He had also his faults, and they are related with impartiality: a mistrustful character, unamiable manners, and an unpleasant temper, of which his officers often complained. Nevertheless, General Rochambeau remains on the whole a fine specimen of the old army.
We meet many allusions, also, to La Fayette:
"On that day, (September 17th, 1781, a short time before the taking of Yorktown,) and the following days, I was constantly with M. de La Fayette, who wished to assist me in the provisioning of the troops. It would be difficult to find more clearness, patience, and honesty in the discussion of business matters. He reminded me of Scipio Africanus in Spain, equally young and modest, and with the reputation already of an able general; for his recent campaign, in which, with inferior forces, he maintained himself against Cornwallis, has brought him much glory, and justly."
If America and the Americans of the war of independence constitute the chief interest of this journal, whatever relates to the organization of our troops at that time, as well as to their spirit and military customs, is not the less deserving of attention.
In this "memento" of an expeditionary army corps, there naturally appear, in the course of the recital, the shortcomings of the past, and in contrast the progress since made—for instance, in the materiel and weapons of war. It was necessary, at that time, to erect the baking-houses in the neighborhood of the encampments; and when the army advanced, men were sent to establish them ahead. But they did not march very rapidly in those days.
There was a certain want of discipline among our soldiers, and a carelessness on this point in the officers, which shock our modern ideas; and yet the army corps of General Rochambeau, which was composed of picked troops, was cited for its exemplary conduct at that period. The Marquis de Custine,[301] then colonel of a regiment, having allowed himself, in a fit of passion, to make use of intemperate language toward one of his officers, the latter committed suicide. The news spread at the moment of parade, when M. de Custine was hooted, insulted, and his life threatened by his soldiers. "Unless some officers had interfered, worse would have happened to him," says M. Blanchard. It does not appear that any punishment was inflicted for this serious insubordination. It would seem as if a disturbance of this kind did not cause much uneasiness to the commander-in-chief.
The distinctions between the officers were less marked than at present. The military spirit was not then what it has since become, and, in truth, war was a less serious matter at that time than it is now.
We might mention, also, the punishments of the past, and thus mark the changes that have since been made. A French soldier struck an officer with his sword. He attempted to kill himself afterward, but was taken, tried, and condemned to death. What kind of death? His hand was cut off, and he was then hanged. Some years have elapsed since 1789!
These soldiers of Rochambeau are of our race and blood. They are our great-grandfathers. Nevertheless, how widely the French army of that period, which is so near and so far at the same time, differs from our present army in its esprit, its conduct, and its habits!
We said in the beginning that the history of the French intervention had not been written by any contemporary historian. If one were to appear to-day who would treat fully this subject, hitherto so much neglected, we should have lost nothing by the delay. Indeed, after nearly a century of the greatest changes, the moment would doubtless be excellent to treat this important episode of our military and political history, and compose a work based on authentic documents, which would have at each step the interest of thrilling contrasts. The author would draw a parallel between the military organization of the expedition of 1781 and of one of the present day of equal importance. The means of action, the expenses, and the general way of doing things, the improvements of every kind, would be compared, and give rise to curious and useful observations. But above all, we would see in this retrospective view the dawning of a nation which has since developed to a degree which has no parallel, when we consider the shortness of the time. A century has not yet elapsed, and these three millions of rebellious English colonists have become the forty millions of Americans who hold so important a place in the world of to-day. Finally, the author would endeavor to depict the extraordinary part assigned to this nation toward whose foundation we contributed, and of which we might be truly called the god-parents. He would show its tendencies, its work, its future. Has not, in fact, the birth of the United States, even to the dullest mind, become an historical fact of equal importance with the French Revolution? In an important document of recent date, (the diplomatic circular of M. de La Valette, of September 16th, 1866,) appear the following words, which deserve attention: