« AnteriorContinuar »
when making his last successful throw for the crown, and on which Henry the Fourth had landed when doing exactly the same thing—that if it could grow nothing else, it could grow kings. I think something of the sort might have been said of the South. None of the great merchants and capitalists of the Union, none of its poets and historians—Bryant or Longfellow, Cooper or Hawthorne, Irving or Prescott-belonged to the South. But, yielding to the North the pre-eminence not only in commerce, but in literature, she claims to have supplied the country with a far greater share of its statesmen and soldiers. The statesman of whom the North has most reason to be proud, Alexander Hamilton, was by birth a West Indian, and by feeling as well as by descent a Scotchman: in fact, had his life been prolonged, he would very likely have returned to end his days in the old country, in the county of Ayr, to which his branch of the Hamiltons belonged. Besides him, the North can point to only some four or five men who have left their mark in history; and most of them belong to one State—Massachusetts. It has been different with the South. The single State of Virginia might set up a Walhalla with a population superior both in numbers and quality to any that could be supplied by the whole North put together; and the other Southern States, though yielding the palm to the
“Old Dominion,” are not unworthy to be her followers and colleagues. It has been the same with the army and navy. The history and position of the United States have not been such as to give its citizens much opportunity of acquiring very great reputation in those ways; but whatever reputation it has acquired has fallen principally to the share of the South. At the beginning of this war, the only general of any name whom the Republic possessed, the man to whom the task of restoring peace and order was at first intrusted, was General Scott, who had won in the Mexican war as much credit as could be obtained from such an enemy; and General Scott is a Southerner. The progress of the conflict has brought out the difference between the two sections still more strongly; and one hardly knows whether to be most surprised at the wealth of the Confederacy in military genius, or the poverty of the Federal States in that respect. Like everything else, this has its causes. The love of renown, the love of usefulness, the enterprise and activity, for which the Northerners found innumerable outlets—commercial, manufacturing, stock-jobbing, colonising, literary-had in the South (speaking loosely) but one outlet; and that was the naval and military service of their country. Into these professions, therefore, the Southerners flocked; they were not exposed to much competition on the part of their rivals, as the army and navy, though no doubt very honourable, were not very lucrative: thus it came to pass that the greater part of the officers of the two services got to be Southerners. Not only was this the case, but the States themselves of that section learned to have something of a military organisation. For in that part of the Union there grew up military academies where the rudiments of the profession were acquired, and where instruction was given in its more scientific branches; and arrangements were made for securing to these establishments the supervision and inspection of officers of the regular service.*
Of course all this has helped to account for what we see in the present war. The qualities of the modern soldier-bravery, military knowledge, honourable feeling towards friends and foes alike, chivalry, humanity—have been as remarkable on the side of the South as the absence of them has been on that of the
* Since this was written, I have come across a curious statement as to the officers of the two sides in the present war, which may be considered as an illustration of what is here said. I copy it from the ‘Index' of August 25.
“It is a curious fact not generally known, that General Grant, like President Lincoln (who, however, emigrated to Illinois in early youth), is a native of Kentucky. This s not an isolated case, a majority of the officers who have gained distinction in the Northern army and navy being born in the slaveholding States. Thus, General Thomas, who saved the Federal army from utter destruction in the city of Chicamauga, is a Virginian by birth ; North; and though the contest between the two sections had not then been as fully brought out as it has been since, yet the training and character which made a pressure of adversity produce such fruits as these, must have been discernible even then, and helped to create the ascendancy which the Southern citizens exercised at New York. The New England character, on the other hand-hard, greedy, selfish, unsympathising, yet not without a good deal of earnestness and principle, after a fashion of its own -had a repelling effect. And thus New York was divided in tendency. Interest and association connected her with the North. Her sympathies and antipathies alike drew her towards the South. It is no wonder that with her and with the other Middle States the Democrats should have prevailed.
On the slavery question, there is no doubt that the Democrats, and the States where Democratic influence
Admiral Farragut, who has just won the victory off Mobile, is a native of New Orleans ; Captain Winslow, of the Kearsarge, a native of North Carolina, and his first lieutenant of Virginia. These instances could be considerably increased, and if collected together would give a curious total result. The only counterpart in the Southern armies is to be found in the cases of General Pemberton, a native of Pennsylvania, and General Lovel, appointed from New York (but born in Maryland); and by a strange fatality of coincidence these two names are identified with the two greatest reverses of the Confederate arms——the fall of Vicksburg and of New Orleans."
was strong, were with the South. In the first place, they had no particular interests in connection with that question, as they had on the tariff question, to outweigh their likings and dislikings; and in the second, while the Constitution left it open to them to legislate on the tariffs as the majority might please, on the question of slavery it distinctly asserted that there was no such power; and certainly New York did not care about breaking the Constitution for the sake of the niggers, or the Abolitionists either. But unfortunately, whether through luck or good guiding on Jacob's part, the two questions got twisted together on one particular subject, in such a fashion as to unite the whole Protectionist body of the North in one mass as opponents of slavery, and that in a way in which there could be no question of the Constitution. That subject was the admission of new States.
At first this did not seem a question about which much antagonism need have arisen. It was the interest of the South, most especially, that new States should be formed in the Union. As we have seen, the expectation that they should be formed was one of the arguments which induced her representatives in the Convention not to press as strongly as they should have done for the two-thirds clause about the tariffs ; and when Virginia surrendered to the Union the whole of those vast territories, from Pennsylvania to