Abbildungen der Seite

“There in the New England States) the nien seem born to calculate by pence and farthings; but they rise thereby to calculate by millions, without losing an atom of their exactness or the paltriness of their original views. Their greediness of gain is beyond all shame, and they make no scruple of avowing openly, like Petit-Jean, that “ without money, honour is but a disease.'

"This calculating and avaricious spirit harmonizes wonderfully with the pharisaical observance of Sunday, which they call the Sabbath, and all the puritanical observances of the Presbyterian faith, of which most of them are professors. They are so scrupulous in this respect, that a brewer was publicly rebuked in church for having brewed on Saturday, which had exposed the beer to work on the Sabbath day. This they call morality, wbich they hold consists much more in not swearing, singing, dancing, or walking on the Sunday, tban in refraining from the commission of fraudulent bankruptcy. This species of hypocrisy is so natural to them, that the greatest number of them practise it with perfect sincerity. They themselves glory in speaking of their country as the country of steady habits ;” not that they are a whit more virtuous, but because they put on a demure air once a week, and on Saturdays are contented with codfish and apple-pies. Boston, their capital, however, abounds with eminent literary men; it is styled the “ American Athens ;" it was the cradle of their liberty, and produced several of its most zealous defenders, men equally distinguished in council and in the field of battle. Education is there much more diffused than in any other part of the world whatever. In short, they possess every thing that leads to greatness, and have great views, without ever relinquishing that petty spirit of detail which follows them everywhere. Everywhere you may recognize a genuine Yankee by the adroit manner in which he asks questions about matters with which he is perfectly acquainted-by the evasive way in which he answers such as are put to himself, without ever affirming anything,—and especially by the dexterous manner in which he contrives to disappear the moment the bill is ordered.”

With little that is positively untrue in this statement—the stories of the brewer and the apple-pies being of course merely tales, characteristic of former times rather than of the present—the author bas contrived to give a very unfavourable picture of people whom he evidently dislikes. That they have unamiable points, is true; but these are the result of local circumstances, rather than of mental defect. The New England States are the oldest settled, and the land, when compared with the rest of the Union, especially the Western States, is far from fertile. A large annual surplus of people is produced on their territory, beyond what there is food to support, and, consequently, rigid economy is practised by most of the inhabitants, and the remainder emigrate towards the unoccupied lands. Some of them, like the Scotch, become pedlars, dealing in innumerable articles of small value and easy carriage. Like most small dealers who make a trifling return, their occupation must yield a large profit, or it would not maintain them, and to increase the profit, much petty trickery is resorted to, as is common, not with the Yankees alone, but with all people of all countries who follow similar trades. The scenes of the Yankee pedling traffic are commonly in the Western and Southern States, amongst people far more wealthy than themselves, and who are consequently more easily overreached in a bargain. Hence arises the scandal that the Yankees are all cheats, which is the impression of the southern and western people, who judge of a large body from what they have seen of a few straggling supernumeraries, just as common-minded “Southrons" take it for granted that all Scotchmen must be mean and covetous, because limited means force them to frugality. M. Murat has fallen into this vulgar error. There may be much hypocrisy as well as much sincerity in their strict observance of the formulæ of their religion, as there doubtless is amongst the Scotch; but it is not true that fraudulent bankruptcy is held in less horror than singing or dancing on a Sunday, as M. Murat insinuates. The strongest minds in the Union are mostly to be found in the Eastern States, though, as is usual amongst most people of mediocre wealth, those minds have been applied, hitherto, to trade and commerce, rather than to other things which would have given them more fame and less riches.

tin, this superstition did as good service to the cause of the patriots as ever did the anniversary of a victory to Napoleon in inspiriting his troops for a fresh conquesto

M. Murat thus speaks of the Southern States:

“ South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, the Mississippi, and Louisiana, constitute properly what is called the South.' Their interest is wholly agricultural

. Long and short cottons, sugar, rice, and Indian corn, form their staple produce, which require the labour of blacks, and produce a price sufficiently remunerating to prevent them from employing their capital in other pursuits. The richness of the soil, and the luxury of the climate, second the labours of the cultivator to such a degree, that it is much more advantageous to employ the negroes in cultivation than in manufactures. Although the characters of the people of these different States vary considerably over so wide an extent of country, a certain southern temperament is, nevertheless, observable in all of them. The frankness, generosity, hospitality, and liberality of the opinions of the people have become proverbial, and form a perfect contrast to the character of the Yankees, not at all to the advantage of the latter. In the midst of this group, South Carolina has made itself remarkable by a union of talents wholly unequalled by any other state of the Union. The society of Charleston is superior to any that I have found in my travels, either on this or the other side of the Atlantic. It leaves nothing to be desired in respect to refined and elegant manners; but what is much better in the eyes of persons like you and me, who attach no great importance to politesse, it abounds with men of real talent, and is equally free from pedantry and insignificance.'

The “ frankness, generosity, and hospitality,” which the author describes, are precisely those qualities which do not depend upon the individual man, but on the locality in which he is placed. The Yankees are frugal, because they have more mouths than food. The Southerners are hospitable, because they have more food than mouths; and, moreover, live in a climate which requires fewer expensive appliances to constitute comfort. In all countries thus circunstanced, hospitality will exist; for in truth, pleasant company is of more value than the food and lodging which is exchanged for it. It is in this point of view that hospitality or ostentation, or both combined, are exercised at the country seats of the English aristocracy; but they are not found in the dwellings of the poor. Hospitality is a quality, whose very existence presupposes a surplus of means in those who exercise it. Reduce the means below par, and the hospitality would cease. Frankness, generosity, and hospitality, are three things which much conduce to human happiness; how desirable is it then, that the surplus of means which usually produces them should exist in all countries alike. But the generosity which M. Murat vaunts is rather of a questionable kind. The true meaning of the word has, indeed, been very commonly abused. Amongst common-minded people the word generosity means simply the act of giving away any thing, without reference to the means or motives of the giver. Thus they esteem a rich man, who gives away a guinea, more generous, by twenty shillings, than the poor man who gives away a shilling, though the proportion of means may be inversely that of the amount. This is precisely the way in which the West Indian character for generosity has been gained. They have given away what cost them nothing to acquire. It was a common remark formerly, that a miser who went to reside in the West India Islands usually became a liberal man, and a liberal man became a spendthrift. The remark countenances the fact, that neither generosity nor meanness are inherent in the moral nature of the individual, but vary with every change in external circumstances. People desire to hoard those things only of which they dread a scarcity. They do not hoard air, because there is enough for all, and where food is in abundance, they become as regardless of its expenditure. There is a far higher quality, more worthy to be called generosity, the self-sacrificing spirit which occasionally prompts individuals to endure personal suffering and painful privation, for the sake of friendship or of public good; of this quality, we apprehend more will be found amongst the Yankees than amongst the Southerners. Something of hardship, though it may debase many, seems to be requisite in order to bring forth the sterner virtues of humanity: That a man can behave well in prosperity is no argument for his being amongst the most valuable members of society. The whites of the West India Islands, with all their hospitality, are not generally found the most moral of men, or the most punctilious as to the means of relieving their necessities when unaccustomed privations press upon them; and were the Carolina planters reduced to the same condition, the same causes would probably produce the same effects. As regards their " liberality of opinions, which has become proverbial,” this is mere verbiage. Their liberality is applied to themselves—the white landholding and slaveholding race-exclusively. Put it to the test by touching upon the emancipation or education of the slaves, and their liberality will vanish into furious invectives on the right of property, and the loss they would incur by negro education. The

elegance of manners and politeness," at least the latter, has been produced to some extent by the practice of duelling, which has a tendency to produce carefulness in word and deed to avoid giving offence; but the “talents," which the author vaunts as superior to those of the Yankees, are very questionable. How else is it, that, in the question of the Tariff, the Southern and Western Members of Congress have been so often beaten by the men of the North, in spite of their having truth on their side.*

Speaking of the States of the West, the author says:

Incomparably the largest and richest part of the Union, they will shortly be, if they are not already, the most populous, and it will not be long before they have power in their hands, as well as luxury, education, and the arts, which naturally Aow from its possession.

“ Their interest is manufacturing and agricultural, although the first bas greatly the superiority. The character of the people is strongly marked by a rude instinct of masculine liberty, frequently degenerating into licentiousness, a simplicity of morals, and a rudeness of manners, sometimes bordering on boorishness and cynic independence. These States are too young to render it necessary for me to say much about their politics; they are generally bitter aud ignorant."

This is a fair description of the people whose "gougings and nose-bitings" were formerly retailed in England by unreflecting or interested travellers. All rude people have their modes of settling personal disputes, and people who pass half their time in the woods are not likely to be very refined; but we remember the time when many good easy people in England, fond of reading about horrors, deemed that it was scarcely possible to land in the Union without losing at least one eye and half a nose.

Yet, at the same time, had they turned off the king's highway, on their

The ablest man in South Carolina, and the leader of the Anti-Tariff party, is an expatriated Englishman-Mr. Cooper.

road to Liverpool, they might have found, in most of the Lancashire villages, specimens of private battle, wherein the combatants lay down on the earth, side by side, to “kick, ballock, and bite,” to the endangerment of eyes, ears, and noses.

But it is a curious fact, that the brutalities of foreign countries afford a peculiar charm in narration, which home productions can never realize. History becomes romance when the scene is laid in a remote region.

The following passage is well calculated to quiet the hopes and fears of those who speculate upon a breaking up of the Union:

“ Here principles are immovably fixed in the minds and bearts. The people are unanimous as to the government. They only differ as to the persons, and upon some secondary measures. Sball there be a bank established? Shall there be a canal bere or there? Sball there be a law against usury? Shall we send Mr. So and So to Congress? These are the objects which occupy, not a stirring and active minority, but the whole nation. People busy themselves till the law is passed, or the election is over; after that they no longer talk of it, nobody thinks of any further opposition."

And, now that steam-locomotion has half destroyed distance, even thus they may go on till the whole land, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, shall be full of people, wlien there may arise a cause of quarrel, if a large portion of them find a difficulty in procuring the necessaries of life.

The second letter gives a lively and tolerably accurate view of the state of the parties called Democrats and Federalists. In the third letter there is a vivid description of the mode of selling public lands, and the establishment of new towns, which might delight even a novel reader; together with the whole process which is usually gone through for the formation of a new State. The fourth letter treats of negro slavery; and on this subject the author speaks with all that lack of argument which characterises a slave-holder, blinded to every thing but the one considerationthat his "property” is called in question.

“The reasons that may be assigned for not becoming slave-proprietors can only be of two kinds-of right or of calculation. I shall endeavour to refute them; and, first of all, to justify the right of the master, afterwards, to show you that, at certain periods of society, this order of things is as advantageous to the slave as to the master.”

Pleasant enough, perhaps, for those who happen to be masters; but what would the slaves say to it? M. Murat, being a master, takes no thought of that, but maintains that might gives right. The samples of his reasoning are facetious enough.

“A man meets with a lion; he has undoubtedly the right to appro

« ZurückWeiter »