Ever since boyhood I had pictured America, and everything belonging to
it, from Fennimore Cooper's standpoint. I thought I was going to a spot
quite different from any locality I had previously been accustomed to;
and, lo! New York was altogether commonplace. Nothing original,
nothing tropical, nothing "New World"-like about it. It was only an
ordinary town of the same stamp as many I have noticed on this side of
the water--a European city in a slop suit--"Yankee" all over in _that_
way!
In regard to its extent, which I had been led to believe was quite equal
to, if not surpassing, our metropolis, I found that I could walk from
one side of it to the other in half an hour; and traverse its length in
twice that time--the entire island on which it is built being only nine
miles long. "Why," thought I, when I had arrived at this knowledge,
"some of our suburbs could beat that!"
When bright days came, Broadway undoubtedly looked a little better--
Barnum's streamers, "up town," floating out bravely over the heads of
the "stage" drivers--but I was never able to overcome my first
impressions of it and New York generally; and, to make an end of the
matter, I may say now, that the longer I stayed in the "land of the
settin' sun," north, south, east, and west--I had experience of all--the
less I saw to like in it.
The country and the scenery are well enough; but the people!
Ah! if the Right Honourable John Bright and other ardent admirers of
everything connected with the "great Republic" on the other side of the
ocean, would but go over, as I did, and study it honestly from every
point of view for three years, say, they _must_ come to a different
opinion about the nation which they are so constantly eulogising at the
expense of their own!
Don't let them merely run over to see it in gala trim, however, and have
its workings explained only to them through a transatlantic section of
the same clique of which they are members at home; but let them go in a
private capacity and see things for themselves, mixing amongst all
classes of the American community, and not only in one circle.
They won't, though.
The Manchester manufacturer of "advanced views" visits the Massachusetts
manufacturer;--and, derives all _his_ knowledge of America and her
institutions from him. The trades' union delegate of England palavers
with the working-men's societies of the eastern states; whence he gets
_his_ information of Transatlantic polemics. The ballot enthusiast over
here talks, and only _talks_, mind you! with the believer in the ballot
over there; and so arrives at _his_ conclusions on the subject of secret
voting--and then, all these return to this "down-trodden," "aristocracy-
ridden," "effete old kingdom," and prate about the glorious way in which
their several theories work across the ocean--not one of them having
resided long enough beneath the stars and stripes to be able to judge of
the truth of what they allege, as they are quite contented to take for
gospel the hearsay with which they bolster up their own opinions!
If these respective persons would only go out and live, I say, for three
years consecutively in the States, and move about outside of their
respective bigotted grooves, they would find out, in time, that, the
boasted free, liberty-loving, advanced, progressive commonwealth on the
other side of "the big pond," is?--one of the most despotic, intolerant,
morally-and-politically-rotten republics that ever existed, bar none!
What will your ballot-advocate--who anathematises "Tory coercion," and
is continually urging into notice the "purity of election" that
characterises the system of our "cousins"--say, to the fact, that one
party of "free and enlightened citizens" of the model cosmos of his
admiration regularly sell their votes to the highest bidder; while,
another set, under a military despotism, are compelled to exercise the
franchise only in a manner pleasing to a dominant faction? What will
your Democratic Dilke, or Ouvrier Odger--who may, in this "speech-
gagged," "oppressed" country, heap scurrilous abuse on royalty and
overhaul the washing bills of her Majesty without let or hindrance--say,
for the "liberty of speech" on the other side; where, if they were to
utter a word in favour of the conquered Confederates, amongst a certain
school of "black republicans," they would run the risk of having a
revolver bullet in their epigastric region before they knew where they
were?
How would your communistic enthusiast, who bawls out about the equality
of all men, like to see, as I have seen, "respectable cullered pussons,"
representatives of the beloved "man and a brother," _wearing livery_,
the "badge of servitude," which is only supposed to be donned by the
"menials of European tyrants?" And yet, these darkey flunkeys are in
the service of free and equal citizens of a "Great Republic," strange to
say!
What does your Manchester "Spinning Jenney," the earnest upholder of
free trade, say to the "Protection" policy of his congeners in the
States?
How can he reconcile his statements _here_ with facts _there_?
Where is the "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite," now, when you really come
to dive below the surface, and see things as they are in America, eh?--
But, bless you, these reformers will _not_ so regard the objects of
their veneration. They will only see them in the light in which they
choose to see them; and would swear black was white in order to answer
their purpose!
Your true radical or republican--the name "liberal" is a misnomer--is,
as I have often heard the vicar say, one of the most intolerant,
illiberal persons under the sun. His idea of freedom, is, that
everybody should be free to do as _he_ pleases:--if they object to his
programme, they are evidently not sufficiently "advanced" to suit him!
His liberty of speech, is, for himself to spout away ad libitum on his
hobby, and everybody else who may not agree with him to hold his tongue!
His theory of equality is, for all above him in station to be brought
down to _his_ level, and then, for _him_ to remain cock of the walk!
I have studied the animal. That's his view of it, depend upon it! He
will not be convinced. He will not even "argue the point," nor listen
to a word said on the side contrary to that which he espouses. He has
_his_ opinions, he says; and will stick to them, right or wrong--
notwithstanding the home truths that may lie in those of others opposed
to him. Dogged, certainly:--liberal, no! Do you doubt what I say?--Let
us go to particulars then.
Your candid disestablishers, for instance,--will they meet your
outspoken churchmen, who stand up for the old faith in the constitution,
on an open platform; and discuss the question of a national church on a
common footing, where both its opponents and its supporters can be
heard?
Will your would--be--republican, foregathering at some Hole-in-the-Wall
meeting, allow a conservative speaker to say a word in opposition to his
progressive puerilities? Your teetotal-alliancer, in a quorum of water-
drinkers, will he _let_ a licensed victualler utter a protest against
his scheme for universal abstinence?
No.
Each and all of these several cliques are, in common with all cliques,
narrow-minded and intolerant. They prefer being kings of their
respective small companies and enjoying the mutual admiration of a
packed assembly, to coming out boldly like men and letting the pros and
cons of their schemes be ventilated in free discussion at genuine
meetings, composed of diverse elements.--Do you want any further proof?
I confess, I don't like republics or republicans. Once upon a time,
before seeing how they worked, I undoubtedly had a leaning towards the
"liberalism," as I thought it, of this school; but a thorough exposure
of the "institution" and the character of its partisans in America and
in France have completely opened my eyes to their real nature.
Were I asked, now, to define a republic, I should say that it was a
general scramble for power and perquisites, by a lot of ragged rascals
with empty pockets, who have everything to gain by success, and nothing
to lose by failure.--A sort of "rough and tumble" fight, in which those
with the easiest consciences, the loudest tongues and the wildest
promises, come to the fore, letting "the devil take the hindmost!"
It is a so-called commonwealth, wherein the welfare of the mass is
subordinated to party spirit; and in which each aspirant for place and
power, well knowing that his chief ambition is to "feather his own nest"
without any afterthought of patriotism, kicks down his struggling
brother--likewise on the lookout for the loaves and fishes of office--
ostracising him, if he doesn't put up with the treatment quietly!
I may be wrong, certainly, and I'm open to argument on the point, but I
like our old system best. I infinitely prefer a gentleman with a
reputation, to a snob with none; and a clean shirt to a dirty one! and
if you allow that I possess the right of selecting my future rulers, I
would much rather have those whom birth and education have taught at
least toleration, than a parcel of grubby-nailed democrats, innocent of
soap-and-water, who wish to choke their one-sided creed, willy-nilly,
down my throat, in defiance of my inclinations and better judgment; and
whose sole interest in "their fellow man" is centred in the problem--how
to line their own pockets at his cost, in the neatest way!
"Sans culottes" and the "Bonnet Rouge" for those who like them; but, as
a matter of choice, I prefer a pair of decent "inexpressibles" and a
Lincoln and Bennett "chapeau!" As the elder Capulet's first scullion
sagely remarked to his fellow-servant--
"When good manners shall lie all in one or two men's hands, and they
unwashed too, 'tis a foul thing!"
There are men calling themselves "politicians"--save the mark! that
would have us pull down the old constitutional machine, (lumbering it
may be,) which has served our purpose for generations, and whose working
and capabilities we have tested some odd thousand years; to replace it
with the newfangled gimcrack model which is continually getting out of
gear across the Atlantic; and I have no patience with them. I do not
particularly desire to run America and its people down; but, when we are
in the habit of criticising the deeds and doings of our continental
neighbours, without much reticence as to our likes and dislikes, I do
not see why any especial immunity should be placed over Americans to
taboo them from honest judgment!
I must say that when I hear and read the fulsome admiration that it has
been the fashion of late to express and write concerning our so-called
"cousins," it fairly makes my blood boil. If nobody else _will_ "take
the gilt off the gingerbread," why shouldn't I try to do so?
The truth of the matter, with regard to America, is that the Columbian
eagle makes such a tremendous cackling over every little _egg_ it lays,
that we cis-Atlantic folks rate its achievements much higher than they
deserve!
We do not kick up a fuss about our general proceedings; consequently, we
imagine something very great must have happened to cause the Bird o'
Freedom to burst into such gallinacious paeans of delight.
The "advancement" of the first Republic, you say?--Why, it has taken
over a hundred years to grow, and it _ought_ to be arriving at maturity
by this time!
The determination of its citizens displayed in crushing out secession?--
They took four years to do it in, although they had an army and navy
provided to their hand, and were receiving recruits in hundreds from the
masses of incoming emigrants, up to the very end of the struggle; while,
the Southerners had to improvise everything, and their forces dwindled
down day by day.
We put down the Indian mutiny in 1857 with a little handful of troops,
that had to confront thousands upon thousands of insurgent Hindoos
before a single reinforcement could arrive from England:--_we_ never
triumphed so loudly about what we did on that occasion; and yet, our
campaign against the Sepoys was fought over a far more extended
territory than the war for the "Union."
Their progress, you remark?
Pooh, my dear sir! One would almost think, to hear you talk, that the
old world had stood still in sheer astonishment ever since the "new" was
ushered into being!
Granted, that a few wooden shanties are run up "out west" on the
prairies, and styled "towns," and that these towns grow into "cities"
by-and-by:--what then? Are there not miles of streets, and houses
without number, added to London, and other little villages over here
every year, which do not attract any comment--except in the annual
report of the Registrar General?
Their Union Pacific Railway, connecting New York with Saint Francisco;
and hence abridging the distance between Europe and Asia!
A "big thing," certainly; but have you forgotten our Underground line,
and the Holborn Viaduct, and the Thames Embankment--either and all of
which can vie with the noblest relics of ancient Rome?
Bah! Don't talk to me in that strain, please. Has not France also
achieved the Suez Canal, and Italy the Mont Cenis tunnel--both works
surpassing any feat of Transatlantic engineering ever attempted. Why,
their Hoosaic tunnel, which is not near the size of the Alpine one, and
which has been talked of and worked at for the last twenty years, is not
yet half completed! Have we not, too, run railways through the jungles
of India, and spanned the wastes of Australia with the electric wire?
Ha! while alluding to telegraphs, let us instance the Atlantic cable.
_That_ strikes nearer home, doesn't it? Originated as the idea was by
an American, Cyrus Field--to whom may all honour be given--can you
inform me which country is entitled to take credit for its success--slow
England or smart America?
You won't answer, eh? Then I'll tell you.
The company that conducted that undertaking to a triumphant issue--was
got up in London, and formed mostly of Englishmen. The money that paid
for the ocean cable--came out of the pockets of English shareholders.
English manufacturers constructed it:--English artisans fashioned it;
and an English ship, the largest ever built, manned by an English crew,
laid it. There! what do you say to that now, eh?
"Caved in?"