Volume II Part 20 (1/2)
If any work of romance contains more fiction in the same s.p.a.ce, it is my fortune not to have seen that work. The circulation of the _Boston Courier_ in which the papers were printed was very limited. It did not go into barrooms nor into workshops. It was read chiefly by the converted and semi-converted abolitionists. As to fas.h.i.+onable pulpits thenceforth preaching abolition it is to be said that there was only one leading pulpit, Theodore Parker's pulpit, in which abolitionism was tolerated until years after the appearance of the ”Biglow Papers.” As to society, it is to be said that in the Fifties Charles Sumner, a Senator, was ostracized for his opinions upon slavery.
It is nearer the truth to say that what pa.s.ses for society in New England never tolerated abolitionists nor encouraged abolitionism.
The one writing which in an historical point of view contributed most largely to recruit the armies of the Republic during the Rebellion was Webster's speech in reply to Hayne. The closing paragraph of the speech was in the schoolbooks of the free States, and it had been declaimed from many a schoolhouse stage.
Lowell deserves credit for what he did. He chose his place early and firmly on the anti-slavery side, but it is absurd and false to say that thenceforward and therefor abolitionism became popular and abolitionists the sought for or the accepted by society. Mr. Lowell was the son of a Boston Unitarian clergyman. In the Forties he had not gained standing ground for himself, to omit all thought of his ability to carry an unpopular cause.
Indeed, up to the time of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise the whole array of anti-slavery writers and speakers had not accomplished the results which the reviewer attributes to the ”Biglow Papers.”
Indeed, should there be a signal reform in the fas.h.i.+on and cost of ladies' dresses it might with equal propriety be attributed to Butler's poem ”Nothing to Wear.”
GENERAL GARFIELD AND GENERAL ROSECRANS
The statement is revived that General Garfield, when chief of the staff of General Rosecrans in the campaign which ended at Chickamauga was false to Rosecrans. The allegation and the fact are that he wrote to Mr. Chase, then in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, that Rosecrans was incompetent to the command. Garfield's statements, as I recall the letters, were free from malice and the professional and ethical question is, ”Was Garfield justified as a citizen and soldier, in giving his opinion to the Administration?” His view of Rosecrans was confirmed by events, and it may be a.s.sumed that the opinion was free from any improper influence when the letters were written. On this a.s.sured basis of facts I cannot doubt that Garfield did only what was his duty. Neither the President nor the War Department could obtain specific knowledge of the officers in command except through a.s.sociates and subordinates unless they trusted to newspapers and casual visitors to the army. The struggle was a desperate one and the volunteer army was composed of men who were citizens before they were soldiers and they remained citizens when they became soldiers. Garfield was of the citizen soldiery and to him and to the country the etiquette of the army and the etiquette of society were subordinate to the fortunes of the nation. Of General Rosecrans'
unfitness for any important command there can be no doubt. After the disaster of Chickamauga, Rosecrans was relieved and General Thomas was put in command and General Grant was ordered to the field. He met Rosecrans at Nashville where they had an interview. From General Grant I received the statement that Rosecrans had sound views as to the means of relieving the army; ”And,” said General Grant, ”my wonder was that he had not put them in execution.”
This one fact expresses enough of the weak side of Rosecrans as a military leader to warrant the opinion given to Chase by Garfield, and that opinion having been formed upon a knowledge of facts and of Rosecrans as a military man and not from prejudice or rivalry, Garfield should be honored for his course, rather than condemned.
GEORGE BANCROFT
The death of Mr. Bancroft at the age of more than ninety years removes one of the few men in private life who can be ranked as personages. He was, perhaps, the only person in private life whose death would have received a semi-public recognition from any of the rulers of Europe.
Such a recognition was accorded by the Emperor of Germany, and chiefly, as it is understood, on account of the friends.h.i.+p which existed between Mr. Bancroft and the grandfather of the present Emperor.
Mr. Bancroft's long and successful career as a writer and diplomatist would seem to be evidence of the presence of qualities of a high order, and yet no one who was near him accepted that opinion. His conversation was not instructive, certainly not in later years, nor was he an original thinker upon any subject. He was an enthusiast in politics in early and middle life, and while his mental faculties remained unimpaired his interest in political movements was great--and usually it was in sympathy with the Democratic Party. He was an adhesive man in politics, capable of appearing to be reconciled to the success of his opponents and ready to accept favors from them in the way of office and honors and yet without in fact committing himself to their policy.
He was a laborious student, and he had access to standard and in many particulars to original authorities. At the commencement of his history he erred in denying with much confidence the claim of the visits of the Northmen to this continent in the ninth and tenth centuries.
That early claim seems to be supported by evidence which is nearly, if not absolutely, conclusive. Of all his chapters that on Was.h.i.+ngton was most attractive to me and it is quite the equal of Mr. Everett's oration, that yielded a large sum of money, that the orator applied to the purchase of Mount Vernon. Mr. Bancroft aimed to ill.u.s.trate his history by an exhibition of philosophy. This feat in literature can be accomplished successfully only by a great mind. First the events, then the reasons for or sources of, then the consequences, then the wisdom or unwisdom of the human agencies that have had part in weaving the web, are all to be considered. Examples are Gibbon and Buckle.
GENERAL GRANT AS A MAN AND A FRIEND
The simplicity of General Grant's nature, his frankness in all his intercourse with his fellow men, his freedom from duplicity were not touched unfavorably in any degree by his rapid advancement from the ordinary pursuits of ordinary men to the highest places in military and civil life. There was never in his career any ostentatious display of power, never any exercise of wanton or unnecessary authority.
He disliked controversy even in conversation, and his reticence when not in the company of habitual companions and trusted friends was due in part to his rule of life on this subject.
From the many years of my acquaintance with General Grant I cannot recall an instance of a reference to theological opinions upon controverted topics of faith.
The humanitarian side of his nature was strong, but it was not ostentatiously exhibited--indeed it was concealed rather than proclaimed. It was made known to me by his interest and by his lack of interest in appointments in the Treasury Department.
Of salaried places he controlled the appointment of General Pleasanton as commissioner of internal revenue, and of that only.
On several occasions he suggested the designation of a person named for employment in some menial and non-salaried service. The person named was in every instance the widow or daughter of some soldier of the war.
At intervals, not widely separated, he would bring the subject to my notice. Thus, without a command, I was forced to follow his suggestion.
The purity of his conversation might have been a worthy example for the most carefully trained person in etiquette and morals. My intercourse with General Grant was intimate through many years, and never on any occasion did he repeat a story or a phrase that contained a profane remark or carried a vulgar allusion. He had a relish for untainted wit and for genial humor, and for humor he had some capacity. He was not an admirer of Mr. Sumner and a trace of irony may be found in a remark attributed to him: When some one said: ”Mr. Sumner does not believe in the Bible,” General Grant said: ”No, I suppose not, he didn't write it.”
General Grant was attracted by a horse driven by a butcher. He purchased the animal at the cost of five hundred dollars. He invited Senator Conkling to a drive behind the new horse. The Senator criticised the animal, and said: ”I think I should prefer the five hundred dollars to the horse.” ”That is what the butcher thought,”
said General Grant.
He was sincere and devoted in his friends.h.i.+ps, but when he discovered that his confidence had been misplaced, a reconciliation became impossible. With him there could be no genuine forgiveness, and his nature could not tolerate any degree of hypocrisy. All voluntary intercourse on his part had come to an end.