73
vative" will not venture here to render an opinion. Be it sufficient for him to say, that it would at least interest him to behold a new folly in a field whose potentialities of fatuity he had thought already exhausted.
Revolutionary Mythology
Events in our little sphere of amateurdom sometimes coincide remarkably with those of the world outside. The announcement in United circles of Mr. Henry Clapham McGavack's forthcoming essay on "Preliminaries of the American Revolution", wherein some hoary Yankee myths will be dissected, comes almost simultaneously with the storm of resentment awaked among professional American patriots by the lamentable faux pas of Prof. Wilson's pacifistical Secretary of War; who asserted in a campaign speech on October 16, that the Mexican banditti of today are comparable to the American revolutionists of Gen. Washington's army.
Secretary Baker has undoubtedly perpetrated another characteristically Wilsonian blunder in drawing a parallel between the pure-blooded Anglo-Saxon rebels of 1775, and the herd of half-breed swine, bent only on plunder, who are grunting, shooting, cavorting, and misbehaving generally below our southern border; but the loud denunciation comes rather from the truth he has let slip, than from the erroneous inferences he has drawn.
The American Revolution has created a more marvellous fund of genuine legendary lore than any other event in modern history. Not only to the proletariat, but to the bulk of our intelligent countrymen, the colonists who caused the withdrawal of America from the British Empire stand forth as heroes unsullied; as veritable Galahads, Bayards, and Sidneys. It is soberly believed by grown men, that the defiers of George III were a host of terrestrial Seraphim, the like of whom have never been known before or since. Willingly enough do we confess weaknesses on both sides of other intestine struggles through which our race has passed. In reflecting upon the Civil Wars which culminated in Cromwell's usurpation, we all acknowledge on the one hand that King Charles I was weak, that his promises were not inviolable, and that many of his adherents were luxurious and dissipated men; and on the other hand that the rebels were hasty, cruel, coarse, hypocritical, and animated by many absurdly false notions. Neither Charles nor Cromwell is to the descendants of his followers a supernal being "sans peur et sans reproche." But in mentioning the Continental army of 1775-1783, the average American assumes an unconscious accent of prayer, and damns any possible blasphemer with the true fervour of the fanatic. That the band of American colonists who seceded from the authority of Great Britain in 1775 contained at least several human beings, is well proven by careful students. That these beings possessed their full share of what we call "human nature", is likewise not unknown. Which compels "The Conservative" to smile a trifle at the legends of Revolutionary Gods and Heroes preserved by each Yankee fireside, and transmitted both orally and verbally to each succeeding generation.
