mariners of the earth. When their American competitors boasted of
their own ships, that they could outsail those of England, and that
their general qualities were better, verifying all by alleged facts,
the latter, as a matter of course, were deemed lies. Were a hundred
English ship-masters to assert to-day, that their vessels could
outsail ours, the American seamen would have no more charity, but, at
once, set them down as dealers in fiction. During the long wars, our
shipping was the prey of the belligerents, the English, as the most
numerous, doing it the most harm; vexing commerce, by impressing the
seamen, and as often carrying off the native, as their own subjects.
These acts created a bitter feeling, and the American government,
influenced by a miserable penny-saving policy, which cost more in
the end, than a prompt resistance, almost abandoned the seamen to
themselves; writing long diplomatic notes, instead of arming. I
know, by personal observation, that many of our ship-masters of that
day, boasted they had mislead English squadrons and cruizers, by
false information, for it was the only means they had, of avenging
themselves.
Conversing with Mr. ——, he informed me that, for some time, an
acquaintance of ours, a captain in the British navy, was supposed to
have been killed in the attack on Fort Bowyer. On my asking how the
information had been obtained, he quite unconsciously answered—“Oh!
it was only the report of an American captain.” I laughed at him,
for this confession, and he frankly admitted an opinion prevailed in
England, that the American ship-masters were greater liars than usual.
Our facts are astounding, and, when related, appear marvellous to
foreigners. _Au reste_, the Americans, more particularly those of
New England, are a gossipping people, and though the gossip may not
be a liar, he necessarily circulates much untruth. In this manner,
the American lies with his tongue, while the rest of the world lie
only in their thoughts. But lying is one of the commonest vices of
humanity.
It is fortunate that Providence has reserved us for the justice of
another state of being, for, it is certain, there is very little in
this. Here is a nation, that, if a civil agent of its own, arrest
John Doe, for Richard Roe, punishes him severely, throwing the
_onus_ of the proof of guilt, on the minister of the law, but which
goes out of its own jurisdiction, to demand of foreigners proofs of
innocence; failing of which, it lays violent hands on them, exposes
them to mutilation and death, in a quarrel in which they have no
concern, and then vilifies them, by way of atonement! This is bad
enough, certainly, but it is, by no means, the worst feature in the
affair. Men, in the condition of gentlemen, have been found among the
oppressed, to justify the wrong, for you and I are both old enough,
distinctly to remember the time, when England was loudly and openly
vindicated by a party, at home, in a course that set all national
honour, and national justice at defiance. It is said, that the world
presents nothing new; that all its current incidents are merely new
phases of old events; but, really, it sometimes seems to me, that
the history of man has never before presented so strong an instance
of national abasement, as is to be found in the feelings, language,
reasoning, and acts of a very large portion of what are called the
better classes of the American people, towards Great Britain. Of
all burthens, that of the mental dependance created by colonial
subserviency, appears to be the most difficult to remove. It weighs
upon us yet, like an incubus, and, apart from matters of gain, in
which we have all our eyes about us, and apart from party politics,
in which men will “follow their leaders, though it be to the
devil,” there is not an American, in my opinion, at this moment, of
sufficient note fairly to attract foreign comment, who does not hold
his reputation at home, entirely at the mercy of Great Britain. We
do not see this fact ourselves, but strangers do, and deride us for
the weakness. We have, indeed, reason to thank God, that the portion
of the nation, which constitutes its bone and muscle, although of no
account in its floating opinions, is so purely practical, so stubborn
in its nationality, so right-thinking, at least, in the matters
that come properly and fairly before it, and so little likely to be
influenced to its destruction!
Another of the notions that exists in England, is that of the
hostility of America to Great Britain. All the recent travellers
among us, frankly admit that they see no evidence of such a feeling,
but of one quite to the contrary. I have frequently told my friends
here, that, in my opinion, and it is an opinion formed from a good
deal of observation, _in no other country are the English looked upon
with as friendly eyes, as in the United States of America_. I feel
as certain of this fact, as I do of any other moral truth at which
I believe myself to have arrived by investigation and travelling. I
do not think that I have succeeded, however, in convincing a single
individual.
A few of the public writers here, affect to maintain that there is
no general inimical sentiment, or prejudice in England, against the
United States, with the Edinburgh Review at their head. It might
as well be denied that the sun appears in the east, and sets in the
west. The feeling is as apparent as the day; it mingles with every
thought, colours every concession, and even tempers the charities.
Every American established in the country asserts it, all travellers
believe it, even Captain Hall and other writers confess it, and four
out of five, on the spot, when circumstances induce frankness, admit
it. Let us look for the reasons of these contradictory feelings, in
the two nations.
In the collisions between the two people, in the main, America has
won and England has lost. The winner is usually complacent, the loser
soured. In America facts have preceded opinion, and so far from
their being a tendency to aid the first by appeals to prejudices,
the disposition has been to retard them by comparisons favourable to
the old system. The very opposite of this state of things exists in
England. Power, in America, has nothing to apprehend from English
example, while power, in England, has much to apprehend from the
example of America. This reason applies with peculiar force to
the church in England, which ought to be the first to foster the
charities. It is natural for a young people to look back with
affection to their ancestry, and to the country from which they
sprung, and it is human for those in possession of advantages that
once were exclusive, to look forward with distrust to the fortunes of
a vigorous competitor that has arisen from their own stock.
These reasons might suffice, but there are others, which, though less
evident, have perhaps been more active in producing the unfriendly
feeling in England. In this country, it should always be remembered,
there is a contradiction between the theory of the government and
its facts. By the first the sovereign possesses an authority, that
is denied him in practice. No well-informed man really thinks that
the King of England, of his own free will, could declare war, for
instance, and yet the commentators will tell you he may. In curbing
his authority, the aristocracy is compelled to keep in view the
nation, and the principal means that have been resorted to for
influencing it, have been to act on its prejudices. Nothing has
struck me more forcibly, here, than the manner in which the higher
classes keep themselves free from the national prejudices, that
their organs, the press, studiously excite in the mass. This is
said without any reference to America, however, for the aristocracy
certainly likes _us_ as little as any portion of the community, and
without alluding to the mere difference that always exists between
knowledge and ignorance, but to notions, which if true, ought to be
found more general among the instructed, than among the ignorant.
I perceive that Capt. Hall lays much stress on the loyalty of
the English, as a healthful sentiment that is quite unknown in
America. He has not attached too much importance to this feeling,
in my judgment, though he has scarcely analysed it with sufficient
penetration. This loyalty is a pure abstraction in England, on
which, by dint of management, the self love of the nation has been
concentrated. It is national pride, interest, and national prejudice,
to all of which this direction has been given, so far as they
are connected with sentiment, for to say that the usual personal
attachment has any thing to do with it, in regard to a monarch whom
his people have quietly seen stripped, one by one, of the free
exercise of all his prerogatives involves an absurdity. No one is
more loyal in England, than the Duke who is acquiring boroughs,
with a view to return members whose principal duty will be to vote
down and curb the royal authority. Such a man, it is true, declaims
against disloyalty as a crime; he defends the prerogative both in
person and by his nominees; but then he takes good care that it shall
be exercised by a minister, whom he has an agency in creating, and
with whom he can make his own terms. It would not do to transfer this
sentiment from him who has not, to those who actually wield the power
of the state, and who are compelled to live so much before the common
eye, for there are too many of them; they are unsupported by the
prejudice of birth, and familiarity would soon destroy the portion of
the feeling that is the most useful.[9] The force of this fiction,
loyalty (it is purely fiction, as it relates to the individual), is
inconceivably strong; for I question if the English, after their own
fashion, are not the most loyal people in Europe. Their feelings, in
this particular, give one good reason to doubt whether men will not
defer more to an abstraction, than to a reality.
Another of the prejudices of the English arises from the devotedness
of the faith with which they subscribe to the fictions of their own
system. In no other country is society so socially drilled. Lord
—— observed to me, “England is a pyramid, in which every man has
his place, and of which the king forms the point.” The remark has
some truth in it, but the peer overlooked the essential fact, that
where the summit ought to be the base of his pyramid is. This social
drilling, however, like almost every thing else, has its advantages
and its disadvantages. The better soldier you make of a man the more
he becomes disqualified to be any thing else. You have no notion
of the extent to which the ethics of station are carried, in this
country; being probably quite as much beyond the point of reason
and manliness, in one extreme, as the canting of the press, and the
brawls of low party politicians are driving it to the other, with us.
I have seen a footman’s manual, in which, besides the explanations of
active duties, the whole _morale_ of his station, is set before the
student, with great precision and solemnity. It is a sort of social
catechism. So effectually has the system of drill been pursued, that
I firmly believe, a majority of Englishmen, at this moment, attach
an idea of immorality, to any serious effort to alter the phases of
society. It is deemed social treason, and like other treason, the
notion of crime is connected with it. The benefits of this drilling,
are great order, with perfect seemliness and method, in conducting
the affairs of life; the defects, the substitution of artificial
for the natural links of society, form for feeling, and the inward
festering of the mind, which, sooner or later, will be certain to
break out on the surface, and disfigure, if it do not destroy, the
body politic. There is no comparison between the _finish_ of an
English, and that of a French servant, for instance, as regards the
thousand little details of duty. One is as much superior to the
other, as an English is superior to a French knife. But, when it
comes to feeling, the advantage is all the other way. The English
servant will not bear familiarity, scarcely kindness: the Frenchman
will hardly dispense with both. To the first you never speak, unless
to order; the latter is treated as an humble friend. The revolution
in France, has shown instances of devotedness and affection, in
consequence, that no revolution in England will ever be likely to see
equalled.
One of the effects of the prejudices of the country, is to supercede
facts and reasoning, by a set of dogmatical inferences, which the
Englishman receives quite as a matter of course, and as beyond
discussion. I could give you a hundred examples of what I mean, but a
recent instance shall suffice.
In a discussion with the conductor of a periodical work, who is
friendly to America, I have had occasion to note the following errors
in relation to ourselves. Speaking of the expedition of Captain Parry
to the north, he bestows very merited encomiums on the conduct of
the crews, which he attributes to their good training, as Englishmen.
By way of illustrating the difference between such a system, and
one that may, with great justice, pass for its converse, he gave an
account of an exploring expedition sent out by the government of the
United States, to the Pacific Ocean, in which the men had put their
officers on shore, and had gone a sealing! You are to understand,
that my acquaintance had been pressing me to contribute to his work,
with the object of correcting the erroneous notions, which prevail in
England, in regard to America.
“Here, said I, is an instance of the sweeping deductions that you
form. You imagine a fact, and directly in the teeth of testimony, go
to work to produce your inferences. The United States never sent an
expedition of the sort any where, and, of course, no such occurrence
could have taken place. Now, as to the principle, I may speak from
some personal knowledge, and I tell you that, according to my
experience, the English seamen are much the most turbulent, and the
Americans much the most tractable, and the least likely to violate
law, of any with whom I have ever had any thing to do. In point of
fact, the officers of no American cruizer, ever lost the command of
their vessel, for an hour, or, perhaps I might say, a minute, though
two or three slight instances of insubordination did occur, under
the old laws, and when the terms of service of the men were legally
up; but, owing to the spirit of the officers, and the habits of
subordination in the crews, in every one of even these instances,
the resistance was immediately quelled. What is the other side of the
picture? Did not the crews of several English vessels, murder their
officers, and run away with the ships, during the last war? There
are the cases of the Hermione, and the Bounty, for instance, and
this assertion of yours is made in face of the notorious historical
fact, that, within the memory of man, the British empire was made to
tremble to its centre, by the mutiny of the Nore!”
I believe my acquaintance was struck with this representation, and
I expected to see an explanation in his work, but the next number
contained a paragraph, which deprecated the admission of matter that
conflicted with the _national prejudices_!
So far as mere manner is concerned, the English drilling produces
better results, in every day life, than our own _pêle mêle_. A
good portion of the _grossieretè_, at home, is for the want of the
condensed class of well-bred people, of which I have so often spoken,
and the moral cowardice of men, who have too often ardent longings
for the glitter of life, without the manliness to enforce its
decencies.[10] Could the two nations meet half way, in this respect,
both would be essentially gainers, we in appearances, and in the
decencies connected with manner, and the English in the more kindly
feelings, and in security. There is undeniably, a cant obtaining the
ascendancy at home, that is destructive of all manner, in conducting
the ordinary relations of life, and which is not free from danger,
as it confounds the substance of things with their shadow. Democracy
has no necessary connexion with vulgarity, but it merely means that
men shall have equal political rights. There can be no greater
fallacy than to say, one man is as good as another, in all things.
In the eye of God, men are equal, and happy is the country, in which
it is not dangerous to declare, also, that they shall be perfectly
equal in all their legal privileges. But beyond this, the principle
cannot be carried, and civilization maintained. One man has higher
tastes, more learning, better principles, more strength, more beauty,
and greater natural abilities, than another. I take it, that human
institutions, are intended to prevent him, who is the most powerful;
in consequence of the possession of these advantages, from injuring
him who is weaker. The relations between master and servant, are not
all affected thereby, and he who submits to labour for hire, under
the directions of an employer serves, while the other commands.
These duties may be conducted with too little, as well as too much
deference of manner. The tendency in civilized society, is always
toward the latter, when the usual proportions between surface and
population are obtained, for it is a consequence of the pressure of
society, and there is little fear that we shall not get our share of
it, in time; though, _en attendant_, we find occasional instances, in
which the individual mistakes insolence, for independence. Perhaps,
after all, _insolence_ is too strong a word. I think, I have met
more pure insolence from Englishmen in low situations, than from
Americans; it is the natural consequence of reaction; though it is
rare, indeed, to meet with the same deference from the last, as from
the first. Assemble, in any reasonable space in America, a dozen
genteel families, and they will, of their own influence, create an
atmosphere of decency, about them, that shall contain all that is
really desirable, in this respect. The inherent sense of right, which
is implanted in every man by nature, and which becomes conscience
in moral things, may be safely confided in, as the surest means of
regulating the deportment of the different castes of society, towards
each other.
There is a very general notion prevalent in England, that we seized
a moment to declare war against them, when they were pressed upon
hardest, by the rest of Europe. A portion of their antipathy is
owing to this idea, though the idea itself is altogether owing to
their prejudices against America, for there is not a particle of
truth in it. I do not remember to have conversed on the subject,
with any Englishman, who did not betray this feeling. It is of
no consequence, that dates disprove the fact. America declared
war, on the 18th of June, 1812, after twenty years of submission
to impressment, and illegal captures, and at a moment when the
government was put in possession of proof of an effort, on the
part of England, to dissolve the Union, as well as of her fixed
determination, not to alter her Orders in Council. As respects the
latter, history gives all the necessary evidence of the expediency of
the war, for it had not been declared three months, when the British
government offered to do, what it had just before officially affirmed
it would not do. In June 1812, Spain and Portugal were in arms, on
the side of England, Russia and Sweden, were secretly preparing to
join her, and that great effort which finally broke down the power
of France, was just about to commence. But in the face of all these
facts, the opinion I have mentioned, certainly exists.
The English have been persuaded that a religious establishment is
indispensable to religion. As regards the establishments of Italy,
France, Spain, Turkey, and all the rest of the world, they are ready
enough to admit that there are capital faults, connected with the
several religious systems, but having got the truth themselves, it is
expedient to fortify it with legal and exclusive advantages. Of all
the profane blasphemies the world has witnessed, that of prostituting
the meek doctrines of Christ, by pampering his professed ministers
with riches and honours, under the hollow pretence of upholding his
faith, is the most insulting to evident truths, and offensive to
humility. Such are the fruits of establishments, and of enlisting
religion in the support of temporal political systems. Good men _may_
prosper, even under these disadvantages, but bad men _will_. It is a
device of the devil, if that fallen angel is, at all, permitted to
meddle with spiritual things.
As we have no establishment, it is the prevalent opinion, here, that
we have no religion. Several intelligent English, have confessed
this much to me; an admission that was not at all necessary, for I
detected the prejudice, before I had been a month in the country:
and one person has actually appealed to me for facts, with a view to
repel the arguments of those who uphold the present state of things;
since it is assumed, that the actual condition of America, is a proof
of the necessity of a religious establishment, in the interests of
order and morality. My answer was, “that were the upper classes of
the English, to be placed in America, with their present habits
and notions, there is not one of them in a hundred, who would not
immediately begin to declaim against the religious fanaticisms and
exaggeration of the country!” This reply, I believe, to contain the
truth. There is an exterior affectation of a deference for spiritual
things, here, among people of condition, that does not always, or
rather so universally exist with us; for, the government being an
aristocracy, and the establishment enlisted in its support, it would
be a singular indiscretion, in times like these, for those who reap
the peculiar advantages of the existing order of things, to neglect
so powerful an ally. Some of these persons, often remind me of that
anecdote of the English sailor, who, falling into the hands of the
Turks, was urged to become a mussulman—“What, change my religion?
No, d—n my eyes, never.” The religious _tone_ of a community, is
best ascertained through its facts. Since I have been in Europe, the
following circumstances, among many others of a similar character,
have come under my eye.
A duel was fought at Boulogne in France, between the Rev. —— ——,
and Mr. ——; the former was attended by his brother, the Rev. —— ——.
Both the reverend gentlemen were ordained clergymen of the church of
England, and the latter was said to be married to the daughter of a
bishop.
A complainant appeared before a London magistrate, in the case of an
assault. The defendant justified himself, by saying, “that he was
driving a gig, with a female; that the complainant passed him on
horseback repeatedly, and insulted his companion, by staring under
her hat; whereupon he horsewhipped the offender.” “You handed this
card to your assailant?” said the magistrate, to the complainant. “I
did.” “With what intention?” “As is usual among gentlemen, when an
outrage like this has been committed.” “One corner of the card is
torn off—why did you tear it off!” “_Because I am in the church_,
sir, and I thought the _‘Rev.’ misplaced on such an occasion_.” The
substance of this statement, with the names of the parties, has
appeared in the police reports, during my visit here.
“The Rev. Mr. O——, fought Mr. ——, at Boulogne, quite recently, the
reverend gentleman hitting his man.”