Yale University Library

fSjsg.:; ' , r

EE3

- -

i5i

fS;

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

"Blackwood's"
History of the United States

By
FREDERICK S DICKSON

Still, " as we have said, the truth will some day leak out, and then "—
The Spectator, January 25, i8g6

Philadelphia
George H Buchanan and Company
1806

Copyright, 1896,
By Frederick S. Dickson,
Philadelphia.

/IDS Son

"blackwood's"
History of the United States

AN article in the London "Spectator" for January 25,
1896, will probably puzzle more than one Ameri
can reader. It is entitled " American Dislike for
England" and its general character may be fully appre
ciated from its opening paragraph which I quote as
follows :
" To a very large body, nay, to the vast majority ot
Englishmen, one of the most painful aspects of the present
controversy has been the evidence afforded that Americans
seem utterly unaware of the strong feeling of friendship
felt here for their country — a feeling rising in many minds
to something approaching passion. The ordinary untraveled
American has clearly never realized that the old country
looks with intense pride and sympathy on the splendid
daughter-State. We know that within the Union dwell
the majority of those whom Carlyle so happily called ' the
subjects of King Shakespeare ; ' and we feel that the Anglo-
Saxon race can never ' give its heart its rights ' unless the
two great branches are brought into harmony, and America
can claim a share in the glory of Nelson and Scott, while
we take ours in Washington and Lincoln. It is not too
much to say that no class here, rich or poor, is without the
warmest feeling of sympathy for America. An English

public man, who showed hatred of America, or insulted
her in his speeches or writings, would at once lose his place
in the national respect — would be drummed out of public
life. No poet could direct his verse against America ; no
man of letters attack our kinsfolk as a nation, or express a
desire for the downfall of the Union. The satirist might
make fun of the American as he makes fun of the York-
shireman or the cockney, but anything like a desire to
insult the national honor, or to rejoice at the difficulties or
misfortunes of America, would most certainly be treated
with indignation. The notion of an English Minister or
Ex-Minister, or even of an English M. P., prophesying the
downfall of the American Union and dwelling on it as a
source of gratification for his country, is simply unthink
able. The man who gloated over the notion of America's
ruin would be hissed as a traitor to the race. But though
the knowledge of this friendly feeling is such a common
place with us, it seems to be undreampt of in America.
There, not only is a great deal of hatred and contempt
expressed for the old country, but the people at large seem
genuinely ignorant of the good feeling for America which
is so general and so genuine here. That the Americans
should believe that they hate us, or at any rate should pro
fess to do so, is a very grievous wound to Englishmen ; but
if it is so — well, all we can do is to wait in the hope that a bet
ter feeling will some day arise. Love is not to be compelled,
hired, or bought. What, however, is bitter beyond bearing
is the thought that the Americans not only do not like us,
but do not even know that we like them."
Further on this same article refers to the January num
ber of "Blackwood," in which "a. very interesting account is
given of the spirit of ill-feeling towards England which is
inculcated in the minds of the children of the States."
The school histories, it appears, are all wrong in spirit if not
in fact, and if the Americans were as anxious as the

English are "to forgive and forget that civil war [of 1776]
they would surely not try to keep open these old sores."
But suppose America were willing to accede to " Black
wood's" modest request and expurgate all reference to the
Revolution (or Rebellion) of '76, the war of 18 12, and
various other annoying items of so-called history, and agree
that hereafter we would teach our children of England's
attitude to America from the more reliable pages of " Black
wood " alone, would that be deemed a satisfactory and
sufficient concession? In view of this suggestion it might
be well to ascertain what would be the nature and scope of
this new " Blackwood's History of the United States." And
let me say at the outset of the inquiry that in awarding the
palm to " Blackwood," I would not make any invidious
distinctions and claim that a " Blackwood's History of the
United States " would be entitled to any higher authority
as a school text-book than a " Saturday Review History "
or a " London Times History," or a "  History," in
which blank almost any other English journal (baring only
a few of what " Blackwood " calls " not very creditable
exceptions,") may fill in its own name if jealous of the dis
tinction to be conferred upon a rival. Indeed, there is no
room for jealousy at all, for, if needs be, we can make a
composite history, as those clever photographers make a
composite head by photographing on a single plate any
number of separate heads, one on top of the other, and the
lines of the whole are taken to represent the typical head
of the race. What a Yankee we would get by such a
process ! But that is a task for some clever Briton to work
out ; it is quite beyond, my meagre powers. If I can suc
cessfully show the American as " Blackwood " saw him
from i860 to 1866, and as the " Spectator " sees him now,
I believe we will find him quite composite enough to satisfy
our thirst for knowledge in this direction. If my humble
effort to provide suitable instruction for the children of

America meets with the approval of " Blackwood " and the
" Spectator " it will be an easy matter to secure its intro
duction to our public schools, and in the meantime I will
take from my own son the text-book that is poisoning his
mind and give him in place thereof a copy of this first
edition of " Blackwood's History of the United States,"
instanter. And now to our ideal history !
In January, 1862, we are told that " all American his
tory is written to prove, not that Americans here performed
great actions, but that their actions were great because they
were performed by Americans."* In America, " the pop
ular idols have been manufactured, generally, of the very
coarsest and commonest clay; and, even when permitted
to remain on their pedestals, they are objects, at least, as
much of ridicule as of admiration. "f The people of the
North, generally, are referred to as " savage abolitionists,"
or " fanatic Unionists," or collectively as a " gibbering
mob." " Blackwood's" estimate of public men is discrim
inating, as might be expected. Grant " cannot be set beside
McClellan, in generalship, without wronging McClellan."
Sherman is " a grissly fanatic," Stanton " a presumptious
fanatic," Capt. Wilkes " an impudent pirate," Mr. Seward's
State Papers are " inflated nonsense," and so on through
the long list of men made prominent by the war. The
only Northern man mentioned with approval by " Black
wood," from i860 to 1865, was General McClellan, and this
favorable opinion was not made manifest until McClellan
had received the Democratic nomination for the Presi
dency. He is, however, rather reproved for a want of the
nerve of a Napoleon, or a Cromwell, in that after Antietam
he did ndt " conclude an armistice with Lee, march on
Washington, hurl from their seats the clique that burlesqued
a government, * * * and seize the loose reins of

*Vol. 91, p. 133. f Vol. 96, p. 619.

empire."* Certainly, " Blackwood" had here the satisfac
tion of shattering one of America's " clay idols," for praise
of such a character and from such a source was death to
its object. The editor of " Blackwood " sees in the defeat of the
Federal armies simply " the exposure of the empty pre
tensions of a bully," and he declares that " we cannot even
pretend to keep our countenance when the exploits of the
Grand Army of the Potomac are filling all Europe with
inextinguishable laughter," and he knows " not whether
to pity most the officers who lead such men, or the men
who are led by such officers."f In January, 1862, " Eng
lishmen are unable to see anything peculiarly tragical in
the fact that half-a-million men have been brought together
in arms to hurl big words at each other across a river."J
The " Spectator" tells us that " the ordinary untraveled
American has clearly never realized that the old country
looks with intense pride and sympathy on the splendid
daughter-State," which only goes to prove how very ordi
nary and untraveled the most of us are, and how difficult
it is for us to keep pace with the changing views of the
step-mother-country. In January, 1862, the editor asks, "What despotism
has displayed so little moderation in prosperity, so little
dignity in adversity, less self control, less wisdom in coun
cil, less courage in the field ?"§
In April, 1862, we are told that Americans " do not
demand our respect because of their achievements in art,
or in literature, or in science, or philosophy. They can
make no pretence to the no less real, though less beneficent,
reputation of having proved themselves a great military
power. Their boast is that they are prosperous and free,"
but " the principal result of American freedom on the char-

* Vol. 96, p. 640. f Vol. 90, pp. 395, 396. % Vol. 91, p. n8.
I Vol. 91, p. 121.

acter of the American people in their foreign relations has
hitherto been arrogance, intolerance, and aggression."*
Matters have not improved apparently by May, 1863,
for our system is then branded as one " which has for years
been the most corrupt ever known, and the inability of
which to produce any kind of political merit is one of the
wonders of the world. "f
It is as bad, or worse, in November, 1863, when we
are informed that we are " a nation whose conduct of
the war has never been marked by a single generous
deviation."^ In December, 1863, we learn that " Europe is so accus
tomed to Federal mendacity and exaggeration, so con
vinced of Federal unscrupulousness, that the construction
put on a dubious telegram is not generally such as can
greatly benefit the Northern cause."§ The Psalmist said,
" I have said in my haste all men are liars !" How much
more delicate is the touch of " Blackwood."
In November, 1864, the " truculence" of the North is
mourned over, and the editor finds it " easy to understand
why the majority of the people of the North approve the
conduct of the war, if we admit sorrowfully that the base
temptations of gain and of gratified rancor may be too strong
for ordinary consciences. "|| Of course, any one would
sympathize with " Blackwood " in such a sorrow as this.
" Cornelius O'Dowd," as late as January, 1865, is of the
opinion that the entire civil war was gotten up as a spectacle
for the delectation of Europe, and he is convinced that if
Europe had refused to report the affair or comment upon it
" the combatants would have been chewing the cud of peace
together two years since, "f To an Englishman such cru
elty may seem wit. I have called attention elsewhere to
the fact that one year later the " O'Dowd " changed his
* Vol. 91, P. 535. f vol. 93, P. 636. % Vol. 94, P. 641.
I Vol. 94, p. 752. || Vol. 96, p. 644. 1 Vol. 97, p. 59.

mind, or at least changed his pen to meet altered con
ditions. The " Spectator" asks, " What can we do to make the
Americans feel more kindly towards us ?" and believes the
answer is " by getting them to realize what we feel towards
them." But, may I ask, when are we to take a census of
England's feeling towards America? When we are in
trouble and they are not, or when they are in trouble and
we are not ?
England made little attempt to conceal her joy in the
apparent downfall of the Republic. In October, i86l,
" Blackwood " exclaims :
" And the venerable Lincoln, the respectable Seward,
the raving editors, the gibbering mob, and the swift-footed
armies of Bull's Run, are no malicious tricks of fortune,
played off on an unwary nation, but are all of them
the legitimate offspring of the Great Republic," and
the writer was " glad," too, " that the end of the Union
seems more likely to be ridiculous than terrible."*
In January, 1862, we are further informed that " Black
wood " did " not desire above all things that the struggle
should be at once concluded, no matter how ; because a
conclusion which would leave the South at the mercy of a
vindictive, unfair, and ungenerous enemy would gratify
nobody. We do not lament over the unexampled display
of weakness made by the Great Republic, because we knew
that such weakness existed, and it was not for the interest
of truth nor of the world that it should any longer be dis
guised, or allowed to vaunt itself as matchless force."f
The writer is clearly satisfied " in the dissolution of a system
that had become rotten and offensive while yet it preserved
the appearance of life, "t " But the secession of the South is
not the only nor the greatest peril that threatens the
Republic. There is an Abolition Party that is hostile to

*Vol. 90, p. 396. tVo1- OI> P- II8- i/d-> p- I23'

Union ; there is a Union Party that is hostile to Abolition ;
and though these discordant elements have hitherto been
held together by the common tie of hatred of the South,
yet they threaten speedily to start asunder. Nor will the
North be split by party conflicts alone ; territorial differ
ences are likely to cause further dismemberment."*
In the light of history we may see how much the wish
was father to the thought.
In September the editor sees " daily more reason to
belive that a nation which has all the will to dictate to
others is losing the power which it would be certain to
misuse."f " Recent events," a reviewer exclaims in December,
1862, " by weakening the American States, and discrediting
the American principles of government, have turned the
tables very much in our favor."!
In January, 1863, no concealment is attempted, but it
is boldly proclaimed that " every person who reflects on
the matter must be aware that it is the interest of all nations,
but especially of England, to have more than one great
republic upon the American continent, as the United States
were fast becoming such a nuisance in the republic of
nations, that if by any accident they should succeed in their
war of subjugation, their insolence and arrogance would be
more intolerable than ever."§
In November, 1863, the editor exclaims "that the South
should achieve its independence single-handed, and by its
own efforts, and by the further disruption of the Northern
tyranny, is what would be best for itself and for us. * * *
But it will matter a great deal to us whether there is one
great bullying power always menacing us through Canada,
or several smaller powers, with any one of which Canada
herself would be competent to deal.||

* Id., p. 129. f Vol. 92, p. 387. } Vol. 92, p. 710.
\ Vol. 93, p. 25. || Vol. 93, p. 651.

13
From all this if is entirely clear that the writer or
writers of those words did rejoice in the disruption of the
Union, were anxious that the conflict should be prolonged
until the parties were exhausted, and that the secession of
the South should be followed by further dismemberment,
not for the benefit of the Southern Confederacy, but to
serve the selfish interests of the British Empire.
Yet the " Spectator " tells us that " the man who gloated
over the notion of America's ruin would be hissed as a
traitor to the race."
During our Civil War England did not actively befriend
the South while venting her enmity on the North. She was
not satisfied that the South was right, while very certain
that the North was wrong. " Blackwood " did " not profess to
feel sentimentally towards the South any more than towards
the North." * It was not a question of sentiment but ot
business. She was not anxious to claim kinship with either
party, " but if we must have brothers," the reviewer
exclaims, " let them rather be those who have achieved
without bullying and boasting, than those who have bullied
and boasted without achieving."f
But words are proverbially cheap, at best. What
would England do for the South ? Nothing ! Absolutely
nothing, if English skins were to be risked. In January?
1862, "Blackwood" was inclined to immediately consider
" the recognition of the Southern Confederacy and the
raising of the ineffectual blockade, in conjunction with
France." %
In November, 1862, Mr. Gladstone was reported as
willing to act as he believed it " as certain as any event yet
future and contingent can be " that the South will be suc
cessful. § But the Cabinet was not a unit on this. Sir G.
C. Lewis was doubtful as to the law, but the real trouble

* Vol. 92, P. 385. f Id- X v°]- 91. P- I29- I Vol. 92, p. 636.

14
undoubtedly was in attempting to calculate the profits of
the enterprise, for we are plainly told in the same article
that for England to act alone would be of very little benefit
to the South, and " would give offence to the North, thus
making an enemy without gaining a friend ; " but, " if Eng
land, France and Russia would agree to undertake a joint
mediation and, if necessary, intervention, they would render
an important service to civilization, humanity and mankind
at large."* As all the world knows now Russia declined
to be made a catspaw for English greed, even under the
guise of" civilization, humanity and mankind at large," and
America has never forgotten the position taken in this
instance by Russia and by England.
Notwithstanding Russia's desertion, " Blackwood," in
November, 1863, was still inclined to join France and sug
gests that if " we should raise the blockade, relieve our
starving population, and break up the political system which
is a standing menace to us through the weak point, Canada,
we shall be not only acting in consonance with right, but
fulfilling an obvious duty to ourselves." Yet, a little fearful
of such rashness, the writer hastens to qualify it by saying,
"but we do not mean in this place to advocate immediate
intervention in connection with France," and he adds that
he did not " assert that all the ends indicated would be so
gained."f The same uncertainty of the profits again
causes hesitation.
So Great Britain and France never came to an agree
ment on the subject, but went their ways alone, the one to
Mexico, the other to her shipyards, where she could turn
out vessels to prey on American commerce with certain
profit to herself and a minimum of risk, either financial or
physical. Has Great Britain forgotten the story of the Alabama ?

* Vol. 92, p. 646. f Vol. 94, p. 639.

*5
A ship of war was builded in an English dock-yard,
owned by a member of the English Parliament, manned
by English sailors, and armed with English guns and
munitions of war. It sailed from an English port, and in
its whole career it never once entered a Confederate har
bor. It burned and sank American shipping on every sea,
and when at last it was sunk by the Kearsarge off the coast
of France, an English yacht rescued the officers and part
of the crew and carried them home to Great Britain. In
i860 America stood second among the nations in the car
rying trade on the high seas; in 1865 her flag had disap
peared from the ocean, and England, as the direct result of
her piracy, had acquired what America had lost,
Does England think the money damages she paid has
condoned the crime ? Does she think America has for
gotten ?
Yet the " Spectator " tells us that " one of the most
painful aspects of the present controversy has been the
evidence afforded that Americans seem utterly unaware of
the strong feeling of friendship felt here for their country."
It is odd, is it not ?
It is well known that a large proportion of the people
of Great Britain welcomed the idea of war with America
over the matter of the Trent in 1 861, and when the difficulty
bid fair to be settled through diplomatic channels, a result
which was caused by the influence of Prince Albert, the
pure, and by the attitude of the common people of
England who held in check their aristocratic rulers, the
editor of " Blackwood " vented his chagrin in January, 1862,
as follows :
" Nor do we, as a people, desire to accept any slight,
shifty pretence of reparation for the recent ruffianly outrage,
which may be held by some among us, to whom honor is
but a fantastic name, to absolve us from the necessity of
war; for previous insults from the same quarter still

i6
remain unatoned for, and now that we have, at enormous
cost and with patient and self-denying efforts, amassed an
armament which adequately represents the power of Eng
land, we should have no objection to employ it in admin
istering a sharp chastisement to the vainglorious people
who have so often cheaply defied us. Sentiments, concilia
tory even to disgrace, are frequently ascribed to us ; yet
they have no real origin in the heart of the nation. It would
be impossible for the national vanity of America, hungry as
it is, to extract any nourishment from what is expressed on
the subject in the conversation of intelligent Englishmen."*
But it was not, I think, the fact alone that England
had an " adequate armament " that made our friends so full
of fight, but rather, and in the main, because we were
already engaged with an antagonist much more vigorous
and stalwart than we liked.
When, in 1863, America objected to British " neutral
ity," as shown in the case of the Alabama and her sister
ships, and about to be repeated on a more extensive
scale, " Blackwood " is much less fierce, and, while not
suggesting war, urges the government to pay no attention
to the demands of America, as the Federal Government
was not sincere in its " menace of war," as " its indignation
is always simulated to serve some base purpose," and that
the whole trouble was caused by " that lying, braggart
press that would be a disgrace to any country but
America."f As this protest of the Federal Government was made
after " Gettysburg " had passed into history, and after the
creation of the iron-clad fleet which left the ports of Eng
land helpless and her obsolete navy powerless, the vessels
in question never were permitted to make war upon what
was left of American commerce.
It is both interesting and instructive after this to find

*Vol. 91, p. 118. ' f v°l- 94iP- 645.

17
that in 1866 Blackwood had learned that " a war between
Great Britain and the United States would be the most
odious war in which either people could be engaged."*
I am inclined to think that this statement contains a
half-truth at least, provided always that America did not
have her hands full elsewhere.
The "Spectator," in October, 1895, makes this state
ment :
" Even if the cannon were ready to fire, and the gun
ner's hand on the lever, there would be in the end no war,
for on each side of the Atlantic there are millions of quiet,
plain, undemonstrative men who would forbid the outrage
and declare that, come what may, humiliation or no humil
iation, right or wrong, there should be no war."
This paragraph is reprinted on January 25, 1896, and
the editor ventures to think that it was not regarded in
London " as in the least overstrained." I can neither
answer for London nor Edinburgh, but in America
I am sure this paragraph will be deemed very badly over
strained. Though we wish peace with all nations, I am
sure that questions of " right or wrong " will have all to do
with the decisions of America, be the results what they
may. In 1862 " Blackwood " declares that " nobody in pri
vate life talks about ' our transatlantic kinsman ' — nobody
desires to claim peculiar ties with the performers in the
absurd and barbarous dances which the American nation
executes round its idols of the hour, any more than with
the worshippers of Mumbo Jumbo. * * * Nor do we
see anything in the circumstance that America was first
colonized from our own shores, to induce us to treat with
extraordinary indulgence the composite population with
whose manners, customs and character we have so little in
common."f "A people who have derived the principal

* Vol. 100, p. 167. fVol. 9i,p. 118.

accessions to their numbers from the scum of Europe."*
In another place we are referred to as the " hybrid North."f
And, again, it is not thought " judicious to be always speak
ing of the Americans as our brothers and cousins, because
nobody thinks of them so. "J " People write severely about
our American cousins who are not ambitious of claiming
Cousin Butler, or Cousin Lincoln, or Cousin Ward Beecher,
or Cousin Sumner, as their kin, and, if not those, why so
affectionate to the people who seem to regard these as their
most famous men ? "§ " Why should we conceal our con
tempt when absurdities far more mischievous, and on an
immensely extended scale, are committed by those whom
twaddling sentimentalists term ' our American cousins ?' "||
In May, 1863, in a review of 'American State Papers,"
a communication from Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams is quoted,
in which the former says, under date of May 21, 1861,
Great Britain " will consider what position she will hold
when she shall have forever lost the sympathies and affec
tions of the only nation on whose sympathies and affections
she has a natural claim." The writer in " Blackwood " has
described these state papers as both " comical " and " hum
orous," and declares with fine wit that this " ominous and
prophetic warning is a sad picture of the British Pythias
abandoned by the American Damon, and left alone and
friendless in the world." How ominous and prophetic this
warning was the editor of " Blackwood " did not wait long
to learn, and in July, 1866, when the poor relation had
again become rich, the same journal, with amazing effrontery,
complacently acknowledges that while " we may not
always like the Americans, we can never forget that
they are our kindred.'"! And in August of the same year
"Cornelius O'Dowd" urges us to "grasp manfully and
warmly the hand that is outstretched to you, and let the

*Vol. 91, p. 121. f Vol. 94, p. 647. % Vol. 93, p. 384.
\ Vol. 94, p. 64S. || Vol. 91, p. 118. \ Vol. 99, p. 17.

19
feeling between the two nations be — not the conventional
amity of Cabinets, but the hearty tone and affection of two
kindred peoples," and Mr. O'Dowd naively acknowledges
that it is precisely because of " the condition of Europe,
and the threatening attitude of France " that makes him
willing and anxious to claim relationship with America, and
to secure for England " one ally who is above being subsid
ized and not above being esteemed," and because also,
England has " neither true friend nor well-wisher on the
continent of Europe." He refers to the " marvelous
development of the Great Republic, its might, its maj
esty and its wealth, its greatness in the present and its
still grander future," and " would draw closer to those
who, once our narrow squabbles are forgotten, could not
but regard the old country with affection, and would never
stand coldly by to see her assailed by overwhelming odds,
or crushed beneath the united forces of despotism."* Is
it conceivable that this is the same journal which in Janu
ary, 1862, asserts that " had the Americans been permitted
to see the true reflections of our minds — had they been
aware of the extent and depth of the contempt with which
we have regarded their doings — it could scarcely have
failed to modify their conduct of the Civil War " ?f Or is
this the country, " the spoiled child Democracy," which,
"after playing strange pranks before high heaven, and
figuring in odd and unexpected disguises, dies as surely
from lack of vitality as the oldest of worn-out despotisms "
which is so graphically and generously described by
" Blackwood " in October, 1861 ?J
When we are told by the " Spectator," on January 25,
1896, that the English school children are taught that "the
United States is not and never can be in reality a foreign
country, nor an American a foreigner," and that " they and
we are one flesh," the conclusion is forced upon us that the

*Vol. 99, pp. 2.to, 242, 243. tV0l.91.P-120- t Vol. 90, p. 307.

education of the average English editor has been sorely
neglected in the past.
Abraham Lincoln was naturally an object of interest
to the English editor during our Civil War, and the estima
tion in which he was held by " Blackwood " is most lumi
nously portrayed. Read this passage from the number for
January, 1862 :
" But to what country shall we look for hereditary
princes less fit to wield the destinies of nations than the
obscure and commonplace man whose decrees now stand
in the place of public law in the North ? It may be said
that at least he is the choice of the nation. But was he
chosen by the intelligence of the nation ? Or, to take lower
ground, does he represent the material interests and respon-
sibilties of the nation ? Not at all ; he is the choice of the
numerical majority of a people who have derived the prin
cipal accessions to their numbers from the scum of Europe.
Every four years the Constitution is in travail — all man
kind are invited, or rather commanded, to watch the inter
esting event — all is convulsion — the throes of the mountain
are prodigious, and the latest result is — Mr. Abraham Lin
coln. The great achievement in self-government of this
vaunted democracy, which we have been so loudly and arro
gantly called on to admire, is, to drag from his proper ob
scurity an ex-rail-splitter and country attorney, and to place
what it calls its liberties at his august disposal. No country
furnishes so many examples as England of great men who
have risen from humble beginnings. But it would have
been impossible for him, or any of his Cabinet, to have
emerged, under British institutions, from the mediocrity to
which nature had condemned them, and from which pure
democracy alone was capable of rescuing them. Are the
best Americans willing to accept Mr. Abraham Lincoln
and Mr. W. H. Seward as their best men ? If not, can
they substitute better men ? If they cannot, what other

proof is needed of the inefficacy of their boasted institutions ?
An imbecile executive above, a restless, purposeless multi
tude below, linked together like a kite tied to a balloon
and drifting at the mercy of the air currents, while respect
ability, moderation and sense are pushed aside, or dragged
helplessly along, — such is the spectacle presented, in the
first storm, by the model Republic. A gallant army, whose
energies have been displayed chiefly in flight — a free
country, whose judges are over-looked by sentries — disin
terested patriotism, that requires to be bribed with eight per
cent. — a united nation, where the elements of dissolution are
rife — a practical people, who are spending more than they
possess for an object which they cannot define, — such are
• a few of the results of those remarkable institutions that
have been recommended for our imitation as immense
improvements on our own.
" Of course we do not blame Mr. Lincoln for being
President. But we venture to pity him. No man is more
unfortunate than he who is in a conspicuous position for
which he is manifestly unfit. What had this ill-starred man
done to merit such a visitation as to be set at the head of
an unruly nation that is going to pieces in convulsions ?
* * * He is said to have exhibited considerable dex
terity and muscular power in the splitting of rails. * * *
In his public compositions he is distinguished chiefly for
a disregard of grammar and an infatuated fondness for
metaphor. He gets laboriously on to a figure of speech,
which generally runs away with him, and, after exhibiting
him in various eccentric postures, leaves him sprawling in
an attitude highly unbecoming in the President of a great
Republic."* In September, 1862, " Blackwood "begins " to doubt
the shrewdness and common sense of a people who are
content to follow with senseless shouting the pigmy impos-

Vol. 91, pp. 121-122.

tors who are conducting them into such frightful
quagmires."* In November, 1862, the President's emancipation proc
lamation is described as " a monstrous, reckless and devil
ish project," and as " an effort to paralyze the victorious
armies of the South by letting loose upon their hearths and
homes the lust and savagery of four million negroes," and
" it proves what every one in this country was loth to
believe, that rather than let the Southern States be inde
pendent, rather than lose their trade and custom, the North
would league itself with Beelzebub, and seek to make a hell
of half a continent. In return this atrocious act justifies
the South in hoisting the black flag and proclaiming a war
without quarter against the Yankee hosts. "f This procla
mation is further characterized as " the most atrocious act
of war-policy which has ever been adopted by a civilized
state." And Mr. Lincoln " had previously, with the gen
eral concurrence of the people, inaugurated a dictatorship,
abolished liberty, and installed force as the supreme power
in the States which had still adhered to the Union. "J
In January, 1863, it is stated that " there is no personal
sacrifice that the people of the South are not prepared to
make rather than again trust their independence, private
fortunes, and liberty, to a paper constitution, guaran
teed only by the oaths of such men as Sumner and Lin
coln, both doubly forsworn. "§ The same article describes
the United States as " merely the military despotism of a
portion of the States, striving under the dictatorship of an
insignificant lawyer to crush out the freedom of the
rest."|| In November, 1863, the Lincoln government is
described as " the purest despotism now existing, with
the exception, perhaps, of some African system in regions

* Vol. 92, p. 387. fVol. 92, p. 636. %Id., p. 640.
\ Vol. 93, p. 28. || Id., p. 29.

23
to which Speke and Grant have failed to penetrate."* In
December we are told that " the Washington Cabinet and
its military adherents are conspicuous only for imbecile
pretension, and none but the strongest evidence can be
received as proof that they have blundered into wisdom or
stumbled on success. "f
In November, 1864, Mr. Lincoln was said to have
" nothing except the honesty of purpose generally ascribed
to him to distinguish him from the swarm of politicians
and generals that have been engendered by the corruption
of the defunct Union. "J In the same article it is presumed
"that Mr. Lincoln would not imagine that either his
previous occupation as a rail-splitter, or the fact of his
election as President, could of itself qualify him for deliv
ering grave opinions on extensive military combinations." §
And again we are told that " the re-election of Lincoln
would mean that the sentiments of the Northern people
are fitly represented in him, his ministers, and generals —
that, for the sake of producing a hideous caricature of
their former partnerships in government, they are ready to
sanction more cruelties in the South — more peculation,
corruption, and tyranny in the North — and to inspire
civilized nations with more horror and disgust for the
frenzied acts in which they express devotion to their politi
cal Moloch."|| To say the least, it seems odd, after all this, to learn
from " Blackwood," in November, 1866, after the Union was
restored and America more powerful than ever, that Abra
ham Lincoln, though " sometimes doubtful of the result,
was never doubtful of his duty," that " in his character
there was no malice, no animosity, no amere pensee" that
amidst fierce passion " he was calm, equable, patient and
merciful," that " this good and merciful man was good and

* Vol. 94, p. 649. fVol. 94, p. 752- + Vol. 96, p. 619.
\ Id. p. 624. || Id., p. 643.

24
merciful to the end," and that "the pistol of a fanatic
deprived the Southern people of a friend and the Northern
people of a man after their own heart, who, through good
and ill fortune had fought their fight with a humble, con
trite, and an honest spirit, and given them the victories for
which they had hungered and thirsted for four miserable
years."* Too late ! Too late !
" Sic semper tyrannus" shouted Wilkes Booth, as he
dropped his smoking pistol on that fateful night. Fanatic !
Aye ! Say you so ? But who taught him these words,
Messieurs Editors ?
Is this the same Abraham Lincoln for whom " Black
wood " did not feel " the slightest admiration or respect "
in November, 1863 ? Is this the " Cousin Lincoln " with
whom England would not care to claim kinship ? Is this
the " insignificant lawyer," the " country attorney," the
" imbecile executive," the " ex-rail-splitter," " dragged from
his proper obscurity " by the votes of the emigrated " scum
of Europe ?"
And when we are told in the "Spectator" that "the
Anglo-Saxon race can never ' give its heart its rights '
unless the two great branches are brought into harmony,
and America can claim a share in the glory of Nelson and
Scott, while we take ours in Washington and Lincoln,"
I am compelled to ask what share can England demand in
the fame of Abraham Lincoln, when we are told that " it
would have been impossible for him to have emerged,
under British institutions, from the mediocrity to which
nature had condemned him, and from which pure democ
racy alone was capable of rescuing him." ?
" Punch " is, I believe, presumed by courtesy to be both
humorous and liberal in its tone. As an example of both
I will quote a few lines from its number of December 10,

*Vol. 100, pp 635, 636.

1 864, taken from what it is pleased to call " President
Lincoln's Inaugural Speech :"*
" Well, we've done it, gentlemen. Bully for us. Cow-
hided the copperheads considerable. Non nobis, of course,
but still I reckon we have had a hand in the glory, some.
That reminds me of the Old World story about the Hand
of Glory, which I take to have been the limb of a gentle
man who had been justified on the gallows, and which the
witches turned into a patent moderator lamp, as would lead
a burglar safe into any domicile which he might wish to
plunder. We ain't burglars, quite t'other, but I fancy that
if Uli Grant could get hold of that kind and description of
thing to help him into Richmond, he'd not be so un-Chris-
tian proud as to refuse the hand of a malefactor. {Right,
right!) Well, right or left hand, that's no odds, gentlemen.
[Laughter.) Now, I am sovereign of the sovereign people of
this great and united republic for four years next ensuing
the date hereof, as I used to say when I was a lawyer.
[You are ! Bully for you !) Yes, gentleman, but you must
do something more than bully for me, you must fight for
me, if you please, and whether you please or not. As the
old joke says," 
But that is sufficient. The stupidity of the whole is
as marked as its malice. Doubtless the mass of English
readers have never realized that it was a parody, any more
than they were able to discover its wit.
Listen ! This is the conclusion of Abraham Lincoln's
address over which English wit would thus make merry.
" Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this
mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet if
God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the
bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil
shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as

* Vol. 47, p. 237.

26
was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said,
that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether. " With malice toward none, with charity for all, with
firmness in the right as God gives us to seethe right, let us
finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds,
to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his
widow and his orphans, to do all which may achieve and
cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and
with all nations."
America to-day is still willing " to do all which may
achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among our
selves and with all nations."
Why then have I written thus ? I answer, that I may
aid in bringing about a kindlier feeling between England
and America! To the thoughtless I may appear to follow
strange paths to such an end. But " stay a little." I have
spoken truth, because it is truth, for that and that alone,
and truth injures no honest cause, nor is it feared by any
honest man, nor by any sincere people. I would welcome
a hearty, friendly alliance between England and America,
but such an alliance can be neither just nor lasting if
founded upon dishonesty and fraud ; and is heartless flattery
less dishonest than undeserved detraction ? The clouds
can only pass away when these two nations clearly realize
and frankly acknowledge the errors of the past.
It is true the attitude of England during our Civil War
renders the work of fostering a more kindly feeling between
the nations difficult, but to accomplish this end by ignoring
the past is to attempt the impossible. England was warned
of this again and again by her most faithful friends. On
June 30, 1863, John Bright, standing in the House of Com
mons, in opposing a motion which meant war with America,
spoke these words :
" I have not said a word with regard to what may

27
happen to England if we go into war with the United
States. But when the troubles in America are over — be
they ended by the restoration of the Union, or by separa
tion — that great and free people, the most instructed in the
world, will have a wound in their hearts by your act which
a century may not heal ; and the posterity of some of those
who now hear my voice may look back with amazement,
and I will say with lamentation, at the course which was
taken by the honorable and learned gentleman, and by
such honorable Members as may choose to follow his
leading. [' No ! No !'] I suppose the honorable gentlemen
who cry ' No !' will admit that we sometimes suffer from
the errors of our ancestors. There are few persons who
will not admit that, if their fathers had been wiser, their
children would have been happier."*
Do the honorable gentlemen still cry " No ! No !" ?
I have placed a fragment from the last sentence of the
" Spectator " article upon my title page : " Still, as we have
said, the truth will some day leak out, and then  "
Let the honest heart of Great Britain finish the
sentence !

* Speeches of John Bright, Vol. I, p. 282.

Philadelphia, February 22, 1896.