Page images
PDF
EPUB

ART. IV.—1. Exodus of the Western Nations. By Lord Bury. London, 1865.

2. Colonel Fletcher's History of the American War. London, 1865.

3. Campaigns in Virginia, Maryland, &c. &c. By Captain C. C. Chesney, R.E., &c. Vol. II. London, 1865.

ORD BURY, having held an official position in Canada, and acquired a personal interest in the affairs of the New World, is led by a natural train of thought to the birth and infancy of the communities which have grown so rapidly into their present importance. Great would be the interest and value of the work-if such we possessed-that could teach us how Europe was peopled; trace the gradual divergence of its present races under local influences; tell us whence came the parent tribes; and how, with a common tone of thought prevailing, language became so diversified. America has the advantage over the other continents, in knowing its history from the root. That history is usually presented to us in fragments. Lord Bury, in the work before us, gives us the benefit of a clear and comprehensive view of the whole of the great movement across the Atlantic. And though at no one time did there occur so great a migration as to amount to an 'exodus,' still the movement has, upon the whole, transferred to the New World large masses of the population of Europe. Considering the taste for historical composition so prevalent in these days with the New England writers, it seems strange that it should remain for an English author to give the complete history of the peopling of America. But to each writer on the spot, the part of his own people stands disconnected from the rest, with its separate life and special interests; it is easier for one at a distance to reduce to accurate perspective countries equidistant from himself. Lord Bury has undertaken this task of bringing all into the same field of view, thus adding a work to our literature which is as a chart of the world to one who before had but disjointed maps of its divisions. Unfortunately, the work appears at a time when all who interest themselves in the affairs of America are absorbed in the events occurring from day to day. The storm is, indeed, over now, but the waves have not yet gone down; and the mind is not yet in a mood for calm study. As this agitation subsides, attention will be drawn to American history, which has hitherto been regarded in this country with marked indifference. Out of this indifference we have been thoroughly aroused. Students will seek to trace their way back to the original causes of the tremendous events which have recently

occurred;

occurred; and the European historian, who had hitherto allotted a spare chapter to America, will have to assign it in future a prominent place in the world's affairs. It might have been in anticipation of such probable current of thought, that Lord Bury has provided this valuable storehouse of facts, the fruit of long labour and research, placed before us in a spirit of philosophical inquiry, and clothed in terse and animated language.

Colonel Fletcher's History of the American War' leads us to remark that, in our opinion, a considerable period of time must elapse before the complete history of this great struggle can be written. A civil war, beyond all others, involves political questions, and in this instance the Federal system of government renders these unusually complex. The cessation of the struggle will be followed by a deluge of biographies, memoirs, reports; and these will have to be laboriously collated, winnowed of their chaff, and reduced to materials for the historian. Nor is it possible as yet to command that calm view of the whole field which shall do full justice to both sections of the Union. Hence, the only history that can yet be written is that of the military events, a very important part, but not the whole of the subject. Such a record Colonel Fletcher gives us, clearly narrated, singularly dispassionate, and full of interest. It adds greatly to the value of the work that its author was an eye-witness to the most remarkable campaign of the war, which unfortunately the first volume of the work leaves unfinished. The next volume will probably rescue the reputation of McClellan from the oblivion into which it has fallen in the rapid whirl of events. As a soldier, Colonel Fletcher naturally endeavours to do justice to one who, though now unpopular, may claim to have twice rescued the cause of the North from ruin, and who at all times had two enemies to fightthe Government at Richmond and his own. As no reputation has fallen so much, probably none will recover so greatly as that of McClellan, when excitement calms down, and the success of other leaders ceases to dazzle the judgment. It is easy to contrast his slow and over-cautious steps with the dashing career of a Sherman ; but McClellan's army was of other material. He came into play after the great disaster of Bull Run, and was incessantly thwarted and paralysed by that interference of amateurs at Washington which this volume so strikingly relates. This, the army of the West, and in the end that of Grant, wholly escaped. On recalling now the great advantages gained by the North in the fall of Fort Donnelson, New Orleans, Norfolk, and the occupation of many points on the coast, as well as in Tennessee, the heart of the country-the idea occurs in closing the volume that a more correct estimate might have been formed of the probable

termination

termination of the struggle than that which was generally adopted in this country. But the continuation of the work will describe those brilliant feats of the Southern generals-of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Beauregard, Stuart-and that firm endurance and heroic self-sacrifice of the people, which extorted the admiration of Europe, and rendered it hard to believe that so wide and difficult a country, defended with such resolution and military genius, could ever be brought under subjection.

Now that we hear such loud denunciations of rebellion, and reiterated assertions that treason is the 'blackest of crimes,' it is almost with a feeling of surprise that we peruse this record of the calm and constitutional manner in which the Southern people proceeded to form a Government and unite themselves into a confederacy. Each State, through its Legislature, passed an act or law which summoned a convention of its people, the direct organ of its sovereignty, and by this convention its severance from the Union was decreed. In the older States the form adopted was simply the repeal of the original ordinance of a like convention, which had attached them to the Union. The same formalities were used in dissolving the tie which had been used in contracting it. Nothing can be imagined more opposed to our ideas of rebellious leaders or an insurgent body. And in framing a constitution the object plainly aimed at was to retain every valuable principle of the old one, whilst rectifying the defects which experience had pointed out. Thus, though in all the main features the old and the new are identical, that of the South made the Presidential term six years, and precluded re-election; an improvement of the utmost value. The scandalous abuse of dismissing all officials, down to the village postmaster, on each accession of a new President, was practically rendered impossible. It is strange that ministerial responsibility should not have been ordained, for this seems to us an absolutely essential feature in constitutional government; but here, where change might have been desirable, the traditions of the Union prevailed. One remarkable fact is the open avowal for the first time in any constitution-of the principles of free trade-in the express prohibition of duties for the purpose of protection. These principles are indeed to be found in the Federal constitution; but not being in express terms they have been evaded in practice, until the United States now offer the grossest instance in existence of a spirit of monopoly and a partial fiscal law.

They who are familiar with the literature of the war, should they chance not to have seen the Southern constitution, would expect to find the preservation of slavery at the head and front of it. They would be surprised to find how little it says upon the

subject.

[ocr errors]

subject. It is true, it was framed by slave-owners, but so was that of the Union. The writers who appear to have enjoyed a peculiar pleasure in terming the South a slave power' have forgotten that the model republic was also a slave power; nay, that the North was a slave power throughout the whole of the war, for to its close there were slaveholding States within the loyal band. Nor is there here a single provision for the protection of slavery which does not also exist in the Federal constitution. It is true, this of the South forbids' the passing of any law impairing or denying the right of property in negro slaves;' but neither could any such law be passed by the Federal Congress under its constitution. The same inability existed, and in both cases for the same reason-that the subject was beyond the scope of Federal action, and belonged exclusively to that of the State. But there is nothing in the Southern constitution that would have precluded any of its States from emancipating its negro population by the act of its own legislature. The principle which stopped the interference of the central government told both ways. The Richmond Congress could not interfere to free the slaves, but it was equally powerless to prevent their being freed. Hence all that has been said of slavery being the 'corner stone' of the Southern power is mere windy declamation. The metaphor was, indeed, used by Mr. Stephens, but not as it is invariably and erroneously quoted. He was replying to the very absurd dogma of the Declaration of Independence, that 'all men are created equal;' and asserted that, on the contrary, inequality is the law of Nature, and that the inferiority of one race to another was the corner-stone of the system. But whatever Mr. Stephens might say or mean, nothing could well be more absurd than to fix upon many millions of people, the great majority of whom had nothing to do with slavery, the sentence or the epithet of a speaker expressing his individual view, on his sole responsibility. The use to which the epithet has been put is no less illogical. The corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy was obviously its constitution. With it there existed a Confederacy; without it, none. Here was the base on which rested the whole fabric as a political power. Now, when we see that this constitution permitted any one, every one, of the States to abolish slavery, we shall see the absurdity of terming that the cornerstone of an edifice which could be removed at any time at pleasure without detriment to the structure.

In the perspicuous account given by Colonel Fletcher of McClellan's remarkable and ill-fated campaign, we are struck with the treatment he received at the hands of Mr. Lincoln, to which his failure may be largely attributed. Had it been the

object

object to render success impossible, it could hardly have been better pursued. No sooner had McClellan left Washington than the President commenced a series of measures unparalleled in their way. Nay, even before this, and without consulting his Commander-in-Chief, it appears that he issued positive orders for that movement of the troops which enforced the abortive advance on Manassas-a failure that threw a sinister influence over the campaign. During that advance McClellan learnt by the columns of a newspaper, and without the slightest previous intimation, that he was reduced from the command-in-chief to that of the forces around him. This step withdrew from his control the troops in the valley of the Shenandoah, which formed an important part of his combinations. It was followed by the withdrawal, in a similar manner, of another body of 10,000 men, under Blenker. The next step was to place beyond his control the very base of his own operations, Fort Monroe, reducing his resources by another 10,000 men. Finally, the entire armycorps of McDowell, whose co-operation was vital to the plan of the campaign, was suddenly withdrawn from his orders. The wonder is that any general so treated should not have resigned in despair. Colonel Fletcher observes :—

'Ignorant of military, and indeed of most other matters of which a knowledge is expected from men in high position, weak in character, and consequently obstinate, Mr. Lincoln was singularly unfitted for the station of life he was called upon to fill. His very character for honesty was a misfortune, as it afforded a sort of counterpoise to his defects, and led men to suppose that his straightforward dealing in private life would be carried out in his public acts. He professed, and probably had, a sincere regard for General McClellan; but when no longer under his personal influence, was easily led by the people around him, and acted in a way that little became the ruler of a great country, and which his most lenient critics must allow had the appearance of duplicity.'

The lamentable death of Mr. Lincoln, so tragic, so piteous in every detail,-horror at the atrocity, and apprehension of the ills that may flow from it,-combined to produce the strong feelings of indignation and sympathy which have been expressed in this country. For a time it was proper to yield to a current of feeling, the generous impulse of human nature. And indeed, no man ever played a part of the first importance in history who so little merited such a death. No ruler in possession of despotic power was ever so completely the reverse of a tyrant. The very weaknesses and defects of his character were of a nature to disarm personal resentment. No man was ever less stern, less haughty, less cruel, less vindictive. Industrious, painstaking, domestic,

full

« EelmineJätka »