The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 1864

But there are complaints from the so-called Democratic party that the President, and especially the Secretary of State, have surrendered the Monroe doctrine, and abandoned Mexico to her fate. There is no truth in this accusation. The President and the Secretary of State, as regards the future, are wholly uncommitted on this question, unless, indeed, it be for Mexico, by announcing that the people of the loyal States are unanimously in her favor. I say they are uncommitted for the future, and the real objection to their course is this: that they have not gratified the South and its Northern allies, by engaging, ere this, in a war with France, so as to bring her vast forces in aid of the Confederate government. Indeed, Mr. Seward is cursed everywhere by the Confederates and their allies throughout Europe for preventing a war, at this time, on the Mexican question, between France and the United States, 'There is a time for all things,' and, as I have said before, our only question now, is the salvation of the Union; and when that is secured, will be the proper period to consider other subordinate questions, foreign or domestic. No man can speak with more feeling on this question than myself, for it is a well-known fact that I earnestly opposed, as a member of the Cabinet of Mr. Polk, the Mexican treaty of 1848, among other reasons, upon the suggestion then made by me, that if we abandoned Mexico, it would subject us to the danger of European interference there (just as it has occurred) by force of arms. That treaty was carried by a constitutional majority of only three votes, mainly through the instrumentality of Mr. Calhoun, who was against the invasion of Mexico, and for 'masterly inactivity,' resting on the banks of the Rio Grande, because he knew (as declared in my Texas letter of January, 1844) 'Slavery never could cross the Rio Grande,' and that, as a consequence, all of Mexico which we would permanently hold, as we ought to have done, from Texas to Tehuantepec, would, Mexico having abolished Slavery, have become Free States. I believed also that the permanent occupation and annexation of Mexico would have forever settled all the dangers of the Slavery question, because it would have flanked the Slave States of the Southwest, by many powerful Free States adjacent on the Southwest, containing already seven millions of people, most of whom were of the colored race, and who would have fought to the last against the reëstablishment of Slavery.

Yet, strong and decided as is my opposition to the course of Napoleon on the Mexican as well as the Confederate question, I believe that the policy of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward on this question has been marked by great courage, devoted patriotism, and the highest statesmanship. I am not for mingling this or any other question of foreign or domestic policy with the maintenance of the Union, but have only answered the assaults of adversaries on the Mexican and other subordinate issues. This, however, I must say: that the treaty with Mexico, by which we abandoned that country, having been ratified, I am opposed to any violation of its provisions. While I adhere to the opinions expressed at the time by me against that treaty; while I am opposed to forcing Mexico into our Union, I believe that Napoleon the Third, unwittingly, by his invasion, has caused Mexico soon to gravitate, by the overwhelming wish of her people, into the arms of the great Republic. Thus is it that the French invasion will have settled forever in our favor the question of the American equilibrium.

I have published the views expressed in these letters on consultation with no one. They are my own individual opinions, and I only am responsible for them. It is quite possible that the Administration may differ from some of them, but I am just as independent of the Administration as they are of me. I am not, and never was, a Republican of 1856 or 1860, and while I have been falsely charged in Europe with abandoning my free-trade principles, in consequence of the constant and earnest support given by me to Mr. Lincoln, it must be remembered that a majority of his Cabinet of 1863 had been Democrats, and supported the Tariff of 1846. But the Tariff is a very subordinate question, compared with the salvation of the Union. Besides, if the Tariff of 1846 was changed, it was not until the 2d of March, 1861, and the change was caused intentionally, by the previous withdrawal of the Senators and Representatives of the seceded States from both Houses of Congress.

I have another answer to this charge. I was for the free list of the Tariff of 1842, as distinctly stated in my first annual Treasury report, so as to increase our exports, especially of dyed cotton goods, thereby producing a corresponding augmentation of our imports and revenue. That portion of the act of 1846 was defeated by Mr. Calhoun, much to my regret, injury, and annoyance.

Besides, the South, by its rebellion, and by thus forcing on us an enormous Federal debt, has rendered impossible for many years any other Tariff but that which will bring the largest revenue. Until this debt is paid, we must have the highest Tariff for revenue, and it can be so arranged as, while yielding, when the Union is restored, at least $150,000,000 annually in gold, at the same time to furnish all incidental aid to American industry that could be desired.

I have thus far discussed the question as confined to the contest between the respective candidates for the Presidency of the United States. But let those who think of supporting General McClellan for the Presidency remember that, in sustaining him, they must necessarily vote for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency. McClellan and Pendleton are the Siamese twins of Chicago, inseparable, and all who vote for the one, vote at the same time for the other. No voter can cast his suffrage in this contest, except by voting for an electoral ticket, and the same electors for General McClellan who may be chosen in any State, are to vote for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency. In other words, if General McClellan is chosen President, Mr. Pendleton is elected at the same time to the Vice Presidency of the United States. Now, recollect, that the Vice President not only presides over the Senate of the United States, and gives the casting vote in that body, but that, in case of the death of the President, the Vice President becomes President of the United States. Now, two Presidents of the United States, within the last twenty-three years, have died during their term of office (Harrison and Taylor), and one of them within a month after his inauguration. In both these cases, the Vice Presidents chosen on the same electoral ticket with the President, reversed the policy of the President elect. Tyler reversed the policy of Harrison, and Fillmore reversed the policy of Taylor. Why may not the same thing again occur, if Mr. Pendleton, by the death of General McClellan, should succeed him as President? This renders an inquiry into the course and views of Mr. Pendleton a question of vital importance.

Now, Mr. Pendleton, as his votes and speeches show, is against the war for the Union, and has declared the coercion of a seceding rebel State not only 'impracticable,' but 'unconstitutional.' His words are, in big speech in Congress of the 18th January, 1861, after most of the Cotton States had seceded: 'Sir (he then said) the whole scheme of coercion is impracticable. It is contrary to the genius and spirit of the Constitution.' In accordance with these anti-coercion and anti-war views, he continued to vote against the prosecution of the war, and against all the great measures passed for that purpose. He further then said, 'If your differences are so great that you cannot or will not reconcile them, then, gentlemen, let the seceding States depart in peace; let them establish their government and empire, and work out their destiny according to the wisdom which God has given them.' This is exactly the doctrine of Jefferson Davis, and of all the rebel leaders: 'Let us alone.' Let us alone, while we overthrow the Government and dissolve the Union; let us alone, while we seize the mouth of the Mississippi, and tear down or shoot down the flag of the Union from every fort of the South. This is their language, and the Chicago Convention might just as well have nominated Jefferson Davis as George H. Pendleton as their candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Such a nomination of an avowed disunionist shows the true spirit of the Chicago Convention, and that all their general expressions of devotion to the Union were mere empty sounds, calculated to secure votes, but utterly false and hypocritical; for, while indulging in these pharasaical expressions of love for the Union, they nominate, at the same time, as their candidate for the Vice President, an avowed secessionist and disunionist. We have nothing to do with the abstract opinions or wishes of Mr. Pendleton as regards the Union. Jefferson Davis repeatedly, and up to the very period of secession, expressed quite as much devotion to the old flag and to the Union as Mr. Pendleton. But Mr. Davis soon became the head of the rebellion which Mr. Pendleton declares we ought not, and have no constitutional power, to suppress by force. Far all practical purposes, then, Mr. Pendleton is just as much a secessionist and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. Nor can it be alleged that Mr. Pendleton has changed these views. On the contrary, as late as this year he voted in Congress against the test resolution of Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky, declaring 'that it is the political, civil, moral, and sacred duty of the people to meet the rebellion, fight it, crush it, and forever destroy it.' Now then, the Chicago Convention, with a full knowledge of these votes and speeches, nominated Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency, and contingently for the Presidency of the United States. They knew full well that Mr. Pendleton had declared the effort to crush the rebellion impracticable and unconstitutional, and that, therefore, if the power they proposed to give him were ratified by his election, he could, and under his oath of office to support the Constitution, he must, disband our armies, terminate the war, and permit the dissolution of the Union to be consummated; or he might repeat his own words of 1861: Let the seceding States depart in peace; let them establish their government and empire, and work out their destiny according to the wisdom which God has given them.' It is, then, a sufficient objection to the Chicago candidates that Mr. Pendleton, one of the candidates, inseparably connected with General McClellan on the same electoral ticket, is, as we have seen, opposed to the war, and for all practical purposes as much a secessionist and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. This being clear, if General McClellan is really for the war to save the Union, by crushing the rebellion, he must refuse to run on the same electoral ticket with Mr. Pendleton; and if he does not, the people and history will assign to him the same position. He cannot lend his name to aid the election of Mr. Pendleton on the same ticket with himself, and profess devotion to the Union.

There is yet another point on which I would say a word. It is this: From the proceedings of the Canada Confederates, and their Northern allies, and the outgivings of the Richmond press, I conclude that their last suggestion is this: two or more confederacies, Northern, Southern, Middle, New England, Northwest, Mississippi, and Pacific. They are to be united by free trade between them all, and by an alliance offensive and defensive. That is, whenever any one of these confederacies go to war, we are to join them in the conflict. Namely, if the Southern Confederacy wishes to conquer and annex Cuba or Porto Rico, or to conquer and extend slavery to Central America, and war follows, we are to join them in the war, and sustain them with our blood and treasure. If so, the temple of Janus will never be closed on our continent, and war will be our normal condition—a war not declared by us, or in our own interest, but by the South, as a foreign government. Such an alliance is visionary, ruinous, and impracticable. It is simply a scheme to secure Southern independence.

Then, as to the free trade to be secured by treaty between the several confederacies. Recollect that each of these nations is to be foreign and independent, and to have its separate treaties with foreign Powers. How long would such treaties and such an alliance last? Why, the flag of the South would scarcely float over the mouth of the Chesapeake and Mississippi, before the conflict with us of views and measures would begin, nursed and promoted by foreign Powers, where each of the new confederacies would have its separate ministers, representing distinct and discordant interests. When have such alliances or treaties lasted even for half a century? Where are all the leagues of antiquity or of modern Europe? Where are all such leagues and treaties even of the last century? Where is our own alliance with France of 1778? Where all such alliances and treaties even of the first half of the present century? They are all extinguished. Experience proves—the voice of history proclaims—that treaties or alliances between independent Powers are always of short duration, being soon swept before the gust of contending passions, or melted in the crucible of conflicting interests. Where is the celebrated alliance and treaty of 1814 and 1815 of Vienna, between the great European Powers, establishing FOREVER, by a congress, the balance of European power? Is there a single clause now in force? Where is the clause securing France to the Bourbons, and guaranteeing her forever against the reign of any of the Bonaparte family? Where are the states whose independence was forever guaranteed by those treaties? Where are Parma and Modena and Tuscany? Where is Lombardy, where the Romagna, Naples, and the Two Sicilies? Where are the duchies of Lauenburg, Schleswig, and Holstein, and where the treaty of 1852 in regard to them? All, all have passed away, just as would our proposed treaties or alliances. The first war would sweep them out of existence. No, my countrymen; as Washington, the father of his country, most truly told us in his Farewell Address: 'To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict between the parts, can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances, in all time, have experienced.'

Washington thus foresaw and warned us against this most insidious proposition to divide our country into separate confederacies, no matter how strict the alliances between them might be; and let us adopt his counsels.

Is it not strange, while Italy and Germany seek, in Italian and German unity, relief from the ruin and oppression of so many independent states and governments, and are each making advances to that great consummation, that we are asked to adopt the reactionary policy, and separate glorious Union into distinct confederacies, soon to be followed by grinding taxation, by immense standing armies, and perpetual wars?

And now then, my countrymen, I bring this letter to a close, imploring you to give no vote which will subject the Union to the slightest peril. Come, then, my friends, of all parties, come, Republicans, and Whigs, and Democrats, and Irish and German and native citizens, trampling under our feet all past issues, and all old party names and prejudices, and, standing on the broad basis of principle, let us vote, not for men or parties, but for the salvation and perpetuity of the Union.

R. J. Walker.

GENIUS

Far out at sea the wave was high,While veered the wind and flapped the sail;We saw a snow-white butterflyDancing before the fitful gale,Far out at sea!The little creature, which had lostIts mate, of danger little knew;Settled awhile upon the mast,Then fluttered o'er the waters blue,Far out at sea!Away it danced with shimmering glee,Now dim, distinct, now seen, now gone:Night comes, with wind and rain, but heNo more shall dance before the morn,Far out at sea!He dies unlike his mates, I ween,Perhaps not sooner or more crossed;But he has known, and felt, and seen,A wider, larger hope, though lostFar out at sea!

LITERARY NOTICES

The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-'64: Its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to Exhibit especially its Moral and Political Phases, with the Drift and Progress of American Opinion respecting Human Slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. By Horace Greeley. Illustrated by Portraits on Steel of Generals, Statesmen, and other Eminent Men; Views of Places of Historical Interest; Maps, Diagrams of Battle Fields, Naval Actions, etc., from official sources. Vol. I. Hartford: Published by O. D. Case & Co. Chicago; Geo. & E. W. Sherwood. 1864.

It is not our intention here to enter into any critical analysis of the volume before us, but rather to give the reader an idea of what he may find within it, in the words of Mr. Greeley himself. It is inscribed to Mr. Bright, under the following dedication: 'To John Bright, British Commoner and Christian Statesman, the Friend of my Country, because the Friend of Mankind, this Record of a Nation's Struggle up from Darkness and Bondage to Light and Liberty, is regardfully, gratefully inscribed by the Author.'

Mr. Greeley says in his preface: 'No one can realize more fully than I do that the History through whose pages our great-grandchildren will contemplate the momentous struggle whereof this country has recently been and still is the arena, will not and cannot now be written; and that its author must give to the patient, careful, critical study of innumerable documents and letters, an amount of time and thought which I could not have commanded, unless I had been able to devote years, instead of months only, to the preparation of this volume. I know, at least, what History is, and how it must be made; I know how very far this work must fall short of the lofty ideal.' … 'What I have aimed to do, is so to arrange the material facts, and so to embody the more essential documents, or parts of documents, illustrating those facts, that the attentive, intelligent reader may learn from this work, not only what were the leading incidents of our civil war, but its causes, incidents, and the inevitable sequence whereby ideas proved the germ of events.' … 'My subject naturally divides itself into two parts: I. How we got into the war for the Union; and II. How we got out of it. I have respected this division in my cast of the present work, and submit this volume as a clear elucidation of the former of these problems, hoping to be at least equally satisfactory in my treatment of the latter.' … 'I shall labor constantly to guard against Mr. Pollard's chief error—that of supposing that all the heroism, devotedness, humanity, chivalry, evinced in the contest, were displayed on one side; all the cowardice, ferocity, cruelty, rapacity, and general depravity, on the other. I believe it to be the truth, and as such I shall endeavor to show, that, while this war has been signalized by some deeds disgraceful to human nature, the general behavior of the combatants on either side has been calculated to do honor even to the men who, though fearfully misguided, are still our countrymen, and to exalt the prestige of the American name.'

The sale of the work before us has been immense. Such has been the demand for Vol. I. of 'The American Conflict,' that the publishers have found it impossible to supply the demand, even with regard to agents and subscribers. The subscription list already numbers 60,000, although but one fourth of the Free States have been canvassed.

Leading heads of chapters are: I. Our Country in 1782 and in 1860. II. Slavery in America prior to 1776. III. Slavery in the American Revolution. IV. Slavery Under the Confederation. V. The Convention of 1787 and the Federal Constitution, VI. Slavery after 1787. VII. Missouri—The Struggle for Restriction. VIII. State Rights—Resolutions of '98. IX. Abolition—Its Rise and Progress. X. The Churches on Slavery and Abolition. XI. The Pro-Slavery Reaction—Riots. XII. Texas and her Annexation to the United States. XIII. The Mission of Samuel Hoar to South Carolina. XIV. War with Mexico—Wilmot Proviso. XV. The Struggle for Compromise in 1850. XVI. The Era of Slave Hunting—1850-'60. XVII. The Nebraska-Kansas Struggle. XVIII. Case of Dred Scott in the Supreme Court. XIX. Our Foreign Policy—Monroe—Cuba. XX. John Brown and his Raid. XXI. The Presidential Canvass of 1860. XXII. Secession Inaugurated in South Carolina. XXIII. The Press and the People of the North Deprecate Civil War. XXIV. Attempts at Conciliation in Congress. XXV. Peace Democracy at the North and Peace Conference at Washington. XXVI. The Union versus the Confederacy. XXVII. The Pause before the Shock. XXVIII. Siege and Reduction of Fort Sumter. XXIX. The Nation Called to Arms—and Responds. XXX. Secession Resumes its March. XXXI. The Opposing Forces in Conflict. XXXII. West Virginia Clings to the Union. XXXIII. The War in Old Virginia. XXXIV. First Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress. XXXV. The Rebellion and War in Missouri. XXXVI. War on the Seaboard and the Ocean. XXXVII. Kentucky Adheres to the Union. XXXVIII. The Potomac—Ball's Bluff. Notes and Analytical Index.

This work demands an extended review, and the readers of The Continental may again hear of it. Meantime the most varied estimates will be formed of its merits; as various as the political tenets held by its readers.

It is illustrated, containing Heads of President and Cabinet, Eminent Opponents of the Slave Power, Confederate Chieftains, Union Generals, Confederate Generals, Union Naval Officers, Plans of Battles, etc., etc.

Down in Tennessee, and Back by Way of Richmond. By Edmund Kirke, Author of 'Among the Pines,' 'My Southern Friends,' etc. New York: Carleton, publisher, 413 Broadway. 1864.

The author of this work, having been familiar with the South in days more tranquil, had 'a desire to study the undercurrents of popular sentiment, and to renew his acquaintance with former friends and Union prisoners,' and so visited the Southwest in May last: the present volume thus originated. We cannot very readily discern how much of this work is fact, how much fiction. We have the Union scout, the poor white, the negro, and other elements belonging both to the romance and reality of Southern life in these days of struggle. Are the exquisitely simple and heart-touching thoughts and expressions which fall from the lips of the poor white or scout, actually true, or are they the coinage of Mr. Kirke's own vivid fancy? Notwithstanding the hideous jargon in which they occur, if real they evince a high soul, even in the midst of ignorance, and are the gems of the work. The book ends with a detailed account of the author's introduction to Colonel Jaques, and their subsequent visit to Richmond, an episode in our history quite as curious as the Sanders and Greeley conference at Clifton House, and one which has excited quite as wide an interest. Mr. Kirke says of the poor whites: 'I have endeavored to sketch their characters faithfully—extenuating nothing and setting nothing down in malice—that the reader may believe what I know, that there is not in the whole North a more worthy, industrious, loving class of people than the great body of poor Southern Whites. Take the heel of the man-buying and woman-whipping aristocrat from off their necks, give them free schools, and a chance to rise, and they will make the South, with its prolific soil, its immense water power, and its vast mineral wealth, such a country as the sun never yet looked upon, and this Union such a Union as will be the light of nations and the glory of the earth!'

Poems of the War. By George H. Boker. Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1864. New York: for sale by D. Appleton & Co.

Mr. Boker has attained, what his more elaborate efforts sometimes lack, fire, concentration, and energy, in these 'Poems of the War.' We thank him heartily that he has taken the glories of our country and the sufferings and deeds of our dauntless soldiers as his theme. Patriotism has inspired him, and the ever well-tuned chords of his lyre ring out with bolder and more soul-stirring melody than of old. 'On Board the Cumberland,' 'The Sword Bearer,' 'The Ballad of New Orleans,' 'Crossing at Fredericksburg,' 'The Black Regiment,' 'In the Wilderness,' are truly national poems, and should be read at every hearthstone in our land. We quote the closing lines from 'Upon the Hill before Centreville':