The Overland Monthly/Volume 1/Family Resemblances and Differences

FAMILY RESEMBLANCES AND DIFFERENCES.

IN this world there are no quarrels I so bitter as the quarrels between brothers, no feuds so uncompromising as family feuds. Kinsfolk are proverbiably the worst neighbors, and it is often said that particular individuals are too much alike to agree. This has been the case in all ages of the world.

Three thousand years ago, in the land near to the cradle of the human race, there was strife "between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle," which increased in bitterness until one of the brothers said to the other: "Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." And so the families divided the one from the other.

The world is as full of this malignant spirit now as it was in the days of the Patriarchs, and nations seem to be even more under its influence than families. Those nations which, by similarity of institutions or consanguinity, ought to be the best of friends, prove against every rule of reason to be the worst of enemies; while on the other hand, those who are most remote in geographical position, or which are governed by the most antagonistic systems, appear, on the surface at least, to be the closest kin,

We Americans are proud of our Anglo-Saxon blood and origin. We claim as our own the laws, the traditions, the poetry, and the romance of Britian. These are our inheritance as much as they are the inheritance of the veriest Cockney, born within the sound of Bow bells. Yet we dread and fear the power of our kindred of that nation, and with a strange anomaly, look with trusting confidence to the Muscovite despotism, of all the powers of Europe, for sympathy and neighborly love. And this confidence appears, at least on the surface, to be justified by the whole experience of the nation's life. Among all the disappointments which showered upon the loyal people of America during the four years between the fall of Fort Sumter and the capture of Richmond, scarcely one was more unexpected than the circumstance that the public opinion of all of the world, sufficiently enlightened to be of consequence, was enlisted in behalf of the enemies of our country. And this, aggravated by the obvious fact that the nearer to ourselves in civilization and in consanguinity, the more pronounced was the judgment, the more decided the repugnance to our cause. That which in Austria and in Spain was simply passive deprecation, in France and Belgium grew to be outspoken opposition, and in England and Scotland

stayed not at words, but sprang into deeds of the most hostile character. And by a singular transition, from that people to whom we looked for the greatest amount of sympathy and encouragement we obtained the least. More than half a century before the war was commenced by the South for the defence of slavery, and joined in and prosecuted by the North in part, at least, for its destruction, a great law lord had announced from the bench that the air of England was so pure that slavery could not exist for a moment in that favored land, and that upon touching English soil the shackles would fall from the limbs of the slave, and he must stand forth a free man. And less than five and twenty years before, the legislature had determined that this unpolluted element should not be confined to Britain alone, but should spread over the world, to all the colonies and dependencies of that realm, and that slavery should exist no more under the British flag. And no achievement of that power during its thousand years of rule had been more gratifying to the national pride than the peaceful one of emancipation.

With this record, it was not strange that Northern Americans should expect English sentiment to take their side in the great struggle. Why were they disappointed? Why was it that a vast majority of the intelligence, the decency and respectability of England was willing to see the bad cause succeed? The answer is, that it was the same influence which had made the Americans of the South for a century hold Africans in servitude, and the Americans of the North encourage and support them in doing so—pride and arrogance of race, engendered mainly by selfishness and greed. That the English people on the east side of the Atlantic were not different from those other English people whose ancestors had migrated to the west side of the ocean, and taken to themselves a new name; that these

Englishmen who had crossed the sea had not brought away with them ali of the brutality, all of the selfishness, or all of the insolence of power, but only their fair proportion of those qualities; that their brethren whom they had left behind them were neither better nor worse than themselves; and that the offspring of the separated families, with an obedience to the original plans of nature singularly faithful, were found when they again met to have a resemblance as strange as the resemblance of Antipholus of Syracuse to his brother of Ephesus. Different climates and different habits of life had marked certain peculiarities upon the form and features, while different social influences had stamped their effects upon the minds of the people; but as these influences were slightly different, so was the change but trifling.

The great leading peculiarities of the English nation, as it existed on both sides of the water, were found to be identical. Whether it showed itself in the whipping of negroes in South Carolina or coolies in Mauritius, the braining of pappoose at Humboldt Bay or blowing Sepoys from the mouths of loaded cannon at Lucknow, it was the same spirit of Anglo-Saxon selfishness, and disregard for the rights and feelings of others.

Both nations were willing enough to run up and down the world trading with those who would, and robbing those who would not, and asserting and perhaps believing they were spreading Christianity and the elegant arts of peace; both attacking barbarism with bullets instead of books, and standing ready to spread civilization with Henry rifles or Snyder breech-loaders.

The high-spirited youth who pelts defenceless Chinamen with stones in the streets of San Francisco, or tears their flesh with dogs, feels that he is performing a commendable duty in resisting the encroachments of an inferior race, in presuming to breathe of the air

or enjoy the light so evidently prepared by the Anglo Saxon's God for the special benefit of his most favored race. The English collier who beats to death his Belgian fellow craftsman, does not condescend to invoke in his defence this well-known superiority, but finds a sufficient excuse in the established right of a noble Briton not to be interfered with in the winning of bread. Wherever we turn the family resemblance is perfect. The American branch is legitimately begotten, and if John Bull is not proud of his offspring, he at least must confess the paternal relationship, for it is obviously true that the Anglo-Saxon family, upon which, unfortunately for the weak, the sun never sets, is a slavewhipping race wherever found all over the world.

But if our own conduct has been so true to the traditions of our race, why did we expect so much from, and why were we so disappointed at the action of our cousins in the old world? Why should we not rather admire that conservatism of tryranny which still maintained the prescriptive right of Englishmen to be arrogant selfish and brutal? The answer is, that it is a weakness of our nature to condemn with special severity a vice which we feel that we have finally abandoned. The reformed drunkard soon ripens into the most zealous and perhaps the most intolerant of apostles of abstinence. The first step of the penitent gamester is to destroy all cards and dice within his reach. The youthful habit of long . hours of sleep, so necessary to the complete development of the human constitution, is naturally abandoned by most men at about five and forty. Nature no longer permits it. At five and fifty the individual has forgotten the time when he did otherwise than rise early, and before three score years and ten are reached, many old men honestly think that the rising generation is wasting its best energies in self-indulgence and unnecessary slumber, and sinking into

habits of hopeless indolence and sloth. They have left off the vice so long that they have forgotten that they ever had it. And so it is with nations. For nearly seyen years past the great majority of educated Americans in the North have taken a lively interest in the extirpation of slavery. And that trifling period has sufficed to wipe out all recollection of that other darker time, when they were as willing to uphold and sustain it. Seven years ago the Republican party was the only organization in the land with influence sufficient to be materially fe!t in public affairs, and which at the same time acknowledged the holding of principles hostile to the peculiar institution of the South. And that Republican party disclaimed vehemently any intent to interfere with slavery, except to prevent its spread into territories then free from it. Its members felt insulted when the infamous epithet of abolitionist was applied to them. Now thousands who at that time acted with the pro-slavery party, have forgotten their old sympathy, and are unequal to the mental task of conceiving how any except their own opinions can be honestly held. The truth is, that we thought the English better than ourselves; that they were more moral, less selfish, and generally farther advanced in civilization than we were. And when we learned by putting the matter to practical proof, that they were not, and that thanks to the war we were drifting into just views more rapidly than they, we turned to the other extreme and easily convinced ourselves that they were so bad as scarcely to be entitled to a place in the ranks of civilized nations.

For the first two years of the struggle we were not abolitionists. But we had never pretended to be such. Nor were the English so except in name. This we learned greatly to our disgust, for we argued: What right have those people beyond the sea to countenance siaveholding against the protestations ofa halt

century? It was not enough that the English people should hold to views as liberal or work for ends as lofty as ours. They had taken higher ground and had claimed for themselves a nabler position. For twenty years they had sneered at the flaming lie stereotyped in every edition of the fundamental laws of the land, and declaimed from every village green upon the anniversary of the nation's birthday, that all men were born free and equal. At last by necessity or from principle, (and which it was was no concern of theirs) we had learned to look upon slavery from an English point of view. We expected a hearty welcome into the ranks of the abolitionists of Europe. We were now all of one mind, and slavery should no longer disgrace the land. And we claimed and expected the reward due to the laborer who had begun at the eleventh hour. We did not receive the expected welcome. So much in fact did we look for from England and from Englishmen, that we were not prepared to make any allowance for the influence of greed and avarice when operating upon the minds of our cousins across the waters. New York merchants might clear millions of tons of goods nominally for Matamoras, but in reality for Brownsville in Texas, with scarcely an aspersion upon their loyalty, but the Liverpool and Glasgow trader who attempted the same adventure by way of Nassau was deemed guilty of an offence of the most heinous character. And while a majority of Americans declared that Juarez and his companions were fighting as we were fighting, the cause of republicanism for the whole world, the sympathies of a wealthy steamship company of San Francisco were scarcely thought to be misplaced by sending from our own port cargo after cargo of goods contraband of war to aid Maximillian in his effort to found an Empire on the ruins of our nearest sister Republic. We have never heard that beyond the seizure of one steamer by

the Liberal party, the managers or stock-holders of that corporation have been visited with any punishment or damage for this violation of the law of the land or the cause of Constitutional liberty. And when Spain was carrying on her late war with the South American. Republics, waged as it undoubtedly was for the re-establishment of Spanish dominion in that quarter of the globe, and a steamer of two thousand tons burthen was fitted out with arms and equipments in this port by merchants of San Francisco, so flagrantly as to be within the common knowledge of all, and sent to sea to be delivered to the Spanish authorities off the beleagured port of Valparaiso, almost, if not absolutely beneath the guns of an American cruiser, who thought that the crime of Mr. Laird of Birkenhead was being committed at our own doors and by our most respected citizens? Indeed, it is even probable that those merchants who fitted out the "Uncle Sam" to sell to Her Catholic Majesty to be used in the Chilian war, have old grievances against England for Alabama depredations. But we did not look for Englishmen to be avaricious. They were expected to rise above all selfishness, to be careless of gain. Nay more, they were expected now that we had left off slave-driving, or were about to do so if we could no longer avoid it, to join with us in the glorious work with heart and hand, nor rest till the whole world had become free, and made to acknowledge the universal brotherhood of man.

But the disappointment came, and in our opinion was from the first inevitable. We do not believe that it was ever possible for the people of England, as represented by the governing classes— we had almost said the thinking classes —to look upon the American war in such a manner as to satisfy the susceptibilities of the North.

And this not because of any difference in the spirit or character of the two peo

ples, but because of the resemblance between them; a resemblance so true to nature that it reproduces not only the virtues, the high spirit and enterprise of the common ancestors of both, but because it brings out all the weakness, the defects and meaner vices which were incident and almost peculiar to the Anglo Saxon stock. The nations are too much alike to agree. Each works for what it conceives to be its own interest with an earnestness characteristic of both. The ruling interest of England is aristocratic, while that in America is in direct conflict. While these rival interests direct the policy of the two nations, there will be between the people a conflict as irrepressible as that which will always continue between two systems so opposite.

England is beyond all countries upon the globe the paradise of the rich man. Millions toil by day and by night upon the earth, and beneath the earth, and upon the waters under the earth, that he may command every conceivable luxury. And all of this with an alacrity which appears to add to the enjoyment the testimony of the toiler that Providence has foreordained and irrevocably decreed the delightful relationship which exists between master and servant.

In England privileges of the most valuable nature accompany the possession of wealth. The rich man may make laws tending to increase his riches and to fortify his posterity in their enjoyment. This is a condition too pleasant to be readily parted with by any class. The example of America is a constant warning, a continuous threat to all of this. There is seen a nation where there are no privileged classes, and where there is a complete defiance of the notion that some are born to rule, and others to submit; there the rich are content with the permission to enjoy that which they have, without arrogantly demanding further advantages because of the possession of wealth. The aristocracy of England find with alarm that the country is being

Americanized, and that unless a great struggle is made, its rule will pass away. And the aristocracy is the respectability, the refinement and the intelligence of the country. For, like that other aristocracy of the South, this one has considered the education of the masses as a dangerous step, and has as systematically avoided it. And at this moment the lower classes in England are quite as unfitted to assume political power as are the freedmen of the South.

To stay this tide of democracy which is sweeping from America over England and the world, is the lifelong business of almost all of the statesmen of the Liberal party, and of quite all of the statesmen of the Tory party of England. Whetherin Parliament or out of it, by means of the press, through the church and the schools; using all social influences;; practising upon the pride of some and the fears of others, the work is carried on by nearly all the rich and gifted of that land. This is no Dame Partington affair with pattens and mop, but a life and death struggle between forces. so doubtfully matched that the most trifling circumstances may determine it, at least for the time, in favor of one principle or the other. The triumph of the National cause in America has not given democracy the final victory, though the success of the rebellion would have turned the scale against it.

If ever an aristocracy deserved success in such a struggle, it is this one of England. The old system of France, before the Revolution swept it away, was steeped in sensuality and vice of every class nameable and unnameable. The aristocracy of Russia is charged with cruelty and corruption sufficient to exclude it from a place in modern civilization. A considerable pd¥tion of the whites of the South were as ignorant as the slaves they ruled, and prone to deeds of violence and bloodshed. The maintenance of caste in England is a matter of conscience, and the duty is discharged

with a zeal so untiring as almost to appear to be unselfish. An English nobleman is reared for a lifetime of duty. His education is as thorough as the first institutions of learning in the world can make it. He is taught that the public good is inseparably connected with his order; and that while the law gives him special privileges, he must to make the law respected show himself worthy of the gift. He cannot be a liar nor a cheat. He must respect religion and the rights of his fellow-creatures as he understands them. And when he fails in this, as some do, he is branded by his peers as an unworthy lord; and unworthy he is, for his conduct tends directly to the ruin of the system which supports him.

The integrity and fair dealing of the English people, whether it descends from the higher orders to the lower or works upwards from the small trader till it reaches the lord, is at least obvious to the most casual observer. It appears as if even honesty and truth were summoned in and made to do service on the side of ancient customs and against democratic innovations. The English merchant, whether he is dealing in spices at Singapore, in teas at Hongkong, in wines at Xerez, or carpets at Smyrna, or in all of these and more besides, in his office in Leadenhall street, can be depended upon to deal fairly, to tell the truth, to serve the Queen, and support and sustain "our glorious aristocracy."

But honesty, which appears to be so important a feature in English character, cannot be persisted in to the injury of aristocratic rule. And when one or the other must give way, by common consent it is the least important of the two. The buying of votes—an evil that would not be tolerated an instant in America, and which w8uld be stopped in England in one week if the ruling classes desired to have it stopped—is there openly practised, wherever necessary. As the progress of democratic ideas makes votes necessary, there is nothing left but to

buy them. If they were left free, as would be the case with the ballot, men of the lower classes would find their way into Parliament. But once secure of his seat, and the danger to aristocratic rule 'past, the member of Parliament must forget that he has committed the crime of bribery. Public opinion has been relaxed in his favor, because of the great and trying necessity for his election. His course, when he is in office, must be above reproach. And we believe that no legislative body in the world is more free from the suspicion of corrupt practices than is the English Parliament.

The admiration of middle-class Englishmen for the aristocracy is only equalled by their dislike for that little band of educated men who lead the masses in the struggle against class rule. Mr. Goldwin Smith is a disturber of the public peace, a disorganizer, an enemy to the constitution. The name of Mr. Bright is bandied upon the tongues of respectable young Engiishmen, in better language, but with no less flippancy and contempt, than is that of Horace Greeley by the tobaccospitting, whisky-drinking young blackguards of Broadway and the Bowery.

The Church of England, founded in the interest of the aristocracy, has done good service. By it, infants are taught with their first lisp to be content with the station where they have been placed, and not to aspire to the pussession of the privileges of their divinely appointed betters. But schismatic panthers and the "bristled baptist boars" of dissent have so torn and harried "the milk-white hind" that she can scarce defend herself. She is forced to tolerate that which she cannot suppress, while enemies in all sorts of uniforms are marching under banners as diverse as the banners of the motley army of Peter the Hermit, putting her upon the defense of her very life.

But if the influence of the Church has declined, a new power has grown

up which more than compensates the ruling classes for the loss of ecclesiastic aid. The influence of the public press of England is something almost marvellous. And it is but just to admit that journalism there has fairly earned the triumphant place which it occupies. The first talent and the highest education of the country are engaged in the profession of writing for newspapers. And the result is fully adequate to the means employed. It has been said that articles are published every day in the English journals equal in merit to the letters of Junius. And this is certainly true—nay more, it is doubtful if in the eighteenth century above six writers appeared in all England capable of writing a Times leader, or an article worthy of being printed in the Saturday Review. Never in the history of the world has the literature of any country exercised such influence. Its power is felt throughout civilization. But if it were possible to measure intellect and

learning as corn or wine is measured, it would be found that nine-tenths of the literary ability engaged in English journalism are employed in supporting the

cause of aristocratic rule. And this with an earnestness that stops at nothing. For the march of democratic ideas has brought the world to such a pass that monarchy cannot be upheld in one quarter of the globe and revolution encouraged in another. The day has gone by when the same writer can safely give comfort to Greeks or Poles struggling for liberty or nationality, and deprecate the success of Irishmen or Hindoos battling for a kindred cause. The fight has reached such close quarters that the cause of monarchical institutions throughout the world must stand or fall together. False reasoning can no longer impose upon mankind. The logic of aristocracy must be as perfect as its projectiles. An illegitimate inference or a bad premise is as dangerous now as was a lost battle a hundred years ago.

The case of the Christians of Crete bears too many points of resemblance to the wants of the Christians of another island of the ocean, a trifle less remote, to permit them to be safely sympathized with. It is not quite clear that Garibaldi and Mazzini are much more patriotic than Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Burke, who were hanged for "treason felony," within a twelvemonth, or Mr. Emmet, who has been hanging more than a half a century. England forty years ago assisted Greece to do that which Ireland now claims the right to do. She has learned since that time to be consistent. She had learned the lesson before our war began. Russia has not quite learned it, but will soon be able to see that which all other monarchies have seen. This country may make the most of such sympathy as we have had of that power, for we shall have it no more. The autocrat of that land will not be long in learning that it is not safe to take the side of democracy, though it may appear to be in a remote quarter of the globe. Time will convince him, or his successors in power, that Maximilian and Mr. Jefferson Davis were alike fighting the battles of monarchy and of class rule, as well in America as in Europe, and all over the world. No noble lord of England failed for a moment to understand the issue, or will ever misunderstand it in the future, in whatever part of the world it may appear, or whatever form it may assume.

The Poles and the Eastern Christians, the followers of Garibaldi and Kossuth, the oppressed subjects of the Queen of Spain and the conquered tribes of Algeria, must alike be dealt with by those who hold them in subjection. But with the abolition of slavery in America ended the only distinction

between the North and the South, so far as European sympathy is concerned, for with slavery aristocracy in this country was finally destroyed, and any future civil war must be a struggle

betwen two hostile sections of an unmixed democracy.

Towards such a contest the ruling classes of the old world can only stand indifferent. It is true that blockade runners will be fitted out, and munitions of war will be sold to the belligerents, for avarice and greed are not the special privileges of ruling classes; but no Government official will take pains to be sick in order that privateers may escape, and no ship-builder will bid for applause in Parliament by declaring himself proud of having built them. The Captain Semmes of the future will not find pleasure yachts stationed conveniently at hand to convey them on shore after being beaten, nor will they be feted in London while their successful adversaries are being snubbed. The bonds of both parties will be sold for what they may be considered worth, and sympathy will not be dragged into the Stock Exchange to assist in the taking up of new cotton loans at a premium.

Aristocracy, as a principle, has ceased to exist in America, for it may hardly be presumed that the franchise will belong exclusively to the blacks of the South for a term of sufficient length to again build upa privileged class of color in that section, and there appears to be no other foundation for one. With the total destruction of aristocracy in America will have disappeared one great cause by which the sympathy of England towards our country could be invoked. If democracy should succeed in obtaining power in that land, and the governments be assimilated, there will be a still nearer approach to identity of interests between the two Anglo Saxon families. But this may not be in

the lifetime of any who read this article. The aristocracy of England is not the "ancient regime" of France— selfish, oppressive and corrupt—nor a turbulent and barbarous oligarchy like that of Poland in the seventeenth, or the South in the nineteenth century; nor effete and sunk in indolence and luxury like the princes of the East; but strong and vigorous and full of life and stamina, like itself and none other. It has outlived a thousand systems that are better in theory, and may survive as many more.

And when this has passed away, and when American principles, with petroleum and negro minstrelsy, with sewing machines and patent reapers, have run over sturdy old England, and destroyed the constitution, and when the ship of British oak has finally "shot Niagara," and escaped the rocks and whirlpools that lie below, and floated secure in the calm haven of democracy, will the two nations be any better friends than now? We think not. We have too much faith in the power of pride and arrogance of the haughty insolence of the Anglo Saxon spirit, the common birthright of both nations, together with the covetousness, the greed, and the avarice universal, of which each family has its just proportion. They will still, we fear, have too much resemblance to become as good friends as they ought to be. They each know well that the common interest of civilization demands that the families from which have sprung nearly all the world knows of constitutional liberty should advance shoulder to shoulder in the march of nations. But this is only a theory, and what have theories ever done against the prejudices or the selfishness of mankind?