CHAPTER XXX.
Adverse Influences.
I now come to the consideration of the annual celebration of the 4th July, an event which presents itself to my mind under two opposite aspects, the one beneficial, the other injurious. If contemplated as a nation's grateful acknowledgment to Providence for the successful termination of an arduous struggle for independence, it assumes an aspect at once dignified and Christian; but if into its celebration other elements enter which are calculated to nourish hostile feelings towards those who have long ceased to reciprocate such unworthy sentiments, in that case I think its aspect may be fairly termed both injurious and unchristian.
Let me then call your attention to the method of celebration. It consists of three parts:—First, the reading of the Declaration of Independence; secondly, an oration on the subject; lastly, procession and jollification.
Now what is the Declaration of Independence? It is a document which details their views of the oppression and injustice which justified their rebellion against the mother country. The clauses are too numerous to quote in full, but I subjoin a few, that the reader may form his own opinion. Speaking of the sovereign of Great Britain, they say he has protected "armed troops among us, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow-citizens taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
I pause not to ask if any of these charges are correct or not: grant them accuracy in every statement, nay more, admit that they were eminently calculated to stir up the feelings of the colonists, and to inflame that spirit which was requisite to make their struggle for independence justifiable and successful, and that they were therefore called for by the emergencies of the day;—but nearly eighty years have rolled over since that Declaration was penned; there is no success sought for now which renders such appeals necessary, and surely it is not for the purpose of justifying their rebellion that they are made. Where then is the good to be derived from such declarations? Is there any misgiving in the Republic as to sentiments of patriotism or pluck? Surely none. But who can help seeing the evil to which they lead? These annual recapitulations of old grievances, buried beneath nearly a century, must tend to excite hostile feelings towards England. Conceive for one moment France reading annually a declaration of independence from British arms on the anniversary of their recapture of Calais, and engrossing in that document every injustice or atrocity which the English perpetrated during their rule; not to mention the undignified nature of such a course, who can doubt that it would be pre-eminently calculated to generate those hostile feelings which it is the bounden duty of all civilized States to allay? In short, what does it so much resemble as the system by which, in barbarous days long since past, the Highland clans used to perpetuate their feuds. If a Christian community cannot glory in and commemorate national independence without such adjuncts, such a ceremony would, in my humble opinion, be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Among other pernicious influences, I should mention that the Irish celebrate the battle of the Boyne annually in order to prevent their national angry passions from subsiding. Not the least curious features in these same Paddies is the fact that, while cursing England for her treatment of Ireland, they all unite as one man in favour of Slavery. Mr. Mitchell, the escaped convict, is said to have expressed his opinion that a plantation on the Alabama river with fifty sleek slaves, was the beau idéal of a terrestrial paradise. If he be a bachelor, and still entertain the same sentiments, I would recommend him to take "The stewardess of the Lady Franklin" as the sharer of his joys.
With regard to the orations pronounced, the one I heard at Geneseo had nothing that struck me as in any way lending itself to those feelings I have so freely censured; but it is not always so. I have before me now an epitome of a speech made by the Honourable D.S. Dickenson, at Syracuse, on July 4th, 1853. Being an honourable, it is not unfair to suppose him—mind, I say to suppose him—a man of superior attainment, selected by a well-educated people. The epitome is headed "Vigorous Discussion and Patriotic Sentiments." I only quote one passage, which I could almost fancy Matthew Ward, the hero of the Louisville school-room, had written; it runs thus—"The eloquent orator then went on for nearly half an hour in a strain of withering sarcasm and invective, exposing the shameless and wicked oppressions of England in her collieries, in her factories, in her oppression of Ireland; denouncing her as a nation whose history was written in oppression and blood (great applause.)"—It is difficult to believe that the chosen representative of an intelligent community should thus speak of that nation to which his own country is indebted for nearly every valuable institution she possesses; but when such ridiculous vituperation is received with shouts of applause from the gaping rowdies who throng around him, does it not clearly demonstrate the truth of my previous statements as to the effects which the celebration of the 4th of July, as now observed, may naturally lead to? I say, may lead to, because I would fain hope, for the sake of the credit and dignity of the Republic, that such disreputable orations are rare exceptions.
But that such feelings of aversion to the mother country are generated among the masses, is proved indirectly in another quarter—viz., Congress. During the debate on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, a Mr. Douglas, to whom I have before alluded, and who may be considered as the representative of the rabid and rowdy portion of the community, thus expresses himself with regard to England: "It is impossible she can love us,—I do not blame her for not loving us,—sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride,—she can never forgive us. But for us, she would be the first Power on the face of the earth,—but for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us; and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. England does not love us; she cannot love us, and we cannot love her either. We have some things in the past to remember that are not agreeable. She has more in the present to humiliate her that she cannot forgive."—After which expressions, the poor little man, as though he had not the slightest conception of the meaning of the words he was using, adds the following sentence, deprecating all he had previously uttered: "I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and England. I wish to soften and smooth it down as much as possible."
On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Butler, senator for South Carolina, who honestly did deprecate such language as the foregoing, referred, by way of contrast, to the many constitutional principles the Republic had derived from England, and also to the valuable literature which she had produced, and by which the Republic had benefited. Upon which, poor Mr. Douglas got furious, and asserted, that "Every English book circulated contains lurking and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our people and the institutions and policy of our Government."—He then discovered that abolitionism began, in England, and that "she keeps her missionaries perambulating this country, delivering lectures and scattering abroad incendiary publications, designed to excite prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections of the Union."—He then, with Illinois truthfulness, hints at Uncle Tom's Cabin, as though it were English literature, and which, he says, "is designed to stir up treason and insurrection around his—Mr. Butler's—fireside," &c.—He returns to the charge, and asserts, with equal accuracy, "Millions are being expended to distribute Uncle Tom's Cabin throughout the world, with the view of combining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the earth in a common crusade against the peculiar institutions of the State and section of this Union represented by the senator from South Carolina." One might almost imagine that the copy of Webster's Dictionary, which Mr. Douglas has in his library—if he possess such a thing—has omitted an old English word, spelt T R U T H.
But the point I wish to call the reader's especial attention to, is, that the little senator's rabid rhapsody was received with shouts of gallery applause, which, as I have before observed, is an exhibition of sentiment not allowed in the Senate to either members of Congress or gallery. Yet, so thoroughly had he expressed the feelings of the said rowdies, that they could not resist the unlawful burst of approval. Mr. Butler of course replied to his absurd arguments; but my object is not discussion. I only allude to the subject at all for the purpose of proving my previous assertion, that within the walls of Congress itself, elements calculated to engender feelings of animosity towards Great Britain are to be found at work. It is this deep-seated consciousness of guilt that makes that portion of the citizens of the Republic so sensitive with regard to the observations which proceed from this country. Americans like Mr. Butler, who maintain the dignity of their country without descending to paltry popularity-hunting calumny, can afford to read any criticisms which may come from across the water with as much calmness as American remarks are read here. Such men have no accusing conscience gnawing at their vitals. If the population of the two countries were fed upon Judge Douglas's venomous diet, ere long, like the Kilkenny cats, nothing but the tails would be left.
I have felt it imperative to make these remarks, that my countrymen may understand why they so constantly find the strongest symptoms of hostility to England in a certain class of American writers. Even in the text-books for children, you can detect the same animus working. Miss Willard, in her History of the United States, narrates that six Indian chiefs came to Colonel Washington, the grandfather of the founder of the Republic, to treat for peace. The treachery to, and cold-blooded murder of, these poor Indians she disposes of thus:—"He wrongfully put them to death." General Clinton's conduct, in the prosecution of his duties to his country, which never displayed any such revolting act, she describes as reviving in a civilized age "barbarous atrocities."—Take another instance of amiable sentiments towards England, as exhibited by the Common Council of New York, who voted 200l. to entertain John Mitchell, the convict who had escaped from custody. The Mayor addresses him in the following terms:—"When, sir, you were silenced by restraint, overpowered by brutal force, and foreign bayonets were employed on your own soil to suppress truth and to bind upon your limbs and mind the shackles of slavery, we sympathized with you in your adversity. We hated the tyrant and loved the victim. And when, sir, after the semblance of a trial, you were condemned and hurried as a felon from your home, your country, and your friends, to a distant land, we were filled with indignation, and pledged a deeper hatred towards the enemies of man."—Mr. Mitchell, in reply, confesses himself from earliest youth a traitor to his country, and honours the British Government with the following epithets: "I say to them that they are not a government at all, but a gang of conspirators, of robbers, of murderers." These sentiments were received by the multitude around with "great applause." Considering how many causes for exciting ill-will exist, the only wonder is that, when so large a portion of the Republicans are utterly ignorant of the truth as regards England, the feeling is not more hostile.
It is needless to assert, that the feelings of jealousy and animosity ascribed to England by Mr. Douglas, exist only in the disordered imagination of his own brain and of those of the deluded gulls who follow in his train: for I am proud to say no similar undignified and antagonistic elements are at work here; and, if any attempt were made to introduce them, the good sense of the country would unite with one voice to cry them down. I defy all the educated, ignorant, or rabid population of the Republic to bring forward any instance where, either in the celebration of any ceremony, the orations of any senator, or the meetings of any corporation, such unworthy and contemptible animosity towards the United States has ever been shadowed forth.
I must not, however, allow the reader to understand from the foregoing remark that there is an universal national antipathy to England; although, whenever she is brought into juxtaposition with the Republic, it may appear very strongly developed. The most erroneous impressions were at the time this was written, abroad among my countrymen, in respect of American sympathies with Russia. Filibusteros, rabid annexationists, inveterate Slaveholders, and Rowdies of every class, to which might have been added a few ignoble minds who made the grave of conscience a "stump" from which to pour forth Buncombe speeches to catch ephemeral popularity, constituted the body in America who sympathised with Russia. All the intelligence of the North, and a great portion of that of the South, felt the deepest interest in our success, not merely as descendants of the mother country, but also because they recognised the war in which we were engaged as a struggle in the cause of liberty. We could not suffer ourselves to be deceived by the Filibustero Press, nor by the accounts we read of vessels laden with arms carrying them to Russia. Those were no more proofs of the national feeling, than the building of slave-clippers every year at Baltimore is a proof that the nation wishes to encourage the slave-trade. The true feeling of a nation must be sought for far deeper than in the superficial clamour of political demagogues, backed though it be by the applause of gaping crowds whose worst passions are pandered to for the sake of a transient breath of popularity.