In conclusion, I will only add a few remarks as to ocean steamers, on which subject, as on the invention of the engine, there is considerable difficulty in awarding the honours to any single individual. The Americans were the first to employ steamers along the coast, and the "Savannah," built by them in 1819, was the first vessel that crossed the ocean employing steam in any way as an a.s.sistant. But in her the steam was a very small auxiliary power, and upon the sails the vessel mainly depended. She cannot, therefore, fairly be called an ocean steamer. The "Enterprise," a vessel of 500 tons burden, with two 120 horse-power engines, started from London for Calcutta, touching at the Cape of Good Hope, about the year 1826; and may be fairly considered as the first vessel that made an ocean journey essentially dependent on steam.

Subsequently the "Royal William," built at Quebec, after running between that port and Halifax from 1831 to 1833, started in the fall of the latter year for Falmouth; and to her belongs the honour of being the first _bona fide_ paddle-wheel steamer that crossed the Atlantic. She was afterwards sold to the Portuguese government, and fitted up as a man-of-war steamer, under the name of the "Dona Isabella."

If, however, it be asked, where oceanic communication took its rise, unquestionably that honour belongs to Bristol and the "Great Western," a steamer of 210 feet in length, 1240 tons, fitted with two engines of 210 horse-power each. This vessel started on the 8th of March, 1838, under the command of Captain Hosken, reached New York in thirteen days ten hours, and made the return pa.s.sage in fifteen days. Since that date ocean steamers and steam companies have risen up like mushrooms. England and America have established a kind of weekly Derby, Cunard entering one horse and Collins the other. Unquestionably the Americans have been pioneers in improving the build, and a rivalry has sprung up which is as useful as it is honourable.

The English boats adhere to a greater proportion of sail, in case of accidents to the engine; the Americans carry less sail than we do, for the sake of increasing the speed. As to relative comfort on board the two boats, an American gentleman, who had made several voyages, told me the only difference he ever discovered was, the same as exists between the hotels of the respective countries.--To return to litigation.

Another claim frequently set up in America is the invention of the telegraph. Even in the Census Report--which I suppose may be considered a Government work--I read the following:--"It is to American ingenuity that we owe the practical application of the telegraph. While the honour is due to Professor Morse for the practical application and successful prosecution of the telegraph, it is mainly owing to the researches and discoveries of Professor Henry, and other scientific Americans, that he was enabled to perfect so valuable an invention." It is difficult to conceive a more unblushing piece of effrontery than the foregoing sentence, which proclaims throughout the Union that the electric telegraph in its practical working is the invention of one American, and in its scientific details the invention of other Americans, neither of which a.s.sertions has truth for its basis, and consequently the superstructure is a fiction--the only available excuse for which would be, that the writer had never heard of what was going on in Europe. Had he taken the least trouble to inquire into the subject before he wrote, he never would--it is to be hoped--have so grossly deceived his countrymen.

He might have easily ascertained that such men as Oersted, Ampere, Arago, Sturgeon, had mastered in detail the various scientific difficulties that stood in the way of the accomplishment of the long-desired object; and he might also have known that Cooke in England and Stienhiel in Germany had both overcome the practical difficulties before Professor Morse had enlightened the Republic with his system, which--like Bain's--is simply another method of producing the same result--i.e., telegraphic communication.

Mr. Cooke took out his patent in conjunction with Professor Wheatstone, whose attention had long been turned to this subject, and whose name has been so much before the public, that not a few persons attribute the telegraph to him exclusively. There was, indeed, some dispute between them as to their respective claims, and the matter was referred to Sir I. Brunel and Professor Daniell for arbitration. The burden of their decision was, that Mr. Cooke was ent.i.tled to stand alone as the gentleman to whom Great Britain is indebted for having practically introduced and carried out the telegraph as a useful undertaking; Professor Wheatstone's profound and successful researches having already prepared the public to receive it.--So much for the justice of the American claim to the invention, which, like steam, has been the produce of many heads, and was brought into practical use first by Cooke, then by Stienhiel in Germany, and lastly by Morse in America.

Another invention of which the public have heard no little discussion lately is the reaping machine. To the American nation doubtless belongs the credit of forcing it into notice and into use; but as for any claim to the invention, it is equally certain they have none. That honour is due solely to the Rev. Patrick Bell, a Scotch minister in the presbytery of Arbroath. He first tried his reaping machine in August, 1828, at his father's farm on Lord Airlie's estate, where it has been in yearly use ever since; and in October he exhibited it at the Highland Society's meeting at Glasgow. The principle upon which his first machine was made differs in nothing from those making at this hour; and, as some of the people employed on his father's farm migrated to America, it is only reasonable to suppose they carried sufficient information with them to explain the machine. American ingenuity soon copied, and American energy soon gave an impulse to, Mr. Bell's machine, for which, though denying them the invention, we ought not to deny them our thanks.

But while I thus explain the unwarrantable claims which Americans have set forth, I must not allow John Bull to lay the flattering unction to his soul that none of his claimed discoveries are disputed on the other side of the Atlantic, I have seen a _Book of Facts_ printed in America, which charges us with more than one geographical robbery in the Arctic Seas, in which regions, it is well known, American enterprise and sympathy have been most n.o.bly employed. As I am incapable of balancing the respective claims, I leave that subject to the Hydrographer's office of the two countries.

The citizens of the Republic have but little idea of the injurious effects which the putting forward unwarrantable claims has upon their just claims. I have now before me a letter from a seafaring man who has spent a quarter of a century upon the borders of the United States; he is writing on the subject of their claims to the invention of steam, and he winds up in these words:--"They are with this, as they are with every other thing to which either merit or virtue is attached--the sole and only proprietors and originators, and say both the one and the other are unknown out of the universal Yankee nation." I do not endorse the sentiment, but I quote it to show the effect produced on some minds by the unfounded claims they have put forward.

They have ingenuity and invention enough legitimately belonging to them for any nation to be justly proud of, without plucking peac.o.c.k's feathers from others, and sending them throughout the length and breadth of the Republic as the plumage of the American eagle. How many useful inventions have they not made in machinery for working wood? Is not England daily importing some new improvement therein from the American sh.o.r.es? Look again at their perfect and beautiful invention for the manufacture of seamless bags, by Mr. Cyrus Baldwin, and which he has at work at the Stark Mills. There are 126 looms in operation, all self-acting and each one making 47 bags daily; the bags are a little more than three and a half feet long, and chiefly used, I believe, for flour and grain. When they are finished, sewing-machines are at hand, which can hem at the rate of 650 bags each daily. This same gentleman has also adapted his looms to the making hoses for water, of which he can complete 1000 feet a day by the experimental loom now in use, and it is more than probable these hoses will entirely supersede the use of the leather ones, being little more than one-tenth the price, and not requiring any expense to keep in order.

Another and very important purpose to which their ingenuity has applied machinery is, the manufacture of fire-arms. It has long been a matter of surprise to me, why so obvious and useful an application of machinery was neglected by the Government at home. The advantages of being able to transfer all screws, springs, nipples, hammers, &c., from one musket to another, are so manifest to the most infantine comprehension, that I suppose they considered it beneath their notice; nor can I make out that they have duly inquired into the various breech-loading systems used in the States, some of which they have been testing in their Navy for years. As, however, we are beginning to copy their application of machinery, I dare say the next generation will take up the question of breech-loading arms.

A few observations on the Militia appear to follow naturally after remarks on fire-arms. According to the most reliable information which I have been able to obtain, every able-bodied male between 18 and 40 years of age is liable to militia service. Those who do not serve are subject to a fine, varying in different States, from 3s. upwards; which sum helps to pay those who do duty. The pay of a private while on duty is about 10s. a-day, and that of officers in proportion. Formerly, they only turned out two days in the year; now I believe, they generally turn out ten, and in some of the cities twenty, days annually. The persons excused from militia service, are the clergy, medical men, fire companies, and those who have held a commission for three years. Each regiment settles its own uniform; and it is a strange sight to see companies in French, German, and Highland uniforms, all marching gaily through the streets.

The day of firing at a mark is quite a fete; they parade the town, with the target untouched, on their road to the ground: there they commence firing, at 100 yards; if the bull's-eye be not sufficiently riddled, they get closer and closer, until, perforated and in shreds, it scarce hangs together as they return through the town bearing it aloft in triumph, and followed by all the washed, half-washed, and unwashed aspirants to military glory.

I believe the good sense of the people is endeavouring to break through the system of nationalizing the companies into French, German, Highland, &c., believing that keeping up such distinctions is more calculated to produce discord than harmony. How long it will be before they succeed in eradicating these separate nationalities, I cannot pretend to say.

With respect to their numbers, I cannot give any accurate information.

_The American Almanack_--generally a very useful source of information--puts them down at 2,202,113; which is evidently a little bit of Buncombe, as those figures represent very nearly the whole able-bodied men in the Republic between the ages of 18 and 40. As they are liable to be called on, the _Almanack_ puts them down as though regularly enrolled; their real numbers I leave to the fertility of the imagination. In the same authority, I find the officers calculated at 76,920, of which 765 are generals. These numbers, I imagine, must also go through a powerful process of subtraction before the exact truth would be arrived at, although I believe there are twice 765 citizens who enjoy the t.i.tular honour.

One fact, however, is beyond doubt; they have a large militia, accustomed to, and fond of, using fire-arms; and those who feel disposed to approach their sh.o.r.es with hostile intentions, will find the old Scotch motto applicable to them in its fullest sense,--

"Nemo me impune lacessit."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote CI: The Marquis de Jouffroy is said to have worked a boat by steam on the Seine in 1781; but the Revolution breaking out, he appears to have been unable to complete his invention.]

[Footnote CJ: The foregoing details are essentially extracted from a work by Mr. Woodcroft, professor of machinery at University College, London; who, after proving that the previous inventions of his countrymen were combined together, for the first time, in the boat engined by Symington, thus clearly and summarily disposes of the pretensions put forward in favour of Fulton:--"In fact, if these inventions separately, or as a combination, were removed out of Fulton's boat, nothing would be left but the hull; and if the hull could then be divested of that peculiarity of form, admitted to have been derived from Colonel Beaufoy's experiments, _all that would remain would be the hull of a boat of ordinary construction."_]

CHAPTER x.x.x.

_Adverse Influences._

I now come to the consideration of the annual celebration of the 4th July, an event which presents itself to my mind under two opposite aspects, the one beneficial, the other injurious. If contemplated as a nation's grateful acknowledgment to Providence for the successful termination of an arduous struggle for independence, it a.s.sumes an aspect at once dignified and Christian; but if into its celebration other elements enter which are calculated to nourish hostile feelings towards those who have long ceased to reciprocate such unworthy sentiments, in that case I think its aspect may be fairly termed both injurious and unchristian.

Let me then call your attention to the method of celebration. It consists of three parts:--First, the reading of the Declaration of Independence; secondly, an oration on the subject; lastly, procession and jollification.

Now what is the Declaration of Independence? It is a doc.u.ment which details their views of the oppression and injustice which justified their rebellion against the mother country. The clauses are too numerous to quote in full, but I subjoin a few, that the reader may form his own opinion. Speaking of the sovereign of Great Britain, they say he has protected "armed troops among us, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circ.u.mstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow-citizens taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, s.e.xes, and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions, we have pet.i.tioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated pet.i.tions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

I pause not to ask if any of these charges are correct or not: grant them accuracy in every statement, nay more, admit that they were eminently calculated to stir up the feelings of the colonists, and to inflame that spirit which was requisite to make their struggle for independence justifiable and successful, and that they were therefore called for by the emergencies of the day;--but nearly eighty years have rolled over since that Declaration was penned; there is no success sought for now which renders such appeals necessary, and surely it is not for the purpose of justifying their rebellion that they are made.

Where then is the good to be derived from such declarations? Is there any misgiving in the Republic as to sentiments of patriotism or pluck?

Surely none. But who can help seeing the evil to which they lead? These annual recapitulations of old grievances, buried beneath nearly a century, must tend to excite hostile feelings towards England. Conceive for one moment France reading annually a declaration of independence from British arms on the anniversary of their recapture of Calais, and engrossing in that doc.u.ment every injustice or atrocity which the English perpetrated during their rule; not to mention the undignified nature of such a course, who can doubt that it would be pre-eminently calculated to generate those hostile feelings which it is the bounden duty of all civilized States to allay? In short, what does it so much resemble as the system by which, in barbarous days long since past, the Highland clans used to perpetuate their feuds. If a Christian community cannot glory in and commemorate national independence without such adjuncts, such a ceremony would, in my humble opinion, be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Among other pernicious influences, I should mention that the Irish celebrate the battle of the Boyne annually in order to prevent their national angry pa.s.sions from subsiding. Not the least curious features in these same Paddies is the fact that, while cursing England for her treatment of Ireland, they all unite as one man in favour of Slavery.

Mr. Mitch.e.l.l, the escaped convict, is said to have expressed his opinion that a plantation on the Alabama river with fifty sleek slaves, was the _beau ideal_ of a terrestrial paradise. If he be a bachelor, and still entertain the same sentiments, I would recommend him to take "The stewardess of the Lady Franklin" as the sharer of his joys.

With regard to the orations p.r.o.nounced, the one I heard at Geneseo had nothing that struck me as in any way lending itself to those feelings I have so freely censured; but it is not always so. I have before me now an epitome of a speech made by the Honourable D.S. d.i.c.kenson, at Syracuse, on July 4th, 1853. Being an honourable, it is not unfair to suppose him--mind, I say to suppose him--a man of superior attainment, selected by a well-educated people. The epitome is headed "Vigorous Discussion and Patriotic Sentiments." I only quote one pa.s.sage, which I could almost fancy Matthew Ward, the hero of the Louisville school-room, had written; it runs thus--"The eloquent orator then went on for nearly half an hour in a strain of withering sarcasm and invective, exposing the shameless and wicked oppressions of England in her collieries, in her factories, in her oppression of Ireland; denouncing her as a nation whose history was written in oppression and blood (_great applause_.)"--It is difficult to believe that the chosen representative of an intelligent community should thus speak of that nation to which his own country is indebted for nearly every valuable inst.i.tution she possesses; but when such ridiculous vituperation is received with shouts of applause from the gaping rowdies who throng around him, does it not clearly demonstrate the truth of my previous statements as to the effects which the celebration of the 4th of July, as now observed, may naturally lead to? I say, may lead to, because I would fain hope, for the sake of the credit and dignity of the Republic, that such disreputable orations are rare exceptions.

But that such feelings of aversion to the mother country are generated among the ma.s.ses, is proved indirectly in another quarter--viz., Congress. During the debate on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, a Mr. Douglas, to whom I have before alluded, and who may be considered as the representative of the rabid and rowdy portion of the community, thus expresses himself with regard to England: "It is impossible she can love us,--I do not blame her for not loving us,--sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride,--she can never forgive us. But for us, she would be the first Power on the face of the earth,--but for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us; and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. England does not love us; she cannot love us, and we cannot love her either. We have some things in the past to remember that are not agreeable. She has more in the present to humiliate her that she cannot forgive."--After which expressions, the poor little man, as though he had not the slightest conception of the meaning of the words he was using, adds the following sentence, deprecating all he had previously uttered: "I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and England. I wish to soften and smooth it down as much as possible."

On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Butler, senator for South Carolina, who honestly did deprecate such language as the foregoing, referred, by way of contrast, to the many const.i.tutional principles the Republic had derived from England, and also to the valuable literature which she had produced, and by which the Republic had benefited. Upon which, poor Mr.

Douglas got furious, and a.s.serted, that "Every English book circulated contains lurking and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our people and the inst.i.tutions and policy of our Government."--He then discovered that abolitionism began, in England, and that "she keeps her missionaries perambulating this country, delivering lectures and scattering abroad incendiary publications, designed to excite prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections of the Union."--He then, with Illinois truthfulness, hints at _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, as though it were English literature, and which, he says, "is designed to stir up treason and insurrection around his--Mr.

Butler's--fireside," &c.--He returns to the charge, and a.s.serts, with equal accuracy, "Millions are being expended to distribute _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ throughout the world, with the view of combining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the earth in a common crusade against the peculiar inst.i.tutions of the State and section of this Union represented by the senator from South Carolina." One might almost imagine that the copy of Webster's Dictionary, which Mr. Douglas has in his library--if he possess such a thing--has omitted an old English word, spelt T R U T H.

But the point I wish to call the reader's especial attention to, is, that the little senator's rabid rhapsody was received with shouts of gallery applause, which, as I have before observed, is an exhibition of sentiment not allowed in the Senate to either members of Congress or gallery. Yet, so thoroughly had he expressed the feelings of the said rowdies, that they could not resist the unlawful burst of approval. Mr.

Butler of course replied to his absurd arguments; but my object is not discussion. I only allude to the subject at all for the purpose of proving my previous a.s.sertion, that within the walls of Congress itself, elements calculated to engender feelings of animosity towards Great Britain are to be found at work. It is this deep-seated consciousness of guilt that makes that portion of the citizens of the Republic so sensitive with regard to the observations which proceed from this country. Americans like Mr. Butler, who maintain the dignity of their country without descending to paltry popularity-hunting calumny, can afford to read any criticisms which may come from across the water with as much calmness as American remarks are read here. Such men have no accusing conscience gnawing at their vitals. If the population of the two countries were fed upon Judge Douglas's venomous diet, ere long, like the Kilkenny cats, nothing but the tails would be left.

I have felt it imperative to make these remarks, that my countrymen may understand why they so constantly find the strongest symptoms of hostility to England in a certain cla.s.s of American writers. Even in the text-books for children, you can detect the same animus working. Miss Willard, in her _History of the United States_, narrates that six Indian chiefs came to Colonel Washington, the grandfather of the founder of the Republic, to treat for peace. The treachery to, and cold-blooded murder of, these poor Indians she disposes of thus:--"He _wrongfully_ put them to death." General Clinton's conduct, in the prosecution of his duties to his country, which never displayed any such revolting act, she describes as reviving in a civilized age "_barbarous atrocities_."--Take another instance of amiable sentiments towards England, as exhibited by the Common Council of New York, who voted 200l. to entertain John Mitch.e.l.l, the convict who had escaped from custody. The Mayor addresses him in the following terms:--"When, sir, you were silenced by restraint, overpowered by brutal force, and foreign bayonets were employed on your own soil to suppress truth and to bind upon your limbs and mind the shackles of slavery, we sympathized with you in your adversity. We hated the tyrant and loved the victim. And when, sir, after the semblance of a trial, you were condemned and hurried as a felon from your home, your country, and your friends, to a distant land, we were filled with indignation, and pledged a deeper hatred towards the enemies of man."--Mr. Mitch.e.l.l, in reply, confesses himself from earliest youth a traitor to his country, and honours the British Government with the following epithets: "I say to them that they are not a government at all, but a gang of conspirators, of robbers, of murderers." These sentiments were received by the mult.i.tude around with "great applause."

Considering how many causes for exciting ill-will exist, the only wonder is that, when so large a portion of the Republicans are utterly ignorant of the truth as regards England, the feeling is not more hostile.

It is needless to a.s.sert, that the feelings of jealousy and animosity ascribed to England by Mr. Douglas, exist only in the disordered imagination of his own brain and of those of the deluded gulls who follow in his train: for I am proud to say no similar undignified and antagonistic elements are at work here; and, if any attempt were made to introduce them, the good sense of the country would unite with one voice to cry them down. I defy all the educated, ignorant, or rabid population of the Republic to bring forward any instance where, either in the celebration of any ceremony, the orations of any senator, or the meetings of any corporation, such unworthy and contemptible animosity towards the United States has ever been shadowed forth.

I must not, however, allow the reader to understand from the foregoing remark that there is an universal national antipathy to England; although, whenever she is brought into juxtaposition with the Republic, it may appear very strongly developed. The most erroneous impressions were at the time this was written, abroad among my countrymen, in respect of American sympathies with Russia. Filibusteros, rabid annexationists, inveterate Slaveholders, and Rowdies of every cla.s.s, to which might have been added a few ign.o.ble minds who made the grave of conscience a "stump" from which to pour forth Buncombe speeches to catch ephemeral popularity, const.i.tuted the body in America who sympathised with Russia. All the intelligence of the North, and a great portion of that of the South, felt the deepest interest in our success, not merely as descendants of the mother country, but also because they recognised the war in which we were engaged as a struggle in the cause of liberty.

We could not suffer ourselves to be deceived by the Filibustero Press, nor by the accounts we read of vessels laden with arms carrying them to Russia. Those were no more proofs of the national feeling, than the building of slave-clippers every year at Baltimore is a proof that the nation wishes to encourage the slave-trade. The true feeling of a nation must be sought for far deeper than in the superficial clamour of political demagogues, backed though it be by the applause of gaping crowds whose worst pa.s.sions are pandered to for the sake of a transient breath of popularity.

CHAPTER x.x.xI.

_Olla Podrida._

The preceding observations lead naturally to a few observations upon American character in a national point of view; for in treating of so exceedingly varied a community, combining as it does nearly every nation of the Old World, it would be beyond the limits of a work like this to enter into details on so complicated a subject.

As I prefer commencing with the objectionable points, and winding up with the more favourable, I shall first name Vanity as a great national feature. The fulsome adulation with which the Press bespatters its readers, throughout the length and breadth of the Union, wherever any comparisons are drawn with other nations, is so great that the ma.s.ses have become perfectly deluded; and being so far removed from the nations of the Old World, and knowing, consequently, nothing of them except through the columns of a vanity-feeding Press, they receive the most exaggerated statements as though they were Gospel truths--little aware how supremely ridiculous the vaunting which they read with delight makes them appear in the eyes of other people.

I insert the following extract from the Press, as one instance among many of the vain and ridiculous style of some of their editorial leaders. It is taken from the _New York Herald_--one of the most widely-circulated papers in the Union, but one which, I am bound in justice to say, is held in contempt[CK] by the more intelligent portion of the community. Speaking of Mrs. B. Stowe's reception in England, he says:--"She proves herself quite an American in her intercourse with the English aristocracy. Her self-possession, ease, and independence of manner were quite undisturbed in the presence of the proud d.u.c.h.esses and fraughty dames of the t.i.tled English n.o.bility. They expected timidity and fear, and reverence for their t.i.tles, in an unt.i.tled person, and they found themselves disappointed. Mrs. Stowe felt herself their equal in social life, and acted among them as she felt. This, above all other things, has caused a great astonishment in the higher circles in favour of American women, for in fact it is a quality peculiarly distinguishing an American woman, that she can be and is a d.u.c.h.ess among d.u.c.h.esses."

Even in the simple article of diplomatic dress we see the same feature peeping out. Vanity may be discovered as readily in singularity, however simple, as in the naked savage who struts about as proud as a peac.o.c.k, with no covering but a gold-laced c.o.c.ked hat on his head and a bra.s.s-mounted sword at his side. When civilized society agrees upon some distinctive uniform for diplomatic service, who can fail to observe the lurking vanity that dictated the abolition of it by the Republic?--not to mention the absurdity of wearing a sword in plain clothes. The only parallel it has among bipeds, that I know of, is a master-at-arms on board a ship, with a cane by his side; but then he carries a weapon which he is supposed to use. The Minister of the Republic carries a weapon for ornament only. In quadruped life, it reminds me of a poodle closely shaved all over, except a little tuft at the end of his tail, the sword and the tuft recalling to mind the fact that the respective possessors have been shorn of something.