We Laugh At Their Attempt To Sustain Loyalty, And
Speak Of Them As A Steady Father Of A Family Is Wont To Speak Of
Some Unthrifty Prodigal Who Is Throwing Away His Estate And
Hurrying From One Ruinous Debauchery To Another.
And, alas!
We too
frequently allow to escape from us some expression of that
satisfaction which one rival tradesman has in the downfall of
another. "Here you are with all your boasting," is what we say.
"You were going to whip all creation the other day; and it has come
to this! Brag is a good dog, but Holdfast is a better. Pray
remember that, if ever you find yourselves on your legs again."
That little advice about the two dogs is very well, and was not
altogether inapplicable. But this is not the time in which it
should be given. Putting aside slight asperities, we will all own
that the people of the States have been and are our friends, and
that as friends we cannot spare them. For one Englishman who
brings home to his own heart a feeling of cordiality for France - a
belief in the affection of our French alliance - there are ten who
do so with reference to the States. Now, in these days of their
trouble, I think that we might have borne with them more tenderly.
And how was it possible that they should have avoided this war? I
will not now go into the cause of it, or discuss the course which
it has taken, but will simply take up the fact of the rebellion.
The South rebelled against the North; and such being the case, was
it possible that the North should yield without a war? It may very
likely be well that Hungary should be severed from Austria, or
Poland from Russia, or Venice from Austria. Taking Englishmen in a
lump, they think that such separation would be well. The subject
people do not speak the language of those that govern them or enjoy
kindred interests. But yet when military efforts are made by those
who govern Hungary, Poland, and Venice to prevent such separation,
we do not say that Russia and Austria are fools. We are not
surprised that they should take up arms against the rebels, but
would be very much surprised indeed if they did not do so. We know
that nothing but weakness would prevent their doing so. But if
Austria and Russia insist on tying to themselves a people who do
not speak their language or live in accordance with their habits,
and are not considered unreasonable in so insisting, how much more
thoroughly would they carry with them the sympathy of their
neighbors in preventing any secession by integral parts of their
own nationalities! Would England let Ireland walk off by herself,
if she wished it? In 1843 she did wish it. Three-fourths of the
Irish population would have voted for such a separation; but
England would have prevented such a secession vi et armis, had
Ireland driven her to the necessity of such prevention.
I will put it to any reader of history whether, since government
commenced, it has not been regarded as the first duty of government
to prevent a separation of the territories governed; and whether,
also, it has not been regarded as a point of honor with all
nationalities to preserve uninjured each its own greatness and its
own power? I trust that I may not be thought to argue that all
governments, or even all nationalities, should succeed in such
endeavors. Few kings have fallen, in my day, in whose fate I have
not rejoiced - none, I take it, except that poor citizen King of the
French. And I can rejoice that England lost her American colonies,
and shall rejoice when Spain has been deprived of Cuba. But I hold
that citizen King of the French in small esteem, seeing that he
made no fight; and I know that England was bound to struggle when
the Boston people threw her tea into the water. Spain keeps a
tighter hand on Cuba than we thought she would some ten years
since, and therefore she stands higher in the world's respect.
It may be well that the South should be divided from the North. I
am inclined to think that it would be well - at any rate for the
North; but the South must have been aware that such division could
only be effected in two ways: either by agreement, in which case
the proposition must have been brought forward by the South and
discussed by the North, or by violence. They chose the latter way,
as being the readier and the surer, as most seceding nations have
done. O'Connell, when struggling for the secession of Ireland,
chose the other, and nothing came of it. The South chose violence,
and prepared for it secretly and with great adroitness. If that be
not rebellion, there never has been rebellion since history began;
and if civil war was ever justified in one portion of a nation by
turbulence in another, it has now been justified in the Northern
States of America.
What was the North to do; this foolish North, which has been so
liberally told by us that she has taken up arms for nothing, that
she is fighting for nothing, and will ruin herself for nothing?
When was she to take the first step toward peace? Surely every
Englishman will remember that when the earliest tidings of the
coming quarrel reached us on the election of Mr. Lincoln, we all
declared that any division was impossible; it was a mere madness to
speak of it. The States, which were so great in their unity, would
never consent to break up all their prestige and all their power by
a separation! Would it have been well for the North then to say,
"If the South wish it we will certainly separate?" After that,
when Mr. Lincoln assumed the power to which he had been elected,
and declared with sufficient manliness, and sufficient dignity
also, that he would make no war upon the South, but would collect
the customs and carry on the government, did we turn round and
advise him that he was wrong?
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 82 of 141
Words from 82821 to 83864
of 143277
