Part 20

We cannot dismiss this book without noticing the extremely unhappy treatment which the personal and professional character of Mr. Choate has received at the author's hands. That he should have introduced into it, as he has done, such stories, or jokes, or anecdotes, or whatever else they may be called, as the commonest good taste or good sense should have told him to exclude, we suppose ought in charity to be attributed to mere uncontrollable garrulity. But he has also completely missed some of the most obvious and familiar characteristics of Mr. Choate, and his description of others which he professes to have perceived he spoils by unseemly and unintelligent illustration. We have not the patience to follow him through this part of his performance. It is enough to say that none who knew Mr. Choate would ever recognize the portrait.

We regret extremely that Mr. Parker felt himself called upon to write and print his "Reminiscences." He has done himself no credit whatever; but that is comparatively a small matter. The book is in every way an injurious and indecorous one. And if he really respects the fame of the distinguished man whom he has attempted to describe, he must agree with us in the hope that his own work may be forgotten as soon as possible.

_A History of the Whig Party_. By R. Mc KINLEY ORMSBY. Boston: Crosby Nichols, & Co.

The duties of an historian, always difficult, are peculiarly so when he attempts to treat of recent events. In such a case, the historian whose mind is not so warped by sympathies and antipathies as to make him utterly incompetent to his task must possess a rare impartiality of judgment and extraordinary keenness of insight, all assisted by candid and painful research. To what extent these qualities are united in Mr. Ormsby, we propose to inquire.

We are at first favorably impressed. Mr. Ormsby's Preface is most striking,--uniting not only touching candor, but innocence absolutely refreshing. The duties of historian, which we just now called so weighty, rest lightly upon his conscious strength. The historian remarks, that "he is aware that his outlines are very imperfect, and in many things may be erroneous. He has had no access to libraries or public documents; and his statistics are sometimes given from general recollection, and are but approximations to accuracy. But, feeling that some history of the parties of this country is needed, he has the temerity to offer this, till its place shall be supplied by one more reliable and satisfactory."

Any man's apology for deficiencies in his book may be accepted, provided he be able to make good the suppressed premise upon which, after all, the whole depends, namely,--that there was need of his writing at all. Mr. Ormsby seems to think there was, but gives no reasons in support of his opinion. Supposing it proved, however, it might be gravely debated whether the fortunate owner of this book would have any advantage over the man so unlucky as not to possess it.

We have all heard of the man who planned a house on so magnificent a scale, that, when the porch was finished, the funds were found to be nearly exhausted, and the main body of the house had to be built much smaller than the porch. Mr. Ormsby has avoided this error. His porch is _not_ half of the whole structure. His book contains 377 pages; of these, only 188 (actually less than half!) are devoted to porch, or introductory matter. This part is richly studded with blunders of every description, and written in language which for copiousness and clearness rivals the fertilizing inundations of the Nile.

The decorous appearance of impartiality, necessary to an historian, is well preserved by such choice language as "crusade against the institutions and people of the South,"--"fratricidal hand in sectional warfare,"--"first to arouse jealousy and hatred,"--"the South at the mercy of the North,"--"shriek for freedom,"--"political mountebank,"--"and it is to the stunted, obtuse, bigoted, fanatical, ignorant, jaundiced, self-righteous, and self-conceited millions of such in the North, that Mr. Seward, and others of his kidney, address," etc., etc.,--"British gold," (a favorite phrase,)--"cant of British philanthropy,"--etc., etc.

Mr. Ormsby devotes some little space to what may be called the legitimate object of his work,--that is, the vindication of the distinctive tariff policy of the Whigs,--and here advocates a good cause in a singularly illogical, bungling way. Most of his book, however, is given up to foolish invective against British machinations in the United States,--an idea which may have been plausible in Jefferson's time, but has long been abandoned to minds of our author's calibre,--and to arguments against the Republican party which show only that he is entirely ignorant of the doctrines of that party, and entirely incompetent to understand them, if he were not ignorant.

We can present only a few specimens, taken almost at random from the pages of this book. The author's ignorance (omitting the frequent instances of error in the names) may be shown by his ranking R. M. Johnson of Kentucky and Davy Crockett among the eminent statesmen of their time! He says of Mr. Clay, "When, in 1825, as a Senator from Kentucky, he sustained Mr. Adams (in the House) for the Presidency, he acted," etc. Now Henry Clay was not in the Senate at any time between March 3, 1811, and March 4, 1831. Moreover, if he had been, he could not have voted for Adams, as Mr. Ormsby would have known, had he known anything of the Constitution to which he professes such entire devotion. Of the Missouri Compromise he says, "It was an arrangement by which the South made concessions, and gained nothing"! If we are to adopt the principle, that slavery is to be fostered, not discouraged, the South did make concessions. The essential principle of the Republican party is, that slavery is a great evil and brings in its train many other evils, and that the legislation of the United States is not to be warped by vain attempts to save the slave-holding interest from inevitable disaster by systematic injustice to the other interests of the country. If we adopt this view, which is admitted even by so ardent a pro-slavery leader as Senator Mason of Virginia to have been the view of the framers of the Constitution, then the South gave up what she never owned, and was paid for so doing. And taking either view, we must admit that she has since, by the Kansas-Nebraska act, revoked the grant, without refunding the pay.

Mr. Ormsby mentions "the significant and highly encouraging fact," that many leading Democrats, including Mr. Hallett, (whose name, of course, he spells incorrectly,) declared for Protection in the campaign of 1856. His taking courage from so insignificant a fact as any of these gentlemen declaring for any serviceable doctrine in a campaign shows Mr. Ormsby to be by no means intimately acquainted with Massachusetts Democracy.

It is commonly thought that General Taylor's nomination kept the Whigs from sinking in 1848, and that the Whig party died in 1852 "of trying to swallow the Fugitive Slave Law." But Mr. Ormsby thinks Taylor hurt them, and that the Baltimore Platform was too anti-slavery. He frequently alludes to Garrison and Phillips as Republicans, although nearly every other adult in the country knows that they are bitter opponents of that party,--says that Mr. Seward can rely only upon the Abolitionists in the North,--misunderstands, of course, the "irrepressible conflict,"--says that no Northern editor ventures to speak or write against Personal Liberty bills, although probably not a day passes without their being assailed by a dozen in New England alone,--that slaves never can be carried into New Mexico, although they have been carried thither, and slavery has even been declared perpetual by enactment of the Territorial Legislature,--and, speaking of Kansas, that President Buchanan's "best endeavors to secure the people of that Territory equal rights were thwarted by factionists"!--in other words, "factionists" declined to admit Kansas under the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution, forced by gross frauds upon a loathing and reluctant people. He adds, that "no one denies Mr. Buchanan eminent patriotism and statesmanship." Now, whether the President possesses these qualities or not, there can be no doubt that a great many deny them to him. And so Mr. Ormsby continues, heaping blunder upon blunder, to a greater length than we can follow him.

On p.79, he makes this following unorthodox statement: "We have a right to hate and detest slavery, and should belie our natures, were we not to do so." Elsewhere, however, he dwells rapturously upon the happy lot of the slave. The apparent inconsistency is explained on p. 318: "We will not insult our understandings by doubting the great enormity of so foul a thing as human bondage." "In regard to detestation of slavery, there is no difference between the people of the North and South." "But these two people (!!) differ widely in their feelings in regard to negro servitude." Oh, that is it, then? Vast is the difference between "human bondage" and "negro servitude!"

Mr. Ormsby's argument is aimed against the Republicans. Accordingly, he assails the Abolitionists! Now we do not find fault with him because his arguments are pitiably silly,--because an intelligent Abolitionist would refute them instantly,--but because, even if they were sound, they have no bearing upon his point. They are not only nonsensical, but irrelevant.

"For the ignorance of the Southerners," says our author, "we should pity them, and send them our schoolmasters, who, in happy years past, have ever found a cordial reception." Exactly so,--"in happy years _past_." He then innocently asks, Is it strange that the South should think it necessary that she should have the ascendency in at least one branch of the national government? Oh, no,--not at all,--but as Republicans _don't_ consider it necessary, is it strange that they should, vote as they think?

Here is a sample of most eminently logical reasoning: "The powerful efforts made by the British government to suppress the slave-trade have been far from successful. The exportation of negroes from Africa has not been discontinued, but the sufferings of the middle passage have been increased twofold; _showing that an attempt to thwart by legislation the decrees of Providence is of but little avail_." If murder were frequent in New York, and an insufficient force called out to suppress it, the consequence being only more bloodshed, Mr. Ormsby, to be consistent, would have to say it was not well to try to suppress murder, the event showing it to be only a futile legislative attempt to thwart the decrees of Providence!

"Not that any Whig was more in favor of the extension of slavery into the Territories, by the general government, than Mr. Fremont, or the best Republican at his back; but the idea of the formation of a party based on the slavery question could not be entertained for a moment by any one imbued with genuine Whig sentiments." pp. 357-8.

There is precisely the old argument of timid conservatism, although its champions are seldom unskilful enough to advance it in a form so easily dealt with. You may be bitterly opposed, forsooth, to the extension of slavery; but you must not organize or even vote against it! Where, then, is the good of being opposed to it?

The object of all this bad logic, bad history, and bad language is to attack the Republicans, and advocate the claims of modern Democracy,--not the Democracy of Jefferson and Silas Wright, but of Cushing and Buchanan. And what is the conclusion? What is the mission of the surviving Whigs?

"The existence of a conservative, enlightened, and patriotic opposition party is the necessary condition of the existence of the Democracy as a national party." p. 355.

"The slightest reflection, after even a superficial observation of the condition of our country, will satisfy any candid person, of ordinary ability, that the reconstruction of the Whig party is indispensable to the perpetuity of the Union. The Democratic party, though now national, if left to the sole opposition of the Republican, which is a sectional party, must inevitably, sooner or later, itself degenerate into sectionalism. This must be the necessary result of such antagonism. But a party based upon intelligence and moral worth _must, most of the time, be in the minority of the country, and much of the time exceedingly small. This the Whigs see, and readily accept the conditions of their existence_." pp. 363-4.

This, then, is the banquet to which we are invited! The mission of the resuscitated Whig party is to be--not gaining any victory, but--being beaten by the Democrats! It is important to the nationality of the Democratic party that they have a sound and national opposition for them to defeat regularly, year after year,--and this want the Whigs are to be so obliging as to supply!

After all, is there anything very strange in silly men writing silly books?

_The West Indies and the Spanish Main_. By ANTHONY TROLLOPE, Author of "Barchester Towers," "Doctor Thorne," "The Bertrams," etc. London. 1859. 8vo. pp. 395.

This entertaining volume has already reached a second edition in England. It is made up, in great part, of a series of lively sketches of the West Indies, British Guiana, and some parts of Central America, taken on a hasty tour during the winter and spring of last year. Its style is by no means so good as that of which Mr. Trollope has shown himself the master in his popular novels; it is disfigured by Carlylisms, and other inelegancies, and bears many marks of negligence and haste. With a little pains, Mr. Trollope might have made his book much better, and of much more permanent value. In spite of a sense of real humor, he sometimes falls into heavy attempts at smartness and fun; and although he has a quick eye for the essential traits of character, he not infrequently runs into trivial details. In travelling with him, one is not quite certain whether his companion is a gentleman. Breakfasts, lunches, and dinners hold a great place in his thoughts. He gives far too much attention to rum-and-water, brandy-and-water, and the varieties of drinking and eating in general. He has neither the ease nor the self-restraint which mark the thoroughly well-bred man of the world; but he is, nevertheless, good-natured, amusing, and likable. The chief merit of his book arises from the fact that he has seen much and many parts of the world, has been a student of life and manners, and thus has acquired skill in observation and facility of comparison. The conclusions which he draws from what he sees may be right or wrong; but he knows well how to state what has come to his notice, and his readers may get from his pictures many valuable indications in regard to men and to social conditions, whether they accept his conclusions or not.

The state of the British West Indies is one of peculiar interest at the present day, both in a social and an economical point of view. The great questions opened by the emancipation of the slaves in these islands, in 1834, are not yet settled; and upon the solution of the problems now being worked out there depends not only their own future, but also, in great measure, the future of all the countries in which slavery still exists. If the results of emancipation prove, on the whole, advantageous both to masters and slaves, the question of the universal and comparatively speedy abolition of slavery would be virtually decided. If, however, it should be shown that the results, in the long run, are disastrous both to whites and blacks, or to either of these classes, then, although no one can doubt that slavery must sooner or later be done away with, wherever it now exists, the time of its abolition may be indefinitely postponed, and other means of accomplishing it must be devised and adopted, than those which the example of the West Indies will have proved injurious.

As in regard to all matters which have been vehemently discussed, the accounts in regard to the effects of emancipation in the West Indies differ widely; but the weight of authority tends to show, that, putting aside for the moment all moral considerations, the scale inclines towards the side of good. Mr. Trollope, who writes without prejudice, may be taken as a fair witness, so far as his opportunities for observation extended; and as his views will not satisfy the warm

## partisans of either side, it may perhaps be assumed that they are in the

main correct. In his chapter on the Black Men in Jamaica, he says: "I shall be asked, having said so much, whether I think that emancipation was wrong. By no means. I think that emancipation was clearly right; but I think that we expected far too great and far too quick a result from emancipation. These people [the negroes] are a servile race, fitted by nature for the hardest physical work, and apparently at present fitted for little else. Some thirty years since, they were in a state where such work was their lot; but their tasks were exacted from them in a condition of bondage abhorrent to the feelings of the age, and opposed to the religion which we practised. For us, thinking as we did, slavery was a sin. From that sin we have cleansed ourselves. But the mere fact of doing so has not freed us from our difficulties. Nor was it to be expected that it should. The discontinuance of a sin is always the commencement of a struggle."

This is well said. The negroes, freed from the bondage of labor, suddenly becoming masters of themselves, with simple and easily satisfied wants, with abundant means of subsistence, to be procured at the expense of the least possible effort, exposed to no competition from the pressure of population, and endowed by nature with indolent temperaments, naturally took to leading idle and easy lives, and refused to work except at their own pleasure. They had, as a class, no desire of regular and continued occupation, and little sense of the worth of work in itself. There was nothing surprising in this, and the blacks were little to be blamed for it. But the world will not advance, unless men work; and any country where there is not a sufficient stimulus for labor is in the course of decline. The inevitable results followed in the West Indies from the difficulty of obtaining labor. In Jamaica, the largest and most important of these British islands, other and widely different causes--mistakes in legislation, previous financial embarrassment, and especially the unwillingness or inability of the planters to recognize the necessities of their altered position--contributed to bring about a condition of wretched adversity. Estates went out of cultivation, expensive establishments failed, roads were disused, and the island was full of the signs of decay. The negroes, indeed, were happy; a few days' work in the course of the year secured them subsistence; and irregular labor for wages, on the plantations of their old masters, gave them the means of gratifying their liking for dress and finery.

A full generation has not yet passed since the act of emancipation, but there are already indications that this transitional condition is drawing to an end. A portion, at least, of the negroes are beginning to recognize the responsibilities as well as the privileges of liberty, to seek employment for the sake of raising themselves and their children in the social scale, and to accumulate property. They are not merely free, but are becoming independent. Still the number of those who live from hand to mouth, in the indolent and useless possession of freedom, is very great. In Mr. Trollope's opinion, little is to be expected from the blacks. "To lie in the sun and eat bread-fruit and yams is the negro's idea of being free. Such freedom as that has not been intended for man in this world; and I say that Jamaica, as it now exists, is still under a devil's ordinance." Education is a slow process with the blacks.

But in Jamaica, as elsewhere, where slavery exists, there is a race neither black nor white, but of mixed blood, important in numbers, and important also from possessing a mingling of the qualities of its progenitors, which seems to fit it peculiarly for the prosperous occupation of the tropics. Supposing this colored race to have the power of continuing itself through successive generations, a problem which is as yet unsolved, it would seem as if the future of these islands were mainly in its hands. Of pure whites, there are not more than fifteen thousand in Jamaica; of the mixed race, there are said to be seventy thousand. Before the abolition of slavery, their position was one of degradation; since the abolition, it has greatly improved. They are still looked upon with ill-concealed disdain by their white brothers and sisters; but they are forcing themselves into social recognition and equality. "These people marry now," said a lady to Mr. Trollope; "but their mothers and grandmothers never thought of looking to that at all." There is matter for reflection, as well as for satisfaction, in that sentence.

But as yet the condition of Jamaica is such as may well excite doubt as to the possibility of its recovery from the misfortunes under which it has suffered,--misfortunes due quite as much to the evils of preëxisting slavery, as to the blow given to its prosperity by the act of emancipation. "Are Englishmen in general aware," asks Mr. Trollope, "that half the sugar-estates in Jamaica, and I believe more than half the coffee-plantations, have gone back into a state of bush?--that all this land, rich with the richest produce only some thirty years since, has now fallen back into wilderness?"

Still, if the experiment of emancipation be considered doubtful or disastrous, so far as Jamaica is concerned, it cannot be esteemed so in regard to the chief remaining, islands. In Barbadoes, for instance, there was no squatting-ground for the blacks. The negro was obliged to work or starve. Labor was consequently abundant,--and "there is not a rood of waste land" in the island. Even here, "numerous as are the negroes, they certainly live an easier life than that of an English laborer, earn their money with more facility, and are more independent of their masters." In the report made by the governor of the island, in 1853, he states,--"So far, the success of cultivation by free labor in Barbadoes is unquestionable."[1]

Trinidad, of which but a comparatively small part has been cultivated, and where the negroes have displayed the same indisposition to labor as in Jamaica, is, however, flourishing. Its prosperity seems to be due to the fact, that, during the last few years, some ten or twelve thousand Coolies have been brought from the East Indies, and have supplied the demand for labor.

In British Guiana, or Demerara, on the main land, the same fact has brought about a similar result. The emancipated negro could not be depended upon for regular work. He established himself on his small freehold, and lived, like Theodore Hook's club-man, "in idleness and ease." But for some years past laborers have been brought in freely from India and China, and the fertile colony is now in a state of abundant prosperity. Mr. Trollope seems to us to refute effectually the notion, so far at least as regards the British West Indies, that this Cooly immigration, is only slavery under another name. "On their arrival in Demerara," he says, "the Coolies are distributed among the planters by the Governor,--to each planter according to his application, his means of providing for them, and his willingness and ability to pay the cost of the immigration by yearly instalments.