"The education of the people in true politics, it seemed to Mr. Dugdale and his associates, would not only greatly aid popular judgment on political questions, but would be a necessary preliminary to the election of public representatives and officers upon real issues. If elections were so held, successful candidates would come generally to be men competent to consider and expert in dealing with questions of state and administration. And if legislators and executives were so competent and expert, and were not merely men accomplished in intrigue or active in party contests, we should have from them conscientious and intelligent social reforms. Legislative committees, governors, mayors, commissioners of charities and corrections, superintendents of prisons, reformatories, almshouses, and hospitals, would then patiently listen and intelligently act upon discussions and of the condition of the extremely poor and the vicious, and especially of children and young men and women not yet hopelessly hardened."
Few persons will deny that such a work as this needs everywhere to be done so that the charities of the country shall no longer be administered in the interests of a party.
The Society has been in active operation about four years, and its success has thus far been most gratifying. It has already induced hundreds of people to make a careful study of American history and politics, and its influence is now felt throughout the length and breadth of this land. The very fact of such an effort is one of the encouraging signs of the times, and should be encouraged by all who aim for the welfare of the Republic.
But there is still another open field for work in this direction, and this perhaps lies more in the power of the people themselves. We allude to the necessity of public lectures, in every community, on the great themes pertaining to American politics and history. It must be evident to every observer that our so-called "Lyceum Courses" are to-day sadly deficient in efforts to educate the people. There is a perfect craze at the present time for concerts, readings, and a similar order of entertainments,—all of which are doubtless good enough of their kind and are capable of exerting a certain moral influence that cannot be questioned. But is it plausible that such pabulum meets all the needs of those people who frequent these entertainments? If it does, the fault lies with the people and not with those who are capable of amusing them.
We would suggest to the public-spirited ladies and gentlemen living in our towns and cities to try the following experiment;—Plan a lecture course, to be filled by public speakers residing in your own communities. Establish a course of say four, six, eight, or a dozen evenings, and let only those questions be discussed which pertain to history, political economy, and politics. We venture the assertion that such a course, conducted thoroughly in an unpartisan spirit, would be well patronized, and would exert an influence for good. Never was there a better time to try the experiment than now.
The death of General George B. McClellan at Newark, N.J., October 29, reminds us how narrow is becoming the circle of living generals who took part in the great Civil War. It is two decades only since the struggle ceased; but, one by one, the famous leaders have passed away, and now McClellan has gone—the first to follow his great commander, Grant.
It is not easy to comment upon the career of General McClellan without evoking, either from his admirers or his censors, the criticism of being unfair. To many, especially to the soldiers who fought under his leadership, he became an ideal of soldierly virtue, and has always held a warm place in their hearts; while to many others his military and civil career alike have seemed worthy only of disapprobation.
It was natural that General McClellan should have a large and devoted following, for he was a man gifted with those personal qualities that always win popularity to their possessor, so that among the soldiers of the Army of the Potomac, and among those in civil life with whom he came in contact, he was usually regarded with admiration. As a military commander, it must be conceded by his most determined critics, even, that he possessed certain qualities unsurpassed by those of any other general in the war. This was true of his ability as an organizer of volunteer troups, in which capacity he probably rendered more effectual service than any other man in the Union army. He was also well versed in the science of war, and was a strategist of a higher order than has generally been conceded. As is often the case, he failed to receive just recognition of his really great abilities, because he lacked the needed complementary qualities. McClellan could admirably plan a campaign, and could perhaps have carried it to a brilliant issue, had all the circumstances conformed to his plan, but this not happening, he seemed unable to adapt his plan to the circumstances. Other generals with inferior plans would succeed by taking some sudden advantage at a critical time; McClellan on the contrary must either carry out his carefully arranged programme, or acknowledge himself foiled.