CHAPTER XXXI.
Olla Podrida.
The preceding observations lead naturally to a few observations upon American character in a national point of view; for in treating of so exceedingly varied a community, combining as it does nearly every nation of the Old World, it would be beyond the limits of a work like this to enter into details on so complicated a subject.
As I prefer commencing with the objectionable points, and winding up with the more favourable, I shall first name Vanity as a great national feature. The fulsome adulation with which the Press bespatters its readers, throughout the length and breadth of the Union, wherever any comparisons are drawn with other nations, is so great that the masses have become perfectly deluded; and being so far removed from the nations of the Old World, and knowing, consequently, nothing of them except through the columns of a vanity-feeding Press, they receive the most exaggerated statements as though they were Gospel truths—little aware how supremely ridiculous the vaunting which they read with delight makes them appear in the eyes of other people.
I insert the following extract from the Press, as one instance among many of the vain and ridiculous style of some of their editorial leaders. It is taken from the New York Herald—one of the most widely-circulated papers in the Union, but one which, I am bound in justice to say, is held in contempt[[CK]] by the more intelligent portion of the community. Speaking of Mrs. B. Stowe's reception in England, he says:—"She proves herself quite an American in her intercourse with the English aristocracy. Her self-possession, ease, and independence of manner were quite undisturbed in the presence of the proud duchesses and fraughty dames of the titled English nobility. They expected timidity and fear, and reverence for their titles, in an untitled person, and they found themselves disappointed. Mrs. Stowe felt herself their equal in social life, and acted among them as she felt. This, above all other things, has caused a great astonishment in the higher circles in favour of American women, for in fact it is a quality peculiarly distinguishing an American woman, that she can be and is a duchess among duchesses."
Even in the simple article of diplomatic dress we see the same feature peeping out. Vanity may be discovered as readily in singularity, however simple, as in the naked savage who struts about as proud as a peacock, with no covering but a gold-laced cocked hat on his head and a brass-mounted sword at his side. When civilized society agrees upon some distinctive uniform for diplomatic service, who can fail to observe the lurking vanity that dictated the abolition of it by the Republic?—not to mention the absurdity of wearing a sword in plain clothes. The only parallel it has among bipeds, that I know of, is a master-at-arms on board a ship, with a cane by his side; but then he carries a weapon which he is supposed to use. The Minister of the Republic carries a weapon for ornament only. In quadruped life, it reminds me of a poodle closely shaved all over, except a little tuft at the end of his tail, the sword and the tuft recalling to mind the fact that the respective possessors have been shorn of something.
Firmly convinced, from my earliest schoolboy days, of the intimate connexion which exists between boasting and bullying, I had long blushed to feel how pre-eminent my own country was in the ignoble practice; but a more intimate acquaintance with the United States has thoroughly satisfied me that that pre-eminence justly belongs to the great Republic. But it is not merely in national matters that this feeling exhibits itself; you observe it in ordinary life as well, by the intense love shown for titles; nobody is contented until he obtain some rank. I am aware this is a feature inseparable from democracy. Everybody you meet is Captain, Colonel, General, Honourable, Judge, or something; and if they cannot obtain it legitimately, they obtain it by courtesy, or sometimes facetiously, like a gentleman I have before alluded to, who obtained the rank of judge because he was a connoisseur in wine. In these, and a thousand other ways, the love of vanity stands nationally revealed.
I do not think Americans are aware what injustice they do themselves by this love of high-sounding titles.[[CL]] For instance, in a paper before me, I see a Deputy Sheriff calling on the mob to resist the law; I see Governor Bigler authorizing General King to call out the military, one naturally supposes to keep order; but observe he calls Mr. Walker, of Erie, a traitor and a scoundrel; of the directors and managers of the railroad, he says, "We will whip them, will whip them, will bury them so deep electricity can't reach them—we will whip them—we will whip the g—ts out of them!" &c.—Now, judging of these people by their titles, as recognised by the rest of the civilized world, what a disgrace to the higher classes of Americans is the foregoing! But anybody who really knows the title system of the Republic will at once see that the orator was a mere rowdy. Thus they suffer for their vanity. It pervades every class of the whole community, from the rowdy, who talks of "whipping creation," to the pulpit orator, who often heralds forth past success to feed the insatiable appetite: in short, it has become a national disease; and were it not for the safety-valve formed by the unmeasured terms of mutual vituperation they heap upon each other on occasions of domestic squabbles, their fate would assuredly be that of the frog in the fable.
In the medical world, it is said no one has a cold without fever; and I think it may with equal truth be asserted of the national world, no nations are vain without being afflicted with sensitiveness: at all events, it is true as regards the United States. No maiden in her teens is so ticklishly sensitive as the Americans. I do not refer merely to that portion of the community of which I have selected Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, as the type; I allude also to the far higher order of intelligence with which the Republic abounds. There is a touchiness about them all with respect to national and local questions which I never saw equalled: in fact, the few sheets of their Press which reach this country are alone sufficient to convince any one on that point; for in a free country the Press may always be fairly considered, to a certain extent, as the reflex of the public mind. I suppose it is with nations as with individuals, and that each are alike blind to their own failings. In no other way can I account for the Republic overlooking so entirely the sensitiveness of others. Take for instance the appointment of M. Soulé—a Frenchman naturalized in America—as minister to the court of Spain. I do not say that he was a Filibustero, but he was universally supposed to be identified with that party; and if he were not so identified, he showed a puerile ignorance of the requirements of a Minister, quite beyond conception, when he received a serenade of five thousand people at New York, who came in procession, bearing aloft the accompanying transparencies, he being at the time accredited to his new ministry.
On the first transparency was the following motto:—
On the second banner:—
On the third banner:—
Monumental representation—a tomb and a weeping willow. On the tomb were the words—
M. Soulé accepts the compliment, and makes a speech, in which he informs his audience that he cannot believe "that this mighty nation can be chained now within the narrow limits which fettered the young Republic of America," &c.
Change the scene, and let any American judge in the following supposed and parallel case. Imagine expeditions fitted out in England, in spite of Government, to free the slaves in the Southern States; imagine a Lopez termination to the affair, and the rowdy blood of England forming other Filibustero expeditions; then imagine the Hon. Mr. Tenderheart identifying himself with them, and receiving an appointment as minister to Washington; after which, imagine him serenaded at St. James's by thousands of people bearing transparencies, the first representing a naked woman under the slave-driver's lash; the second, containing some such verses as "The Antilles Flower," &c.; for instance:—
Let the minister accept the serenade, and address the multitude, declaring "that this mighty nation can no longer be chained down to passive interference," &c. Let me ask any American how the Hon. Mr. Tenderheart would be received at Washington, particularly if a few days after he took a shot at his French colleague because another person insulted him in that gentleman's house?—I ask, what would Americans say if such a line of conduct were to be pursued towards them? I might go further, and suppose that a conclave of English Ministers met at Quebec, and discussed the question as to how far the flourishing town of Buffalo, so close on the frontier, was calculated to endanger the peace and prosperity of Canada, and then imagine them winding up their report with this clause—If it be so—"then by every law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from its present owners." The American who penned that sentence must possess a copy of the Scriptures unknown to the rest of the world. Surely America must imagine she has the monopoly of all the sensitiveness in the world, or she would never have acted by Spain as she has done. How humiliated must she feel while contemplating the contrast between her act in appointing the minister, and Spain's demeanour in her silent and dignified reception of him!
This same sensitiveness peeps out in small things as well as great, especially where England is concerned: thus, one writer discovers that the Americans speak French better than the English; probably he infers it from having met a London Cit who had run over to Paris for a quiet Sunday, and who asked him "Moosyere, savvay voo oo ey lay Toolureeze?" Another discovers that American society is much more sought after than English; that Americans are more agreeable, more intelligent, more liberal, &c.; but the comparison is always with England or the English. And why all this? Simply because it feeds the morbid appetite of many Republican citizens, which the pure truth would not.
This sensitiveness also shows itself in the way they watch the opinions of their country expressed by The Times, or by any largely circulating paper. I remember an American colonel who had been through the whole Mexican war, saying to me one day, "I assure you the Mexican troops are the most contemptible soldiers in the world; I would rather a thousand to one face them than half the number of Camanche Indians."—The object of this remark was to show on what slight and insufficient grounds The Timeshad spoken of the United States as a great military nation since the Mexican war. An article giving them due credit for a successful campaign was easily magnified beyond its intended proportions, and my gallant friend was modestly disclaiming so high-sounding an appellation; but such evidently was the construction which he felt his countrymen had put upon it.
I turn now for a few moments to the question of Morals; and here, again, it is of course only in a wholesale manner I can treat of the subject. As far as my inquiries enable me to judge, I find the same elements producing the same results here as in England. Wherever masses are clustered together most largely, there vice runs as rampant as in England; nay, I have the authority of a lecture delivered at the Maryland Institute, for saying that it is even worse in many places. After describing various instances of lawless conduct, the lecturer continues thus: "Such lawlessness as I have described is not tolerated in any other part of the world, and would not be tolerated here for a moment, but for the criminal apathy of our citizens generally, and the truckling, on the part of our politicians and public officers, for the votes of the very men whom they know to be violating and trampling on the laws."—In illustration, he states, "In every part of Europe in which I have travelled,—in England, Holland, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy; under all the different systems of religion and forms of government; in the large cities, and the small towns and villages; in the highways and byways,—I found better public order, more decorum, where bodies of men were assembled together, and less tendency to rowdyism, pugilism, and violence, than there is in most parts of this country. In this general statement of the fact, all unprejudiced travellers will, I suppose concur."—Further on, he draws a comparison favourable to London; and, with regard to the Police in our metropolis, he says, "A more respectable and finer-looking body of men it would be difficult to find in any country. A stranger may apply to one for information, with a certainty of receiving a polite and intelligent answer," &c.—I only quote the last paragraph, in case Mr. Matt. Ward should see these pages, and that he may know how the Police behave towards those who know how to conduct themselves.[[CM]]
The lecturer goes on to complain of the depravity of youth. He then attacks the dispensation of the law, pointing out many instances of their mal-administration. He then proceeds to attack the fire companies; he admits their courage and daring, but points out at the same time their lawlessness. He says—speaking of Philadelphia—"Almost every company has its war-song, breathing the most barbarous and bloodthirsty sentiments towards some rival association, and describing the glory of the fireman to the destruction of his enemy's apparatus, or worse yet, his life."—He gives the following list of the terrific names of the companies: "Hornets, Snappers, Blood-reds, Bed-bugs, Rock-boys, Buffaloes, Skimmers, Scrougers, Revengers, Knockers, Black-hawks, Pirate-boys, Kill-devils." After which he gives the following specimen, of their songs, written by a "Bluffer and Red-devil:"—
He subsequently points out the evils of allowing political passions to guide citizens in the selection of officers, and declares, "that persons are elected to, and now fill, important offices in Baltimore, to whom no responsible trust in private life would be confided by the very men who voted for them."[[CN]] With regard to the actual commission of crime, and the due punishment of the offenders, he draws the following comparison between London and Baltimore: "The population of the former is 13 times greater than that of the latter; but the number of arrests is as 1 to 7,—in other words, the commission of crime, in proportion to numbers, was 46 per cent. greater than in London. Then, to show the inefficiency of the law, he proceeds to state, that the commitments for trial were only 29 per cent. greater, and that, even of those committed, many escaped just punishment. Of course, the large cities in America are the only places in which any comparison can be made with this country; but, while doing so, the tide of emigration, which helps to fill up their numbers, must not be lost sight of, or we should judge them unfairly.
With regard to the masses that are spread over the length and breadth of the land, I certainly have never seen nor heard anything that need make England ashamed of the comparison. It would not be equitable to judge by mere numbers,—you must also bring into the balance the comparative state of affluence and independence of the respective parties; for who can doubt that distress is one of the great causes of crime? Even in the wealthy State of New York, I find an account of the following outrage, committed upon a Mr. Lawrence, when serving a summons upon his aggressor, Mr. Deitz: "He found Mr. Deitz near the house, and handed him the papers. Deitz took them and read them, when he threw them on the ground,—seized Lawrence by the throat, calling him a d----d scoundrel, for coming to serve papers on him. He then called to his family to blow a horn, when a man, named Hollenbeck, who was at work for Deitz as a mason, interceded for Lawrence, who managed to get away, and started off on a run. Deitz followed in pursuit, knocked Lawrence down, and held him until four men in disguise made their appearance. They then tied his hands behind him, and took him to a small piece of bush near by,—then tore off his coat, vest, and cravat, and with a jack-knife cut off his hair, occasionally cutting his scalp,—and, remarking that they had a plaster that would heal it up, they tarred his head and body, and poured tar into his boots. After exhausting all their ingenuity this way, each cut a stick, and whipped him until they got tired. They then tied his hands before him, and started him for the house, each of them kicking him at every step. They made him take the papers back, but took them away again;—when, after knocking him down again, they left him, and he succeeded in reaching the residence of George Beckers last evening. His legs, hands, arms, and face are badly bruised."—If we travel West and South, we shall doubtless find that morality is far more lax than in England; but what can you expect where gentlemen, even senators for States, go out to fight bloody duels with rifles at twenty paces, while crowds of spectators are looking on?
Where the Americans have the advantage over our population is, first and foremost, in possessing a boundless extent of territory which gives a rich return for comparatively little labour, and where, if labour is wanted, the scarcity of the article insures its commanding a high price. Compare England for one moment with two of the oldest American States, and therefore the most thickly populated:—
Square Miles. Inhabitants.
England contains 50,000 17,923,000
New York " 46,000 3,097,000
Pennsylvania " 46,000 2,311,786
We here see, that if we take the most populous States in the Union, the proportion is nearly 6 to 1 in favour of America; but, if we mass the whole, we shall find—
Square Miles. Inhabitants.
Great Britain and Ireland contain 120,000 27,400,000
United States 3,500,000 23,192,000
This would bring the proportion of population to extent of territory, in rough numbers:—
Great Britain and Ireland 228 inhabitants to the square mile.
United States 7 " " "
In other words, Great Britain is 32 times as thickly populated as the Republic. If these facts are borne in mind, I confess that the commission of crime in Great Britain appears to me proportionally far smaller than in the States, notwithstanding all the advantages of the free and liberal education which is within their reach.
I cannot but think that the general system of training youth in the Republic has a most prejudicial effect, in many instances, on their after-life. In their noble zeal for the education of the brain, they appear to me to lose sight almost entirely of the necessity of disciplining the mind to that obedience to authority, which lays the foundation of self-control and respect for the laws of the land. Nationally speaking, there is scarcely such a thing as a lad in the whole Union. A boy in the States hardly gets over the novelty of that portion of his dress which marks the difference of sex, ere his motto is: "I don't care; I shall do what I best please:" in short, he is made a man before he ceases to be a boy; he consequently becomes unable to exercise that restraint which better discipline might have taught him, and the acts of his after-life are thus more likely to be influenced by passion and self-will than by reason or reflection. I find in the lecture from which I have already quoted, the following paragraph, which, as I consider it illustrative of my last observation, I insert at length.
I now pass on to the question of Liberty in the United States. If by liberty be understood the will of the greater number ruling the State or regulating its laws, certainly they have more liberty than England; but if by liberty be understood that balance of power and adaptation of the laws to the various interests of the whole community, combined with the due execution, of them against offenders of whatever class, then I consider that there is unquestionably more liberty in England, in spite of the restrictions by which the franchise is limited—nay, rather I should say, in consequence of those very restrictions; for I believe they tend to secure the services of more liberal, high-minded, and independent representatives than any country—however highly educated its population may be—would return under a system of universal suffrage. I do not intend to convey in the foregoing observation, any opinion as to how far it is desirable, or otherwise, to modify the restrictions at present existing in England; it is obvious they should keep pace with the growing intelligence of the community, inasmuch as, if they do not, popular agitation is readily excited, and violent changes are forced by ignorant passion, going far beyond those which educated prudence and a sense of justice ought to have brought forward.—Prevention is better than cure.
Mr. Everett, in a letter dated July 25, 1853, after observing that it has long been the boast of England that she is the great city of refuge for the rest of Europe, adds, "it is the prouder boast of the United States, that they are, and ever have been, an asylum for the rest of the world, including Great Britain herself:" he then goes on to say, "no citizen has ever been driven into banishment."—This is bravely said by an able son of the "Land of Liberty;" but when he penned it, he appears to have forgotten that there are upwards of three millions of his own fellow-creatures held in the galling shackles of hopeless slavery by the citizens of that land of which he makes so proud a boast; and that from one to two thousand of the wretched victims escape annually to the British colony adjoining, which is their sole city of refuge on the whole North American continent. Doubtless Mr. Everett's countrymen do not sufficiently know this startling point of difference, or they would hesitate in accepting such a boast. So ignorant are some of his countrymen of the real truth as regards the citizens of Great Britain, that a friend of mine was asked by a well-educated and otherwise intelligent son of the Republic, "Is it really true that all the land in England belongs to the Queen?"
While on the subject of liberty, it is well to observe one or two curious ways in which it may be said to be controlled in America. If any gentleman wished to set up a marked livery for his servants, he could not do so without being the subject of animadversions in the rowdy Press, styling him a would-be aristocrat. But perhaps the most extraordinary vagary is the Yankee notion that service is degrading; the consequence of which is that you very rarely see a Yankee servant; and if by chance you find one on a farm, he insists on living and eating with the overseer. So jealous are they of the appearance of service, that on many of the railways there was considerable difficulty in getting the guard, or conductor, to wear a riband on his hat designating his office, and none of the people attached to the railway station will put on any livery or uniform by which they can be known. I wonder if it ever occurs to these sons of the Republic, that in thus acting they are striking at the very root of their vaunted equal rights of man, and spreading a broader base of aristocracy than even the Old World can produce. Servants, of course, there must be in every community, and it is ridiculous to suppose that American gentlemen ever did, or ever will, live with their housemaids, cooks, and button-boys; and if this be so, and that Americans consider such service as degrading, is it not perfectly clear that the sons of the soil set themselves up as nobles, and look upon the emigrants—on whom the duties of service chiefly devolve—in the light of serfs?
I may, while discussing service, as well touch upon the subject of strikes. The Press in America is very ready to pass strictures on the low rate of wages in this country, such as the three-ha'penny shirt-makers, and a host of other ill-paid and hard-worked poor. Every humane man must regret to see the pressure of competition producing such disgraceful results; but my American friends, if they look carefully into their own country, will see that they act in precisely the same way, as far as they are able; in short, that they get labour as cheap as they can. Fortunately for the poor emigrant, the want of hands is so great, that they can insure a decent remuneration for their work; but the proof that the Anglo-Saxon in America is no better than the rest of the world in this respect, is to be found in the fact that strikes for higher wages also take place among them. I remember once reading in the same paper of the strike of three different interests; one of which was that indispensable body, the hotel-waiters. The negroes even joined with the whites, and they gained their point; they knew the true theory of strikes, and made their move "when the market was rising." The hotels were increasing their charges, and they merely wanted their share of the prosperity.
I now propose to consider one of the brightest features in the national character—Intelligence. Irresistible testimony is borne to their appreciation of the value of education, not merely by the multitudes of schools of all kinds, and by the numbers that attend them, but also by that arrangement of which they may be so justly proud, and which opens the door to every branch of study to their poorest citizens free of expense. No praise is too high for such a noble national institution as the school system of the Republic. How far it may be advisable to bring all the various classes of the community together at that early age when habits which affect after-life are so readily acquired, is another question. Though the roughness of the many may derive advantage from contact with the polish of the few, it appears to me more than probable that the polish of the few will be influenced far more considerably by the roughness of the many. I cannot, therefore, but imagine that the universal admixture of all classes of society in early infancy must operate prejudicially to that advancement in the refinements of civilization which tends to give a superior tone to the society of every country. It must not, however, be imagined that the intelligence obtained at these schools is confined to those subjects which are requisite for making dollars and cents. People of this country, judging of the Republicans by the general accounts given of them through the Press, can have little idea of the extent to which the old standard works of the mother-country are read; but there is an intelligent portion of our own nation to be found among the booksellers, who can enlighten them on this point. I have been told by several of them, not only that old editions of our best authors are rapidly being bought up by citizens of the United States, but that in making their purchases they exhibit an intimate acquaintance with them far greater than they find generally among Englishmen, and which proves how thoroughly they are appreciated by them.
Then again, with reference to their own country; it is impossible for any one to travel among them without being struck with the universal intelligence they possess as to its constitution, its politics, its laws, and all general subjects connected with its prosperity or its requirements; and if they do not always convey their information in the most classical language, at all events they convey it in clear and unmistakeable terms. The Constitution of their country is regularly taught at their schools; and doubtless it is owing to this early insight into the latent springs by which the machinery of Government is worked, that their future appetite for more minute details becomes whetted. I question very much if every boy, on leaving a high school in the United States, does not know far more of the institutions of his country than nine-tenths of the members of the British House of Commons do of theirs. At the same time it should not be forgotten, that the complications which have grown up with a nationality of centuries render the study far more difficult in this country, than it possibly can, be in the giant Republic of yesterday. And in the same way taxation in England, of which 30,000,000l. is due as interest on debt before the State receives one farthing for its disbursements, is one of the most intricate questions to be understood even by enlarged minds; whereas in the United States, scarcely any taxation exists, and the little that does, creates a surplus revenue which they often appear at a loss to know how to get rid of.
Doubtless, the intelligence of the community sometimes exhibits itself in a 'cuteness which I am not prepared to defend. A clear apprehension of their immediate material interests has produced repudiation of legitimate obligations; but those days are, nationally speaking, I hope, gone by, and many of their merchants stand as high in the estimation of the commercial world as it is possible to desire. At the same time, it is equally true that the spirit of commercial gambling has risen to a point in the States far above what it ever has in this country,—except, perhaps, during the Railway epidemic; and the number of failures is lamentably great.
With their intelligence they combine an enterprise that knows no national parallel. This quality, aided by their law of limited liability, has doubtless tended to urge forward many works and schemes from which the Union is deriving, and has derived, great wealth and advantage; at the same time it has opened the door for the unscrupulous and the shrewd to come in and play high stakes with small capital—in playing which reckless game, while some become millionaires others become bankrupts. This latter state is a matter of comparative unimportance in a country like the Republic, where the field is so great, and a livelihood easily attainable until some opening occurs, when they are as ready to rush into it again as if they had been foaled at Niagara, and had sucked in the impetuosity of its cataract.
There is one shape that their enterprise takes which it would indeed be well for us to imitate, and that is early rising. I quite blush for my country when I think what a "Castle of Indolence" we are in that respect, especially those who have not the slightest excuse for it. On what principle the classes of society in England who are masters of their own time, turn night into day, waste millions yearly in oil and wax, and sleep away the most fresh and healthy hours of the morning, for no other visible purpose but to enable themselves to pass the night in the most stuffy and unhealthy atmosphere, is beyond my comprehension. One thing is certain: it has a tendency to enervate both body and mind, and were it not for the revivifying effects produced by a winter residence in the country, where gentlemen take to field sports, and ladies to razeed dresses, sensible shoes, and constitutional walks, the mortality among our "upper ten thousand" would, I believe, be frightful. In America, the "boys" get up so early, that it is said they frequently "catch the birds by their tails as they are going to roost;" and it is no doubt owing to this that they are so 'cute. Talk about "catching a weasel asleep," let me see any of my metropolitan drone friends who can catch a Yankee boy asleep!
It is not, however, merely to early rising that they owe their 'cuteness. A total absence of idleness, and the fact of being constantly thrown on their own resources in cases of minor difficulty, aid materially in sharpening their wits. You may see these latter influences operating in the difference between soldiers and sailors, when placed in situations where they have to shift for themselves. Some of their anecdotes bearing upon 'cuteness are amusing enough. I will give one as an illustration.—Owing to some unknown cause, there was a great dearth of eggs in one of the New England States, and they consequently rose considerably in price. It immediately occurred to a farmer's wife, that, if she could in any way increase the produce of her hens, it would be a source of great gain to her; she accordingly fitted the bottom of each laying hen's bed with a spring, and fixed a basin underneath, capable of holding two eggs. In due time, the hens laid; but as each hen, after laying, missed the warmth of the precious deposit, she got up to look if it was all right. To her astonishment, no egg was to be seen. "Bless my soul!" says the hen, "well, I declare I thought I had laid an egg. I suppose I must be mistaken;" and down she went to fulfil her duties again. Once more she rose to verify her success. No egg was there. "Well, I vow," quoth Mrs. Hen, "they must be playing me some trick: I'll have one more shot, and, if I don't succeed, I shall give it up." Again she returned to her labours, and the two eggs that had passed into the basin below supporting the base of her bed, success crowned her efforts, and she exclaimed, "Well, I have done it this time at all events!" The 'cute wife kept her counsel, and said nothing, either to the hens or to her neighbours, and thus realized a comfortable little bag of dollars.—I give the anecdote as narrated to me, and I must confess I never saw the operation, or heard the remarks of the outwitted hens. I insert it lest in these days of agricultural distress (?) any farmer's wife be disposed to make a trial of a similar experiment.[[CO]]
I proceed to consider the energy of the Republicans, a quality in which they may challenge comparison with the world. No enterprise is too great for them to undertake, and no hardship too severe for them to endure. A Yankee will start off with his household gods, and seek a new home in the wilderness, with less fuss than a Cockney would make about packing up a basket of grub to go and pic-nic in Richmond Park. It is the spirit of adventure that has enabled them to cover a whole continent in the incredible manner which the map of the United States shows. The great drawback to this phase of their energy is the total absence it exhibits of those ties of home to which we so fondly cling in the old country. If we were a nation of Yankees, I feel persuaded that in five years we should not have ten millions of inhabitants. No Yankee can exist without elbow-room, except it be the more degraded and rowdy portion of the community, who find a more congenial atmosphere in those sinks of vice inseparable from large towns. This migratory spirit has caused them to exhibit their energy and enterprise in those countless miles of rail and telegraph, which bring the citizens of the most distant States into easy communication with Washington and the Eastern cities. The difficulty of procuring labour is no doubt one cause of the very inefficient way in which many of these works are performed; and it also disables them for executing gigantic works with the speed and certainty that such operations are completed in England. The miniature Crystal Palace at New York afforded a convincing proof of what I have stated; for although it was little more than a quarter of the size of the one in Hyde Park, they were utterly foiled in their endeavours to prepare it in time. In revenge for that failure, the Press tried to console the natives by enlarging on the superior attraction of hippodromes, ice-saloons, and penny shows, with which it was surrounded, and contrasting them with the "gloomy grandeur" of the palace in London. Gloomy grandeur is, I suppose, the Yankee way of expressing the finest park in any city in the world.
Among other remarks on Americans, I have heard many of my countrymen say, "Look how they run after lords!"—It is quite true; a live lord is a comparative novelty, and they run after him in the same way as people in England run after an Indian prince, or any pretentious Oriental: it is an Anglo-Saxon mania. Not very long ago, a friend of mine found a Syrian swaggering about town, fêted everywhere, as though he were the greatest man of the day; and who should the Syrian nabob turn out to be, but a man he had employed as a servant in the East, and whom he had been obliged to get bastinadoed for petty theft. In England we run after we know not whom; in America, if a lord be run after, there is at all events a strong presumption in favour of his being at least a gentleman. We toady our Indian swells, and they toady their English swells; and I trust, for our sake, that in so doing they have a decided advantage over us.
I have also heard some of my countrymen observe, as to their hospitality, "Oh! it's very well; but if you went there as often as I do, you would see how soon their hospitality wears off." Who on earth ever heard such an unreasonable remark! Because a man, in the fulness of hospitality, dedicates his time, his money, and his convenience to welcome a stranger, of whose character and of whose sociability he knows nothing whatever, is he therefore bound to be saddled with that acquaintance as often as the traveller chooses to visit the American Continent? Is not the very idea preposterous? No man in the world is more ready to welcome the stranger than the American; but if the stranger revisit the same places, the courtesy and hospitality he receives must, in justice, depend upon the impression which his company has left on those upon whom he inflicted it. No doubt the scanty number of travellers enables Americans to exercise more universal hospitality than they could do if the country were filled with strangers in the same way as Great Britain is. The increased travelling of late years has necessarily made a marked difference on that point among ourselves, and doubtless it may hereafter act upon the United States; but the man who does not admit hospitality to be a most distinctive feature of the Republic, at the present time, must indeed be rotten in the brain or the heart.
With regard to the political character of the Union, it is very much in the same state as that of England. The two original parties were Whig and Democrat, the former being synonymous with the Tory party in this country—i.e., an honest body of men, who, in their earnest endeavours to keep the coach straight, put the drag on so often that the horses get restive sometimes, and start off at score when they feel the wheel clogged. The Democrats are more nearly represented by a compound of Whig and Radical—i.e., a body of men who, in their energetic exertions to make the coach go, don't trouble themselves much about the road, and look upon the drag as a piece of antiquated humbug. Sometimes this carelessness also leads to the team-bolting; but in the States there is so much open country that they may run away for miles without an upset; whereas in England, when this difficulty occurs, the ribands are generally handed over to the Jarvey of the opposite party. This old state of affairs is entirely changed in both hemispheres; each party is more or less broken up, and in neither country is there at present any distinct body sufficiently numerous to form a strong government.
In consequence of these disruptions, it may be imagined how difficult it would be to give any accurate description of the different pieces of crockery that constitute the political "service." Formerly, the two cries of "Protection to Home Manufacture" and "Free Trade" were the distinct rallying points. At present there are Slaveholders, Slavery Extension, Free-soil, Abolitionist, Annexationist, and Heaven alone knows how many more parties, on the question of Slavery alone, into which the Democratic or dominant party is divided, independent of those other general political divisions which must necessarily exist in so large and varied a community. From the foregoing you will observe that, to say a man is a Democrat conveys no distinct idea of his politics except that he is not a Whig; and the Whigs also have their divisions on the Slave question.
But there is a party lately come into the field, and called the Know-nothings, which requires a special notice. Their ostensible principles have been published in the leading journals of this country, and carry a certain degree of reason upon the face of them, the leading features being that they are a secret society banded together for the purpose of opposing the priestly influence of the Humanists in political matters: for prolonging the period requisite to obtain the rights of citizenship; and for the support of the native-born American in opposition to all other candidates for any public situation that may be contested. Such is the substance of their manifesto. Their opponents say that they are sheer humbugs, and brought into life by a few old political hacks for their own selfish ends. Owing to the factions in the old Whig and Democratic parties, their opponents believe they may succeed for a year or two, but they prophesy their speedy and total disruption. Time will show—I am no prophet. There is one point in their charter, however, that I cannot believe will ever succeed—viz., naturalization or citizenship. Congress would be loth to pass any law that might tend to turn the stream of emigration into another channel, such as Australia or Canada; and individual States would be equally loth to pass such a local law for the same reason, inasmuch as if they did, the emigrants would move on to those States where they obtained most speedily the rights of citizens. The crusade against the Romanists is also so opposed to the spirit of a constitution which professes the principle of the equal rights of man, that it is more than probable they may ere long divide upon the unsolvable question of how to draw the line of demarcation between the influence of the priest and the opinion of his flock. As far, therefore, as I am capable of judging, I do not believe they have a sufficiently broad and distinct basis to stand upon, and I think also that the fact of their being a secret society will rather hasten their end than otherwise.
The last point I shall allude to is the future prospects of the Republic; a question which doubtless is veiled in much obscurity. The black cloud of the South hangs perpetually over their heads, ever from time to time threatening to burst upon them. In the Free States many feel strongly the degradation of being forced to aid in the capture of the fugitive slave; and the aversion to the repulsive task is increasing rather than decreasing. The citizens have on many occasions risen in masses against those who were executing the law, and the military have been brought into collision with them in defending the authorities. The dread of breaking up the Union alone prevents that clause being struck out from the Constitution, by which they are compelled not merely to restore but to hunt up the fugitive. The "Freesoilers" also feel indignant at seeing their nation turning virgin soil into a land of Slavery; the Nebraska Bill has strengthened that feeling considerably. The Abolitionists are subject to constant fits of rabidity which increase intensity with each successive attack. Thousands and thousands of Northerns, who writhe under the feeling that their star-spangled banner is crossed with the stripes of the slave, turn back to the history of their country, and recalling to mind the glorious deeds that their ancestors have accomplished under that flag, their hearts respond—"The Union for ever!"
But perhaps the strongest feeling in the Republic which tends to keep things quiet, is that the intelligence of the community of the North, who are opposed both to slavery and to the fugitive law, foresee that if those objects are only to be obtained at the price of separation from the South, greater evils would probably accrue than those they are anxious to remove. However peaceably a separation might be made in appearance, it could never take place without the most bitter feelings of animosity. Junius describes the intensity of the feeling, by saying, "He hated me as much as if he had once been my friend;" and so it would assuredly prove. Squabbles would breed quarrels, and quarrels would grow into wars; the comparative harmony of a continent would be broken up, and standing armies and fleets become as necessary in the New World as they unfortunately are in the Old. If the South are determined to perpetuate Slavery, the only way it will ever cease to stain the Union is by the force of public opinion, and by the immigration of the white man gradually driving the negro southwards from State to State. As his value decreases, breeding for the market will gradually cease; and he may eventually die out if the millennium does not interfere with the process.
Another, possible cause for division in the Union may come from California, in which State a feeble cry has already been heard of—"a Western Republic." The facility of intercourse afforded by railroads seems likely to stop the swelling of that cry; but if California did separate, it would not be attended with those evils which a disruption of the Southern States would inevitably produce. The only other chance of a division in the Republic which I can conceive possible is, in the event of a long war with any great maritime power, for ends which only affected one particular portion of the States; in which case the irresistible influence of the all mighty dollar might come into powerful action. The wealth of America is her commerce; whatever checks that, checks the pulsations of her vitality; and unless her honour was thoroughly compromised in the struggle, neither North nor South would be disposed to prolong a ruinous struggle for the sole benefit of the other. The prospects of such a contingency may, I trust, be deemed visionary. France is not likely to come in contact with the Union; and the only other maritime nation is Great Britain, whose interests are so identified with peace, that it is hardly possible she should encourage any other than the most friendly relations. Neither party could gain anything by a war, and both parties would inevitably suffer immensely; and although I fear there is but too strong evidence, that many ignoble minds in the Republic make blustering speeches, and strive to excite hostile feelings, the real intelligence and wealth of the States repudiate the unworthy sentiment, and deprecate any acts that could possibly lead to a collision between the two countries. Besides all which, there is that strong affinity between £. s. d. and dollars and cents, whereby so strong an influence is exercised over that commercial body which constitutes no unimportant portion of the wealth and intelligence of both nations.
If the views I have taken be correct, it is indeed impossible to foreshadow the future of the United States; centuries must elapse ere it can become sufficiently peopled to test the adaptation of its present form of government to a thickly populated country; in the meantime, there seems scarcely a limit to her increase in wealth and prosperity. Her present gigantic stride among the nations of the world appears but an invisible atom, if compared with the boundless resources she encircles within her borders, not the least important of which is that mass of energy and intelligence she is, year by year, sowing broadcast throughout the length and breadth of the land, the Church and the School ever following in the train, and reproducing those elements to which she owes her present proud position.
My task is now done. I have endeavoured, in the preceding pages, to convey some general idea of the places I visited, and of the objects which appeared to me most worthy of notice. I have touched but lightly on Cuba, and I have not dwelt at any great length on the prosperous and rising colony of Canada. My remarks have been chiefly on the United States, which, differing in so many points from, the country of her birth, and occupying so conspicuous a place among the nations, presented the most extended field for observation and comment. I have on all occasions stated plainly the impressions produced upon my mind. I have freely remarked upon all those topics which, being public, I conceive to be the legitimate field for a traveller's criticism; where I have praised, or where I have condemned, I have equally endeavoured to explain my reasons. I have called attention to facts and opinions connected with my own country, where I thought similar points in the Republic might help to throw light upon them. Lastly, I have endeavoured to explain the various causes by which hostile feelings towards this country are engendered and spread abroad among a certain portion of the community; and I have stated my firm conviction, that the majority of the highest order of intelligence and character entertain a sincere desire to perpetuate our present friendly relations.
In conclusion, I would observe, that the opinions and feelings of a nation should not be hastily drawn from the writings of a passing traveller, or from the casual leaders of a Free Press. Man is ever prone to find fault with his neighbour, because the so doing involves a latent claim to superior intelligence in himself; but a man may condemn many things in a nation, while holding the nation itself in high esteem. The world is a large society,—a traveller is but one of the company, who converses through the Press; and as, in the smaller circles, conversation would die or freeze if nothing were stated but what could be mathematically proved, so would volumes of travels come to an untimely end, if they never passed beyond the dull boundary of facts. In both cases, opinions are the life of conversation; because, as no two people agree, they provoke discussion, through the openings of which, as truth oozes out, wise men catch it, leaving the refuse to the unreflecting.
The late Lord Holland, who was equally remarkable for his kindness and his intelligence, is said to have observed, "I never met a man so great a fool, but what I could learn something from him." Reader, I am bound to confess his Lordship never met me; but I cannot take my leave without expressing a hope, that you will not be less fortunate than that amiable Peer.
And now, farewell, thou Giant Republic! I have long since left thy shores; but I have brought with me, and fondly cherish, the recollection of the many pleasant days I spent within thy borders, and of all those friends whose unceasing hospitality and kindness tracked my path without intermission. I care not for the Filibusteros and Russian sympathizers; I know that the heart of the intelligence of thy people beats with friendly pulsations, to which that of my own countrymen readily responds. All we should, and I trust all we do, mutually desire, is, to encourage an honourable and increasing rivalry in arts, science, commerce, and good-will. He who would disturb our amicable relations, be he Briton or American, is unworthy of the name of a man; for he is a foe to Liberty—Humanity—and Christianity.
FOOTNOTES:
The New York Herald is edited by two renegade British subjects, one of whom was, I am told, formerly a writer in a scurrilous publication in this country.
It has been cited as an example of their fondness for grand-sounding titles, that while, by the Census of Great Britain, there were only 2,328 physicians to 15,163 surgeons, in the United States there were 40,564 physicians to only 191 surgeons.
Vide chapter entitled "America's Press and England's Censor."
One of the few cases in which perhaps there is an advantage in the masses voting, is where a question of public advantage is brought forward, to which many and powerful local interests or monopolies are opposed. Take, for instance, the supply of London with good water, which the most utter dunderhead must admit to be most desirable; yet the influence of vested interests is so strong that its two millions of inhabitants seem destined to be poisoned for centuries, and the lanes and courts will, in all probability, continue as arid as the desert during the same period.—London, look at New York and blush!
While on the subject of eggs, I would ask my reader, did you ever, while eating the said article, find your patience sorely tried as each mouthful was being taken from its shell, and dipped carefully into the salt? If you have ever felt the inconvenience of this tedious process, let me suggest to you a simple remedy. After opening the egg, and taking out one spoonful, put in enough salt for the whole, and then on the top thereof pour a few drops of water; the saline liquid will pervade the whole nutritious substance, and thus render unnecessary those annoying transits above named, which make an egg as great a nuisance at the breakfast-table as a bore in society. Who first took out a patent for this dodge I cannot say, but I suppose it must have been a New Englander.