BOOKS.
THE STORY OF THE UNITED STATES.*
Trris, the second volume in point of time of The Cambridge Modern History, "narrates the history of Canada, and of the Colonies, French and English, connected with it, from their discovery down to the time at which Canada passed under the British Crown ; secondly, that of the other English colonies in North America from their origin to the Declaration of Independence ; and, finally, the history of these colonies after they had become the United States, from 1776 down to the present day." At the first glance, as is pointed out in the preface, this seems a departure from Lord Acton's principle of arrangement that "the history of each people should be taken MD at the point at which it was drawn into the main stream of human progress, as represented by the European nations." But it is not a real departure, for it is only within the last few years that the United States has "abandoned the policy of isolation" and has plunged into the European vortex of trade and politics. It is but to-day, wisely or un- wisely, that it has joined the "main stream of human pro- gress, as represented by the European nations."
Great care has been taken to secure a fair statement of the various difficult, and often very painful, historical questions that have to be dealt with in a history of the United States. English writers, for instance, give us the whole of the history down to 1783, while their presentment of the rupture with Great Britain is balanced by Mr. Melville M. Bigelow's important essays on the Constitutional questions involved in the struggle. Again, an English pen deals with the second war, and (the only instance of an English contribution to the later history) Mr. H. W. Wilson also places before us the naval side of the War of the North and South. America in the nine- teenth century is otherwise described exclusively by American writers of ability and repute. It is, we think, a matter for surprise that Harvard has put forward no pure historian as a contributor to this volume, though Professor Barrett Wendell's sketch of American humanities is, perhaps, of abiding value.
It is not possible in a necessarily brief review to notice at any length the various chapters. Mr. John A. Doyle's con- tributions are elaborate and accurate, and throw much new light on the early days of the American Colonies. The story of the relations of these Colonies is an intricate one, and it may be contended that the matter might with advantage have been presented in a less complex manner. It is difficult to disentangle from Mr. Doyle's narrative the main currents of thought and action that were in reality bearing the Colonial groups towards their destiny. These currents are obscured by the play of innumerable surface forces that counted for little in the long run. The problem of writing a really illuminating history of the Colonies from 1620 to 1750 is the same problem as faces the historian in dealing with mediaeval Italian history. Mr. Doyle could hardly hope entirely to succeed where Guicciardini splendidly failed. He has, however, achieved valuable results that will not soon be forgotten. Miss Mary Bateson's chapter on the French occupation in America is charming, and as history certainly does not stand below the rest of the volume. Miss Bateson realises a fact that the scientific historian habitually forgets,—style stands only second to the principles of selective truth in the writing of history. The account of the enlightened policy pursued by the great Colbert for the development of Canada in the latter half of the seventeenth century is invaluable, and furnishes object-lessons for the present day. Colbert, "with all his love of centralisation, saw the need of independence of judgment and liberty of action for high officials on the spot. There was to be unity of government, but not necessarily uniformity." This fact, foreseen by the brilliant French Minister, has been realised alone by England among colonising nations, and is at
• the Cambridge Modern Ristory. Planned by the late Lord Acton, LL. I'., Regius Professor of Modern history. Edited by A. W. Ward, Litt.D., (1. W. Prothero, Litt.D., Stanley Leathes, MA. VoL " The United Stated." Cambridge; at the University Press, [16s. net.]
the root of our succiss. We may add with respect to this section of the book that the conquest of Canada is admirably presented by Mr. A. G. Bradley.
We have not space here to attempt to deal at length with the rupture between Britain and those of her Colonies that have since developed into the United States. It may be that the rupture was in any event inevitable; and perhaps to-day, when the event has dwindled into a point of history, one may believe that the Anglo-Saxon race has on the whole gained rather than lost by the separation. With the restoration of the unity of hearts the unity of dominion seems less im- portant. But a century ago it was a bitter fact, and not the less bitter that it was precipitated by political narrowness and an astounding ignorance of the principles which Colbert knew lay behind all successful colonisation. We learnt our lesson once and for all, it may be hoped, though modern economic heresies seem now to threaten the future. But the truth is that from the first there existed "a vague spirit of discontent in the colonies towards the mother-country. The war in Canada had done nothing to allay that feeling." The fact that we were almost ready to bargain away Canada for Guadaloupe rightly disgusted the Colonists, while we in our turn were disgusted by the entire provincialism of the Colonial Assemblies. Yet at any rate as late as 1766 Benjamin Franklin declared that no one, "drunk or sober," dreamt of independence. The country was in a condition of unstable political equilibrium, with some able thinkers and leaders, such as the members of the Adams family and Washington, ready to adopt a separatist position if the balance of con- venience fell that way. And it fell. The question of taxation by the English Parliament—a sore enough and old enough question—suddenly became a vital matter. A series of in- significant fiscal disputes were the straws that weighed down the balance. The affair of the sloop 'Liberty' in Boston Harbour in 1768 was the first open collision; agitation against unconstitutional taxation spread rapidly, and led up to the Boston tea riot of December 16th, 1773. Before this date Samuel Adams had advocated a Congress of the States, and in 1774 the first Congress met. "Its action effectively check- mated North's policy of isolating Massachusetts. It extended the field of battle from Boston to the whole continent." It was too late for conciliation, though the weighty names of Burke and Chatham were on that side. Lord North at the last would have had conciliation at any cost ; but, as is rightly pointed out here, surrender was the only alternative to a revolution. So these Colonies passed out of our grasp. A wiser policy has enabled us to retain Canada and the control of half a continent that once was ours potentially from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf of Mexico.
Perhaps the most interesting part of this fascinating volume is that which deals with the event that made the America of to-day. Before 1861 the United States were still provincial ; the great Civil War came, and with those awful and inscrutable instruments of progress, blood and iron, welded a loose agglomeration of discordant States into a world-Power possessing infinite possibilities. The story of the war as told in this volume by the late Mr. John G. Nicolay is, in our judgment, a contribution to modern history of absolutely the first importance. By the pre- mature death of this gifted and judicial writer the world of letters is indeed the poorer. He possessed that gift of selecting and disposing of incidents which is possessed only by the first rank of historians and artists. He knew how to show forth great events and their moving impulses by the presentation of salient characteristics suggestively related, and he never allowed his narrative to be drowned in detail, nor the epic native of the drama he presented to be obscured by the foam of words. We doubt if the great Civil War will ever be depicted again with such living force as in Mr. Nicolay's clear, noble presentment. The outlines of the story are familiar enough. In the " forties " the Free-Roil Movement—the freedom-giving capacity of the very soil— had made great progress in the North, and the question which was moving in men's minds was that of "freedom, or slavery in the new Territories." The discovery of gold in California in 1848 made the question vital. What was to be the future of that great West towards which the world was rushing In February, 1848, there were two thousand Americans in all California. In less than two years there were about sixty thousand. It was necessary to establish a Government in California and New Mexico, and Congress instructed the Committee on Territories to report Bills for this purpose "with distinct prohibitions of slavery." The slave States were furious, and a compromise was necessary. The "Corn- promise of 1850" was intended to solve the new problem and other current questions as to State boundaries and the return of fugitive slaves. The "Missouri Compromise" of 1820 had
forbidden the existence of slavery north of latitude 360 30', but
it did not extend to new Western territory, which if lost to slavery meant, as Henry Clay saw, the ultimate extinction of slavery and of the political predominance of the South. The future was with the West and its uncontrolled forces. These forces would dominate the East, and if the old slave-holding aristocracy was to retain its power, it had to win the West.
To do so it was necessary, and logically possible, to dispute the right of Congress to decide the future of the Western States. Calhoun therefore accepted and developed the doctrine of nullification, "an absolute refusal to obey oppres- sive and unequal laws." He maintained that as a Con- stitutional principle the ultimate sovereignty lay with the States. If new Western States declared for slavery, it was not for Congress to interfere. The Compromise of 1850 gave the South the Fugitive Slave Law. That was something. But it really meant little, since the law was, in fact, evaded, and created a great body of public opinion against slavery. .Again, the new Territories that adopted a slavery basis, such as New Mexico and Utah, were refused admission to the Union ; while California, having framed—to the intense dis- appointment of the South—a free Constitution, was at once admitted. The issue of the great war was ripening. The South stood for nullification and a rigid Constitution, for. getting, as Dr. Woodrow Wilson finely puts it, that "no constitution can ever be treated as a mere law or document : it must always be also a vehicle of life. Its own phrases must become as it were living tissue. It must grow and strengthen and subtly change with the growth and strength and change of the political body whose life it defines." So the stage was set, and the curtain rose on a political prologue in which Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) and the Dred Scott case (deciding in 1857 that residence on free soil did not permanently free a slave) played a moving part, and John Brown's raid of Sunday, October 17th, 1859, an inspirational part. The slave States, pursuing the doctrine of nullification and ultimate sovereignty to the bitter end, withdrew from the Union, and on April 12th, • 1861, the attack on Fort Sumter precipitated the war. On April 15th President Lincoln called to the service of the United States seventy-five thousand three-months' Militia, and the tremendous straggle began which only ended with the surrender of General Lee at Appomattox on April 9th, 1865, of General Johnston at Greensborough on April 26th, of General Taylor on May 8th, and finally of General Kirby Smith on May 26th, 1865, with an aggregate of two hundred thousand men. On that date the North had more than a million and a half of men under arms. We cannot follow the struggle here,—the ignorance of the principles of war shown at the opening by both sides ; the temporary victories of the South; the gradual evolution of highly trained armies under competent commanders; the emergence of two or three great commanders, of whom Lee, handi- capped as he was, was the greatest, greater even than Grant; the inevitable but slow extinction of the South,— followed by the sudden awaking of a new homogeneous nation, the United States of to-day. It is a great story worthily told, and is the heart of the present volume. Comparisons in criticism are not odious, and it is only tight to say that this volume of The Cambridge Modern History stands far ahead of the first volume. It is better written, better conceived, and deals (as the first volume did not) in an absolutely judicial spirit with themes from which it is difficult to exclude partisanship and bitterness.
Previous page
