north america-1-第3节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


demanding　secession　not　constitutionally；　but　in　opposition　to　the　constitution；　taking　upon　themselves　the　right　of　breaking　up　a　nationality　of　which　they　formed　only　a　part；　and　doing　that　without　consent　of　the　other　part；　opposition　from　the　North　and　war　was　an　inevitable　consequence。　It　is；　I　think；　only　necessary　to　look　back　to　the　Revolution　by　which　the　United　States　separated　themselves　from　England　to　see　this。　　There　is　hardly　to　be　met；　here　and　there；　an　Englishman　who　now　regrets　the　loss　of　the　revolted　American　colonies；　who　now　thinks　that　civilization　was　retarded　and　the　world　injured　by　that　revolt；　who　now　conceives　that　England　should　have　expended　more　treasure　and　more　lives　in　the　hope　of　retaining　those　colonies。　It　is　agreed　that　the　revolt　was　a　good　thing；　that　those　who　were　then　rebels　became　patriots　by　success；　and　that　they　deserved　well　of　all　coming　ages　of　mankind。　　But　not　the　less　absolutely　necessary　was　it　that　England　should　endeavor　to　hold　her　own。　　She　was　as　the　mother　bird　when　the　young　bird　will　fly　alone。　　She　suffered　those　pangs　which　Nature　calls　upon　mothers　to　endure。　As　was　the　necessity　of　British　opposition　to　American　independence；　so　was　the　necessity　of　Northern　opposition　to　Southern　secession。　　I　do　not　say　that　in　other　respects　the　two　cases　were　parallel。　　The　States　separated　from　us　because　they　would　not　endure　taxation　without　representationin　other　words；　because　they　were　old　enough　and　big　enough　to　go　alone。　　The　South　is　seceding　from　the　North　because　the　two　are　not　homogeneous。　They　have　different　instincts；　different　appetites；　different　morals；　and　a　different　culture。　　It　is　well　for　one　man　to　say　that　slavery　has　caused　the　separation；　and　for　another　to　say　that　slavery　has　not　caused　it。　　Each　in　so　saying　speaks　the　truth。　Slavery　has　caused　it；　seeing　that　slavery　is　the　great　point　on　which　the　two　have　agreed　to　differ。　　But　slavery　has　not　caused　it；　seeing　that　other　points　of　difference　are　to　be　found　in　every　circumstance　and　feature　of　the　two　people。　　The　North　and　the　South　must　ever　be　dissimilar。　　In　the　North　labor　will　always　be　honorable；　and　because　honorable；　successful。　　In　the　South　labor　has　ever　been　servileat　least　in　some　senseand　therefore　dishonorable；　and　because　dishonorable；　has　not；　to　itself；　been　successful。　　In　the　South；　I　say；　labor　ever　has　been　dishonorable；　and　I　am　driven　to　confess　that　I　have　not　hitherto　seen　a　sign　of　any　change　in　the　Creator's　fiat　on　this　matter。　　That　labor　will　be　honorable　all　the　world　over　as　years　advance　and　the　millennium　draws　nigh；　I　for　one　never　doubt。　So　much　for　English　opinion　about　America　in　August　last。　　And　now　I　will　venture　to　say　a　word　or　two　as　to　American　feeling　respecting　this　English　opinion　at　that　period。　　It　will　of　course　be　remembered　by　all　my　readers　that；　at　the　beginning　of　the　war；　Lord　Russell；　who　was　then　in　the　lower　house；　declared；　as　Foreign　Secretary　of　State；　that　England　would　regard　the　North　and　South　as　belligerents；　and　would　remain　neutral　as　to　both　of　them。　　This　declaration　gave　violent　offense　to　the　North；　and　has　been　taken　as　indicating　British　sympathy　with　the　cause　of　the　seceders。　　I　am　not　going　to　explainindeed；　it　would　be　necessary　that　I　should　first　understandthe　laws　of　nations　with　regard　to　blockaded　ports；　privateering；　ships　and　men　and　goods　contraband　of　war；　and　all　those　semi…nautical；　semi…military　rules　and　axioms　which　it　is　necessary　that　all　attorneys…general　and　such　like　should；　at　the　present　moment；　have　at　their　fingers'　end。　　But　it　must　be　evident　to　the　most　ignorant　in　those　matters；　among　which　large　crowd　I　certainly　include　myself；　that　it　was　essentially　necessary　that　Lord　John　Russell　should　at　that　time　declare　openly　what　England　intended　to　do。　　It　was　essential　that　our　seamen　should　know　where　they　would　be　protected　and　where　not；　and　that　the　course　to　be　taken　by　England　should　be　defined。　　Reticence　in　the　matter　was　not　within　the　power　of　the　British　government。　　It　behooved　the　Foreign　Secretary　of　State　to　declare　openly　that　England　intended　to　side　either　with　one　party　or　with　the　other；　or　else　to　remain　neutral　between　them。　I　had　heard　this　matter　discussed　by　Americans　before　I　left　England；　and　I　have　of　course　heard　it　discussed　very　frequently　in　America。　　There　can　be　no　doubt　that　the　front　of　the　offense　given　by　England　to　the　Northern　States　was　this　declaration　of　Lord　John　Russell's。　　But　it　has　been　always　made　evident　to　me　that　the　sin　did　not　consist　in　the　fact　of　England's　neutralityin　the　fact　of　her　regarding　the　two　parties　as　belligerentsbut　in　the　open　declaration　made　to　the　world　by　a　Secretary　of　State　that　she　did　intend　so　to　regard　them。　　If　another　proof　were　wanting；　this　would　afford　another　proof　of　the　immense　weight　attached　in　America　to　all　the　proceedings　and　to　all　the　feelings　of　England　on　this　matter。　　The　very　anger　of　the　North　is　a　compliment　paid　by　the　North　to　England。　　But　not　the　less　is　that　anger　unreasonable。　　To　those　in　America　who　understand　our　constitution；　it　must　be　evident　that　our　government　cannot　take　official　measures　without　a　public　avowal　of　such　measures。　　France　can　do　so。　　Russia　can　do　so。　　The　government　of　the　United　States　can　do　so；　and　could　do　so　even　before　this　rupture。　　But　the　government　of　England　cannot　do　so。　　All　men　connected　with　the　government　in　England　have　felt　themselves　from　time　to　time　more　or　less　hampered　by　the　necessity　of　publicity。　　Our　statesmen　have　been　forced　to　fight　their　battles　with　the　plan　of　their　tactics　open　before　their　adversaries。　　But　we　in　England　are　inclined　to　believe　that　the　general　result　is　good；　and　that　battles　so　fought　and　so　won　will　be　fought　with　the　honestest　blows　and　won　with　the　surest　results。　　Reticence　in　this　matter　was　not　possible；　and　Lord　John　Russell；　in　making　the　open　avowal　which　gave　such　offense　to　the　Northern　States；　only　did　that　which；　as　a　servant　of　England；　England　required　him　to　do。　〃What　would　you　in　England　have　thought；〃　a　gentleman　of　much　weight　in　Boston　said　to　me；　〃if；　when　you　were　in　trouble　in　India；　we　had　openly　declared　that　we　regarded　your　opponents　there　are　as　belligerents　on　equal　terms　with　yourselves？〃　　I　was　forced　to　say　that；　as　far　as　I　could　see；　there　was　no　analogy　between　the　two　cases。　　In　India　an　army　had　mutinied；　and　that　an　army　composed　of　a　subdued；　if　not　a　servile　race。　　The　analogy　would　have　been　fairer　had　it　referred　to　any　sympathy　shown　by　us　to　insurgent　negroes。　　But；　nevertheless；　had　the　army　which　mutinied　in　India　been　in　possession　of　ports　and　sea…board；　had　they　held　in　their　hands　vast　commercial　cities　and　great　agricultural　districts；　had　they　owned　ships　and　been　masters　of　a　wide…spread　trade；　America　could　have　done　nothing　better　toward　us　than　have　remained　neutral　in　such　a　conflict　and　have　regarded　the　parties　as　belligerents。　　The　only　question　is　whether　she　would　have　done　so　well　by　us。　　〃But；〃　said　my　friend；　in　answer　to　all　this；　〃we　should　not　have　proclaimed　to　the　world　that　we　regarded　you　and　them　as　standing　on　an　equal　footing。〃　　There　again　appeared　the　true　gist　of　the　offense。　　A　word　from　England　such　as　that　spoken　by　Lord　John　Russell　was　of　such　weight　to　the　South　that　the　North　could　not　endure　to　have　it　spoken。　　I　did　not　say　to　that　gentleman；　but　here　I　may　say　that；　had　such　circumstances　arisen　as　those　conjectured；　and　had　America　spoken　such　a　word；　England　would　not　have　felt　herself　called　upon　to　resent　it。　But　the　fairer　analogy　lies　between　Ireland　and　the　Southern　States。　　The　monster　meetings　and　O'Connell's　triumphs　are　not　so　long　gone　by　but　that　many　of　us　can　remember　the　first　demand　for　secession　made　by　Ireland；　and　the　line　which　was　then　taken　by　American　sympathies。　　It　is　not　too　much　to　say　that　America　then　believed　that　Ireland　would　secure　secession；　and　that　the　great　trust　of　the　Irish　repealers　was　in　the　moral　aid　which　she　did　and　would　receive　from　America。　　〃But　our　government　proclaimed　no　sympathy　with　Ireland；〃　said　my　friend。　　No。　　The　American　government　is　not　called　on　to　make　such　proclamations；　nor　had　Ireland　ever　taken　upon　herself　the　nature　and　labors　of　a　belligerent。　That　this　anger　on　the　part　of　the　North　is　unreasonable；　I　cannot　doubt。　　That　it　is　unfortunate；　grievous；　and　very　bitter；　I　am　quite　sure。　　But　I　do　not　think　that　it　is　in　any　degree　surprising。　　I　am　inclined　to　think　that；　did　I　belong　to　Boston　as　I　do　belong　to　London；　I　should　share　in　the　feeling；　and　rave　as　loudly　as　all　men　there　have　raved　against　the　coldness　of　England。　When　men　have　on　hand　such　a　job　of　work　as　the　North　has　now　undertaken；　they　are　always　guided　by　their　feelings　rather　than　their　reason。　　What　two　men　ever　had　a　quarrel　in　which　each　did　not　think　that　all　the　world；　if　just；　would　espouse　his　own　side　of　the　dispute？　　The　North　feels　that　it　has　been　more　than　loyal　to　the　South；　and　that　the　South　has　taken　advantage　of　that　over…　loyalty　to　betray　the　North。　　〃We　have　worked　for　them；　and　fought　for　them；　and　paid　for　them；〃　says　the　North。　　〃By　our　labor　we　have　raised　their