In a number of the _Edinburgh Review_ is an article on James Russell
Lowell in which the writer errs widely in two particulars as to the
effect of the "Biglow Papers." The writer's name is not given, but
he is not an American and he is ignorant, probably, of America as it
was from 1830 to 1850. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared, I was a
Democrat, and I am quite sure that the publication produced no effect,
not even the least, upon the opinions of Democrats or the action of
the Democratic Party. Upon my knowledge of the Democratic Party I can
say with confidence that the writer is in error when he says: "He
(Lowell) converted many bigoted Northern Democrats to a course of
action in conflict with their old party relations and apparent
interests."
For this broad statement there is no evidence. The first break came
in 1848 and it was due to rivalries in the Democratic Party. If the
"Biglow Papers" played any part it was too unimportant to produce an
appreciable result. They were treated as a fortunate _jeu d'esprit_
that everybody enjoyed, but the Democratic Party did not change its
policy nor did it lose adherents. The Mexican War was prosecuted
and bigotry political and religious continued to flourish. They may
have contributed though, insensibly, to a public opinion that became
formidable in the end but the effect was not as perceptible as was
the effect of Garrison's legend that slavery was a covenant with hell
and a league with death, which had its place at the head of the
_Liberator_ through successive years. Nor do I believe that "it
revolutionized the tone of Northern society." Indeed, there is a
"tone" of Northern society that has not been revolutionized to this
day. The South is still the land of gentle birth. The slave-holder
still lives as a man of breeding and the owner of estates. The negro
is still of an inferior caste and in some circles the days of slavery
were the great days of the Republic. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared
Mr. Lowell had not achieved distinction. Society did not know him to
follow him. It cared nothing for what he thought, and it was only
amused by what he said. The Lowell of 1840 was not the Lowell of 1890.
Nor can any series of statements be more untruthful and absurd than
the statements of the writer that "thenceforth it became creditable to
advocate abolition in drawing rooms, and to preach it from fashionable
city pulpits to congregations paying fancy prices for their pews. In
the workshops, the barrooms and other popular resorts the laugh was
turned against the slave-owners; the ground was prepared for the popular
enthusiasm which recruited the armies that exhausted the South, and
Lowell must share with Lincoln and Grant the glory of the crowning
victories."
If any work of romance contains more fiction in the same space, 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 fashionable 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 passes 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 fashion and cost of
ladies' dresses it might with equal propriety be attributed to Butler's
poem "Nothing to Wear."