
is free from all religious shackle; and can conse
quently exert little or no influence in that respect
on American society generally. He may be a
Catholic, he may be a Jew, Unitarian, or even
disguised Theist ;f and you wisely enough cou* Cox shows this clearly enough; yet half our popula
tion, not daring to think for themselves on religious matters
conceive they really keep the Sabbath day. But the day
has been changed from Saturday to Sunday, without God's
command or permission. Now this in mortals, is as bad as
blasphemy. The Jews are much wiser on this point; they
distinguish labour from amusement, and allow music, but
do not permit even Jewish servants to work.
f Such were the illustrious Washington and Jefferson ;
and I use the word ‘-disguised” advisedly, as we shall see
�8
LETTERS TO
side? him none the worse for that, or incapable,
from such circumstance, of holding the first office
in the State. In this, I must acknowledge, you
are far before us ; as also in many of the men you
send out as Ministers, being professed Unitarians,
and sometimes even professed Theists or Pantheists.
Show, then, I beseech you, that you are nationally
above any illiberal prejudices of being thought too
Catholic in your tastes, on a point in which reli
gion is, in reality, not at all concerned ; I mean
the opening places of amusement and recreation
for the people on the Sabbath.
The real reason why these are closed among
you, is doubtless the same which has caused them
to be closed among us ; I mean a desire to “ keep
holy the Sabbath day but I have already briefly
stated that this reason is untenable, and must refer
you to Cox’s large work itself for more ample
details and quotations on both sides of the
question.
But as man is the slave of habit and prejudice
much cftener than of reason, it seems not impos
sible that with many of you, even Cox’s arguments
may be considered inadequate ; and if you ask me
why, allow me say, that the real cause at the bot
tom of this will be, that Christianity has gained an
undue and actually unjust ascendency over pure
natural Religion, or Deism, in your Republic.
This has been the invariable tendency of Christianity
whenever it has been in competition with other
religions; alike at its origin with the graceful
mythology of the ancients —under the Roman em*
hereafter, that religion is not perfectly free even in the
United States.
* All other religions, were content with the toleration—
far superior to our own Protestant so-called toleration—of
the state religion of Rome ; and naturally enough; for
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
9
perors, as under your Republic. It is in vain,
therefore, that your constitution says, all religions
are equal in the eye of the law, for all revealed
religions are necessarily intolerant, and will never
be contented with what they ought to be, viz ,
just equality. I shall proceed to elucidate this
proposition by extracts from Human Rights and
their Political Guarantees by your countryman.
*
Mr. Counsellor Hurlbut; and I shall then fol
low up this Letter by an examination of the utility
of Christianity to Government, for the belief in
this opinion I doubt not is also at the bottom of
your great external respect for that religion, and
consequently concerned in keeping up your gloomy
Sunday.
“ The constitution of North Carolina,” savs
Mr. Hurlbut, “was amended in 1836, the word
Christian being substituted for the word Pro
testant, in the following sentence : — “ No person
who shall deny the truth of the Protestant Reli
gion, shall be capable of holding any office, or
place of trust, or profit, in the civil department of
the state.' It is also stated in the same, that—
‘ All men have a natural and unalienable right to
worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their conscience.’ — Thus,” says Mr. H., “ they
may worship and the state will not interrupt them ;
but it will inquire as to the divinity they adore—
and if it be not the constitutional Jehovah, the
they had their niches in the Pantheon, and seemed placed
on actual equality with the heathen gods themselves. But
Christianity was not content until it could dethrone, so to
speak, those who were so liberal. Surely here was yusi
reason for persecuting it, especially since it was itself a dan
gerous fiction.
* With notes by George Combe.—Edinburgh, 1847
Maclachlan.
B 2
�10
LETTERS TO
unlawful worshippers will be excluded from civil
offices. They may, however, hold military offices—
the state being content to have heathens bleed in
its defence,” (Of Constitutional Limitations,
p. 21.)
In Massachusetts again, the government has
the power to require, “ Protestant teachers of
piety to be supported by the parishes, when provi
sion shall not be made for them voluntarily.”
Every Christian sect is to be equally protected by
the laws.
“ This portrays," fcontinues Mr. H., justly,)
i( the infant state of religious freedom in the cradle
of liberty)’—to wit—“ A species of religious es
tablishment and its compulsory support." Mr. H.
rightly says “ a species,” for equally, as in North
Carolina, some form of Christianity is obligatory,
or the penalty of what is really persecution by law,
as well as by opinion, must be borne.
It is consolatory to observe by an amendment
adopted in 1820, that the chief officers of
state are now not required to declare that they be
lieve in Christianity : but the above regulations
*
remain unchanged.
In New York too, “ the legislature may interfere
with the rights of opinion—and the courts in the
administration of the common law, may punish a
man for speaking against the prevailing religion
(/. e. Christianity) of the country ! !” {Ibid. 27.)
“ But if,” continues Mr. H., “ law take into
* The revised constitution for New York for 1846, pro
vides, “ that no person shall be rendered incompetent to
be a witness on account of his religious belief.” (Combe,
note, p. 81.) Thus perfect religious liberty is slowly but
happily progressing, though Combe does not know if the
above has passed the legislature. See also further on for confir
mation of this reflection in reference to the State of New York
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
11
favour the religion of the majority, it tyrannizes
over the minority ; ifit establishes the religion of the
Christian, it offends the Infidel, the Jew, and the
Heathen.’’ As the majority make the laws, it was
to be expected that one like that of New York,
would sooner or later be made ; but while it exists,
let our worthy American friends confess, that reli
gious liberty or equality is a mere hypocritical
farce among them. The punishment by opinion
was constitutional and not actually unjust in such
cases ; but when the majority go further and make
actual law on the subject, they then clearly become
tyrannical, and if they do not violate the constitu
tion, they certainly violate the laws of eternal and
immutable justice.
Mr. Hurlbut mentions the statute of the State
of New York on common school education, enacted
only in 1844, in which we find, that if “books
containing sectarian doctrine of any particular
Christian or other religious sect are used in such
schools, these shall not be entitled to monies from
the school fund of the State ; yet it continues,
“ nothing herein contained shall authorize th^
exclusion of the Holy Scriptures icitliout note or
comment ! !”* (p. 28.) Mr. H., says, “ 1 do not
perceive how the legislature obtained any idea as
to what Scriptures are holy and what are not—
* All this shows (even in its disguise), the inherent in
tolerance of Christianity, which induced Justinian to put
dowii even the venerable schools of Athens: ‘'That,” says
Gibbon, “ which even Gothic arms did not do, was done bv
a religion, whose ministry superseded the exercise of reason,
resolved every question by an article of faith, and con
demned the sceptic to eternal fames!" (Chap. 40, Justinian.)
Paganism was in some degree compensated for its utter
downfall through the influence of Christianity, by Gibbon s
statement, “ That its introduction, or, at least, abuse, had
some influence on the fall of the Roman Empire.” * * *
�12
LETTERS TO
•what are with, and what are without note and
comment.”
“It would seem that we need further constitu
tional provisions, such as will render it impossible
for the religionist of any sect whatever to obtain
the least legal recognition, the adoption of his
sacred books, or any other favour from the state.
Until the State takes the position of perfect indif
ference and impartiality, the rights of conscience
will not be secure, and that religious freedom so
much boasted of in America will rest upon an in
secure foundation.”
“ While several of the States punish blasphemy,
declaring Sunday to be holy time, require officers
to believe in the Christian religion, the clergy who
teach all these things are disfranchised.” (In New
York, for instance,, they can hold no civil office
or place within the state.”)
“ Democracy,” he adds, “ cuts an awkward
figure in coquetting with religion. It had better
assume at once an air of perfect indifference.”
“ But, it is inquired,” says he, “ can a State
exist which recognises no religion ? I answer that
it can as well as if it do not recognise music.”
(p. 28.)
I may observe in reference to this point, that if
we leave the mind perfectly free, as believing or
not in a future state of rewards and punishments,
we ought to increase the severity of the laws, and
also, as Beccariat suggested, establish institutions
for rewarding virtue. In a republic some form of
“ Under it,” says he, “the Roman world was oppressed by
a aeit’ species of tyranny.” Yet, with philosophic impartiality
he admits further on, that it tended to diminish the ferocious
barbarity of the barbarians who conquered Home. (Chap.
38—end.)
* Dei Dclitti xli.—Come si prevengono i delitti.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
13
religion (pure Theism better than any) seems al
most necessary, and has existed in all ancient
republics. Athens had too much superstition and per
secuted those of true religion, viz., the philosophers,
including Socrates. Venice too was a very reli
gious republic ; so at present is Switzerland. They
all seem to err, not in having respect for religion
itself—blit in having had, and still having respect
for an intolerant and false religion. The Religion
of Nature is clearly the only true religion ; and as
it existed before Christianity, so it will exist
after it.
I observe Mr. Combe, in his note on religious
education, ftp. Cit., p. 83), asks:—“ Would not
Mr. Hurlbut’s views tend to convert schools into
seminaries of Calvinism, Catholicism, and So
cialism, &c., according to the opinions of the ma
jority, and so to rear sects filled with inveterate
hostility to each other? The government may
legitimately and beneficially aid, and sometimes
enforce, the active obedience of its subjects to the
natural laws. * * * ‘ Man has no right to be dirty or
grossly ignorant (because by being so, he justly
injures or offends those near him) and, if so, has no
right to relief from the parish. He ought to be
forced to change.’ * * * If we suppose a government
to possess a code of really pure morality and reli
gion, clearly expressed and practically elucidated,
would not a people be in better condition at the
end of two centuries of teaching of this code by
force of law, than that in which they would be
found after the same period of sectarian teaching,
such as they would receive if left to the uncon
trolled guidance of their clergy. After instancing
Prussia, (which though the best practical example,
is not to his point as being exclusively Christian),
he adds :—“ If government be supposed in the
�u
LETTERS TO
right, is not the practice of right always be
neficial ?”
I am inclined to believe these views of Combe
to be just: they were those of two sincere Repub
licans living in different ages, Plato and Rousseau,
on this subject: they thought that Republicanism
might with justice try and enslave the mind’to
virtue, by compelling sound religious belief, if it
left the laws otherwise free. We have only to look
at the United States now (the best educated
country in the world)—we have onlv, I say, to
reflect on her Quakers, Shakers, Rappites, Mor
mans, and Spirit Rappers, and we may rationally
enough come to the conclusion, that the multitude
ought not to be left perfectly free as regards their
religious belief; since the state of that country
shows clearly enough, that a man’s religion de
pends far less on his reason, than on his hopes and
fears and prejudices, and the opinion of the
country : so that, in truth, he is enslaved on the
subject, when appearing to be left free. The false
opinions on this subject to which he is thus forced,
increase the natural intolerance of human nature,
as no man can possibly be a sincere believer in
Christianity, and not feel more or less horror or
detestation of all “Jews, Turks, and Infidels.’’ If
any Republic would make natural religion the re
ligion of the State, and enforce payment to this,
it would be nothing else than diminishing the
temptation to adopt any other of the revealed re
ligions, (always necessarily intolerant), and con
sequently would be indirectly diminishing the
strong temptation to injustice which naturally
exists in human nature.
“ As regards the observance of a day of rest,”
says Mr. H., “ the State has an undoubted authority
to abstain from all action on such a day ; but it
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
15
cannot rightfully compel any manto keep Sunday
as a religious institution ; nor can it require him
to cease from labour or recreation on that day,
since it cannot be shown that the ordinary exercise
of the human faculties on that day is in aDy way
an infringement on the rights of mankind.”
(p. 28.)
Combe, (in his Note F., p. 83,) says—“ In the
recent discussions in Scotland, the Sabbatarian
party has strongly overlooked the right of those
who take a different view of the matter from theirs,
to act upon that view if they please.’’
But supposing they do “ act upon it,” they are
still punished, as I conceive unjustly, though by
opinion onlv, as such opinion is founded on a
falsehood,—by which the multitude is in many cases
led involuntarily,—I mean that the scriptures are
the word of God, and that they inculcate the pu
ritanical observance of Sunday, as a positive duty.
I believe with Mr. H., that the State cannot
rightfully compel any man to keep Sunday in this
way. But unjust as punishment by opinion only
is in such cases, government has still increased
the injustice in England, and the States by making
actual law on the subject, and compelling all
public places of amusement to be closed on a
Sunday evening.
Hurlbut very justly says, “ there is in this
country, viz , the States, a species of religious
establishment, notwithstanding the constitu
tional provisions, for the free exercise of religious
belief’' (p. 26.)
Now I would beg to enquire whether such a
state of things may not be called actually illegal ?
Legal or illegal—this hermaphrodite condition in
reference to religion—fostering as it does through
the whole population a state of hypocrisy—which
�1G
LETTERS TO
is necessarily carried in a greater or less degree
into all the affairs of life, and is continually
prompting to actual lying, and consequently to
dishonesty, is very disgusting to a candid and
honourable mind; and must be inwardly so to
many of yourselves, American citizens.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
17
LETTER II.
Citizens,—I shall begin this letter by some con
siderations as to the utility of Christianity to go
vernment, being convinced it is the belief in its
supposed utility, far more than in the actual truth
of the religion, that causes it to remain still so
much respected even by some enlightened statesmen.
When I find such men as Frederick the Great
of Prussia, your late President, the illustrious
Jefferson, and I may, perhaps, add the late Lord
Chesterfield, holding such opinions as regards its
utility, I approach this topic with respect, but still
with the firm conviction'that these distinguished
men were mistaken.
1st.—In the first place, an irremediable fault in
it is, the great uncertainty as to uliat it really
teaches; for by its endless contradictions, the
mind feels greater difficulty in seizing its real
tenets than those of mere natural religion for these
are written by nature herself in the consciences of
all mankind.
Hence it is, “that religious wars among Chris
tians, and deaths from the inquisition, have cost
the lives of 67,000,000 human beings
whereas
“ the variety of religions and gods in the heathen
world neither produced wars, nor dissentions
among the different nations.”*
I admit, that by a wise separation of church
and state, you have prevented in a great measure
* Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History quoted in Trevelyan’s
pamphlet, (p. 6.,) on the Insanity of Mankind. (Bailliere.)
�18
LETTERS TO
religious wars; but you have not been able to
effect impossibilities, and to eradicate the inherent
intolerant spirit from the Christian creed, as Mr.
Hurlbut’s remarks just quoted show. You only
suffer from this, less than other nations. The flame
of opinion, increased by the hopes and fears of the
Christian s death, obliges the “ pious’’ among vou
to persecute socially
In consequence of preaching the eternity of
punishments, Christianity teaches intolerance more
clearly perhaps, than any other tenet; and yet
leaving its meaning, as to the trinity or unitv,
election, justification by faith, real presence, &c.,
&c., debateable points, itself tends to foster end
less disputes between Catholics, Protestants, and
Unitarians. We have just seen what slaughter'
it has caused in the world, and much undoubtedly
remains for unborn ayes, who will have to go
through the same phases before they arrive at the
same civilisation, and consequently indifference
on the subject. In this respect, so "far from sur
passing the Romans, we are only now gradually
coming near them in real civilisation. Let it,
however, be remembered, that there is even now
only one nation of any strength in the world—
(viz., your own), where all actual persecution by
law is difficult, and you will be convinced how
much misery is yet in store for mankind from such
uncertainty as to the meaning of this supposed
revelation. A Republic, with Church and State
separate, is the only means of completely taking
away the power of persecution from Christianity by
law,—I wish I could say also by opinion. To the end
of the Chapter there will likewise be Catholic Mis
sionaries, as well as Protestant, anxious from the
mere spirit of selfishness to secure, as they conceive
their own salvation, by interfering with other
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
19
people’s business, or, in fact, trying to make con
verts among savage tribes. In consequence among
these real converts and believers, there will always
be war and discord; for the odium theoloyicum
(among Christian Sects) cannot die, though it
may sleep for a time.
2ndly.—Christianity tends to enslave the immortal
mind, bv assuming, as it does, a power over the
thoughts, (since even “ looking on a woman to lust
after her,” is absurdly enough put down in this
creed, as the same as actually committing adultery,
whereas it is clear that though a man “ lust after
a woman,” yet still, by considerations of duty, he
might be prevented from desiring carnal knowledge
of her.) Thus, I say, under the profound cant of
purifying the mind, and censuring what none can
prevent, (for who can prevent mere desire for the
opposite sex ?) Christianity fosters the worst form
of slavery—that of the mind. We see this fea
ture in taking other aspects of it, for it everywhere
puts faith before reason; and consistently fol
lowed, would lead all again to become ignorant
monks.
That it also sanctions bodily slavery is clear
enough ; and it is only by an advance in civilisa
tion that the feeling against slavery has increased
of late years, for it existed for centuries after the
introduction of Christianity, and no one dreamt
that it was censured by this faith. Indeed, how
can it be, for the faith itself makes some of the
greatest virtues to consist in a base humility I
Slavery is the essence of all real Christianity.
But on earth we have only a mock and spurious—
because really impracticable scheme. If born in
Heaven, it should have kept there, for it never has
been, and never can be acted on by tlie inhabitants
�20
LETTERS TO
of earth. And the attempt to keep up even the
appearance of being Christian, has been the secret
cause of all the cant which so eminently distin
guishes the Anglo-Saxon race ; since it tends to
make all of us found our opinions of real virtue
on the false standard contained in this system.
Consequently, no man among us is what he really
seems, or wishes to seem, for we are naturally
under the circumstances, anxious to have the merit
of “piety and chastity,” (I wish I could add
“ poverty’' and thus complete the Christian vow,)
that scarcely any of us merit.
All this it is that has produced such a difference
in our literature from that of the Greeks and
Bomans. These men spoke out on all subjects,
especially those relating to the intercourse of the
sexes, and show mankind as it really is; while to
read our literature one would go away with the
false idea that we were the most moral and modest
of people. But, as Voltaire says, this sort of
modesty often extends no farther than our lips. It
is really a pleasure to read the works of this
writer, Bavle, Rousseau, Gibbon, or Hume, in
comparison with the works of our very Christian
historians or philosophers—for it is like reading the
ancients instead of the moderns.
Christianity,
you will say, has therefore elevated our literature ;
I rather think it has debased it by a perfectly un
natural spirit of cant. Hume himself justly savs,
hinting perhaps also to this point. “ In general
there is more candour in ancient historians.
Our
speculative factions, especially those of religion,
throw such an illusion over our minds, that men
seem to regard impartiality to their adversaries and
t.o heretics, as a vice or weakness.” A man so lost
to all sense of natural religion as to regard “ impar-
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
21
tialitv as a weakness,” is a perfect disgrace to any
free government.
*
I have censured the Anglo-Saxon race more
particularly on this point, because somehow or
another, abroad, Protestant, or Boman Catholic
writers (especially the French) do not carry pru
dery so far. We may witness this in our English
translations. Some time ago I bought two—one
of Faust, and one of Herodotus,—and it was not
until I had read the preface that I perceived that
many passages in each had been omitted, as im
proper for English translation. Now as this was
not stated on the title page, it became something
* Essays, Vol. I., note EE., page 552. The probable
reason of this difference is, that we wish to be thought
more eminently Christian than the other church sects do ;
so we are striving after Christian appearances. Hence our
proverbial cant. Cox has some good observations which
will apply, though indirectly, to this point, and show how
it is that there is more of this religious pretension (cant)
among Protestants than among Catholics, for such I think
is the case.
“ There is no essential difference betwen a
claim of infallibility honestly expressed in words, and a
tacit assumption of infallibility, by our conduct towards
those who differing from us, commit precisely the offence
and no more, which we commit in differing from them.
That we may really be the Protestants we call ourselves, it is
not enough to abuse the Pope, and assert against him the
right of private judgement in religion, we must acknowledge
and respect in all others (whether Jews, Roman Catholics,
Deists, or even Atheists) the rights which in our own case we
hold so precious.” (Op- Cit., p. 376.) The fact is, our En
glish Protestantism is only a sort of half toleration, so that a
man who only goes as far as Unitarianism, is held—by Protes
tants too—not to be a Christian, and of course to be a
Deist is to expose oneself to o/>en persecution. Now the
Pope, admitting no dissent prevents all this cant which
among Protestants flourishes because Protestantism is now
our state religion, and because full toleration is not in
reality allowed by public opinion or even by law.
�22
LETTERS TO
more than a mere
pious fraud/’ and with all the
sanctity of religion, amounted to actual dishonesty.
That the same spirit of prudery animates Christi
anity on the other side of the Atlantic is clear
from various facts, and though it mavuotbe true that
the legs of pianos are not allowed to be seen, still
I find it stated only in to-day’s paper, that adver
tisements occur in which shirt and chemise are
called men’s and women’s “ under vests.” There
is little harm in all this certainly, and only as far
as it seems to lead to actual falsehood and dishonestv, as mentioned at the end of Letter I., is it
reprehensible. But I cannot help thinking that
the tendency of a really impracticable code which
necessarily leads to dishonesty in words, is to pro
duce the same in acts. For it is in vain I look all
through the New Testament for that constant ex
hortation to fair-dealing in business and the common
affairs of life, which is so admirably insisted on in
Plato’s last and greatest work on government, viz.,
his Laics. “ The foundation of virtue,” justice,as
Mr. Hurlbut well insinuates, is completely forgot
ten in the constant exhortation to an unreasonable,
and if I may so speak, often unjust “ charity.”*
* The philosopher will also remark, that after asserting
that “ looking on a woman to lust after her,” is committing
adultery with her, we find that Christ dismissed a woman
actually taken in adultery without punishment or even sta
ting that she deserved any ! A specimen this of “ uncertainty
of meaning.” There is also no scale of punishment, but
sins of the most unequal magnitude are all grouped toge
ther as if of equal magnitude. Witness, for instance, the
expression, “ Whoremongers and adulterers God will
judge,” and another where “ fornication and unnatural
lust” are put on the very same category. Cox says, “ for
nication, in the abstract, was not forbidden to the Jews,”
and quotes Bishop Horsley, who says, “ In the heathen
world it was never thought a crime, except it was accom
panied by injury to a virgin's honour, or the violation of
�THE AMERICAN PEUPLE.
23
3rdly.—By the progress of the arts and sciences
among us, we have gradually come to make the
science, as taught in scripture, totally untenable.
Galileo long ago suffered for that absurd passage
which makes the sun turn round the earth ; and at
the present day, Dr. Buckland among ourselves
was persecuted by opinion, because he attempted
to show that geology is totally at variance with the
recent formation of the earth, as asserted in Scrip
ture.
Other absurdities in respect to science still, how
ever, remain almost unnoticed; such, for instance,
as, “ Thou slialt not suffer a witch to live.” But
as modern science has shown that “ animal ma?netism” is for the most part an absurdity, so it will
reasonably declare the same of witchcraft. Yet
the numbers who have been put to death all over
Europe for this purely imaginary crime, are almost
inconceivable
Now, I would beg to ask, what is to prevent the
same murder again, when our missionaries have
introduced the Scriptures among savages ? Many
of these “ religious” men still believe in this in
fernal art, notwithstanding its absurdity ; and even
the marriage bed.” Horsley praises the Christian religion
for making it a breach of natural morality. (Cox, p. 515.)
But Christianity has no practical effect in diminishing it,
(witness our London streets at night,) and even now the
vast proportion of men of sense secretly (at all events) con
sider this “ heathen” view the only rational one on the
subject. I do not by these remarks attempt to justify even
mere fornication, but what I say is, that with the present sys
tem of society it is a necessity as the world itself shows.
Under such circumstances, when our Litany couples it with
all other “ deadly sin," we at once see the lamentable reign
of Anglo-Saxon cant. If the woman is well provided for, it
is often, even now, no sin at all, especially when married
parties cannot agree well enough to live together, and being
Catholics, cannot marry again.
�21
LETTERS TO
suppose none of them did, savages are sure to do
so long after the introduction of the Scriptures.
And there in the holy book is the command of
death to all witches. The consequence is clear,
viz., that as the intensity of faith is always greater
at first, and particularly among barbarous, ignorant
nations, the mischief of introducing Scriptures
containing such commands among such a people
*
is obvious.
* One of the most frequent vices among savages, and
even among civilised nations, is dishonesty or fraud. But
that religion which says, “ Let not your right hand know
what your left doeth,” and also exhorts us to be “ mild as
doves, and cunning as serpents,” is surely not the school for
teaching fair dealing.
Again, Paley says it does not forbid war. But if it did
certainly do so, it would, in this respect, be a benefactor to
mankind. But here, as elsewhere, its ambiguity is a con
stant curse to its beneficial effects.
Instead of having
“ brought life and immortality to light,” it has enveloped
them in double darkness when its whole narration is con
sidered.
There is no doubt that the best religion that can be
preached to savages is Theism, and at the same time such a
degree of physical science as shall prevent that fear of su
pernatural agency which has been a principal cause of human
sacrifices, and other abominable religious rites. The nature
of thunder and lightning should be most especially explained
to them in reference to diminishing all fear of this being
sent to punish sin by an offended God.
This seems a far better way of creating an opinion in a
savage country against human sacrifices than by preaching
Christianity. Such opinion will eventually cause a law to
be made against such abominations ; and it is in reality law
that puts down such enormities with the great majority,
for religion acts on the consciences of the few, its rewards
and punishments being so remote.
I may take this opportunity to state that I have recom
mended physical science to be taught to savages at the same
time with Theism, chiefly in consequence of the many
proofs of superstition found in the otherwise pure system
of religion enounced by Plato in his Republic and Laws.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
25
4tbly.—As to the question, whether or not the
belief in Christianity is conducive to human hap
piness (always supposing the power of any great
degree of persecution is as effectually suppressed
as it is by the constitution of the United States.)
there may be difference of opinion. The ground
for supporting such opinion will principally be
that the Christian faith teaches the certainty of a
future life, in which we shall be sure to meet our
departed relatives and friends again. But against
this good point, we may place the following, which
will make us decide that the belief in Christianity
(even under such a favourable government, for its
most beneficial operation as the “ States,”) is not
desirable for human happiness.
This opinion is grounded on the fact, that it is
impossible, on account of the uncertainty of its
doctrines as above stated, to separate only the
good from the bad, that it seems to teach—the
sins or faults, as some people saj», of its professors,
from the “ pure doctrine” itself.
Thus, for instance, we find that even in the
States what may be called the most rational and
purest forms of the creed (viz., Unitarianism and
In this latter work, for instance, (p. 351, Traduction de
Grou, 1851,) Plato recommends that whoever is well
skilled in Divination, &c., &c., and would use such arts to
hurt any one should be put to death ! Had Plato studied
physical science more, he would have seen the fallacy of
“ the occult sciences,” and consequently never would have
made such a barbarous law. The fault was however in the
age in which he lived, for Plato knew as much as most men
on such points. Neither should the Theism preached to
savage tribes inculcate more than remotely G-od’s provi
dence, and that virtue and vice are to be punished hereafter,
and not now, and also in another world ; for it was from
teaching God’s constant interference in human affairs, that
the barbarous “ trial by combat” of the middle ages arose.
c
�26
letters to
Universalism) are still very unfashionable, to say
the least; so that, strangely enough, opinion
punishes the sects much in proportion as they
attempt to set reason above “ faith,” and that too
in the most educated country in the world ! You
need only read Theodore Parker’s sermon, Some
Account of my Ministry, to be convinced of the
*
great social persecution he has had to undergo,
for attempting to proceed a few steps further than
common Unitarianism, though be still upholds his
creed as Christian. His sect is still much smaller
than that of Unitarians in general, because it (is
still more reasonable ; but (I use the expression
with great respect) he dare not openly advocate
pure Deism, or he would probably have no congre
gation at all.
The Trinitarians then, and that abominable
form of them the Calvinistic, constitute the decided
majority of Christians in the States. Thus the
doctrine that “ sins committed against an infinite
Being deserve infinite punishment,” is uppermost
there—a doctrine which, as Mrs. Barbauld justly
says, “ no persons can have often in their thoughts
and be cheerful.”!
The celebrated Pinel said, “ Nothing is more
common in hospitals than madness, produced by
* Theism, &c., &c. pp. 256-278. (Chapman, London.
1853.)
f Cox, p. 230-2. He rightly adds : “ Such views intro
duce a standard of moral feeling, totally different from
those ideas of praise or blame, upon which we do, and must
act, in our commerce with our fellow-creatures.” (p. 232.)
It is by such ideas, that men have come to the belief that
sins against God deserve greater human punishment than
those committed against their fellow-creatures—a most
monstrous doctrine. It were far better to be of no religion
at all, than believe in such a creed.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
27
too exalted devotion, or by religious terrors.”*
The truth of these remarks is fully borne out by
the madness produced by Calvinism some years
back, which appeared under the guise of the “ un
known tongues
and latterly in the “ States” the
journals assert that a species of frenzy, often ac
companied by suicide, has arisen from too vivid a
belief in revealed, religion, and supposed “ spirit
rappings,” as if the old fallacious belief, taught
by Christ himself, and which contributed much to
the spread of Christianity, that the destruction of
the world was at hand ! was reviving on the other
side the Atlantic.
I say, as it is impossible to separate the idea of
“ eternity of punishments, the existence of a
devil, and that Jesus should before long come
back in the clouds of Heaven,” from the belief of
Christianity itself, that the idea that this religion
gives, and will always continue to give, to a great
proportion of those who believe in it of a future
state, is not, on the whole, conducive to human
happiness.
Theodore Parker, from whom the above quota
tion is taken, says, “ I do not accept such belief
on the authority of Jesus ; yet I am ready to be
lieve lie taught it'’\ If, then, Parker was obliged
to believe (no doubt contrary to his own wish) that
Christ taught the above doctrines, of course those
who almost wholly put aside reason, when they
take up scripture, cannot for a moment doubt that
such is really scriptural doctrine; and “a very
comfortable creed,” (as Lord Byron says,) this
indeed for our missionaries to teach savages. The
belief of a future state, as taught by the ancients,!
* Cox, p. 418.
t Op. Cit., p. 264.
j I observe that Sir C. Lyell (2nd Visit to the United
�LETTERS TO
has something far less repulsive about it than that
of our Orthodox Christian, as the reading of the
6th book of Virgil’s JEneid will show. Yet the
species of “purgatory” therein described was a
real and equally effectual punishment for sin ; and
gives a far more favourable idea of the justice,
as well as the mercy, of God.
5thlv.—But, it may be asked, is not Theodore
Parker’s very liberal form of Unitarianism—re
jecting as lie does the belief in miracles, eternity
of punishments, and even the Divinity of Christ
to a further extent (if I may so express myself)
than Unitarians generally —better than rejecting
*
it in toto, and confessing at once to a belief in
Deism only ? I think it is not; and for the following reasons. Because it is tending to keep up
that hypocritical spirit in the States to which I
have before alluded, as disposing to lead to actual
States) says, speaking of “the absence of genuine religious
liberty-’ there, in which Cox justly agrees with him (^Sab
bath Laws, ;S’c., p. 394,) “ that this can only be reformed
by educating the millions and dispelling their ignorance,
prejudices, and bigotry.” This will be insufficient, as Sir
C. should well know ; for America is now the best educated
country in the world. Xo amelioration ever can take place
on this subject, until the influence of Christianity is re
strained, anil Deism put in the place it is entitled to, and
in which it would be put, if the laws were properly carried
out, or at least not made null by opinion. Cox has come
very far nearer the mark, when he says, (p. 396,) “ the
fetters of the clergy must be struck off." Now, of course
they are bound to say they believe Christianity, whether
thev do or not; and being some of the best educated
people in the States, it is much by their influence that a
belief in Christianity is kept up in the country.
* “ Christ is not without errors, not without the stain of
his times, and, I presume, of course, not without sins."
(P; irker on Deism, &c., &c. p. 264.) This last expression
is indeed a “clencher” for our pious Trinitarians.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
29
dishonesty in the affairs of life ; for it is pretty
*
clear that, though Air. Parker thinks it a fit, or
perhaps necessary, sacrifice to public opinion to
put a scripture text to the head of each of his
Sermons, he puts little or no belief in the book
from which such texts are taken, any further than
as he conceives he finds in it better morality than
in the writings of the heathen philosophers. “ I
reverence the Christian Church,” says he, “ for
the great good it has done for mankind. So the
Mahomedan, for a far less good. I reverence the
scriptures for every word of truth they teach.”
{Op. Cit.,p. 264.)
Now mark the words. “ every word of truth
they teach,” and we shall be convinced he thinks
they teach a great deal that is not true. Indeed
he admits this by implication, and, to a certain
exteut, by open confession, as we have already
seen.
* A good illustration of this is seen at p. 64 of Air.
Parker’s work. He says : “ A man of property in Boston
dishonestly failed,” and yet legally secured considerable
property to himself, after having paid only sixpence or a
shilling on the dollar ; one creditor only not giving him a
discharge. Our bankrupt afterwards turned very religious,
and when, in consequence, was applied to again by the creditor
for payment, replied, “ Business is business, and is for the
week,” and “Religion for Sunday;” and “paid him not
a cent.”
Truly, in the States, as with us, more religion is wanted
behind the counter, and it should not be shut up six days
in the week with our churches.
Jesus told a rich man to sell all he had, to give to the
poor. Now the consideration of this fact, as it is called in
Christian history, will show equally as the above anecdote,
what profound hypocrisy is at the bottom of all the socalled belief in Christianity. What rich man among our
most pious professing Christians does this? Yet he will
still presume to call himself a Christian !
�30
LETTERS TO
Now, under such circumstances, mav we not
reasonably ask, if Christ be wrong once or twice,
why may he not also be wrong in that most im
portant doctrine of all that he teaches; I mean a
state of future rewards and punishments ? Mr,
Parker’s view, therefore, makes the authority of
Plato quite as great, as a teacher of a future state
of rewards and punishments, as that of Christ ;
and as, on the whole, I find a much better view
of justice in the “ Laws ” of Plato than in the
Old or New Testament, I prefer setting these aside
altogether, and at once stating that I think man
kind in general would be happier in following the
same course; since, either on Mr. Parker’s view of
*
Christianity or mine, a future state of being is
reduced only to & probability.
So far we are equal; but I conceive I have an
infinite advantage over him, because in adopting
the Natural Religion of Plato, I get free in toto
of that latent spirit of persecution, which we have
already seen, attaches always more or less to a
belief in any form of Christianity.f In this re
spect, while I give Mr. Parker’s system credit for
* Another point on which I cannot exactly agree with
Mr. Parker is in his estimate of human nature. I am
afraid he thinks too highly of this. (See introduction,
p. xxv., and p. 77.)
t Philosophically considered, this makes Christianity the
inveterate and incurably mad foe of justice; and thus its
advocacy even of charity becomes really pernicious, instead
of being (as it is considered by superficial thinkers) its
great merit. You need only look at the tendency many
children, and also grown up persons, have to begin injustice,
and when we consider that Christianity would have us be
charitable to these, its tendency actually to increase the
amount of injustice in the world is clear.
Perhaps the account of the Devil’s entering “the herd
of swine,” by which means a man lost his property, may be
justly cited as evidence that Christianity tends actually to
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
31
less evil than any other view, I cannot exonerate
it altogether, since his followers will always, no
doubt, be comparatively few, and missionaries—
whether Protestant or Catholic—who go among
ignorant and barbarous savages, will ever, no
doubt, continue to do as they have already done,
viz., to preach the scriptures as the inspired word
of God.
In reading Mr. Parker’s Sermon on Practical
Theism, (Op Cit., pp. 125-149,J I find not one
word about the superiority that his view of Chris
tianity possesses over this of mere Natural Pvdigion. I confess I am induced to regard such
silence as a proof, or least a presumption, that Mr.
Parker is, in reality, himself only a Theist; and
that, like his distinguished predecessors—Wash
ington and Jefferson—he thinks the scriptures
should not be put aside altogether, as the belief in
them by the multitude may be a public good.
With great respect for Mr. Parker, it is because I
cannot share in this opinion that I have written as
I have done.
*
/arour injustice and dishonesty. Particularly as no where
does it exhort to justice, but only to charity.
Again, unfortunately as Christians should return good
for evil, they too often determine to be beforehand, and
give evil unprovoked ! Our holy religion scarcely notices
this gross injustice as sin. Before being injured, annoyance
or injury is nothing ; ’tis after ! that we must turn meekly
our cheek.
* I ooserve at p. 281 of his work, that Mr. Parker con
siders the idea of a finite God as an injurious tenet; and
his reason for this is, that it has commonly caused priests
to make the Devil a more powerful being. But if we be
lieve in the Devil only as a fable, then it seems rather advi
sable to believe in a finite God; for, unless we do this,
(and with Plato regard matter as a sort of Devil offering
obstruction to a perfect creation,) we can scarcely make out
by reason a truly benevolent deity—in fact, a Moral Power.
�32
LETTERS TO
6thly. — In reviewing the pros and cons in
favour of Christianity, as useful to the world, the
annoyance or inconvenience caused by the strict
observance of the Sabbath is, perhaps, a matter of
secondary consideration to many. But it must be
remembered, that the absence of Sunday amuse
ments, and also of slight Sunday labour (see
note below since added in reference to the labourer
fined), FALLS hardest on the poor man, and that
this hardship, so to call it, may be considered, as
at all events, an indirect consequence of a belief
in the scriptures, since on account of the ambi*
* But a most important objection to our puritanical ob
servance of this day is, as the Times lately said, fwithout
censure of course), that “ the debtor walks free on a
Sunday, and on that day, no corn is carted, though it may
possibly be very wet on the Monday.” In accordance with
this, I observe that an old labouring man is fined 12s. Gd.
formowing his own field on that day. (Observer, Sept., 1855.)
So under the cant of religion, even our government per
mits an actual injustice to creditors ; clearly imbued with
the bad spirit of the religion adverted to lately in a note,
that it prefers “charity” — (i. e., a perversion of real
charity) to justice. If there was any really good religion as
to our Sabbath law, why are spirits and beer allowed to be
sold on a Sunday evening ? They no doubt, bring a revenue
to government; but of course, in many cases, cause
drunkenness. And while all this is permitted, “ by the
21 of George III., it is enacted, that no house be open for
entertainment or amusement, or publicly debating on any
subject.” (Cox, p. 334.) So that even quiet rational
debate “ De Officiis ”—on the moral duties of life,—or
on the nature of justice—is illegal in what we call our free
and religious country! More strictly “ religious” than
moral, no doubt. Ye glorious shades of the ancients, who
spent your whole lives in the search after the honest and
the just, and found even these too short for your enquiries,
what must ye think of this separation of religion and
morality! Modern civilisation, indeed ! it consists only in
our steam engines and railroads. I may conclude this
note by adverting to another positive injury, that this puri-
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
33
guity in the meaning of these, Puritanical or Calvinistic Christians will probably always exist, and
will attempt to show by scripture, that the puri
tanical observance of the Sabbath is the Christian's
duty.
When in 1681, Penn was made sovereign of the
settlement in the United States, by Charles II, he
required that the inhabitants should only acknow
ledge their belief in the existence of God, and
fulfil all the duties of civil society, aud that they
were left at liberty to join in public worship or
not. (Voltaire’s Phil. Diet., Art., Church.)
It is singular, that in a colony belonging to a
monarchv with an established church, perhaps
more toleration in religion was then allowed by
opinion, than at present under a Republic.
Voltaire properly prefers such toleration to that
allowed by Locke in his constitution for Carolina,
tanical Christianity has inflicted on mankind, and conse
quently, I may also put this evil along with those which
Christianity itself has inflicted, since while it exists, there
will no doubt always exist some sects who will embrace
such puritanical view of it.
I allude to our refusing in Britain, equally as they do in
the “States,” to have medical examinations of the public
women. Religion, as it is called, is at the bottom of
this false delicacy with us no doubt; for since even for
nication is such “ deadly sin,” and as the existence of
sipliilitic disease may tend in a degree to stop fornication, our
government being founded on such views of religion, will
not sanction the examination in question, as they do on the
continent, where there is less prq/hssmn of religion. I al
lude to this point chiefly, because the disease in question
being more or less hereditary as all medical men know, the
innocent are made by such false religion to suffer lor the
guilty, (see Lancet, 1847.)
Again—without pretending to justify Lord Nelson in toto.
it is clear the country was unjust to his innocent daughter,
chiefly in consequence of our Christianity.
c 2
�34
LETTERS TO
In this, “ no public religions, but such as were
approved of by seven fathers of families, were to
be permitted.” (Op. cit. idem.)
Religious toleration, (if changed ) lias probably
rather diminished, than increased in the United
States since the time of Penn—since the theatres
remain closed on Sundays in all the Protestant
States. As this depends on a majority of votes,
it seems strictly constitutional in this sense; but
in point of religious justice, it may be fairly con
sidered, that the Catholic part of the population—
though of course in the minority—should have the
power of keeping one theatre open for themselves,
otherwise all religions are not equal in the United
States. If it be said on this principle, Mahomedanism and its polygamy might be admitted as
equal to Christianity; I reply no; because poly
gamy is contrary to the civil laic of the country,
and besides, this would be altering the idea of
duty between the sexes. But merely giving a re
ligious community the power to pass the Sabbath
according to tlieir interpretation of scripture,
when such interpretation does not alter the idea
of duty or justice among the sexes, is altogether
different, since theatrical representation does not
infringe upon any of the practical duties of life
between man and man, or man and woman.
Besides, be it remembered, that the Protestants
of Germany, (the country where Luther arose),
have their theatres and public ball-rooms open on
the Sabbath evenings, when divine service is over.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
35
LETTER III.
Citizens,—I shall now proceed to consider the
good that Christianity, with the greatest show of
reason, may be considered to have done in the
world, and weigh this against the evil already
spoken of.
1st.—As despotism or a government nearly
allied to it, must always be that of the vast ma
jority of mankind, does not Christianity exercise
a salutary influence in checking the licentiousness
of absolute power ?
2ndlv.—Has not Christianity tended to abolish
animal and even human sacrifices ? and has it not.
as Paley (Evidences, Chap, vii.) says—tended
to diminish the horrors of war by increasing hu
manity to captives ? And has it in reality produced
some other good effects he mentions ?
3rdly—Is not the inculcation of the certainty
of a future state of rewards and punishments, one
good it has done ?
In reference to the first point, it may be ob
served, that when we consider the atrocities of
Nero, Caligula, and id genus omne, of Roman
Emperors, and compare such conduct with the
course of life of the Emperors of Russia and
Austria at the present day, the advantage on some
points is so much in favour of these latter, that at
first sight, we are apt to say this difference can
onlv be owing to the Christianity of our days.
�LETTERS TO
Some years back, I took this view myself ; but
that it is not the correct one is shown when we
reflect that the atrocities of our own “most Chris
tian” Henry VIII. rival those of the Roman
Emperors alluded to. At the present day, then,
we have no more Henry VIII. s in England, nor
even in Russia or Austria, on account, not of the
Christianity of Europe, but because of the spirit
of the aye dependant on the progress the arts
and sciences ¡tare made—those real and true
civilisers of mankind.
That mere Christianity
cannot civilise, is shown by the barbarism of the
Abyssinians of the present day, who have long
been Christians ; it is shown also by the barbarism
of the “ Middle Ages,” still more eminentlv
Christian. Nobodv doubts the Christianity of
V
«.
Calvin ; yet we find a follower of the lowly Jesus
ordering Servetus to be burnt, because he differed
from him merely in the interpretation of the
scriptures. In like manner, as in the Spanish In
quisition, we have evidence of atrocious murders
committed by Catholics on Protestants : so even
under the Protestant Elizabeth, we have similar,
though less numerous instances, as the Rev.
Sidney Smith (a Protestant) justly says, of Pro
*
testants ordering' the death, or expatriation and
confiscation of the goods of Catholics. These,
no doubt, are deaths and persecutions on account
of differences in religious opinions; but as the
* Letter on the Catholic question—quoted in Cox's
work, from p. 462 to 467. The whole number of Catholics
who have suffered death in England, for the exercise of
their rdigion ! since the reformation, he makes to be 319,
204 of these being under the reign of Elizabeth, so that
Lord Brougham in his Political Philosophy, p. 263, vol. Ill
justly says, this is proof how little real progress in'“ con
stitutional liberty” was made even in her rei<<n.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
37
whole of the criminal jurisprudence of these ages
still Christian, was equally despotic and severe,
*
it is a proof that it is not Christianity but the
spirit of the age, that makes the despotic power of
the Emperors of Russia and Austria at the present
dav, less formidable than was that of the Roman
Emperors.
Another cause for this, still quite independant of
Christianity is, that in modern times, despotic
power is restrained by the division of Europe into
different States, some like Erance, Switzerland, and
our own countrv, governed with a greater or less
degree of liberty. The consequence is, that
public opinion emanating from these, influences or
restrains ttnv disposition to very gross acts of
tyranny and injustice in the more purely despotic
Empires. But, as Gibbon says—since Rome, under
the Emperors comprised the whole of the known
civilised world, the despotism of a Nero could
receive no salutary check from the opinion of
foreign and independent States.
Lord Brougham (Political Philosophy. Vol. III.,
p. 1G4. London, 1816.) says, in reference to this
point, (and mark he does not place Christianity
among the causes), “ It is quite impossible that
in anv government, however despotically framed,
the sciences, the arts, the learning, the moral and
political knowledge of the people should increase,
and with these their comforts, possessions, and
enjoyments, without the wish being communicated
to them of bettering their conditions politically.
* * To imagine that if Turkey were completely
civilised, and men possessed the^wealth and the
knowledge! that bless Western Europe even under
* Torture and death were common for comparatively
slight offences.
f We find here he says “ knowledge,” and justly ; for
�3y
LETTERS TO
its most absolute monarchies, a Bashaw could be
sent into any province to enrich himself by plunder
and confiscation, securing impunity by suffering
the common master to pillage him in turn, is
wholly absurd. * * It is not going too far to
affirm that the Sultan, it is certain that the
Bashaw of Egypt, rules by himself and his officers
very different from the Tamerlanes of a former age.
Compare the mild reign of the present Prussian
sovereign with that of his predecessors a century
ago, aud you will be satisfied that however little
the form of that great military monarchy has
changed, no prince royal could now be called forth
to see his favourite strangled beneath his window
for the gratification of a father’s splenetic humour.
No Baron Trenck could be immured in a dungeon
I have always maintained, although their polygamy is
an evil, that the main cause of the decline of the Turkish
Empire, is in their not having favoured the progress of the
sciences; for now the art of war depends more on chemistry
and mathematics than it did formerly. Religion has had
nothing to do with it farther than that Christianity, ia. re
commending as it does, ignorance and self-abasement, has
never been followed by Protestant Christians, or even by
Catholic Christians in France. Had Christianity been fol
lowed to the letter it would have kept mankind in a worse
state than the Mahomedan religion has kept it. The Em
peror of Russia has encouraged the progress of the sciences,
and well I remember meeting at Constantinople a professor
sent out by him to explore and write about the unknown
parts of Asia Minor. So that no doubt this gentleman re
turned home with more information about the country than
the Turks themselves who lived there. “ Ignorance is the
mother of devotion,” and though I don’t think the Koran
is more inimical to knowledge than our Scriptures are, still,
in consequence of liieir ignorance, the Turks having had
stronger faith in it, have followed their religion more to the
letter, and, consequently, to their own disadvantage. The
absolute Russian Emperor's religion, like our own, is fol
lowed only so far as interest or expediency dictates, though,
of course, professed to be followed to the letter.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
39
for twenty years because he found favour in the
eyes of a princess. Russia is as despotically go
verned as anv European prince could now venture
to rule his people ; yet there is no possibility of a
Czar beheading his mutinous guards with his own
hand, or of a prime minister being sent in the
night to Siberia with his family, because a new
cabinet had been called into office.
“ The first step in the general and inevitable
change has been made in all these countries. The
government generally remains the same, but the
exercise of absolute power is tempered and re
strained by the improved spirit of the age, by the
force of opinion abroad as well as at home, and
above all, by the great improvement in the know
ledge, manners, and character of the people over
whom those governments are established.”
I may observe that the father of Frederick the
Great, who ordered the unjust execution alluded to,
was so pious a Christian, that he obliged a Unitarian
to be imprisoned for his heresy ; yet Nero him
*
self could hardly have behaved more brutally or
unjustly than the Prussian king in ordering the
execution in question.
Further on in the same volume, Lord Brougham,
after noticing the abominable murders (so to call
them) committed by order of Henry VIII., viz., of
Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas More, Hr. Barnes,
Cromwell, and others, male and female—makes
the following statements, which will fully bear us
out in our argument, viz., that the atrocities com
mitted by some Christian kings, often in reality
for causes quite independent of differences in reli
gious faith, have been quite as unjustifiable and
* See Zf/e and Times of Frederick the Great, in 4 vols
edited by Thomas Campbell. (Shoberl, London.)
�40
LETTERS TO
*
criminal, as many of the acts of the worst of the
Pagan emperors of Rome. Hence, whatever ame
lioration there is now, must not be ascribed, as is
insidiously and falsely done by most writers, to
Christianity, that religion having existed in even
stronger force then, than it does at present.
“ The king,” says Brougham, (p. 255), “ by
proclamation, might make any opinion heretical,
and niiylit denounce death as the penalty of hold
ing it.” And to increase this infamy, Cromwell
and Barnes were “ allowed no hearing
the imimputed “ treason and heresy ” of the former only
beginning to appear when Henry VIII. got tired
* Under the tyranny of the Norman governors, “ the
Saxons in 1124, particularly, were despoiled of their pos
sessions, then butchered. Whoever had any property lost
it by heavy taxes and unjust decrees.” (Hallam’s Middle
Ages, Chap, viii., p. 31.). So “Peter the Cruel of Spain,
(1350.) is said to have murdered his wife, most of his brothers
and sisters, with Eleonor Gusman their mother, many Casti
lian nobles, and multitudes of the commonalty.” (Hallam's
Middle Ages, chap, iv., p. 277).
So “ Charlemagne,
(a. d. 800), ordered 4000 Saxons to be beheaded in one
dav ; and (to recur to the
effects of Christianity), pro
nounced pain of death against those who refused baptism,
or who ate flesh during lent.” (Do. p. 9.) A proof that
force of the strongest kind was used at that time to convert
to Christianity. We find too that the sovereign, “ rather
encouraged, and the clergy for the most part approved,” of
that gross injustice, trial by combat. (Do. p. 134, note.)
“ During the time that a crusader bore the cross, he was
free from suit for liis debts, and the interest of them was
entirely abolished. He could not be impleaded, except on
criminal charges.” Such was the spirit of legislation due to
Christianity; not much restraining murder in these ages, and
greatly (p. 24.) encmz/’ugbig such injustice as would not for a
moment have been tolerated by the good Pagan emperors,
neither would dispensations from oaths; and we find
Edward I. seeking such from Clement V., who grants the
king power not to observe his oath in reference to arbitrary
taxation. (Chap. vii., p. 111.) So also Henry III., chap. viii.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
41
of Anne of Cleves, whom Cromwell had recom
mended him to marry. This word “ heresy,” so
misused indeed, gave the hypocritical tyrant a
show of reason on his side with the ignorant mul
titude, which might contribute to strengthen his
power with them—the most numerous class, and
which moral power, the Roman emperors neither
got, nor tried to get on their side * Accordingly
we find this monster, quietly having his own way
to the last, (above thirty years,) and dying a na
tural death ! while some of the worst of the Roman
emperors—as Caligula, Nero,Tiberius,f Domitian,
* The Romans saw, afterthe murder of Caligula, how diffi
cult it was to produce that unanimity essential to a republic,
and accordingly Claudius was almost forced against his
will, to succeed as emperor. (Suetonius. Claudius.) The
army, generally speaking, prefered the “ Empirethey
elected those they pleased, and if the new emperor became
very bad, he was assassinated. Doubtless the army in this,
had too much power ; but still it was a system of wild
justice ; and being in some little degree elective kept up the
idea of liberty, (and men are governed by words), which
idea was supported by their assumed right, if he proved bad,
of putting him aside by death.
t This emperor reigned, indeed, twenty-three years,
living seventy-eight years ; and was smothered by Macro.
But even Taci ms says, that “ he was amiable when a private
man, and esteemed under the reign of Augustus.” (Annals
vi. end.) It is also to be observed, that for many years,
(at least nine), after he became emperor, he governed with
great moderation, and assumed humility, refusing twice the
title of emperor. One of the worst laws in his reign, (but
acted on slightly towards the close of the reign of Augustus,)
as far as the great majority of the people were concerned,
was the system of “ informing,” whereby a person might be
arrested for mere words of disrespect towards the emperor.
But even in this case, Gibbon tells us (chap, xliv.) that,
“ when they committed suicide to escape capital punish
ment, their wills were valid, and their act was applauded.”
These reflections will account in a measure for so long a
reign ; and without attempting to justify many of the acts
�42
LETTERS TO
and Commodus, at least suffered a just death by the
hands of their oppressed subjects. I maintain,
therefore, that since these monsters were made to
suffer for their crimes on earth, the Roman popuof the latter part of this emperor’s reign, it is obvious that
his suspicion and hatred of mankind, began on the solid
grounds of the poisoning of his worthy and innocent son,
and was subsequently strengthened by the conspiracy of
Sejanus (the man whom he had loaded with honours)
against him. As he was sixty-six or sixty seven when he
went to live at Capri, it may also be asked, whether the
accounts of his licentiousness there, were not a little (to say
the least) exaggerated ?
It is worthy of observation, that Pliny the younger, and
the moral Tacitus himself lived during the whole reign of
Domitian, (fifteen years), we may almost say at court; for
Murphy observes, (p. viii.) both of them “ rose to emi
nence” under him. It may, therefore be asked, whether
the crimes, even of this man, have not rather been over
charged, or would it have been possible for a person like
Tacitus especially, to suffer “ his fortune to be advanced”
(Murphy) by him ? (See my remarks on the reign of
Domitian.—Roman Emperors). On this subject we must never
forget, that even under the worst emperors, there was no reli
gious despotism. Tacitus complains, in reference to “ infor
mers,” (book i., sec. 72), that “ till the latter part of the reign
of Augustus, men were arraigned for their actions, but
their thoughts were free." But these “ informers” were not
anything like so intolerable as “ inquisitors," and much more
justifiable, since they arose from the natural tendency of all
power to wish to keep so. The ancients then were free even
from the milder inquisition by opinion of Protestantism.
Besides, we have already seen, that the natural liberty of
man in regard to suicide was respected; and it is singular,
that there was a mixture of quasi generosity, even with the
very crimes of Tiberius and Nero, in this respect, for says
Tacitus, (An. vi.—29.) “ those who waited incurred a for
feiture, and were deprived of sepulture, while to such as
died by their own hand, funeral ceremonies were allowed,
(in my late quotation from Gibbon, this favour is not named
by him, yet it should have been), and wills were valid."
Such,” adds Tacitus, (in the spirit of an ancient Roman,
applauding such liberty), “ was the reward of despatch.”
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
43
lation was not as a whole so oppressed by them as
our population was under the Christian Henry the
VIII. This view again, is generally completely
overlooked by our ex-parte Christian historians.
In allusion to the Star Chamber under this mo
narch, Brougham justly observes ;—“ Not only
did the Plantagenets and Tudors commit to prison,
or ransom for heavy fines, those against whom
they conceived an ill will, thus signally violating
the most remarkable provisions of the Great
Charter; but they exercised a like control over
Members of Parliament who had offended them,
and jurors who had given verdicts displeasing to
them. A capital jurisdiction was never exercised
by them, at least, directly ; but it really amounted
to the same thing, whether they sentenced ob
noxious men to death, or compelled timid jurors
to find them guilty through dread of personal con
sequences.” {Op. Cit., p. 258).
No doubt, it amounted to the same thing. Even
after the monster had reigned thirty years! and
separated from Rome, as he called it, five years,
“ his submissive parliament,” enabled him to pass
the “ bloody act,” in which it was stated, that
“ if any person once denied the real presence,
though he afterwards confessed his error and re
canted, he was liable to be burnt.”* {Op. Cit.
p. 262.)
I may observe, that bad as such “ informing1’ was, it still
tended, as respects suicide, to keep up the Roman
courage. “ That act was never ” (says Murphy) “ punished
by law, or opinion, among the Romans.” Antoninus, how
ever, in the case of a convicted criminal, punished it by
confiscation ; and if a man had been guilty of murder, &c.,
this was a wise audjust check on it.
*. Voltaire’s opinion of the Parliament of Henry VUL,
and the king himself, is similar to that of Brougham. “ He
had his brother beheaded,” says he, “ for incest, when
�44
LETTERS TO
The “ submissive parliament,” in such a case,
was, as already hinted at, an advantage to a bloody
despot, which the Roman emperors had not, since
it gave a certain degree of moral support to
the greatest villany. Men are far better off un
der an absolute despotism, than under a hypocri
tical mixed monarchy, in which the parliament
has in reality no power; for in the former ease,
even the most ignorant know at once the origin of
their ills, and can sooner or later find time or op
portunity to strike accordingly, as we find they
did under some of the worst of the Roman empe
rors. Nay, as the impunity with which this English
monster reigned, was probably much more owing to
the influence of the Christian priesthood in the
country, than to actual fear of his subjects to
revolt, we have here an instance probably of the
baneful effects of this religion on a despotism,
rather than the contrary. It was the duty of the
clergy, no doubt, to read as the direct command of
God—“Thou shalt do no murder,” and also
(Romans xiii., c. 2.) '‘be subject to the higher
powers ; for the powers that be are ordained of
God, * * and they that resist shall receive to them
selves damnation.” So that under such circum
stances, an ignorant population might actually
have the desire to injure the crowned monster,
taken away or diminished, even if it had the
courage.
“ The experience or the humanity of the last
century.” savs Professor F. W. Newman, “ has
*
there was not Me ZeasZ proof of guilt.” (Essai sur les
Mceurs. Henry VIII.)
* Contrasts of Ancient and Modern History, p. 79.—
Taylor, Gower Street; and Holyoake, Fleet Street, 1847.
For my part, I will “ contrast” Henry VIII. with any of
the worst of the Pagan Roman emperors, and of the two. I
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
45
led moralists and all educated persons, heartily to
renounce the ancient and once current doctrine of
Tyrannicide, and upon this has followed the
adoption of milder measures towards unconstitu
tional statesmen. Men possessed of arbitrary
power are no longer driven to despair: and even
the unprincipled become less dangerous.”
Although Professor Newman does not mention
Christianity, yet it seems probable that this has,
in the case in question, really had an influence ;
for surely Tyrannicide is anti-scriptural, and it has
not been so common for only “ one century,” but
for many, as it was under Paganism. But when
reflecting on the conduct of Henry VIII., I cannot
agree with the learned Professor, that the change
in opinion on this matter is an advantage to the
*
community.
Probably be is right in the Pioman
think should have preferred their rule. Under such go
vernment, I should at least have avoided that most disgust
ing and annoying spectacle of every day occurrence, viz., the
sight of people really or only hypocritically religious, and
whose religion taught them that it was right to “ obey a
ruler,” however great a villain he might be ! The Pagans,
at least, were free from such insensate cant. “ The dis
tinction of spiritual and temporal powers,” says Gibbon,
(Chap. xx.). “ which had never been imposed on the free
spirit of Greece and Rome, was introduced by the legal
establishment of Christianity.” According to the same his
torian, (Chap, xvi.) even the Jews, (even after their fre
quent rebellions), were probably still better off than they
are now under our government, since under Antoninus
Pius, they “ could enjoy municipal honours, &c., &c.,”
whereas a Jew cannot sit in our parliament.
* As since 1847, the Professor seems to have become
less inclined to adopt even the Unitarian view of Chris
tianity, it is not impossible, that if the work quoted reap
pears in a second edition, he will modify this and many
other opinions in it, which appears to me inseparable from
even the Unitarian belief of Christianity.
�46
LETTERS TO
and Greek tyrants having been driven “ to (the
ferocity of) despair” by it; but still, as I apprehend,
the crimes of Henry VIII., (though necessarily on
a smaller scale as being in a smaller country), are
fully equal to those of the worst of the Pagan
Roman emperors, I think as the English people
could not have suffered much more by such
“ despair ” they would have been better off in
not having regarded Tyrannicide in such a case,
as a heinous sin.
On this point then, again, I insist that Chris
tianity lias, in reality, been actually disadvantageous
to the world ; though I would by no means be
understood as considering lyranuicide justifiable,
except in such extreme cases as those of a
Henry VIII., a Nero, or Caligula
*
Nor even,
* Another point that suggests itself is, the very short
time, (as likewise Elagabalus after him), that this emperor
was allowed to pursue his enormities, viz., only four years,
being killed at the age of twenty-nine; and even the first
years of this short reign were passed in doing good,
viz., suppressing “ informers,” and by repealing some of
the unjust convictions produced by the suspicion that poi
soned the mind of Tiberius in his latter years. Again—
though Nero, at the age of thirty-three, was forced to
suicide, and reigned (like Domitian) 14 or 15 years, yet
all agree that the first years of both these emperors also,
were passed in doing good to the empire. It was the same
with Commodus, who only reigned fourteen years before he
was k’dled, and probably would not have been tolerated so
long, had he not been the son of Marcus Aurelius, for his
unprovoked cruelty was abominable. I assert then, that the
reign ofall the really had Roman emperors was, comparatively
speaking, short; and even the one (Tiberius), who reigned
like our Ilenry VIII., above thirty years, did not, like him,
die quietly in bed. To be sure, now and then, some of the
good emperors (as Pertinax and Aurelian) were assassi
nated ; but not more frequently than happens in Christian times
and the long reigns of Augustus, the Antonines, Trajan,
Adrian, Septimius Severus, and Diocletian, show, that the
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
47
indeed, with such characters as these, if the go
vernment be sufficiently strong to punish them by
exile, as the French government proved itself to be
in the case of Charles X. and Louis Philippe, and
subsequently (in reference to the people) under
Napoleon III., in the case of the exiles to Cayenne.
Professor Newman’s opinion, then, and my own;
on this head, may not be different, supposing by
“ milder measures,” he means exile; but not so,
if he would advocate the Christian system taken
literally, viz., unconditional submission as a duty.
It is fair, however, to state in reference to this
point, that as some degree of good seems inevitably
mixed with the bad in all sublunary things—in all
schemes of government, and in all religions—so it
must be admitted, that the same Christian influ
ence which has diminished Tyrannicide, has also
been far more beneficial in rendering it more diffi
cult for a despotic ruler to take away the life of an
innocent man, than it was formerly under the
Pagan system. He must at present pursue the
more round-about plan, and often be obliged to
diminish the number of his victims. I do not,
however, apprehend, that this good can be put in
competition with the evil produced by the very
same influence, viz., the prohibition of Tyrannicide,
under any circumstance whatever, and also of
Infanticide, where infants are born even in a state
of deformity. On the whole, I must decidedly
place the greater respect to preserving human life
among the evil effects of Christianity.
Turning now to the question, whether Chris
tianity has not effected good by abolishing animal
assassination of the good was perhaps even still less com
mon than under Christianity. Had Charles I. and Louis
XVI., been less humane, they would probably not have
been killed.
�48
LETTERS TO
and even human sacrifice, I am inclined to reply
in the affirmative, considering the world generally,
and not the Roman empire in particular. Faley,
*
on this point, merely says :—“ Ithas suppressed the
combats of gladiators, and the impurities of reli
gious rites.” He does not advert in any other
words to the abominable human sacrifices that pre
vailed, more or less, all over the world before its
introduction. At Carthage, among the Druids, the
Hindoos, &c., the introduction of such a religious
system as prohibited these sacrifices was obviously
a benefit, and though Mahomedanism did the same,
it was after Christianity, and perhaps borrowed
from it. But unfortunately Spain in introducing
Christianity into the new world, proceeded by a
svstem of butchery which was as bad, or worse,
than the human sacrifices the new religion put down.
In admitting the utility of Christianity as a
general principle on this point, I have excluded,
as just stated, all reference to the Roman Empire ;
and as the object of this Essay was more especi
ally to compare Pagan with Christian civilization,
this is equivalent to admitting that the introduc
tion of Christianity in the Roman Empire did, in
reality, little good on this point, and lor the
simple reason, that the Romans scarcely ever re
sorted to such barbarities, and even when they did,
prisoners of war (who would otherwise have been
put to death) were used. As, however, wThen a
* (Supposed Effects of Christianity.—Chap, vii.) As
gladiators, generally speaking, were criminals condemned
to death, some of them probably preferred , to perish
during the excitement of fighting rather than await a passive
execution. This system likewise afforded amusement to the
people, and perhaps tended to keep up the courage, more
essential at that period before the use of fire arms. I am
not inclined, therefore, to consider that Christianity was of
service to the world in putting down this custom.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
49
somewhat superstitious Emperor, as Aurelian for
instance, came to the throne, human sacrifices
might be ordered on a severe occasion, Christianity
has the merit of having attacked the very idea,
as unjust or injurious. However, Aurelian only
ordered “some prisoners of war” to be sacrificed.
(See my Remarks on Roman History.}
Although I am inclined to agree with Paley,
that Christianity has had a beneficial influence in
tending to humanize war; yet even this has been
over-rated ; for a change in the spirit of the age
has been very influential, and also for some time,
the fact mentioned by Hallam, viz., the existence
of “ companies of adventure, who, in expectation
of enriching themselves by the ransom of prisoners,
were anxious to save their lives.” He adds:
“ Much of the humanity of modern warfare was
originally due to this motive.”* Thus he informs
us that, in the battle of Zagonara (1423), and
Mohnilla (1467,) not half a dozen! lives were
lost.
This statement of facts will enable us to judge
of the value of Paley’s off-hand assertion on this
point, viz., “ that it has mitigated the treatment
of captives ;”f and “ ex uno, disce ommesf in re
ference also to—“ It has abolished polygamy.”
Now polygamy did not exist under the Roman
* Middle Ages. Chapter III. p. 246.
t Paley, towards the end of Chapter VH., “Finally,
&c., &c.,” introduces “perhaps,” in reference to its having
“ mitigated the conduct of war.” His assertion, shortly
afterwards, that “ it hath ceased to excite wars,” is not
true, as the late religious wars between Catholics and Pro
testants in Switzerland prove. lie had better not have
alluded to this subject, as the less frequency of such wars
now depends on 'faith having evaporated,” as Valerj
says.
D
�50
LETTERS TO
government, either before the introduction of
Christianity, more than after; and Luther himself
seemed inclined to sanction it as not inconsistent
with the Christian faith. Here, then, as well as
in the above case, other causes have assisted more
or less in the present system of monogamy.
But some of Paley’s assertions are altogether
false; such as his quotation from Clarke, stating
that “ Christianity has produced a greater regard
to moral obligations.” He had previously himself
said, “ It begets a general probity in the transac
tion of business
altogether forgetting “Roman
faith,” before its introduction. I have already
said enough to show that it has produced, by
its hypocrisy, exactly the contrary effect.
He puts down, “ The influence of Christianity
is not to be sought in the conduct of governments
towards their subjects * * * but in the silent
course of private and domestic life.” Certainly,
it from the beginning always seemed to “ support
the powers that be,” even under Nero; but it was
secretly trying to upset them. But the truth is,
it has vastly influenced “ the conduct of govern
ments
for, when Constantine was converted, we
find great changes in all the Roman laws, and
often less value put on probity and good faith.
Again: “ Christianity is charged with many
consequences for which it is not responsible. I
believe that religious motives have had no more to
do in the formation of nine-tenths of the intole
rant and persecuting laws, which in different coun
tries have been established on the subject of reli
gion, than they have had to do in England with
the making of the game-laws.” He then proceeds
to say, that “ Christianity did not plant ” the
principle which is at the bottom of all persecu
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
51
tion, viz., that “ they who are in possession of
power do what they can to keep it.”*
No—but Christianity has increased and strength'
ened, though-it has not planted, the intolerant
principle. I no more deny than Paley that some
little of this principle does good (just as does that
of anger or pride) ; but what I contend for is that,
in regard to these two principles of human
nature, the business of the philosopher is to ap
prove of a system that tends to diminish rather
than increase them. He, therefore, cannot approve
of Christianity on this point.
But, though agreeing with Paley, that some
degree of intolerance “is not universally wrong,”
still I must continue to censure the degree of per
plexity which he still further on infuses into this
subject, in order to try and make out that there is
no intolerant spirit in the Christian creed. He
continues: “Believing certain articles of faith to
be highly conducive, or perhaps essential, to salva
tion, they thought themselves bound to bring all
they could, by every means, into them. * * *
Had there been in the New Testament precepts
authorizing coercion in the propagation of the
religion, and the use of violence towards unbe
lievers, this distinction could not have been taken,
nor this defence made.”
Now the Catholics, or any others that believe
* This mode of expression is very objectionable in refe
rence to the intolerant principle, for it would tend to make
out, that all persons, or at least parties, are equally intole
rant, which is certainly not the case. Even when in power,
some certainly are far more disposed than others to princi
ples of justice and toleration, But such way of putting the
case shows an ex-parte lawyer, rather than an impartial
philosopher. It seems written with the intention to intro
duce perplexity into the argument, and to draw from such
perplexity, advantage to his side of the question.
�52
LETTERS TO
the scriptures, must believe that “ certain articles
of faith are essential to salvationand this
underhand attempt of Paley to say they do not
find such doctrine there, is unworthy of him.
Moreover, Christians are “ bound to bring all they
could” into them, for they are commanded to
preach the gospel to the Heathen, and directly or
indirectly made to believe that they themselves will
benefit hereafter, by every such conversion they
make. I do not say scripture exhorts them to do
this “ by every means,” by “ the use of violence
yet it most decidedly advocates mental, though
not bodily, coercion on this point. But this Paley
says nothing about. It suits his side of the argu
ment to forget that ideas govern the material world,
and that when the strongest of all motives, viz.,
eternal happiness hereafter, is inseparably attached
to such ideas, these must sooner or later, some
where or somehow, enforce “ the use of violence ”
Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition was not only
logical, but sincerely and piously Christian, in
attempting to enforce belief by “ the use of vio
lence,” even though this should not be found in
direct terms in the scriptures; for as God, in
these, commands all to believe or to “ perish
hereafter,” it is the duty of man as His creature
to believe; and consequently, if he does not, it
seems that a Christian government, to be conse
quent, should punish him, at all events, by im
prisonment—perhaps even by torture—till he be
lieved. As to actually taking away his life, even
this would seem to be as justifiable as it ever can
be in a truly Christian government, even for the
crimes of robbery or murder.
*
* As one of the chief peculiarities of Christianity is its
greater regard for human life generally than Paganism, I
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
53
Again—Paley remarking and justly, that poli
tical fanaticism, even under Paganism, produced
an immense amount of intolerance that led to
much injustice and bloodshed, says, this was not
due to religious fanaticism, and adds, “ if the
malevolent passions are there, the world will never
want occasions.”
This, too, is a fallacious argument. The ques
tion is still, whether Christianity has not added,
“ by the distinction of spiritual and temporal
powers,” (Gibbon,) a new element of fanaticism,
and that, too, without diminishing the old one.
As it has, it has vastly added to the amount of
that pernicious element—intolerant fanaticism—
“planted in the mind to be diminished rather
than increased, as the Romans wisely observed
when they allowed no such spiritual element in
their institutions. Paley’s argument, then, here
again falls to the ground, though he finishes with
the following passage of great beauty, the reason
ing in which is answered by the above reflections:
“Hath Poland fallen by a Christian crusade ?
Hath the overthrow in France, of civil order and
security, been effected by the votaries of our reli
gion or the foes ? Amongst the awful lessons
winch the crimes and miseries of that country
afford to mankind, this is one ; that in order to be
a persecutor, it is not necessary to be a bigot;
that in rage and cruelty, in mischief and destruc
tion, fanaticism itself can be outdone by infidelity.”
conceive that no truly Christian government is authorized
to use capital punishments, for any offence or crime what
ever. So called Christian governments have acted no doubt
in this case from what t7ze?/ consider motives of actual neces
sity for the good of society. But, perhaps, the more perfect
Christian should not even recognize this as an adequate
reason, for “ his kingdom is not of tliis world.”
�54
LETTERS TO
As the reader will find this assertion, that the
French Revolution, and the crimes that attended
it, depended on a want of faith in Christianity,
refuted I think fully in my next Letter, I shall
only now state, that religious “ fanaticism was
not outdone in this case by infidelitybecause,
though the atrocities committed seemed as great
as in some of the religious wars, yet there is this
essential distinction between them, viz., that they
seemed necessary, in the opinion of those in power,
for the very existence of the republic; and, con
sequently, to the improvement which was at least
attempted in the condition of the great mass of
the people by this change of government; whereas
all the atrocities committed in the religious wars
of Christians, have, of course, never had the
praiseworthy motive of an attempt to benefit the
temporal interests of the masses for their cause :
no, it has, even in the best way of viewing it, been
a desire to benefit their supposed eternal and
spiritual interests. Now, as the possibility of
this is mere matter of conjecture—however much
to be wished—it is clear that there is less reason
than eloquence in the passage of Paley last quoted.
“ Christianity,” says Paley, “ has greatly me
liorated the condition of the mass of every com
munity, by procuring for them a day of weekly
rest.”
I have already said enough to show that the
way in which the British and American govern
ments enforce the observance of this day, render
it little advantage to the labouring classes, com
pared with what it is in Roman Catholic, and even
the Lutheran countries on the continent. Paley,
himself, ought to have said this even as a Protes
tant; on the contrary, his way of writing might
almost induce an ignorant person to conceive that
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
55
our government gave the populace wages on this
day, in order to live without work. Compared
with Paganism, it did no good in this respect, for
Pagans had their fixed festas.
Although Paley notices the certainty of a future
state, among the benefits promised by Christianity,
yet he does not state it so pointedly as might have
been expected from him.
For my own part, I should have placed this
among its very greatest benefits, if, instead of re
wards for mere faith, it had promised with certainty
rewards for virtuous deeds. And it is singular
that this otherwise useful doctrine should be
preached with such certainty in the New Testa
ment, when almost every other point, which might
be useful, is left in so much ambiguity, that it
loses its value as a divine command. This doctrine
is vitiated, then, in another way, viz., by the pre
sumed merit of mere faith.
When I reflect on this, I must prefer the future
state proclaimed by Paganism, notwithstanding its
defect of not having apparently been so certainly
set forth as a means of rewarding virtue or punish
ing crime. Christianity, in this case, errs, by
making that virtue, which is not so; and the
same in regard to vice.
I have already been obliged to remark on the
great disadvantage the ambiyuity in the meaning
of the scriptures has occasioned to the world.
This has, in a great measure, been the cause of
the enormous amount of slaughter between Chris
tian sects. And, in closing these remarks on
Paley, I feel myself called on again to state ano
ther evil occasioned by this ambiguity; I allude
to the opposite opinions whether Christianity
forbids war altogether, only in some degree, or
not at all.
�56
LETTERS TO
Paley, finding that Jesus Christ dismisses the
Roman Centurion without censuring his profession
as a soldier, embraces the opinion commonly held
by Christians on this point, viz., that Christianity
does not forbid war.
For my own part, I think he might, with the
Quakers, more reasonably have embraced the
opposite view. At all events, had he placed the
denunciation of all but defensive war among the
doctrines of Christianity, he would have added a
point in its favour, greater perhaps than any of
those he has mentioned in such an off-hand way,
as though clearly preached by it, when in reality
they admit of as much, or even more, doubt than
this in regard to war.
Perhaps Paley, however, justly omitted it; for
he could not but observe, that had he taken the
literal interpretation of scripture (as a mere theo
logical writer is bound to do) he would find on
this point, equally as I have said in regard to a
future state, a radical defect, viz., that it would
not even allow mere defensive war. Surely no
one can doubt that this is a fair inference, when a
man struck on one cheek is commanded to turn
the other also.
I shall terminate this third Letter by some re
marks on a writer who has written after Paley,
and “illustrated” him.
Lord Brougham’s Chapter on Religious Estab
*
lishments comprises only about nine pages. In
it we find the heads “ Established Religion In
compatible with Democracy,” and that “ Estab
lished Religion secures Instruction.” In reference
to this last point, I may observe, that no doubt it
does, but not always that kind of instruction which
* Political Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 125.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
57
is most desirable for the good of the community,
as I shall presently show more in detail.
I shall now proceed to make some extracts
which will give an idea of his opinions on this
most important subject, annexing thereto my own
humble comments.
1. —“ Experience proves that religion is a sub
ject on "which the bulk of men feel, and do not
reason.”* (128.) We have found, and shall find
further on, proofs enough of the truth of this
maxim ; and I am sorry to add in Lord Brougham’s
own case. It is perhaps in consequence of a belief
in this melancholy truth, that Lord B. has always
laid aside his reason, for the time, when he has
ventured to speak on the subject of religion.
2. —None of Brougham’s three objections to a
church establishment (and which, be it observed,
he himself refutes)! will apply to Deism, consi
dered as the religion of the state. Itistobeobserved
that he does not place among the objections the
Dissenter having to contribute to a church estab
lishment in which he has no faith, because this
may be supposed applicable to a purely voluntary
system ; “ for the dissenters,” says he, “ pav if
they choose, and the persons who do pay, (sup
posing there is no establishment) pay by so much
the more than those who do not'' (p. 129.)
3. —“In several of the American Commonwealths
every one was obliged to pay his tax to the state,
which gave it over to the minister of whose sect the
* And the worst feature in our “ Protestantism” is, that
it has pretended to use full reason on the subject, yet has
only gone half way, and hence increased the amount of
cant and self-importance with us, and in reality contributed
little to the freedom of the mind.
t I say “ refutes,” because, as he puts the case, he does
refute them, but not so in reality. It is all sophistry.
D 2
�58
LETTERS TO
contributor was a member.” This Brougham con
*
siders the only state religion possible in a Demo
cracy. But as it compels every man to choose a
sect, it might, says he, be objected to by advocates
of a pure Democracy.
Brougham finds the same injustice in the perfectly voluntary principle (No. 2) that has been
attributed to church establishments, viz., that
“ whoever wishes to save his money, will be able
to benefit by the churches which his more liberal
neighbour supports.” (p. 130.)
But as I do not approve of a perfectly volun
tary system, neither this objection nor the one
mentioned in the last page (2) will apply to that
still voluntary system (so to call it) in which a
man is only obliged to pay to the form of religion
in which he believes, or if he confess himself an
Atheist, let him pay to the professors of morality in
the university, whose teachings benefit him as well
as the community at large. Brougham, finding tha.t
the voluntary svstem (No. 3) cannot be attacked on
the same grounds, has, in his feeble defence of
church establishments, quite left this out of his
argument!
One would think on reading this section, that
there could be no other form of Christianity than
Trinitarian Protestantism, and, of course, no other
religion than Christianity itself. Deism, or at
least Unitarianism, (which yet is probably the
religion of Lord Brougham, as it always lias been
of the leading thinkers in all ages,) is not even
alluded to. Now, I maintain that his argument
would have been much stronger had he said a
rational religion should be the religion of the
state, for then, as every person must, or ought to
* Political Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 127.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
59
believe in it, he will be only paying to a religion
in which he has, or ought to have, faith. Every
man—even an Atheist—must, in a certain sense,
be a Deist, for he must acknowledge the existence
of a Power he cannot wholly comprehend, or else
he is mad. But when Christianity, and above all,
Trinitarianism, is made the state religion, and we
are required to believe in this, and also that the
morality Christianity teaches is always more just
and pure than that of natural religion, and to
pay for such church establishment because it con
fers an advantage on us, the case is perfectly
altered. The doctrine of the most heinous sins
being expiated by repentance, and that uncon
ditional submission is virtue, are tenets which tend
to increase the mass of crime in the world, as Lord
Brougham would no doubt admit, did his position
as a peer allow him to do so. His words, then,
“ religious instruction, and the moral instruction
that always accompanies it,” (p. 129,) area mere
specimen of the cant in matters of religion that per
vades his class, and which even he—bold thinker
as he is in political matters—is not bold enough
to oppose. It is the same with Cobden and others
— all fear to attack the Christian religion more than
other grievances, for this is the foundation one.
We must, however, mark with care his conclud
ing passage on this subject. “ In the deductions
which we have stated * * we have made no allow
ance for the ultimate effects of education. In no
respect are these more fit to be considered than in
their connection with religion. * * But this forms
a separate subject, and as yet we have been through
out considering the state of society as we at pre
sent find it.” (p. 134.)
This extract will prepare us for the following,
which is perhaps the most truly eloquent passage
�GO
LETTERS TO
in the volume. It is at the close of this that his
real views seem almost unconsciously forced out
by the momentary fervour of his soul.
*
Looking forward, like Condorcet, to the future,
when “popular education” shall have done its
utmost, he says, it is pleasing to anticipate that
period, in which “ graceless zealots should con
tend no more for useless forms of faith, nor
political fanatics for forms of government; when
devotion to the Creator should cease to be testified
by discharity towards His creatures, and wretched
abstract dogmas to obstruct the progress of all the
* A truly Ciceronian passage, which should be read from
the beginning. I am glad also to be able to agree with
Lord Brougham in the following, where he calls bribery
“ the pest of corruption, which now threatens our national
morals, as well as the purity of our parliamentary system,
and the existence of our free constitution; nay, which
makes many good men, in balancing the advantages of a
free and an absolute government, hesitate which to prefer,
while they find that a popular constitution can only be pur
chased by the ruin of all morals." (Vol. III., p. 318.)
These remarks were written in 1846 ; and our recent elec
tions show that we are just as bad in respect to bribery
now, viz., in 1854. Writers may talk as they please of the
dishonesty pervading the United States ; it cannot well be
worse than among ourselves, including all ranks, classes,
and sexes ; there being of course many honourable excep
tions in both countries. And yet with all this, the American
population and ourselves are ostensibly the most demure
and pious Christians in the world! This consideration
should have induced Lord Brougham to make some free
remarks on the connexion of the Christian religion with
morality, instead of writing down, as we have seen he has
done, The established religion secures instruction!” I
apprehend he could have found (strange to say) very little
in it which tended to forbid cheating (or bribery) or false
hood of any kind. Charity and chastity and faith, are no
doubt eulogised; but justice—the “queen of virtues ”—
is forgotten! Surely, after this, no candid man will say
reform is not wanted in religion.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Cl
light that most improves, refines, and exalts our
species.” (p. 170.)
Now, I will put it to any impartial person,
whether the passages which I have purposely
marked in italics, do not lead to the belief that,
in his sincere and reasonable moments, when un
oppressed by the conventionalisms around him,
the noble Lord acknowledges only the sublime
religion of the Deist; and that he embraces the
absurdity of the Trinity himself, and recommends
it as a religion for the multitude, only so long as
popular ignorance continues.
Although, therefore, he has not said so, it
appears he may be regarded as considering Chris
tianity a salutary “check” on our mixed govern
ment, under which great ignorance prevails among
the masses, and great knowledge among isolated
individuals. In this view he may be conscientious,
but I think wrong ; but it is certain, that the state
of public opinion on matters of religion in Britain,
has made him far too concise, ambiguous, and I
might add insincere, on this subject generally.
But as education has been so widely diffused
among the Americans, the remark just made will
not apply to them; and their leading men ought
at once boldly to confess their true religious senti
ments to the masses of the people.
In confirmation of what was said above, I ob
serve the following passage, which tends also to
show what Lord Brougham’s real opinions are on
the subject.
“ The existence of a state church may therefore
become much less indispensable when the people
are so much improved (by education) as to remove
those mischiefs and dangers, which we had occa
sion to contemplate.” (p. 171.) He alludes to
pages 125, &c.
�62
LETTERS TO
But if a nation is to improve gradually in such
matters, it is surely high time that our form of
Christianity for the State should be Unitarian,
and that Lord Brougham himself advocate this
change (or reform} ; supposing him to hold the
opinion that Deism is at present too metaphysical
a religion for a people even perfectly educated.
Our populace were spurred, in a great measure,
to the revolution under Charles the First, and
also to that of 1G88, by a fear of the return of
Popery (Brougham, p. 277-291); it remains to
*
be seen how they would receive a religion of
reason in reality, for the present Protestantism is
only so in appearance, and that only to the most
superficial thinkers.
I cannot close this Letter better than by a re
flection, drawn fairly I think from the preceding
summary of Lord Brougham’s printed opinions on
Religious Establishments. It is this, viz., that
with all our boasted freedom of the press in this
a Protestant country, as compared with Catholic
countries, we are still wrong in holding the opinion
without admitting the exception of members of
the House of Lords and of the Commons, and
also the vast majority of the British nation.
I say it with no disrespect to Lord Brougham,
but it is clear from the guarded and almost ambi
guous way in which this writer ventures his very
freest views on religion, that opinion has not
* “Religious fury." So much for the blessing of Chris
tianity to Britain. It had a great share in our two revolu
tions, and in its practical operation as regards the people
and their amusements, the conquered form of Christianity
(viz., Catholicism) was the most rational and liberal.
Witness also the wars between Catholics and Protestants
in Switzerland, caused, however, partly by faults in the
constitution. (Brougham, p. 402.)
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
63
allowed him in this Protestant country to write as
freely as Beccaria did in a Catholic country. To
give only two or three examples.
“ Il suicidio e un delitto die sembra non potere
ammettere una pena propriamente detta” i.e.,
that suicide does not justly appear to admit of
punishment. To showing this he devotes Sect,
xxxv., Dei Delitti.
Again—“ Allora religione, dec , de." i.e., “ the
Christian religion, by holding up to the criminal
such an easy repentance, tends to diminish the
power of human laws to punish crime.” (Sect,
xvi.) This is clearly his meaning.
Again, in his preface—“ Non tutto cio, de.,” i.e.,
natural religion does not require all that revealed
religion does.
Again—he objects to the discretionary power of
the sovereign to pardon crimes. {Idem., Sect,
xx.)
But, above all, to show the admirable frankness
and honesty of the Catholic above the Protestant
writer, I would refer to Sect, xxxvii. “ Ma gli
nomini, de., de.," i.e., “but reasonable men will
see that the place, the age, and the subject, do
not permit me to speak plainly.” He is speaking
“ against all attempts to use force on the mind in
matters of religion, of wrhich the sole effects, says
he, are first dissimulation, then base avilement.”
These words were written so long ago, in “ a des
potic and Catholic country,” and apparently too
without injury to Beccaria, (who, be it also re
membered, belonged like Brougham to the upper
class,) even by opinion, as he died at Milan, and
a statue has been placed to his honour on the
staircase of the public Library there. They
apply equally even now to the Christian oath re
quired bv our House of Commons, as the Jews
�64
LETTERS TO
know too well. On the contrary, Lord Brougham,
who could not have written as freely as the above,
never hints a word about opinion not allowing him
to speak out! This again comes from our selfsufficiency and Protestant cant—this real mockery
of real liberty!
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
65
LETTER IV.
Citizens,—If, in the heat of composition, I have
let a few expressions drop that may appear wanting
in courtesy, I beg you now not to take the same in
bad part, since I am well aware that you drew your
religion from the “ Old Mother Country,” and
that your separation from it was very shortly
afterwards followed by the French Revolution, in
which some of the leaders openly denounced
religion of every description.
Now, it is natural for us all to respect the reli
gion of our parents, be it right or wrong ; and as
it was the fashion of many writers, both here and
in America, to attribute the unjustifiable scenes in
France to the writings of the Deists and Atheists,
who preceded the outbreak, (but as I shall show
presently without foundation,) it was no wonder
that during the Presidency of Washington and
Adams, your more just and virtuous citizens, in
sisted on the recognition—at least by opinion—of
some form or other of Christianity, as absolutely
necessary to the foundation of your Republic.
But I beg you to remember that, supposing this
reasoning were just in 1794, it will not at all
events be so to the same extent now. At that
time there was a well grounded fear that the Re
public itself, even with this supposed assistance
from Christianity, was impossible ; now it is esta
blished beyond any fear of its falling, at all events
�66
LEITERS TO
from external foes. Consequently, now seems the
time for the nation which has done so much to
wards establishing a system of political justice, to
attempt a real advancement in the same direction
in matters of religious liberty.
*
On this subject Cox justly says, that in some
respects “ our Sabbath sanctity ” took its rise
about sixty years ago, when the atrocities and
follies of the French Revolution, and especially
the abolition for a time of the hebdomadal festival
of Christians, gave an impulse in this country to
unwonted strictness in the observance of religious
ordinances. (Cox, p. 335.)
Again—George Combe to the same effect, (p.
338,) “ People at that time thought that by such
Puritanical conduct they tended to give greater
security to property by preventing revolution;”
and, adds Combe, “ one or probably two genera
tions must pass, before reason will again exert
any salutary influence over religious opinion in
Scotland.”
Bishop Watson also was prevented by this re
vulsion in public feeling from introducing “ a
Bill for Expunging the Athanasian Creed from
our Liturgy,” {Op. Cit., p. 338 ;) and so it re
mains there unheeded still—an example of the
slowness with which reason always marches in the
* The misunderstanding between Thomas Paine and
Washington was also to be deplored for the interests of
rational Theism ; since the Americans naturally enough
take the side of the latter, (as the great man who emanci
pated them,) and as he at least publicly (though not pri
vately) supported Christianity, this increases the disposition
of Americans to do the same, and make them think this
hypocrisy is really for the public good. Although pious
Christians will, of course, dislike the style of Paine’s Age
of Reason, there is no doubt of its literary merit or its
.reason.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
67
world. Cox furnishes three or four pages, show
ing the prevalence of the same feeling, until at
last we find the Scotch Assembly actually wished
to prevent the population “ from wandering in the
fields or frequenting scenes of recreation ” on the
Sabbath, (p. 341,) and that too so late as 1834!
What would the rational Catholicism of France,
and let me now add Piedmont, (at least in many
practical points,) think of such twattie ? I
consider, Protestants as we call ourselves, we are
in very to any respects behind Catholics like these.
It is clear, then, that Britain, even at ^pre
sent time, has scarcely got free from the effects on
her religion of that nightmare—the first French
Revolution; and no doubt the same may be said
of the United States. But, at all events, it is
time they both should; and the late immense asso
ciation (1855) in Hyde Park on a Sunday, to pro
test against all such barbarous cant, was a good
omen, and an honour to the British public.
I shall now proceed to show briefly the errone
ousness and short-sightedness of the view which
attributes the revolution in question to the writings
of Montesquieu, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, and
others.
And, in the first place, I would ask,—if these
writings induced men to act as well as to think,—
how is it that the writings of Bolinbroke, Hume,
Gibbon, Earl of Chatham, George Combe, the
*
* His Letter on Superstition, (already alluded to, p. 5,)
and he too with his vast influence, as Prime Minister ! As
I see no notice of this Letter in Lord Brougham’s States
men, and as one of his last speeches contains thoughts at
least rather favourable to Christianity than otherwise, it
seems right to consider this Letter as private ; or written
for posthumous publication. Would that all the Peers and
Commons, who thought like him, did the same! and then
what volumes on volumes we should have!
�68
LETTERS TO
author of the Vestiges, (and others, as Paine’s in
a more offensive style to orthodox Christians,)
though in circulation to the extent of thousands
of thousands of copies for very many years past,
have not been sufficient to produce any change
whatever in the laws affecting Christianity in this
country, or hardly even in those usages which
depend on opinion only ? A revolution in reli
gion indeed !—why they have not sufficed, even in
those who are converts to the rational and just
views of these writers ! to make the majority of
such people, or even the minority, change the
hypocritical system of considering music, draughts,
or chess on the Sunday improper.
*
The common
cry with such men (in private) is, our religion is
no doubt not of divine origin, but what harm does
it do ? Let us, therefore, follow it, and respect
all the prejudices of the vulgar as regards the
Sabbath.
I will venture to say that this
is still the reasoning, of at least ninety out
of every hundred of confirmed unbelievers in
Britain, such great penalties are attached socially
to disbelief. As already observed, the same views
Posthumous confessions are better than none at all; and
become a man’s duty, when opinion forces us to live in
such miserable hypocrisy. Volume of truth after volume
would surely at last conquer even opinion !
“ Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed sage cadendo."
My chief motive for publishing this Work is to add a
drop or mite, fully satisfied that thousands more will be
wanting.
* In the prospectus of the St. James’s Club, opened
about three years ago in St. James’s Square, was printed:—
No games (including the above) allowed on Sunday. On
meeting one of the members some time after, I was sur
prised to find the house shut up, but not so surprised at
the cause of it, which was, that the saintly manager who
penned, or was concerned in penning, the above, was off
with all the funds lie could collect.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
69
prevail in the States—upheld too by opinion
only !
Now all this shows that the Anglo-Saxons are,
as Parker says—in opposition to the Germans—
a practical people. They have hitherto had an
idea that Christianity does good, as the unbelievers
Frederick the Great, Washington, and perhaps
Jefferson had ; and, consequently, that it is for
the public benefit, that such religion should be
dominant.
Even Voltaire, in comparing the Stoicism of
the Ancients with primitive Christianity, speaks
favourably of the latter ; and Rousseau does the
same in his Emile. Voltaire’s satire was aimed
chiefly at the Catholics ; and Rousseau’s eloquence
directed rather against the truth than the utility
of the creed. Accordingly, his apostle Robespierre
was very tolerant to Christians, and all who pro
fessed religion of some sort, even when himself
advocating the Deistic form -of worship. The
massacres which took place while he was in power
and cast such a blot on his name, seem the off
spring of fear and suspicion, in consequence of
the want of confidence in the strength of his own
government. Certainly religion was scarcely at
all concerned in them.
*
* Lewis’s Zz/e of Robespierre, (with my commentary
M.S.) Robespierre’s hatred was directed only against the
Atheistic party—the party who had, in 1793, so shamelessly
set up the u Goddess of Reason ” in the shape of a beau
tiful woman crowned with evergreens, and in apparent
mockery of all religious service, as well also as of Reason
itself, and consequently of themselves, made it a part of
this religious service! for the President publicly to embrace
her. This blasphemy fortunately only lasted a few months ;
and I must consider that D'flolbac, Diderot, and Meslier,
whose writings probably led to it, would, as conscientious
Atheists, have been as much disgusted at such an indirect
�70
LETTERS TO
Thus much by way of showing that in France
as in Britain, Christianity was not, even by its
most determined opponents, regarded with aversion
as doing actual harm; for these men naturally
enough, blinded by the force of opinion of the
age, could not see it as Tacitus could in its true
colours, when he called it a “ pernicious super
stition.” {Exitiabilis Superstitio.} {Ann., Book
xv.) Suetonius too speaks of it in a similar spirit
of reprobation, and calls it malefica, and seems
by such term to think it merited either punish
ment or contempt. {Life of Nero, Sect. 16.)
These writers had clearly scarcely heard of Christ,
and as Tacitus puts down the supposed miracles
*
of Vespasian, he was the man to have inserted
those of Jesus, had they been known to the edu
cated.
Our French neighbours, though less practical
than ourselves, would never have been inclined to
fight to put down a mere opinion, especially when
their great literary champions, Voltaire and Rous
seau, told them such opinion did no harm. All
in accordance with this, we find it was rather the
large sums they had to pay such Christian priests
than the Theology of these men, that most in
mockery of their system, as the Deists themselves were at
such scoffing at all religion; since they wrote in earnest,
and were men of conviction, who at least saw nothing
ridiculous in Deism. Thiers, justly therefore, considers it
was a great change for the better when the inscription on
the churches “ To Reason ” was effaced, and that to “ The
Supreme Being ” substituted. But Robespierre himself
fell very soon after this change, (in July, 1794,) hated and
plotted against, by this Atheistic party, to the last—a proof
of the great intolerance in human nature, and that Chris
tianity does not cause it, though it vastly increases it.
* He clearly believed in Divination, {Ann. vi., 22,)
hence probably in Prophecy.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
71
creased the discontent, as Mignet properly says in
his History of this French Revolution. In con
sequence, ameliorations were made in this respect
even before Louis XVI. was beheaded; and we
also find before that event, that “ a majority of
the clergy, chiefly parish priests, joined the nation
or the tiers etatf
*
It is true we find lower down
in the same page, that “ a minority of the clerical
chamber chiefly bishops, and high benefced
clergy,” refused to do so, and opposed the King,
whom Paine calls “ a man of a good heart,” when
he attempted to promote “ fusion ” between the
higher, middle, and lower classes. This took
place in 1 789-90, and shows that the majority of
the clergy were favourable to a free constitution ;f
and that the part which opposed it, did so for the
same reason that some of the nobles opposed it,
and quite irrespective of the question of religion'
As the bulk of the clergy, then, joined the tiers
etat or the popular side, at the very beginning of
the revolution, this must naturally have disposed
the revolutionary leaders, if not to friendship, at
all events to a sort of indifference or non-hostility
to them. And, consequently, a desire to upset
the Christian religion and to establish another in
its place, cannot be numbered among the actual
causes of the revolution.
I have admitted that the more material question
(to the populace always so) of the pay of the
clergy, might have been so concerned. The other
causes concerned were, like this, of a completely
* Vales’s Life of Paine. {Steps to the French Revolution.)
p. 87.
7
t The clergy who had proved themselves the earliest
and steadiest friends of freedom,” (viz., by junction with
the Tiers-Etat.) Sir A. Alison’s History of Europe, chap.
�72
LETTERS TO
practical character, and still less connected with
the philosophy of Rousseau or Voltaire. They
were, 1 and 2, the great scarcity of bread, and
the embarrassed state of the government finances ;
*
so that while the lower classes could not get food,
the higher classes could not get money—the
money owed to them by government. Add to
these the Sovereign’s power of sending parties to
the bastile without trial, the fact that all classes
considered themselves over-taxed, and that
Lafayette with victorious troops had just arrived
from a successful revolutionary war in America,
and we shall have adequate causes for revolution,
in any country, and still more so in the military
and highly susceptible French nation.
We flatter ourselves with the idea, that no revo
lution takes place in Britain, in consequence, as
* “ Within six months after the revolution broke out,
the revenue had fallen from £24,000,000 to £17,000,000
a year, and that at the very time when the embarassment
of the finances had been the principal cause of the convo
cation of the States-General. No resource could be found
to meet the pressing difficulties of the Exchequer, owt the
confiscation of the property of the church, and subsequently
that of the emigrant nobles.” (Sir A. Alison s History,
chap xv., p. 225.) This confirms what I have before said,
viz., that the state of the finances (conjoined with famine
and general political tyranny) was the cause of the out
break, and at this time the property of the clergy was only
taken, “ because no other resource could be found to
meet the difficulty.
M. Mounier, Lords Jeffrey and Brougham, though diliering on some minor points, may be said to agree as to the
principal causes being those given in the text, and also to
a^ree in considering the writings of Voltaire, Rousseau,
and others, as little; if at all, concerned in the outbreak.
Neither does Lord Brougham, in his notice of Robespierre,
ascribe the subsequent murderous scenes of the revolution
to the want of faith in Christianity of those m power.
(Brougham’s French Revolution and its Leaders, pp. 4, 7.)
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
73
our journalists say, of the “ great national respect
for law,” and some add for religion. Now, all
this is fallacy, as the unsuccessful Kennington
Common Demonstration in 1848 sufficiently
evinced. It is at once refuted by the immense
extent of poverty in this country ; for it would
be absurd to suppose that our labourers and
mechanics would not better by revolution their too
often truly miserable condition—if they thought
they would be able. Here lies the secret of tran
quillity with us. It too is material. It is want
of power. Our British mobs have never been
able to succeed against our disciplined British
military.
Favourable circumstances make revolutions
much oftener than abstract writers. If Lafayette
and his soldiers had not returned victorious to
France, it is not improbable, even with famine and
debt staring them in the face, the French might
have been quiet. But here were means to an end.
And certainly Voltaire and Rousseau might have
written with the same result to France, that our
own philosophical writers, formerly named, have
done to Britain, had not famine and debt arrived
at the same time, and caused much more general
discontent, than a false system of Theology.
Southey was one who considered the toleration
of such writings as those of the French philoso
phers led to the French revolution. But this is
not true, said Lord Byron. “ Every French
writer of any freedom was persecuted. Voltaire
and Rousseau were exiles; Marmontel and Diderot
were sent to the bastile. In the next place, the
French Revolution was not occasioned by any
writings whatever, but must have occurred had no
such writers ever existed. The cause of it is ob
vious—the government exacted too much, and the
E
�71
LETTERS TO
people could neither bear nor give more. Without
this the Encyclopedists might have written their
fingers off, without the slightest alteration. * *
Acts, on the part of government, and not writings
against them, have caused the past convulsions ”*
I have little doubt that neither the religious
writings of Voltaire nor of Rousseau, were con
cerned in this outbreak, as is commonly asserted.
Neither certainly were the political writings of
Voltaire; for, like myself, he seems to have advo
cated a strong government, and perfect equality
of all religions only, and not of men. But as
regards the political writings of Rousseau, I am
not quite so certain. I think his doctrine of the
“ equality of men ” may have tended to produce
the outbreak, as I have admitted further on, Robes
pierre’s very high admiration of these political
writings tended to increase the amount of whole
sale murders and atrocities. But as this doctrine
of equality had been advocated by Lycurgus, by
Plato, by Sir T. More, (Utopia.) and to still fur
ther extent, and still more ably perhaps, by these
men than by Rousseau, we must not put too much
stress even on these political writings : and though
we admit some influence to them, still this does
not affect my argument, which is, that Rousseau
and Voltaire’s religious (or irreligious) writings
were not the cause of it, in other words that it
was not caused by a general disbelief in Chris
tianity.
Having made it appear clear that the theological
writings of the French philosophers did not cause
the revolution, we may now enter more in detail
into that second most important point of inquiry,
viz., whether the suppression of Christianity after
* Notes to the Vision of Judgment.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
75
the revolution had fairly began, was the cause of
the wholesale murders and atrocities committed.
And, in the first place, that this was not the
cause of Louis the XVI. being so unjustly put to
death, (any more so than in the case of our own
Charles I.,) is clear from the fact, that it was not
till after this period that Christianity was sup
pressed in France.
We come, then, at once to the constitution of
1793. But, as Lord Brougham says, this was far
more Democratic than the one of 1795, which
succeeded it; and both were far more so than the
present constitution of the United States. {Poli
tical Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 105.)
Now, if Legislators can be so absurd as to at
tempt to launch a people into the wildest Demo
cracy immediately after such people have only
been used to a monarchy, does it not follow at once
(setting all change of religion aside for the mo
ment) that such a people, especially those of
so excitable a nature as the French, must at once
launch into the wildest and most criminal ex
cesses ? Jefferson, and all the best writers, have
held the opinion that people should be gradually
accustomed to liberty. Yet in open defiance of
this wise truth, the brench in their revolution of
1793, equally as in the last of 1848 ! attempted
to rush at once from Monarchy to Red Republi
canism, or Socialism ! The consequence has been
they have as signally failed the last as the first
time ; the only difference is, that they have im
proved in humanity by the sad experience of ’93.
*
* I feel that Christian opponents may, with an appear
ance of justice, ascribe this amelioration to the open pro
fession of Catholicism which was made by Lamartine and
some of the other leaders of the Revolution of 1848. But
still we must not forget the improved spirit of the age
�76
LETTERS TO
The bloody murders, then, in this year were the
consequence of a ¿first clumsy experiment in new
government, and the necessary consequence not
of the absence of the Christian religion, but of
the presence of actual anarchy.
In order to consider this point fully, I shall
refer again to the Political Philosophy, (p. 116,)
where we find it asserted that “ the worst effect of
popular government is, that the supreme power is
placed in irresponsible hands. The people exer
cise their office, accountable to no earthly tribunal.
Each individual, too, forms so inconsiderable a
part in the body which decides in any instance,
that he feels little or no responsibility to rest upon
him even as regards his own conscience. As for
public opinion, from the nature of the thing, it
exists not, the people themselves being those
whose sentiments are meant when public cpinion
is spoken of. * * The people can only dread
having their conduct exposed, or made hateful or
despicable in their own eyes, in a moment of calm
reflection. This resembles rather the feeble check
which conscience imposes upon a tyrant or a***
***
already alluded to, and also tlie history of the Republic
of 1795, in which a great improvement took place as re
gards humanity, and which Republic lasted without any
established religion at all for some years, till it was put
down by actual force on the part of Buonaparte. And,
after all, the amelioration in 1848 was not all that could
be wished, for there were many brutal individual murders
committed, and the mass of the Socialists who fought
against the illustrious General Cavaignac, (a moderate,
rational, and honest Republican,) were perhaps in reality
little better than well disciplined robbers, (if they will excuse
me the expression.) Instead of many murders at the
Guillotine, in detail so to speak, in this revolution, there
were many on a wholesale scale, which removes our horror
at them in some respect, as we seem to contemplate two
armies fighting against each other.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
77
patrician oligarchy, than the restraining voice of
public opinion
*
It would be exactly the same in
its operation, with that shadowy restraint of con
science, were it not that men are prone to suspect
and distrust each other, and that people will
naturally enough look forward to the risk that
some of their own body may reprobate the pro
ceeding in contemplation. But it is not only that
the holders of supreme power in a Democracy are
placed beyond the reach of censure ; they are like
wise secure from all personal risk. * * Their
excesses may prove in the result detrimental to
themselves, but they can never be visited with
vengeance by the victims of their wrong. The
tyrant most fenced about with guards, is always
in proportion to his supremacy subject to fear—
* In p. 118 he applies all this to the “ popular leader.”
“ He is secure of the approval of his own side, and he
looks not beyond it. For him, therefore, there exists no
such tribunal as the public, and no public opinion can have
any influence in controlling liis proceedings."
I consider all this as somewhat inconsistent with what he
says at p. 121, viz., that a Democracy is often unfavourable
to “ free discussion in points of their highest interest.” In
truth, all writers on America, as Brougham admits else
where, say and say justly, that the tyranny of opinion is
the greatest defect of the Republican form of government.
Jefferson himself calls it the “Lord of the Universe.”
The President of the States, far from being too lit tle, is far
too much, under the influence of this power ; by it, he is
often degraded to yield to the most unjust and lowest pre
judices of the mob. The great Jefferson, though a Deist,
could not make public profession beyond Unitarianism ;
and no President could go further in free thought on this
subject, even at the present day. However, this defect is
not confined to a Republic ; it will exist also in any govern
ment that considers itself free. For instance, in England,
the power of opinion is still greater (as the late “ beard
and moustache movement” shows) than in the States on
such minor points as these, equally as on religious
questions.
�78
LETTERS TO
his appointed punishment. Many an act is thus
prevented, and many a pain is thus endured. * *
“ The sufferer who is oppressed by a tyrant or
an oligarchy has the sympathy of the people.
This is withheld from him who is the people’s
victim ; and this has always been felt as an aggra
vation of the wrongs which popular caprices in
flict. * * The cruelty of the Parisian multi
tude, during the reign of Terror, was raised to a
pitch altogether unendurable by their savage
exultation in the destruction of those patriots and
sages who had devoted the best energies of their
lives to the service of the people.
*
*
*
*
“ No man dares breathe a whisper against the
prevailing sentiments, (when one party in a Demo
cracy has been fully established.
)
*
* * The
agitators in the French Revolution were only safe
if they adopted the most violent causes that were
propounded. Robespierre succeeded by going
beyond all others, (Lord Brougham means in
public executions,) in his public life.” (The in
ference from this passage, then, is that Robespierre
was goaded to such excesses by fear of the people.)
* In allusion to this mob despotism, he asks in the next
page, (121,) “Who in England will show the difficulty of
carrying on the government without some nomination
boroughs? No one has dared,—and why? Because
the people, whose highest interests require full and deliberate
discussion (on this point,) will not permit it to be so much
as mentioned.” This remark seems far more applicable to
the question of reform in religion, both in England and
America : yet with his usual caution on this topic, (as we
shall see further on,) it is altogether overlooked by Lord
Brougham. Even he, who alludes to “ nomination
boroughs,” says, like the multitude in general, “ let us
leave the question of religion alone.” I repeat, when we
hear such expressions as these, we are right with Nir.
Arthur Trevelyan to talk of the “ insanity of mankind.”
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
79
Again, at p. 182—“ Nothing can be more certain
than that the worst excesses of the French Revo
lution were occasioned by the interference of the
people with the proceedings of the Legislative
Assembly first, and afterwards of the National
Convention. Hardly a day passed without some
popular commotion ; and it was the ordinary
spectacle to see mobs enter the Hall, and demand
the adoption of certain favourite measures. It
was, I remember, usual to say in those days that
the whole of the mischief arose from suffering the
galleries to interfere with their plaudits or their
hisses. * * The people, both in Paris and the
great provincial towns, had only partially given
over their power to the Assembly or the Conven
tion. * * They accordingly were distributed
in societies or clubs: they had nightly meetings
to discuss the proceedings taken by their deputies
during the morning: they arrogated to themselves
the right of approving or rejecting all that was
done by the constituted authorities: and they
knew their own power from the physical force in
their hands, well enough to rest satisfied with
nothing short of a direct control over those autho
rities.” * * He proceeds to say, these clubs
also communicated through the municipality with
the rabble of the streets, and the control of the
government was thus in their hands. “ The
reign of terror strengthened whatever constitution
succeeded that of ’93 : and the horror of mob
violence continued, not only throughout the
directorial government to prevent all direct inter
ference of the people, but was the main proof of
the consular and then of the imperial regimen,
*
* Brougham had previously, at p. 60, stated the same.
�80
LETTERS TO
in loth of which the people were deprived of all
influence, direct, or indirect.”* (p. 184.)
As neither in the above extracts, nor in any
other part of his work, do I perceive that Lord
Brougham even hints at the suppression of Chris
tianity. as one of the causes of the excesses in
the French Revolution, I presume I may place
him by the side of Lord Byron and others who
do not consider that such excesses arose from any
such cause. Indeed, although in my opinion
Lord Brougham speaks in far too guarded and
ambiguous a manner for an impartial man on the
subject of religion generally, still it is remarkable
that he does not even mention religion even as a
“ check ” upon the Democratic form of govern
ment, although he has a long section showing, in
such case, that “ checks” are absolutely necessary;
and have properly been resorted to at present by
the United States, with the same view that they
were formerly by the turbulent Democracy of
Athens, (pp. 99 to 1G7.) And, indeed, religion
is no doubt "with the masses a much more feeble
“ check” than actual law.
It will result I think from a careful perusal of
the part of Brougham’s work just mentioned, that
he would attribute the excesses in question to the
absence of legal or political checks only. At
p. 101 he tells us, that triennial elections “ seem
most desirable as a protection to representatives
for their in depen dan cef and to the people for
* I have sometimes abridged these quotations, where I
could do so without altering the meaning. Lord Brougham
and all who aim at occasional eloquence, necessarily say more
than the exact sense requires.
f These words of Brougham, which I have put in italics,
sufficiently show that Rousseau was nearly right (at all
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SI
their powerand that annual elections, bv
making delegates “ mere agents,” do not oppose
a sufficiently strong “ check” to Democracy.
In noticing the Athenian constitution, lie says,
events) when he said the representative system, except
under annual election, was, as regards actual liberty of the
electors, a sort of sham or humbug. The precise words of
Rousseau, indeed, are only during election. (Contrat Social,
quoted by Brougham, p. 60.) Brougham, in reply to this,
says, the people only temporarily lose some power, and not
liberty. Brougham, in this remark, is endeavouring to
alter the meaning that Rousseau attached to the word
liberty. I believe Rousseau to be right in his assertion, at
the same time that with Brougham, I believe that the
people are much better off, and, considering the chances of
anarchy, practically speaking more free, when such checks
as he mentions are put upon their power or liberty, using
these words in the same sense; for it seems to me to be
merely an attempt to humbug the people, by refining too
much on words. Tell them at once, you may lose or you
may not lose, (as the case turns out,) some liberty by the
representative system, but you will be better for it. As
Lord Brougham is very properly for giving the Suffrage to
all who can read and write, and are not under criminal dis
ability, (Op. Cit., pp. 81-2.) I think his work would
have had higher merit if he had been equally liberal in
speaking truth more plainly on this subject, and also on
matters of religion. But, unfortunately, under our pseudoProtestant system, (itself the origin of all our cant,) the
habit we are all more or less obliged to contract of speak
ing only half the truth in matters of religion, insinuates
itself, as in our present author’s case, into other subjects,
and contributes to keep up the actor all through life.
I am not to be understood by the above remarks as
agreeing with all Rousseau’s political opinions. In his
Contrat Social he seems rather inconsistent with his Con
fessions, when, in his chapter Z>e la Censure, he seems to
approve of having a very strong public opinion in a coun
try. And though he seems right in considering that Theism
or “ religion civile," as he calls it, is necessary to all good
government, yet I would not banish those (as he would,
p. 285) who did not believe even in this : still less have
“ those put to death {idem.) who, having sworn they be
�82
LETTERS TO
“ no law inconsistent with an old one could he
proposed without directly repealing the old one;—
an admirable rule for any Legislature.” ip. 103.)
And, I may remark, one which we ourselves should
do well to observe—we, who multiply laws ad in
finitum to the advantage of lawyers, and injury of
the public. Although Lord Brougham censures
the “ check,” which allowed the Athenian to pro
secute the author of a law “ found detrimental on
trial,” (p. 104,) still it may be a debatable point
whether some very slight punishment (such as fine)
should not be inflicted on the authors of some of
our absurd laws, where the mere vanity of wishing
to be known as a new member often prompts the
illiterate man to propose a most unjust, as well as
absurd, change.
Turning to the “ checks” in the United States,
we find that the one House is only elected for
two years, the other is elected for six, (and that
both are paid ;) and that the President is allowed
very great patronage and power. (104.) Further
on (p. 337) the following law is stated, which, if
not a check on the people, is, as Brougham says,
a wise check on the Legislature. The Supreme
Courts have the power to decide whether any pro
position that has passed both Houses, is constitu
tional or not; and if considered not so, is pre
prevented by these judges from becoming a law.
Brougham (at p. 105) enumerates in detail the
“checks” on the French Constitution of 1703,
without saying a word about the suppression of
Christianity. Again—“ That of ’95 was less
purely Democratic,” (p. 105,) with the same
lieved it, acted as if they did not.” This was the unnatural
Theistic intolerance, that caused the Atheistic party to fear
and hate Robespierre so much ; and is too Christian and
tyrannical.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
83
silence as to religion. In this we find that both
Chambers were only elected for three years, and
the Directors (or Presidents) for five years, (p.
105.) Hence, as in the United States, the Senate
is elected for six years, this constitution of ”95
was still far more Democratic than that of America,
which had the advantage too of an additional
“ check ” against anarchy, viz , the having sepa
rated from a less despotic Monarchy than had
existed in France. The Americans had thus been
gradually accustomed to a certain degree of liberty.
But the good influence even of this constitution
of ’95 (too Democratic as it still wasj over that
of ’93, is shown by the wholesale murders and
other excesses for the most part ceasing after it
came into force.
*
If it be said that shortly after
this, (viz., in 17 95,) Christianity was allowed to
make its appearance again, and this was the cause
of the great diminution in the amount of judicial
* Its faults are pointed out more in detail in Lord
Brougham’s work. (pp. 350-353.) I do not, however,
observe that he passes a very decided opinion on the unity
or divisibility (so to speak) of the Executive. He, how
ever, seems to prefer unity in this case ; and justly, for we
find in 1797 that three of the Directors (the Executive
consisted of five) combined against the other two, Carnot
and Barthélémy, and by the aid of military force succeeded
“ in expelling and transporting" (p. 353) many members of
the Council ; so that, having destroyed this party, they
continued to govern the country for two years more by the
constitution of ’95. The advantage of unity in the Exe
cutive is shown by the present constitution of the United
States; and if calculated to pievent discord among Ame
ricans, was doubly necessary among such an excitable
people as the French. The election of many Royalists
was the chief cause of this outbreak : a cause which will
always continue to render the establishment of a Republic
in France next to impossible. Even America would pro
bably not have continued so stable, if she had at first been
more than a Colony—a distant part of a Monarchy.
�84
LETTERS TO
murders, I reply by admitting the fact that the
people, in consequence of their petition to the new
Convention, were permitted to frequent the Catho
lic churehes, provided they consented to “ main
tain them at their own expense.”* I must admit,
therefore, that at this period there existed on the
part of the government a spirit of indifference in
matters of religion, (since we find they only yielded
to the wishes of the Catholics on this point,) in
which Christianity was tolerated as well as Robes
pierre’s Deism, or Theophilanthropism. But I
cannot attribute the increased humanity, as regards
the bloody scenes in question, to the influence of
Christianity, because this religion was not allowed
to have any power over the others, or to become
the national religion, until its final re-establish
ment to that position by Napoleon, after he became
Emperor. It is quite clear, then, that the bene
ficial change in question, after ’95, arose from the
suppression of the spirit of anarchy among the
masses, by a less Democratic form of government
—in fact, by the direct influence of law, and not
by the ever indirect and uncertain influence of
religion. At the same time, I will admit that,
possibly this less inimical view, with which Chris
tianity was regarded by the government, tended
to make the Christian part of the population less
disposed to change, or to run any chance of
anarchy. Robespierre wished to make Deism the
State Religion ; his successors to raise Christianity
at all events to a level with it. But as I do not
attribute the murderous scenes during Robes
pierre’s tenure of office to his religion, but his too
great fear of the people, in consequence of the
government being too Democratic; so neither do
* Alison’s French Revolution, p. 551. Again in chap. xix.
�TIIE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
85
I attribute the diminution in these massacres in
’95 and the few following years to any great in
*
fluence from Christianity, which was only just be
ginning to show its head again. There are coinci
dences in the moral equally as in the physical
world, which the mass of superficial thinkers are
apt to mistake for connexions; and such has been,
and still is the case, I am sorry to say, on this
subject, both in Britain and the United States.
It is this fallacy, put forth with all the eloquence
of truth, by such men as Burke, that has contri
buted to keep both these nations, as Hurlbut says
of the latter, (and might have said still more truly
of the former,) in such “ an infant state of reli
gious freedom.”
To show the utter absurdity of the above opinion,
it is only necessary to reflect how superior the
government of the Roman Empire was under the
Pagans, Augustus, Trajan, Adrian, the Anto
nines, dec., dec., to what it was under the Christian
Constantine and some of his Christian successors.
Or that of modern Prussia under the "'infidel”
Frederick the Great, to that of his Christian
father. Now, as Christianity did not exist in
these cases just instanced, of course the good
government I allude to was not dependant on any
supposed “ humanising effect” of such religion.
Lord Brougham in bis Lives of Statesmen
passes the warmest eulogy on the character of
* No doubt the principle of re-action operated also.
Even the most Democratic must have perceived that whole
sale murder had been carried much further than the stabi
lity of the Republic required, and that many illustrious,
and at the same time harmless, men had been most unjustly
sacrificed, by (to put the best construction on the case) a
false idea of utility. Accordingly, we find that in the out
break in 1797 Carnot and others were only banished or
transported, and not guillotined. (See late Note.)
�80
LETTERS TO
Carnot, who was at the head of the French army
during the time of Robespierre ; and, as it seems
certain that he opposed no active opposition to
the “judicial murders ” of this individual. I must
here adduce this fact in favour of my argument,
viz., that if not absolutely necessary, they seemed
expedient, in that very critical conjuncture of
affairs, and had nothing whatever to do with the
suppression of Christianity. Carnot’s defence,
says Brougham, that “ he remained in office with
such detestable men as his colleagues ; that he
even signed the orders of execution in his turn,”
&c., &c., is, “ that he began to administer the war
department, and had gained brilliant success,
before his colleagues commenced their reign of
teiror. That had he followed his own inclinations
and opposed this, the country was conquered,
possibly portioned—far more blood spilt—far
more lasting disgrace incurred by the nation—far
more permanent disasters entailed upon all classes
of the people—than all that the terrorist execu
tions and confiscations could produce. Was it
not enough for him to know, that his retirement
would certainly not have stayed the proscription,
while it most probably would have opened the
gates of Paris to the allies ?” (p. 36Ô.)
Such are some of the leading arguments made
use of by Lord Brougham to justify the compara
tively speaking passive part that Carnot took in
the so-called judicial proceedings of the reign of
terror. And when we remember, that “two
Spanish armies attacked the line of the Pyrenees,
that another was advancing from Piedmont ; that
La Vendée was in the hands of the rebels, with
40,000 armed peasantry ; that Marseilles and
Lyons had separated themselves from the re
publican government, and that an English fleet
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
87
rode in the harbour of Toulon ; and nevertheless
that, in less than a year and a half of Carnot’s mi
litary administration, twenty-seven victories had
been gained; 80,000 of the enemy slain, and
91,000 made prisoners, &c., &c.” (Brougham,
p. 369) we must feel inclined to argue that
Carnot required every possible assistance from at
least wholesale banishment—if not from wholesale
slaughter by the guillotine—in order to diminish
the number of internal royalist French foes,
when so many external foreign ones threatened on
all sides.
This assertion is clearly true, since further on,
(p. 371,) Lord Brougham says, “It is believed
that at every period of the Revolution, the great
majority of the French people, except in the ca
pital were averse to republican principles ; and the
elections of 1797, (the first under the new consti
tution,) returned a majority of royalists and mo
derate reformers.” When Pichegru, a royalist was
elected President of the Five Hundred, and Carnot
knew that insurrection was plotting against him
self and the republican party generally, “ he was
still above,” says Brougham, “ all acts that wore
even the semblance of treachery, and became the
sacrifice to his unchangeable integrity,” (being
banished as we have already observed.)
When another revolution destroyed the directo
rial power, and placed Napoleon as First Consul,
Carnot was recalled by him from exile and became
war minister ; but “ he resigned the office,” says
Brougham, “ when he perceived that Napoleon
harboured projects hostile to liberty, having voted
against the Consulship for life and the Imperial
title.” (p. 372.) All this shows the disinterestedness
of the man, and is favourable to the view that the
�88
LETTERS TO
present writer, following Brougham in this re
spect, takes of his indirect support of the reign of
terror ;
he must have regarded it at the time
as a sort of necessary evil.
Sir Archibald Alison, in one of the most elo
quent passages of his History of Europe, (vol. ii.,
p. 144.), supports Lord Brougham in the above
view of Carnot’s character, and concludes this
enlogy on his “ real greatnessby noticing the
fact that should never be lost sight of in attempt
ing to form an impartial judgment of Robespierre,
and all concerned in the government in 1793-4,
viz., that France on this occasion, resisted success
fully a more formidable attack—especially when
the immense opposition of the Vendée is re
membered, than Napoleon, with his “ veterans,”
was able to do in 1815. “ And this,” says Alison,
was due to the ability of the Committee of Public
Safety, “ and the despotic power wielded by
the Convention.” (Op. Cit.,p. 145.J “ Fear be
came the great engine for filling the ranks ; the
bayonets of the allies appeared less formidable,
than the guillotine of the Convention.” (p. 144 )
Alison takes a fairer view of Robespierre’s cha
racter, than a writer so opposed to him in religion
and politics could perhaps, generally speaking,
have been expected to take. “ He and his party
deemed the blood that was spilt essential to the
success of freedom. * * In arriving at this
conclusion, they were doubtless mainly influenced
by the perils of their own situation ; they mas
sacred others, because they were conscious that
death, if vanquished, justly awaited themselves;
but still the weakness of humanity in their, as in
many similar cases, deluded them by the magic of
words, or the supposed influence of power motives,
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
89
and led them to commit the greatest crimes, while
constantly professing the noblest intentions.
*
There is nothing surprising in this; we have only
to recollect, that all France joined in a crusade
against the Albigeois, and that its bravest men
deemed themselves secure from eternal, by con
signing thousands of wretches to temporal, flames :
we have only to go back to Godfrey de Bouillon,
and the Christian warriors putting 40,000 unresist
ing citizens to death on the storming of Jerusalem,
to be convinced that such delusions are not pecu
liar to any particular age or country, but that they
are the universal offspring of fanaticism, whether
in political or religious contests. The writers, who
represent the Jacobins as mere blood thirsty
wretches, are well meaning and amiable, but weak
and ignorant men.” (Op. Cit., p. 209. J In a
note he says, that Napoleon and Cambacérès took
a similar view of Robespierre’s character, “ that
he had not attended the Committees for six weeks
before his fall,” and “ was at last desirous to stop
the executions.” (Las Cases.)
* I believe they actually had also good “ intentions
but Robespierre’s principles obliging him to live in the
humblest manner, (as Lamartine shows,) he, of course,
could create no fear by moraZ means, i.e., by external
pomp. And having not enough physical power at his com
mand, (as he was not a military man,) his position was a
false one, and instead of wholesale slaughter by cannon,
(as used in a subsequent revolution by Napoleon,) he was
driven to the same by the guillotine. The United States
have wisely given great power and patronage to their
president, and hence, although he has little moral power
from the effect of pomp in subduing the mind, he has what
is at the bottom of all good government, much physical
power. The very democratic French government allowing
little or none of this to Robespierre, his intentions, even
when noble, often became useless, and he was driven on by
a sort of desperation^ which, at times, lost sight of justice
entirely.
�90
LETTERS TO
I shall now enter into more details with respect
to the war in the Vendee, and first attempt to show
that Alison’s conclusion against Republicans gene
rally, and more especially against Deism, from the
atrocities committed in this war, is not only erro
neous, hut incompatible with the quotation just
given, in which we find 40,000 unresisting citi
zens were put to death by men, with all their faults,
who were Christians in earnest —inclined to
*
practice, what they at least conceived to be directly
or indirectly commanded by scripture, and not
of the present hypocritical and sanctified class,
(I speak generally!, who make their religion to
consist in mere assertions and appearances, while
their every day conduct is such, that it is obvious
they do not even attempt to practice some of its
very easiest duties.
He says, “ this contest first put the cause of re
volution openly and irrevocably at war with that of
religion ; the friends of real freedom ! (sic.,)
(he should have said slavery) for permanently en
listing on their side, a power which will never be
subdued.” (p. 140).
I may observe here, that by “ religion,” he means
of course Christianity ; for Robespierre’s Deism
seems regarded by him little better than Atheism.
As to Christianity “ never being subdued,” that
remains to be seen when it has lasted as long as
the Egyptian and Pagan religions lasted.
“ Religions take their turns ; ’twas Jove, ’tis Jesus,”
says Lord Byron. Religion itself “ will never be
subdued;” but Christianity is not this eternal
natural religion.
“ From the atrocious severities of the Republi
* “ The faith which then filled the souls of men, says
Valery, (Travels, p. 406,) is evaporated.”
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
91
can’s swav in this province, has arisen the profound
hatred of all the believers in the Christian faith at
their rule.” (idem )
He should, perhaps, have said Deistical Repub
lican sway to make the sense of this passage
clearer; for the Christian world seems to have no
objection to Republicanism as it exists in Switzer
land, and the United States, because the vast ma
jority in both these Republics profess Christianity,
and opinion is against Deism.
Alison, then, clearly means, that all believers
in the Christian faith, ascribe those monstrous
enormities, “ the Republican baptisms and mar
riages’,’ to the proscription of Christianity from
the French Republican government at this time.
As I believe this is the general sentiment, I do
not object to his stating it as such, but to his
appearing to embrace such belief himself, after
having made the statement we see he has done, in
reference to 40,000 unresisting citizens put to
death by pious Christians as they called, and no
doubt thought themselves. He might, moreover,
have added to these, the slaughter by Christian
armies, after the taking of Mexico and Peru, &c.,
&c., &c.
But it is now time to make some statements,
which will show that the slaughter, (I do not mean
by this to include wanton cruelty) in the Vendee was
even more justifiable than that in Jerusalem, for
in the last case, we find the citizens “ unresisting ; ’
whereas in the Vendée, the people were urged on
by the Priests, and resisted with such success, that
they were
near destroying the embryo Re
public itself, as the following extract from Alison’s
chapter on this subject, evinces :—
“ Thus was the invasion of six armies, amount
ing to 100,000 ! Cszc.J regular troops, part of
�92
LETTERS TO
whom were the best soldiers of France defeated,
and losses inflicted on the Republicans, incompara
bly greater than they had suffered from all the allies
put together since the commencement of the war”—
viz., by the Vendéans. ( Op. Cit., Ch. xii., p. 117.)
We find subsequently, that the Republicans were
successful, but the above extract will show the
immense difficulty put in their way by the Ven
déans. (See also p. 139 to same effect.)
But the causes of this war—which subsequently
assumed all the character of a war of Christian fana
ticism against natural religion, and not as formerly
against Mahommedanism—were like those of the
revolution itself, of a far more material character,
than we might be at first inclined to believe.
“ The confiscation of the church property, says
Alison, rendered necessary the laws against the
refractory priests, and thereby lighted the flames
of civil war in La Vendée.” (Op. Cit., p. 225.)
The Christian priests then, when like the curate
of St. Maria de Re, to be noticed presently, with
the cross in their hands, they harangued the ig
norant but loyal peasants about to combat, were
seeking revenge for loss of their property, (in
*
this respect, perhaps justly), as well as to revenge
the attempt that Robespierre, as far as he indivi
dually was concerned, had made, to put Deism
somewhat above Christianity ; for he as already
stated, was not of those who insanely attempted to
drive all religion from the earth.
" My children,” said de Re, “ I will march at
your head with the crucifix in my hands ; let those
who follow me fall on their knees, and I will give
* “ The levy of 300,000 men ordered by the Convention
in February, 1793,” was also greatly concerned, as Alison
informs us. f Op. Cit., p. 98.)
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
93
them, absolution: if they fall, they will be received
into Paradise; but the cowards who betray God
and their families, will be massacred by the blues,
and their souls consigned to hell? (Op. Cit.,
p. 127., Chap. xii.J Above 2,000 men fell on
their knees, received absolution and returned to
battle, the curate at their head, exclaiming—“ Vive
le Roi, nous aliens en Paradis.” (Op. Cit., ib.J
I have purposely marked in italics passages in
this address, similar to those addressed to men in
the earlier times of Mahommedanism, and equally
well calculated to urge them on to far more despe
rate combat, than any words with which an
Atheist, or even conscientious Deist, could possibly
speak to them. But as every impartial man, must
I apprehend regard such words in the light of rank
blasphemy, in which the creature assumes the
power of the Creator, and of obvious fraud, for
*
the sake of taking an advantage of the Republican
enemy, we have, perhaps, some little justification
for the fierce paroxysms of rage—little short of in
sanity—with which they must have filled the bosom
of an almost beaten Republican army, and conse
quently for the subsequent crimes of Carrier in his
“ baptisms and marriages.”
We find that, after the above quoted address of
De Re, the Royalists won the battle, leaving 6,000
killed and wounded on the field ; and that such
was the rancour inspired by fanaticism, that “they
seized each other and tore their bodies with their
hands after the ammunition had ceased.” (Op. Cit.,
p. 127.)
* Yet Alison passes over this address, rather with seem
ing approval than otherwise; so impossible is it for the
most disinterested Christian writer, in the present tyranni
cal state of opinion on the subject, to be as impartial as he
otherwise, no doubt, would be 1
�94
LETTERS TO
Alison, on a former occasion, forgetting, per
haps, what he was afterwards to assert as facts,
p. 96) tai ks about “ this superstition being of so
gentle and holy a kind,” and endeavours through
this chapter to make out that the cruelty was on
the Republican side. Admitting that it was so to
a greater extent, the following passages will show
that the Royalist peasants, with all their “ holy
superstition,” were not always so “ gentle’’ as he
asserts. “ When Machecoul was captured, the
prisons was forced by a furious mob, and above
eighty Republicans massacredin one day.” Again,
“ nearly 500 Republicans fell victims to the rage
of a Royalist Committee.” (Chap, xii., p. 104.)
Again, (chap, xvi., p. 274) “ Charette stormed
three of the intrenched camps, and put their gar
risons to the sword.” Yet this was the very Cha
rette who he says, at p. 104, “ was horror-struck ”
at the murder of the 500 Republicans just men
tioned, and a man who often “ had recourse to the
clergy” to instil obedience into his men, and who
“ took an oath to be faithful to the cause of God
(as he called it) and the throne.” (p. 107.)
Perhaps, from the history of this brave man,
(such he was, certainly,) may be gleaned one of
the best arguments to show that even the Repub
licans tried to begin by being mild, for “ when
he was at the head of only fourteen followers
(he subsequently had 20,000 under him alone) the
Convention offered him a million of francs if he
would retire to England.” (p. 107.) Again, (p. 108)
“ It is painful, said the Republican Commis
sioners, to be obliged to proceed to extremities,
but they cannot be avoided, from the fanaticism of
the peasants, who, in no one instance, have been
known to betray their landlords.”
After the fall of Robespierre, and the just exe
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
95
cution of Carrier, by "whose orders the “ mar
*
riages and baptisms” took place, we find a treaty
(January 1795) was concluded between the Ven
deans and Republican government, in which the
former were allowed the free exercise of Chris
tianity, two millions of francs for their war ex
penses and various indemnities, pardons, almost
total exemption from taxes, &c., &c., and they were
to submit to the Republic. But even this did not
satisfy them, for we find Charette, in the July
following, joining other Royalists ; and they were
scarcely even put down by ïloche and the great
army in 1796 ! (Alison, chap, xviii.,) for we find
them subsequently, in two years or so, breaking
out again. (Idem.)
Thus we observe that, notwithstanding Carrier’s
atrocities, intended to extend the “ reign of terror”
to the Vendée, and only resorted to towards the
close of that reign after other more conciliatory
measures had failed, Charette may still be said to
have beaten Robespierre’s government !
Thus,
though nothing can justify the murder of the
women and children (37,000 according to Alison,
p. 207) and Carrier’s other victims in the Vendée,
still I have said enough to show that these mur
ders, unlike those at Jerusalem, were caused by
most determined opposition on the part of the
Royalists, and consequently were, in this respect,
more justifiable than these and many others that
have taken place in the world.
Moreover, it is clear that the Vendeans were not
murdered because they were fanatical Christians,
and that the Republicans would certainly not have
* fChap. xix., p. 333, &c.) As “his authority was un
bounded,” (p. 333) of course Robespierre had little to do
with the murders in this remote district, any more than his
Deism had.
�03
LETTERS TO
troubled themselves about their exercising their
religion in private (nor perhaps even in public,
*
though their churches had been shut by go
vernment) ; whereas, the 40,000 were murdered by
the Christians in Jerusalem solely on account of
their being of a different religion—viz., Maliommedans !
Th ese reflections will at once show that the brutal
murders in the Vendée were not caused by the
absence of all belief in Christianity in the minds
of the Republicans, as a former quotation from
Alison shows us the world at large, including
himself, inclines to believe ; and, consequently,
were, in reality, not near of so atrocious a cha
racter as those in Jerusalem.
And now let any impartial man go back to the
following quotations, and mark the gross injustice
with which one of the most impartial of the Chris
tian writers is obliged, by his creed, to terminate
his paragraph.
“ After seven years, viz., in 1800, the worship
of Christianity was restored by Napoleon ; but a
great portion of the youth of France had been
brought up, without receiving any religious impres* I set down this as possible, because Robespierre’s object
was merely to put Deism as the state religion in place, of
Christianity, at the same time, as I have observed, evincing
a disposition to tolerate this latter as well as Judaism, &c.
I observe, in Lord Brougham’s Robespierre, (p. 32) that his
lordship says, the effort of Robespierre to introduce Theism
“ was wholly unnecessary for re-establishing religion, and
gained no object but that of exciting distrust, &c., among
the infidel part of the community, without at all reconciling
the votaries of Christianity.” No doubt such was the case
as to these two latter effects, but Lord Brougham, like the
other “ votaries of Christianity,” would probably as soon
see Atheism as any religion except Christianity prevail.
Hence this indifference, amounting to injustice, to the man
on this point.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
97
sions in early life.’’ • * “ This, has for ever
disqualified the French for the enjoyment of free
dom, because it has extinguished the feelings of
duty, on which alone it can be founded in the
young and influential part of the people.” (Chap, i,
p. 47.)
Where were the “ feelings of duty,” when the
pious Christians murdered the 40,000 at Jeru
salem ? If it had not been for their religion, they
would never have thought this to be a duty. Hence
it is clear, that at least sometimes, Christianity
mav come to make sincere men consider the very
greatest of all human crimes, a positive duty ! !”*
I hold, also, that “ feelings of duty” are necessary
to “ freedom but maintain that Christianity gives
wrong feelings of duty, and that they should be
founded on Theism, or the reason given by God to
correct any errors of conscience. On the contrary,
“ impressions” of Calvinism, instilled “ in early
life,” are the origin of our self-sufficiency, cant,
and really irreligious conduct in the daily affairs of
life, because they cause the intolerance of public
opinion.
I have already observed the Convention of 1795
repealed the law of 1793, which actually prohi
bited Christian worship. This, it must be con
fessed, seems a more equitable system, than the
* Along with the minor vices of this creed may be
noticed the following from Hume’s Dialogues concerning
natural religion. (p. 105.) “ Among ourselves, some
(probably he means the Calvinists) have been guilty of that
atrociousness, unknown to the Egyptian and Greek supersti
tions, of declaiming, in express terms, against morality.”
All Christian sects do more or less, when they place so
much merit in faith.
Another vice in Christianity, unknown to the ancient
superstitions, is the doctrine of repentance atoning for sin
—a doctrine still more probably, “ against morality.”
F
�98
LETTERS TO
mere private sort of toleration of Christianity by
Robespierre ; yet, nevertheless, we can also infer
from what took place after this change, the erro
neousness of Alison’s assertion, that the mildness
of the treatment of the Republican prisoners by
the Royalists in the war of La Vendée, was due
to their strong faith in Christianity , since we find
that just after! the above decree too, some of
this very religious party did not scruple to exercise
their revenge on the Terrorists, and ‘ that eighty
Jacobins only escaped execution, by secreting
themselves.” (Chap, xix., p. 348.) “ At Lyons,
Aix, &c., they (the Royalists) massacred the pri
soners without either trial or discrimination.
“ The re-action was terrible.” (p. 347.) Thus,
by the above words, he contradicts himself.
*
Humanity did not thoroughly begin to reign
till after Napoleon and Barras had secured the
power of the Convention by their victory over the
National Guards towards the end of October, in
1795; and this humanity had little to do with
religion, for many members of the Convention
were Jacobins, Theists, and Atheists, and Chris
* The impartial reader will also observe that I have
taken only the numbers as stated by Alison, (which may be
perfectly correct,) without consulting the opposite, or my
own party, on this particular point.
Another consideration is, that there is somewhat more
excuse for the atrocities of “ infidels ” in this war, because
they saw that the Christian party took advantage of some
of the most bigotted passages in their creed to cause their
party to fight well. Now, perhaps, sometimes this was
from faith ; but as it was also often probably from mere
fraud to increase courage, the Republicans found they had
nothing to oppose to this falsehood, but to endeavour to
inspire terror into the minds of the Royalists by the
severity of die punishments they inflicted on prisoners. 1 e
Mahommedan lie so excited fanaticism, that at hrst this
sect conquered everywhere.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
99
tianity was only on a sort of level with Theism,
&c., till 1800. A more humane spirit had, indeed,
began to show itself in April, when some Jacobin
insurgents were transported to Cavenne, instead
of being guillotined. The government was, how
ever, hardly yet strong enough for such a measure,
for a successful attempt at rescue was made by
their comrades, and they were not retaken till 300
of the military had been called out. No doubt
Robespierre thought that his government was not
strong enough for such a measure. And such
opinion might have been supported by a subse
quent Jacobin insurrection, which took place on
the 24th of May; for on this occasion we find
the guillotine was again resorted to in the end of
June, 1795, and that “three who tried to stab
themselves were led, still bleeding, to execution''
(Chap, xix., p. 341.) Thus it was only, in fact,
when the government came into the hands of
military men, (Napoleon and Barras,) at the end
of October, '95, that a more lenient mode of
punishment could be judiciously resorted to. Thus
we see that a mild^ yet perfectly Democratic govern
ment (such as under Robespierre) is next to im
possible, unless we give military men a preponde
rance in the rule, and then it is only one remove
from a despotism, and is in the power of such
military men to convert it to such, if it
pleases them. Such did Napoleon shortly after
wards. This reflection will, like former ones,
bring us to the conclusion that Robespierres
cruelty was necessary for such a very Democratic
Constitution to stand its ground ; and not in the
slightest degree dependant on his want of belief
in Christianity.
*
At the same time, I will admit
* Again to the same purpose. From October 1795 to
1800 France existed without Christianity as the established
�100
LETTERS TO
that the attempt to suppress this by force, was
very impolitic, to say the least ; and, if I may
use the expression, an attempt to be as foolishly
Democratic in matters of religion, as they had
been in civil government. Had they begun with
the constitution of ’95, as regarded religion, and
allowed the Vendée peasants to attend Christian
worship in their churches, if they consented to
pay for it, we should not probably have had
De Re addressing them, as we find he did, or a
peasant on another occasion, noticed by Alison,
fighting furiously to the last, though desperately
wounded, and exclaiming to the Republicans
before he fell—“ Restore to me my God.”
Such, at least, would have been the more just
and milder system ; and as it might have prevented
so much opposition on their part at first, might,
as a consequence, have also prevented the “ Bap
tisms and Marriages,” and other atrocities of the
Republicans. I am not, however, prepared to
speak with certainty on this point ; since we find
that under the Roman Empire, Christianity never
was content until it had put all other religions
beneath itself; and since wæ find that even after
1795, when it had acquired this equality with
religion, its belief or profession being voluntary. Yet during
these years the “ atrocities” were not repeated. But why not,
if the absence of Christianity had previously caused these ?
The fact is, the French people acted with more humanity and
justice during this period, than often subsequently when
Napoleon—forgetting somewhat his splendid address, “My
empire ends where that of conscience begins”—restored
Catholicism. Our fanatically or hypocritically Christian
Cromwell, too, sent his prisoners of war to be slaves in
the West Indies. (Guizot’s Cromwell.
1855.) Some
men would have thought this a more severe punishment
than Robespierre’s guillotine. It shows, at all events, that
Christianity in its Puritanical form, is little more humane
than Theism, or than Catholicism.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
D eism,
101
and the Venddans had, as already men
tioned, obtained a treaty, the most honourable that
could possibly have been granted by any govern
ment which still continued Republican and not
Royalist, they were dissatisfied, and took up arms
again on the first favourable occasion.
Whether, therefore, this more just system would
have succeeded better may be somewhat doubtful;
but we must not probably put the blame on Robes
pierre and the Deists, that it was not introduced
at first; for they took the government as they
found it, and it was no doubt their great enemies
—the Atheistic party—who bad been mainly in
strumental in prohibiting Christian worship by
actual law. Robespierre, probably, would not
have dared to have favoured Christianity thus far,
seeing that his restoring the worship of God only,
met with great opposition from the Atheists, and
was more or less instrumental in his fall.
I may close these remarks on Robespierre by
saying, that while I believe the religious creed he
had taken from Rousseau had nothing to do with
the massacres in question, I cannot perhaps say
the same for Rousseau’s political creed, viz., the
“ equality of men.” Fanaticism on this point
spurred Robespierre on; but, strange to say, this
was Sir T. More’s creed as a Christian.
I have now given my matured and settled
opinion, that the enormities committed in the first
French Revolution did not arise from the suppres
sion of Christianity as the religion of the State.
In a former publication, before I had investigated
this subject, I asked—Was not the slaughter in
question due to this absence of Christianity ?
deeming that it probably was. This query it was
that induced me to investigate the subject fully,
in order to remove one prejudice that still adheres
�102
LETTERS TO
to the minds even of some liberal and intelligent
men on this subject, and is perhaps at the bottom
of the strong respect of the vast unreflecting
multitude in England and America for the Christian
faith. But being fully satisfied I have said enough
to show it is not essential to social order, I now
close this point.
Another seeming objection alone remains. I
allude to the fact that none of the enormities of
the French Revolution took place in the American
Revolution, and as the Americans always respected
Christianity, and public opinion in the country
was in favour of it, was not this the cause of the
difference ? Probably such is still the opinion in
America—indeed, I have heard an American assert
it; but that it is fallacious, is clear, not only from
the example of ancient Rome, already instanced,
but also from the different position France was in
at the time of her revolution from America;/or
here there was no Vendee with its 100,000
Royalists to oppose; nor the foreign armies of
all Europe. Neither had the Americans Red
Republicanism for their government; and conse
quently they had a Democracy more easily
managed. It is no doubt their merit to have fixed
on this less Democratic form of government. But
such choice and the above different position, aided
perhaps also by a less excitable nature, were no
doubt the cause of the far less amount of atrocity
in their revolution. I assert their Christianity
was totally or nearly unconcerned in it.
I have made this solemn appeal chiefly to you,
Citizens of the United States, to know whether the
insanity of mankind as Mr. Trevelyan justly
*
* A man who asserts that mankind in general are mad,
doubtless will be considered to be so himself; but I agree
with Mr. Trevelyan that they are so, and for this simple
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
103
designates it, is to continue for ever, and to re
main incurable ? In consequence of the universal
diffusion of education among you, you are prepared
for a really rational form of religion, I mean pure
Theism; and if you cannot get a majority of your
citizens to confess, what they must I think now
really believe on religious matters, cannot you, at
all events, get a law enacted for making this a
state religion, to which every one of you should be
obliged to contribute ? I think the intelligent
among you would not consider this an abridge
ment of rational liberty any more than Plato or
Rousseau (those well-known apostles of political
liberty) did formerly. I see that a Mr. Russell of
*
Cincinnati, thinks you would be better for some
state religion, as the poorer classes could then
attend a place of worship with more satisfaction to
themselves. I conjure you, then, in case of any
change in your system, to make that religion a
religion of state, which alone is worthy to be so
among a really sane and intellectual people.
As outward forms and ceremonies in religion
ever have been, and ever will be of importance as
influencing the imagination, and by this the feeling
of veneration inherent in the human soul, I shall
here state that I think the establishment of the
Theistic form of worship should by no means be
accompanied with the simplicity and tyrannical
spirit of order and separation of poor and rich,
reason, viz., that, compared with custom and fashion, reason
has little or no power over their actions. Such madness
in lesser matters is not of much consequence; but when it
shows itself, as it does now, among the most civilised
nations existing, in regard to religion, the case is. altered.
Lord Byron said, “ Turn Bedlam outand this playful
instinct of the poet seems almost approved by reason.
* England and America Compared. Watson. Holyoake
147, Fleet Street.
�104
LETTERS TO
which prevails especially in Calvinistic Protestant
ism, but, on the contrary, with all the externals
of Roman Catholicism. In this respect, I hold
this religion to be perfect; and when also accom
panied with the toleration that existed perhaps
in still more perfection under the reign of Louis
Philippe than it does even at present in France,
I could even subscribe to its mysteries, taken in a
very general sense. It was, and still is, or ought to
be, far more tolerant than our Protestantism.
I observe that the author of Quinquenergia,
*
while proposing the Theistic form of worship—
which is the only true part of any “ revealed ”
religion—also seems in favour of the externals
of Catholicism, in which much of the classical
Pagan system is very properly followed. Pro
cessions, incense, splendid cathedrals,—open, too,
every day,—in order to afford the poor and weary
man an asylum and better home than his own,
and where he can pray in peace, whether the priest
be there or not,—such are some of the outlines
for “ Deo erexit Voltaire" establishments.
I feel the more confidence in proposing the
Theistic form of worship, as the same may be said
to have been done by Sir Thomas More in his
Utopia, who seems, even at that period, to have
thought it preferable to literal Christianity, and
who, doubtless, had he lived to see the subsequent
massacres caused by this, would have considered
it doubly so afterwards.
It was probably the advantage that many pas
sages in scripture gave to those who say that into
lerance is the basis of Christianity, that led More
to prefer Theism,! for he says, p. 173, “ one
* Chapman, London. 1854.
f I know that the charge of intolerance in practice has
been brought against More, and perhaps justly ; but when
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
105
Christian was punished by the Utopians because
he cried out that ‘ they were impious and damned
to everlasting burnings.’’’ He was “banished”
for thus attempting to inflame the people to
“ sedition
and in this case I do not perceive
any intolerant feeling in More, for the Christian
in question uttered words without solid evidence
ot their truth, and which were well calculated to
cause civil discord and revolution. Had the
ancient Roman government punished fanaticism
in this summary way, Christianity would probably
never have upset Paganism. Occasionally, no
doubt, it was too severe to those professing Chris
tianity, but taken in its whole course too tolerant.
More would have the priests elected by ballot,
and required to preach only the doctrines of Pro
vidence and a future state. He tolerates all reli
gions, and Christianity among them, because,
says he, this favours “ community of goods,”
which he, like Plato, thought should exist in every
system of perfect justice. Thanks to the ambi
*
guity of the creed, scarcely a single Christian has
ever adopted such view ! Yet I think with More,
that the general tenor of scripturef is to support
the passions are excited, a man is sometimes led to acts his
reason condemns. This, then, is no argument against the
views of his cooler moments.
°
* I also hold this opinion as far as abstract justice is
concerned; but maintain that such pure justice cannot be
put in practice on earth on any large scale, and that, con
sequently, perhaps the best form of government is perfect
equality (not mere toleration) of all religions, and strong
executive power—hereditary probably the best. It is sin
gular that this was adopted in Sparta, as regarded their
King, and that even the Senators there were elected for
life. (Plutarch. Polybius.) Thus we find a thorough
aristocratic! principle, even in this very small Social Re
public ; otherwise, probably, it would not have lasted so long.
t It may be said such opinion of equality is incompatible
F 2
�106
LETTERS TO
this said doctrine of the “ natural equality of
man.”
"No prayers are permitted among the Utopians,
hut such as every one (all the different religious
sects) may use without prejudice to his own opi
nions.” (p. 185.) This is admirable, and is the
only manner to unite all the different religions as
far as they can he so; and to reconcile different
sects to worship in the same church. Dr. Arnold,
when he wished to see this in reference to Protes
tants and Catholics, forgot the definite and often
intolerant prayers and creeds which are frequently
repeated in so formal a manner in our Protestant
churches, as if expressly to exclude Unitarians
and Catholics from repeating them. More, on
the contrary, like Pope, prefers a sort of “ univer
sal prayer.”
More would also justly have the different sexes
occupy different parts of the same cathedral, and
the young women in company with the old, to
with the assertion of “damnation” denounced against
those who “resist the powers that be.” No doubt: and
here is another specimen of ambiguity. But I consider this
last as a proof rather of that subservience of Christianity
to the temporal power of the Caesars at the time, which we
observe in the reply, “Render unto Caesar the things
which are Ciesars,” &c.. than to its true and proper charac
ter and meaning. At its origin, property was common
among Christians, and all was real equality among them;
for Christ himself seemed to order this equality, when he
told the rich man “to sell all he had to give to the poor.
It was enab ed to get itself adopted by Emperors, because
it seemed not to interfere with politics, and also because it
seemed to sanction their divine right to power. But once
adopted by Monarchs its doctrines of equality were for
gotten, as being incompatible with those advocating
“ divine” right; and this last doctrine is no doubt the cause
why it has reigned so long on earth, as Monarchs have the
physical force at their disposal.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
107
keep them serious, (p. 187.) Also incense, as a
sort of sacrifice during worship ; and after prayers,
amusements on the Sunday evening. (Idem.)
To conclude : while he thus makes a liberal
Theism the religion of the State, he may no doubt
be accused of some degree of intolerance in ex
cluding, as he does, Atheists from all public
offices ; but Plato, and after him Rousseau, were
probably still more severe on this point.
Here, then, is the religion I propose as an
answer to the infidel Lord Chesterfield’s question
—“ Madam, what are we Legislators to put in the
place of Christianity ?”
I also allude to the existence of the Roman
Empire—and in its greatest glory too—up to the
time of Constantine without it; and also suggest
the following outlines as auxiliary reforms, premis
ing that the principle of all reforms, where only
natural religion is professed, will be to increase the
power of the government and the police, since
some restraint, though very small, is taken away
when we reject revealed religion.
1.—In consequence—to consider health first—
all provisions and drinks should especially be sub
ject to government supervision previous to their
sale In England lately (1855) many of the
ornaments in cakes and pastry, many fish sauces
and pickles, and, less to be expected, many pre
served fruits, have been found adulterated with
actually poisonous ingredients, to the disgrace of
our trading community ; and I observe in the
*
* Very large quantities of alum also in bread, and
chicory in coffee. Mr. Graham, in stating he did not ob
ject to this last adulteration, totally omitted to advert to
the cases where poisons had been used. (Proceedings of
the British Association.)
�308
LETTERS TO
French journals, that five or six butchers have
been justly punished for selling animals that have
died by diseases, and that, too, at a time when a
malignant diarrhoea prevailed. The power now
proposed ought to extend to punishing numerous
advertisers of food, drinks, or medicines, where
by falsehood they attempt to cheat the public.
The poor, honest, and ignorant man, is at present
often fairly robbed of his property, and often of
his health, by these lying advertisements.
Although it would be well that a similar force
should attempt to prevent fraud in all other trades
and professions, still as in these cases the health
of the public is not endangered, less rigorous
measures will perhaps suffice in such cases.
It appears that our laws against fraudulent
bankrupts are somewhat more severe than formerly;
but some recent cases which have occurred in men
of large property, make still more stringent laws
on this subject desirable.
2. —Rewards for virtue should be instituted as
Beccaria long ago suggested. Under this head
something should be done towards the adequate
remuneration of those who are honest enough to
restore the property &c., &c., they havefound, to the
owners. At present the paltry rewards given by
some individuals are a disgrace to humanity and
an encouragement to theft.
3. —Some form of sumptuary law seems desira
ble to check the immense power of monopoly,
which prevents the poorer men competing suc
cessfully with the large capitalist. “ If laws were
made determining at how great an extent of land,
and at how much money, every man should stop,”
at least some of the evils of the present system
would be diminished, says Sir T. More. (Op.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
109
Cit., p. 71.J I agree with him, and think thus
far onlv, Communism is desirable.
*
In reference to this point, the effect of fixing
the prices of the necessaries of life, such as bread
and meat, which has just been done by the French
government, should be watched. One plan or
the other ought, in justice to the poor, to be
adopted.
4. —It were good that either the suggestions of
Sir T. More or Lord Bacon, to prevent much of
the mutual deception that often takes place in
marriages, were followed. But as such suggestions
seem only easily practicable in a savage state of
society, we must be content to let custom remain
as it is on such points. The Romans seem to
have obviated the deception in question in a great
measure, by the facility they allowed to divorce ;
and our modern Reformers have done well in
endeavouring to extend this privilege to the lower
classes of both sexes of the community.
5. —Lord John Russell, in his speech on the
Jewish Bill in 1851, observed that Lord Halifax
formerly proposed, or submitted for consideration,
the propriety of compelling the whole of the
population to take an oath never to defraud their
fellow-creatures, observing that, if such were law,
it would not hinder us from bolting our doors at
* With all our profession of Christianity and Christian
charity, it would be desirable to know whether there is not
more abject poverty in this country than in almost any
other in Europe ? and, if so, as appears probable, whether
much at least of it cannot be traced to monopolies ? As
the poor man is also not allowed to do work/’or h imself on
a Sunday, (see Note, end of Letter II.,) it may also be
asked, if this law does not contribute ? The man in this case
justly said he was too tired on a week-day to work in the
evening.
�110
LETTERS TO
night, and taking the same precautions against
theft and fraud as at present.
*
I pause to decide whether or not this suggestion
might not be usefully added to the above, in case
they were found inadequate to supply the place of
a revealed religion.
I have little doubt that unreflecting Whigs and
Democrats will say all the above is rank tyranny.
Perhaps so ; but never mind, so that it is not rank
injustice; and I maintain such regulations would
tend to cause the practice of a much greater
amount of justice than we find at present existing
perhaps under any government, Republican or
Monarchical. As Plato said formerly, so I say
now, that no existing government perfectly satisfies
* I observe that Beccaria is against the setting of much
value on religious oaths, even in a court of justice, urging
justly, like the avowed Pantheist—Meslier—that the fears
and hopes of religion are too remote (troppo remoti) to
have much influence on the actions of the great mass of
mankind. (Sect, xi ) Nevertheless, I do not apprehend
he would have objected to the above suggestion by way of
oath or affirmation for mankind of all religions. His views
were directed against the oath of the Christian as such;
and are sufficiently obvious, and as clear as the age allowed
him to speak.
Polybius justly praises the Romans for their great respect
for their oaths, and also for the punishment they inflicted
on those who either broke or tried to break such oaths.
(Hampton’s Translation. Book vi., pp. 406-410.) The
common soldiers, too, were obliged to take an oath of
obedience to their commanders, (idem, p. 352,) and also
(in reference to Lord Halifax’s suggestion) that “ they
would not steal, or even if they found anything that they
would bring it to the Tribunes.” (p. 369.)
The worst of many of the cases in which oaths are now
required is, that like that “ on the faith of a Christian” the
form is not only useless, but injurious to honesty. How
different that of the Romans ! Our system, too, diminishes
even the value set on an oath.
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Ill
my mind, (though France in some points and the
United States in others comes nearest;) and like
him I shall console myself, though the present
suggestions never be put in practice, (as they
probably never will be,) that I have at least worked
disinterestedlv for the public good, and that some
share of praise ought to follow, whether it does
or not.
Although in the present bigotted age, this is
out of the question, still as like Gibbon, I wish
to part on good terms not only with the Catholic,
but also with the Protestant clergy, I shall here
state that this work is not intended to censure
them particularly, since, speaking generally, I
consider all of them in a forced and false position.
My pen has only attacked the measures and not
the men, except perhaps in some rare cases, where
these have been able to become more free agents
than usual, and have used such power to the detri
ment of truth and justice, or have given outward
approval to a faith in which they cannot believe.
There is, however, more excuse for the clergy
doing this bv writing their Evidences of Christia
nity and of Prophecy, &c., than for men of science
and letters among laymen doing the same. It is
double hvpocrisv in these men to write in favour
of an obvious fallacy ; and as they are not neces
sarily called upon to do so, they, more especially
of all others, deserve to have their writings keenly
criticised.
As to the clergy—seeing their false position—
though I feel no ill-will towards the quiet part of
them—yet I shall not forget that there are a
number of them roaming about, or settled on the
continent, and who make it a part of their profes
sion to commence their verbal war against Catho
lics, or unbelievers generally. I speak from expe
�112
LETTERS TO
rience, having lately on the continent been drawn
into arguments by two such men, at what might
almost be called a public table, and during which
arguments (as usual) the laymen present took
the side of the church. On one of these occasions
I felt at last obliged to tell my adversary that I
thought it a dishonour to our English government
that such a man as Gibbon {known as an infidel)
could not sit in the “House;” for even the ad
mission of the Jews to Parliament only goes half
way. Our worthy clergyman then called Gibbon
“ an insincere man,” forgetting that not one of
our Legislators is allowed by opinion, or even law,
to be even half as sincere as he !
These are the sort of men, too, that try often
to insinuate, and if that fail, to push themselves
into the sick infidel’s or Dissenter’s room uncalled
for ; an instance of which I knew in the case of
an artist who died rather suddenly in Italy, and
who, in my presence, never expressed more than
a modest doubt on the subject. I see also by the
Advertiser, (October 2nd, 1855,) that this sort of
conduct was attempted ineffectually in the case of
the Lord Chesterfield, whose “infidelity” has been
alluded to in these Letters.
Now, of course, anything like friendship is im
possible with such characters as these, and as at
the serious period in question a man mav not
always, from acquiescence of relatives or friends,
be in a position to keep these possibly well-mean
ing persons at a distance, I consider it right here
to state that these Letters contain mv matured
opinions—after an examination of the “ religious
question ” at different intervals, and with some
what different results for the last twenty years.
I say this now, while, thank God, I feel my intel
lect clear, and as strong as ever. Although phi
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
113
losophers, put little confidence in the change of opi
nions said to have been brought about in several un
believers when on their death-bed, yet the clergy
ever appeal to these cases—where human reason
is almost always injured, often nearly annihilated
—as the best evidence that the man changed his
opinions ! They thus show how weak is their cause.
I, an humble individual, mindful I hope, in the
words of Thomas Carlyle, of the “ Duties of Man”
as well as the “ Rights of Man,” put down this,
out of no spirit of bravado, but merely as a check
on that foolish desire even of “ home conversion”
which animates the great proportion of our clergy.
I am sorry to say that these gentlemen are too
often only thinking of their oun eternal interest,
when, at the serious period in question, they seem
to be thinking alone of that of the sick man. As
believers in the scriptures—when, indeed, they are
so in reality—they do not forget the reward held
out hereafter to those who make converts of the
Heathen.
Since, in the reforms proposed in this Letter, I
have not alluded in a sufficiently clear manner to
the “ population question,” and since a work
*
treating more especially on this topic, has only
fallen into my hands after all the above was
written, I propose here to add a few remarks on
the Chapter, Poverty, its only cause and only
cure, apprising the reader that this is ascribed to
over-population, and, consequently, that its “ only
cure” is the use of some of the “ checks” enume
rated in the work quoted. As I cannot here
discuss this subject at length, I shall content my
self by recommending it to the attention of the
* Physical, Sexual, and Natural Religion, By a Medical
Student, (p. 449. Price 2s. Published by E. Truelove,
240, Strand, Temple-bar. 1855.)
�114
LETTERS TO
poorer part of the public in general, as a work
containing a greater amount of “ free thought”
and general information on these—with us—sacred
subjects, than is probably elsewhere to be found.
Notwithstanding, that “ war, pestilence, and
famine,” have decimated the human race, a philo
sopher cannot but remark, that even these causes
seem hardly to have been considered by nature,
adequate to keep down population, since she has
almost everywhere, at different times of the earth’s
history, prompted legislators to recommend, and
parents to commit, what we now consider so fearful
a crime, viz., that of infanticide. In Sparta alone
—of all civilised antiquity—was it confined more
especially within what might appear the just limits
of humanity, viz., where infants were mal-formed.
Solon recommended infanticide ; Aristotle, abor
tion ; and Plato seems in a great measure to have
anticipated Malthus, for he, also, is for limiting,
as well as improving the physical condition of the
population, of course by one of the above means.
Such general consent among sages and savages
(for infanticide, has prevailed almost always in
barbarous countries,) might well have turned
Malthus’s powerful mind to this subject ; for no
doubt the wise Romans would never have tolerated
it—particularly as in population consisted their
strength for war—had they not considered it some
what in the light of necessary evil fur greater
good.
Of course, neither Malthus, nor any at the pre
sent day, could suggest to a government the legali
sation of a limited amount of abortion produced
artificially, nor of infanticide ; neither probably
would the ancients have permitted anything of the
kind, had what are called “ checks” been known
to them. These are the substitutes for it, and far
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
115
superior, inasmuch of the two. it is better to pre
vent life, than to take it away even before it can
hardly be called life.
Malthus’s check—abstinence from marriage till
a person can support a family—becomes often a
peculiar hardship to the poor man; indeed, it is
almost insulting him under the name of Chris
tianity. No doubt, it is strictly in accordance with
this faith, which makes, as already stated, forni
cation “ deadly sin;” but if it be so, then surely
it is the duty of a government to do something
more towards bettering the condition of the poor,
that they may have it in their power to marry with
out actually bringing additional beggars into the
world.
Doubtless, other checks noticed as efficacious in
the work in question, would not be tolerated as
moral by our religion ; but the author also men
tions that one somewhat recently discovered by Ra •
ciborski, viz., “ abstinence from sexual intercourse,
from the third day before menstruation, till the
eighth day after it,” (p. 348) ; and this might
even be used by married people, who firmly be
lieved in Christianity. Professor Muller, some
few years back, (see Physiology} mentioned this
discovery; and it is right to say, that even now
it seems only highly probable as such, but cer
tainly worth attending to by the religious with
large families, who are in poor circumstances, as
giving a good chance.
As this last check is the only one, the very
strict believer in Christianity would use, and as
this party constitutes at the very least more than
three fourths of our population, we see clearly
that if over-population be the “ only cause” of
poverty, as our author asserts, there is very little
chance in this “ religious country” at least, of his
�116
LETTERS TO
remedy being followed. Indeed, even if all the
checks he suggests were pretty generally followed,
I apprehend, that still the destruction of mono
polies. or the regulation of prices, as already ad
vocated in this Letter, would be requisite to
equalise property to a reasonable extent. 1 however,
admit, that a general use of his “ checks,” would
tend to diminish poverty to a very considerable
extent.
As then, while Christianity is the established
religion, it is in vain to expect any diminution of
poverty by a general use of this author’s checks ;
we have here, again, another injurious effect of
this creed to add to those already mentioned in
this work.
I believe I may also enumerate among these, its
tendency, by its opposition to Burke’s wise maxim,
(see p. 4), to increase the number of the very
worst cases of prostitution, viz., those in which a
woman is left totally without means of support.
The author of the work now noticed, says justly,
“ only by allowing greater sexual freedom, is it
possible to eradicate prostitution." (p. 3G9.) I
have long been of this opinion, and there was an
otherwise good article on the subject in the IFestmister Review some years ago, but it it did not
make the above suggestion. The Turkish Empire,
however, shows its truth, where fornication on the
part of the man and adultery on that of the wo
man or man, is very severely punished. If we
punished adultery by imprisonment and hard
labour, and opinion passed a less severe sentence
on illegitimate connexions, (which nevertheless
exist clandestinely to an enormous extent in this
country), I believe our social liberty would be
vastly improved, and our female population less
often driven to prostitution. Gibbon and Crevier
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
117
both speak of connexions 'without actual marriage
recognised by law among the Romans; and the
former writer says justly of this concubinage (as
it was called in legal terms), that “ in it the two
Antonines, the best of princes and of men, en
joyed the comforts of domestic love.” (Decline
and Fall, ch. xliv.) I may add that Antoninus
Pius was the more justified in such a step as the
Empress Faustina seems to have been unfaithful
to him. This concubine of the Romans was com
monly of the lower classes of life, but she very
properly had legal rights, and her children also,
who were “ capable of succeeding to a sixth part
of the inheritance of their reputed father.”
(Idem.J I observe that the author of the work
very properly published by Mr. Truelove for promo
ting discussion on these sacred matters, says justly,
without indeed alluding to the concubinage above
noticed of the Romans, or “ secondary marriage”
as Gibbon also calls it, and which seems similar
to what our author suggests for Britain,—“ that
all parents should be legally forced to support
their children.” {Op. Cit., p. 368.) The only
objection I can perceive to the utility of the above
suggestions is, that such “ secondary marriages”
might in some cases tend to prevent marriages
justly so called ; but I apprehend only in a very
limited degree, and perhaps it would be unfair to
put this one bad effect in opposition to the nume
rous good ones the author of the work in question
attempts to show would follow were opinion less
severe on all cases of illicit sexual intercourse.
I do not think when the “ population question”
is thus widely considered, not only as to the mere
permission of abortion or infanticide, but also as
regards checks, that Christianity has done any
real good on this subject. At the present day,
�118
LETTERS TO
certainly, infanticide should be put down by severe
law, since checks supply its place; but since Chris
tianity would not consider this as a reason, or in
fluence legislation on any such principle, \ see no
reason to praise Christianity on this point, even
though I freely give it and Judaism the credit, if
any there really be, of having changed the world’s
ideas on this subject. “ Christianity,” says Gibbon,
{chap. xliv.) had been insufficient (till the time of
Valentinian) to eradicate this inhuman practice,
until its gentle influence was fortified by the ter
rors of capital punishment.” Nevertheless, as it
fortified the original Jewish idea, it must, I con
ceive, lay claim to any merit attached to such
change of ideas; though such came near half
a century after the time of Constantine. But, as
Gibbon hints, it was actual law that put down the
practice ; and if there be anything really good in
Christianity, this can always be resorted to by a
government to punish such crime or sin. As law
can always thus seize the kernel, we should do
well to throw the shell with its ambiguity, and
other bad qualities away, i. e., the so-called re
vealed religion itself.
After having suggested what may probably be
called Utopian and impracticable, and too vast
changes in our social system, and that of the
United States, I shall close this letter by referring
to a minor reform that is, at least, not impractica
ble. I allude to the multiplication of places of
accomodation for the relief of the urinary organs,
&c., &c., as Mr. Lewis Gompertz, (the liberalminded originator, along with Mr. Martin, Sir J.
Mackintosh and others of our laws against cruelty
to animals) justly observed in a letter which some
time back he printed and sent to the journals on
this subject, stating that by the absence of the places
�THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
119
alluded to, disease is often slowly produced in the or
gans in question. In the city during late years there
has been great improvement, but such has not ex
tended to the West End. This neglect is the less jus
tifiable in this country, because we have a law
against “ exposure of person,” and because we
often find convictions under this law printed up
at our park gates. Now it seems very difficult
occasionally to decide whether such “ exposure”
may not have been a case almost of necessity, mis
taken for one of express intention ; and if so, it
shows that prudery, or economy, here sometimes
defeats its object, and becomes a source of injus
tice to the public.
�Note A., page 13.—I find Hume seems to doubt the
utility of Theism as a State Religion. He says, (Natural
History of Religion, p. 468J “If we should suppose, what
never happens, that a popular religion were found, in which it
was declared that nothing but morality could gain the
divine favour ; if an order of priests were instituted to in
culcate this opinion in sermons with all the arts of persua sion ; yet so inveterate are prejudices, that for want of
some other superstition, they would make the very attendance
on these sermons the essentials of religion, rather than place
them in virtue and good morals.”
Again, (p. 469,) “The moral obligation (in the opinion
of the masses) removes all pretension to religious merit.”
Again, in his Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, (p. 523,)
we find him having so little regard to the religion of this,
that he actually says, “The Presbyterian government is
established.” To be sure, he puts this ecclesiastical court
under the civil magistrate, by giving him “power to try,
depose, or suspend, any Presbyter.” He adds, (p. 528,)
“ Without dependance of the clergy on the civil magis
trates, it is in vain to think that any free government will
have security.” But, though good, this is not enough to
secure “ free government,” since, as the magistrates them
selves, in all Christian countries, must adopt some form
of Christianity, they themselves are under its influence,
almost as much as the clergy are, as the example of Eng
land, and even America, now shows ; and as Jefferson said,
Presbyterians have proved themselves the most intolerant
of the Protestant sects. I think, therefore, we must admit
that on the mere question of religion. Sir T. More, in his
Utopia, is wiser than Hume ; although Hume begins the
present Essay by saying, in reference to More, that “ all
plans of government which suppose great reformation in
the manners of mankind, are plainly imaginary.” (p. 516.)
Hence, perhaps, it was that he thought a revealed and in
�NOTES.
121
tolerant religion was as good as a tolerant one laying no
claims to revelation, supposing the former were dependant
on the civil power.
But, if “ manners cannot be reformed ” by good laws,
what is the use of proposing these ? But that Hume errs
on this point, great as his talents are, I think is proved by
some nations surpassing others in civilisation now, just as
Greece and Rome did formerly. To be sure, Hume says,
“ great reformation,” and perhaps the history of the world
has proved him right in this respect. Still, I must consider
his “ Commonwealth ” very defective as regards religion.
In alluding to Plato, too, on this subject, it is singular that
he only mentions the Republic., (which he classes with the
Utopia) as “imaginary;” while he does not mention the
Laws, the very last work of Plato, and as St • John justly
says, “ a more really practical work.” (Introduction to
More’s Utopia.)
It might have been possible, after recommending Pres
byterianism, to have classed Hume with Frederick the
Great and others, who thought Christianity at least a wseful creed, though they did not believe in it. But in the
following passage he justly enumerates its defects, and
though Catholicism only is alluded to, still the History even
of Elizabeth’s reign shows, as Sydney Smith remarks,
(Edinburgh Review), that Protestantism at times has been
quite as intolerant. “ Virtue, knowledge, love of liberty,
are the qualities which call down the fatal vengeance of
inquisitors.” (p. 445.) And such being the case, he in
this page, most wisely and justly, places the atrocities com
mitted by the followers of the Carthaginian and Mexican
religions in a more excusable light, than those committed
by Catholics. In his Commonwealth Hume forgets that
intolerance is directly preached by Christianity, and that
Catholics and Presbyterians are only more intolerant than
other sects, because they follow Christianity more to the
letter. All revealed religions are always more intolerant
than natural religion, as a matter of course: thus, as
Gibbon shows, the, in some respects, wise religion of
Zoroaster was more intolerant than Deism, because it pro
fessed to be revealed. But as there was not any TEXT in
that religion, which expressly consigned heretics to damnation,
so, of course, even this religion would not be so intolerant
as Christianity, Mahommedanism, and Judaism. In like
manner, the Deism, said to have been revealed to Numa,
was more tolerant than these.
G
�122
NOTES.
In consequence of these reflections, I find myself again
opposed to Hume, “ The intolerance of almost all religions
which have maintained the unity of God, is as remarkable
as the contrary opinion of Polytheists.” (p. 444.) We
have just seen there is a gradation in the tolerance even of
Revealed Religions which proclaim Monotheism: but when
this doctrine is held merely as a consequence of induction
from the phenomena of Nature, it is certainly far more tole
rant even than Polytheism.
In his remarks on toleration, in the Essay On a Parti
cular Providence, (vol. ii., p. 149,) Hume says, “ There
are scarcely any instances to be met with, in Ancient His
tory, of this bigotted jealousy, with which the present age
is so much infested. Epicurus lived at Athens to an ad
vanced age in peace ; Epicureans were even permitted to
officiate at the altar in the most sacred rites of the estab
lished religion : and the public encouragement of pensions
and salaries was afforded equally by the wisest of the
Roman Emperors to the Professors of various sects of
philosophy, says Lucian.”* Hume had just before stated,
that “The death of Socrates proceeded partly from other
motives,” (probably his indulging in irony against powerful
individuals?) than a want of toleration m Polytheism.
But I think it is clear from Diogenes Laertius’s Lives, that
there is a distinction to be made in this respect, and that
the Greeks were far more intolerant than the Romans; for
we find that Stilpo, Protagoras, and Aristotle were
banished, and Theophrastus nearly so; and that Anaxa
goras killed himself to avoid further persecution [for
religion’s sake.
Hume would perhaps have us believe by his Note, (C. C.,
vol. i., p. 535,) that the Romans were as bad in this re
spect, since he mentions the Emperor Claudius abolishing
the superstition of the Druids by penal law. But Gibbon
takes a j uster view of this supposed infringement on their
usual spirit of toleration, by stating that the religion of
the Druids was obviously highly immoral, since it enforced
on certain occasions, human sacrifices; and yet, though
even this was the case, “thepriests themselves, their gods,
and altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final de
struction of Paganism.” (Decline and Fall. Chap, ii.,
sect. i.)f So that in fact, even in this case, it was Chris
* Hume also, in his History of England, (vol. i.,) calls
the Romans “ tolerating conquerors.”
f Again—Diocletian (a. d. 284) frequently conferred
�NOTES.
123
tianity that may be said to have put down the religion:
Paganism, far more tolerant, left this free, after it had
wisely prohibited the bad moral part of it, viz., human
sacrifices. Gibbon, too, has so fully shown that Paganism
was obliged, for its own existence, to persecute Christianity,
that Hume’s allusion to this case is not in point. Paganism
was still surely too lenient, for we see that in the end it
was actually exterminated by Christianity.
Now, in order to point out an oversight in Hume, I
must beg the reader to refer to my last quotations from his
Essays, and to compare with the following from the same,
placed at the head of his Note C., p. 535, vol. i. “ It is a
vulgar error to imagine that the Ancients were as great
friends to toleration as the English or Dutch are at pre
sent.” But even the Athenians tolerated Epicurus, as he
informed us, and I think by the aid of Gibbon I have
shown these people were far less tolerant than the Romans.
It follows, then, clearly that the toleration at least of the
Romans was greater than that of the English or Dutch ;
and I doubt not, indeed, than even that of the Greeks was,
considered as mere religion. And, in fact, if we refer again
to the Natural History of Religion, p. 444, we shall find
the following passage:—“ If among Christians the English
and Dutch have embraced the principles of toleration, this
has proceeded from the steady resolution of the civil magis
trate, in opposition to the continued efforts of priests and
bigots.” This is in fact saying that Christianity itself is
far more intolerant than Polytheism, which, in truth, is one
of the points for which he wrote his Essay in question,
directly to prove.
We now see the reason why Hume, in his Commonwealth,
makes Presbyterianism under the power of the “ civil
magistratebecause he had seen that such subjection
could diminish its persecuting spirit, as in England and
Holland. But the magistrate can only do this in part, and
that as far as actual law goes. But Hume forgot the per
secution by opinion—the social persecution which must ever
remain while so intolerant a religion is predominant, even
as a religion. Besides, this power of the magistrate only
“ most important offices ” on people of ability, who even
“ avowed Atheism. ” (Chap, xvi., Diocletian.) This fact
alone will induce any impartial person to believe that there
were urgent secular causes for his persecution of the Chris
tians, still much exaggerated. (See Gibbon.)
�J24
NOTES.
remains as long as the laws remain: but as Christianity in
fluences the very making of the laws, such laws stand a
chance of being repealed any day by the influence of some
bigots, or new ones made more in accordance with the strict
spirit of Christianity. Hume admits that priestly influence
has been set aside very judiciously by the civil power ; why,
then, if there must be a religion for the people, has he not
preferred the old Polytheism for his Commonwealth ? he
being a friend of toleration, and himself admitting that
such was the most tolerant form of religion. I say this on
the supposition that he thought pure Theism would not do
for the people. But I cannot think he is right on this point:
for a religion, under the control of the magistrate, may,
in fact, be said to be no religion, except that, to show its
intolerance and power, it will still always continue to per
secute by opinion. Now, pure Theism would not do this.
I do not apprehend that Cicero was so much in favour
of religious toleration, as a consistent Republican should
be, for in his Republic or Laws he merely recommends
every citizen to profess the religion of his country. It
seems, indeed, probable from Adams’s statement, that
under the Emperors, (as a sort of compensation for the
loss of much political liberty,) the spirit of religious tole
ration increased. “ If any one,” says Adams,, “intro
duced foreign rites of himself, they were publicly con
demned by the Senate. But under the Emperors, all
superstition, (even of Isis, Serapis, and Anubis, from
Egypt,) flocked to Rome.”*
We must, however, bear in mind on this subject, that as
“ Nero repealed many of the decrees of Claudius,” (SSuetonius's Nero, sect. 33) ; so one Emperor acted towards the
laws of another. Thus, although Augustus disliked the
Jewish and Egyptian rites, still it was only under Tiberius
we find something at all events like persecution; both
* Roman Antiquities, (p. 56,) quoted from Livy. (Liv.
xxix., 11 and 12,—iv., 30,—xxv., 50.) In proof of this
greater tendency to toleration under the Emperors, I may
quote Cxibbon, (chap, xi., Note,) who says, that “ in the
year of Rome 701, the Temple of Isis was demolished by
order of the Senate: but after the death of Csesar it was
restored at the public expense." {Dion Cassius, 1. xl., p.
252, et. 1. xlvii., p. 501.) These last words speak volumes
in favour of Pagan toleration; and this we observe was
just as the Empire was beginning.
�NOTES.
125
Suetonius (Tiberius, 36,) and TacitHS, (Annafe. s. 11 85,)
agreeing that he made the Jews undergo a sort of banish
ment. But it seems most probable, even at this time, that their
hatred of Paganism (strongly disposing them to actual
revolt) was the cause of this severity, for we know that
Tiberius was indifferent to all religions; and Suetonius
further on, (Life of Claudius, sect 25,) expressly says,
“ this Timperor banished the Jews out of Rome, who were
perpetually making disturbances." But we observe here,
they were banished even a very little way, viz., 44 out of
Borne” only. Vespasian obliged the Jews, after the des
truction of Jerusalem, to pay a slight tribute, and was
otherwise severe. But all this was not on account of Ju
daism, as a religion, but because we see that, even from the
time of Claudius, such religion had 44 caused disturbances"
Under Domitian, (Suetonius, sect 12,) it appears some of
them had their estates confiscated, 44 because they did not
pay the tribute laid upon that nation.”* But before the
Jews forced Vespasian into that war, by which Jerusalem
fell, there seems no evidence that they had any tribute laid
upon themselves as Jews. Rome seems to have left re
ligion, even in this case, free; and the Jews were justly
punished, because they wanted their religion to be above
Paganism.
.
44 The only direct tribute imposed by the Romans, says
Lord Brougham, (Nature of Democracy. Roman Polity,
chap, v., p. 244), “ upon a conquered people, was a tax of
one-twentieth on the sale of all slaves.f * * They were
allowed to retain their own laws, form of government, and
magistrates. No Governor was sent from Rome, and the
Senate and Consuls exercised no authority except in mat
ters of peace, and war, and alliances, except, that the
* 44 Imposita genti tributa, non pependissent." See my
Historical Sketches of some of the Roman Emperors, or
Crevier’s learned French work on the same subject.
f We here observe that Lord Brougham says nothing
about the conquered nations being obliged to pay a tribute
towards the support of a religion they often (as regarded
its details) might not believe in, viz., the state religion of
Rome. Rousseau also says (Contrat Social, liv. iv.) 44 a
crown to Jupiter of the Capitol was often the only tribute
they imposed.”
This was in fact only obliging men to
acknowledge subjection to one Supreme God (D. O. M.)
z>r powe", which all must, or ought, to acknowledge. I find
�126
NOTES.
troops for the wars of the Republic were paid, as well aa
raised, by the conquered districts. * * * The con
quered people were not allowed to intermarry with Romans,
nor to dwell in the city, nor to hold any offices, nor to have
any voice in elections, nor to enjoy any intercourse of sacred
rites."
It is from this last passage, which I have marked in italics,
that we may, I think, infer that Polytheism and Christianity
seemed to have directly opposite tendencies as to the desire
to extend themselves, and, consequently, as to toleration.
Paganism seemed to say, worship your own Gods, we can
not permit you to worship ours, which are either too
good for you, or superior to your comprehension. The
Pagans wisely would have scouted our modern ideas of
“ missionaries,” or our constant attempts even at home
conversion. Under such circumstances, it was not very
likely they would have forced the Jews to pay for the sup
port of the Pagan religion, viz., as religion *
It was not till after the insurrection, A. U. C., 658, that
the whole ofltaly, south of the Arno and Rubicon, was com
prehended in the Roman State, and the above restrictions
were removed. Julius Ca?sar, A. U. C., 705, added Gaul,
and Caracalla all the provinces of the Roman Empire to
the citizenship.
Recurring again more especially to religious toleration,
I may perhaps urge the less amount of this under the
Athenian Republic (already alluded to), than under the
Roman, government generally, whether Republican or Tmperial, in confirmation of my opinion that religious toleranothing in the Empire under Paganism like forcing men to
pay to an “ established church,” in the doctrines of which
they cannot believe. This acme of tyranny (see Ireland
especially) vitiates all the glory of our too highly extolled
civil liberty.
* There can be no doubt that it was only because the
Romans saw that the nature of the Jewish religion was most
intolerant to all other religions, and hence, consequently,
often exciting the Jews to revoZt, that at last they were
obliged to act with great seeming intolerance to them.
Under Trajan again they tried to revolt, and under Adrian
succeeded in keeping up a formidable war against the
Empire two years. (See Crevier’s Adrian.} These remarks
apply also to Christians, who seem at this time to have often
been called Jews.
�NOTES.
127
tion was greater at Rome under the Empire than under the
ReDublic.
The Athenians no doubt found that their
amount of political liberty was so great, that they dared
not, for the safety of the Republic, allow too great religious
liberty.
Probably the Romans, under their Republic,
thought so too ; and the opinion seems wise that a Republic
should not allow such perfect religious toleration as a more
despotic government can well afford to do.
.
__
It is true that the grand Atheistic or Pantheistic poem of
Lucretius was written under the Republic before the. time
of Cicero, and this may seem to go against the opinion ot
the greater amount of religious liberty under the Empire.
But even supposing the poem was circulated as widely as
any other works, and by a similar number of copies under
the Republic, still this would only show that from first to
last, the expression of thought on religious matters was Jree
at Rome (Caesar’s assertions in the open Senate seem to
show the same) ; but under the Empire, religious rites or
practices, (as already stated in regard to Isis) were per
mitted, which the Republic would not tolerate. Freedom
of thought shows great toleration in religious matters no
doubt, but freedom of practice still greater.
Since writing the above, I have re-read Montesquieu s
Dissertation sur la Politique des Romains dans la Religion,
and find in it, on the authority of Cicero, (De Leg., 1. 2, c.
that “ Aimurs could pronounce nothing on public affairs
without the permission of the magistrates ; and that it was so
ordered in the books of the Pontiffs.” As we have already
seen that Hume was in favour of ecclesiastical power being
under civil, he probably adopted this wise view from the
Romans, but he forgot the British people had a far more
intolerant religion to deal with, and this, I think, shouId
have induced him to have wished to have seen the old
Pagan religion back again along with the wise regulation
On much the same principle, I think, Roman Catholics
should do the same, for, strange to say, they also have on y
borrowed half—unfortunately the worst half—and it would
have been well for toleration had they borrowed the whole
We know that their priests object to the Biole being read
generally, and Montesquieu tells us that the Senate did the
same with regard to the sibillyne books, and would not allow
them to be read, except under the pressure of some great
public calamity. Again, like the Catholics, “ all interpretations
of these sacred books were forbid,” and, adds Montesquieu,
�128
NOTES.
“ by so wise a precaution, arms were taEen out of the
hands of fanaticism and sedition.” No doubt any exami
nation of the details of Polytheism would have injured the
stability of the government; and as these details were in
fact the religion of the people—who were too ignorant at
that time to appreciate the generalities—so true—on which
Polytheism is founded, the Senate were wise in making the
above regulations.
I apprehend the Catholics are so too in the present day
in these respects; for they also allow no “interpretations”
of scripture. But the vast superiority of Polytheism over
Catholicism is clear from two considerations—1st, as I just
observed, its generalities are true ; for, as Montesquieu
says, the Pagans thought it mattered little whether we
adored the Divinity itself or the manifestations of the
Divinity; for example, Venus, as the passive generative
power of nature, and the sun as the active power,” &c., &c.
Thus Cicero says (De. Nat. Deorum, b. 2, chap, xxviii.)
the Supreme Power on land is worshipped under the name
of Ceres ; on sea, under that of Neptune. 2ndly, There
was no intolerance in Polytheism.
Now even the generalities of scripture will not bear any
philosophical examination of the above kind ; and of course,
both the Jewish and Christian religions have filled the
world with dissention and bloodshed by their great intoler
ance.
I say, then, I think the Catholics right in allowing little
exammation and no dissent, because, as reasonable men,
they must be convinced that the generalities, as well as the
details of their religion, have no solid foundation ; and,
consequently, that philosophical examination can only lead
to discord, and a fatal development of that intolerent spirit
which is the very essence of all real Christianity. The im
mense number of sects, and the intolerant state of opinion
in the “ States,” although not having led to much blood
shed, will, I think, also favour the wisdom of the Catholics
on these points; and I much query whether the sort of
half-toleration (or even less) of the reformation, admitting
its good in some respects, was worth the immense amount
of bloodshed it has cost the world.
Montesquieu does not say that the Romans imposed any
tax on conquered nations for the support of their (so to call
it) “ established Church.” On the contrary, he asserts
that they found, or always tried to find, their own Gods, but
assuming a different name, in all the conquered districts ; and
�NOTES.
129
thus were enabled to give them the strongest possible claim
to that ACTUAL EQUALITY which, provided they were not
themselves intolerant, they in fact acquired at Rome. JN o w
this system was not only wise and just, but it was TRUE;
for God is everywhere. “ Thus," says Montesquieu, with
real eloquence, “ conquered nations regarded Rome rather
as the SANCTUARY OF religion, than the mistress oi the
To sum up, recurring again to Hume. I think he should
have seen in Paganism itself, that Theism (at all events
when graced with a little poetry, so to call it,) was a possi
ble religion for the people. Lord Brougham (Paleys
Natural Theology Illustrated,'Sotes viu. andix., pp. 2to
to 296) shows well that Plato and Cicero held very ra
tional opinions on a future state, and that these, Strabo, and
I rni-ht add Polybius, regarded Theism as the foundation
of Paganism, (Jupiter was always the chief God,. see Tay
lor’s Diegesis, Pl>. 14-15) ; and that the Mythological fables
were merely added as being more suited to the comprehen
sion of the vulgar—much in the same way as Catholics oi
the present day have by similar embellishments and faction
made their faith, replete with male and female saints, like the
“lesser Deities” of Paganism—more adapted to the devo
tional feelings of the mass of the community. Certainly, the
poet will, also, rather praise such additions, (“ pious frauds
if you like so to call them) for by them Paganism and Catho
licism have both become far more poetical religions than
Protestantism. In consequence, (speaking generally) they
may be said almost to have given birth to poetry, painting,
and sculpture. If the Pope would but separate intolerance,
&c., from Catholicism, I should regard that as. a .system of
pure Theism, and the best of any at present existing.
Note B., page 18.—While laws exist in the statute book,
as they do’still with us in England in favour of Christi
anity, our still very useful martyrs in the cause of free •
thou Hit, can scarcely say they have forced the government
to its present very laudable spirit of toleration in matters
of religion. The government has only given way from
otives of policy, and on emergency could still if it thoug ht
fit resort to its former disgraceful course of persecution,
which, indeed, was only following Christianity m its real
spirit. To-day, the government is wisely,, only nominally
Christian in ignoring (for it cannot be said absolutely to
sanction) the attacks of free-thinkers.
It seems to me a mistake to suppose that Richard Carlile
G 2
�130
NOTES.
(or Robert Taylor,) contributed much to the freedom
of the British Press as regarded Theology, since Hume and
Gibbon had previously found publishers. But Carlile, at
the same time, that he published against Christianity, ad
vocated the freest political theories and practice, (short of
actual communism,) and this was probably very greatly
concerned in the violent government persecutions in this
case, though Messrs. Taylor’s and Holyoake’s imprisonments
show that lecturing against Christianity offended govern
ment much at that time. Thomas Paine commenced writ
ing in favour of Republics, and only years afterwards
attacked Christianity, which attack lost him the friendship
of Dr. Rush, (see Vale’s Life of Paine,) and as Rush was
a most intimate friend of Jeffersons, caused, perhaps, even
this latter great man to regard Paine with less cordiality on
his return to America, than he otherwise would have done.
(See Memoirs of Jefferson, by Randolph, (in four vols.)
It was not till the Throne seemed attacked as well as the
Altar, that our government moved. Be it also remembered,
that America and France had actually succeeded in estab
lishing Republics at the time Paine wrote, and when
Carlile began to reprint his works. Now, as there is no
fear of any party succeeding in establishing a Republic
here, further than on paper, government ignores political
writings that go even farther than Carlile thought desirable.
lie did not advocate communism; but many works now
left free do ; nor are the writers prosecuted. But, I ap
prehend, the government has not lost the power to prose
cute, should a change of circumstances seem to render such
a step desirable. Some old law exists in the statute book,
like the one in reference to Christianity, and like that
could be evoked on emergency. These spectres, too, might
not only “ be called
but would actually “ come,” when
called for. That the British government merely ignores,
and can not in reality be said, even now actually to tolerate
writings against Christianity, the following case among
others, distmctly sbows. It is taken from Cox’s Work, p. p.
477-8.
After stating that from policy, (“ as prohibition tends
rather to increase then diminish circulation,”) the press is
left free, except in some peculiarly offensive cases, Cox
continues, 4b In England the celebrated maxim, that
Christianity is part and parcel of the law,” continues to
operate as a bar to the free propagation of opinion, in a
manner which it is impossible for a moment to defend. On
�NOTES.
131
this principle, Lord Hardwicke in 1743, decided that a
sum of money left to found an institution for reading the
Jewish law, could not legally be so applied ; and so late as
June, L1855! a similar decision was given by the ViceChancellor, and the following bequest was declared to be
null, as being “ repugnant to revealed religion.
.
W. J. Hartley, by will, dated 1843, “ gave to Major
General Bri^s £300 as a remuneration, for the best ori
ginal essay on Natural Theology, treating it as a science.
&c. ; also demonstrating the adequacy of this, wlieu so
treated and taught as a science, to constitute a true, perfect,
and philosophical system of universal religion, founded on
immutable facts, and the works of creation, and beautifully
adapted to man’s reason, and tending as other sciences o,
but in a higher degree, to improve and elevate his nature,
*
and render him a wise, happy, and exalted being.
The Vice-Chancellor said, that in bis opinion, the above
words which the testator had chosen to adopt, could not
mean anything that was at all consistent with Christianity .
In this respect, no doubt, he was right; but his decision
shows, that even now, as Cox justly says, ^supposed non
belief in Christianity operates on a person s interest in a
“ manner which it is impossible to defend.
For here we
see, that although a person uses no disrespect whatever to
the prevailing creed, yet, because Ins views are considered
to be even secrei/y hostile to it, his bequest is made null.
This will be warning enough to those who believe _ only in
the one true religion, (viz., Theism,) to give anything they
wish for its support, during their life-time, since trea
Christianity as respectfully as you may, you cannot anu
late its inherent persecuting spirit. Had Theism, on the
contrary, been the religion of the State as I suggest, it
would have tolerated a bequest of this sort from any sec
tarian to his sect, whether it were Jew, Christian or In
fidel. Cox goes on to say, that the same unjust decision
did not occur in Scotland in 1832 in Taylors case. Iu
here the bequest was “ to the general Unitarian Baptist
Assembly," and as Unitarians are admitted to our Farlianient, as calling themselves Christians, the cases are totally
different ; and besides, this decision was made by Lord
Jeffery, who, as a writer for the Edinburgh Review, was as
* Cox justly praises this as appearing to have' been
the religion of “Socrates, Cicero, Collins, Adam Smith,
‘Franklin, and Jefferson.” (p. 480.)
�J 32
NOTES.
liberal as opinion allowed him to be. Therefore, I appre
hend, Cox to be in error, when he considers Scotland, in
this respect, more free than England. (Op. Cit., p. 479.)
It follows, from all the above, that our free-thinkers
should not consider their victory complete, till they have
got the noxious laws in question out of the statute book. We
see obsolete laws (as we suppose,) almost every week
being attempted to be put in practice again, as for instance,
in reference to the labourer, (p. 32, note) : and though I
am glad to see, that Sir George Grey has reversed the de
cision of those magistrates, it seems still, perhaps, doubt
ful, whether their decision was not strictly legal; and
whether or not, it is to be remembered, that this old man
has been subjected to a vast deal of annoyance, on account
of our bad mode of legislation. This is anything but liberty.
The Athenian custom, noticed, p. 82, is clearly the
proper one ; and Lord Brougham is said to be now occu
pied in endeavouring to get all the useless or injurious laws
ou our statute book repealed. Doubtless, he deserves great
praise for such labour; but time will show whether our
Christian, by necessity, legislature, will tolerate this blow
—which alone can be called the death blow—against bigotry,
or if “things were called by their right names”—actual
IRRELIGION.
Note C., Page 23.—As the Bible expressly commands
death to witches, I have urged this in my third argument
(p. 23) as another objection against even the utility of the
scriptures. I propose here to enter into a few details of the
evils this scripture doctrine has caused.
1. —“ The charge of witchcraft too commonly arose out
of the medical success of the offender.” (Sandby’s Mes
merism, p. 40.) “ The persecutions for witchcraft did not
commence till towards the close of the 15th century, i. e.,
when what are called the dark or middle ages were rapidly
passing away !”
2. —“ This persecution extended all over Europe, and by
it many thousands suffered death.”
3. —“ During the Puritanic supremacy of the famous long
parliament, 3,000 victims perished."
(p. 41.)
“ The
General Assembly passed an act for all ministers to take
note of witches and eharms.”
In pp. 42 and 43, after many instances of the persecu
ting spirit of the Presbyterian clergy on this point, we find
that “ three poor women were executed in 1623 at Perth
for doctoring.” (p. 44.)
�NOTES.
1 QQ
loo
“These charges were generally connected with cures
wrought, or attempted, for some severe disease. The igno
rant prosecutors could not explain what they saw. it was
a paradox how an old woman could by 4 simples cure dis
eases which had resisted the wisdom of the professor.
Hence the charge of sorcery.
I am indebted to Mr. Sandby’s work for the above facts ;
*
but I shall no doubt draw a somewhat different conclusion
from them from what the rev. gentleman has done. .
1st.—They show the danger there is to the public in ad •
mitting that anything like supernatural science is tiue, with
out complete and impartial examination. Here we find
people punished for imaginary crimes. Individuals who
themselves professed to have the power of witchcraft, de
served, no doubt, a lenient punishment (fine) for fraud ;
just as astrologers, and many mesmerists and somnambules
do at the present day. But those who did not themselves
profess to know such art, deserved no punishment.
2ndly._ They show that Protestantism can sometimes be
as intolerant as Catholicism; and that the advantages of a
free form of government may be very materially diminished
by co-existence of superstition, or a pernicious senti
ment which is the offspring of revealed religion. (See No.
3 above quotation.)
3rdly.—They confirm what I have said in this work in
reference to preaching Christianity to “the heathen, and
nations immersed in ignorance—nay perhaps even further
to highly educated nations ; since the reader will ob
serve the curious fact, viz., it was at “ the close of the 15th
century,” just about the time of the spread of knowledge by
printing and the so-called reformation, that believersin Cihristianity began to persecute for witchcraft !
The present religious condition of the highly educated
United States, with its Shakers, Swedenbourgians, and
Spirit Rappers, &c., &c., (I speak with no disrespect) added
to the fact just noted, confirms me more and more in the
belief that every State should have an established religion ;
but also, that that religion should be natural Theism. The
command—“ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” still
exists in the scriptures, nor can any man tell when opinion
* The student should also refer to a No. in the Edinburgh
some years ago for details of still further horrors, and to
mark the vast numbers executed.
�134
NOTES.
or clerical influence may again be powerful enough—at all
events in new and barbarous nations—to cause it to be
obeyed.
Note D., page 57.—As I have often called Protestantism
only a sort of half reformation, I shall here add some de
tails on the subject by way of establishing my points.
Gibbon very justly calls the reformers of the loth and
16th centuries “ a set of fanatics.”* That great historian
contented himself as a reformer in matters of religion, with
showing that Christianity was not altogether of divine
origin ; and as this was a vast step indeed in advance of
Luther and Calvin, he deserves immortal honour, yet is not
likely to get his statue in the “Abbey.” However, he is
still too guarded in his remarks on the tendency of Chris
tianity. In regard to “ unconditional submission,” his
views arc clear enough as he prefers the views of Paganism to
Christianity on this point—the sway of the Antonines to that
of Constantine or Theodosius.
But in different parts we
find him speaking of the “ mild tendency of the gospel,”
as if in approval of its true spirit,! in contradistinction to
the precept and practices of its degenerate professors. But
surely, when noticing the persecutions of Charles the Fifth,
he might justly have said, here we have an instance of its
bad tendency on a man of an enlarged and otherwise liberal
mind.
No doubt, Charles V., began very mildly with Luther
* No doubt they were, and some of the changes they
made were as foolish as they were unjust; witness the
closed pew system, shutting up churches six days in the
week, and building such small ones. It is to be remarked,
too, that every form of Catholicism is of a more cheerful
character than of Calvinistic Protestantism, even to the
sound of the church bell
I have no doubt that ail except
fanatics would be very glad to find this, reminding one of
anything rather than heaven, tolling only ten minutes instead
of twenty minutes, or half an hour twice each Sunday—es
pecially if they lived in the immediate vicinity of the Pro
testant church.
f See end of chap. xvi. I think, too, that Gibbon was
deterred by the unjust clamour raised against this chapter,
from doing full justice afterwards to the life of the Em
peror Julian (ch. xxiii.) Indeed, he almost says so himself
by implication. (See Life by himself.)
�NOTES.
135
when he summoned him to Worms ; but afterwards we
*
find him approving of the punishment of death for heresy,
and asserting that “ it was strange the German nation
should undertake to do what all other nations in the uni
verse, even with the Pope, would not be authorised to do,”
and concluding by censuring “ the new Mahomet,” as he
called Luther, t He did not resort to harsh measures,
certainly, before he found mild ones ineffectual to sup
press the “ movement
but let us reflect that these harsh
measures were the stake, and that during his reign, (from
1545 to 1556) no less 1,320 were burnt alive, and 6,600
sentenced to the galleys or imprisonment for mere heresy.\
Although nothing can justify such barbarity, still it must
be confessed that Charles might have viewed one of Luther's
innovations, viz.—justification by faith, not only as unscriptural, but what is of vast more importance, as highly
immoral; and this too in a man who professed to start a
purer view of Christianity. “ Penance, says he, and such
sort of sacrifice is not wantedwe are led by implication to
infer the sole sacrifice,” Luther considered wanted, was
that of Reason!! This was to be sacrificed to what he
called Faith! (D’Aubigne, vol. 1, p. 73). Let us admit
on this subject, that if the Roman Catholics had pushed the
* D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, (by Scott,)
vol. i., pp. 585-636.
f Idem., vol. ii., p. 305.
| Vol. ii., p. 626. The numbers burnt by order of
Torquemada between 1481 and 1498 were 10,220. It is
not till from 1759 till 1788, in the reign of Charles III.,
that we find a very great diminution, the numbers burnt
being only four ; and from 1788 to 1808 none.
After giving the above and the other details, Scott re
marks, “ It is lamentable to think that infidel philosophy, not
evangelical Christianity, has been the grand agent in effecting
the diminution of victims." So much for the blessings, then,
of mere Protestantism to the world! This, for a time,
tended to increase the number of victims, giving indeed
some, but not very great, advantage to mankind for such
vast sacrifice. It was not till Montesquieu, Diderot,
Volney, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Gibbon, and others
began to doubt or deny the truth of Christianity itself, viz.,
from before 1770 to 1788, that this bloody persecution was
changed to the milder form in which we see it exist at the
present, viz., censure by opinion.
�136
notes.
belief in the power of the Pope and their church to pardon
sins (after penance) too far, the Lutherans, on the other
side, insisted to an absurd and prejudicial extent, on the
text:—“ If we confess our sins to God, he is faithful and
just to forgive us our sins.” (p. 40). With the great mass,
this sort of confession is no confession at all; and certainly
confession to a conscientious Roman Catholic priest (and
there are many such) would have been a greater check on
crime, had not that church unfortunately got into the
practice of selling indulgences. Here, I confess, Luther
justly attacked them; but when we find Leo X. making such
good use for the public of the vast sums acquired by the
sale of these, as building St. Peter’s at Rome, and
buying M.S.S. of Livy, (p. 232), Tacitus, {Valery's Tra
vels), and other classical authors,. we must regard even
this abuse with more lenity than otherwise. The fault is
inherent in the creed itself, which tells us that by repen
tance the reddest sins will be forgiven. Such belief will
ever be as much liable to abuse with Luther’s views equally
as with those of the Roman Catholics, as the case (a few
years ago) of the wholesale Norwich murderer Rush—to
all appearance a very sincere Protestant—evinced. “No
man can prove from scripture, that God’s justice requires
any satisfaction (except repentance) from the sinner,” said
Luther, (p. 238), and perhaps he may be right ; but I ap
prehend it would have been better for the community, had
Rush and similar characters, held the belief, that confession
and repentance openly to a priest, and even some payment
or penance, was necessary as a “ satisfaction.” Again,
(p. 599), Luther preaches :—“ We are saved by the works
of Christ, not our own works.” The Pope says something
very different, and he probably says something better,
though whether more strictly scriptural, I apprehend
neither he or any one else can truly decide, seeing how am
biguous every point looks by scripture light. As our own
works cannot save us ; so thought Rush they cannot damn
us, provided we repent, or appear to do so, for (see his
trial) he seemed to expect salvation.
“ People must first be made partakers of life by faith,
if they would do works pleasing to God,” says D’Aubigne’s
commentator, (p. 578,) in which the gross immorality and
injustice of Lutheran “justification by faith” may be said
to be summed up. Again, in Luther's own confession,
‘■'•Faith alone justifies before God, without works!”
(p. 179.) Charles V. must indeed have looked with
�notes.
137
contempt on such pretended reforms in doctrine as these
words imply.
,.
,___
Again/ from one of Luther’s sermons,
We do not
become righteous, as Aristotle pretends, by omg wor s
of righteousness: but having become righteous, we do such
works!! ” (p. 193.) So Luther himself broke his vow as
a Monk and married ; justifying perhaps his falsehood by
his faith. On the same ground Rush might have said,
since I believe, my works must be good. 1 do not by this
mean to put these men in the same category certainly : and
I allow that Luther did good in spite of his doctrine, in
getting permission for priests to marry: but this does not
excuse him personally, for he was a Monk, and had made a
vow; and if men or women (after a certain age and of their
own free choice) like even now to adopt such chastity, 1 do
not see why they should be prevented.
.
The revival of letters, the discovery of printing, and
the magnetic compass in the loth century, preceded
Luther’s Reformation-in the 16th. The Medici family at
Florence, after learned Greek scholars had been forced
into Italy from Constantinople, in consequence of the con
quest of this by the Turks in 1453, countenanced the
revival of the religion contained in Plato s works. ( pCit., p. 71.) It is a great pity for the world they did not
succeed in putting the religion of these in place of that of
the Reformation, which was partly occasioned by the above
discoveries. Mr. Scott, in the preface to D Aubigne, p. 9,
opposes even this writer himself, when he says, as we have
just seen was the case, that the enfranchisement of the
human mind was
by the discoveries of printing, the
compass, &c., &c. The Puritanical Scotch Translator,
however, will not allow these even to have played a minor
part in forwarding the Reformation! He says— take
from philosophy what she owes to the Gospel, and even
France will be found to owe little indeed to the natural
powers of the mind.” Now I may reply, as I have done
before, that the state of the ancient Greek and Koman
Pagan world is a satisfactory answer to Mr. Scott s argu
ment, that civil liberty, and order, and civilisation, cannot
exist without protestantism, and consequently without
Christianity. I am willing to admit, that Protestantism is
somewhat more favourable to civil liberty, than the pure
Catholicism of Italy and Spain is, though not so much so
as the reformed Catholicism, (so to call it,) at least was
under Louis Phillippc of France ; and I am also ready to
�138
NOTES.
allow, that as Luther preached—“ none ought to suffer
constraint, liberty is the essence of the faith," he deserves
*
credit on the score of having in respect to theoretical
toleration made a real improvement. But we must at the
same time remember, that Luther could scarcely attempt
any reform in the church, and preach otherwise ; since his
▼ery object was the liberty of changing. But to say that
he was preaching real Christianity—which expressly com
mands unconditional submission, and was probably adopted
by Constantine and others on this account—when he was
preaching as above, is totally absurd. When we are told
to “ obey the powers which be”—and when St. Paul tells
the fugitive slave to go back to his master—any attempt to
engraft the principles of civil liberty on such a creed, must
be clearly futile. The increase of such liberty, then in
Europe, after the Reformation, was caused in reality by the
Reformers declining to adhere to strict principles of
Christianity. The inventions of the 15th century show that
(contrary to Scott’s view,) the human mind could, without
the assistance of scripture, contribute to civilisation ; and
though, as Mr. Hallam truly says, {Introduction to the
Literature of Europe,) “ the doctrines of Luther, taken
together, are not more rational * * than those of the
church of Rome,” still Luther was obliged to change some
thing for the better to gain converts, and fortunately for
mankind, he preached against the supreme spiritual power
of the Pope—“ the priest having the power to forgive sin,”
(vol. ii, p. 292,) and against the celibacy of the clergy.
Let us add—Although it may be doubtful whether
“ Luther contributed much to take learning out of the
hands of the priests, who had engrossed it to themselves,
as those of ancient Egypt did,” we must, according to
D’Aubigne, give him credit for attempting (vol. ii., p. 331)
to do this. It was printing that did it in reality; and
contrary to Mr. Scott’s opinion, Luther was, therefore, in
* Vol. ii, p. 206.
When Luther preached thus, too, he
was not in power. This consideration takes off much from
the merit of the man ; for, out of power, tolerance is a
much easier virtue. Accordingly, we find that, though
Protestantism at first was more tolerant than its enemy,
still when it got the ascendancy under Elizabeth, it was
sufficiently intolerant, (see p. 36,) and has only become
somewhat less so at present, in consequence of the spirit of
the age.
�NOTES.
139
this respect, much indebted to this recent invention, for
power to carry on the work of the Reformation. But this
and the other inventions of the 15th century would, no
doubt, of themselves, eventually have brought about the
above useful practical changes, and the same increase in
the amount of civil liberty. D’Aubigne, indeed, thinks
not: but he is still far more sensible than his translator
who will not admit they had any influence whatever /in
the work of the Reformation. It is not improbable that
this could not have taken place, even so easily as it did,
without some previous general improvement, in conse
quence of the invention of printing, &c., &c. I his inven
tion, by enabling the middle and poorer class to get books,
would also enable them (after the revival of the study of
Greek and Roman authors) to perceive, that as good
government had existed before the appearance of Chris
tianity, so it might exist with less oj it than Catholicism
required; and such is, in fact, Protestantism, (1 mean it
is a sort of half Christianity,) though of course 1 rotestants will deny such an obvious truth.
But one of the most powerful causes of the success of
the Reformation (1 think omitted by D’Aubigne?) was the
following, viz., that its principles were embraced bysome oj
those in power, viz., Albert, hereditary Duke of Prussia,
the Elector of Saxonv, and partly by our Henry V1U.
Frederick the Great justly said, he owed his ancestors
much for throwing oil this thraldom ; and no doubt some
idea of personal interest contributed to make the above
sovereigns embrace Luther’s views. And without this the
Reformation would probably have stopped ! So much for
Scott attributing the change solely to Divine interposition
Henry VIII.’s adoption of it arose from the very lowest
kind of personal interest.
.
0
I am glad to find that an author, who published in 1822
a bold and excellent reply to the Rev. T. Pennell's Essay
aqainst Scepticism,—and which Essay, supported as it was
by opinion all through the country, may, perhaps, be said
to have forced Mr. Lawrence to a recantation dishonour
able, if not to himself, at all events so to the opinion of
Britain,—-holds the views of the Reformation advocated
in this note. I allude to Sir T. C. Morgan, who says,
(Philosophy of Morals, p. 289, note,—Colburn, 1822,)
“ Notwithstanding the number of sects, there are but three
modifications of opinion at all tenable: Deism, Unitananism, and Catholicism. The doctrines of the Church of
�140
NOTES.
England are too .much like Popery, tinder another name and
head.
Such being the case, we may well, indeed, ask, if
Luther s so-called Reformation was worth even the blood
of the 70,000 Protestants (to name no other victims) it
caused to be butchered in France, on August 24th, 1572,
called the massacre of St. Bartholomew ? (Taylor’s
Diegesis. p. 137. Truelove and Holyoake.) Luther
would certainly have done far more good to humanity had
he at once preached Theism, and, probably, such religion
would have been quite as well received by the Roman
Catholics: the vast extent of the above-named massacre,
shows it could scarcely have been worse received.
Sir C. Morgan, also like myself, has no great opinion of
Christian Missionary labours, anil (p. 180) he calls them
“ill-timed and irrational." In short, his is no doubt the
work of a Theist or Pantheist. Perhaps he speaks almost
as plainly as Gibbon, as to his own faith; and certainly
more so than Mr. Robert Cox. So that the work deserves
to be studied attentively eren noze by all Statesmen, were
it, indeed, only for the following passage as to what the
Reformation, at all events, should have been. “ The
punishment of libel against the established religion, (he
alludes probably to the cases of Paine and Richard Carlile,)
is a flat contradiction to the right of private judgment on
which Protestantism is founded.” (p. 336.) The despotic
opinion of Britain will not even yet admit the truth of this,
but, as usual, is so much the more disposed to punish
socially, because Law at the present period, it seems,
will not imprison the supposed culprit. R’e Auve yet to
learn that political liberty constitutes only a part of real
freedom; and that many nations behind us in this are yet
far before us in social, and, I may add, practical religious
liberty. I conclude this note, then, by referring the
reader to the quotation from Quinet with which I have
begun and by re-asserting that this applies in many re
spects more forcibly to our Puritanical Protestantism than
to Catholicism. The latter is at least the open foe of
liberty ; while the former, by pretending to concede it, in
sinuates its love of monotonous and strict order into our
every-day intercourse, and by its tyrannical influence leaves
us scarcely a vestige of the most valuable perhaps of all
liberty,—I mean social liberty.
Note E, Page 70.—Since the remarks on the passages in
Tacitus and Suetonius were written, I find the Rev. Robert
Taylor in his Duyem (pp. 372-9,) endeavours to make out,
�NOTES.
14 I
1st —that the passage in Tacitus is “a forgery or inter
polation
and, 2ndly ,—that “ there is no reasonable
ground that by Chrestus, Suetonius meant Christus.
✓ 377
In regard to Tacitus, I have only to observe that Gib
bon (chap, xvi.) considers it genuine; and as to its having
been put into the text in order to favour the truth of the
evidences of Christianity as Taylor suggests, (p. 376), it
seems to make Tacitus speak more against the utility and
purity of this religion, than was necessary. Surely a skilfiil interpolator would have been anxious to have got a
testimony of so mnch value as that of the great historian
somewhat less inimical to the very utility of the creed.
Without, therefore, denying merit to Taylor for his at
tempts to get at truth on this point, and recommending
impartial men to read the twenty reasons he gives, I for
the present follow Gibbon on this head.
. .
For similar reasons I follow him in considering that
Chrestus in Suetonius is synonymous with Christus, for
here again Gibbon in a note renders the term malefca (not
magical as he says some have done) but like exitiabilis per
nicious. Surely interpolaters would not have spoken so
decidedly against the very utility of a creed they wished
future generations to adopt.
I now come to what Mr. Taylor says about the passage
in Pliny, who was the personal friend of Tacitus. He ob
serves that, contrary to Dr. Sender, of Leipsic, and others,
he cannot “ admit it to be fairly conquered.” . (p. 383.)
But this passage will tend then to favour the belief that the
foregoing in Tacitus is genuine, for the sentiments of Plmy
on the Christian faith, as I shall now proceed to state, are
very similar, as was to be expected, to those of Tacitus and
Suetonius, though, perhaps, he scarcely speaks so badly of
it as a creed, for, although in one place he calls it ame/ifia,
and in another superstitio prava, (p. 380), yet he had, in a
passage just before, spoken well of its morality, (hut be it
observed, in this latter respect only on the testimony of a
Christian, for he himself, as Gibbon says, (chap, xvi.),
seems to have known little or nothing about it !) Hence,
as the Christian under accusation was naturally enough
*
anxious to make the new religion appear good, we
should not value this testimony too highly; and certainly
not regard it as Pliny's own opinion.
_
In this letter of Pliny we find two assertions that will, 1
think, justify the Roman government in its somewhat harsh
�142
NOTES.
treatment of the Christians on this occasion, 1st,—They
seemed to have objected to recognise the Roman Emperors
as the head of the government, probably because they
were “ required to invoke the image of the Emperor with
wine and frankincense,” and this seemed to them more akin
to divine honours than what he was entitled to. Perhaps
in this they were partly right; and yet they should have re
membered that even such honours did not make the Em
peror equal to Jupiter, the D. O. M., or Supreme God.
2ndly.—As Mr. Taylor observes, they met in societies
"before daylight (ante lucem), and the Romans might well
believe nocturnal meetings of bodies of men plotted
something “ against the welfare and peace of society.”
(p. 381.) Such nocturnal meetings had always been by the
xii tables considered illegal. (Gibbon, chap, xliv.)
I think when these two points are considered, we shall
see in the Roman apparent persecution, nothing more than
a mere political precaution for the safety ofthe state,.andwith
Gibbon “be unable to discover any bigotry in the language
or proceedings of Pliny.” (Note, chap, xvi.) He was only
doing his duty in requiring that the new infatuation
(amentia), as he justly calledit, should not actually jout down
the established divinities of the empire, and that this was
its object, the subsequent suppression of Paganism by force
—by the “ punishment even of death,” (Diegesis, p. 137)—
fully evinced. We can more easily excuse a little severity
of Pliny too, because, (as Gibbon observes), his father,
the naturalist, lived at the time of the supposed darkness
of the crucifixion, yet says nothing about it in his great
work which recorded all such wonders of nature ! The
learned son, then, might well call such creed an “ infatua
tion.”
As to the—at frst sight—more reasonable objection of
the Jews and Christians to pay divine honours to the statue
of the Emperor, Pliny, in another passage, separates, in
some measure, the human and divine, and does not call
the Emperor a Deity. It was merely something on the
same principle as we say—“ Fear God and honour the
King.”
Note F, Page 110.—Having spoken of Roman oaths, I
may here add some remarks on the precautions the Romans
took to favour justice, in case also of debts. I shall with the
same view then allude to the state of lawyers.
In the early time of the Republic, the debtor was re
tained in a state of slavery (Quin., vi., 3, 26) by his ere-
�NOTES.
143
ditor until he found means to discharge his debt. Subse
quently, (A. U. 429), “ the law only required that the
goods of the debtor, and not his person, should be given up
to the creditor.” (Roman Antiquities, p. 40.) Subsequently,
“ only one-fourth part of the debt” required to be paid by
law, which, with some little change, seems to have been in
force at the time of Julius Caesar and afterwards. If the
debtor were actually always obliged sooner or later to pay
even this one-fourth, it seems to have been better than
some of our modern laws, that allow the debtor to escape
without paying any part of his debt.
Lawyers, too, under the Roman government seem to
have been in a better position for the public, though not
perhaps for themselves, than in modern times. _
By the
Cincian law, lawyers were prohibited froni takulg
or
presents from those who consulted them.
.
Hence
the law was studied from a desire of assisting fellow citi
zens, and through their favour of rising to preferments.
(Roman Antiquities, p. 155.) “Afterwards, lawyers were
permitted to take fees, but not above a certain sum. (Idem.)
I apprehend while such laws are in force, there is at least
less temptation than there is at present, to make the worse
appear the better cause, and that no gentleman at that
period had much inducement to make a flaming speech in
favour of a murderer’s innocence, when he had the man s
confession of guilt in his pocket, as one . of our lawyers
(now noted among pious persecutors) is said to have done,
I know not with what truth.
r
I think when the above view as to the state of debtor and
creditor, and lawyers, is considered, and the fact added to
it of a distribution of corn gratuitously at stated periods
to the poorest classes (under Augustus 200,000 received
corn from the public,” Op. Cit., p. 160), we shall be in
clined to think with Adams, that “ the bulk of the people
* * were not more oppressed under the Empire than they
had been under the Republic (Op. Cit., p. 145) and fur
ther, when their high state of religious freedom is added,
that ancient surpasses modern civilization as far as that
most important point, the moral and political state of the
world, is concerned.
I shall close this note by an allusion to a belief that seems
tolhave somewhat increased even while this work has been
passing through the press—I mean “ spirit-rapping. In a
work on Reforms, I am the more bound to notice this, as in
some cases too vivid a belief in this fallacy seems not only
�144
NOTES.
to have impaired the reason, but actually to have led to
suicide. I well know from the sacrifice of time and money
I was obliged to make to satisfy myself that clairvoyance is
a fallacy, that the same will be required as regards spiritrapping, since, of course, our American and other exhibi
tors who come over here are not in general in a position to
work for nothing. But even when their belief is sincere,
and they are known as honest, this is very little more reason
for taking their exhibitions almost on trust, as many do, than
if they were known as pennyless impostors. Although I
do not approve of ridicule in such matters, yet (this apart)
I am glad to observe the “ wizard of the north” is now
showing how all these “ rappings” may be done by merely
natural means. The mysterious lady ” did the same for
merly as regards clairvoyance; and it had a good effect, by
showing that such wonderful feats were not of necessity su
pernatural. When this is clearly seen, men will soon begin
to investigate the matter more strictly, and no longer be
half frightened away from all investigation, as I have known
parties to be in regard to the far less awful pretentions of
clairvoyance.
THE END.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Letters to the American people on Christianity and the sabbath
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Prater, Horatio
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: xi, 144 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Includes bibliographical references. Dedicated to the memory of the Emperor Julian (p.[v]).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J. Clayton and Son [etc.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1856
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N544
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Letters to the American people on Christianity and the sabbath), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
Rationalism
Religion
United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/19133a9da86dc4700a44550ee4715e9c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PqwAmoiw4EHHCmpmdzI6gp1EZDOQKtCjFTLx6qP85wkUC-9t8ERujnKapyxzOOPXA%7ExAGNPpHcd17-d24meg2V36ph1w9U6b63A9LCkRgodgVnTrkjcs99lZJdKJR3cYsvit-V1j9bsmYrafYtYIraJ7LY3dMwp0MF-8h9IWLRHAyJouuUhMH7wRSN6lVRdfsPG0Kjg%7EpT7EZMAF3lPJ7ZY9gtOUOKvJHlpn5%7EWL2yXmW481Y9ocujOs52F2joSK9YzRTweO8nrFablogRxMx6tnRYsiJ7aSrzkMRAkE%7EEeW94vN%7E-H5Bod-XR6ygaS27bb0PVGKkIJjvJRGhTIgnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4d01fe0c71b3657e307e4c293f70bc4b
PDF Text
Text
MR. REYERDY JOHNSON:
The Alabama Negotiations;
AND THEIR JUST REPUDIATION BY
THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
BY GEORGE BEMIS.
BAKER
&
NEW YORK:
GODWIN, PRINTERS,
PRINTING-HOUSE SQUARE.
1869.
��MR. REVERDY JOHNSON:
THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
The extraordinary avowal of Mr. Reverdy Johnson in vindication
of his rejected “ Alabama ” convention, that the United States 1‘ob
tained, by the convention in question, all that we have ever asked ”—an
avowal contained in a dispatch to Mr. Secretary Seward on the 17th
of February last, but which has but recently found its way into circu
lation on this side of the water—is one so calculated to embarrass the
country in its further negotiations with England, and to disparage
American reputation abroad for fair dealing in diplomacy, that I feel
called upon, as an advocate*©^ American rights and American honor,
to expose its groundlessness, and to uphold the perfect fairness and
propriety of the Senate’s repudiating alike Mr. Johnson’s words and
his works.
It is bad enough to have such ^compromising assertion as this of
the late Minister to England, [paught up and echoed by our English
opponents and European ill-wishers, generally; but to have it started
by our own diplomatic representative in the first instance, and that
out of apparent pique, because the country had not approved of his
doings, constitutes an offense against official propriety and national
loyalty such as I believe has never before been witnessed on the part
of an American Minister. I trust that the expose which 1 am about
to attempt of the justice of Mr. Johnson’s extraordinary avow’al, will
be so conclusive, that the most charitable deduction to be made in his
favor, after reading it, will be, that either his mind and memory had
failed him, or that his ignorance of the subject which he was treating,
may have left room for his honestly believing in the truth of what he
was so rashly and unwarrantedly asserting.
�4
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON:
The letter or dispatch of the 17th of February, referred to, con
tains various other obnoxious assertions of Mr. Johnson’s, upon]
which I may have occasion to comment in the course of my remarks,
such as, “ at no time during the war, or since, has any branch of the.
Government [of the United States] proposed to hold Her Majesty’s
Government responsible, except to the value of the property de
stroyed ” by the “ Alabama ” and similar vessels; “ the Government [of
the United States] never exacted anything on its own account”'—“to
demand more now * * * would be an entire departure from our
previous course, and would, I am sure, not be listened to by this Gov
ernment [the British], or countenanced by other nations,” etc., etc.;
and I would gladly reprint the whole of it, except for its length, and
Q for the reason that the lettei' itself has, doubtless, already had a
wide circulation through the American press—at least in the United
States. The whole dispatch, I venture to predict, will be a memora
ble one in our diplomatic annals, and will hereafter set the seal of
history, as I must think, upon the character of Mr. Reverdy John
son’s “Alabama” negotiations.
For the information of those of my readers who may not have
happened to see it, I would say that it is to be found (at least) in the
New York Herald of July 3, where it first met my eye, and where
some editorial introduction shows that it had been recently furnished
to that journal—apparently by Mr. Johnson himself—to meet, what
was said to have been, “ a garbled extract ” from it published in some
other New York newspaper. The whole letter, itself, would seem to
have been laid before the Senate, in secret session and confidentially,
prior to its action on the “ Alabama ” Convention ; and I gather from
other American journals (other than the Herald'), which have hap
pened to come within my observation here, that Mr. Johnson, before
publishing it, asked the President’s permission so to do. Whether
President Grant actually gave that permission, or whether he could
have constitutionally authorized the publication of a Senate confiden
tial document at all, supposing him to have been indulgently inclined
to grant the ex-minister’s request, is more than I have ascertained ;
but I am confident that Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s worst enemy could
not have persuaded him to a more injurious step, for his own reputa
tion, than that of thus giving this letter an unnecessary, and perhaps
unjustified publicity.
Before entering upon my criticism of this extraordinary dispatch
of the 17th of February, I must first premise a word of comment
upon the circumstances attending Mr. Johnson’s appointment as Min
�’THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
5
ister to England, and also call the reader’s attention to the dates of the
two conventions which he afterward negotiated in that capacity.
As to the appointment itself, which was made and confirmed in
the early part of the month of July, 1868, I believe that even Mr.
Reverdy Johnson’s own friends will hardly contend that the English
mission was offered to him on any other footing than as a graceful
compliment for previous political services (probably, on the part of
the President, for having so warmly befriended him during the Im
peachment trial), or that his unanimous confirmation by the Senate
afterward, was due to anything so rrijuch as to a feeling of kindly per
sonal regard toward him on the part of his fellow-Senators, coupled
with the belief that his functions wouffh mainly nominal and honor
ary. At any rate, as I shall presentlySave Occasion to show, his origi
nal instructions, after he was so ^onfirriaed, gave him no latitude to do
more than “ sound Lord Stanley upon the subject ” of the “ Alabama”
claims, and, as Mr. Seward addsw»yy‘ after the two more urgent
controversies previously mentioned [the ‘ Naturalization ’ and ‘ San
Juan’ questions] can have been put wider process of adjustment.”
Mr. Johnson, thus confirmed and thus instructed, negotiated two
conventions (or treaties, as they am more popularly called), viz.: one
signed by Lord Stanley and himselQ.'ated November 10, 1868, which
was “unanimously” repudiated byg^srv member of Andrew’ John
son’s cabinet; and a second, with Lord ClargWon, dated January 14,
1869, which was the one acted upoafbyg^ United States Senate,
April 13th following, and rejected by a vote of fifty-four to one.
Now, in answer to Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s assertion, that we ob
tained by his conventions—one or both—“ all that we ever asked,” I
hope to show by official documents—some of them being Mr. John
son’s own dispatches—
1. That he himself was not originally authorized “ to ask ” for
anything; instead of which he propose®!, at one of his earliest inter
views with Lord Stanley, “ the payment of a lump sum of money,” or
“ some cession of territory,” in settlement oRbe Alabama claims.
2. That starting thus with asking money or territory, he dropped
all mention of both in his conveilfion of November 10th, which
amounted to such a total abandonment of the American claims, na
tional and individual, that even “ President Johnson and his colleagues ”
(to quote Mr. Thornton’s account of the reception of the treaty at
Washington) “were unanimously of the opinion that in its present
form the convention would not’ receive the sanction of the Senate,” and
“ its contents were not in accordance with the instructions which had
been given to Mr. Reverdy Johnson.”
�6
Q
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON :
3. That Mr. Reverdy Johnson and Mr. Seward united in agreeing
to the convention of January 14th following, in total oblivion or ig
noring of Mr. Seward’s long record of complaints about belligerent
recognition and the national injury which hadj resulted therefrom, and
when both of the negotiators were well aware that any convention to
which they might put their names, or give their approval, was subject
to the final sanction of that Senate which had come within one vote of
deposing with disgrace the President under whom both of them at that
moment held their commissions.
4. That, while the consideration of the convention of January 14th
was pending before the Senate, and after the administration of Andrew
Johnson had given way to that of President Grant, and at a time when
Mr. Reverdy Johnson knew that the new President was about recalling
him, and had given him no shadow of authority for the proceeding—
viz., under date of March 25,1869—Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of his own
head, “ officially ” proposed to Lord Clarendon to amend the conven
tion then pending before the Senate by adding to its terms a consid
eration of the national claims which the United States as a Govern
ment might have against the Government of Great Britain—the very
claims which he himself has undertaken to decry in this lately pub
lished letter of February 17th, as such “ as would not, I am sure, be
listened to by this Government [the British], or countenanced by
other nations.”
5. And that, finally, when Lord Clarendon begins to be distrust
ful of Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s attempt to represent or misrepresent
the United States, and demands of him by what authority he under
takes to ask for so material an alteration of his previous arrangement,
Mr. Johnson replies to him that he makes the proposal “ under the
ample authority conferred upon me when I came to this country and
since ; an authority which has never been revoked or in any particular
modified thus distinctly affirming that he had ample authority to
negotiate for the settlement of those very national claims, which he
would now make it appear had never been put forward, “ during the
, war or since, by any branch of the Government.”
From such a muddle of mistakes or misrecollections on the part
of the American Minister as seems to be involved in the foregoing
statement, which I promise presently to duly verify by official docu-s
ments, the reader will doubtless be glad to be delivered, so far as may
be, by a sight of Mr. Johnson’s original instructions themselves. Ac
cordingly I hasten to lay them before him, so far as they touch upon
the negotiation of the Alabama question, with which alone I am now
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS
7
dealing. I quote from what I believe to be an accurate reprint of
them, contained in an elaborate and careful summary of the documents
laid before the United States Senate at the time of acting upon the
commission of January 14tb, as recently published in the New York
Times of July 6, 1869 :
Department of State,
)
Washington, July 20, 1868. t
»
Sir :
*
*
*
W
*
*
*
*
[I here omit a long exposition confined exclusively to the “Naturalization” and
“ San Juan ” questions. I shall also take the liberty to italicise the concluding
lines of the extract following, as I intend to? do in ^reference to future extracts
throughout, where I think the use of italics will help the busy readei* to more
readily apprehend my points.]
Thirdly, If you shall find reason to expect that the British Government will be
prepared to adjust the two questions already mentioned in some such manner as
has been proposed, and satisfactory to both parties, you will then be expected to
advert to the subject of mutual claims of citizensand subjects of the two countries
against the Governments of each other respectively.
The difficulty in this respect has arisen out of our claims which are known and
described in general terms as the Alabama elainia In the first place, Her Majes
ty’s Government not only denied all national obligation to indemnify citizens of
the United States for these claims, but even refused to entertain them for discus
sion. Subsequently Her Majesty’s Government, upon reconsideration, proposed to
entertain them for the purpose of referring them to arbitration!, but insisted upon
making them the subject of special reference, excluding from the arbitrator’s con
sideration certain grounds which the United States deem material to a just and
fair determination of the merits of the claims. The United States declined this
special exception and exclusion, and thus the proposed arbitration has failed.
It seems to the President that an adjustment might now be reached without
formally reviewing former discussions. A joint commission might be agreed upon
for the adjustment of all claims of citizens of the United States against the British
Government, and of all claims of subjects of Great Britain against the United
States, upon the model of the joint commission of February 8, 1853, which com
mission was conducted with so much fairness* and settled so satisfactorily all the
controversies which had arisen between the United States and Great Britain, from
the peace of Ghent, 1814, until the date of the Sitting of the convention.
While you are not authorized to commit this Government distinctly by such a
proposition, you may sound Lord Stanley upon the subject, after you shall have ob
tained satisfactory assurances that the two more^urgent controversies previously men
tioned can be put under process of adjustment in the manner which I have indi
cated.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
Reverdy Johnson, Esq., &c., &c.
The last sentence of the foregoing dispatch settles the question of
the extent of ministerial powers conferred by “ the original instruc
tions of July Wthf upon which we shall presently see that Mr. John
son is continually dwelling. An authority “ to sound ” cannot certainly
be equivalent to a power to settle. It may be best, however, once for
all, to run through the American Minister’s entire diplomatic career,
so far as the matter of official discretion is concerned, in order to be
�8
MB. REVERDY JOHNSON J
convinced of his total misappreciation of the functions with which he
was charged. I doubt if such another exhibit of misrecollection or mis
understanding of his official powers (perhaps of excess of them) by a
diplomatic envoy, can anywhere be found. Being originally invested, as
the above extract shows, with no higher discretion than to “ sound Lord
Stanley,” and that, too, only upon the contingency of “ the two other
more urgent controversies having first been put under process of adjust
ment,” Mr. Johnson, after some further correspondence and sundry telegraphic communications from the State Department, which we shall
presently have occasion to notice, but of which he apparently makes ho
account, negotiates and signs with Lord Stanley the convention of No
vember 10th, and sends it home with an explanatory dispatch dated the
same day. In the course of this dispatch, after setting forth the tenor and
effect of his treaty, he adds the following remarkable explanation of
his doings, as if he anticipated being called to account for exceeding
his instructions. I quote again from the New York Times' reprint of
the official correspondence, the letter Johnson to Seward, of November
10,1868:
3/y authority for agreeing to this [that is, the leaving to arbitration the “Alaba,
ma ” claims in the shape which his convention had arranged for] is found in your
original instructions of the %S)th of July last, and is indeed to be found in the cor
respondence between yourself and my predecessor regarding these claims.
Was ever a more extraordinary avowal made by a diplomatic
agent than this ?—that, under a power “ to sound ” a foreign govern
ment, he considers himself duly authorized to sign a lasting treaty
with that Government (by force of the technical term “convention,”
to last to all time), and, if he has not sufficient authority of himself,
he has it as successor to a predecessor who had power enough for any
thing I Pray, has Mr. Reverdy Johnson, in his great practice as a
lawyer, ever learned that in the law of Agency, A. B. can consider
himself empowered to do whatever C. D. could have done, because
both A. B. and C. D. happen to represent a common principal ? Yet
I have no earthly doubt that the New York Times' reprint of Mr.
Johnson’s language, as above, is accurate to the letter.
But this is by no means the worst muddle or misunderstanding
made by the American envoy in the course of these negotiations, over
which I am arguing the question of the Senate’s duty to reconsider
and reject his work.
Being sharply reminded by Mr. Seward, by an ocean telegram,
that he had gone too fast and too far in negotiating this convention
just referred to, Mr, Johnson rejoins, that he was “ not only author
in
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
ized,” but “ bound ” to do what he had done.
language:
9
I quote again his exact
\Johnson to Seward, Nov. 28, 1868.]
Why you are of the opinion that the [Alabama] Claims Convention is “ useless
unless amended ” you do not state, and I am unable to conjecture. I have just had
an interview at the Foreign Office with Lord Stanley, who readme a dispatch from
Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, which stated that it was understood that
all the Cabinet disapprove of it, and had said that it was contrary to instructions.
This latter statement puzzles me yet more. If I understand your original, and all
the subsequent instructions, whether by telegraph or otherwise, the convention
conforms substantially with them. By thoseof the 20th of July, I considered myself
authorized, if this Government would adjust? as desired, the Naturalization and San
Juan controversies, to settle the claims’ controversy by at convention on the model of that
of February 8, 1853. And as the two former were satisfactorily arranged, I deemed
myself not only authorized, but bound to adopt the course that I did in relation to
the latter.—N. Y. Times, ut sup.
Now, taking Mr. Johnson’s own statement of his case, what can
he mean by stating that the instructions of July 20, which merely sug
gested “ a sounding,” not only “ authorized, M bound him to adopt
the course that he had taken in relation to the latter ” [these same
Alabama Claims] ? Has not Mr. Johnson failed in mind and memory;
and must it not have been perceptible to his English official opponents ?
But there remains a worse confusioi^if possible, of powers and
authority in connection with th^Minister^{attempt to reconcile his
treaty of January 14th to Senatorial acceptance. The ratification of the
convention having been kept in abeyanc^by the Senate till after the
accession of General Grant J^the Presidency, and word having reached
Mr. Johnson, in England, that the treatykvas not likely to be accept
able at home, on account of its omission of any mention of national
claims, he sets about amending it of his own motion in the manner
already suggested. Under date of March 25th, long after he must have
been painfully aware of the unpopularity of his course with the coun
try at large, and long after he had, doubtless, expected his recall by
the newly-installed Executive,, he writes to the British Foreign Secre
tary, Lord Clarendon, as follows. (I quote now from the British Par
liamentary Blue Book for 1869, North America,! No. 1, p. 46):
* * *
therefore, now officially propose to your lordship that we sign a
supplemental convention, which shall only sofar-alter the one of the 14th of January
as to provide that the claims which either Government may have upon the other shall
be included within it, and be settled in the same way.
Lord Clarendon, by this time having, doubtless, become persuaded
of the American envoy’s disposition to amplify his office, demanded,
in reply, whether he had the necessary authority for agreeing to so
important a modification of the original treaty. To this Mr. Johnson
replies in the following extraordinary letter, which, it seems to me,
2
�10
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON I
caps the climax of his ministerial mistakes or muddles,
from the British Blue Book, as before, p. 47) ;
(I quote again
U. S. Legation, London, March 29, 1869.
My Lord :
I have the honor to receive youT note of the 27th instant, and shall look with
solicitude to the determination of your Government upon the proposition contained
in my official note to you of the 25th.
That proposition was not made in pursuance of any express instructions of
my Government, but under the ample authority conferred upon me when I came to
this country, and since ; an authority which has never been revoked, or, in any par
ticular, modified.
Repeating my opinion, that the acceptance of the proposition would result in
the ratification by the Senate of the Claims Convention of the 14th of January
last,
I have, <fcc.,
(Signed)
REVERDY JOHNSON.
What hallucination can have seized Mr. Johnson about the extent
of his original powers ? Had he never read his instructions, or had
he forgotten to what degree they must have been modified in order to
enable his negotiation of the convention of January 14th ? And yet he
takes pains to assert that they have “ never been revoked, or [nor], in
any particular, modified.” If it be suggested that his intended mean
ing may, in some degree, be obscured by the unfortunate grammatical
expressions which he uses, and that he intends to say that he is enjoy
ing just as much diplomatic authority on the 29th of March, under
President Grant’s administration, as on the 14th of January, under
Andrew Johnson’s, when he joined Lord Clarendon in signing the
convention of that date; then what shall be said of his capacity to
understand his functions when, with no new authorization, he under
takes to interpolate so important a clause into a State paper which
had long since passed out of the sphere of his control ? Especially
when, as he himself avows in the continuation of the correspondence
(in a letter to Lord Clarendon of April 9th, on the same subject,—Blue
Book, as before, p. 49):
That I did not suggest in the negotiations which led to the convention of Jan
uary the including within it any Governmental claims, was because my instructions
only referred to the individual claims of citizens and subjects.
What was Lord Clarendon to do with an envoy who had such a
strange power of stretching out his instructions, and then, when
brought to the test, letting them fly back again like a piece of Indiarubber—but to finally say to him, as Lord Clarendon reports to his
own envoy at Washington (Blue Book, p. 49, Clarendon to Thornton,
April 9, 1869), he did *?
Mr. Johnson, [as] I said [to him] was, no doubt, acting on his instructions; but
they were the instructions given to him by the last Government, and Her Majesty* s Gov
ernment could not consider a communication not made by the authority of the presets
Government,
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
11
I think this brief epitome of Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s constructive
expansion and contraction of his ministerial functions must have satis
fied the reader that, if Mr. Johnson is no better a judge of the merits
of his country’s claims against England for her unneutral conduct
during the late civil war, than he is of his own powers to treat with
that Government for the settlement of those claims, his aspersion that,
we have obtained by his convention all that we have ever asked, and
that the Government of the United States had, in effect, no case to
begin with, is already well-nigh disposed of.
Before dropping this branch of ■ my subject, however, I must
remark in passing, that Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s transgression of his
instructions cannot for a moment be urged against us by the British
Government in any future negotiation^ upon the same subject, be
cause, by the very terms of the two conventions which the British
Foreign Secretaries signed with him, that«bvernment expressly ad
mitted its obligation to inform itself of the extent of the envoy’s
powers. Thus, it makes a part of the recitals of both of the con
ventions of November 10th and January 14th, as well as of several
other preliminary drafts between the negotiators, that “ the Pleni
potentiaries having communicated to each other their respective full
powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows.”
So, besides the holding back by Lord Clarendon on the subject
of interpolating ‘‘Governmental claimsfWinto the treaty, through
caution of Mr. Johnson’s defective powepkt’o agree to that change, as
already referred to, it is noticeable thailLord Stanley, after signing
the convention of November 10th with Mr: Johnson, expressed to the
British Minister at Washington his misgivings of Mr. Johnson’s au
thority to bind his Government. Writing to Mr. Thornton after that
convention had been repudiated by President Johnston’s cabinet, and
for the purpose, as he states, of putting upon record his own doings
as Foreign Secretary in that particular, he says:
[/SZanZey to Thornton, December ft. Blue Book ut sup., p. 19.]
“ Matters remained in this state until the Receipt of your telegram of the
27th of November, up to which time I was under the impression, which was
also shared in by Mr. Johnson, that the Convention which had been signed,
being in accordance with his instructions as construed by him, would meet with
the approval of the United States Government.”
Is not this significant phrase “as construed by him? a full admis
sion that the British Government took their chance of Mr. Johnson’s
work being disowned, as his first convention was, for disregard
of instructions 1 Does it not also lead one to think that both the
British Foreign Secretaries—Lord Stanley, first, and Lord Clarendon,
�12
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON !
afterward—must have had their eyes opened to Mr. Johnson’s dis
torted conception of his ministerial capacity, before concluding any
of the negotiations which they respectively arranged with him ? In
fact, can there be much doubt that, when the late Minister’s whole
proceedings are taken into account, our English friends must have
understood Mr. Reverdy Johnson much better than he did himself?
But I pass from Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s incapacity to understand
his official functions, to consider the truth of his reflection upon his
country’s cause, that his diplomacy had gained for his Government all
that it had ever asked, and that it never had a claim of its own to
present.
Here I must again call Minister Johnson as a witness against
himself. Lord Stanley, who kept a record of his dealings with the
American envoy, as before alluded to, thus sets down the particulars
of one of his earliest interviews with him :
In a conversation which took place at the Foreign Office on the 25th of
September, Mr. Johnson, after discussing with me the subject of Naturalization,
passed to that of the so-called “ Alabama” claims. In this conversation, of
which a memorandum is inclosed, extracted from my notes of the interview,
Mr. Johnson first suggested, as a means of settlement, the payment of a lump sum
op money, or a cession of territory by Great Britain, both of which plans I con
sidered inadmissible, so long as the question of the liability of Great Britain was
denied by us, and remained undecided.—(Pari. Blue Book, ut sup., p. 17.)
The memorandum referred to is given on p. 19 of the Blue Book,
and is substantially to the same effect:
The conversation then turned on the “ Alabama ” claims. Mr. Johnson ad
verted generally, though not in the form of distinct proposals, to various methods
by which this question might be settled. His first suggestion was the payment of a
lump sum of money. Lord Stanley at once declared this to be inadmissible, so
long as the question of our being liable at all was denied by us and undecided by
any mode of reference. AZr. Johnson then talked of some cession of territory, an
idea which Lord Stanley did not think more promising.
I think Mr. Johnson can hardly contend that his two conventions
either stipulated for the payment of “ a lump sum of money,” or
“ the cession of territory.” How, then, can the United States be said
“ to have obtained by them all that we have ever asked ” ? Had not
the American Minister heard from some source or other, before
starting on his mission, that one or the other of these modes of settle
ment was expected? Or, was the suggestion entirely spontaneous,
and (may it not be added) unauthorized, with himself? Then, does
not “ cession of territory ” imply the satisfaction of a national demand?
Or, was Mr. Johnson imagining all the while, that each one of the
sufferers by the “ Alabama ” or the “ Florida ” was to take a town
ship in Canada as an indemnity for the loss of his ship? The same
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
13
idea of cession of territory in satisfaction of these claims crops out
elsewhere in the course of this correspondence. Thus, Mr. Thornton,
writing to Lord Clarendon, under date of April 19th (lb., p. 53),
says, [this] “ mode of settlement [that is, by cession of territory]
has frequently been hinted at to me.”
Whether such a form of indemnity is a desirable or expedient
one for the United States, or whether indeed the cession of territory
has any legitimate connection with the solution of the Alabama ques
tion at all, it is-quite superfluous for the writer to undertake to settle.
But, that the agitation of such a demand, and*, by Mr. Johnson him
self, when freshly arrived in England, quite Contradicts his assertions,
that “ we have obtained all that we ever asked,land that “ the Govern
ment [of the United States] never exacted anything on its own ac
count,” seems to the writer too plain for further Comment.
I hasten to the more substantial matter of the total abandonment
by Mr. Johnson, and (I must add) by Mr. Seward, of the national
ground of complaint against Great Britain, connected with the matter
of the Belligerent Recognition of the Rebel Confederacy, and of
which all tangible notice is omitted jn both of the Conventions of
November 10th and January|l4th. Here I think every American who
has gone to the bottom of the AlabamaBontroversy will agree with
me, that the United States Senate were fully justified in repudiating
Messrs. Seward’s and Johnson’f diplomatic doings in to to.
How stands this point of Belligerenl Recognitionjas left in the
latest convention, and as dwelt upon in preceding negotiations which
led to it ? I fear that I shall havf p|tax the reader’s patience with
some explanatory details on this head ; yet I believe it unavoidable
to a just understanding ^f the merits of the discussion.
Doubtless he will have observed no allusion to Belligerent Re
cognition in Mr. Seward’s original] instructions to Mr. Johnson of
July 20th, which I have already quoted: nor, I may add, am I aware
that Mr. Seward ever afterward po much ^alludes to the subject
throughout the whole correspondence, as published in the blue books
of either country. This is significant, at the outset. Yet it is the
same Mr. Seward who during theJcourse of the civil war had made
no less than six formal demands as American Secretary of State upon
the Governments of England and France for the recall of that ob
noxious measure; and the same Mr. Seward who had a hundred times
at least denounced to those Governments their hasty and unfriendly
recognition of the rebels as a belligerent power, as the fountain and
source of all our foreign woes. Was it intentionally kept out of
�14
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON *
sight, or virtually ignored, in these Johnson-Stanley and JohnsonClarendon conventions, in order to effect some arrangement which
should have the eclat of disposing of a great international contro
versy ?
In reply to this question, and at the same time to meet Mr. John
son’s thrust that we should have got by his convention all that we
ever asked for, 1 beg the reader to go no further back with me into
the record of Mr. Seward’s complaints about the national reparation
expected from England for her hasty recognition of the rebels as bel
ligerents, than six months prior to Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s confirma
tion as Minister. Here is what the American Secretary of State au
thorized Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Mr. Adams, to say to the British
Government in January, 1868. I only quote an extract:
Department of State,
)
Washington, Jan. 13, 1868. )
Sir: Your dispatch of the 24th of December, No. 1,503, has been received.
You were quite right in saying to Lord Stanley that the negotiation in regard to
the so-called Alabama claims is now considered by this Government to have been
closed without a prospect of its being reopened. With reference to the conversa
tion, which occurred between yourself and his lordship on the subject of a recent
dispatch of Mr. Ford [British Secretary of Legation at Washington], in which
Mr. Ford gave an account of a conversation which he had with me, it would per
haps be sufficient to say that Mr. Ford submitted no report of that conversation,
nor did he inform me what he proposed to write to Lord Stanley. I may add that
either Mr. Ford or Lord Stanley, or both, have misapprehended the full scope of
what is reported by Mr. Ford as a suggestion on my part.
Both of these gentlemen seem to have understood me as referring only to mu
tual pecuniary war claims of citizens and subjects of the two countries which have
lately been extensively discussed. Lord Stanley seegis to have resolved that the
so-called Alabama claims shall be treated so exclusively as a pecuniary commercial
claim, as to insist on altogether excluding the proceedings of Her Majesty’s Government
in regard to the war from consideration, in the arbitration which he proposed.
On the other hand, I have been singularly unfortunate in my correspondence,
if I have not given it to be clearly understood, that a violation of neutrality by the
Queen!s proclamation, and kindred proceedings of the British Government, is regarded
as a national wrong and injury to the United Stales; and that the lowest form of sat
isfaction for that national injury that the United States could accept, woidd be found
in an indemnity, without reservation or compromise, by the British Government to
those citizens of the United States who had suffered individual injury and damages by
the vessels of war unlawfully built, equipped, manned, fitted out, or entertained and
protected in the British ports and harbors, in consequence of a failure of the British
Government to preserve its neutrality.
WM. H. SEWARD.
0. F. Adams, Esq., <tc., <fcc.
This, I venture to think, is a very moderate and just statement of
the American claim, and one which will never be substantially de
parted from by the country in any settlement of the question hereafter
to be arranged. Had Mr. Reverdy Johnson never heard of it? Does
either of his conventions recognize il a national wrong and injuryor I
provide for its “indemnity without reservation or compromise” “to
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS,
15
those who have suffered individual injury”? Let us look a little
more closely at Mr. Johnson’s dealings with Belligerent Recognition,
since, as we have seen, Mr. Seward keeps an ominous silence in re
gard to it.
So far as I can find, the only mention at any time of the subject
just named, on Mr. Johnson’s part, occurred in one of his early inter
views with Lord Stanley, prior to the signing of the 'convention of
November 10th, and is thus reported by Lord Stanley in a dispatch
to Mr. Thornton, under date of October 21st. The negotiation of the
first convention, it would seem from one of Mr. Johnson’s own letters,
was about this time just being entered upon:
In this conversation little was said as to the point on which the former nego
tiations broke off, viz.: the claim made by*the United States Government to raise be
fore the arbiter the question of the alleged premature recognition by Her Majesty’s
Government of the Confederates as belligerents* Ifstated/rt^lMr. Reverdy Johnson that
we could not, on this point, depart from the position which we had taken up; but 1 saw
no impossibility in so framing the reference, and that by mutual consent, either tacit or
express, the difficulty might be avoided.—Blue Book, ut sup, p. 10.
As the subject is dropped from this tifee forth by the American
envoy, so far as can be learned from the published correspondence of
either Government, are we to conclude thatfjbe British proposition
was at once submitted to, and that that Government, being no longer
importuned to depart from its. ppsiti^g it was henceforth mutually
agreed between the two negotiator! to concert “how not to do it”?
Whethei’ such an agreement, yas Owl® ever entered into by them
or not, it is plain that it was most effectively carried out, so far as the
American Minister was concernedly the convention of November
10th, the terms of which, so fai* as this point is concerned, I am about
to cite. Meanwhile, I must not deprive the reader of Mr. Johnson’s
report of his own doings on thaf head to the Department of State,
showing that Lord Stanley’s ingenious.-devicewas^at least, not un
favorably entertained by him. Says Mr.Johnson, writing home to
Mr. Seward, under date of the verg day of signing the first conven
tion (November 10th), and expressing his own gratification at what
he had achieved :
It is proper that I should give, as briefly as may be necessary, my reasons for
assenting to the convention, or rather to some of its provisions: 1. You have here
tofore refused to enter into an agreement to arbitrate the '•Alabama claims unless this
Government would agree that the question of its right to acknowledge as belligerents
the late so-called Southern Confederacy be also included within the arbitration. You
will see by the terms of the first and the fourth articles, that that question, as well as
every other which the United States may think is involved in such claims, is to be be
fore the commissioners or the arbitrator. This is done by the use of general terms,
and the omission of any specification of the questions to be decided. And my authorlily for agreeing to this is found in your original instructions of the 20th of July last,
Kind is indeed to be found in the correspondence between yourself and my predecessor
regarding these claims.—N. Y. Times, ut sup.
�16
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON !
I have already quoted the last paragraph, as above, in another con
nection. It deserves a repetition, however, as showing that while Mr,
Johnson professed to have read and to be familiar with the instruct
tions given to his predecessor, Mr. Adams (among which was this re
cent letter of January 13, 1868, instructing Mr. A. that the United
States claimed a national as well as a pecuniary indemnity), Mr. John
son believes that he can find in those instructions an authority (I) for
dexterously declining to insist upon the very same demand. I pray
the reader’s special attention to Mr. Johnson’s devise for giving the
go-by to the very point which he reminds Mr. Seward that he (Mr.
Seward) had always made a sine qua non in arbitration.
“ You will see by the terms of the first and fourth articles, that
that question [Belligerent Recognition] * * * * is to be before the
commissioners or the arbitrator. This is done by the use of general
terms and the omission of any specification of the questions to be de
cided” Rather a novel mode of getting a point before an arbitrator
—is it not ?—“ to omit all specification of the question to be decided ! ”
Could a better exemplification be found of the maxim, that“ language
is not intended to express men’s ideas, but to conceal them ? ”
And yet, will it be believed of this brave exponent of American
rights—this successful delineator of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet
left out—that, writing home to the Secretary of State, in that same
obnoxious letter of February 17th, from which I have so often quoted,
Mr, Reverdy Johnson—after his work is all done—after he “has met
the enemy and is theirs,” and is giving his version of how it happened
—could have expressed himself about the importance of Belligerent
Recognition to the American case, as follows ?
Supposing, then, that the [Blockade] proclamation of the President was known
to this Government [the British] when they declared the insurgents to be bel
ligerents—a question of fact which I do not propose to examine—it furnished no
justification for the action of this Government; and if it was not jusified, as I confi
dently believe was the case, the act is one which bears materially upon the question
whether the Government is not bound to indemnify for the losses occasioned by the
Alabama and other vessels, for then that vessel and the others could not have been con
structed or received in British ports, as they would have been in the estimation of En
glish law, as well as the laic of nations, piratical vessels. They never, therefore,
would have been on the ocean, and the vessels and the cargoes belonging to Ameri
can citizens destroyed by them would have been in safety. Upon this ground,
then, independent of the question of proper diligence, the obligation of Great Britain
to meet the losses seems to me to be most apparent.
Weighty and just words those ! and which it is to be hoped will
be remembered by our English friends when they are quoting the rest
of Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s record against us ! But what a pity that
they had not been uttered to the British Foreign Office before the two
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
IT
conventions of November 10th and January 14th were signed ! And
still more, what a pity that they had not found a formal expression in
those national compacts, instead of the ingenious device of “omitting
any specification of the question to be decided ” !
But I am detaining the reader too long from the text of the Con
vention of November 10th. Here are its three important articles, so
far as they touch the “Alabama” controversy—the only reference to
the claims throughout the document. Indeed, buKfor these it would
not appear that the existence of an “ Alabama,” or an “ Alabama ”
grievance, had even so much as -.been Jieard of before by the parties
signitary.
Article IV.
The commissioners shall have power to adjudicate upon the class of claims re
ferred to in the official correspondence between theEtwo»^?overnments as the “ Ala
bama ” claims; but before any of such claims is taken into consideration by them,
the two high contracting parties shall fix upon some«sovereign or head of a friendly
State as an arbitrator in respect of such claims, to whom such class of claims shall
be referred in case the commissioners shall be unable to come to an unanimous
decision upon the same.
Article
V
In the event of a decision on any of the claims mWtioned in the next preced
ing article being arrived at by the arbitrators-involving a question of compensa
tion to be paid, the amount of such compensation shall be referred back to the
commissioners for adjudication; or, in*the eyent*®&-their nbMoeing able to come
to a decision, it shall then be decided by the arbitrator appointed by them, or who
shall have been determined by lot according’’fgfrthe provisions of Article I.
Article
VI.
With regard to the before-mentioned “Alabama” class of claims, neither Gov
ernment shall make out a case in support of its position, nor shall any person be
heard for or against any such claim. The official correspondence which has al
ready taken place between the two Governments, respecting the questions at issue,
shall alone be laid before the commissioners; and (in the-event of their not coming
to an unanimous decision, as provided in Article IV.), then before the arbitrator,
without argument, written or verbal, and without the production of any further
evidence.
The commissioners unanimously, or the arbitrator, shall, however, be at liberty
to call for argument or further evidence, if they or he shall deem it necessary.
The reader will have taken notice of the phrase used in the first
line of Article IV., “ the commissioners shall have power to adjudicate,”
which I have taken the liberty to dtllicise. While in the previous
articles it is stipulated that all other claims embraced in the arbitra
tion are to be laid unreservedly before the commissioners or arbitrator,
and it is made their business to hear them, the so-called “Alabama”
claims are only to be permitted an auditing, as it were, by special
grace. While blockade-breakers and Confederate bondholders may
8
�18
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON:
claim the commissioners’ ear and enforce the most unlimited audience,
the sufferers by the “ Alabama” may think themselves fortunate if
they get a hearing at all. Rather a descent—must not one call this ?—
on the 10th of November, from the American envoy’s demand on the
25th of September, “ of the payment of a lump sum of money,” or
“ a cession of territory,” as “ a means of settlement.”
And then, if the commissioners see fit to give the “ Alabama ”
claimants a hearing at all, what sort of a hearing is this which is se
cured for them ? “ Neither government shall make out a case in sup
port of its position, nor shall any person he heard for or against any
such claim. The official correspondence * * * shall alone he laid
before the commissioners, and, in the event of their not coming to an
unanimous decision, * * * then before the arbitrator, without
argument, written or verhcd, and without the production of any further
evidence."
“ The commissioners, unanimously, or the arbitrator, shall, however,
be at liberty to call for argument or further evidence, if they or he shall
deem it necessary.” Must it not have been a bad subject enough which
did not bear a discussion beyond limits as narrow as these? Neither
party to go to the bottom of their case, neither testimony nor argu
ment to be heard in support of it, and an unanimous decision, or else
the whole matter to be left to lot! One would think that with such
a hearing as this, it was quite unnecessary to stipulate beforehand for
“the omission of the specification of any question to be decided” by
the arbitrator. Indeed, the leading thought uppermost in the negoti
ator’s mind must have been, literally, that the least heard of the
“Alabama” claims the better.
What possible excuse can Mr. Johnson give for such a one-sided
and delusive treatment of a serious question as this, unless he was in
dulging the idea that he had achieved a master-stroke of policy in
getting the “ official correspondence of the two governments ” before
the eyes of the umpire ? If this was to be the great equivalent, I beg
to ask if the American envoy was not at all aware that the greater
part of the American case, national and individual—as one might
also say—is not contained, or not developed, in that correspondence ?
That, so far as public or private damage is concerned, the case of the
“ Florida,” for instance, is hardly touched upon by it ? That the facts
connected with the final escape of the “Alabama” from Liverpool,
through the negligence or treachery of the custom-house officials of
Liverpool during the last thirty-six hours of her stay in British
waters, and before finally quiting the Welsh coast—one of the strong
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
19
est features in the American case, as I venture to think—are scarcely
so much as alluded to in either Mr. Seward’s or Mr. Adams’ dis
patches ? And, that that correspondence is altogether silent upon the
great point of the wrong inflicted upon the country, by the original
concession and continued persistence in the recognition of a belliger
ent status to the Rebel Confederacy, when that confederacy had never
once complied with the condition precedent upon which alone Lord
Russell declared, on the 6th of May, 1861, it was granted, viz.: that
the newly-acknowledged belligerents should have prize ports and prize
courts? Was not Mr. Johnson, aware, further,that.this same official
correspondence, whose efficacy he is perhapsRpdn tiding in, altogether
overlooks the pertinency of the repeated admission by the British
Government, during the war, of the validity and efficiency of the
American blockade long before the “Alabama”—certainly long be
fore the “ Shenandoah ”—was coaled, provisioned, and manned in a
British outport, under the guise of a legitimate ship-of-war of a dulyrecognized belligerent power ?
These are but a few of the omissions siich as I would ask if the
American Minister was ignorant of yhen he'was possibly laying such
stress upon the efficacy of the United States’ official correspondence.
I certainly adduce them in no spirit ^fault-finding with the able and
faithful exponents of bur foreign rel'^^f during the late war. All
things are not possible to men so bwffiurdened with national cares as
were those gentlemen, and I heartily jo® in the meed of praise which
a grateful country has so justly conceded'them for their patriotic
services at that trying period. Yet on the review df the whole work of
the civil war, now that time has been given for the deliberate examination
of its records, is it to be presumed thataomissions like the above, and
others of equal or greater importance shbuld have^scaped the atten
tion of the American representative, wh<®wa^ intrusted with the man
agement of the national case against England?* ■ If such a presump
tion is not admissible, then Mr. Johnsoggirtuallyabandoned his cause
in letting the official correspondence stand alike fdiTevidence and argu
ment—law and fact—justice and discretion—in the decision of these
claims. If, on the other hand, hi was ignorant of. the glaring defects
embraced in that presentation of our case,“hen his submission of it to
arbitration, upon that evidence alone, was worse than asking for an
award upon a point not specified.
I have thus dwelt at greater length upon the Convention of No
vember 10th, than may have seemed expedient, because, as it was
mainly Mr. Johnson’s work (Mr. Seward, I believe, in ignorance of
�20
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON:
its real tenor, only stipulating for the change of the seat of arbitration
from London to Washington), it serves to show how little reliance is
to be placed upon the American Minister’s assertion, when he is turn
ing against his country, and declaring that, as a Government, it never
had any case to begin with.
The text of Mr. Johnson’s Convention of November 10th reached
Washington in due course of mail in about a fortnight. Shortly after
its arrival, and while it was under consideration by the President and
his cabinet, Mr. Johnson telegraphed to Mr. Seward for permission to
go on and complete further negotiations on the “San Juan” question.
The following is Mr. Seward’s reply to Mr. Johnson’s telegram, show
ing the first impression of the Secretary of State of Mr. Johnson’s
“ Alabama ” labors :
Washington, November 26, 1868,
Reverdy Johnson, Esq., <fcc., <fco.:
Let San Juan rest. Claims Convention [that is, Alabama Claims Convention],
unless amended, is useless. Wait for dispatches, Friday or Saturday.
WM. H. SEWARD.
*
Mr. Seward followed this up with a letter of the next day, con
taining a detailed statement of objections to the treaty, and coupled
with a memorandum of alterations which he deemed necessary. As
I have not room for giving these documents entire, I must content my
readers with the summary of them, presented a day or two after, by
Mr. Thornton, to the Foreign Office, and published in the Blue Book,
already quoted, p. 22.
Says Mr. Thornton, writing to Lord Stanley, November 30th:
Mr. Seward received, on the 24th instant, the Convention upon Claims, signed
by your Lordship and Mr. Reverdy Johnson on the 10th instant.
On the 26th, Mr. Seward called upon me and informed me that the contents of
the convention were not in accordance with the instructions which had been given to
Mr. Reverdy Johnson ; that the President and his colleagues could not approve of
certain of the stipulations comprised therein ; and that they were unanimously of
opinion that, in its present form, the convention would not receive the sanction of the
Senate. Upon the latter po nt I could not but concur. Mr. Seward confessed
that it was possible that some excuse might be made for Mr. Johnson’s not having
kept more closely to his instructions, because as some of these were given by
telegrams in answer to Mr. Johnson’s questions sent by the same channel, Mr.
Seward may have misunderstood the former, and Mr. Johnson may not have fully
comprehended the instructions sent in reply. *
*
* Mr. Seward has
pointed out to Mr. Reverdy Johnson that he had always intended, and so instructed
him, that a protocol, not a convention, should be signed with regard to the “ Ala
bama” and war claims, in the same manner, and with the same condition, as that
upon the “ San Juan ” question. I have certainly always understood this to be the
case, and I believe that my correspondence with your Lordship has given indica
tions of this conviction on my part. *
*
* The United States Govern
ment likewise object to the unanimous decision required by Article IV. for the
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
21
" Alabama ” claims, whereas the other claims may be decided by a majority of the
commissioners. This they consider unjust, and are even more sensitive about it
than upon the subject of the umpire. *
*
* No instructions had been pre
viously given to Mr. Johnson to make any positive declaration with regard to the “Ala
bama” claims, so as to distinguish them from the others.
If Article IV. were canceled, Article V. would naturally have the same fate.
The United States Government strongly object to Article VI., because it does
not allow either Government to make out a ease in support of its position, nor any
person to be heard for or against the “Alabama” claims; whereas both these steps
are allowed with regard to other claims, and they do not see why a prejudicial
distinction should be stipulated in the convention against the “Alabama” claims,
which would render the sanction of the Senate more doubtful, although they ac
knowledge that little could be added to what is contained in the official correspond
ence. [A point upon which the writer has ventured to express his entire dissent
as above.] They also object, for the reasons already mentioned, to the decision
being necessarily unanimous, both with regard to the claims themselves, or to the
[not?] calling for argument or further evidence. They, therefore, ask that
Article VI. may be canceled, or that it may be substituted by the following
words:
“ In case of every claim, the official correspondence which has already taken
flace between the two Governments respecting the question at issue, shall be laid
efore the commissioners ; and in the event of their not coming to a decision there
upon, then before the arbitrator; either Government may also submit further evi
dence and further argument thereupon, written or verbal.” *
*.
*
*
*
* Should your Lordship be able to agree to these modifications,
Mr. Seward has repeatedly assured me that the Senate are committed to the ac
ceptance of the convention so modified, and that he is convinced they will sanc
tion it,
I have taken pains to cite so much from Mr. Thornton in expla
nation of the points of disagreement between Mr. Johnson’s first con
vention and Mr. Seward, because, as these points were nearly all
eventually conceded by the British Government in the second conven
tion of January 14th, it puts the reader essentially in possession of the
terms of that convention, and, at the same time, shows how little Mr.
Johnson had conformed, in his first convention, either to the instruc
tions or to the wishes of his own Government. This report of Mr.
Thornton’s, however, gives Mr. Johnson the benefit of his additional
instructions by telegraph, which he may have misunderstood, as Mr.
Seward charitably suggests, but of which Mr. Johnson himself, as we
have seen, seems disposed to make but little account. This report of
Mr. Thornton’s suggests, further, another unpleasant feature in Mr.
Seward’s diplomacy, which the American brochure of diplomatic cor
respondence referred to does not disclose, I believe, viz., that the
Secretary of State was undertaking to speak for, and to pledge before
hand, the concurrence of the United States Senate in his negotiations.
What business, I would ask (if Mr. Thornton’s report is accurate on
this point), had the American Secretary of State to make any such
compromising assurance as this for a branch of the Government en
tirely independent of his own ? What did he mean by saying that
�99
I
0
-
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON:
the Senate were committed to the ratification of the doings of the I
Executive, when he knew that a few short months before a large ma
jority of the members of that body had voted for the removal of the
President for high crimes and misdemeanors, and many of the Sen
ators still believed his continuance in office a violation of the Consti-J
tution ?
But 1 must hasten on to the terms of the second convention. The
reader is, doubtless, familiar with Senator Sumner’s vehement and
effective denunciation of its shortcomings ; its failure to provide for
the settlement of the national grievance; its huddling-up blockade
running and Confederate bond-holding claims in the same category
with unneutral and unfriendly raids upon the peaceful commerce
of a friendly nation ; its leaving to lot whether any indemnity, even
of a pecuniary nature, should be granted to the individual sufferers;
and its total disregard of the settlement of the principles of the law
of nations involved in the controversy. Without troubling the reader
with a repetition of the energetic and convincing statements of that
now highly-famous speech on these heads, and, still more, without
undertaking to enter into the general merits of some other of its
much-controverted positions, I cannot forbear attempting to add a few
criticisms upon the terms of the treaty, and the negotiations attending
it, which seem to me to materially aid the Senator’s primary and chief
contention, viz., that it was equally the duty, as it was the constitu
tional prerogative, of the United States Senate, emphatically to re
pudiate the “ Claims” convention of January 14th.
In the first place, I beg the reader’s attention to its insufficient
setting-forth of the subject-matter of the controversy. We have al
ready seen with what bare toleration Mr. Reverdy Johnson secured
any mention at all of the Alabama claims in his first treaty of Novem
ber 10th.
Passing now to his second—which, it should be said in his favor,
was negotiated with the full concurrence of the Secretary of State,
and for which Mr. Seward took pains, in a letter dated J anuary 20th, to
express to him “ the President’s high satisfaction with the manner in
which you have conducted these important negotiations ”—it will be
found that Mr. Johnson hardly stipulates for a more respectful cog
nizance of the same claims by the commissioners in the later than in
the earlier treaty. The term “ Alabama ” occurs but once in the
whole document, and then in a parenthetical kind of way, as if the
American negotiator had been afraid to bring his bantling upon the
carpet at all. While other—the most trifling or the most truculent—
�THE ALABAMA. NEGOTIATIONS.
23
claims, running back to 1853, boldly raise their heads and challenge a
hearing, it is only in a secondary and subordinate capacity, introduced
by the phrase, which most writers would have been likely to enclose
in brackets, e. g. (“ including the so-called 1 Alabama’ claims”), that
the American grievance is permitted to present itself at all for arbi
tration. I believe the reader will not regret an opportunity of seeing
this for himself in the actual document, though at the cost of a few
moments’ delay. I shall not hav® occasion, by any means, to cite the
entire instrument.
The preamble to the conventi®. runsi as follows : [I quote from
the parliamentary copy, p. 36.]
Whereas claims have at various times since the exchange of the ratifications
of the Convention between Great Britain and thex-United States of America,
signed at London on the Sth of February, 1853, bee® made upon the Government
of Her Britannic Majesty on the part of citizens of the United States, and upon
the Government of the United States on the part of subjects on Her Britannic
Majesty; and whereas some of such claims are still pending, and remain un
settled, Her Majesty, the Queen, <&c., and the President, <fcc^: being of opinion
that a speedy and equitable settlement of all such claims will contribute much, to
the maintenance of the friendly feelings which subsist between the two countries,
have resolved to make arrangements for that purpose by means of a Convention,
and have named as their plenipotentiaries to confer and agree thereupon, viz.;
[The Earl of Clarendon on the part of Great Britain, and Reverdy Johnson, Esq.,
on the part of the United States.] Who, after having communicated to each other
their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
[Then follows Article L, from which I need wlynsite a few lines
to make good my purpose.]
Article I.—The high contracting parties agreflj that all claims on the part
of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the United States,
and all claims on the part of citizens of the»'4United States upon the Government
of Her Britannic Majesty, including the so-called “Alabama” claims, which may
have been presented to either Government for its interposition with the other,
since the 26th of July, 1853, the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the
Convention, concluded between Great Britain and the United States of America,
at London, on the 8th of February, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.; as
well as any other such claims which may be presented within the time specified
in Article III. of this Convention [that is, two years from the first sitting of the
Commissioners], whether or not arising out of the late civil war in the United
States, shall be referred to four Commissioners to be appointed in the following
manner, &c.
This is all the introduction to the Commissioners’ notice which
the “Alabama” claims could secure throughout the document, at
Messrs. Johnson and Seward’s hands; and I leave it to the candid
reader’s judgment, whether such a mention by the way-side and in a
parenthesis, as it were, of reclamations so important to the individual
Isufferers, and to the American people at large, looks either manly or
Bstatesmanly. I say nothing about defining what “ so-called ‘■Alabama'
�24
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON:
claims ” is intended to embrace; whether, for instance, it takes in
devastations by the 44 Florida,” the “ Shenandoah,” and other similar
vessels; though one would think that if it is so intended, it should not
have been left to the generosity of our opponents to concede it, at
the hearing. But what a shuffling evasion and shame faced dodging
of the main issue to be tried, thus to treat it as if it were a matter
not to be named; or, rather, naming it the “so-called 'Alabama’
claims.” Were not the grievances sustained by the United States and
its citizens during the four long years’ practice of British Neutrality
and Rebel Equality worth but four words in the treaty of final settle
ment ? Or, shall we call this another case of 44 wisely omitting any
specification of the question to be decided ” ?
So far as Mr. Reverdy Johnson had any agency in providing for
this lame and impotent statement of the American grievance, I think
the spirit which inspired his diplomacy is well illustrated by a short
extract from one of his dispatches to the Secretary of State, written
after Mr. Johnson had entered upon the negotiation of the second
convention with Lord Clarendon. The dispatch bears date December
24, 1868, and was dictated at a time when the Minister had digested
his irritation at Mr. Seward’s telegraphic repudiation of his first
treaty, and when he had begun to indulge in hopeful visions of suc
cessfully negotiating a second. I quote only a short extract, which,
however, will fairly bear separation from the context:
[Johnson to Seward, December 24, N. Y. Times, ut swp.J
I am perfectly satisfied that every member of the Cabinet is most anxious to
bring the controversy in regard to the “ Alabama ” claims to a satisfactory termi
nation, and I trust, therefore, that you will be able to concur substantially in the
propositions which will be made in the dispatch to Mr. Thornton.
I can get the “ Alabama ” claims specifically mentioned as among the claims
to be submitted to the Commissioners; and this I think most important.
Wonderful! The representative of his country’s rights can even
get the American claims 44 wzenft'onerf ” in that submission which he is
about to make in perpetual foreclosure of their further prosecution !
And li this he thinks most important.” He does not purpose on this
occasion to 44 altogether omit any specification of the question to be
decided
but he is so fortunate as to hope for a mention of his case
in the Commissioners’ hearing. Fortunate Minister ! Could ambas
sadorial courage dare more! Could diplomatic finesse achieve a
greater triumph!
More seriously, did Mr. Reverdy Johnson believe the “so-called
4 Alabama ’ claims ” a sham and a humbug ? Or was he attempting
to cajole his countrymen by taking such official care of their interests,
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
25
as the above, and then proclaiming to the world, in his numerous
after-dinner speeches, that the “Alabama” question was settled once
for all, and the good understanding of the two countries henceforth
irrevocably secured ?
In the second place—to continue my comments on Mr. Johnson’s
second convention—if the critic of this convention looks- for any re
cognition in it, much more for any satisfaction likely to grow out of
it, of that “ national wrong and injury to the United States,” resulting
from “ the violation of neutrality by the Queen’s proclamation and
kindred proceedings of the British Governments’ which we have seen
was insisted upon by Mr. Seward, as late as January 13, 1868, he will
find himself equally disappointed as in regard to the earlier conven
tion of November 10th. If Mr. Johnson had never so much as heard
that the United States “ exacted anything on its own account ”—to
quote again his'own language in the letter of the 17th of February—
(which it should be said, again, in 'his favor, Mr. Seward calls “ an
able and elaborate paper ”)—how could he be expected to do other
wise than keep silence upon this head? To be sure, he says in this
very same letter, that if it [the Recognition of Rebel Belligerence]
was not justified, as I confidently believe was the case, the act is one
which bears materially upon the question, whether the Government
is not bound to indemnify for the losses occasioned by the “Alabama,”
[and] “ upon this ground, independent of the question of proper
diligence, the obligation of Great Britain to meet the losses seems to
me to be most apparent! If so very apparent, would it not have been
worth at least a casual mention—sajS|for instance, as good as the
parenthetical allusion to the “ so-called {Alabama! claims ”—in a treaty
which was to discharge the two countries of all shadow of animosity
against each other forever ?
But since Mr. Johnson is so confident that the Government of the
United States “never exacted any thing on itl own account,” and, as
he says elsewhere in his letter of February 17th, “ the^depredations of
the Alabama were of property in which our nation had no direct pe
cuniary interest,” I should like to be informed if he never heard that
one of the ships sunk by the Alabama was the United States ship of
war the Hatteras—a gunboat of considerable size, seventeen of whose
officers and crew were killed and drowned, and a hundred and upward
of whom were made prisoners. Pray, has the United States no inter
est, pecuniary or national, in that act of war or piracy? Did it not
cost a naval engagement also with the “ Kearsarge,” and the wounding
of several of our seamen, to finally give the quietus to the “ Alaba4
�26
MB. EEVEBDY JOHNSON:
ma’s” depredations ? And, if the question is of direct pecuniary dam
age nationally, did not the chase of that marauding sea-rover and her
kindred consorts cost the United States millions of dollars of expense,
without reckoning the more remote destruction of that private com
merce whose value Mr. Reverdy Johnson finds it so difficult to esti
mate ?
Whether it is below the dignity of a great nation to make a
reclamation for its governmental losses, such as those just named, sus
tained by the United States in its national capacity, is one thing; but
that a substantial national claim on that score exists pecuniarily,
should it once be thought worth while by the United States to enforce
it, is as certain as that some of those destructive corsairs were negli
gently allowed to escape in violation of British municipal law, and that
all of them were afterward treated with unneutral hospitality in Brit
ish outports, in violation of the public law of nations.
But returning to Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s masterly inactivity in
negotiating, or rather in not negotiating, for a hearing of the points of
belligerent recognition and national indemnity, I must not overlook
an extraordinary admission of his, connected with his attempt to get
them included in the second treaty, by way of a supplementary com
mission, as already referred to, which is reported by Lord Clarendon
to the British Minister at Washington. In a dispatch to Mr. Thorn
ton, dated March 22d (Blue Book, ut sup., p. 45), Lord Clarendon
writes as follows:
Mr. Reverdy Johnson called upon me to-day to propose that an amendment, of
which I inclose a copy, should be made to Article I. of the convention, as he
thought it would satisfactorily meet the objections entertained by the Senate to
the convention, and would secure its ratification by that body.
I remarked to Mr. Johnson that his proposal would introduce an entirely new
feature into the convention, which was for the settlement of claims between the
subjects and citizens of Great Britain and the United States; but that the two
Governments not having put forward any claims on each other, I could only sup
pose that his object was to favor the introduction of some claim by the Government
of the United States for injury sustained on account of the policy pursued by Her
Majesty’s Government.
Mr. Reverdy Johnson did not object to this interpretation of this amendment,
but said that if claims to compensation on account of the recognition by the British
Government of the belligerent rights of the Confederates were brought forward by the
Government of the United States, the British Government might, on its part, bring
forward claims to compensation for damages done to British subjects by American
blockades, which, if the Confederates were not belligerents, were illegally enforced
against them.
That is to say—■“ If you, Lord Clarendon, will be so good as to let
governmental claims into the scope of the treaty, to satisfy those un
reasonable United States Senators, I, Reverdy Johnson, minister ple
nipotentiary and envoy extraordinary of the United States of America,
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
27
will give my consent that the British Governiftent may come upon
the United States for damages for an illegal blockade of the Southern
ports, in case the Confederates were not made lawful belligerents by
President Lincoln’s two blockade proclamations.”
The same proposition, in effect, was more formally repeated by
Mr. Johnson to Lord Clarendon, three days later, in writing. (Par
liamentary Blue Book, ut sup., p. 46, Johnson to Clarendon, March
25.)
Pray, what could the American Minister have been thinking of in
thus suggesting arguments against his Government ? Had he forgot
ten which nation he represented ? and was he all the while supposing
himself a British envoy ? Or shall we say that such conduct is quite
in keeping with his retorting against his Government, by way of re
taliation for undervaluing his services, that it never had any case to
begin with, and that it had. obtained all that it had ever asked for?
Is not the latest suggestion—that made to Lord Clarendon—the worst
of the two ? For while the former might in some degree have been
palliated by wounded vanity, the latter seems a gratuitous going out
of his way to furnish weapons against the nation whose interests it
was his duty to protect.
And yet can the reader credit it, that when Lord Clarendon, a fort
night later,- was inquiring with particularity into Mr. Johnson’s au
thority to amend the convention, as we have already had occasion to
notice in another connection, Mr. Johnson could have said about this
proposition of his (which of course drew after it the apologetic sug
gestion of the United States being thereby made liable for all the con
sequences of an illegal blockade) as he did ?—“ I felt myself entirely
justified in making it by my instructions from the late Administration
of my Government” (Johnson to Clarendon, April 9,1869, Blue Book,
ut sup., p. 48.)
As one of Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s American constituents, I chalLnge the production of a single line of instructions for any'such un
called-for concession as this, even from the administration of Andrew
Johnson itself. That he cannot bring forward so much as a syllable
to that effect from President Grant’s administration, which alone he
undertook to speak for on the 22d and 25th of March last, I venture
to affirm with all possible positiveness short of actual knowledge;
and until the American Minister can justify himself by some such
authorization from the Executive then in office, what else can be said
of his extraordinary “official” communication to the British Govern
ment, except that he had lost his head, or was intentionally abusing
�28
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON I
his trust ? I believe the former the most rational as well as the most
charitable conclusion of the two, and I trust that’I have said enough
to persuade my reader of the same opinion.
But I pass from Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s individual sayings and
doings, and from the topic of Belligerent Recognition as inexcusably
omitted by him (or by him and Mr. Seward jointly) from the conven
tion of January 14th—inexcusably, at least, on their own showing—•
to briefly notice, in the third place, the equally important omission
from the same State-paper of all statement of principle or recognition
of national ground of indemnity to be effected by means of any award
which the Commissioners or Arbitrator might afterward make under
it in favor of the American private claimants.
Here I must take my text again from Mr. Seward’s dictum of Jan
uary 13, 1868, already quoted. I believe the matter will well bear
a moment’s further attention. Says Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, just
a year before the signing of the Johnson-Clarendon Convention, “ the
lowest form of satisfaction for that national injury that the United
States could accept, would be found in an indemnity [I leave out the
words “ without reservation or compromise,” for present purposes]
by the British Government to those citizens of the United States who
had suffered individual injury,” etc.
Now, what satisfaction could it be of the “ national wrong and
injury,” felt by the people of the United States, for British unfriendly
neutrality during the civil war, that any sum of money, however
large, should have accrued by a fortunate cast of the Commissioners’
dice to the “ Alabama ” claimants, individually, so long as the Com
missioners did not attempt, and in fact were not authorized, to ad
judicate damages upon principle ?
Granting that the fortunate
recipients of the indemnity would be willing to accept their money
without asking whence or how it came (though most of them, I
believe, would imitate Mr. George B. Upton in being willing to post
pone their private remedy to the paramount claim of the public
wrong), what step forward would have been accomplished by the pro
cess toward conciliating international good-will, or, still more, toward
securing that future co-operation in an amended code of maritime law,
which the experience of the late war has shown to be so necessary to
the future peace of the two countries ? Upon both of these points,
but especially the latter, shall I not have the concurrence of our En
glish friends in the propriety of the rejection of the late treaty-? Are
they not desirous that their money, when paid, if an Alabama indem
nity is ever to be rendered (as I trust, in the interests of public law
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
29
and an advanced civilization, one shortly will be), that it shall be paid
and accepted as a pledge of international satisfaction, and not as a
mere recompense for private loss ?
Thus, if a million of dollars is to be paid because of a defective
observance of neutral precaution in not preventing the original escape
of the “Alabama,” or the “ Florida,” from Liverpool, or of the “ Flor
ida” from Nassau; another million because of the burning of Amer
ican ships by British-built Confederate cruisers, without adjudication,
contrary to that code of maritime warfare which Lord Russell an
nounced on behalf of the British Government, at the outbreak of the
Rebellion, would be insisted on from the newly-created belligerents ;
another million because of the admission of unneutrally-equipped pri
vateers, or so-called public ships of war, into the ports of that neutral
power which had negligently tolerated their original outfit within its
own territory; and other millions or thousands, because of the viola
tion of’this or that just doctrine of international law;—if, I say, these
sums of money are awarded on these respective specific grounds, and
the United States as a Government accepts the money on behalf of its
citizens, thereby virtually giving a receipt in acknowledgment of the
moneys being paid upon such and such a principle—is not the transac
tion an infinitely more satisfactory one to the British taxpayer, than
as if neither tenet of public law nor conciliation of the wounded sen
sibilities of a great maritime competitor had once been taken into
account in the matter ?
For myself, speaking as a humble member of the great American
Republic, I cannot look upon the acceptance by the United States of
any “ Alabama ” indemnity, even in the shape of pecuniary redress
to individual sufferers, in any other light than as a pledge given by
the country to Great Britain—perhaps to the world—that it is itself
bound to make reparation on the same principles and to the same ex
tent, to other nations, for any similar injury, national or private, which
shall hereafter be brought home to its charge. In this sense, it seems
to me that the adequacy of any satisfaction to be exacted and recov
ered by the United States, certainly on national account, is to be esti
mated rather by the responsibility which its acceptance draws after it,
than by its absolute apparent magnitude in the first instance.
Thus, supposing the American Government were to exact and
recover that enormous demand for remote and consequential damages
for English intervention in the late war, which has been construed into
rather than out of Senator Sumner’s late speech—say to the extent of
half the expenses of the war—I cannot doubt that the acceptance of
SB.
�30
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON I
any such sum (provided it could once be collected of Great Britain by
threat of war or otherwise) would pledge the former country to a
responsibility which it would be altogether unwise and inexpedient to
enter into. At least, if the United States are hereafter to be called
into judgment upon the same principles, I do not well see how they
could long avoid becoming nationally bankrupt; certainly so unless
their foreign relations are hereafter to be conducted upon a system of
more scrupulous precaution than has been sometimes seen to prevail.
On the other hand, if the British Government, in making any “Ala
bama” redress—whether unsolicited, or in compliance with an arbi
trator’s award—are content to adapt their indemnity to a low grade of
Q neutral obligation, then, so far as its acceptance draws after it the corre
sponding obligation which I have imagined, the United States may con
sider themselves fortunate that they are thereby exonerated in future
from this or that principle of neutral restraint which Great Britain
has impliedly waived. As a lover of peace and well-wisher to civil
ization, I can only hope that that indemnity may cover as many prin
ciples as possible, and be large enough to fix those principles in the
perpetual remembrance of both countries.
Without attempting further exposition of Mr. Seward’s text of
“ the lowest form of satisfaction for the national injury that the United
States could accept,” I cannot dismiss Mr. Johnson’s charge, that we
have obtained all that we ever asked for, without adding my caveat
against the United States being impliedly estopped from hereafter
stating its case for national reparation in any different way, or to any
different extent, from that which has heretofore been put forward in
its official “ Alabama ” correspondence. Thus, supposing our late
Minister’s allegation to be altogether well founded, by what act or
declaration have the American Government cut themselves off from
demanding a just and adequate indemnity in reparation of public as
well as private injuries, if such reparation is ever to be made ? If,
for instance, the arming and equipment of the “ Florida ” was not
made in the first instance in the port of Mobile, as our diplomatists
have tacitly conceded, but, on the contrary, in Liverpool, or, at any
rate, within British jurisdiction in the Bahamas ; if the equipment of
the Alabama with a crew who were known to be “ going down ” in
the steam-tug Hercules “ to join the gunboat ” in Beaumaris Bay
near Liverpool (amounting to what Lord Russell has himself called
“ going to another port in Her Majesty’s dominion to ship a portion of
her crew ”), has never been sufficiently dwelt upon; if the non-compli
ance by the rebels with the British programme of Belligerent Recogj
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
31
nition at any time during the war, and especially after the American
blockade had been rendered incontrovertibly complete (a period long
prior to the launching of the Alabama, the Georgia, and, much more,
the Shenandoah, as British official concessions establish), has not been as
yet made a part of the American grievance ; if, still more, the deliberate
refusal of the rebels to comply with that programme as manifestoed in
Secretary Benjamin’s “ Instructions to Confederate Cruisers,” published
in the English Confederate official organ in London, in November or De
cember of 1864, several weeks before the “ Shenandoah ” was supplied,
as a regular ship of war, with the forty-five men, the two hundred tons
of coal, and the extra provisions at Melbourne, which were the very
means by which she afterward destroyed our whaling fleet in the
North Pacific Ocean, has never yet been connected with the statement
of the “Shenandoah” claims
if, I say, these and numerous other
points, of perhaps equal or even greater magnitude, have heretofore
failed of their due setting forth on the national behalf, will it be con
tended by any one, even Mr. Johnson himself, that they may not now
be justly advanced by the United States, and “ listened to by the Brit
ish Government, or countenanced by other nations ” ?
For my own part, I think that the argument might as well be
made that no’ claim can be raised for any injury done to the United
States or its citizens by the depredations of the Alabama since Octo
ber 23, 1863 (nine months before she ended her career), because Mr.
Adams on that day proposed to Lord Russell, under Mr. Seward’s
instructions, “ that there was no fair and equitable form of conven
tional arbitrament or reference to which the United States will not be
willing to submit” the question of British responsibility for the
doings of that vessel. It has been British option thus far, until the
late negotiations were so rashly hurried through, to keep this “ Ala
bama ” controversy open; and if the American claim justly grows
the more it is examined and the longer its settlement is deferred, (I
will not say so much the worse for England, but; as I verily believe)
so much the better for civilization, and the establishment of a better
code of international law. Only, for the present, let it be acknowl
edged that the country is to sustain no prejudice for fair dealing
because of these abortive John son-Stanley, Johnson-Clarendon nego
tiations.
And this leads me to say a word, before concluding my already
too extended communication, upon a topic which, as much as anything
else, prompted the making of the communication at all. I mean the
point last suggested, that the United States may possibly have been
�32
Q
MB. REVERDY JOHNSON!
wanting, in some degree, in good faith toward England, in repudiating,
through the action of its Senate, a treaty which had been regularly en
tered into by its Minister at London, and then approved of by its
Executive at Washington. This is a suggestion which is naturally
brought to the notice of every American traveler in Europe, and
which forces itself all the more painfully upon his attention, when he
is informed that the Minister of his own Government has declared
that the treaty in question concedes all that the United States has ever
asked for.
The answer to this suggestion is so simple and conclusive, founded
on the constitutional right and duty of the United States Senate to
reject any treaty inconsistent with their views of its expediency for
the interests of the country, however strongly it may have been ap
proved of by the Executive, or agreed to by the foreign Minister, that
I can promise to be very brief in making it.
Of course it would be quite superfluous to remind any intelligent
American of the co-ordinate and independent power of the Senate of
the United States to reject any treaty submitted to them for ratifica
tion by the President. That the President, or, much more, the Secre
tary of State, or any diplomatic agent abroad, cannot undertake to
pledge beforehand the decision of the Senate in such a case, without
being thereby guilty of the heinous official impropriety, if not of an
impeachable offense, is also too well understood on the American side
of the water to need a moment’s elucidation. But to most Europeans,
and to many Englishmen who have been accustomed only to a
monarchical or imperial form of government, the idea of the treaty
making power not being exclusively vested in the Executive head of
the Government, presents an anomaly such as has hardly ever before
been considered.
To such, therefore, of my readers (if I shall be so fortunate as to
have any), I beg to commend the following short extract from Whea
ton’s Commentaries on the Law of Nations, which states the case as
to the Constitution of the United States in this particular so clearly as
to dispose of the point at once. I would only premise that the
American publicist wrote the passage more than twenty years ago,
for the text of both the French and English editions of his treatise,
and that, therefore, by this time, it ought to be within the knowledge
of Europeans generally.
, The municipal constitution of every particular State determines in whom re
sides the authority to ratify treaties negotiated and concluded with foreign pow
ers, so as to render them obligatory upon the nation. In absolute monarchies it is
the prerogative of the sovereign himself to confirm the act of his plenipotentiary
�THE ALABAMA. NEGOTIATIONS.
33
by his final sanction. In certain limited or constitutional monarchies, the consent
of the legislative power of the nation is in some cases required for that purpose.
In some republics, as in that of the United States of America, the advice and, consent
of the Senate are essential, to enable the Chief Executive Magistrate to pledge the na
tional faith in this form. In all these cases, it is, consequently, an implied condi
tion in negotiating with foreign powers, that the treaties concluded by the executive gov
ernment shall be subject to ratification in the manner prescribed by the fundamental
laws of the State.
Did not the two respective British Foreign Secretaries, who suc
cessively negotiated with Mr. Reverdy Johnson, know of this im
plied condition ” in the due ratification of any American treaty, of
which Mr. Wheaton speaks ? Not only were they apprised of it in
due season, but, as we have seen in the limited abstract of the official
correspondence which we have had occasion to make, both Messrs.
Seward and Johnson were constantly calling it to the notice of the
two Foreign Secretaries, by suggesting that this or that provision
must be adopted in order to secure the Senatorial sanction. It has
even appeared that the American Secretary of State notified the
British Minister at Washington, as one of the reasons foi’ rejecting the
first convention, that in the opinion of the President and cabinet, its
terms would not be satisfactory to the Senate. Whether this were
according to strict official etiquette or not, can there be any doubt that
the British Government were forced to give attention to this constitu
tional requisite in treating with the United States before entering into
the second convention ?
But last and most conclusive of all arguments, can any English
man suggest any shadow of unfairness toward his country in this
action of the United States Senate, in rejecting the second convention
of January 14th, when in the very instrument itself, as well as in every
other draft of a convention to which Mr. Johnson put his name on
behalf of the United States, these words were made a part of the
treaty: “ The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the
United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate there
of” %
But notwithstanding all this, 1 think I hear some of our English
liberal friends still objecting : “ Perhaps this may be so, legally and
formally, but we do not see how the American Senate could equitably
and fairly accredit Mr. Reverdy Johnson to us by a unanimous vote,
and then, when we strike hands with him, reject the treaty with an
almost equal unanimity. It seems to us that they should have put us
on our guard against giving him our confidence, and not have led us
to think that they thought so differently of him from his namesake,
the President, who had appointed him.”
5
♦
�34
MR. REVERDY JOHNSON :
To which I reply : But how did the Senate know that Minister
Johnson was going to run such a career as he did ? Did they suppose
that when he was instructed only to sound the British Government, he
was about to take upon himself to settle the greatest foreign compli
cation on the national docket ? Did they suppose that Mr. Seward
was going to abdicate his functions, and let the new envoy carry off
the glory of composing a controversy which the Secretary of State
had made it his chief study to manage for six years ? Is it probable
that they imagined that any settlement of the “Alabama” would be
attempted by Mr. Seward himself in the dying hours of the Andrew
Johnson Administration, when that administration had so recently
come within one vote of being summarily deposed? Had not the
British Ministei* at Washington attended the Impeachment proceed
ing? And were not his Government at home duly warned, before en
tering into either convention with Mr. Reverdy Johnson, that that
Minister represented the most obnoxious Executive ever known to
the American Republic ?
If these questions are not enough to silence our murmuring Eng
lish friends, I beg to ask three more:
First. Could the unanimous confirmation of Mr. Reverdy John
son’s nomination, by the United States Senate in July, have encour
aged any false confidences, which were not sufficiently removed by
the equally unanimous repudiation of his doings, in November, by
the very administration which had originally proposed his nomina
tion? ■
Secondly. If Mr. Thornton’s report of the unanimous rejection by
President Johnson and his cabinet of Minister Johnson’s first treaty
had not sufficiently opened Lord Clarendon’s eyes in November, to
the overweening confidence of the American envoy in the success of
his mission, had not the Foreign Secretary’s vision been made suffi
ciently clear on that point as early as April 5th—ten days before the
Senate acted on the second treaty—when he notified the Minister,
that “ Her Majesty’s Government could not consider a communication
[from him] not made by the authority of the present [American]
Government?
And lastly. Are the United States Senate any more to be blamed
for repudiating Mr. Reverdy Johnson and his diplomacy, than was
Andrew Johnson’s Administration—which repudiation as we have
seen was overlooked and deemed satisfactory by the British Govern
ment—or than was the British Foreign Secretary, who it seems re
pudiated both the one and the other, ten days sooner than the Ameri
can Senate itself?
�THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS.
35
If the reader, in being kind enough to answer these questions for
himself, will also kindly add, as I hope he will, that he will not trouble
me for further justification of American fairness, either equitable or
technical, in the matter of rejecting Mr. Reverdy Johnson’s second
treaty, I will relieve his much-taxed patience by only asking his
favorable verdict upon the following points, which embody the chief
-conclusions to which my argument has tended:
(1.) That our English opponents in the Johnson-Stanley, John
son-Clarendon negotiations were well aware, from the outset of those
negotiations, that no convention, however, strongly assented to by
the American Minister in London, or approved of by the American
Executive at home, could become a binding treaty upon the United
States, till it had been duly ratified by the consent of the American
Senate.
*
(2.) That there was nothing in the circumstances leading to the
negotiation of the second convention of January 14th, or in the tenor
of that convention itself, which even impliedly forbade the exercise
by the Senate of its ordinary constitutional function of rejecting any
treaty deemed unsatisfactory for the national good.
(3.) That the British Government, in dealing with the Administra
tion of Andrew Johnson—especially after November 3, 1868, when
the election of General Grant to the Presidency had set the seal of
popular approval upon Impeachment proceedings, or at least of con
demnation upon that Administration—were sufficiently put upon
notice, that any important treaty concluded with that obnoxious Exec
utive was more than ordinarily liable to Senatorial criticism and con
demnation.
(4 ) That the convention of January 14th was rightly rejected, on
its merits, by the United States Senate, as an entirely inadequate and
insufficient submission to arbitration of the American grounds of
claim in the “ Alabama ” controversy, either public or private, col
lective or individual.
(5.) That the United States Senate, in rejecting that treaty, ren
dered a favor to the British Government, itself, in preventing the
further prosecution of a scheme of settlement so defective in its
statement of the subject-matter of the dispute, and so totally devoid
of any recognition of principle upon which satisfaction might there
after be awarded or accepted.
(6.) That no discredit ought to attach to the United States from the
extraordinary and unfounded reflections of its late Minister respecting
the rejection of that treaty; because, as we have seen, he scarcely ever
�36
THE ALABAMA. NEGOTIATIONS.
at any time comprehended the nature and extent of his own powers,,
or if he did, rarely complied with them ; because, having his first
convention set aside for a violation of instructions, he sought to amend
his second by an interpolation which was, if possible, a greater breach
of official propriety, and which had to be repudiated by the British
Government itself; because he accompanied that attempt to save his
own work from disgrace with a concession which was at once unworthy
of the suggestion of an American Minister, and at the same time, so
far as appears, purely of his own invention ; because he convicts him
self, by his own showing, of having intentionally agreed to leave out
a most important part of the American claim, under the device of
"a omitting any specification of the point to be decided; because he con
sidered himself fortunate in getting any mention at all of the claim
he represented introduced into the terms of the treaty; and, finally,
because his whole ministerial treatment of the American case was
no better than “ a mush of concession” and such as it is most char
itable to believe resulted rather from ignorance or misapprecia
tion of its merits, or from failing faculties, than from a deliberate pur
pose to sacrifice the great interests, national and international, which
he undertook to represent.
Paris, August 20.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Mr. Beverdy Johnson: the Alabama negotiations, and their just repudiation by the Senate of the United States
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bemis, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: New York
Collation: 36 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The Alabama Claims were a series of demands for damages sought by the government of the United States from the United Kingdom in 1869, for the attacks upon Union merchant ships by Confederate Navy commerce raiders built in British shipyards during the American Civil War. [From Wikipedia, September 2017].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Baker & Godwin
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5238
Subject
The topic of the resource
American Civil War
International relations
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Mr. Beverdy Johnson: the Alabama negotiations, and their just repudiation by the Senate of the United States), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Alabama Claims
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Foreign relations-United States
United States-Foreign relations-1861-1865
United States-Foreign relations-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8899572780d658b430d11ef187b3018a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Gr%7EDtXx-FL0mObr-WoHuhF-EEK%7EqAHtwGK%7E6mUvGQ9cQrTE2-Q02bUfQcWtxRaWpVdWPLJw2EdTwZCur6-BawclnKcZZNG-JXQpZfGB3YD0O65EIkFl0jKw3qyl5pDDu7rLwp81672aH5jdH1PV6q9wkKxuPVXDNAn-78MgL-yo6IcX9EZI1KRarLGN8I5MgVTuwEXirX3hkRuzFJyjEGUeFYijrw6%7EECHUOyqs0Z%7Eycdrvx3PNRkErkeai0k4KvX9ci2u%7E7T2VB7Jv0jhn7Qvfm3b%7EnH1mlglHHk131R0ioUEZVP%7EZENMd9Dgb63pB9wIiA4M5cb65kjgB%7EMEJRdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
10b44cd6c482625d6401cf9114feb6dc
PDF Text
Text
SHOWING
PRESENT PERILS
FROM
ENGLAND AND FRANCE ;
THE
NATURE AND
CONDITIONS OF INTERVENTION BY MEDIATION ; AND ALSO BY
RECOGNITION; THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY RECOGNITION
OF A NEW POWER WITH SLAVERY AS A CORNER
STONE ; AND TIIE WRONGFUL CONCESSION
OF OCEAN BELLIGERENCY.
SPEECH
'
’
OF
HON. CHARLES SUMNER,
BEFORE THE
CITIZENS OF NEW YORK, AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE,
SEPT. 10, 1863.
-------------- Jam non ad culmina rerum
Injustos crevisse queror. Tolluntur in altum
Ut lapsu graviore ruant.
—CL AUDI AN.
NEW YORK:
YOUNG MEN’S REPUBLICAN UNION.
1 8 G 3.
�“ To this condition the Constitution of this Confederacy reduces the whole African race; and
while declaring these to be its principles, their founders claim the privilege of being admitted
into the society of the nations of the earth!—principles worthy only of being conceived and
promulgated by the inmates of the infernal regions, and a fit constitution for a confederacy
in Pandemonium! Now, as soon as the nature of this constitution is truly explained and
understood, is it possible that the nations of the earth can admit such a Confederacy into their
society ? Can any nation, calling itself civilized, associate, with any sense of self-respect, with
a nation avowing andpracticing such principles? Will not every civilized nation, when the
■nature of this Confederacy is understood, come to the side of the United States, and refuse
all association with them, as, in truth, they are hostes humani generis? For the African
is as much entitled to be protected in the rights of humanity as any other portion of the
human race. As to Great Britain, her course is, in the nature of things, already fixed and
immutable. She must, sooner or later, join the United States in this war, or be disgraced
throughout allfuture time ; for the principle of that civilization which this Confederacy repu
diates was by her—to her great glory, and with unparalleled sacrifices—introduced into the
code of civilization; and she will prove herself recreant if she fails to maintain it.”—Speech
<f Hon. Josiah Quincy, to the Union Club of Boston.
Wright <fc Potter, Printers, No. 4 Spring Lane, Boston.
�The following Speech was delivered at the invitation of the New York Young
Men’s Republican Union, at Cooper Institute, on the 10th of September, 1863.
The announcement that Mr. Sumner had consented to address the citizens of
New York on a subject so momentous attracted an audience numbering not less
than three thousand persons, among whom were most of the acknowledged repre
sentatives of the intelligence, wealth and influence of the Metropolis. Long
before the hour appointed for the delivery of the speech, the entrance doors
were besieged- by an impatient and anxious crowd, who, as soon as the gates
were opened, filled the seats, aisles, lobbies and platform of the vast hall, leaving
at least an equal number to return home unable to gain an entrance to the
building.
Of the following named gentlemen, who were invited to occupy seats upon
the platform, a majority were present, while in the auditorium were seated
hundreds of equally prominent citizens, who preferred to retain seats near the
ladies whom they had escorted to the meeting:—
Francis Lieber, LL. D.,
George Bancroft,
Major-!¡eneral Dix,
Horace Greeley,
George Griswold,
John E. Williams,
W. W. De Forest,
Cornelius Vanderbilt,
Abram Wakeman,
Rev. Dr. Tyng,
Cyrus W. Field,
Alex. T. Stewart,
Horace Webster, LL. D.,
Joseph Lawrence,
John A. Stevens,
Pelatiah Périt,
James A. Hamilton,
IL B. Claflin,
T. L. Thornell,
Col. William Borden,
William Goodell,
Rev. Dr. Thompson,
Rev. Dr. Gillette,
.William Cullen Bryant,
Major-General.Fremont,
A. A. Low,
John Jay,
Henry Grinnell,
James Gallatin,
Cephas Brainerd,
William B. Astor,
William H. Aspinwall,
Oliver Johnson,
W. M. Evarts,
William Curtis Noyes
Rev. Dr. Hitchcock,
Shepherd Knapp,
William II. Webb,
James W. Gerard,
Anson Livingston,
Frank W. Ballard,
Isaac H. Bailey,
George: B. Lincoln,
Gen. Harvey Brown,
Rev. Dr. Shedd,
Rev. Dr. Durbin,
Peter Cooper,
Major-Gen. Doubleday,
Charles H. Marshall,
Marshall 0. Roberts,
Judge Bradford,
Charles II. Russell,
E. Delafield Smith,
Hamilton Fish,
Robert B. Minturn,
Rev. Dr. Cheever,
F. B. Cutting,
Charles King, LL. D.,
Rev. Dr Ferihs,
Ex-Governor King,
George Folsom,
Samuel B. Ruggles,
S. B. Chittenden,
Charles T. Rodgers,
Mark Hoyt,
Lewis Tappan,
Rev. Dr. Storrs,
Rev. Dr. Adams,
Rev. Dr. Vinton,
Daniel Drew,
Francis Hall,
Geo. William Curtis,
Judge Edmonds.
Rev. Dr. Asa D. Smith,
Truman Smith,
William A. Hall,
Prosper M. Wetmore,
B. F. Manierre,
George P. Putnam,
E. C. Johnson,
Rev. Dr. Osgood,
Elliott C. Cowdin,
Rev. T. Ralston Smith,
J. S. Schultz,
M. Armstrong, Jr.,
I). A. Hawkins,
Edgar Ketchum,
Joseph Hoxie,
Rev. Dr. Bellows,
Gen. S. C. Pomeroy,
James McKaye,
George F. Butman,
David Dudley Field.
The President of the United States and the members of the Cabinet were also
invited to be present.
�4
At least one thousand ladies were in the audience, among whom Mrs. Lincoln
was an attractive and conspicuous personage. The wives and daughters of many
of New York’s wealthiest and worthiest citizens, by their presence and enthusiasm
evinced the deep interest they felt in the occasion, the speaker, and the theme
discussed.
David Dudley Field, Esq., who had been selected by the Committee as
Chairman of the meeting, introduced Mr. Sumner to the audience in the
following words:—
REMARKS OF MR. FIELD.
Ladies and Gentlemen :—At no former period in the history of the coun
try, has the condition of its foreign relations been so important and so critical as
it is at this moment. In what agony of mortal struggle this nation has passed
the last two years, we all know. A rebellion of unparalleled extent, of inde
scribable enormity, without any justifiable cause, without even a decent pretext,
stimulated by the bad passions which a barbarous institution had originated, and
encouraged by expected and promised aid from false men among ourselves,
has filled the land with desolation and mourning. During this struggle it has
been our misfortune to encounter the evil disposition of the two nations of
Western Europe, with which we are most closely associated by ties of blood,
common history, and mutual commerce. Perhaps I ought to have said, the evil
disposition of the Governments rather than of the Nations, for in France the
people have no voice, and we know only the imperial will and policy, while in
England the masses have no powers, the House of Commons being elected by
a fraction of the people, and the aristocratic classes being against us from dislike
to the freedom of our institutions, and the mercantile (lasses from the most sordid
motives of private gain. To what extent this evil disposition has been carried,
what causes have stimulated it, in what acts it has manifested itself, and what
consequences may be expected to follow from it in future, will be explained by
the distinguished orator who is to address you this evening. His position, as
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has given him an
acquaintance with the subject, equal, if not superior, to that of any other person
in the country. He needs no introduction from me. His name is an introduc
tion and a passport in any free community between the Atlantic and the Pacific
Seas ; therefore, without saying more, I will give way for Charles Sumner, of
Massachusetts.
Amid the most marked demonstrations of satisfaction, expressed frequently
by long-continued applause and hearty cheers, Mr. Sumner proceeded in the
delivery of his discourse. The meeting adjourned about an hour before
midnight.
It may be proper to add, as an evidence of the importance attached to Mr.
Sumner’s treatment of the subject, that three New York newspapers, and two
in Boston, printed the entire speech on the day following its delivery.
Copies of the speech will be mailed to those who may request them. Address
“Cor. See’y of Young Men’s Republican Union, Box 1219 P. O. New York
City.”
�SPEECH.
Fellow-Citizens,—From the beginning of the war in which we
are now engaged, the public interest has alternated anxiously
between the current of events at home and the more distant
cm rent abroad. Foreign Relations have been hardly less absorb
ing than Domestic Relations. At times the latter have seemed
to wait upon the former, and a packet from Europe has been like
a messenger from the seat of war. Rumors of Foreign Interven
tion aic constant, now in the form of Mediation, and now in the
form of Recognition ; and more than once the country has been
summoned to confront the idea of England, and of France too,
in open combination with Rebel Slave-mongers battling, in the
name of Slaxery, to build an infamous Power on the destruction
of this Republic.
It may be well for us to turn aside from battle and siege here
at home—from the blazing lines of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and
Charleston—to glance for a moment at the perils from abroad ; of
course I mean from England and France, for these are the only
Foieign 1 owers that thus far have been moved to intermeddle on
the side of Slavery. The subject to which I now invite attention
may not have the attraction ot waving standards or victorious
marches, but,more than any conflict ot arms, it concerns the Civil
ization of the age. If Foreign Powers can justly interfere against
Human Freedom, this Republic will not be the only sufferer.
There is always a natural order in unfolding a subject, and I
shall try to pursue it on this occasion, under the following heads ;
-¿'¿»■¿-—I he perils to our country from Foreign Powers, especially
as foreshadowed in the unexpected and persistent conduct of
England and France since the outbreak of the war.
Secondly—T he nature of Foreign Intervention by Mediation
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic
instances—showing especially how England, by her conspicuous,
wide-spread and most determined Intervention to promote the
extinction of African Slavery, is irrevocably commiited against
any act or policy that can encourage this criminal pretension.
Ihirdly—The nature of Foreign Intervention by Recognition,
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic
�6
instances—showing that by tlie practice of nations, and especially
by the declared sentiments of British Statesmen, there can be no
Foreign Recognition of an insurgent Power where the contest for
Independence is still pending.
Fourthly—The moral impossibility of Foreign Recognition, even
if the pretended Power be de facto Independent, where it is com
posed of Rebel Slave-mongers seeking to found a new Power with
Slavery for its declared “ corner-stone.” Pardon the truthful
plainness of the terms which I employ. I am to speak not
merely of Slave-holders; but of people to whom Slavery is a
passion and a business—therefore Slave-mongers ; now in Rebel
lion for the sake of Slavery—therefore Rebel Slave-mongers.
Fifthly—The absurdity and wrong of conceding Ocean Bellig
erency to a pretended Power, which, in the first place, is without
a Prize Court—so that it cannot be an Ocean Belligerent in fact—
and which, in the second place, even if Ocean Belligerent in fact,
is of such an odious character, that its Recognition is a moral
impossibility.
From this review, touching upon the present and the past;
leaning upon history and upon law ; enlightened always by prin
ciples which are an unerring guide, our conclusion will be easy.
[I]
Perils from Foreign Powers.
The perils to our country, as foreshadowed in the action of
Foreign Powers since the outbreak of the war, first invite our
attention.
There is something in the tendencies of nations, which
must not be neglected. Like individuals, nations influence
each other; like the heavenly bodies, they may be disturbed by
each other in their appointed orbits. This is apparent even in
peace; but it becomes more apparent in the convulsions of war,
sometimes from the withdrawal of customary forces and some
times from their increased momentum. It is the nature of war
to enlarge as it continues. Beginning between two nations, it
gradually widens its circle, sucking other nations into its fiery
maelstrom. Such is human history. Nor is it different, if the
war be for Independence. Foreign Powers may for a while keep
out of the conflict; but the examples of history show how difficult
this has been
The Seven United Provinces of Holland, under that illustrious
character, William of Orange, the predecessor and exemplar of
our Washington, rose against the dominion of Spain, upheld by
the bigotry of Philip II., and the barbarity of his representative,
Alva; but the conflict, though at first limited to the two parties,
was not slow to engage Queen Elizabeth, who lent to this war of
Independence the name of her favorite Leicester and the undying .
�heroism of Sidney, while Spain retorted by the Armada. The
United Provinces of Holland, in their struggle for Independence,
were the prototype of the United States of America, which I need
not remind you, drew into their contest the arms of France,
Spain, and Holland. In the rising of the Spanish Colonies
which followed, there was less interposition of other nations,
doubtless from the distant and outlying position of these Colonies,
although they were not beyond the ambitious reach of the Holy
Alliance, whose purposes with regard to them were so far thwarted
by Mr. Canning, backed by the declaration of Mr. Munroe—known
as the Munroe doctrine—that the British Statesman felt authorized
to boast that he had called a New World into existence to redress
the balance of the Old. Then came the struggle for Greek Inde
pendence, which, after a conflict of several years, darkened by
massacre, but relieved by an exalted self-sacrifice, shining with
names like Byron and Bozzaris, that cannot die, at length chal
lenged the powerful interposition of England, France and Russia.
The Independence of Greece was hardly acknowledged, when
Belgium, renouncing the rule of the Netherlands, claimed hers
also, and here again the Great Powers of Europe were drawn into
the contest. Then came the effort of Hungary, inspired by
Kossuth, which, when about to prevail, aroused the armies of
Russia. There was also the contemporaneous effort of the Roman
Republic, under Mazzini, which when about to prevail, aroused
the bayonets of France. And lastly we have only recently
witnessed the resurrection of Italy, inspired by Garibaldi, and
directed by Cavour; but it was not accomplished until Louis
Napoleon, with his well-trained legions, carried the imperial
eagles into the battle.
Such are famous instances, which are now so many warnings.
Ponder them and you will see the tendency, the temptation, the
irresistible fascination, or the commanding exigency under which,
in times past, Foreign Nations have been led to take part in con
flicts for Independence. I do not dwell now on the character of
these various interventions, although they have been mostly in the
interest of Human Freedom. It is only as examples to put us
on our guard that I now adduce them. The footprints all seem
to lead one way.
But even our war is not without its warnings. If thus far in
its progress other nations have not intervened, they have not
succeeded in keeping entirely aloof. The foreign trumpet has
not sounded yet; but more than once the cry has come that we
should soon hear it, while incidents have too often occurred,
exhibiting an abnormal watchfulness of our affairs and an uncon
trollable passion or purpose to intermeddle in them, with signs^of
unfriendly feeling. Of course, this is applicable especially, if not
exclusively, to England and France.
�8
Perils from England.
(1.) There is one act of the British Cabinet which stands fore
most as an omen of peril—foremost in time—foremost also in the
magnitude of its consequences. Though plausible in form, it is
none the less injurious or unjustifiable. Of course, I refer to that
inconsiderate Proclamation in the name of the Queen, as early as
May, 1861, which, after raising Rebel Slave-mongers to an equality
with the National Government in Belligerent Rights, solemnly
declares “ neutrality ” between the two equal parties;—as if the
declaration of equality was not an insult to the National Govern
ment, and the declaration of neutrality was not amoral absurdity,
offensive to reason and all those precedents which make the
glory of the British name. Even if the Proclamation could be
otherwise than improper at any time in such a Rebellion, it was
worse than a blunder at that early date. The apparent relations
between the two Powers were more than friendly. Only a
few months before, the youthful heir to the British throne
had been welcomed every where throughout the United States
—except in Richmond—as in the land of kinsmen. And yet
—immediately after the tidings of the rebel assault on Fort
Sumter—before the National Government had begun to put
forth its strength—and even without waiting for the arrival of
our newly-appointed Minister, who was known to be at Liver
pool on his way to London, the Proclamation was suddenly
launched. I doubt if any well-informed person, who has read
Mr. Dallas's despatch of 2d May, 1861, recounting a conversation
with the British Minister, will undertake to vindicate it in point
of time. Clearly the alacrity of this concession was unhappy, for
it bore an air of defiance or at least of heartlessness towards an
ally of kindred blood engaged in the maintenance of its tradi
tional power against an infamous pretension. But it was more
unhappy still, that the good genius of England did not save this
historic nation, linked with so many triumphs of freedom, from
a fatal step, which, under the guise of “neutrality,” was a
betrayal of civilization itself.
It is difficult to exaggerate the consequences of this precipitate,
unfriendly and immoral concession, which has been and still is
an overflowing fountain of mischief and bloodshed—hac fonte
derivata clades;—-first, in what it vouchsafes to Rebel Slave
mongers on sea and in British ports, and secondly, in the impedi
ments which it takes from British subjects ready to make money
out of Slavery ;—all of which has been declared by undoubted
British authority. Lord Chelmsford—of professional renown as
Sir Frederick Thesiger—now an Ex-Chancellor—used these words
recently in the House of Lords ; “ If the Southern Confederacy
had not been recognized as a belligerent Power, he agreed with
his noble and learned friend [Lord Brougham] that, under these
circumstances, if any Englishman were to fit out a privateer for
�9
the purpose of assisting the Southern States against the Northern
States, he would be guilty of piracy.'’''—But all this was changed
by the Queen’s Proclamation. For the Rebel Slave-monger there
is the recognition of his flag ; for the British subject there is the
opportunity of trade. For the Rebel Slave-monger there is fellow
ship and equality; for the British subject there is a new customer,
to whom he may lawfully sell Armstrong guns and other warlike
munitions of choicest British workmanship, an,d, as Lord Palmers
ton tells us, even ships of war too, to be used in behalf’of Slavery.
What was unlawful is suddenly made lawful, while the ban is
taken from an odious felony.
It seems almost superfluous
to add, that such a concession, thus potent in its reach, must
have been a direct encouragement and overture to the Rebel
lion. Slavery itself was exalted when barbarous pretenders—
battling to found a new Power in its hateful name—without so
much as a single port on the ocean where a prize could be
carried for condemnation—were yet, in the face of 'this essential
deficiency, swiftly acknowledged as ocean belligerents, while,
as a consequence, their pirate ships, cruising for plunder in
behalf of Slavery, were acknowledged as National ships, entitled
to equal privileges with the National ships of the United States.
This simple statement is enough. It is vain to say, that such a
concession was a “necessity.” There may have been a strong
temptation to it, constituting, perhaps, an imagined necessity, as
with many persons there is a strong temptation to Slavery itself.
But such a concession to Rebel Slave-mongers, fighting for Slavery,
can be vindicated only as Slavery is vindicated. As well undertake
to declare “neutrality” between Right and Wrong—between
Good and Evil—with a concession to the latter of Belligerent
Rights ; and then set up the apology of “ necessity.”
(2.) It was natural that an act so essentially unfriendly in
character and also in the alacrity with which it was done, should
create throughout England an unfriendly sentiment towards us,
easily stimulated to a menace of war. And this menace was not
wanting-soon afterwards, when the two rebel emissaries on board
the Trent were seized by a patriotic, brave commander, whose high
est fault was, that, in the absence of instructions from his own Gov
ernment, he followed too closely British precedents. This accident
—for such it was and nothing else—was misrepresented, and, with
an utterly indefensible exaggeration, was changed by the British
nation, backed by the British Government, into a casus belli, as if
such an unauthorized incident, which obviously involved no ques
tion of self-defence, could justify war between two civilized Nations.
And yet, in the face of a positive declaration from the United States,
that it was an accident, the British Government made preparations
to take part ivitli rebel slave-mongers, and it fitly began such ignoble
preparations by keeping back from the British people, the official
despatch of 30th November, 1861, where our Government, after
�10
announcing that Capt. Wilkes had acted “ without any instruc
tions,” expressed a trust that “ the British Government would con
sider the subject in a friendly temper,” and promised “ the best
disposition on our part.” It is painful to recall these things. But
they now belong to history, and we cannot forget the lesson they
teach.
(3.) But this tendency to espouse the side of Slavery, appears
in small things, as well as great, becoming more marked in
proportion to the inconsistency involved. Thus, for instance,
where two British subjects “ suspected ” of participation in the
Rebellion were detained in a military prison, without the benefit
of habeas corpus, the British Minister at Washington was directed
by Her Majesty’s Government to complain of their detention as
an infraction of the Constitution of the United States, of which this
intermeddling Power assumed for the time to be the “ expounder
and the case was accordingly presented on this ground. But
the British cabinet, in its instinctive aptness to mix in our
war, if only by diplomatic notes, seemed to have forgotten the
British Constitution, under which, in 1848, with the consent of
the leaders of all parties,—Brougham and Derby, Peele and
D’lsraeli,—the habeas corpus was suspended in Ireland and the
Government was authorized to apprehend and detain “ such
persons as they shall suspect.” The bill sanctioning this exercise
of power went through all its stages in the House of Commons in
one day, and on the next day it went through all its stages in the
House of Lords, passing to bo a law without a dissenting vote.
It will hardly be believed that Lord Russell, who now complains
of our detention of “ suspected” persons, as an infraction of the
Constitution of the United States, was the Minister who intro
duced this Bill, and that, on that occasion he used these words :
“ I believe in my conscience that this measure is calculated to
prevent insurrection, to preserve internal peace, to preserve the
unity of this empire and to save the throne of these realms and
the free institutions of this country.”
(4.) The complaint about the habeas corpus was hardly
answered when another was solemnly presented, on account of the
effort to complete the blockade of Charleston, by sinking at
its mouth ships laden with stone, usually known as the “ stone
blockade.” In common times her Majesty’s government would
have shrunk from any intermeddling here. It could not have
forgotten that history, early and late, and especially English
history, abounds in similar incidents ; that as long ago as 1456,
at the siege of Calais by the Duke of Burgundy, and also in 1628
at the memorable siege of Rochelle by Cardinal Richelieu, ships
laden with stone were sunk in the harbor; that during the war
of the Revolution in 1778 six vessels were sunk by the British
commander in the Savannah River, not far from this very Charles
ton, as a protection against the approach of the French and
�11
American naval forces; that in 1804, under the direction of the
British Admiralty, an attempt was made to choke the entrance into
the harbor of Boulogne by sinking stone vessels, and that in 1809
the same blockade was recommended to the Admiralty by no less
a person than Lord Dundonald, with regard to another port, saying,
“ Ships filled with stones will ruin forever the anchorage of Aix,
and some old vessels of the line well loaded would be excellent
for the purpose.” But this complaint by the British Cabinet
becomes doubly strange, when it is considered that one of the
most conspicuous treaties of modern history contained solemn
exactions by England from France, that the harbor of Dunkirk,
whose prosperity was regarded with jealousy, should be permanently
“ filled up,” so that it could no longer furnish its accustomed hospi
talities to commerce. This was the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713.
But by the Triple Alliance, only four years later, France was con
strained to stipulate again that nothing should be omitted“ which
Great Britain could think necessary for the entire destruction of the
harbor,” and the latter Power was authorized to send commission
ers as “ ocular witnesses of the execution of the Treaty.” These
humiliating provisions were renewed in successive treaties down
to the peace of Versailles in 1783, when the immunity of that
harbor was recognized with American Independence. But Great
Britain, when compelled to open Durkirk, still united with the
Dutch in closing the Scheldt, or as a British writer expresses it, she
“ became bound to assist in obstructing this navigation.” (JEncyclopcedia Britannica. Vol. x. p. 77, article, France.) One of
the two reasons put forth by Great Britain for breaking peace with
France in 1792, and entering upon that world-convulsing war,
was that this revolutionary Power had declared it would open the
Scheldt. And yet it is Great Britain, thus persistent in closing
ports and rivers, that now interferes to warn us against a “ stone
blockade.”
(5.) The same propensity and the same inconsistency will be
found in another instance, where an eminent peer, once~Foreign
Secretary, did not hesitate, from his place in Parliament, to
charge the United States with making medicines and surgical
instruments contraband, “ contrary to all the common laws of
war, contrary to all precedent, not excluding the most ignorant
and barbarous ages.” Thus exclaims the noble lord. Now I
have nothing to say of the propriety of making these things con
traband. My simple object is to exhibit the spirit against which
we are to guard. It would be difficult to believe that such a dis
play could be made in the face of the historic fact, exposed in
the satire of Peter Plymley’s Letters, that, Parliament, in 1808,
by large majorities, prohibited the exportation of Peruvian Bark
into any territory occupied by France, and that this measure was
introduced by no less a person than Mr. Percival, and commended
by him on the ground that “ the severest pressure was already
�12
felt on the continent from the want of this article, and that it
was of great importance to the armies of the enemy.” {Han
sard's ParHam en t ary Debates.') Such is authentic British prece
dent, in an age neither “ ignorant ” nor “ barbarous,” which is now
ostentatiously forgotten.
(6.) This same recklessness, which is of such evil omen, breaks
forth again in a despatch of the Foreign Secretary, where he
undertakes to communicate to Lord Lyons the judgment of the
British Cabinet on the President’s Proclamation of Emancipa
tion. Here at least, you will say, there can be no misunder
standing, and no criticism ; but you are mistaken. Such an act,
having such ah object, and being of such unparalelled importance,
would, under any ordinary circumstances, when great passions
found no vent, have been treated by the Minister of a Foreign
Po wer with supreme caution, if not with sympathy; but, under
the terrible influence of the hour, Lord Russell, not content with
condemning the Proclamation, misrepresents it in the most bare
faced manner. Gathering his condemnation into one phrase, he
says, that it “ makes Slavery at once legal and illegal,” whereas
it is obvious, on the face of the Proclamation, to the most careless
observer, that, whatever may be its faults, it is not obnoxious to
this criticism, for it makes Slavery legal nowhere, while it makes
it illegal in an immense territory. An official letter, so incom
prehensible in motive, from a statesman usually liberal if not
cautious, must be regarded as another illustration of that irri
tating tendency, which will be checked only when it is fully
comprehended.
(7.) The activity of our navy is only another occasion for
criticism in a similar spirit. Nothing can be done any where to
please our self-constituted monitor. Our naval officers in the
Mest Indies, acting under instructions modelled on the judgments
of the British Admiralty, are reprehended by Lord Russell in a
formal despatch. The judges in our Prize Court are indecently
belittled by this same Minister from his place in Parliament, when
it is notorious that there are several who will compare favorably
with any British Admiralty Judge since Lord Stowell, not even
excepting that noble and upright magistrate, Dr. Lushington.
And this same Minister has undertaken to throw the British
shield over a newly-invented contraband trade with the rebel
slave-mongers via Metamoras, claiming that it w7as “ a lawful
branch of commerce,” and “ a perfectly legitimate trade.” The
Dolphin and Peterhoff were two ships elaborately prepared in
London, lor this illicit commerce, and they have been duly con
demned as such ; but their seizure by our cruisers was made the
occasion of official protest and complaint, with the insinuation of
“vexatious capture and arbitrary interference,” followed by the
menace, that, under such circumstances, “ it is obvious Great
Britain must interfere to protect her flag.”
�(8.) This persistent, inexorable criticism, even at the expense
of all consistency or of all memory, has also broken forth in
forms incompatible with that very “ neutrality,” which was so
early declared. It was bad enough to declare neutrality, when
the question was between a friendly Power and an insulting Bar
barism; but it was worse after the declaration to depart from it,
if in words only. The Court of Rome at a period when it pow
erfully influenced the usage of Nations, instructed its cardinal
Legate, on an important occasion, as a solemn duty first and above
all things, to cultivate “indifference” between the parties, and in
this regard he was to be so exact, that, not only should no partiality
be seen in his conduct, but it should not be remarked even
“ in the words of his domestics.” (Wicquefort, Parfait Ambassadeur, Liv. ii. p. 144.) If in that early day, before steam and
telegraph, or even the newspaper, neutrality was disturbed by
“ words,” how much more so now, when every word is multiplied
indefinitely, and wafted we know not where—to begin, wherever
it falls, a subtle, wide-spread and irrepressible influence. But
this injunction is in plain harmony with the refined rule of Count
Bernstoff, who, in his admirable despatch oil this subject, at the
time of the Armed Neutrality, says sententiously, “ Neutrality
does not exist when it is not perfect.” It must be clear and
above suspicion. Like the reputation of a woman, it is lost when
you begin to talk about it. Unhappily there is too much occasion
to talk about the “ neutrality” of England. I say nothing of a
Parliamentary utterance that the National cause was “ detested
by a large majority of the House of Commons,” or of other
most unneutral speeches. I confine myself to official declara
tions. Here the case is plain. Several of the British Cabinet,
including the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, two great masters of “ words,” have allowed them
selves in public speeches, to characterize offensively our pres
ent effort to put down Rebel Slave-mongers, as “ a contest
for empire on one side and for independence on the other.”
Here were “ words,” which, under a specious form, were under
stood to give encouragement to Rebel Slave-mongers. But they
were more specious than true—revealing nothing but the side
espoiised by the orators. Clearly on our side it is a contest
for National life, involving the liberty of a race. Clearly on the
other side it is a contest for Slavery, in order to secure for
this hateful crime new recognition and power. Our Empire is
simply to crush Rebel Slave-mongers. Their Independence is
simply the unrestrained power to whip women and sell children.
Even if at the beginning, the National Government made no
declaration on the subject, yet the real character of the war was
none the less apparent in the repeated declarations of the other
side, who did not hesitate to assert their purpose to build a new
Power on Slavery—as in the Italian campaign of Louis Napoleon
�14
against Austria, the object was necessarily apparent, even before
the Emperor tardily at Milan put forth his life-giving Proclama
tion that Italy should be free from the Alps to the Adriatic, by
which the war became, in its declared purpose, as well as in
reality, a war of Liberation. That such a Rebellion should bo
elevated by the unneutral “words” of a Foreign Cabinet, into
a respectability of which it is obviously unworthy, is only another
sign which we must watch.
(9.) But these same orators of the British Cabinet, not con
tent with giving us a bad name, have allowed themselves to pro
nounce against us on the whole case. They declared that the
National Government cannot succeed in crushing Rebel Slave
mongers and that dismemberment is inevitable. “ Jefferson
Davis ” says one of them “ has created a nation.” Thus do these
representatives of declared “neutrality” degrade us and exalt
Slavery. But it is apparent that their proclamation, though
made in Parliament and repeated at public meetings, was founded
less on any special information from the seat of war, disclosing
its secret, than on political theory, if not prejudice. It is true
that our eloquent teacher, Edmund Burke, in his famous letter to
the Sheriffs of Bristol, argued most persuasively that Great
Britain could not succeed in reclaiming the colonies, which had
declared themselves independent. His reasoning rather than
his wisdom, seems to have entered into and possessed the British
statesmen of our day, who do not take the trouble to see that the
two cases are so entirely unlike that the example of the one is not
applicable to the other; that the colonies wore battling to found
anew Power on the corner-stone of “ liberty, equality and hap
piness to all men,” while our Slave-mongers are battling to found
a new Power on the corner-stone of “ Slavery.” The difference
is such as to become a contrast—so that whatever was once gen
erously said in favor of American Independence now tells with
unmistakable force against this new-fangled pretension.
No British statesman saw the past more clearly than Lord
Russell when long ago, in striking phrase, he said that England,
in her war against our fathers, “ had engaged for the suppression
of Liberty(Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 2d series, Vol.
viii. p. 1036, April 16, 1823,) but this is precisely what Rebel
Slave-mongers are now doing. Men change ; but principles are
the same now as then. Therefore, do I say, that every sympathy
formerly bestowed upon our fathers now belongs to us their
children, striving to uphold their work against bad men, who
would not only break it in pieces but put in its stead a new
piratical Power, whose declared object is “ the suppression of
Liberty.” And yet British ministers, mounting the prophetic
tripod, presume most oracularly to foretell the doom of this
Republic. Their prophecies do not disturb my confidence. I
do not forget how often false prophets have appeared—includ
�15
ing the author of the Oceana, who published a demonstration
of the impossibility of monarchy in England only six months
before Charles II. entered London amidst salvoes of cannon,
and the hurrahs of the people. Nor do I stop to consider how
far such prophecies uttered in public places by British Minis
ters are consistent with that British “neutrality” which is so
constantly boasted. Opinions are sometimes allies more potent
than subsidies, especially in an age like the present. Prophecies
are opinions proclaimed and projected into the future, and yet
these are given freely to Rebel Slave-mongers. There is matter
for reflection in this instance, but I adduce it now only as
another illustration of the times. Nothing can be more clear
. than that whosoever assumes to play the prophet becomes pledged
in character and pretension to sustain his prophecy. The learned
Jerome Cardan, professor and doctor, and also dabbler in astrol
ogy, of great fame in the middle ages, undertook to predict the
day of his death, and he maintained his character as a successful
prophet by taking his own life at the appointed time. If. British
Ministers, who have played the prophet, escape the ordinay influ
ences of this craft, it will bo from that happy nature, which has
suspended for them human infirmity and human prejudice. But
it becomes us to note well the increased difficulties and dangers
to which on this account the National cause is exposed.
(10.) But it is not in “ words” only,—of speeches, despatches
or declarations,—that our danger lies. I am sorry to add that
there are acts also with which the British Government is too closely
associated. I do not refer to the unlimited supply of “ muni
tions of war,” so that our army at Charleston, like our army at
Vicksburg, is compelled to encounter Armstrong guns and Blake
ley guns, with all proper ammunition, from England; for the
right of British subjects to sell these articles to Rebel Slave-mon
gers was fixed when the latter, by sudden metamorphosis were
•changed from lawless vagrants of the ocean to lawful Belligerents.
Nor do I refer to the swarms of swift steamers, “a pitchy cloud
warping on the Eastern wind,” always under the British flag, with
contributions to Rebel Slave-mongers ; for these too, enjoy a kin
dred immunity. Of course, no Royal Proclamation can change
wrong into right or make such business otherwise than immoral;
but the Proclamation may take from it the character of felony.
But even the Royal Proclamation gives no sanction to the prep
aration in England of a naval expedition against the commerce of
the United States. It leaves the Parliamentary Statute, as well
as the general Law of Nations, in full efficacy to restrain and
punish such an offence. And yet in the face of this obvious prohi
bition, standing forth in the text of the law, and founded in reason
“ before human statute purged the common weal,” also exempli
fied by the National Government, which, from the time of Wash
ington, has always guarded its ports against such outrage, powerful
�16
ships have been launched, equipped, fitted out and manned in
England, with arms supplied at sea from another English vessel,
and then, assuming that by this insulting hocus pocus all English
liability was avoided, they have proceeded at once to rob and
destroy the commerce of the United States. England, has been
their naval base from which were derived the original forces and
supplies which enable them to sail the sea. Several such ships
are now depredating on the ocean, like Captain Kidd, under pre
tended commissions—each in itself a naval expedition. As Eng
land is not at war with the United States, these ships can be
nothing else than pirates ; and their conduct is that of pirates.
Unable to provide a Court for the trial of prizes, they revive
for every captured ship the barbarous Ordeal of Fire. Like
pirates, they burn all that they cannot rob. Flying from sea to
sea, they turn the ocean into a furnace and melting-pot of American
commerce. Of these incendiaries the most famous is the Alabama,
with a picked crew of British sailors, writh “trained gunners out
of her Majesty’s naval reserve,” and with every thing else from
keel to top-mast British ! which, after more than a year of unlawful
havoc, is still burning the property of our citizens, without once
entering a Rebel Slave-monger port, but always keeping the
umbilical connection with England, out of whose womb she sprung,
and never losing the original nationality stamped upon her by
origin, so that at this day she is a British pirate ship—precisely
as a native-born Englishman, robbing on the high seas, and never
naturalized abroad, is a British pirate subject.
It is bad enough that all this should proceed from England.
It is hard to bear. Why is it not stopped at once ? One cruiser
might perhaps elude a watchful Government. But it is difficult
to see liow this can occur once—twice—three times ; and the cry
is still they sail. Two powerful rams are now announced, like
stars at a theatre. Will they too be allowed to perform ? I wish
there were not too much reason to believe that all these perform-,
ances are sustained by a prevailing British sympathy. A French
man, who was accidentally a prisoner on board the Alabama at
the destruction of two American ships, describes a British packet
in sight whose crowded passengers made the sea resound with
cheers as they witnessed the captured ships handed over to the
flames. The words of Lucretius were verified; Suave etiam
belli certamina magna tueri. But these same cheers were echoed
in Parliament, as the builder of the piratical craft gloried in his
deed. The verse which filled the ancient theatre with glad
applause, declared a sympathy with Humanity; but English
applause is now given to Slavery and its defenders; “ I am an
Englishman, and nothing of Slavery is foreign to me.” Accordingly
Slavery is helped by English arms, English gold, English ships,
English speeches, English cheers. And yet for the honor of
England, let it be known, that there are Englishmen, who have
�17
stood firm and unshaken amidst this painful recreancy. Their
names cannot be forgotten. And still more for the honur of
England, let it be spoken that the working classes, who were called
to suffer the most, have bravely borne their calamity, without
joining with the enemies of the Republic. Their cheers have
been for Freedom and not for Slavery.
But the cheers of the House of Commons seem to prevail in
her Majesty’s Government. Municipal Law is violated—while
International Law,in its most solemn obligation to do untoothers
as we would have them do unto us—is treated as if it did not
exist. Eminent British functionaries in Court and Parliament,
vindicate the naval expeditions, which, in the name of Slavery,
have been unleashed against a friendly Power. Taking advan
tage of an admitted principle, that “ munitions of war ” may
be supplied, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer tells us,
that “ships of war” may be supplied also. Lord Palmerston
echoes the Lord Chief Baron. Each vouches American author
ity. But they are mistaken. The steel which they strive to
“ impell ” cannot be feathered from our sides. Since the
earliest stage of its existence the National Government has
asserted a distinction between the two cases; and so has the
Supreme Court, although there are words of Story which have
been latterly quoted to the contrary. But the authority of the
Supreme Court is positive on both the points into which the
British apology is divided. The first of these is that, even if a
“ ship of war” cannot be furnished, the offence is not complete
until the armament is put aboard, so that where the ship, though
fitted out and equipped in a British port, awaits her armament
at sea, she is not liable to arrest. Such an apology is an insult
to the understanding and to common sense—as if it was not
obvious that the offence begins with the laying of the keel for
the hostile ship, knowing it to be such; and in this spirit the
Supreme Court has decided that it “ was not necessary to find
that a ship on leaving port was armed or in a condition to
commit hostilities;—for citizens are restrained from such acts as
are calculated to involve the country in a war.” U. S. vs. Quincy,
6 Peters, 445.) The second apology assumes, that, even if the
armament were aboard so that the “ ship of war” was complete at
all points, still the expedition would be lawful, if the juggle of a
sale were adroitly employed. But on this point the Supreme
Court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, has left no doubt of
its deliberate and most authoritative judgment. In the case
before the Court, the armament was aboard, but cleared as
cargo ; the men too were aboard but enlisted for a commercial
voyage; the ship, though fitted out to cruise against a nation
with which we were at peace, was not commissioned as a privateer,
and did not attempt to act as such until she had reached the
River La Plata, where a commission was obtained and the crew
2
�18
re-enlisted, yet, in the face of these extenuating circumstances, it
was declared by the whole Court that the neutrality of the United
States had been violated, so that the guilty ship could not after
wards be recognized as a legitimate cruiser. All these disguises
were to no purpose. The Court penetrated them every one,
saying that, if such a ship could lawfully sail there would be on
our part“ a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our government,
of which no nation would be the dupe.” (The Gran Para, 7
Wheat., 471, and also four other cases in same volume.') But a
“neutrality” worse even than that condemned in advance by our
Supreme Court, “ of which no nation would be the dupe,” is now
served out to us, which nothing but the fatal war spirit that has
entered into Great Britain can explain. There was a time when
the Foreign Secretary of England, truly eminent as statesman
and as orator, Mr. Canning, said in the House of Commons : “ If
war must come, let it come in the shape of satisfaction to be
demanded for injuries, of rights to be asserted, of interests to be
protected, of treaties to be fulfilled. But, in God's name, let it
not come on in the paltry, pettifogging way of fitting out ships in
our harbors to cruise for gain. At all events let the country dis
dain to be sneaked into a warP (Canning’s Speeches, Vol. v.
p. 51.) These noble words were uttered in reply to Lord John
Russell and his associates in 1823, on their proposition to repeal
the Foreign Enlistment Act and to overturn the statute safeguards
of British neutrality. But they speak now with greater force
than then.
Even if it be admitted that “ ships of war,” like “ munitions of
war,” may be sold to a Belligerent, as is asserted by the British
Prime Minister, echoing the Lord Chief Baron, it is obvious that
it can be only with the distinction, to which I have already alluded,
that the sale is a commercial transaction, pure and simple, and
not, in any respect, a hostile expedition fitted out in England.
The ship must be “ exported” as an article of commerce, and it
must continue such until its arrival at the belligerent port,
where alone can it be fitted out and commissioned as a “ ship of
war,” when its hostile character will commence. Any attempt
in England to impart to it a hostile character, or, in one word, to
make England its naval base, must be criminal; but this is
precisely what has been done. And here are the leonine foot
prints which point so badly.
(11.) But not content with misconstruing the decisions of our
Supreme Court, in order to make them a cover for naval expedi
tions to depredate on our commerce, our whole history is forgotten
or misrepresented. It is forgotten, that, as early as 1793, under
the administration of Washington, before any Act of Congress on
the subject, the National Government recognized its liability,
under the Law of Nations, for ships fitted out in its ports to depre
date on British commerce ; that Washington, in a Message to
�19
Congress, describes such ships as “ vessels commissioned or
equipped in a warlike form, within the limits of the United
States,” and also as “ military expeditions or enterprises,”
(American Slate Papers, Vol. i. p. 22.) and that Jefferson, in
vindicating this policy of repression, said, in a letter to the French
Minister, that “ it was our wish to preserve the morals of our
citizens from being vitiated by courses of lawless plunder and
murder; ” (Ibid, 148.) that, on this occasion the National
Government made the distinction between “ munitions of war ”
which a neutral might supply in the way of commerce to a belligent, and “ ships of war,” which a neutral was not allowed to
supply, or even to augment with arms; that Mr. Hammond, the
British plenipotentiary at that time, by his letter of 8th May,
1793, after complaining of two French privateers fitted out at
Charleston, to cruise against British Commerce, expressly declares
that he considers them “ breaches of that neutrality which the
United States profess to observe, and direct contraventions of the
Proclamation which the President had issued,” ( Wharton's State
Trials, p. 49,) and that very soon there were criminal proceed
ings, at British instigation, on account of these privateers, in
which it was affirmed by the Court, that such ships could not be
fitted out in a neutral port without a violation of international
obligations; that, promptly tbereafterwards, on the application
of the British Government, a statute was enacted, in harmony
with the Law of Nations, for the better maintenance of our neu
trality ; that, in 1818, Congress enacted another statute in the
nature of a Foreign Enlistment Act, which was proposed as
an example by Lord Castlereagh, when urging a similar statute
upon Parliament; that in 1823 the conduct of the United
States on this whole head was proposed as an example to the
British Parliament by Mr. Canning; that, in 1837, during the
rebellion in Canada, on the application of the British Govern
ment, and to its special satisfaction, as was announced in Par
liament by Lord Palmerston, who was at the time Foreign
Secretary, our Government promptly declared its purpose “ to
maintain the supremacy of those laws which had been passed to
fulfil the obligations of the United States towards all nations
which should be engaged in foreign or domestic warfare ; ” and,
not satisfied with its existing powers, undertook to ask additional
legislation from Congress ; that Congress proceeded at once to the
enactment of another statute, calculated to meet the immediate
exigency, wherein it was provided that collectors, marshals and
other officers shall u seize and detain any vessel which may be
provided or prepared for any military expedition or enterprise
against the territories or dominions of any Foreign Prince or
Power.” (Statutes at Large, Vol. v. p. 212.) It is something
to forget these things ; but it is convenient to forget still further
that, on the breaking out of the Crimean War, in 1854. the
�British Government, jointly with France, made another appeal to
the United States, that our citizens “ should rigorously abstain
from taking part in armaments of Russian privateers, or in any
other measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality ” and
this appeal, which was declared by the British Government to be
“in the spirit of just reciprocity,” was answered on our part by a
sincere and determined vigilance, so that not a single British or
French ship suffered from any cruiser fitted out in our ports.
And it is also convenient to forget still further the solemn obliga
tions of Treaty, binding on both parties, by which it is stipulated,
“ That the subjects and citizens of the two nations shaTl not do any acts of
hostility or violence against each other, nor accept commissions or instructions
so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies to the other party ; nor
shall the enemies of one of the parties b$ permit ted to invite or endeavor
to enlist in their military service, any of the subjects or citizens of the other
party ; and the laws against all such offences and aggressions shall he punc
tually executed!’ (Statutes at Large, Vol. viii. p. 127.)
But at the date of this Treaty, in 1794, there was little legislation
on the subject in either country; so that the Treaty, in harmony
with the practice, testifies to the requirements of the Law of
Nations, as understood at the time by both Powers.
And yet, forgetting all these things,—which show how faith
fully the National Government has acted, both in measures
of repression and measures of compensation—also how often the
British Government has asked and received protection at our
hands, and how highly our example of neutrality has been appre
ciated by leading British statesmen—and forgetting also that
“spirit of just reciprocity” which, besides being the prompting
of an honest nature, had been positively promised—ship after ship
is permitted to leave British ports to depredate on our commerce ;
and when we complain of this outrage, so unprecedented and so
unjustifiable, all the obligations of International Law are ignored,
and we are petulantly told that the evidence against the ships is
not sufficient under the statute; and when we propose that the
statute shall be rendered efficient for the purpose, precisely as in
past times the British Government, under circumstances less
stringent, proposed to us, we are pointedly repelled by the old
baronial declaration, that there must be no change in the laws of
England; while to cap this strange insensibility, Lord Palmerston,
in one of the last debates of the late Parliament, brings against
us a groundless charge of infidelity to our neutral duties during
the Crimean war, when the fact is notoriously the reverse, and
Lord Russell, in the same spirit, imagines an equally groundless
charge, which he records in a despatch, that we have recently
enlisted men in Ireland, when notoriously we have done no such
thing. Thus all the obligations of reciprocal service and good
will are openly discarded, while our public conduct, as well in
the past as the present, is openly misrepresented.
�21
(12.) This flagrant oblivion of history and of duty, which seems
to be the adopted policy of the British Government, has been
characteristically followed by a flat refusal to pay for the damages
to our commerce caused by the hostile expeditions. The United
States, under Washington, on the application of the British
Government, made compensation for damages to British commerce
under circumstances much less vexatious, and, still further, by
special treaty, made compensation for damages “ by vessels origi
nally armed ” in our ports, which is the present case. Of cours'e,
it can make no difference—not a pin’s difference—if the armament
is carried out to sea, in another vessel from a British port, and there
transhipped. Such an evasion may be effectual against a Par
liamentary statute, but it will be impotent against a demand upon
the British Government, according to the principles of Interna
tional Law; for this law looks always at the substance and not the
form, and will not be diverted by the trick of a pettifogger.
Whether the armament be put on board in port or at sea,
England is always the naval base, qt, according to the language’
of Sir William Scott, in a memorable case, the “station” or
“ vantage ground,”—which he declared a neutral country could
not be. (Twee Gebroeders, 3 Robinson, R. 162.) Therefore,
the early precedent between the United States and England
is in every respect completely applicable, and since this prece
dent was established — not only by the consent of England but
at her motion— it must be accepted on the present occasion
as an irreversible declaration of International duty. Other
nations might differ, but England is bound. And now it is
her original interpretation, first made to take compensation from
us, which is flatly rejected, when we ask compensation from her.
But even if the responsibility for a hostile expedition fitted out in
British ports were not plain, there is something in the recent con
duct of the British Government calculated to remove all doubt.
Pirate ships are reported on the stocks ready to be launched, and
when the Parliamentary statute is declared insufficient to stop
them, the British Government declines to amend it, and sodoin%
it openly declines to stop the pirate ships, saying, “ if the Parlia
mentary statute is inadequate then let them sail.” It is not
needful to consider the apology. The act of declension is positive
and its consequences are no less positive, fixing beyond question
the responsibility of the British Government for these criminal
expeditions. In thus fixing this responsibility, we but follow the
suggestions of reason, and the text of an approved authority,
whose words have been adopted in England.
. It must, be laid down as a maxim, that a sovereign, who, knowing the
crimes of his subjects, as for example that they practice piracy cm strangers,
and being also able and obliged to hinder it, does not hinder it, renders
umself criminal, because he has consented to the bad action, the commission
�22
of which he has permitted. It is presumed that a Sovereign knows what
his subjects openly and frequently commit, and, as to his power of hindering
the evil, this likewise is always presumed, unless the want of it be clearly
proved.”
Such are the words of Burlamaqui, in his work on Natural Law,
quoted with approbation by Phillimore in his work on the Law
of Nations.—^Phillimore, Vol. i. p. 237.) Unless these words are
discarded as “ a maxim,”—while the early precedent of British
demand upon us for compensation is also rudely rejected—it is
difficult to see how the British Government can avoid the conse
quences of complicity with the pirate ships in all their lawless
devastation. But I forbear to dwell on this accumulating liability,
amounting already to many millions of dollars, with accumulating
exasperations also. My present object is accomplished, if I
make you see which way danger lies.
(13.) But beyond acts and words this same British rabbia
shows itself in the official tone, which has been adopted towards
the National cause in its unparalelled struggle—especially
throughout the correspondence of the British Foreign Office. Of
course, there is no friendship in any of these letters. Nor is there
any sympathy with the National championship against Rebel Slave
mongers, nor one word of mildest dissent even from the miscreant
apostolate which was preached in their behalf. Naturally the
tone is in harmony with the sentiment. Hard, curt, captious,
cynical, it evinces an indifference to those kindly relations which
nations ought to cultivate with each other, and which should be
the study of a wise statesmanship. The Malay runs a-muck, and
such is the favorite diplomatic style in dealing with us. This is
painfully conspicuous in all that concerns the pirate ships. But
I can well understand that a Minister, who so easily conceded
Belligerent Rights to Rebel Slave-mongers, and then so easily
permitted their ships to sally forth for piracy, would be very
indifferent to the tone of what he wrote. And yet even outrage
may be soothed or softened by gentle words; but none such have
come out of British diplomacy to us. Most deeply do I regret
this too suggestive failure. And believe me, fellow citizens, I say
these things with sorrow unspeakable, and only in discharge of
my duty on this occasion, when, face to face, I meet you to
consider the aspects of our affairs abroad.
(14.) But there is still another head of danger in which all
others culminate. I refer to an intrusive Mediation or, it may be,
a Recognition of the Slave-monger pretension as an Independent
Nation; for such propositions have been openly made in Parlia
ment and constantly urged by the British press, and, though not
yet adopted by her Majesty’s Government, they have never been
repelled on principle, so that they constitute a perpetual cloud,
threatening to break, in our foreign relations. It is plain to all
�23
who have not forgotten history, that England never can be guilty
of such Recognition without an unpardonable apostacy; nor can
she intervene by way of Mediation except in the interests of
Freedom. And yet such are the strange “ elective affinities ”
newly born between England and Slavery; such is the towering
blindness, with regard to our country, kindred to that which pre
vailed in the time of George Grenville and Lord North, that her
Majesty’s Government, instead of repelling the proposition, simply
adjourn it, meanwhile adopting the attitude of one watching to
strike. The British Minister at Washington, of model prudence,
whose individual desire for peace I cannot doubt, tells his Govern
ment in a despatch which will be found in the last Blue Book,
that as yet he sees no sign of “ a conjuncture at which Foreign
Powers may step in tuith propriety and effect to put a stop to the
effusion of blood.” Here is a plain assumption that such a con
juncture may occur. But for the present we arc left free to wage
the battle against Slavery without any such Intervention in arrest
of our efforts.
Such are some of the warnings which lower from the English
sky, bending over the graves of Wilberforce and Clarkson, while
sounding from these sacred graves are heard strange, un-English
voices, crying out, “ Come unto us, Rebel Slave-mongers, whippers of women and sellers of children, for you are the people
of our choice, whom we welcome promptly to ocean rights—
with Armstrong guns and naval expeditions equipped in our
ports, and on whom we lavish sympathy always and the prophecy
of success ;—while for you, who uphold the Republic and oppose
Slavery, we have hard words, criticism, rebuke and the menace
of war.”
Perils from France.
If we cross the channel into France, we shall not be encouraged
much. And yet the Emperor^
anting habitually nTconcert
with flic British Cabinet, has not intermeddled so illogicaTTy or
displayed a temper of so little international amiabTTitv. The
Correspondence under his direction, even at the most critical
moments, leaves little to be desired in respect of form. Nor has
there been a single blockade-runner under the French flag; nor
a single pirate ship from a French port. But in spite of these
things, it is too apparent that the Emperor has taken sides against
us in at least four important public acts—positively, plainly,
offensively. The Duke de Choiseul, Prime Minister of France,
was addressed by Frederick the Great, as “ the coachman of
Europe,”—a title which belongs now to Louis Napoleon. But he
must not try to be “ the coachman of America.”
(1.) Following the example of England Louis Napoleon has
acknowledged the Rebel Slave-mongers as ocean Belligerents, so
that with the sanction of France, our ancient ally, their pirate
�24
J
ships, although without a single open port which they can call
their own, enjoy a complete immunity as lawful cruisers, while all
who sympathize with them may furnish supplies and munitions of
war. This fatal concession was aggravated by the concurrence
of the two great Powers. But, God be praised, their joint act,
though capable of giving a brief vitality to Slavery on pirate
decks, will be impotent to confirm this intolerable pretension.
(2.) Sinister events are not alone and this recognition of
Slavery was followed by an expedition of France, in concurrence
with England and Spain, against our neighbor Republic, Mexico.
The two latter Powers, with becoming wisdom, very soon with
drew ; but the Emperor did not hesitate to enter upon an invasion.
A French fleet with an unmatched iron-clad, the consummate
product of French naval art, is now at Vera Cruz and the French
army after a protracted siege has stormed Puebla and entered the
famous Capital. This far-reaching enterprise was originally said
to be a sort of process, served by a general, for the recovery of
outstanding debts due to French citizens. But the Emperor in a
mystic letter to General Forey gave to it another character. He
proposed nothing less than the restoration of the Latin race on
this side of the Atlantic, and more than intimates that the United
States must be restrained in power and influence over the Gulf
of Mexico and the Antilles. And now the Archduke Maximilian
of Austria has been proclaimed Emperor of Mexico under the
protection of France. It is obvious that this imperial invasion,
though not openly directed against us, would not have been made,
if our convulsions had not left the door of the continent ajar, so
that foreign Powers may now bravely enter in. And it is more
obvious that this attempt to plant a throne by our side would
“ have died before it saw the light,” had it not been supposed that
the Rebel Slave-mongers were about to triumph. Plainly the
whole transaction is connected with our affairs. But it can be
little more _than_a transient experiment—for who can doubt that
this imperial exotic, planted„by foreign care and propped by
foreign bayonets, will disappear, before the ascending glory of the
Republic.
(3.) This enterprise of war was followed by an enterprise of
diplomacy not less hardy The Emperor, not content with stirring
against us the gulf of Mexico, the Antilles and the Latin race,
entered upon work of a different character. He invited England
and Russia to unite with France in tendering to the two Belliger
ents (such is the equal designation of our Republic and the
embryo slave-monger mockery !) their joint Mediation to procure
“ an armistice for six months, during which every act of war,
direct or indirect, should provisionally cease on sea as well as on
land, to be renewed if necessary for a further period.” The
Cabinets of England and Russia, better inspired, declined the
invitation, which looked to little short of Recognition itself. Under
�25
the armistice proposed all our vast operations must have been
suspended—the blockade itself must have ceased—while the rebel
ports were opened on the one side to unlimited imports of supplies
and military stores, and on the other side to unlimited exports of
cotton. Trade for the time would have been legalized in these
ports, and Slavery would have lifted its grinning front before the
civilized world. Not disheartened by this failure, the Emperor
alone pushed forward his diplomatic enterprise against us, as he
had alone pushed forward his military enterprise against Mexico,
and he proposed to our Government the unsupported mediation
of France. His offer was promptly rejected by the President.
Congress by solemn resolutions, adopted by both Houses, with
singular unanimity, and communicated since to all foreign govern
ments, announced that such a proposition could be attributed
only “ to a misunderstanding of the true state of the question
and the real character of the war in which the Republic is
engaged ; and that it was in its nature so far injurious to the
national interests that Congress would be obliged to consider its
repetition an unfriendly act.” This is strong language, but it
frankly states the true position of our country. Any such offer,
whatever may be its motive, must be an encouragement to the
Rebellion. In an age when ideas prevail and even words become
things, the simple declarations of statesmen are of incalculable
importance. But the head of a great nation is more than states
man. The imperial proposition tended directly to the dismem
berment of the Republic and the substitution of a ghastly Slave
monger nation.
Baffled in this effort, twice attempted, the Emperor does not
yet abandon its policy. We are told that “ it is postponed to a
more suitable opportunityso that he too waits to strike—if the
Gallic cock does not sound the alarm in an opposite quarter.
Meanwhile the development of the Mexican expedition shows too
clearly the motive of mediation. It was all one transaction.
Mexico was invaded for empire, and mediation was proposed in
order to help the plot. But the invasion must fail with the
diplomacy to which it is allied.
(4.) But the policy of the French Emperor towards our
Republic has not been left to any uncertain inference. For a
long time public report has declared him to be unfriendly, and
now public report is confirmed by what he has done and said.
The. ambassadorial attorney of Rebel Slave-mongers lujs been
received by him at the Tuilleries; members of Parliament, on an
errand of hostility to our cause, have been received by him at
Fontainebleau ; and the official declaration has been made that
he desires to recognize the Rebel Slave-mongers as an Independent
Power. This has been hard to believe ; but it is too true. The
French Emperor is against us. In an evil hour, under tempta
tions which should be scouted, he forgets the precious tradi
�26
tions of France whose blood commingled with ours in a common
cause ; he forgets the sword of Lafayette and Rochambeau flash
ing by the side of the sword of Washington and Lincoln, while
the lilies of the ancient monarchy floated together with the
stars of our infant flag ; he forgets that early alliance, sealed
by Franklin, which gave to the Republic the assurance of
national life, and made France the partner of her rising glory ;
Heu pietas, lieu prisca fides,—manibus date lilia plenis ; and he
forgets still more the obligations of his own name,—how the
first Napoleon surrendered to us Louisiana and the whole region
West of the Mississippi, saying, “ this accession of territory
establishes forever the power of the United States, and gives to
England a maritime rival destined to humble her pride ; ” and
he forgets also how he himself, wdien beginning his Intervention
for Italian Liberty, boasted proudly that France always stood for
an “idea ; ” and, forgetting these things, which mankind cannot
forget, he seeks the disjunction of this Republic, with the spoliation
of that very territory, wflnch had come to us from the first Napo
leon, while France, always standing for an “ idea ” is made under
his auspices to stand for the “ idea ” of welcome to a new evangel
of Slavery, with Mason and Slidell as the evangelists. Thus is
the imperial influence thrown on the side of Rebel Slave-mongers.
Unlike the ancient Gaul, the Emperor forbears for the present to
fling his sword into the scale ; but he flings his heavy hand, if
not his sword.
But only recently we have the menace of the sword. The
throne of Mexico has been offered to an Austrian Archduke. The
desire to recognize the Independence of Rebel Slave-mongers has
been officially declared. These two incidents are to be taken
together—as the complements of each other. And now we are
assured by concurring report, that Mexico is to be maintained as
an Empire. The policy of the Holy Alliance, originally organized
against the great Napoleon, is adopted by his representative
on the throne of France. What its despot authors left undone
the present Emperor, nephew of the first, proposes to accomplish.
It is said that Texas also is to be brought under the Imperial Pro
tectorate, thus ravishing a possession, which belongs to this
Republic, as much as Normandy belongs to France. The “ parti
tion ” of Poland is acknowledged to be the great crime of the last
century. It was accomplished by Three Powers, with the silent
connivance of the rest ; but not without pangs of remorse on the part
of one of the spoilers. “ I know,” said Maria Theresa to the ambas
sador of Louis XVI., “ that I have brought a deep stain on my
reign by what has been done in Poland ; but I am sure that I should
be forgiven, if it could be known what repugnance I had to it.”
(Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, Vol. vii. p. 125.)
But the French Emperor seeks to play on this continent the very
part which of old caused the contrition of Maria Theresa ; nor could
�27
the “ partition” of our broad country—if in an evil hour it were
accomplished—fail to be the great crime of the present century.
Trampier upon the Republic in France—trampier upon the Repub
lic in Mexico—it remains to be seen if the French Emperor can
prevail as trampier upon this Republic. I do not think he can ;
nor am I anxious on account of the new Emperor of Mexico, who
will be as powerless as King Canute against the rising tide of the
American people. His chair must be withdrawn or he will be
overwhelmed.
And here I bring to an end this unpleasant review. It is with
small satisfaction, and only in explanation of our relations with
Foreign Powers, that I have accumulated these instances, not one
of which, small as well as great, is without its painful lesson,
while they all testify with a single voice to the perils of our
country.
[II.]
Foreign Intervention, by Mediation or Intercession.
But there is another branch of the subject, which is not less
important. Considering all these things and especially how great
Powers abroad have constantly menaced Intervention in our war,
now by criticism and now by proffers of Mediation, all tending
painfully to something further, it becomes us to see what, accord
ing to the principles of International Law and the examples
of history will justify Foreign Intervention, in any of the forms
which it may take. And here there is one remark which may
be made at the outset. Nations are equal in the eye of Inter
national Law, so that what is right for one is right for all. It
follows that no nation can justly exercise any right which it
is not bound to concede under like circumstances. Therefore,
should our cases be reversed, there is nothing which England
and France have now proposed or which they may hereafter
propose which it will not be our equal right to propose, when
Ireland or India once more rebel, or when France is in the throes
of its next revolution. Generously and for the sake of that Inter
national Comity, which should not be lightly hazarded, we may
reject the precedents they now furnish; but it will be hard for
them to complain if we follow them.
Foreign Intervention is on its face inconsistent with every idea
of National Independence, which in itself is nothing more than
the conceded right of a nation to rest undisturbed so long as it
does not disturb others. If nations stood absolutely alone, dis
sociated from , each other, so that what passed in one had little or
no influence in another, only a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit
could fail to recognize this right. But civilization itself, by draw
ing nations nearer together and bringing them into one society,
has brought them under reciprocal influence, so that no nation
�28
can now act or suffer by itself alone. Out of the relations and
> suggestions of good neighborhood—involving, of course, the admitI ted right of self-defence—springs the only justification or apology
* which can be found for Foreign Intervention, which. is the general
term to signify an interposition in the affairs of another coun
try, whatever form it may take. Much is done under the name
of “ good offices,” whether in the form of Mediation or Interces
sion ; and much also by military power, whether in the declared will
of superior force or directly by arms. Recognition of Indepen
dence is also another instance. Intervention in any form is
interference. If peaceable it must be judged by its motive and
tendency; if forcible it will naturally be resisted by force.
Intervention may be between two or more nations, or it may be
between the two parties to a civil war; and yet again, it may be
where there is no war, foreign or domestic. In each case, it
should be governed strictly by the same principles, except, per-’
haps, that, in the case of a civil war, there should be a more
careful consideration, not only of the rights, but of the suscepti
bilities of a nation so severely tried. This is the obvious sugges
tion of humanity. Indeed, Intervention between nations is only
a common form of participation in foreign war; but intervention
in a civil war is an intermeddling in the domestic concerns of
another nation. Of course, whoever acts at the joint invitation
of the belligerent parties, in order to compose a bloody strife, will
be entitled to the blessings which belong to the peace-makers;
but, if uninvited, or acting only at the invitation of one party,
he will be careful to proceed with reserve and tenderness, in the
spirit of peace, and will confine his action to a proffer of good
offices in the form of Mediation or Intercession, unless he is ready
for war. Such a proffer may be declined without offence. But
it can never be forgotten that, inhere one side is obviously fighting
for Barbarism, any Intervention, whatever form it may take,—if
only by captious criticism, calculated to give encouragement to
the wrong side, or to secure for it time or temporary toleration,
if not final success,—is plainly immoral. If not contrary to the
Law of Nations, it ought to be.
Intervention, in the spirit of Peace and for the sake of Peace,
is one of the refinements of modern civilization. Intervention,
in the spirit of war, if not for the sake of war, has filled a large
space in history, ancient and modern. But all these instances
may be grouped under two heads; first, Intervention in external
affairs ; and, secondly, Intervention in internal affairs. The first
may be illustrated by the Intervention of the Elector Maurice, of
Saxony, against Charles V. ; of King William against Louis
XIV.; of Russia and France, in the seven years’ war ; of Russia
again between France and Austria, in 1805, and also between
France and Prussia, in 1806 ; and of France, Great Britain and
Sardinia, between Turkey and Russia, in the war of the Crimea.
�29
The Intervention of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in the affairs
of Poland; of Great Britain among the native Powers of India ;
and of the Allied Powers, under the continued inspiration of the
Treaty of Pilnitz, in the French Revolution, are illustrations of
the second head. But without dwelling on these great examples,
I shall call attention to instances, which show more especially the
growth of intervention, first, in external, and, then, in internal
affairs. And here I shall conceal nothing. Instances, which
seem to be against the principles which I have at heart, will at
least help to illustrate the great subject, so that you may see it
as it is.
Intervention in External Affairs.
(1.) First in order, and for the sake of completeness, I speak
of Intervention in external affairs, where two or more nations are
parties.
As long ago as 1645, France offered Mediation between what
was then called “ the two crowns of the North,” Sweden and
Denmark. This was followed, in 1648, by the famous Peace of
Westphalia, the beginning of our present Law of Nations, which
was negotiated under the joint Mediation of the Pope and the
Republic of Venice, present by Nuncio and Ambassador. Shortly
afterwards, in 1655, the Emperor of Germany offered his Media
tion between Sweden and Poland, but the old historian records
that the Swedes suspected him of seeking to increase rather than
to arrange pending difficulties, which was confirmed by his
appearance shortly afterwards in the Polish camp. But Sweden,
though often belligerent in those days, was not so always, and, in
1672, when war broke forth between France and England on one
side and the Dutch Provinces on the other, we find her proffering
a Mediation, which was promptly accepted by England, who justly
rejected a similar proffer which the Elector of Brandenburg,
ancestor of the kings of Prussia, had the hardihood to make while
marching at the head of his forces to join the Dutch. The
English notes on this occasion, written in what at the time was
called “ sufficiently bad French but in most intelligible terms,”
declared that the Electoral proffer', though under the pleasant
name of mediation, (par le doux nom de mediation?) was in real
ity an arbitration, and that, instead of a Mediation, unarmed and
disinterested, it was a Mediation, armed and pledged to the
enemies of England. (Wicquefort, L’Ambassadeur, Vol. i.
p. 135.)
Such are some of the earlier instances, all of which have their
lesson for us. But there are modern instances. I allude only to
the Triple Alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and Holland,
which, at the close of the last century, successively intervened,
by a Mediation, which could not be resisted, to compel Denmark—
�30
which had sided with Russia against Sweden—to remain neutral for
the rest of the war; then in 1791 to dictate the terms of peace
between Austria and the Porte ; and lastly in 1792, to constrain
Russia into an abandonment of her designs upon the Turkish
Empire, by the peace of Jassey. On this occasion the Empress
of Russia, Catharine, peremptorily refused the Mediation of
Prussia and the Mediating Alliance made its approaches through
Denmark, by whose good offices the Empress was finally induced
to consent to the Treaty. While thus engaged in a work of pro
fessed Mediation, England, in a note to the French ambassador
declined a proposition to act as Mediator between France and the
Allied Powers; leaving that world-embracing war to proceed. But
England has not only refused to act as Mediator but has also refused
to submit to a mediation. This was during the last war with the
United States, when Russia, at that time the ally of England,
proffered her Mediation between the two belligerents, which was
promptly accepted by the United States. Its rejection at the
time by England, causing the prolongation of hostilities, was
considered by Sir James Mackintosh less justifiable, as “ a medi
ator is a common friend, who counsels both parties with a weight
proportioned to their belief in his integrity and their respect for
his power ; but he is not an arbitrator to whose decision they sub
mit their differences where award is binding on them.” The
peace of Ghent was concluded at last under Russian Mediation.
But England has not always been belligerent. When Andrew
Jackson menaced letters of marque against France, on account of
a failure to pay a sum stipulated in a recent Treaty with the
United States, King William IV. proffered his Mediation between
the two Powers ; but happily the whole question was already
arranged. It appears also that, before our war with Mexico, the
good offices of England were tendered to the two parties, but
neither was willing to accept them, and war took its course.
Such are instances of interference in the external affairs of
nations, and since International Law is to be traced in history,
they furnish a guide which we cannot safely neglect, especially
in view of the actual policy of England and France.
Intervention in Internal Affairs.
(2.) But the instances of Foreign Intervention in the internal
affairs of a nation are more pertinent to the present occasion.
They are numerous and not always harmonious, especially if we
compare the new with the old. In the earlier times such Inter
vention was regarded with repugnance. But the principle then
declared has been sapped on the one side by the conspiracies of
tyranny, seeking the suppression of liberal institutions, and on
tlie other side, by a generous sympathy, breaking forth in support
of liberal institutions. According to the old precedents, most of
�31
which will be found in the gossiping book of Wicquefort, from
whence they have been copied by Mr. Wildman, even Foreign
Intercession was prohibited. Not even in the name of charity
could one ruler speak to another on the domestic affairs of his
government. Peter, King of Arragon, refused to receive an
embassy from Alphonzo, King of Castile, entreating mercy for
rebels. Charles IX., of France, a detestable monarch, in reply to
ambassadors of the Protestant princes of Germany, pleading for his
Protestant subjects, insolently said that he required no tutors to
teach him how to rule. And yet this same sovereign did not
hesitate to ask the Duke of Savoy to receive certain subjects
“ into his benign favor and to restore and re-establish them in
their confiscated estates.” (Guizot’s Cromwell, Vol. ii. p. 210.)
In this appeal there was a double inconsistency; for it was not
only an interference in the affairs of another Prince but it was in
behalf of Protestants, only a few months before the massacre of
St. Bartholomew. Henry III., the successor of Charles, and a
detestable monarch also, in reply to the Protestant ambassadors,
announced that he was a sovereign prince, and ordered them to
leave his dominions. Louis XIII. was of a milder nature, and yet
when the English ambassador, the Earl of Carlisle, presumed to
speak in favor of the Huguenots, he declared that no interference
between the King of France and his subjects could be approved.
The Cardinal Richelieu, who governed France so long, learning
that an attempt was made to procure the Intercession of the
Pope stopped it by a message to his Holiness, that the King would
be displeased by any such interference. The Pope himself, on
another recorded occasion, admitted that it would be a pernicious
precedent to allow a subject to negotiate terms of accommodation
through a foreign Prince. On still another occasion, when the
King of France, forgetting his own rule, interposed in behalf of the
Barberini Family, Innocent X. declared, that as he had no desire
to interfere in the affairs of France, he trusted that his Majesty
would not interfere in his. Queen Christina of Sweden, on
merely hinting a disposition to proffer her good offices, for the
settlement of the unhappy divisions of France, was told by the
Queen Regent, that she might give herself no trouble on the
subject, and one of her own Ministers at Stockholm declared that
the overture had been properly rejected. Nor were the States
General of Holland less sensitive. They even went so far as to
refuse audience to the Spanish ambassador, seeking to congratu
late them on the settlement of a domestic question, and, when
the French ambassador undertook to plead for the Roman Cath
olics, the States by formal resolution denounced his conduct as
inconsistent with the peace and constitution of the Republic, all
of which was communicated to him by eight deputies who added
by word of mouth whatever the resolution seemed to want in
plainness of speech.
�32
Nor is England without similar examples. Louis XIII.,
shortly afte*’ the marriage of his sister Henrietta Maria with
Charles I., consented that the English ambassador should
interpose foi the French Protestants; but when the French
ambassador in England requested the repeal of a law against
Roman Catholics, Charles expressed his surprise that the King of
France should presume to intermeddle in English affairs. Even
as late as 1745, when, after the battle of Culloden, the Dutch
ambassador in France was induced to address the British Govern
ment in behalf of Charles Edward, the Pretender, to the effect
that if taken he should not be treated as a rebel, it is recorded
that this Intercession was greatly resented by the British Govern
ment which, not content with an apology from the unfortunate
official, required that he should be rebuked by his own govern
ment also. And this is British testimony with regard to Intervention
in a civil war, even when it took the mildest form of Intercession
for the life of a prince.
But in the face of these repulses, all these nations at different
times have practiced Intervention in every variety of form. Some
times by Intercession or “ good offices ” only, sometimes by
Mediation, and often by arms. Even these instances attest the
intermeddling spirit, for wherever Intervention was thus repulsed,
it was at least attempted.
But there are two precedents belonging to the earlier period,
which deserve to stand apart, not only for their historic impor
tance, but for their applicability to our times. The first was the
effort of that powerful minister, who during the minority of Louis
XIV. swayed France—Cardinal Mazarin—to institute a Mediation
between King Charles I. and his Parliament. The civil war had
already been waged for years ; good men on each side, had fallen,
Falkland fighting for the King and Hampden fighting for the Par
liament, and other costliest blood had been shed on the fields of
Worcester, Edgehill, Newbury, Marston Moor, and Naseby, when
the ambitious Cardinal, wishing to serve the King, according to
Clarendon, promised“ to press the parliament so imperiously, and
to denounce a war against them, if they refused to yield what was,
reasonable.” For this important service he selected the famous
Pomponne de Believre, of a family tried in public duties—himself
President of the Parliament of Paris and a peer of France—con
spicuous in personal qualities, as in place, whose beautiful head
preserved by the graver of Nanteuil is illustrious in art, and whose
dying charity lives still in the great hospital of the Hotel Dieu at
Paris. On his arrival at London, the graceful ambassador pre
sented himself to that Long Parliament which knew so well how
to guard English rights. Every overture was at once rejected, by
formal proceedings, from which I copy these words: “We do
declare that we ourselves have been careful on all occasions to
compose these unhappy troubles, yet we have not, neither can,
�33
admit of any Mediation or interposing betwixt the King and us by
any foreign Prince or State; and we desire that his Majesty, the
French King, will rest satisfied with this our resolution and
answer.” On the committee which drew this reply was John
Selden, unsurpassed for learning and ability in the whole splendid
history of the English bar, on every book of whose library was
written, “ Before every thing, Liberty ” and also that Harry Vane
whom Milton, in one of his most inspired sonnets, addresses, as
** Vane, young in years, but in sage counsel old,
Than whom a better Senator ne’er held
The helm of Rome, when gowns not arms repelled
The fierce Epirot and the African bold.”
The answer of such men may well be a precedent to us; especially
should England, taking up the rejected policy of Mazarin, presume
to send any ambassador to stay the Republic in its war with
Slavery.
But the same heart of oak, which was so strenuous to repel
the Intervention of France, in the great question between King
and Parliament, was not less strenuous even in Intervention—when
it could serve the rights of England or the principles of religious
liberty. Such was England when ruled by the great Protector,
called in his own day “ chief of men.” No nation so powerful
as to be exempt from that irresistible intercession, where beneath
the garb of peace there was a gleam of arms. From France,
even under the rule of Mazarin, he claimed respect for the
Protestant name, which he insisted upon making great and
gloiious. From Spain, on whose extended empire the sun at
that time never ceased to shine, he insisted that no Englishman
should be subject to the Inquisition. Reading to his council a
despatch from Admiral Blake, announcing that he had obtained
justice from the Viceroy of Malaga, Cromwell said “ that he
hoped to make the name of Englishman as great as ever that of
Roman had been.
In this same lofty mood he turned to propose
his Mediation between Protestant Sweden and Protestant Bremen,
chiefly bewailing that being both his friends they should so
despitefully combat one against another ;” “ offering his assistance
to a commodious accommodation on both sides,” and “ exhorting
them by no means to refuse any honest conditions of reconcile
ation.”— (Milton's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 315, 16.) Here was
Intervention between nation and nation ; but it was soon followed
by an Intervention in the internal affairs of a distant country,
which of all the acts of Cromwell is the most touching and
sublime. The French ambassador was at Whitehall urging the
signature of a treaty, when news unexpectedly came from a
secluded, valley of the Alps—far away among those mountain .
ton cuts which are the affluents of the Po—that a company of
pious Protestants, who had been for centuries gathered there,
3
�34
where they kept the truth pure “ when our fathers worshipped
stocks and stones,” were now suffering terrible persecution from
their sovereign, Emanuel of Savoy ; that they had been despoiled
of all possessions and liberties, brutally driven from their homes,
given over to a licentious and infuriate violence, and that when
they turned in self-defence, they had been “ slain by the bloody
Piemontcse, that rolled mother with infant down the rocks ; ” and
it was reported that French troops took part in this dismal
transaction. The Protector heard the story, and his pity flashed
into anger. He declined to sign the treaty until France united
with him in securing justice to these humble sufferers, whom he
called the Lord’s people. For their relief he contributed out of
his own purse <£2,000, and authorized a general collection through
out England, which reached to a large sum ; but, besides giving
money, he set apart a day of Humiliation and Prayer for them.
Nor was this all. t( I should be glad,” wrote his Secretary,
Thurloe, “ to have a most particular account of that business,
and to know what has become of these poor people, for whom our
very souls here do bleed.”—( Vaughan's Protectorate, Vol. i. p.
177.) But a mightier pen than that of any plodding secretary
was enlisted in this pious Intervention. It was John Milton,
glowing with that indignation which his sonnet on the massacre
in Piemont has made immortal in the heart of man, who wrote
the magnificent despatches, in which the English nation of that day
after declaring itself “ linked together with its distant brethren,
not only by the same type of humanity, but by joint communion
of the same religion,” naturally and gloriously insisted that
“ whatever had been decreed to their disturbance on account of
the Reformed Religion should be abrogated, and that an end be
put to their oppressions.” But not content with this call upon
the Prince of Savoy, the Protector appealed to Louis XIV. and
also to his Cardinal Minister; to the States General of Holland;
to the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland; to the King of Denmark;
to Gustavus Adolphus, and even to the Protestant Unitarian
Prince of remote Transylvania ; and always by the pen of Mil ton
—rallying these Princes and Powers in joint intreaty and inter
vention and “ if need be to some other speedy course, that such a
numerous multitude of our innocent brethren may not miserably
perish for want of succor and assistance.” The regent of Savoy,
who was the daughter of Henry IV., professed to be affected by this
English charity, and announced for her Protestant subjects “a free
pardon, and also such privileges and graces as cannot but give
the Lord Protector a sufficient evidence of the great respect borne
both to his person and Mediation."—(Guizot's History of Crom
well, Vol. ii. p. 211-19; Milton's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 318-37.)
But there was still delay. Meanwhile Cromwell began to inquire
where English troops might debark in the Prince’s territories,
and Mazarin, anxious to complete the yet unfinished Treaty with
�35
England, joined in requiring an immediate pacification in the
valleys and the restoration of these persecuted people to their
ancient liberties. It was done. Such is the grandest Intervention
of English history, inspired by Milton, enforced by Cromwell, and
sustained by Louis XIV., with his Cardinal minister by his side,
while foreign nations watched the scene.
But this great instance, constituting an inseparable part of
the glory of the Protector, is not the last occasion on which Eng
land intervened in behalf of the liberties of Protestants. Troubles
began in France with the revocation of the edict of Nantes; but
these broke forth in the rebellion of the Camisards, smarting
under the revocation. Sheltered by the mountains of the Cevennes, and nerved by their good cause, with the device, “ Liberty
of Conscience ” on their standards, they made head against two
successive Marshals of France, and perplexed the old age of Louis
XIV., whose arms were already enfeebled by foreign war. At
last, through the Mediation of England, the great monarch made
terms with his Protestant rebels, and the civil war was ended.
(Merlin, article, Ministre.')
Intervention, more often armed than unarmed, showed itself in
the middle of the last century. All decency was set aside when
Frederick of Prussia, Catharine of Russia, and Maria Theresa of
Austria, invaded and partitioned Poland, under the pretext of
suppressing anarchy. . Here was Intervention with a vengeance,
and on the side of arbitrary power. But such is human incon
sistency, there was almost at the same time, another Intervention
in the opposite direction. It was the Armed Intervention of
France, followed by that of Spain and Holland, in behalf of
American Independence. But Spain began Intervention here by an
offer of Mediation, with a truce, which was accepted by France on
condition that meanwhile the United States should be independent
in fact. (Martens Nouvelles Causes Celebres, Vol. i. p. 434.)
Then came, in 1788, the Armed Intervention of Prussia, to sustain
an illiberal faction in Holland, which was followed afterwards by the
compact between Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland, known as
the Triple Alliance, which began the business of its copartnership
by an Armed Intervention to reconcile the insurgent provinces of
Belgium to the German Emperor and their ancient Constitution.
As France began to be shaken by domestic troubles, Mediation in
her affairs was occasionally proposed. Among the papers of
Burke is a draft of a Memorial written in 1791, in the name of
the Government, offering what he calls this healing mediation.”
Then came the vast coalition for Armed Intervention in France to
put down the Republic. But even this dreary cloud was for a
moment brightened by a British attempt in Parliament, through
successive debates, to institute an Intercession for Lafayette,
immured in the dungeons of European despotism. “ It is
reported,” said one of the orators, “ that America has solicited
�36
the liberation of her unfortunate adopted fellow-citizen. Let
British magnanimity bo called in aid of American gratitude, and
exhibit to mankind a noble proof, that wherever the principles of
genuine liberty prevail, they never fail to inspire sentiments of
generosity, feelings of humanity, and a detestation of oppression.”
(Parliamentary History, Vol. xxxi. p. 38; Vol. xxxii. p. 1348.)
Meanwhile France, against which all Europe intervened, played
her part of Intervention, and the scene was Switzerland. In the
unhappy disputes between the aristocratic and democratic par
ties, by which this Republic had been distracted, French Mediation
had already become chronic, beginning in 1738, when it found a
partial apology in the invitation of several of the Cantons and of
the government of Geneva; occurring again in 1768, and again
in 1782. The mountain Republic, breathing the air of Freedom,
was naturally moved by the convulsions of the French Revolu
tion. Civil war ensued, and grew in bitterness. At last, when
France herself was composed under the powerful arm of the First
Consul, we find him turning to compose the troubles of Switzer
land. He was a military ruler, and always acted under the
instincts of military power. By an address, dated at the palace
of St. Cloud, Bonaparte declared that, already for three years the
Swiss had been slaying each other, and that, if left to themselves,
they would continue to slay each other for three years more,
without coming to any understanding; that, at first, he had
resolved not to interfere in their affairs, but that he now changed
his mind, and announced himself as the Mediator of their diffi
culties, proclaiming, confidently, that his Mediation would be
efficacious as became the great people in whose name he spoke.
(Garden Histoire des Traites de Paix, Vol. viii. p. 21.) Deputies
from the Cantons, together with all the chief citizens, were sum
moned to Paris, in order to declare the means of restoring the
union, securing peace and reconciling all parties. Of course,
this was Armed Mediation; but Switzerland was weak and France
was strong, while the declared object was union, peace and recon
ciliation. I know not if all this was accomplished, but the civil
war was stifled* and the constitution was established by what is
entitled in history, the Act of Mediation.
From that period down to the present moment, Intervention in
the internal affairs of other nations has been a prevailing practice,
now cautiously and peaceably; now offensively and forcibly.
Sometimes it was against the rights of men ; sometimes it was in
their favor. Sometimes England and France stood aloof; some
times they took part. The Congress of Vienna, which undertook
to settle the inap of Europe, organized a universal and perpetual
Intervention in the interest of monarchical institutions and exist
ing dynasties. This compact was renewed at the Congress of
Aix la Chapelle, in 1818, with the explanatory declaration that
the five great Powers would never assume jurisdiction over ques
�37
tions concerning the rights and interests of another Power, except
at its request and without inviting such Power to take part in the
conference. But this concession was obviously adverse to any
liberal movement. Meanwhile the Holy Alliance was formed
specially to watch and control the revolutionary tendencies of the
age ; but into this combination England, to her honor, declined
to enter. The other Powers were sufficiently active. Austria,
Russia and Prussia, did not hesitate at the Congress of Laybach,
in 1840, to institute an Armed Intervention for the suppression of
liberal principles in Naples; and again two years later, at the
Congress of Verona, these same Powers, together with France,
instituted another Armed Intervention to suppress liberal princi
ples in Spain, which ultimately led to the invasion of that king
dom and the overthrow of its constitution. France was the bellig
erent agent, and would not be turned aside, although the Duke
of Wellington at Verona and Mr. Canning at home, sought to
arrest her armies by the Mediation of Great Britain, which Medi
ation x^as directly sought by Spain and directly refused by France.
The British Government, in admirable letters, composed with
unsurpassed skill and constituting a noble page of International
Law, disclaimed for itself and denied to other Powers the right
to require changes in the internal institutions of Independent
States, with the menace of hostile attack in case of refusal; and
it bravely declared to the Imperial and Royal Interventionists,
that “ so long as the struggles and disturbances of Spain should
be confined within the circle of her own territory, they could not
be admitted by the British Government to afford any plea for
foreign interference,” and in still another note it repeated that
“ a menace of direct and imminent danger could alone, in excep
tion to the general rule, justify foreign interference.” (Pliillimore’s International Law, Vol. iii. pp. 757-66.) These were the
words of Mr. Canning; but even Lord Castlereagh, in an earlier
note, had asserted the same limitation, which at a later day had
the unqualified support of Lord Grey and also of Lord Aberdeen.
Justly interpreted they leave no apology for Armed Intervention
except in a case of direct and imminent danger, when a nation,
like an individual, may be thrown upon the great right of selfdefence.
But Great Britain bore testimony by what she did, as well as
by what she refused to do. Even while resisting the Armed Inter
vention of the great conspiracy, her Government intervened some
times by Mediation and sometimes by arms. Early in the contest
between Spain and her Colonies, she consented on the invitation
of Spain to act as Mediator, in the hope of effecting a reconcilia
tion ; but Spain declined the Mediation which she had invited,
brom 1812 to 1823 Great Britain constantly repeated her offer.
In the case of Portugal she went further. Under the counsels of
Mr. Canning, whose speech on the occasion was of the most
�38 ‘
memorable character, she intervened by landing troops at Lisbon ;
but this Intervention was vindicated by the obligations of treaty.
Next came the greater instance of Greece, when the Christian
Powers of Europe intervened to arrest a protracted struggle and
to save this classic land from Turkish tyranny. Here the first
step was a pressing invitation from the Greeks to the British and
French governments for their Mediation with the Ottoman Porte.
These Powers together with Russia proffered the much desired
Intervention, which the Greeks at once accepted and the Turks
rejected. Battle had already raged fiercely, accompanied by bar
barous massacre. Without delay, the Allied forces were directed
to compel the cessation of hostilities, which was accomplished by
the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Navarino and the occu
pation of the Morea by French troops. At last, under the
continued Mediation of these Powers, the independence of Greece
was recognized by the Ottoman Porte, and another Free State,
consecrated to Freedom, took its place in the Family of Nations,
But Mediation in Turkish affairs did not stop here. The example
of Greece was followed by Egypt, whose provincial chief Mehemet
Ali rebelled, and, by a genius for war, succeeded in dispossessing
the Ottoman Porte not only of Egypt, but of other possessions
also. This civil war was first arrested by temporary arrangement
at Kutoyah in 1833, under the Mediation of Great Britain and
France, and, finally ended by an Armed Mediation in 1840, when,
after elaborate and irritating discussions, which threatened to
involve Europe, a Treaty was concluded at London between Great
Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia, by which the Pacha was
compelled to relinquish some of his conquests, while he was
secured in the government of Egypt, as a perpetual vassal of the
Porte. France dissatisfied with the terms of this adjustment stood
aloof from the Treaty, which found its apology, such as it had,
first, in the invitation of the Sultan and secondly, in the desire
to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire as essential to the
balance of power and the peace of Europe ; to which reasons may
also be added the desire to stop the effusion of blood.
Even before the Eastern questions were settled, other compli
cations had commenced in Western Europe. Belgium, restless
from the French Revolution of 1830, rose against the House of
Orange and claimed her Independence. Civil war ensued ; but
the Great Powers promptly intervened, even to the extent of
arresting a Dutch army on its march. Beginning with an armis
tice, there was a long and fine-spun negotiation, which, assuming
the guise alternately of a pacific Mediation and of an Armed In
tervention, ended at last in the established separation of Belgium
from Holland, and its Recognition as an Independent Nation. Do
you ask why Great Britain intervened on this occasion ? Lord
John Russell, in the course of debate at a subsequent day, declared
that a special motive was “ the establishment of a free constitu
�39
tion.” (Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d scries, Vol. xciii. p.
417—66—Houseof Commons, July 11,1847.) Meanwhile the penin
sula of Spain and Portugal was torn by civil war. The regents of
these two kingdoms respectively appealed to Great Britain and
France for aid, especially in the expulsion of the pretender Den
Carlos from Spain, and the pretender Don Miguel from Portugal.
For this purpose the Quadruple Alliance of these Powers was
formed in 1834. The moral support derived from this Treaty is
said to have been important; but Great Britain was compelled to
provide troops. This Intervention, however, was at the solicita
tion of the actual governments. Even after the Spanish troubles
■were settled the war still lingered in the sister kingdom, when in
1847, the Queen appealed to Great Britain, the ancient patron of
Portugal, to mediate between herself and her insurgent subjects,
and the task was accepted, in the declared hope of composing the
difficulties in a just and permanent manner “ with all due regard
to the dignity of the Crown on the one hand and the Constitu
tional liberties of the Kation on the other.” The insurgents did
not submit until after military demonstrations. But peace and
liberty were the two watchwords here.
Then occurred the European uprising of 1848. France was
once more a Republic; but Europe wiser grown did not interfere
in her affairs, even so much as to write a letter. But the case
was different with Hungary, whose victorious armies, radiant with
liberty regained, expelled the Austrian power only to be arrested
by the Armed Intervention of the Russian Czar, who yielded to the
double pressure of an invitation from Austria and a fear that suc
cessful insurrection might extend into Poland. It was left for
France at the same time in another country, with a strange incon
sistency, to play the part which Russia had played in Hungary.
Rome, which had risen against the temporal power of the Pope,
and proclaimed the Republic, was occupied by a French army’
which expelled the republican magistrates, and, though fifteen
years have already passed since that unhappy act, the occupation
still continues. From this military Intervention Great Britain
stood aloof. In a despatch, dated at London January 28, 1849,
Lord Palmerston has made a permanent record to the honor of his
country. His words are as follows: “ Her Majesty’s Government
would upon every account, and not only upon abstract principle
but with reference to the general interests of Europe, and from
the value which they attach to the maintenance of peace, sincerely
deprecate any attempt to settle the differences between the Pope
and his subjects by the military interference of foreign Powers ”
(Phillimore, International Law, Vol. ii. p. 676.) But he gave
iuHher point to the whole position of Great Britain, in contrast
? ith r rance, when he said, “ Armed Intervention to assist in retain
ing a badgovernment would be unjustifiable.” (Ibid, 448.) Such
was the declaration of the Lord Palmerston of that day. But
�40
•
how much more unjustifiable must be assistance to found a bad
government, as is now proposed. The British Minister insisted
that the differences should be accommodated by “ the diplomatic
interposition of friendly Powers,” which he declared a much better
mode of settlement than an authoritative imposition of terms by
foreign arms. In harmony with this policy Great Britain during
this same year united with France in proffering Mediation between
the insurgent Sicilians and the King of Naples, the notorious
Bomba, in the hope of helping the cause of good government and
liberal principles. Not disheartened by rebuff, these two govern
ments in 1856 united in a friendly remonstrance to the same
tyrannical sovereign against the harsh system of political arrests
which he maintained, and against his cruelty to good citizens thrust
without any trial into the worst of prisons. The advice was
indignantly rejected, and the two governments that gave it at
once withdrew their Ministers from Naples. The sympathy of
Russia was on the wrong side, and Prince Gortschakoff, while
admitting that “ as a consequence of friendly forethought, one
government might give advice to another,” declared in a circular
that “ to endeavor by threats or a menacing demonstration, to
obtain from the King of Naples concessions in the internal affairs
of his government, is a violent usurpation of his authority, and
an open declaration of the strong over the weak.” This was
practically answered by Lord Clarendon, speaking for Great Brit
ain at the Congress of Paris, when, admitting the principle that
no government has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of
other nations, he declared that there were cases where an exception to this rule becomes equally a right and a duty ; that peace
must not be broken, but that there was no peace without justice,
and that, therefore, the Congress must let the King of Naples
know its desire for an amelioration of his system of government,
and must demand of him an amnesty for political offenders suffer
ing without a trial. This language was bold beyond the practice
of diplomacy ; but the Intervention which it proposed was on the
side of humanity.
But I must draw this part of the discussion to a close, although
the long list of instances is not yet exhausted. Even while I
speak, we hear of Intervention by England and France, in the
civil war between the Emperor of China and his subjects ; and
also in that other war between the Emperor of Russia on the one
side and the Poles whom he claims as subjects on the other side ;
but with this difference, that, in China these Powers have taken
the part of the existing government, while in Poland they have
intervened against the existing government. In the face of posi
tive declarations of neutrality the British and French Admirals
have united their forces with the Chinese ; but thus far in Poland
although there has been no declaration of neutrality, the Inter
vention has been unarmed. In both these instances we witness
�the same tendency, directed, it may be, by the interests or preju
dices of the time, and so far as it has yet proceeded, it is at least
in Poland on the side of liberal institutions. But alas! for
human consistency—the French Emperor is now intervening in
Mexico with armies and navies, to build a throne for an Austrian
Archduke.
British Intervention against Slavery.
But there is one long-continued Intervention by Great Britain,
which speaks now with controlling power; and it is on this ac
count that I have reserved it for the close of what I have to say
on this head. Though not without original shades of dark, it has
for more than half a century been a shining example to the civil
ized world. I refer to that Intervention against Slavery, which
from its first adoption has been so constant and brilliant as to
make us forget the earlier Intervention for Slavery, when, for
instance, Great Britain at the peace of Utrecht intervened to ex
tort the detestable privilege of supplying slaves to Spanish Amer
ica at the rate of 4,800 yearly for the space of thirty years, and
then again at the peace of Aix la Chapelle higgled for a yet longer
sanction to this ignoble Intervention ; nay it almost makes us
forget the kindred Intervention, at once most sordid and criminal,
by which this Power counteracted all efforts for the prohibition of
the slave-trade even in its own colonies, and thus helped to fasten
Slavery upon Virginia and Carolina. The abolition of the slavetrade by act of Parliament in 1807 was the signal for a change of
history.
But curiously, it was the whites who gained the first fruits of
this, change by a triumphant Intervention for the suppression of
White Slavery in the Barbary States. The old hero of Acre,
Sir Sidney Smith, released from his long imprisonment in France,
sought to organize a “ holy league ” for this Intervention ; the
subject was discussed at the Congress of Vienna ; and the agents
of Spain and Portugal, anxious for the punishment of their pirat
ical neighbors argued that, because Great Britain had abolished
for itself the traffic in African slaves, therefore it must see that
whites were no longer enslaved in the Barbary States. The argu
ment was less logical than humane. But Great Britain under
took the work. With a fleet complete at all points, consisting of
five line-of-battle ships, five heavy frigates, four bomb-vessels, and
five gun-brigs, Lord Exmouth approached Algiers, where he was
joined by a considerable Dutch fleet, anxious to take part in this
Intervention. “ If force must be resorted to ” said the Admiral
in his General Orders, “we have the consolation of knowing that
we fight in the sacred cause of humanity and cannot fail of suc
cess.” A single day was enough—with such a force in such a
cause. The formidable castles of the great Slave-monger were
�42
battered to pieces, and he was compelled to sign a Treaty, con
firmed under a salute of twenty-one guns, which in its first
article stipulated “ The Abolition of Christian Slavery forever.”
Glorious and beneficent Intervention ’—Not inferior to that re
nowned instance of antiquity, where the Carthaginians were
required to abolish the practice of sacrificing their own children ;
a Treaty which has been called the noblest of history, because it
was stipulated in favor of human nature. The Admiral, who
had thus triumphed, was hailed as an Emancipator. He received
a new rank in the peerage, and a new blazonry on his coat of
arms. The rank is of course continued in his family, and on
their shield, in perpetual memory of this great transaction, is still
borne a Christian slave holding aloft the cross and dropping his
broken fetters. But the personal satisfactions of the Admiral
were more than rank or heraldry. In his despatch to the Gov
ernment, describing the battle and written at the time, he says:
“ To have been one of the humble instruments in the hands of
Divine Providence for bringing to reason a ferocious government
and destroying forever the insufferable and horrid system of
Christian Slavery, can never cease to be a source of delight and
heartfelt comfort to every individual happy enough to be employed
in it.” (Osier’s Life of Exmouth, pp. 297, 334, 432.)
But I have said too much with regard to an instance, which,
though beautiful and important, may be regarded only as a paren
thesis in the grander and more extensive Intervention against
African Slavery, which was already organizing, destined at last to
embrace the whole Human Family. Even before Wilberforce
triumphed in Parliament, Great Britain intervened with Napo
leon, in 1806, to induce him to join in the abolition of the slavetrade ; but he flatly refused. What France would not then yield,
was extorted from Portugal in 1810 ; from Sweden shortly after
wards ; and from Denmark in 1814. An ineffectual attempt was
made to enlist Spain, even by the temptation of pecuniary subsi
dies ; and also to enlist the restored monarch of France, Louis
XVIII. even by the offer of a sum of money outright or the
cession of a West India Island, in consideration of the desired
abolition. Had gratitude to a benefactor prevailed, these Powers
could not have resisted ; but it was confessed by Lord Castlercagh,
in the House of Commons, that there vras a distrust of the Brit
ish Government “ even among the better classes of people,” who
thought that its zeal in this behalf was prompted by a desire to
injure the French Colonies and commerce, rather than by benevo
lence. But the British Minister was more successful with Portugal,
which was induced, by pecuniary equivalents, to execute a Supple
mentary Treaty in January, 1815. This was followed by the de
claration of the Congress of Vienna, on motion of Lord Castlereagli,
15th February, 1815, denouncing the African slave-trade “ as
inconsistent with the principles of humanity and universal benev
�43
olence.” Meanwhile Napoleon returned from Elba, and what the
British Intervention failed to accomplish with the Bourbon Mon
arch, and what the Emperor had once flatly refused, was now
spontaneously done by him, doubtless in the hope of conciliat
ing British sentiment. His hundred days of power were signal
ized by an ordinance abolishing the slave-trade in France and her
colonies. Louis XVIII. once again restored by British arms and
with the shadow of Waterloo upon France, could not do less than
ratify this imperial ordinance by a royal assurance that “ the
traffic was henceforth forever forbidden to all the subjects of his
most Christian Majesty.” Holland came under the same influ
ence and accepted the restitution of her colonies, except the Cape
of Good Hope and Guiana, on condition of the entire abolition of
the slave-trade in the restored colonies and also everywhere else
beneath her flag. Spain was the most indocile ; but this proud
monarchy, under whose auspices the African slave-trade first came
into being, at last yielded. By the Treaty of Madrid, of 22d
September, 1817, extorted by Great Britain, it stipulated the
immediate abolition of the trade north of the Equator, and
also, after 1820, its abolition everywhere, in consideration of
¿£400,000, the price of Freedom, to be paid by the other contract
ing party. In vindication of this Intervention, Wilberforce declared
in Parliament that, “ the grant to Spain would be more than
repaid to Great Britain in commercial advantages by the opening
of a great continent to British industry,”—all of which was
impossible if the slave-trade was allowed to continue under the
Spanish flag.
At the Congress of Aix la Chapelle in 1818, and of Verona in
1822, Great Britain continued her system of Intervention against
Slavery.
Her primacy in this cause was recognized by European
Powers. It was the common remark of continental publicists
that she “ made the cause her own.” (1 Phillimore Interna
tional Law, 330.) Ono of them portrays her vividly “ since 1810
waging incessant war against the principle of the slave-trade, and
by this crusade, undertaken in the name of Humanity, making
herself the declared protectress of the African race.” (Cussy,
Causes Celebres de Droit Maritime, Vol. i. p. 157, Vol. ii. pp.
362, 63.) These are the words of a French authority. Accord
ing to him, it is nothing less than “ an incessant war ” and a
“ crusade,” which she has waged and the position which she has
achieved is that of “ Protectress of the African race.” In this
character she has not been content with imposing her magnani
mous system upon the civilized world, but she has carried it
among the tribes and chiefs of Africa, who by this omnipresent
Intervention, were summoned to renounce a barbarous and crim
inal custom. By a Parliamentary Report, it appears that in
1850, there were twenty-four treaties in force, between Great
Britain and foreign civilized Powers, for the suppression of the
�slave-trade, and also forty-two similar treaties between Great
Britain and native chiefs of Africa.
But this Intervention was not only by treaties; it was also by
correspondence and circulars. And here I approach a part of the
subject which illustrates the vivacity of this Intervention. All
British ministers and consuls were so many pickets on constant
guard in the out-posts where they resided. They were held to
every service by which the cause could be promoted, even to
translating and printing documents against the slave-trade, espe
cially in countries where unhappily it was still pursued. There
was the Pope’s Bull of 1839, which Lord Palmerston did not hesi
tate to transmit for this purpose to his agents in Cuba, Brazil,
and even in Turkey, some of whom were unsuccessful in their
efforts to obtain its publication, although, curiously enough, it
was published in Turkey. (Parliamentary Papers, 1841, Vol. xxx.
Slave Trade, Class B, p. 34, 197, 223; Class C, p. 73, Class D,
p. 15.)
Such a zeal could not stop at the abolition of the traffic.
Accordingly Great Britain, by Act of Parliament in 1834 enfran
chised all the slaves in her own possessions, and thus again
secured to herself the primacy of a lofty cause. The Inter
vention was now openly declared to be against Slavery itself.
But it assumed its most positive character while Lord Palmerston
was Foreign Secretary, and I say this sincerely to his great honor.
Throughout his long life, among all the various concerns in which
he has acted, there is nothing which will be remembered hereafter
with such gratitude. By his diplomacy her Majesty’s Govern
ment constituted itself into a vast Abolition Society with the
whole world for its field. It was in no respect behind the famous
World’s Convention against Slavery, held at London in June,
1840, with Thomas Clarkson, the pioneer Abolitionist, as Presi
dent ; for the strongest declarations of this Convention were
adopted expressly by Lord Palmerston as “ the sentiments of her
Majesty’s Government,” and communicated officially to all British
functionaries in foreign lands. The Convention declared “ the
utter injustice of Slavery in all its forms ; and the evil it inflicted
upon its miserable victims ; and the necessity of employing every
means, moral, pacific, and religious, for its complete abolition—
an object most dear to the members of the Convention, and for
the consummation of which they are especially assembled.”
These words became the words of the British Government, and,
in circular letters, were sent over the world. (Parliamentary
Papers, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class B, p. 33.)
But it was not enough to declare the true principles. They
must be enforced. Spain and Portugal hung back. The Secre
tary of the Anti-Slavery Society was sent “ to endeavor to create
in these countries a public feeling in favor of the abolition of
Slavery,” and the British Minister at Lisbon was desired by Lord
�45
Palmerston “ to afford all the assistance and protection in his power
for promoting the object of his journey.” (Ibid, p. 128.) British
officials in foreign countries sometimes back-slidcd. This was
corrected by another circular addressed to all the four quarters
of the globe, setting forth, “ that it would be unfitting that any
officer, holding an appointment under the British Government
should, either directly or indirectly, hold or be interested in slave
property.” The Parliamentary Papers, which attest the univer
sality of this instruction, show the completeness with which it was
executed. The consul at Rio Janeiro, in slave-holding Brazil,
had among his domestics three negro slaves, “ one a groom and
the other a waiter and a woman he was forced to hire as a nurse
to his children;” but he discharged them at once under the Anti
Slavery discipline of the British Foreign office, and Lord Palmers
ton in a formal despatch “ expresses his satisfaction.” (Ibid,
1842, Vol. xlviii. Class B, p. 732.) In Cuba, at the time of the
reception there was not a single resident officer holding under its
British Crown “ who was entirely free from the charge of counte
nancing Slavery.” But only a few days afterwards, it was
officially reported, that there was “ not a single British officer
residing there who had not relinquished or was not at least
preparing to relinquish the odious practice.” (Ibid, p. 206.)
This was quick work. Thus was the practice according to the
rule. Every person, holding an office under the British govern
ment, was constrained to set his face against Slavery, and the way
was by having nothing to do with it, even in employing or hiring
the slave of another ; nothing, directly or indirectly.
But Lord Palmerston, acting in the name of the British Gov
ernment, did not stop with changing British officials into practi
cal Abolitionists whenever they were in foreign countries. He
sought to enlist other European governments in the same policy,
and to this end requested them to forbid all their functionaries,
residing in slave-holding communities, to be interested in slave
property or in any holding or hiring of slaves. Denmark for a
moment hesitated, from an unwillingness to debar its officers in
slave countries from acting according to the laws where they
resided, when the minister at once cited in support of his request,
the example of Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Naples and Portugal,
all of which without delay had yielded to this British Interven
tion ; and Denmark ranged herself in the list. (Ibid, p. 42.
Vol. xliv. Class C, pp. 7-15.) Nor was this indefatigable Propa
ganda confined in its operations to the Christian Powers. With a
sacred pertinacity it reached into distant Mohammedan regions,
where Slavery was imbedded not only in the laws, but in the
habits, the social system, and the very life of the people, and
called upon the Government to act against it. No impediment
stood in the way ; no prejudice, national or religious. To the
Schah of Persia, ruling a vast, outlying slave empire, Lord Pal
�46
merston announced the desire of the British Government “ to see
the condition of Slavery abolished in every part of the world ; ”
“ that it conceived much good might be accomplished even in
Mohammedan countries by steady perseverance and by never omit
ting to take advantage of favorable opportunities,” and “ that the
Schah would be doing a thing extremely acceptable to the British
Government and nation if he would issue a decree making it
penal for a Persian to purchase slaves.” (Ibid, 1842, Vol. xliv.
Class D, p. (0.) To the Sultan of Turkey, whose mother was a
slave, whose wives were all slaves, and whose very counsellors,
generals and admirals were originally slaves, he made a similar
appeal, and he sought to win the dependent despot by reminding
him that only in this way could he hope for that good will which
was so essential to his government; “ that the continued support
of Great Britain will for some years to come be an object of
importance to the Porte ; that this support cannot be given effect
ually unless the sentiments and opinions of the majority of the
British nation shall be favorable to the Turkish Government, and
that the whole of the British nation unanimously desire beyond
almost any thing else to put an end to the practice of making
slaves.” (Ibid, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15-18; also, Ibid,
1842, Vol. xliv. Class D, p. 73.) Such at that time was the voice
of the British people. Since Cromwell pleaded for the Vaudois,
no nobler voice had gone forth. The World’s Convention against
Slavery saw itself transfigured, while platform speeches were trans
fused into diplomatic notes. The Convention, earnest for Uni
versal Emancipation, declared that “ the friendly interposition of
Great Britain could be employed for no nobler purpose; ” and, as
if to crown its work, in an address to Lord Palmerston, humbly
and earnestly implored his lordship “ to use his high authority for
connecting the overthrow of slavery with the consolidation of
peace; ” and all these words were at once adopted in foreign
despatches as expressing the sentiments of Her Majesty’s Gov
ernment. (Ibid, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15, 16.) Better
watch-words there could not be, nor any more worthy of the
British name. There can be no consolidation of peace without
the overthrow of Slavery. This is as true now as when first
uttered. Therefore is Great Britain still bound to her original
faith; nor can she abandon the cause of which she was the
declared Protectress without the betrayal of Peace, as well as the
betrayal of Liberty.
But even now while I speak this same conspicuous fidelity to a
sacred cause is announced by the recent arrivals from Europe.
The ship canal across the Isthmus of Suez, first attempted by the
early Pharaohs, and at last undertaken by French influence under
the auspices of the Pacha of Egypt, is most zealously opposed by
Great Britain—for the declared reason, that in its construction
“ forced labor ” is employed, which this Power cannot in con
�47
science sanction. Not even to complete this vast improvement,
bringing the East and the West near together, for which mankind
has waited throughout long centuries, will Great Britain depart
from the rule which she has so gloriously declared. Slavery is
wrong; therefore it cannot be employed. The canal must stop
if it cannot be built without “ forced labor.”
General Principles applicable to Intervention.
And here I close the historic instances which illustrate the
right and practice of Foreign Intervention. The whole subject
will bo seen in these instances, teaching clearly what to avoid
and what to follow. In this way the Law of Nations, like history,
gives its best lessons. But, for the sake of plainness, I now
gather up some of the conclusions.
Foreign Intervention is armed or unarmed, although sometimes
the two are not easily distinguishable. An unarmed Intervention
may have in it the menace of arms, or it may be war in disguise.
If this is the case, it must be treated accordingly.
Armed Intervention is war and nothing less. Of course it can
be vindicated only as war, and it must be resisted as war.
Believing as I do, most profoundly, that war can never be a game,
but must always be a crime when it ceases to be a duty ; a crime
to be shunned if it be not a duty to be performed swiftly and
surely ; and that a nation, like an individual, is not permitted to
take the sword, except in just self-defence—I find the same lim
itation in Armed Intervention, which becomes unjust invasion just
in proportion as it departs from just self-defence. Under this
head is naturally included all that Intervention which is moved
by a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit, because such Intervention,
whatever may be its professions, is essentially hostile; as when
Russia, Prussia and Austria, partitioned Poland; when the Holy
Alliance intermeddled everywhere, and menaced even America;
or when Russia intervened to crush the independence of Hungary,
or France to crush the Roman Republic. All such Intervention
is illegal, inexcusable and scandalous. Its vindication can be
found only in the effrontery that might makes right.
Unarmed Intervention is of a different character. If sincerely
unarmed, it may be regarded as obtrusive, but not hostile. It
may assume the form of Mediation, or the proffer of good offices,
at the invitation of both parties, or, in the case of civil war, at
the invitation of the original authority. With such invitation,
this Intervention is proper and honorable. Without such invita
tion it is of doubtful character. But if known to be contrary to
the desires of both parties, or to the desires of the original
authority in a distracted country, it becomes offensive and inad
�48
missible, ztnless obviously on the side of Human Rights, when
the act of Intervention takes its character from the cause in which
it is made. But it must not be forgotten that, in the case of a
civil war, any Mediation, or indeed, any proposition which does
not enjoin submission to the original authority, is in its nature
adverse to that authority, for it assumes to a certain extent the
separate existence of the other party, and secures for it temporary
immunity and opportunity, if not independence. Congress,
therefore, was right in declaring to Foreign Powers, that any
renewed effort of mediation in our affairs will be regarded as an
unfriendly act.
There is another case of unarmed Intervention, which I cannot
criticise. It is where a nation intercedes or interposes in favor
of Human Rights, or to secure the overthrow of some enormous
wrong, as where Cromwell pleaded, with noble intercession, for
the secluded Protestants of the Alpine valleys; where Great
Britain and France declared their sympathy with the Greeks
struggling for Independence, and where Great Britain alone,
by an untiring diplomacy, set herself against Slavery everywhere
throughout the world.
The whole lesson on this head may be summed up briefly. All
Intervention in the internal affairs of another nation is contrary
to law and reason, and can be vindicated only by overruling
necessity. If you intervene by war, then must there be the
necessity of self-defence. If you intervene by Mediation or Inter
cession, then must you be able to speak in behalf of civilization
endangered or human nature insulted. But there is no Power
which is bound to this humane policy so absolutely as England ;
especially is there none which is so fixed beyond the possibility of
retreat or change in its opposition to Slavery, whatever shape this
criminal pretension may assume—whether it be the animating
principle of a nation—the “ forced labor ” of a multitude—or even
the service of a solitary domestic.
[III.]
Intervention by Recognition.
There is a species of Foreign Intervention, which stands by
itself, and has its own illustrations. Therefore, I speak of it by
itself. It is where a Foreign Power undertakes to acknowledge
the independence of a colony or province which has renounced its
original allegiance, and it may be compendiously called Interven
tion by Recognition. Recognition alone is strictly applicable to
the act of the original government, renouncing all claim of alle
giance and at last acknowledging the Independence which has
been in dispute. But it is an act of Intervention only where a
Foreign Government steps between the two parties. Of course,
the original government is so farmaster of its position, that it may
�49
select its own time in making this Recognition. But the question
arises at what time and under what circumstances can this Recog
nition be made by a Foreign Power. It is obvious that a Recogni
tion, proper at one time and under special circumstances, would
not be proper at another and under different circumstances.
Mr. Canning said with reference to Spanish America, that “ if he
piqued himself upon any thing it was upon the subject of time,"
and he added that there were two ways of proceeding, “ one went
recklessly and with a hurried course to the object, which, though
soon reached, might be almost as soon lost, and the other was by
a course so strictly guarded that no principle was violated and
no offence given to other Powers.” (Hansard’s Parliamentary
Debates, 2d Series, Vol. xii. p. 7, 8.) These are words of wise
statesmanship, and they present the practical question which
must occur in every case of Recognition. What condition of the
controversy will justify this Intervention ?
And here again the whole matter can be best explained by
historic instances. The earliest case is that of Switzerland which
led the way, as long ago as 1307, by breaking off from the House
of Hapsburg, whose original cradle was in a Swiss Canton. But
Austria did not acknowledge the Independence of the Republic
until the peace of Westphalia, more than three centuries and a
half after the struggle began under William Tell. Meanwhile
the Cantons had lived through the vicissitudes of war foreign and
domestic, and had formed treaties with other Powers, including
the Pope. Before Swiss Independence was acknowledged, the
Dutch conflict began under William of Orange. Smarting under
intolerable grievances and with a price set upon the head of their
illustrious Stadholder, the United Provinces of the Netherlands
in 1572 renounced the tyrannical sovereignty of Philip II., and
declared themselves independent. In the history of Freedom this
is an important epoch. They were Protestants, battling for rights
denied, and Queen Elizabeth of England, who was the head of
Protestantism, acknowledged their Independence and shortly after
wards gave to it military aid. The contest continued, sustained
on the side of Spain by the genius of Parma and Spinola, and on
the side of the infant Republic by the youthful talent of Maurice,
son of the great Stadholder; nor did Foreign Powers stand aloof.
In 1594, Scotland, which was Protestant also, under James VI.,
afterwards the first James of England, treated with the insurgent
Provinces as successors of the Houses of Burgundy and Austria,
and in 1596 France also entered into alliance with them. But
the claims of Spain seemed undying ; for it was not until the
peace of Westphalia, nearly eighty years after the revolt, and
nearly seventy years after the Declaration of Independence, that
this Power consented to the Recognition of Dutch Independence.
Nor does this example stand alone even at that early day.
Portugal in 1640 also broke away from Spain and declared herself
4
�50
independent, under the Duke of Braganza as King. A year had
scarcely passed when Charles I. of England negotiated a treaty
with the new sovereign. The contest had already ceased but not
the claim; for it was only after twenty-six years that Spain made
this other Recognition.
Traversing the Atlantic Ocean in space and more than a century
in time, I come to the next historic instance which is so inter
esting to us all, while as a precedent it dominates the whole
question. The long discord between the colonies and the mother
country broke forth in blood on the 19th April, 1775. Indepen
dence was declared on the 4th July, 1776. Battles ensued; Tren
ton, Princeton, Brandywine, Saratoga, followed by the winter of
Valley Forge. The contest was yet undecided, when on the 6th Feb
ruary, 1778, France entered into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce
with the United States, containing, among other things, a Recogni
tion of their Independence, with mutual stipulations between the
two parties to protect the commerce of the other, by convoy on
the ocean, “against all attacks, force and violence;” {Statutes at
Large, Vol. viii. p. 16,) and this Treaty on the 15th March was
communicated to the British Government by the French Ambas
sador at London, with a diplomatic note in which the United
States are described as “in full possession of the Independence
pronounced by the Act of 4th July, 1776,” and the British Gov
ernment is warned that the King of France,“in order to protect
effectively the legitimate commerce of his subjects and to sus
tain the honor of his flag, has taken further measures with the
United States.”—{Martens Nouvelles Causes Celebres. Vol. i. p.
406.) A further Treaty of Alliance, whose declared object was
the maintenance of the Independence of the United States, had
been signed on the same day; but this was not communicated ;
nor is there any evidence that it was known to the British Govern
ment at the time. The communication of the other was enough;
for it was in itself an open Recognition of the new Power, with a
promise of protection to its commerce on the ocean, while the war
was yet flagrant between the two parties. As such it must be
regarded as an Armed Recognition, constituting in itself a bellig
erent act—aggravated and explained by the circumstances under
which it was made—the warning, in the nature of a menace,
by which it was accompanied—the clandestine preparations by
which it was preceded—and the corsairs to cruise against British
commerce, which for some time had been allowed to swarm
under the American flag from French ports. It was so accepted
by the British Government. The British Minister was summ:>
rily withdrawn from Paris ; all French vessels in British harbors
were seized, and on the 17th March a message from the king
was brought down to Parliament, which was in the nature of a
declaration of war against France. In this declaration there
was no allusion to any thing but the Treaty of Amity and Com
�51
K
merce, officially communicated by the French Ambassador, which
was denounced by his majesty as an “ unprovoked and unjust
aggression on the honor of his crown and the essential interests
of his kingdoms, contrary to the law of nations, and injurious to
the rights of every Foreign Power in Europe.” Only three days
later, on the 21st March, the Commissioners of the United States
were received by the King of France, in solemn audience, with
all the pomp and ceremony accorded by the Court of Versailles
to the representatives of Sovereign Powers. War ensued between
France and Great Britain on land and sea, in which Holland and
Spain afterwards took part against Great Britain. With such
allies a just cause prevailed. Great Britain by Provisional
Articles, signed at Paris 30th November, 1782, acknowledged the
United States “ to be free, sovereign and independent,” and
declared the boundaries thereof.
The success of colonial Independence was contagious, and the
contest for it presented another historic instance more discussed
and constituting a precedent, if possible, more interesting still.
This was when the Spanish Colonies in America, following the north
ern example, broke away from the mother country and declared
themselves independent. The contest began as early as 1810;
but it was long continued and extended over an immense region—
from New Mexico and California in the North to Cape Horn in
the South—washed by two vast oceans—traversed by mighty rivers
and divided by lofty mountains—fruitful in silver—capped with
snow and shooting with volcanic fire. At last the United States
satisfied that the ancient power of Spain had practically ceased to
exist, beyond a reasonable chance of restoration, and that the
contest was ended, acknowledged the Independence of Mexico and
five other provinces. But this act was approached only after fre
quent debate in Congress, where Henry Clay took an eminent
part, and after most careful consideration in the cabinet, where
John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, shed upon the ques
tion all the light of his unsurpassed knowledge, derived from
long practice, as well as from laborious study, of International
Law. The judgment on this occasion must be regarded as an
authority. President Munroe in a Special Message, on the 8th
March, 1822—twelve years after the war began—called the atten
tion of Congress to the state of the contest which he said “ had
now reached such a stage and been attended with such decisive
success on the part of the provinces, that it merits the most
profound consideration whether their right to the rank of inde
pendent nations, with all the advantages incident to it, in tbejr
intercourse with the United States, is not complete.” After
setting forth the de facto condition of things, he proceeded;
“Thus it is manifest that all these provinces are not only, in
the full enjoyment of their independence, but, considering,,the
state of the war and other circumstances, that there is not, the
�52
most remote prospect of their being deprived of it.” In proposing
their Recognition the President declared that it was done “ under
a thorough conviction that it is in strict accord with the law of
nations,” and further that “ it is not contemplated to change
thereby, in the slightest manner, our friendly relations with either
of the parties.” In accordance with this recommendation Con
gress authorized the Recognition. Two years later, the same
thing was done by Great Britain, after much debate diplomatic
and parliamentary. No case of International duty has been illus
trated by a clearer eloquence, an ampler knowledge or a purer
wisdom. The despatches were written by Mr. Canning, and
upheld by him in Parliament; but Lord Liverpool took partin the
discussion—succinctly declaring, that there could be no right to
Recognition “ while the contest was actually going on,” a conclusion
which was cautiously but strongly enforced by Lord Lansdowne
and nobly vindicated in an Oration, reviewing the whole subject,
by that great publicist Sir James Mackintosh. (Mackintosh’s
Works Vol. iii. p. 438.) All inclined to Recognition but admitted
that it could not take place so long as the contest continued; and
that there must be “ such a contest as exhibits some equality of
force, so that if the combatants were left to themselves, the issue
would be in some degree doubtful.” But the Spanish strength
throughout the whole continent was reduced to a single castle in
Mexico, an island on the coast of Chili, and a small army in
Upper Peru, while in Buenos Ayres no Spanish soldier had set
foot for fourteen years. “ Is this a contest ” said Mackintosh
“ approaching to equality ? Is it sufficient to render the inde
pendence of such a country doubtful ? Does it deserve the name
of a contest ? ” It was not until 1825 that Great Britain was so
far satisfied as to acknowledge this Independence. France fol
lowed in 1830 ; and Castilian pride relented in 1832, twenty-two
years from the first date of the contest.
The next instance is that of Greece, which declared itself Inde
pendent January 27, 1822. After a contest of more than five
years, with alternate success and disaster, the Great Powers inter
vened forcibly in 1827; but the final Recognition was postponed
till May 1832. Then came the instance of Belgium, which
declared itself Independent in October, 1830, and was promptly
recognized by the Great Powers who intervened forcibly for this
purpose. The last instance is Texas, which declared its Indepen
dence in December, 1835, and defeated the Mexican Army under
Santa Anna, making him prisoner, in 1836. The power of Mexico
seemed to be overthrown, but Andrew Jackson, who was then
President of the United States, in his Message of December 21,
1836, laid down the rule of caution and justice on such an occa
sion, as follows; “ The acknowledgment of a new State as inde
pendent and entitled to a place in the family of nations, is at all
times an act of great delicacy and responsibility; but more
�53
especially so when such state has forcibly separated itself from
another, of which it had formed an integral part and which still
claims dominion over it. A premature recognition under these
circumstances, if not looked upon as justifiable cause of war, is
always liable to be regarded as a proof of an unfriendly spirit.”
And he concluded by proposing that our country should “ keep
aloof” until the question was decided “ beyond cavil or dispute.”
During the next year—when the contest had practically ceased
and only the claim remained—this new Power was acknowledged
by the United States, who were followed in 1840 by Great Britain,
France and Belgium. Texas was annexed to the United States
in 1845, but at this time Mexico had not joined in the general
recognition
Principles Applicable to Recognition.
Such are the historic instances which illustrate Intervention by
Recognition. As in other cases of Intervention, the Recognition
may be armed or unarmed, with an intermediate case, where the
Recognition may seem to be unarmed when in reality it is
armed, as when France simply announced its Recognition of the
Independence of the United States, and at the same time prepared
to maintain it by war.
Armed Recognition is simply Recognition by Coercion. It is a
belligerent act constituting war, and it can be vindicated only as
war. No nation will undertake it, unless ready to assume all the
responsibilities of war, as in the recent cases of Greece and Bel
gium, not to mention the Recognition of the United States by
France. But an attempt, under the guise of Recognition, to
coerce the dismemberment or partition of a country is in its
nature offensive beyond ordinary war ; especially when the coun
try to be sacrificed is a Republic and the plotters against it are
crowned heads. Proceeding from the consciousness of brutal
power, such an attempt is an insult to mankind. If Armed
Recognition at any time can find, apology, it will be only where
it is sincerely made for the protection of Human Rights. It
would be hard to condemn that Intervention which saved Greece
to Freedom.
Unarmed Recognition is where a Foreign Power acknowledges
in some pacific form the Independence of a colony or province
against the claim of its original Government. Although exclud
ing all idea of coercion, yet it cannot be uniformly justified.
No Recognition where the Contest is still pending.
And here we are brought to that question of “ time,” on which
Mr. Canning so pointedly piqued himself, and to which President
Jackson referred, when he suggested that “ a premature Recog
nition ” might be “looked upon as justifiable cause of war.”
�54
Nothing is more clear than that Recognition may be favored at
one time, while it must be rejected at another. So far as it
assumes to ascertain Rights instead of Facts, or to anticipate
the result of a contest, it is wrongful. No Nation can under
take to sit in judgment on the rights of another Nation with
out its consent. Therefore, it cannot declare that de jure a
colony or province is entitled to Independence; but from the
necessity of the case and that international intercourse may not
fail, it may ascertain the facts, carefully and wisely, and, on
the actual evidence, it may declare that de facto the colony or
province appears to be in possession of Independence, which
means, first, that the original Government is dispossessed beyond
the possibility of recovery, and secondly, that the new Govern
ment has achieved that reasonable stability with fixed limits
which gives assurance of a solid Power. All of this is simply
fact and nothing more. But just in proportion as a Foreign
Nation anticipates the fact, or imagines the fact, or substitutes its
own passions for the fact, it transcends the well-defined bounds
of International Law. Without the fact of Independence, posi
tive and fixed, there is nothing but a claim. Now nothing can be
clearer than that while the terrible litigation is still pending and
the Trial by Battle, to which appeal has been made, is yet unde
cided, the fact of Independence cannot exist. There is only a
paper Independence, which though reddened with blood, is no
better than a paper empire or a paper blockade, and any pretended
Recognition of it is a wrongful Intervention, inconsistent with a
just neutrality, since the obvious effect must be to encourage
the insurgent party. Such has been the declared judgment ot
our country and its practice, even under circumstances tempting
in another direction, and such also was the declared judgment
and practice of Great Britain with reference to Spanish America.
The conclusion, then, is clear. In order to justify a Recogni
tion it must appear beyond doubt that de facto the contest is
finished, and that de facto the new government is established
secure within fixed limits.
These are conditions precedent
which cannot be avoided, without an open offence to a friendly
Power, and an open violation of that International Law which is
the guardian of the peace of the world. It will be for us shortly
to inquire if there be not another condition precedent, which
civilization in this age will require.
Do you ask now if Foreign Powers can acknowledge our Slave
monger embryo as an Independent Nation ? There is madness in
the thought. A Recognition, accompanied by the breaking of the
blockade would be war—impious war—against the United States,
where Slave-mongers would be the allies and Slavery the inspira
tion. Of all wars in history none more accursed; none more
sure to draw down upon its authors the judgment alike of God
and man. But the thought of Recognition—under existing cir
�55
cumstances—while the contest is still pending—even without any
breaking of the blockade or attempted coercion, is a Satanic
absurdity, hardly less impious than the other. Of course, it
would unblushingly assume that, in fact, the Slave-mongers
had already succeeded in establishing an Independent Nation
with an untroubled government, and a secure conformation
of territory—when in fact, nothing is established—nothing is
untroubled—nothing is secure,—not even a single boundary line;
and there is no element of Independence except the audacious
attempt; when, in fact, the conflict is still waged on numerous
battle-fields, and these pretenders to Independence have been
driven from State to State—driven away from the Mississippi,
which parts them—driven back from the sea which surrounds
them—and shut up in the interior or in blockaded ports, so that
only by stealth can they communicate with the outward world.
Any Recognition of such a pretension, existing only as a pre
tension, scouted and denied by a whole people with invincible
armies and navies embattled against it, would be a flaming
mockery of Truth. It would assert Independence as a fact
when notoriously it was not a fact. It would be an enormous lie.
Naturally a Power thus guilty would expect to support the lie by
arms.
[iv.]
Impossibility of any Recognition of Rebel Slave-Mongers
with Slavery as a Corner-Stone.
But I do not content myself with a single objection to this
outrageous consummation. There is another of a different nature.
Assuming, for the moment, what I am glad to believe can never
happen, that the new Slave Power has become Independent in
fact, while the national flag has sunk away exhausted in the con
test, there is an objection which, in an age of Christian light, thank
God ! cannot be overcome—unless the Great Powers which, by
solemn covenants, have branded Slavery, shall forget their vows,
while England, the declared protectress of the African race, and
France, the declared champion of “ ideas,” both break away from
the irresistible logic of their history and turn their backs upon
the past. Vain is honor; vain is human confidence, if these
nations at a moment of high duty can thus ignobly fail. “ Renown
and grace is dead.” Like the other objection, this is of fact
also ; for it is founded on the character of the Slave-monger pre
tension claiming Recognition, all of which is a fact. Perhaps it
may be said that it is a question of policy ; but it is of a policy
which ought to be beyond question, if the fact be established.
Something more is necessary than that the new Power shall be
de facto Independent. It must be de facto fit to be Independent and
from the nature of the case every nation will judge of this fitness
�56
as a fact. In undertaking to acknowledge a new Power, you
proclaim its fitness for welcome and association in the Family of
Nations. Can England put forth such a proclamation in favor of
the whippers of women and sellers of children ? Can France
permit Louis Napoleon to put forth such a proclamation ?
And here, on the threshold of this inquiry, the true state of the
question must not be forgotten. It is not whether old and existing
relations shall be continued with a Power which permits Slavery ;
but whether relations shall be begun with a new Power, which
not merely permits Slavery, but builds its whole intolerable
pretension upon this Barbarism. “ No New Slave State ” is a
watchword with which we are already familiar ; but even this cry
does not reveal the full opposition to this new revolt against Civili
zation ; for even if disposed to admit a new Slave State, there
must be, among men who have not yet lost all sense of decency,
an undying resistance to the admission of a New Slave Power,
having such an unquestioned origin and such an unquestioned
purpose as that which now flaunts in piracy and blood before the
civilized world, seeking Recognition for its criminal chimera.
Here is nothing for nice casuistry. Duty is as plain as the moral
law or the multiplication table.
Look for a moment at the unprecedented character of this pre
tension. A President had been elected by the people, in the
autumn of 1860, who was known to be against the extension of
Slavery. This was all. He had not yet entered upon the per
formance of his duties. But the Slave-mongers saw that Slavery
at home must suffer under this popular judgment against its
extension, and they rebelled. Under this inspiration State after
State pretended to withdraw from the Union and to construct a
new Confederacy, whose “corner-stone” was Slavery. A Consti
tution.was adopted, which declared in these words: (1.) “ No
law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves
shall be passed ; ” and (2.) “ in all territory, actual or acquired,
the institution of Negro Slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate
States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the
Territorial Government.” Do not start. These are the authentic
words of the text. You will find them in the Constitution.
Such was the unalterable fabric of the new Government. Nor
was there any doubt or hesitation in proclaiming its distinctive
character. Its Vice-President, Mr. Stephens, who thus far had
been remarked for his moderation on Slavery, as if smitten with
diabolic light, undertook to explain and vindicate the Magna Carta
just adopted. His words are already familiar ; but they cannot
be omitted in an accurate statement of the case. “ The new
Constitution,” he said, “ has put at rest forever all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution, African Slavery, as
it exists among us,” which he proceeds to declare “was the
immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
�51
The Vice-President then announced unequivocally the change
that had taken place. Admitting that “ it was the prevailing
idea of the leading statesmen at the foundation of the Old Consti
tution that the enslavement of the African was wrong in principle,
socially, morally and politically, and that it was a violation of the
laws of nature,” he denounces this idea as “ fundamentally
wrong,” and proclaims the new government as “ founded upon
exactly the opposite idea.” There was no disguise. “ Its founda
tions,” he avows, “ are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great
truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man ; that Slavery,
subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condi
tion.” Not content with exhibiting the untried foundation, he
boastfully claims for the new government the priority of invention.
“ Our new Government” he vaunts, “ is the first in the history of
the world based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral
truth. This stone which was rejected by the first builders is
become the chief stone of the corner.” And then, as if priority of
invention were not enough, he proceeds to claim for the new
Government future supremacy, saying that it is already “ a growing
power, which if true to itself, its destiny and its high mission, will
become the controlling power upon this continent.”
Since Satan first declared the “ corner-stone ” of his new
government and openly denounced the Almighty throne, there
has been no blasphemy of equal audacity. In human history
nothing but itself can be its parallel. Here was the gauntlet
thrown down to Heaven and Earth, while a disgusting Barbarism
was proclaimed as the new Civilization. Two years have already
passed, but, as the Rebellion began, so it is now. A Governor of
South Carolina in a message to the Legislature as late as 3d
April, 1863, took up the boastful strain and congratulated the
Rebel Slave-mongers that they were “ a refined, cultivated and
enlightened people,” and that the new Government was “ the
finest type that the world ever beheld.” God save the mark!
And a leading journal, more than any other the organ of the
Slave-mongers, lias uttered the original vaunt with more than the
original brutality. After dwelling on “ the grand career and
lofty destiny ” before the new Government, the Richmond
Examiner of 28th May, 1863, proceeds as follows; “ Would that
all of us understood and laid to heart the true nature of that
career and that destiny and the responsibility it imposes. The
establishment of the Confederacy is, verily, a distinct reaction
against the whole course of the mistaken civilization of the age.
For Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, we have deliberately
substituted Slavery, Subordination and Government. Reverently
ice feel that our Confederacy is a God-sent missionary to the
nations ivith great truths to preach. We must speak thus boldly ;
but whoso hath ears to hear let him hear.” It is this God-sent
�58
missionary to the nations, which it is now proposed to welcome at
the household hearth of the civilized world.
Unhappily there arc old nations, still tolerating Slavery, already
in the Family; but now, for the first time in history a new nation
claims admission there, which not only tolerates Slavery, but,
exulting in its shame, strives to reverse the judgment of mankind
against this outrage, and to make it a chief support and glory,
so that all Recognition of the new Power will be the Recognition
of a sacrilegious pretension,
°
u With one vast blood-stone for the mighty base.”
Elsewhere Slavery has been an accident; here it is the prin
ciple. Elsewhere it has been an instrument only; here it is the
inspiration. Elsewhere it has been kept back in a becoming
modesty; here it is pushed forward in all its brutish nakedness.
Elsewhere it has claimed nothing but liberty to live; here it
claims liberty to rule with unbounded empire at home and
abroad.
Look at this candidate Power as you will, in its
whole continued existence, from its Alpha to its Omega, and it
is nothing but Slavery ! Its origin is Slavery ; its main-spring is
Slavery ; its object is Slavery. Wherever it appears, whatever it
does, whatever form it takes, it is Slavery alone and nothing else,
so that, with the contrition of Satan, it might cry out,
Me miserable ! which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath and infinite despair ?
Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.
The Rebellion is Slavery in arms; Slavery on horse-back;
Slavery on foot; Slavery raging on the battle-field ; Slavery
raging on the quarter-deck, robbing, destroying, burning, killing,
in order to uphold this candidate Power. Its legislation is
simply Slavery in statutes; Slavery in chapters ; Slavery in
sections—with an enacting clause. Its Diplomacy is Slavery in
pretended ambassadors; Slavery in cunning letters; Slavery in
cozening promises ; Slavery in persistent negotiations—all to
secure for the candidate Power its much desired welcome.
Say what you will; try to avoid it if you can ; you are com
pelled to admit that the candidate Power is nothing else
than organized Slavery, which now in its madness—sur
rounded by its criminal clan, and led by its felon chieftains—
braves the civilization of the age. Any Recognition of Slavery is
bad enough. But this will be a Recognition of Slavery with
welcome and benediction, imparting to it new consideration and
respectability, and worse still, securing to it neiv opportunity and
foothold for the supremacy which it openly proclaims.
In ancient days the candidate was robed in white, while at the
Capitol and in the Forum, he canvassed the people for their votes.
The candidate Nation, which is not ashamed of Slavery, should
�59
be robed in black, while it conducts its great canvass and asks
the votes of the Christian Powers. “ Hung be the heavens with
black, yield day to night,” as the outrage proceeds ; for the
candidate gravely asks the international Recognition of the
claim to hold property in man; to sell the wife away from the
husband ; to sell the child away from the parent; to shut the
gates of knowledge; to appropriate all the fruits of another’s
labor. And yet the candidate proceeds in his canvass—although
all history declares that Slavery is essentially barbarous, and
that whatever it touches it changes to itself; that it barba
rizes laws ; barbarizes business ; barbarizes manners ; barbarizes
social life, and makes the people who cherish it barbarians. And
still the candidate proceeds—although it is known to the Christian
Powers that the partisans of Slavery are naturally “ filibusters,”
always apt for lawless incursions and for robbery; that, during
latter years, under their instigation and to advance their preten
sions, expeditions, identical in motive with the present B.ebellion,
were let loose in the Gulf of Mexico, twice against Cuba, and
twice also against Nicaragua, breaking the peace of the United
States and threatening the repose of the world, so that Lopez
and Walker were the predecessors of Beauregard and Jefferson
Davis. And yet the candidate proceeds—although it is obvious
that the Recognition which is urged, will be nothing less than a
solemn sanction by the Christian Powers of Slavery everywhere
throughout the new jurisdiction, whether on land or sea, so that
every ship, which is a part of the floating territory, will be Slave
Territory. And yet with the phantasy that man can hold property
in man shooting from his lips; with the shackle and lash in his
hands ; with Barbarism on his forehead; with Filibusterism in his
recorded life; and with Slavery flying in his flag wherever it
floats on land or sea; the candidate clamors for Christian Recog
nition. It is sad to think that there has been delay in repelling
the insufferable canvass. “ Is thy servant a dog that he should do
this thing ? ” It is not necessary to be a Christian ; it is sufficient
to be a man—in order to detest and combat such an accursed
pretension.
If the Recognition of a de facto Power was a duty imposed
upon other nations by International Law, there would be no
opportunity for objections founded on principle or policy. But
there is no such duty. International Law leaves to each nation,
precisely as the municipal law leaves to each citizen, what com
pany to keep or what copartnership to form. No company and
no copartnership can be forced upon a nation. It is all a question
of free choice and acceptance. International Law on this head
is like the Constitution of the United States, which declares:
“ New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”
Not must but may; it being in the discretion of Congress to
determine whether the State shall be admitted. Accordingly, in
�60
the exercise of this discretion, Congress for a long time refused
to admit Missouri as a Slave Slate. And now the old Missouri
Question, in a more outrageous form, on a grander theatre, “with
monarchs to behold the swelling scene,”—is presented to the Chris
tian Powers of the world. If it were right to exclude Missouri,
having a few slaves only and regarding Slavery merely as a
temporary condition, it must be right to exclude a pretended
nation, which not only boasts its millions of slaves, but passion
ately proclaims the perpetuity and propagation of slavery as the
cause and object of its separate existence.
Practical statesmen have always treated the question of Recog
nition as one of policy—to be determined on the facts of the
case—even where the Power was de facto established; as
appears amply in the debates of the British Parliament on
the Recognition of Spanish America.
If we go behind the
practical statesmen and consult the earliest oracles of Interna
tional Law, we shall find that, according to their most approved
words, not only may Recognition be refused, but there are
considerations of duty this way which cannot bo evaded. It is
not enough that a pretender has the form of a Commonwealth.
‘ A people,” says Cicero, in a definition copied by most jurists,
“is not every body of men howsoever congregated, but a gathered
multitude, associated under the sanction of justice and for the
common good.”—Juris consensu et utilitalis communione sociaius.
(De Repub. Lib. i., 25.) And again he goes so far as to say, in
the Republic, “ when the king is unjust, or the aristocracy, or
the people itself, the Commonwealth is not vicious but null.” Of
course a Commonwealth that was null would not be recognized.
But Grotius, who speaks always with the magistral voice of learning
and genius, has given the just conclusion, when he presents the
distinction between a body of men, who being already a Recog
nized Commonwealth, are guilty of systematic crime, as, for
instance, of piracy, and another body of men, who, not yet Recog
nized as a Commonwealth, are banded together for the sake of
systematic crime—sceleris causa coeunt. (De Jure Belli, ac Pads,
Lib. iii., cap. 3, § 2.) The latter, by a happy discrimination, he
places beyond the pale of honor or fellowship; nam hi criminis
causd sociantur. But when before in all history, have creatures,
wearing the human form, proclaimed the criminal principle of
their association, with the audacity of our Slave-mongers ?
It might be argued, on grounds of reason and authority even,
that the declared principle of the pretended Power, was a violation
of International Law. Eminent magistrates have solemnly ruled,
that, in the development of civilization, the slave-trade has
become illegal, by a law higher than any statute. Sir William
Grant, one of the ornaments of the British bench, whose elegant
mind was governed always by practical sense, adjudged that “ this
trade cannot, abstractedly speaking, have any legitimate existence,”
�61
(Amedie, 2 Acton R. 240^ ; and our own great authority, Mr.
Justice Story, in a remarkable judgment, declared himself con
strained “ to consider the trade against the universal law of
society.” (La Jeune Eugenie, 2 Mason R. 451.) But the argu
ments which are strong against any Recognition of the slavetrade, are strong also against any Recognition of Slavery itself.
It is not, however, necessary, in the determination of present
duty, to assume that Slavery, or the slave-trade, is positively for
bidden by existing International Law. It is enough to show,
that according to the spirit of that sovereign law which “ sits
empress, crowning good, repressing ill,” and according also to
those commanding principles of justice and humanity, which
cannot be set at naught without a shock to human nature itself,
so foul a wrong as Slavery can receive no voluntary support from
the Commonwealth of Nations. It is not a question of law but
a question of Morality. The Rule of Law is sometimes less com
prehensive than the Rule of Morality, so that the latter may
positively condemn what the former silently tolerates. But within
its own domain the Rule of Morality cannot be less authoritative
than the Rule of Law itself. It is, indeed, nothing less than the
Law of Nature and also the Law of God. If we listen to a
Heathen teacher we shall confess its binding power. “ Law,”
says Cicero, “is the highest reason implanted in nature, which
prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the
contrary.”—(DeLegibus, Lib. i., cap. 5.) This law is an essential
part of International Law, as is also Christianity itself, and,
where treaties fail and usageds silent, it is the only law between
nations. Jurists of all ages and countries have delighted to
acknowledge its authority, if it spoke only in the still small voice
of conscience. A celebrated professor of Germany in our own
day, Savigny, whose name is honored by the students of juris
prudence everywhere, touches upon this monitor of nations, when
he declares that “ there may exist between different nations a
common consciousness of Right similar to that which engenders
the Positive Law of particular nations.”—(System des heutigen
Römischen Rechts, L. vii., cap 11, § 11.) But this common con
sciousness of right is identical with that law, which, according to
Cicero, is “ the highest reason implanted in nature.” Such is
the Rule of Morality.
The Rule of Morality differs from the Rule of Law in this
respect: that the former finds its support in the human con
science ; the latter in the sanctions of public force. But moral
power prevails with a good man as much as if it were physical. I
know no different rule for a good nation than for a good man.
I am sure that a good nation will not do what a good man would
scorn to do.
But there is a rule of prudence superadded to the Rule of
Morality. Grotius in discussing treaties docs not forget the
�62
wisdom of Solomon, who, in not a few places, warns against
fellowship with the wicked, although he adds, that these were
maxims of prudence and not of law.—(Lib. ii., cap. 15, § 9.)
And he reminds us of the saying of Alexander, “ that those
grievously offend who enter the service of Barbarians.” (ZW,
§ 11.) But better still are the words of the wise historian of
classical antiquity, who enjoins upon a Commonwealth the duty of
considering carefully, when sued for assistance, “ whether what is
sought is sufficiently pious, safe, glorious, or on the other hand
unbecoming —(Sallust Fragm., iv. 2.) and also those words
of Scripture which after rebuking an alliance with Ahab, ask with
scorn, “ Shouldst thou help the ungodly ? ” (2 Chron., xiv. 2.)
If the claim for Recognition be brought to the touch-stone of
these principles, it will be easy to decide it.
Vain is it to urge the Practice of Nations in its behalf. Never
before in history has such a candidacy been put forward in the
name of Slavery; and the terrible outrage is aggravated by the
Christian light which surrounds it. This is not the age of dark
ness. But even in the Dark Ages, when the Slave-mongers of
Algiers “ had reduced themselves to a government or state,” the
renowned Louis IX. “ treated them as a nest of wasps.” (1 Phillimorc, p. 80.) Afterwards but slowly they obtained “ the rights
of legation ” and “ the reputation of a government; ” but at last,
weary of their criminal pretensions, the aroused vengeance of
Great Britain and France blotted out this Power from the list of
nations. Louis XI., who has been described as “ the sovereign
who best understood his interest,” indignant at Richard III. of
England, who had murdered two infants in the tower, and usurped
the crown, sent back his ambassadors without holding any inter
course with them. This is a suggestive precedent; for the parricide
usurper of England had never murdered so many infants, or
usurped so much as the pretended Slave Power, which is strangely
tolerated by the sagacious sovereign who sits on the throne of
Louis XI. But it is not necessary to go so far in history ; nor
to dwell on the practice of nations in withholding or conceding
Recognition. The whole matter is stated by Burke with his
customary power:
“ In the case of a divided kingdom by the Law of Nations, Great Britain,
like every other Power, is free to take any part she pleases. She may
decline, with more or less formality, according to her discretion, to acknowl
edge this new system ; or she may recognize it as a government de facto,
setting aside all discussion of its original legality, and considering the
ancient monarchy as at an end. The Law of Nations leaves our court
open to its choice. The declaration of a new species of government on new
principles is a real crisis in the politics of Europe.” (Thoughts on French
Affairs, 1791.)
�63
Another eloquent publicist, Sir James Mackintosh, while urging
on Parliament the Recognition of Spanish America, says, “ The
reception of a new State into the society of civilized nations by
those acts which amount to recognition is a proceeding, which, as
it has no legal character, is purely of a moral nature; ” and he
proceeds to argue that since England is “ the only anciently free
State in the world, for her to refuse her moral aid to communities
struggling for liberty, is an act of unnatural harshness.” (Mack
intosh's Works, Vol. iii. p. 438.) Thus does he vindicate Recog
nition for the sake of Freedom. How truly he would have
repelled any Recognition for the sake of Slavery, let his life
testify.
But, perhaps, no better testimony to the practice of nations can
be found than in the words of Vattel, whose work, presenting the
subject in a familiar form, has done more, during the last century,
to fashion opinion on the Law of Nations than any other authority.
Here it is briefly:—
If there be any nation thatwa&es an open profession of trampling justice
under foot, of despising and violating the right of others, whenever it finds
an opportunity, the interest of human society will authorize all others to
humble and chastise it.” {Book ii., cap. 4, § 70.) “ To form and support
an unjust pretension is to do an injury not only to him who is interested in
this pretension, but to mock at justice in general and to injure all nations.”
{Ibid.} “ He who assists an odious tyrant—he who declares for an unjust
and rebellious people—violates his duty.” {Ibid, § 56.) “As to those
monsters, who under the title of sovereigns, render themselves the scourges
and horror of the human race, they are savage beasts, whom every brave
man may justly exterminate from the face of the earth.” {Ibid.} “ But if
the maxims of a religion tend to establish it by violence and to oppress all
those who will not embrace it, the law of nature forbids us to favor that
religion or to contract any unnecessary alliance with its inhuman followers,
and the common safety of mankind invites them rather to enter into an
alliance against such a people; to repress such outrageous fanatics, who
disturb the public repose and threaten all nations.” (Ibid, Book ii.. can 12
§ 162.)
r
’
Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any principle of the
Comity of Nations. This is an expansive term into which enters
much of the refinements, amenities and hospitalities of Civiliza
tion, and also something of the obligations of moral duty. But
where an act is prejudicial to national interests or contrary to
national policy or questionable in morals, it cannot be commended
by any considerations of courtesy. There is a paramount duty
which must not be betrayed by a kiss. For the sake of Comity, acts
of good will and friendship not required by law are performed
between nations; but an English Court has authoritatively
declared that this principle cannot prevail “ where it violates the
law of our own country, the Law of Nature or the Law of God
�64
and on this adamantine ground it was decided, that an American
slave, who had found shelter on board of a British man-of-war,
could not be recognized as a slave. (Forbes v. Cochrane, 2 Barn,
and Cres., R. 448.) But the same principle would prevail against
the Recognition of a new Slave Nation.
Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any reason of Peace.
There can be no peace founded on injustice; and any Recognition
is an injustice which will cry aloud resounding through the
universe. You may seem to have peace ; but it will be only a
smothered war, destined to break forth in war more direful than
before.
Thus is every argument for Recognition repelled, whether it be
under the sounding words, Practice of Nations—Comity of Nations
—or Peace. There is nothing in Practice, nothing in Comity,
nothing in Peace, which is not against any such shameful sur
render.
But applying the principles which have been already set
forth ; — assuming what cannot be denied, — that every Power is
free to refuse Recognition ; assuming that it is not every body of
men that can be considered a Commonwealth, but only “ those
associated under the sanction ofjustice and for the common good; ”
that men “ banded together for the sake of systematic crime ” can
not be considered a Commonwealth ;—assuming that every member
of the Family of Nations will surely obey the Rule of Morality ;
that it will “ shun fellowship with the wicked ; ” that it will not
“ enter into the service of Barbarians ; ” that it will avoid what is
“ unbecoming ” and do that only which is “ pious, safe and
glorious; ” and that above all things it will not enter into an
alliance “ to help the ungodly ; ” assuming these things — every
such member must reject with indignation a new pretension whose
declared principle of association is so essentially wicked. Here
there can be no question. The case is plain; nor is any language
of contumely or scorn too strong to express the irrepressible
repugnance to such a pretension, which, like vice, “ to be hated
needs only to be seen.” Surely there can be no Christian Power
which will not leap to expose it, saying with irresistible voice:
(1.) No neiv sanction of Slavery. (2.) No new quickening of
Slavery in its active and aggressive Barbarism. (3.) No new
encouragement to the “ filibusters ” engendered by Slavery. (4.)
No new creation of Stave territory. (5.) No new creation of a
Slave Navy. (6.) Ao new Slave Nation. (7.) No installation
of Slavery as a new Civilization. But all this Litany will fail, if
Recognition prevails — from which Good Lord deliver us! Nor
will this be the end of the evil.
Slavery, through the new Power, will take its place in the
Parliament of mankind, with all the immunities of an Indepen
dent Nation, ready always to uphold and advance itself, and
organized as an unrelenting Propaganda of the new Faith. A
�65
Power, having its inspiration in such a Barbarism, must be essen
tially barbarous ; founded on the asserted right to whip women
and to sell children, it must assume a character of disgusting
hardihood, and, openly professing a determination to revolutionize
the Public Opinion of the world, it must be in open schism with
Civilization itself, so that all its influences will be wild, savage,
brutal, and all its offspring kindred in character.
Parcl genders pard; from tigers tigers spring;
No dove is hatched beneath the vulture’s wing.
Such a Power, from its very nature, must be Despotism at home
“ tempered only by assassination,” with cotton-fields instead of
Siberia, while abroad it must be aggressive, dangerous and revolt
ing, in itself a Magnum Latrociniiim, whose fellowship can have
nothing but “ the filthiness of Evil,” and whose very existence will
be an intolerable nuisance. When Dante, in the vindictive judgment
which he hurled against his own Florence, called it bordello, he
did not use a term too strong for the mighty House of Ill Fame
which the Christian Powers are now asked for the first time to
license. Such must be the character of the new Power. But
though only a recent wrong, and pleading no prescription, the
illimitable audacity of its nature will hesitate at nothing ; nor is
there any thing offensive or detestable which it will not absorb
into itself. It will be an Ishmael with its hand against everyman.
It will be a brood of Harpies defiling all which it cannot steal.
It will be the one-eyed Cyclop of nations, seeing only through
Slavery, spurning all as fools who do not see likewise, and bellow
ing forth in savage egotism :
Know then, we Cyclops are a race above
Those air-bred people and their goat-nursed Jove ;
And learn our power proceeds with thee and thine
Not as Jove wills, but, as ourselves incline.
Or worse still, it will be the soulless monster of Frankenstein—the
wretched creation of mortal science without God—endowed with
life and nothing else—forever raging madly, the scandal to human
ity—powerful only for evil—whose destruction will be essential to
the peace of the world.
Who can welcome such a creation ? Who can consort with it ?
There is something loathsome in the idea. There is contamina
tion even in the thought. If you live with the lame, says the ancient
proverb, you will learn to limp ; if you keep in the kitchen you will
smell of smoke ; if you touch pitch you will be defiled. But what
lameness so pitiful as that of this pretended Power j what smoke so
foul as its breath ; what pitch so defiling as its touch ? It is an
Oriental saying that a cistern of rose-water will become impure,
if a dog be dropt into it; but a continent of rose-water with
�66
•
■
’•
•
•
i
:
■
'
•’
•
I
i
Rebel Slave-mongers would be changed into a vulgar puddle.
Imagine, if you please, whatever is most disgusting, and this
pretended Power is more disgusting still. Naturalists report
that the pike will swallow any thing except the toad ; but this it
cannot do. The experiment has been tried, and, though this fish,
in its unhesitating voracity, always gulps whatever is thrown to
it, yet invariably it spews this nuisance from its throat. But our
Slave-monger pretension is worse than the toad; and yet there
are Foreign Nations which, instead of spewing it forth, are already
turning it like a precious morsel on the tongue,
But there is yet another ground on which I make this appeal.
It is a part of the triumphs of Civilization, that no Nation can
act for itself alone. Whateverit does for good or for evil,
affects all the rest. Therefore a Nation cannot forget its obligations to others. Especially does International Law, when
it declares the absolute Equality of Independent Nations,
cast upon all Nations the duty of considering well how this
privilege shall be bestowed, so that the welfare of all may be
best upheld.
But the whole Family of Nations would be
degraded by admitting this new pretension to any toleration, much
less to any equality. There can be no reason for such admission ;
for it can bring nothing to the general weal. Civil society is
created for safety and tranquillity. Nations come together and
fraternize for the common good. But this hateful pretension can
do nothing but evil for civil society at home or for nations in their
relations with each other. It can show no title to Recognition ;
no passport for its travels; no old creation. It is all new; and
here let me borrow the language of Burke on another occasion ;
“ It is not a new Power of an old kind. It is a new Power of a
new species. When such a questionable shape is to be admitted
for the first time into the brotherhood of Christendom, it is not
a mere matter of idle curiosity to consider how far it is in its
nature alliable ivith the rest.” (Regicide Peace, 2d Letter.')
The greatest of corporations is a nation ; the sublimest of all
associations is that which is composed of nations, independent
and equal, knit together in the bonds of peaceful Fraternity as
the great Christian Commonwealth. The Slave-mongers may be
a corporation in fact; but no such corporation can find a place in
that sublime Commonwealth. As well admit the Thugs, whose
first article of faith is to kill a stranger—or the Buccaneers, those
old “ brothers of the coast,” who plundered on the sea—or better
still revive the old Kingdom of the Assassins, where the king was
an assassin, surrounded by counsellors and generals who were
assassins, and all his subjects were assassins. Or yet again better
at once and openly recognize Anti-Christ, who is the supreme and
highest impersonation of the Slave-Power.
Amidst the general degradation that would follow such an
obeisance to Slavery, there are two Christian Powers that would
�67
appear in sad and shameful eminence. I refer to Great Britain—
the declared “ protectress of the African race,”—and to France, the
declared champion of “ ideas,”—who, from the very largess of their
pledges, are so situated, that they cannot desert the good old
cause and turn their faces against civilization without a criminal
tergiversation, which no mountain of diplomacy can cover.
Where then would be British devotion to the African race ?
Where then would be French devotion to ideas ?—Remem
bered only to point a tale and show how nations had fallen.
Great Britain knows less than France of national vicissitudes ;
but such an act of wrong would do something in its influence to
equalize the conditions of these two nations. Better for the fastanchored isle that it should be sunk beneath the sea, with its
cathedrals, its castles, its fields of glory, Runnymede, West
minster Hall and the home of Shakspeare, than that it should do
this thing. .In other days England has valiantly striven against
Slavery ; and now she proposes to surrender, at a moment when
more can be done than ever before against the monster wherever
it shows its head, for Slavery everywhere has its neck in this
Rebellion. In other days France has valiantly striven for ideas;
and now she too proposes to surrender, although all that she has
professed to have at heart is involved in the doom of Slavery,
which a word from her might hasten beyond recall. But it is in
England, more even than in France, that the strongest sentiment
for Rebel Slave-mongers has been manifest, constituting a moral
mania, which menaces a pact and concordat with the Rebellion
itself,—as when an early Pope, the head of the Christian Church,
did not hesitate to execute a piratical convention with a pagan
enemy of the Christian name. It only remains that the new
coalition should be signed, in order to consummate the unutterable
degradation. It was the fate of zEdipus, in the saddest story of
antiquity, to wed his own mother without knowing it; but
England will wed the Slave-Power with full knowledge that the
relation, if not incestuous, is vile. The contracting parties will
be the Queen of England, and Jefferson Davis, once the patron of
“ repudiation,” now the chief of Rebel Slave-mongers. It will
only remain for this virtuous Lady, whose pride it is to seek
justice always, to bend in pitiful abjectness to receive as a pleni
potentiary at her Court the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill.
A Slave-monger Power will take its seat at the great councilboard, to jostle thrones and benches, while it overshadows
Humanity. Its foul attorneys, reeking with Slavery, will have
their letter of license, as the ambassadors of Slavery, to rove
from court to court, over foreign carpets, poisoning that air which
has been nobly pronounced too pure for a slave to breathe. Alas!
for England, vowed a thousand times to the protection of the African
race and knit perpetually by her best renown to this sacred
loyalty, now plunging into adulterous honey-moon with Slavery—
�68
recognizing the new and impious Protestantism against Liberty
itself—and wickedly becoming the Defender of the Faith even
as professed by Rebel Slave-mongers. Alas ! for England’s Queen
—woman and mother—carried off from the cause of Wilberforce
and Clarkson to sink into unseemly dalliance with the scourgers
of women and the auctioneers of children; for a “ stain,” deeper
than that which aroused the anguish of Maria Theresa, is settling
upon her reign. Alas! for that Royal Consort, humane and
great, whose dying voice was given to assuage the temper of that
ministerial despatch by which, in an evil hour, England was made
to strike hands with Rebel Slave-mongers ; for the councillor is
needed now to save the land which lie adorned from an act of
, inexpiable shame.
And for all this sickening immorality I hear but one declared
apology. It is said that the Union permitted and still permits
Slavery ; therefore Foreign Nations may recognize Rebel Slavei mongers as a new Power. But here is the precise question.
9 England is still in diplomatic relations with Spain, and was only
a short time ago in diplomatic relations with Brazil, both per
mitting Slavery; but these two Powers are not new; they are
already established; there is no question of their Recognition;
nor do they pretend to found empire on Slavery. There is no
reason in any relations with them why a new Power, with Slavery
as its declared “ corner-stone,” whose gospel is Slavery and whose
evangelists are Slave-mongers, should be recognized in the Family
of Nations. If Ireland were in triumphant rebellion against the
British Queen, complaining of rights denied, it would be our duty
to recognize her as an Independent Power; but if Ireland
rebelled, with the declared object of establishing a new Power,
which should be nothing less than a giant felony and a nuisance
to the world, then it would be our duty to spurn the infamous
pretension, and no triumph of the Rebellion could change this
plain and irresistible necessity. And yet, in the face of this com
manding rule, we are told to expect the Recognition of Rebel
Slave-mongers.
But an aroused Public Opinion, “ the world’s collected will”
and returning reason in England and France will see to it that
Civilization is saved from this shock and the nations themselves
from the terrible retribution which sooner or later must surely
attend it. No Power can afford to lift itself before mankind and
openly vote a new and untrammelled charter to injustice and
cruelty. God is an unsleeping avenger; nor can armies, fleets,
bulwarks or “ towers along the steep ” prevail against his mighty
anger. There is but one word which the Christian Powers can utter
to any application for this unholy Recognition. It is simply and
austerely “ No,” with an emphasis that shall silence argument
and extinguish hope itself. And this Proclamation should go
forth swiftly. Every moment of hesitation is a moment of apos
�69
tacy, casting its lengthening shadow of dishonor. Not to dis
courage is to encourage ; not to blast is to bless. Let this simple
word be uttered and Slavery will shrink away with a mark on its
forehead, like Cain—a perpetual vagabond—without welcome or
fellowship, so that it can only die. Let this simple word be
uttered and the audacious Slave-Power will be no better than the
Flying Dutchman, that famous craft, which, darkened by piracy
and murder, was doomed to a perpetual cruise, unable to enter a
port;
.
Faint and despairing in their watery bier,
To every friendly shore the sailors steer ;
Repelled from port to port they sue in vain,
And track with slow, unsteady sail the main,
Unblest of God and man ! Till time shall end
Its view strange horror to the storm shall lend.
[V.]
No Concession
of Ocean Belligerency without a Prize
Court;—especially to Rebel Slave-mongers.
Too much have I spoken for your patience, if not enough for
the cause. But there is yet another topic which I have reserved
to the last, because logically it belongs there, or at least it can be
best considered in the gathered light of the, previous discussion.
Its immediate, practical interest is great. I refer to the conces
sion of Belligerent Rights, being the first stage to Independence.
Great Britain led the way in acknowledging the embryo gov
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers as Belligerents on sea as well as
on land, and, by a Proclamation of the Queen, declared her
neutrality between the two parties, thus lifting the embryo gov
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers, which was nothing else than
organized and aggressive Slavery, to an Equality on sea as well
as on land with its ancient ally, the National Government. Here
was a blunder if not a crime—not merely in the alacrity with
which it was done but in doing it at all. It was followed imme
diately by France, and then by Spain, Holland and Brazil. The
concession of Belligerent Rights on land was only a name and
nothing more ; therefore I say nothing about it. But the conces
sion of Belligerent Rights on the Ocean is of a widely different
character, and the two reasons against the Recognition of the
independence of the embryo government are applicable also to
this concession. First, The embryo government has no maritime
or naval Belligerent Rights, de facto; and secondly, an embryo
government of Rebel Slave-mongers cannot have the character de
facto which would justify the concession of maritime or naval
Belligerency; so that could the concession be vindicated on
the first ground, it must fail on the second.
The concession of Ocean Bt lligerency is a Letter of License
from the consenting Powers to every Slave-monger cruiser, or
�70
•
rather it is the countersign of these Powers to the commission of
every such cruiser. Without such countersign the Slave-monger
cruiser would be an outlaw, with no right to enter a single foreign
port. The declaration of Belligerency gives to him legal competency and admits him to testify by flag and arms. Without such
competency he could have no flag, and no right to bear arms on
the ocean. Burke sententiously describes it as an “ intermediate
Treaty which puts rebels in possession of the Law of Nations.”
And this is plainly true.
The magnitude of this concession may be seen in three aspects ;
first, in the immunities which it confers; putting an embryo
government of Rebel Slave-mongers on an equality with established
governments, making its cruisers lawful instead of piratical,
and opening to them boundless facilities at sea and in port, so that
they may obtain supplies and even hospitality. Secondly, in the
degradation that it fastens upon the National Government, which
is condemned to see its ships treated on an equality with the ships
of Rebel Slave-mongers, and also the just rule of “ neutrality ”
between Belligerent Powers calledin to fetter its activity against a
giant felony. And thirdly, it may be seen in the disturbance to
commerce which it sanctions, by letting loose lawless sea-rovers,
armed with Belligerent Rights—including the right of search
—whose natural recklessness is left unbridled, and without
any remedy even from diplomatic intercourse. The ocean is a
common highway ; but on this account it is for the interest of all
who share it, that it should not be disturbed by predatory
hostilities. Such a concession should be made with the greatest
caution, and then, only under the necessity of the case, on the
overwhelming authority of the fact; for, from beginning to end,
it is simply a question of fact, absolutely dependent on those
conditions and prerequisites without which Ocean Belligerency
cannot exist.
As a general rule, Belligerent Rights are conceded only where
a rebel government, or contending party in a civil war, has
acquired such form and body, that, for the time being, within
certain limits, it is sovereign de facto, so far at least as to
command troops and to administer justice. The concession of
Belligerency is the Recognition of such limited sovereignty, which
bears the same relation to acknowledged Independence as gristle
bears to bone. It is obvious that such sovereignty may exist
de facto on land without existing de facto on the ocean. It may
prevail in armies and yet fail in navies. In short the fact may
be one way on land, and the other way on the ocean; nor can it
be inferred on the ocean simply from its existence on the land.
Since every such concession is adverse to the original government,
and is made only under the necessity of the case, it must be
carefully limited to t\\e.actual fact. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who
has shed so much light on these topics, openly took the ground
�that “ Belligerency is not so much a principle as a fact.” And
the question then arises, whether the Rebel Slave-mongers have
acquired such de facto sovereignty on the ocean as entitles them
to Ocean Belligerent rights.
There are at least two “ facts ” which are patent to all, first,
that the Rebel Slave-mongers have not a single port into which
even legal cruisers can take their prizes for adjudication ; and
secondly, that the ships which now presume to exercise Ocean
Belligerent rights in their name—constituting the Rebel Slave
monger navy, which a member of the British Cabinet said was
“to be created”—were all “created” in England, which is the
naval base from which they sally forth on their predatory cruise
without once entering a port of their own pretended Government.
These two “ facts ” are different in character.
The first
attaches absolutely to the pretended Power, rendering it incom
petent to exercise Belligerent jurisdiction on the ocean. The
second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical.
But these simple and unquestionable “ facts ” are the key to unlock
the present question
From the reason of the case, there can be no Ocean Belligerent
without a port into which it can take its prizes. Any other rule
would be absurd. It will not be enough to sail the sea, like
the Flying Dutchman ; the Ocean Belligerent must be able to
touch the land and that land its own. . This proceeds on the idea
of civilized warfare, that something more than naked force is
essential to the completeness of a capture. According to the
earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the
“ pernoctation ” of the captured ship within the port of the
Belligerent, or as it was called, deductio infra præsidia. As early
as 1414, under Henry V., of England, there was an Act of Par
liament, requiring privateers to bring their prizes into a port of
the kingdom, and to make a declaration thereof to a proper officer,
before undertaking to dispose of them. (Runnington’s Statutes.
Vol. i., p. 491.) But the modern rule interposes an additional
check upon lawless violence by requiring the condemnation of a
competent court. This rule, which is among the most authori
tative of the British Admiralty, will be found in the famous
letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nichol, addressed to
John Jay, as follows; “ Before the ship or goods can be disposed
of by the captors, there must be a regular judicial proceeding,
wherein both parties may be heard and condemnation therefrom
as Prize in a Court of Admiralty, judging by the Law of Nations
and Treaties.” This is explicit. But this rule is French as well
as English. Indeed it is a part of International Law. A seizure
is regarded merely as a preliminary act, which does not divest the
property, though it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A
subsequent act of condemnation, by a competent tribunal, is nec
essary to determine if the seizure is valid. The question is
�72
compendiously called prize or no prize. Where the property of
neutrals is involved this requirement becomes of absolute importtance. In conceding Belligerency, all the customary belligérant
rights with regard to neutrals are conceded also, so that the
concession puts in jeopardy neutral commerce. But without
dwelling on this point, I content myself with the authority of two
recent French writers. M. Hautefeuille, in his elaborate work,
says “ the cruiser is not recognized as the proprietor of the objects
seized, but he is held to bring’ them before the tribunal and obtain
a sentence declaring them- to be prize.” {Hautefeuille, Des
Droits et des Devoirs des Nations neutres, Vol. iii., p. 299, 323,
352.)/ And a later writer, M. Eugene Cauchy, whose work has
appeared since our war began, says, “ A usage, which evidently
has its source in natural equity, requires that, before proceeding
to divide the booty, there should be an inquiry as to the regularity
of the prize; and to this end, every prize taken from an enemy
should be carried before the judge established by the sovereign
of the captor.” {Cauchy, Droit Maritime International, Vol. i.,
p. G5, 66. But if the Power, calling itself Belligerent, cannot
comply with this condition ; if it has no port into which it can
bring the captured ship, and no court, according to the require
ment of the British Admiralty, with “ a regular judicial proceeding
wherein both parties may be heard,” it is clearly not in a situation
to dispose of a ship or goods as prize. Whatever may be its force
in other respects, it lacks a vital clement of Ocean Belligerency.
In that semi-sovereignty, which constitutes Belligerency on land,
there must be a provision for the administration of justice, without
which there is nothing but a mob. In that same semi-soyereignty
on the ocean there must be a similar provision. It will not be
enough that there should be ships duly commissioned to take
prizes, there must also be courts to try them ; and the latter are
not less important than the former.
Lord Russell himself, who was so swift to make this concession,
has been led to confess the necessity of Prize Courts on the part
of. Ocean Belligerents, and thus to expose the irrational character
of his own work. In a letter to the Liverpool Chamber of Com
merce, dated 1st January, 1862, occasioned by the destruction of
British cargoes, the Minister says : “ The owners of any British
property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel*
captured and destroyed by a Confederate vessel of war, may claim
in a Confederate Prize Court compensation for destruction of such
property.” (Wheaton’s Elements, Lawrence’s edit., p. 1024.)
But if there be no Prize Court, then justice must fail; and with
this failure tumbles in fact the whole wretched pretension of
Ocean Belligerency—except in the galvanism of a Queen’s
Proclamation, or a Cabinet concession.
If a cruiser may at any time bdrn prizes, it is only because of
some exceptional exigency in a particular case, and not according
�73
to any general rule. . The general rule declares that there can be
no right to take a prize, if there be no port into which it may be
carried. The right of capture and the right of trial are the com
plements of each other through which a harsh prerogative is
supposed to be rounded into the proper form of civilized warfare.
Therefore, every ship and cargo, burned by the captors, for the
reason that they had no port, testifies that they are without that
vital sovereignty on the ocean, which is needed in the exercise
of Belligerent jurisdiction, and that they are not Ocean Belliger
ents in fact. Nay more ; all these bonfires of the sea cry'out
against that Power, which by a precipitate concession of a false
Belligerency furnished the torch. As well invest the rebellious
rajahs of India, who have never tasted salt water, with this Ocean
prerogative, so that they too may rob and burn; as well constitute
land-locked Poland, now in arms for Independence, an Ocean
Belligerent; or enroll mountain Switzerland in the same class • or
join with Shakspeare in making inland Bohemia a country with
hospitable ports on the ocean.
J
n^i° aggr?va^e this concession of a false Belligerency, the ships are
’ ngged> armed and manned in Great Britain. It is out
° • F-r»1 • •
and British iron that they are constructed * rig’o’cd
with British ropes ; made formidable with British arms ; supplied
with British gunners and navigated by British crews, so as to con
stitute in all respects a British naval expedition. British ports sup
ply the place of Bebel Slave-monger ports. British ports are open
to them when their own are closed. British ports constitute their
naval, base of operations and supplies, furnishing every thing necdexcept an officer—the ship’s papers—and a court for the trial
oi the prizes—each of which is essential to the legality of the expe
dition. And yet these same ships, thus equipped in British ports
and never touching a port of the pretended government in wlio-e
name they rob and burn,—being simply a rib taken out of the side
oi England and contributed to a Slave-monger Rebellion,__ receive
the further passport of Belligerency from the British Government
when tn fact the Belligerency does not exist. The whole proceed
ing, from the laying of the keel in a British dockyard to the
bursting flames on the ocean, is a mockery of International Law
and an insult to a friendly Power.
The case is sometimes said to be new ; but it is new only inas
much as no such “ parricide ” is provided against in express
terms. It was not anticipated. But the principles which govern
it are as old as justice and humanity, in the interests of which
Belligerent Rights are said to be conceded. Here it is all reversed
apparent that, whatever may have been the motives
ot the British Government, Belligerent Rights have been conceded
in the interests of injustice and inhumanity. Burning ships and
pattered wrecks are the witnesses. If such a case is not con
demned by International Law, then has this law lost its virtue
�74
Call such cruisers by whatever polite term most pleases the ear,
and you do not change their character with their name. Without
a home and without a legal character, they are mere gypsies of
the sea, who by their criminal acts have become disturbers of the
common highway, outlaws and enemies of the human race.
But there is a precedent, which shows how impossible it is for
a pretended Power, without a single port, to possess Belligerent
Bights on the ocean, and how impossible it is for the ship of such
pretended Power to be any thing but a felon ship. James II. of
England, after he had ceased to be de facto king and while he was
an exile without a single port, undertook to issue Letters of
Marque. It was argued unanswerably before the Privy Council
of William III., that, whatever might be the claims de jure of a
deposed prince, he could not receive from any other sovereign
u international privileges ; ” 4i that, if he could grant a commission
to take the ships of a single nation, it would in effect be a general
license to plunder, because those who were so commissioned would
be their own judges of whatever they took; and that the reason of
the thing which pronounced that robbers and pirates, when they
formed themselves into a civil society, became just enemies, pro
nounced also that a king without territory, without power of
protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any way of
administering justice, dwindled into a pirate if he issued commis
sions to seize the goods and ships of nations, and that they who
took commissions from him must be held by legal inference to have
associated ‘ sceleris causa1 and cozild not be considered as members
of civil society.11 (Pliillimore, International Law, Vol. i. 401.)
These words are strictly applicable to the present-case. Whatever
may be the force of the Bebel Slave-mongers on land, they are no
better on the ocean than the “ deposed prince ”—“ without
power of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any
way of administering justice; ” and, like the prince, they too have
“ dwindled into a pirate,”—except so far as they may be sustained
by British Becognition.
And. there is yet another precedent, which shows that the
appropiation of a captured ship or cargo without judicial proceed
ings, is piracy. The case is memorable. It is none other than
that of the famous Captain Kidd, who, on his indictment for piracy,
as long ago as 1698, produced a commission in'justification. But
it was at once declared that it was not enough to show a commis
sion ; he must also show a condemation of the captured ship. The
Lord Chief Baron of that day said that “ if he had acted pursuant to
his commission he ought to have condemned ship and goods ; that
by not condemning them he showed his aim, mind and intention,
and that he did not act in that case by virtue of his commission,
but quite contrary to it; that he took the ship and shared the
money and goods, and was taken in that very ship, so that there
is no color or pretence that he intended to bring this ship to Eng
�land to be condemned or to have condemned it in any of ike English
plantations; and that whilst men pursue their commissions they
must be justified ; but when they do things not authorized or ever
intended by them, it was as if they had no commissions. (Har
grave’s State Trials, Vol. v. p. 314.) Capt. Kidd was condemned
to death and executed as a pirate. If he was a pirate, worthy of
death, then, by the same rule, those rovers who burn ships, rob
cargoes and adorn their cabins with rows of stolen chronometers,
—without any pretence of a Prize Court—must be pirates, worthy
of death likewise.
But without now considering more critically what should be
the fate of these ocean-incendiaries, or what the responsibilities of
England, out of whom they came,-I content myself with the
conclusion that they are not entitled to Ocean Belligerency.
But even if Rebel Slave-mongers coagulated in embryo
government, have arrived at that semi-sovereignty de facto on
the ocean which justifies the concession of Belligerent Rights, yet
the Christian Powers should indignantly decline to make the
concession, because they cannot do so without complicity with a
shameful crime. Here I avoid details. It is sufficient to say,
that every argument of fact and reason—every whisper of con
science and humanity—every indignant outburst of an honest
man against the Recognition of Slave-monger Independence is
equally strong against any concession of Ocean Belligerency.
Indeed such concession is the half-way house to Recognition, and
it can be made only where a nation is ready, if the fact of Inde
pendence be sufficiently established, to acknowledge it—on the
principle of Vattel that “ whosoever has a right to the end has aright
to the means.” (Book IV. cap. v. § 60.) But it is equally clear,
that where a nation, on grounds of conscience,.must refuse the
Recognition of Independence, it cannot concede Belligerency, for
zohere the end is forbidden the means must be forbidden also.
But the illogical absurdity of any such concession by Great
Britain, so persistent always against Slavery and now for more
than a generation the declared “ protectress of the African race,”
becomes doubly apparent when it is considered, that every rebel
ship built in England and invested with Ocean Belligerency,
carries with it the law of Slavery, so that the ship becomes an
extension of Slave Territory by British concession.
And yet it is said that such a monster is entitled to the conces
sion of ocean rights, and the British Queen is made to proclaim
them. Sad day for England when another wicked compromise
was struck with Slavery, kindred in nature to that old Treaty,
which mantles the cheeks of honest Englishmen as they read it,
by which the slave-trade was protected and its profits secured to
British subjects! I know not the profits which have been secured
by the destruction of American commerce; but I do know that
the Treaty of Utrecht, crimson with the blood of slaves, is not
�76
so crimson as that reckless Proclamation, which gave to Slavery a
frantic life, and helped for a time, nay still helps the demon, in
the rage with which it battles against Human Rights. Such a
ship with the Law of Slavery on its deck and with the flag of
Slavery at its mast-head, sailing for Slavery, burning for Slavery,
fighting for Slavery and knowing no other sovereignty than the
pretended government of Rebel Slave-mongers, can be nothing
less, in spirit and character, than a Slave-Pirate and the enemy of
the human race. Like produces like, and the parent Power,
which is Slavery, must stamp itself upon the ship, making it a
floating offence to Heaven, with no limit to its audacity—wild,
outrageous, impious, a monster of the deep to be hunted down by
all who have not forgotten their duty alike to God and man.
Meanwhile there is one simple act which the justice of England
cannot continue to refuse. That fatal concession of Ocean
Belligerency, made in a moment of eclipse, when reason and
humanity were obscured, must be annulled. The blunder-crime
must be renounced, so that the Slave-pirates may no longer sail the
sea, burning, destroying, robbing, with British license. Then will
they promptly disappear forever, and with them will disappear
the occasion of strife between two Great Powers, who ought to
be, if not as mother and child, at least as brothers among the
Nations. And may God in his mercy help this consummation !
And here I leave this part of the subject, founding my objec
tions on two grounds:
(1.) The embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers has not
that degree of sovereignty on the ocean which is essential to
Belligerency there.
(2.) Even if it possessed the requisite sovereignty, no Christian
Power can make any such concession to it without a shameful
complicity with Slavery.
Both of these are objections of fact. Either is sufficient. But
even if the Belligerency seems to be established as a fact, still its
concession in this age of Christian light would seem to be impos
sible, unless under some temporary aberration, which, for the
honor of England and the welfare of Humanity, it is to be hoped
will speedily pass away.
Our Duties.
Again, fellow-citizens, I crave forgiveness for this long trespass
upon your patience. If the field that we have traversed has been
ample, it has been brightened always by the light of International
Justice, exposing clearly from beginning to end the sacred land
marks of duty. I have been frank, disguising nothing and keeping
nothing back ; so that you have been able to see the perils to which
the Republic is exposed from the natural tendency of war to breed
war, as exhibited in the examples of history, and also from the
�77
fatal proclivity of Foreign Powers to intermeddle, as exhibited in
recent instances of querulous criticism or intrusive proposition, all
adverse to the good cause, while pirate ships have been permitted
to depredate on our commerce; then how the best historic instances
testify in favor of Freedom and how all Intervention of every kind,
whether by proffer of mediation or otherwise, becomes intolerable
when its influence tends to the establishment of that soulless
anomaly a professed Republic built on the hopeless and everlasting
bondage of a race—and especially how Great Britain is sacredly
engaged by all the logic of her history and all her traditions in
unbroken lineage against any such unutterable baseness; then
how all the Christian Powers, constituting the Family of Nations,
are firmly bound to set their faces against any Recognition of the
embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers, on two grounds;
first, because its Independence is not in fact established ; and
secondly, because, even if in fact established, its Recognition is
impossible without criminal complicity with Slavery ; and lastly,
how these same Christian Powers are firmly bound by the same
two-fold reasons against any concession of Ocean rights- to this
hideous pretender.
It only remains that the Republic should lift itself to the height
of its great duties. War is hard to bear—with its waste, its pains,
its wounds, its funerals. But in this war we have not been
choosers. We have been challenged to the defence of our
country, and in this sacred cause, to crush Slavery. There is no
alternative.
Slavery began the combat, staking its life and
determined to rule or die. That we may continue freemen there
must be no slaves; so that our own security is linked with the
redemption of a race. Blessed lot, amidst the harshness of war,
to wield the arms and deal the blows under which the monster
will surely fall! The battle is migltty, for into Slavery has
entered the Spirit of Evil. It is persistent, for such a gathered
wickedness, concentrated, aroused and maddened, must have a
tenacity of life, which will not yield at once. But might will not
save it now; nor time either.
That the whole war is contained in Slavery may be seen, not
only in the acts of the National Government, but also in the
confessions of the Rebel Slave-mongers. Already the President,
by Proclamation, has announced that the slaves throughout the
whole rebel region “ are and henceforward shall be free,” and, in
order to give the fullest assurance of the irreversible character of
this sublime edict, he has further announced “ that the Executive
Government of the United States, including the military and
naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom
of such persons.” Already an enlightened Commission has been
constituted, to consider how these thronging freedmen can be
best employed for their own good and the national defence. And
�80
the fulness of a new life and covered with a panoply of renown,
it will confess that no dominion is of value which does not
contribute to human happiness. Born in this latter day and the
child of its own struggles, without ancestral claims, but heir of
all the ages—it will stand forth to assert the dignity of man, and
wherever any member of the Human Family is to be succored,
there its voice will reach—as the voice of Cromwell reached
across France even to the persecuted mountaineers of the Alps.
Such will be this Republic;—upstart among the nations. Aye!
as the steam-engine, the telegraph and chloroform are upstart.
Comforter and Helper like these, it can know no bounds to its
empire over a willing world. But the first stage is the death of
Slavery.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Our foreign relations showing present perils from England and France ... and the wrongful concession of ocean belligerency: speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, before the citizens of New York at the Cooper Institute, Sept. 10, 1863
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Sumner, Charles [1811-1874]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: New York, NY
Collation: 80 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "The following speech was delivered at the invitation of the New York Young Men's Republican Union, at Cooper Institute, on the 10th of September, 1863". [From Introductory, p, [3]].||(DES) Written in ink on title page: See pp 23-27, p. 67, 78. Underlinings and marginal markings on those pages. Printed by Wright & Potter, Boston. Mass.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Young Men's Republican Union
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1863
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5209
Subject
The topic of the resource
International relations
USA
England
France
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Our foreign relations showing present perils from England and France ... and the wrongful concession of ocean belligerency: speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, before the citizens of New York at the Cooper Institute, Sept. 10, 1863), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
United States-Foreign Relations