“The conduct of a few States has not only destroyed their own credit and left their sister States very little to boast of, but has so materially affected the credit of the whole Union that it was found impossible to negotiate in Europe any part of the loan authorized by Congress in 1842. It was offered on terms most advantageous to the creditor, terms which in former times would have been eagerly accepted; and after going a-begging through all the exchanges of Europe, the agent gave up the attempt to obtain the money, in despair.”[100]
“The conduct of a few States has not only destroyed their own credit and left their sister States very little to boast of, but has so materially affected the credit of the whole Union that it was found impossible to negotiate in Europe any part of the loan authorized by Congress in 1842. It was offered on terms most advantageous to the creditor, terms which in former times would have been eagerly accepted; and after going a-begging through all the exchanges of Europe, the agent gave up the attempt to obtain the money, in despair.”[100]
As the fallen drunkard illustrates the evils of intemperance, so does Mississippi illustrate the evils of Repudiation. Look at her! But there are men who would degrade our Republic to this wretched condition. Forgetting what is due to our good name as a nation at home and abroad,—forgetting that the public interests are bound up with the Public Faith, involving all economies, national and individual,—forgetting that our transcendent position has corresponding obligations, and that, as Nobility once obliged to great duty, (“Noblesse oblige,”) so does Republicanism now,—there are men who, forgetting all these things, would carry our Republic into this terrible gulf, so full of shame and sacrifice. They begin by subtle devices; but already the mutterings of open Repudiation are heard. I denounce them all, whether device or muttering; and I denounce that political party which lends itself to the outrage.
Repudiation means Confiscation, and in the present case confiscation of the property of loyal citizens. Withunparalleled generosity the nation has refused to confiscate Rebel property; and now it is proposed to confiscate Loyal property. When I expose Repudiation as Confiscation, I mean to be precise. Between two enactments, one requiring the surrender of property without compensation, and the other declaring that the nation shall not and will not pay an equal amount according to solemn promise, there can be no just distinction. The two are alike. The former might alarm a greater number, because on its face more demonstrative. But analyze the two, and you will see that in each private property is taken by the nation without compensation, and appropriated to its own use. Therefore do I say, Repudiation is Confiscation.
A favorite device of Repudiation is to pay the national debt in “greenbacks,”—in other words, to pay bonds bearing interest with mere promises not bearing interest,—violating, in the first place, a rule of honesty, which forbids such a trick, and, in the second place, a rule of law, which refuses to recognize an inferior obligation as payment of a superior. Here, in plain terms, is repudiation of the interest and indefinite postponement of the principal. This position, when first broached, contemplated nothing less than an infinite issue of greenbacks, flooding the country, as France was flooded byassignats, and utterly destroying values of all kinds. Although, in its present more moderate form, it is limited to payment by existing greenbacks, yet it has the same radical injustice. Interest-bearing bonds are to be paid with non-interest-bearing bits of paper. The statement of the case is enough. Its proposer would never do this thing in his own affairs; but how can heask his country to do what honesty forbids in private life?
Another device is to tax the bonds, when the money was lent on the positive condition that the bonds should not be taxed. This, of course, is to break the contract in another way. It is Repudiation in another form.
To argue these questions is happily unnecessary, and I allude to them only because I wish to exhibit the loss to the country from such attempts. This can be made plain as a church-door.
The total debt of our country on the 1st September, aside from the sixty millions of bonds issued to the Pacific Railway, was $2,475,962,501; and here I mention, with great satisfaction, that since the 1st March last the debt has been reduced $49,500,758. The surplus revenue now accruing is not less than $100,000,000 a year, and will be, probably, not less than $125,000,000 a year, of which large sum not less than $75,000,000 must be attributed to the better enforcement of the laws and the economy now prevailing under a Republican Administration. And here comes the practical point. Large as is our surplus revenue, it should have been more, and would have been more but for the Repudiation menaced by the Democracy.
If we look at our bonded debt, we find it is now $2,107,936,300, upon which we pay not less than $124,000,000 in annual interest, the larger part at six per cent., the smaller at five per cent., gold. The difference between this interest and that paid by other powers is the measure of our annual loss. English three per cents. and French fours are firm in the market; but England and France have not the same immeasurableresources that are ours, nor is either so secure in its government. It is easy to see that our debt could have been funded without paying more than four per cent., but for the doubt cast upon our credit by the dishonest schemes of Repudiation. “Payment in Greenbacks” and “Taxation of Bonds” are costly cries. Without these there would have been $40,000,000 annually to swell our surplus revenue. But this sum, if invested in a sinking fund at four per cent. interest, would pay the whole bonded debt in less than thirty years. Such is our annual loss.
The sum-total of this loss directly chargeable upon the Repudiators is more than one hundred millions, already paid in taxes; and much I fear, fellow-citizens, that, before the nation can recover from the discredit inflicted upon it, another hundred millions will be paid in the same way. It is hard to see this immense treasure wrung by taxation from the toil of the people to pay these devices of a dishonest Democracy. Do not forget that the cost of this experiment is confined to no particular class. Wherever the tax-gatherer goes, there it is paid. Every workman pays it in his food and clothing; every mechanic and artisan, in his tools; every housewife, in her cooking-stove and flat-iron; every merchant, in the stamp upon his note; every man of salary, in the income tax; ay, every laborer, in his wood, his coal, his potatoes, and his salt. Many of these taxes, imposed under duress of war, will be removed soon, I trust; but still the enormous sum of forty millions annually must be contributed by the labor of the country, until the world is convinced, that, in spite of Democratic menace, the Republic will maintain its plighted faith to the end.
People wish to reduce taxation. I tell you how. Let no doubt rest upon the Public Faith. Then will the present burdensome taxation grow “fine by degrees and beautifully less.”It is the doubt which costs.It is with our country, as with an individual,—the doubt obliges the payment ofextra interest. To stop that extra interest we must keep faith.
As we look at the origin of the greenback, we shall find a new motive for fidelity. I do not speak of that patriotic character which commends the national debt, but of the financial principle on which the greenback was first issued. It came from the overruling exigencies of self-defence. The national existence depended upon money, which could be had only through a forced loan. The greenback was the agency by which it was collected. The disloyal party resisted the passage of the original Act, prophesying danger and difficulty; but the safety of the nation required the risk, and the Republican Party assumed it. And now this same disloyal party, once against the greenback, insist upon continuing in peace what was justified only in war,—insist upon a forced loan, when the overruling exigencies of self-defence have ceased, and the nation is saved. To such absurdity is this party now driven.
The case is aggravated, when we consider the boundless resources of the country, through which in a short time even this great debt will be lightened, if the praters of Repudiation are silenced. Peace, financially as well as politically, is needed. Let us have peace. Nowhere will it be felt more than at the South, which is awakening to a consciousness of resources unknown while Slavery ruled. With these considerable additionsto the national capital, five years cannot pass without a sensible diminution of our burdens. A rate of taxation,per capita, equal to only one half that of 1866, will pay even our present interest, all present expenses, and the entire principal, in less than twenty years. But to this end we must keep faith.
The attempt is aggravated still further, when it is considered that Repudiation is impossible. Try as you may, you cannot succeed. You may cause incalculable distress, and postpone the great day of peace, but you cannot do this thing. The national debt never can be repudiated. It will be paid, dollar for dollar, in coin, with interest to the end.
How little do these Repudiators know the mighty resisting power which they encounter! how little, the mighty crash which they invite! As well undertake to move Mount Washington from its everlasting base, or to shut out the ever-present ocean from our coasts. It is needless to say that the crash would be in proportion to the mass affected, being nothing less than the whole business of the country. Now it appears from investigations making at this moment by Commissioner Wells, whose labors shed such light on financial questions, thatour annual product reaches the sum of seven thousand millions of dollars.[101]But this prodigious amount depends for its value upon exchange, which in turn depends upon credit. Destroy exchange, and even these untold resources would be an infinite chaos, without form and void. Employment would cease, capital would waste, mills would stop, the rich would become poor,—thepoor, I fear, would starve. Savings banks, trust companies, insurance companies would disappear. Such would be the mighty crash; but here you see also the mighty resisting power. Therefore, again do I say, Repudiation is impossible.
Mr. Boutwell is criticized by the Democracy because he buys up bonds, paying the current market rates, when he should pay the face in greenbacks. I refer to this Democratic criticism because I would show how little its authors look to consequences while forgetting the requirements of Public Faith. Suppose the Secretary, yielding to these wise suggestions, should announce his purpose to take up the first ten millions of five-twenties, paying the face in greenbacks. What then? “After us the deluge,” said the French king; and so, after such notice from our Secretary, would our deluge begin. At once the entire bonded debt would be reduced to greenbacks. The greenback would not be raised; the bond would be drawn down. All this at once,—and in plain violation of the solemn declaration of both Houses of Congress pledging payment in coin. But who can measure the consequences? Bonds would be thrown upon the market. From all points of the compass, at home and abroad, they would come. Business would be disorganized. Prices would be changed. Labor would be crushed. The fountains of the great deep would be broken up, and the deluge would be upon us.
Among the practical agencies to which the country owes much already are the National Banks. Whatever may be the differences of opinion with regard to them, they cannot fail to be taken into account in all financialdiscussions. As they have done good where they are now established, I would gladly see them extended, especially at the South and West, where they are much needed, and where abundant crops already supply the capital. It is doubtful if this can be brought about without removing the currency limitation in the existing Bank Act.[102]In this event I should like the condition that for every new bank-note issued a greenback should be cancelled, thus substituting the bank-note for the greenback. In this way greenbacks would be reduced in volume, while currency is supplied by the banks. Such diminution of the national paper would be an important stage toward specie payments, while the national banks in the South and West, founded on the bonds of the United States, would be a new security for the national credit.
In making this suggestion, I would not forget the necessity of specie payments at the earliest possible moment; nor can I forbear to declare my unalterable conviction that by proper exertion this supreme object may be accomplished promptly,—always provided the national credit is kept above suspicion, or, like the good knight, “without fear and without reproach.”
Thus, fellow-citizens, at every turn are we brought back to one single point, the Public Faith, which cannot be dishonored without infinite calamity. The child is told not to tell a lie; but this injunction is the same for the full-grown man, and for the nation also. We cannot tell a lie to the national freedman or the national creditor; we cannot tell a lie to anybody. Thatword of shame cannot be ours. But falsehood to the national freedman and the national creditor is a national lie. Breaking promise with either, you are dishonored, andLiarmust be stamped upon the forehead of the nation. Beyond the ignominy, which all of us must bear, will be the influence of such a transgression in discrediting Republican Government and the very idea of a Republic. For weal or woe, we are an example. Mankind is now looking to us, and just in proportion to the eminence we have reached is the eminence of our example. Already we have shown how a Republic can conquer in arms, offering millions of citizens and untold treasure at call. It remains for us to show how a Republic can conquer in a field more glorious than battle, where all these millions of citizens and all this untold treasure uphold the Public Faith. Such an example will elevate Republican Government, and make the idea of a Republic more than ever great and splendid. Helping here, you help not only your own country, but help Humanity also,—help liberal institutions in all lands,—help the down-trodden everywhere, and all who struggle against the wrong and tyranny of earth.
The brilliant Frenchman, Montesquieu, in that remarkable work which occupied so much attention during the last century, “The Spirit of Laws,” pronouncesHonorthe animating sentiment of Monarchy, butVirtuethe animating sentiment of a Republic.[103]It is for us to show that he was right; nor can we depart from this rule of Virtue without disturbing the order of the universe. Faith is nothing less than a part of that sublime harmony by which the planets wheel surely in their appointed orbits, and nations are summoned to justice.Nothing too lofty for its power, nothing too lowly for its protection. It is an essential principle in the divine Cosmos, without which confusion reigns supreme. All depends upon Faith. Why do you build? Because you have faith in those laws by which you are secured in person and property. Why do you plant? why do you sow? Because you have faith in the returning seasons, faith in the generous skies, faith in the sun. But faith in this Republic must be fixed as the sun, which illumines all. I cannot be content with less. Full well I see that every departure from this great law is only to our ruin, and from the height we have reached the tumble will be like that of the Grecian god from the battlements of Heaven:—
“From mornTo noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve,A summer’s day, and with the setting sunDropped from the zenith like a falling star.”[104]
“From mornTo noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve,A summer’s day, and with the setting sunDropped from the zenith like a falling star.”[104]
“From morn
To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve,
A summer’s day, and with the setting sun
Dropped from the zenith like a falling star.”[104]
It only remains, come what may, that we should at all hazards preserve this Public Faith,—never forgetting that honesty is not only the best policy, but the Golden Rule. For myself, I see nothing more practical, at this moment, than, first, at all points to oppose the Democracy, and, secondly, to insist that yet awhile longer ex-Rebels shall be excused from copartnership in government. Do not think me harsh; do not think me austere. I am not. I will not be outdone by anybody in clemency; nor at the proper time will I be behind any one in opening all doors of office and trust. But the proper time has not yet come. There must be security for the future, unquestionable and ample, before I am ready; and this I would require not only forthe sake of the national freedman and the national creditor, but for the sake of the country containing the interests of all, and also of the ex-Rebel himself, whose truest welfare is in that peace where all controversy shall be extinguished forever. In this there is nothing but equity and prudence according to received precedents. The ancient historian declares that the ancestors of Rome, the most religious of men, took nothing from the vanquished but the license to do wrong: “Nostri majores, religiosissimi mortales, … neque victis quicquam præter injuriæ licentiam eripiebant.”[105]These are the words of Sallust. I know no better example for our present guidance. Who can object, if men recently arrayed against their country are told to stand aside yet a little longer, until all are secure in their rights? Here is no fixed exclusion,—nothing of which there can be any just complaint,—nothing, which is not practical, wise, humane,—nothing which is not born of justice rather than victory. In the establishment of Equal Rights conquest loses its character, and is no longer conquest;—
“For then both parties nobly are subdued,And neither party loser.”[106]
“For then both parties nobly are subdued,And neither party loser.”[106]
“For then both parties nobly are subdued,
And neither party loser.”[106]
Even in the uncertainty of the future it is easy to see that the national freedman and the national creditor have a common fortune. In the terrible furnace of war they were joined together, nor can they be separated until the rights of both are fixed beyond change. Therefore, could my voice reach them, I would say, “Freedman, stand by the creditor! Creditor, stand by the freedman!” And to the people I would say,“Stand by both!”
From affairs at home I turn to affairs abroad, and here I wish to speak cautiously. In speaking at all I break a vow with myself not to open my lips on these questions except in the Senate. I yield to friendly pressure. And yet I know no reason why I should not speak. It was Talleyrand who, to somebody apologizing for what might be an indiscreet question, replied, that an answer might be indiscreet, but not a question. My answer shall at least be frank.
In our foreign relations there are with me two cardinal principles, which I have no hesitation to avow at all times: first, peace with all the world; and, secondly, sympathy with all struggling for Human Rights. In neither of these would I fail; for each is essential. Peace is our all-conquering ally. Through peace the whole world will be ours. “Still in the right hand carry gentle peace,” and there is nothing we cannot do. Filled with the might of peace, the sympathy we extend will have a persuasive power. Following these plain principles, we should be open so that foreign nations shall know our sentiments, and in such way that even where there is a difference there shall be no just cause for offence.
In this spirit I would now approach Spain. Who can forget that great historic monarchy, on whose empire, encircling the globe, the sun never set? Patron of that renowned navigator through whom she became the discoverer of this hemisphere, her original sway within it surpassed that of any other power. At last her extended possessions on the main, won by Cortés and Pizarro, loosed themselves from her grasp, to take their just place in the Family of Nations. Cuba and PortoRico, rich islands of the Gulf, remained. And now Cuban insurgents demand independence also. For months they have engaged in deadly conflict with the Spanish power. Ravaged provinces and bloodshed are the witnesses. The beautiful island, where sleeps Christopher Columbus, with the epitaph that he gave to Castile and Leon a new world,[107]is fast becoming a desert, while the nation to which he gave the new world is contending for its last possession there. On this simple statement two questions occur: first, as to the duty of Spain; and, secondly, as to the duty of the United States.
Unwelcome as it may be to that famous Castilian pride which has played so lofty a part in modern Europe, Spain must not refuse to see the case in its true light; nor can she close her eyes to the lesson of history. She must recall how the Thirteen American Colonies achieved independence against all the power of England,—how all her own colonies on the American main achieved independence against her own most strenuous efforts,—how at this moment England is preparing to release her Northern colonies from their conditionof dependence; and recalling these examples, it will be proper for her to consider if they do not illustrate a tendency of all colonies, which was remarked by an illustrious Frenchman, even before the independence of the United States. Never was anything more prophetic in politics than when Turgot, in 1750, speaking of the Phœnician colonies in Greece and Asia Minor, said: “Colonies are like fruits, which hold to the tree only until their maturity: when sufficient for themselves, they did that which Carthage afterwards did,—that which some day America will do.”[108]These most remarkable words of the philosopher-statesman will be found in his Discourse at the Sorbonne; and now for their application. Has not Cuba reached his condition of maturity? Is it not sufficient for itself? At all events, is victory over a colony contending for independence worth the blood and treasure it will cost? These are serious questions, which can be answered properly only by putting aside all passion and prejudice of empire, and calmly confronting the actual condition of things. Nor must the case of Cuba be confounded for a moment with our wicked Rebellion, having for its object the dismemberment of a Republic, to found a new power with Slavery as its vaunted corner-stone. For myself, I cannot doubt, that, in the interest of both parties, Cuba and Spain, and in the interest of humanity also, the contest should be closed. This is my judgment on the facts, so far as known to me. Cuba must be saved from its bloody delirium, or little will be left for the final conqueror. Nor can the enlightened mind fail to see that the Spanish power on this island is ananachronism. The day of European colonies has passed,—at least in this hemisphere, where the rights of man were first proclaimed and self-government first organized. A governor from Europe, nominated by a crown, is a constant witness against these fundamental principles.
As the true course of Spain is clear, so to my mind is the true course of the United States equally clear. It is to avoid involving ourselves in any way. Enough of war have we had, without heedlessly assuming another; enough has our commerce been driven from the ocean, without heedlessly arousing another enemy; enough of taxation are we compelled to bear, without adding another mountain. Two policies were open to us at the beginning of the insurrection. One was to unite our fortunes with the insurgents, assuming the responsibilities of such an alliance, with the hazard of letters-of-marque issued by Spain and of public war. I say nothing of the certain consequences in expenditure and in damages. A Spanish letter-of-marque would not be less destructive than the English Alabama. The other policy was to make Spain feel that we wish her nothing but good,—and that, especially since the expulsion of her royal dynasty, we cherish for her a cordial and kindly sympathy. It is said that republics are ungrateful; but I would not forget that at the beginning of our Revolutionary struggle our fathers were aided by her money, as afterwards by her arms, and that her great statesman, Florida Blanca, by his remarkable energies determined the organization of that Armed Neutrality in Northern Europe which turned the scale against England,[109]—so that John Adams declared,“We owe the blessings of peace to the Armed Neutrality.”[110]I say nothing of the motives by which Spain was then governed. It is something that in our day of need she lent us a helping hand.
It is evident, that, adopting the first policy, we should be powerless, except as an enemy. The second policy may enable us to exercise an important influence.
The more I reflect upon the actual condition of Spain, the more I am satisfied that the true rule for us is non-intervention, except in the way of good offices. This ancient kingdom is now engaged in comedy and tragedy. You have heard ofHunting the Slipper. The Spanish comedy isHunting a King. The Spanish tragedy is sending armies against Cuba. I do not wish to take part in the comedy or the tragedy. If Spain is wise, she will give up both. Meanwhile we have a duty which is determined by International Law. To that venerable authority I repair. What that prescribes I follow.
By that law, as I understand it, nations are not left to any mere caprice. There is a rule of conduct which they must follow, subject always to just accountability where they depart from it. On ordinary occasions there is no question; for it is with nations as with individuals. It is only where the rule is obscure or precedents are uncertain that doubt arises, as with some persons now. Here I wish to be explicit. Belligerence is a “fact,” attested by evidence. If the “fact” does not exist, there is nothing to recognize. The fact cannot be invented or imagined; it must be proved. No matterwhat our sympathy, what the extent of our desires, we must look at the fact. There may be insurrection without reaching this condition, which is at least the half-way house to independence. The Hungarians, when they rose against Austria, obtained no such recognition, although they had large armies in the field, and Kossuth was their governor; the Poles, in repeated insurrections against Russia, obtained no such recognition, although the conflict made Europe vibrate; the Sepoys and Rajahs of India failed also, although for a time the English empire hung trembling; nor, in my opinion, were our slave-mad Rebels ever entitled to such recognition,—for, whatever the strength of the Rebellion on land, it remained, as in the case of Hungary, of Poland, of India, without those Prize Courts which are absolutely essential to recognition by foreign powers.A cruiser without accountability to Prize Courts is a lawless monster which civilized nations cannot sanction.Therefore the Prize Court is the condition-precedent; nor is this all. If the Cuban insurgents have come within any of the familiar requirements, I have never seen the evidence. They are in arms, I know. But where are their cities, towns, provinces? where their government? where their ports? where their tribunals of justice? and where their Prize Courts? To put these questions is to answer them. How, then, is the “fact” of belligerence?
There is another point in the case, which is with me final. Even if they come within the prerequisites of International Law, I am unwilling to make any recognition of them so long as they continue to hold human beings as slaves, which I understand they now do. I am told that there was a decree in May last, purportingto be signed by Cespedes, abolishing slavery; then I am told of another decree in July, maintaining slavery. There is also the story of a pro-slavery constitution to be read at home, and an anti-slavery constitution to be read abroad. Nor is there any evidence that any decree or constitution has had any practical effect. In this uncertainty I shall wait, even if all other things are propitious. In any event there must be Emancipation.
On the recognition of belligerence there is much latitude of opinion,—some asserting that a nation may take this step whenever it pleases; but this pretension excludes the idea that belligerence is always a question of fact on the evidence. Undoubtedly an independent nation may do anything in its power, whenever it pleases,—but subject always to just accountability, if another suffers from what it does. This may be illustrated in the three different cases of war, independence, and belligerence. In each case the declaration is an exercise of high prerogative, inherent in every nation, and kindred to that of eminent domain; but a nation declaring war without just cause becomes a wrong-doer; a nation recognizing independence where it does not exist in fact becomes a wrong-doer; and so a nation recognizing belligerence where it does not exist in fact becomes a wrong-doer also. Any present uncertainty on this last point I attribute to the failure of precedents sufficiently clear and authoritative; but with me there is one rule in such a case which I cannot disobey. In the absence of any precise injunction, I do not hesitate to adopt that interpretation of International Law which most restricts war and all that makes for war,—believing that in this way I shall best promotecivilization and obtain new security for international peace.
From the case of Spain I pass to the case of England, contenting myself with a brief explanation. On this subject I have never spoken except with pain, as I have been obliged to expose a great transgression. I hope to say nothing now which shall augment difficulties,—although, when I consider how British anger was aroused by an effort in another place,[111]judged by all who heard it most pacific in character, I do not know that even these few words may not be misinterpreted.
There can be no doubt that we received from England incalculable wrong,—greater, I have often said, than was ever before received by one civilized power from another, short of unjust war. I do not say this in bitterness, but in sadness. There can be no doubt, that, through English complicity, our carrying-trade was transferred to English bottoms,—our foreign commerce sacrificed, while our loss was England’s gain,—our blockade rendered more expensive,—and generally, that our war, with all its fearful cost of blood and treasure, was prolonged indefinitely. This terrible complicity began with the wrongful recognition of Rebel belligerence, under whose shelter pirate ships were built and supplies sent forth. All this was at the very moment of our mortal agony, in the midst of a struggle for national life; and it was done in support of Rebels whose single declared object of separate existence as a nation was Slavery, being in this respect clearly distinguishable from an established power where slavery is toleratedwithout being made the vaunted corner-stone. Such is the case. Who shall fix the measure of this great accountability? For the present it is enough to expose it. I make no demand,—not a dollar of money, not a word of apology. I show simply what England has done to us. It will be for her, on a careful review of the case, to determine what reparation to offer; it will be for the American people, on a careful review of the case, to determine what reparation to require. On this head I content myself with the aspiration that out of this surpassing wrong, and the controversy it has engendered, may come some enduring safeguard for the future, some landmark of Humanity. Then will our losses end in gain for all, while the Law of Nations is elevated. But I have little hope of any adequate settlement, until our case, in its full extent, is heard. In all controversies the first stage of justice is to understand the case; and sooner or later England must understand ours.
The English arguments, so far as argument can be found in the recent heats, have not in any respect impaired the justice of our complaint. Loudly it is said that there can be no sentimental damages, or damages for wounded feelings; and then our case is dismissed, as having nothing but this foundation. Now, without undertaking to say that there is no remedy in the case supposed, I wish it understood that our complaint is for damages traced directly to England. If the amount is unprecedented, so also is the wrong. The scale of damages is naturally in proportion to the scale of operations. Who among us doubts that these damages were received? Call them what you please, to this extent the nation lost. The records show how our commercesuffered, and witnesses without number testify how the blockade was broken and the war prolonged. Ask any of our great generals,—ask Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Meade, Burnside,—ask Grant. In view of this transcendent wrong, it is a disparagement of International Law to say that there is no remedy. An eminent English judge once pronounced from the bench that “the law is astute to find a remedy”; but no astuteness is required in this case,—nothing but simple justice, which is always the object of a true diplomacy. How did the nation suffer? To what extent? These are the practical questions. No technicality can be set up on either side.Damagesaredamages, no matter by what artificial term they may be characterized. Opposing them asconsequentialshows the disposition to escape by technicality, even while confessing an equitable liability,—since England is bound forall the consequencesof her conduct, bound under International Law, which is a Law of Equity always, and bound, no matter how the damages occurred,always provided they proceeded from her. Because the damages are national, because all suffered instead of one, this is no reason for immunity on her part.
Then it is said, “Why not consider our good friends in England, and especially those noble working-men who stood by us so bravely?” We do consider them always, and give them gratitude for their generous alliance. They belong to what our own poet has called “the nobility of labor.” But they are not England. We trace no damages to them, nor to any class, high or low, but to England, corporate England, through whose Government we suffered.
Then, again, it is said,“Why not exhibit an account against France?” For the good reason, that, while France erred with England in recognition of Rebel belligerence, no pirate ships or blockade-runners were built under shelter of this recognition to prey upon our commerce. The two cases are wide asunder, and they are distinguished by two different phrases of the Common Law. The recognition of Rebel belligerence in France was wrong without injury; but that same recognition in England was wrong with injury, and it is of this unquestionable injury that we complain.
Fellow-citizens, it cannot be doubted that this great question, so long as it continues pending, will be a cloud always upon the relations of two friendly powers, when there should be sunshine. Good men on both sides should desire its settlement, and in such way as most to promote good-will, and make the best precedent for civilization. But there can be no good-will without justice, nor can any “snap judgment” establish any rule for the future. Nothing will do now but a full inquiry, without limitation or technicality, and a candid acceptance of the result. There must be equity, which is justice without technicality.
Sometimes there are whispers of territorial compensation, and Canada is named as the consideration. But he knows England little, and little also of that great English liberty from Magna Charta to the Somerset case, who supposes that this nation could undertake any such transfer. And he knows our country little, and little also of that great liberty which is ours, who supposes that we could receive such a transfer. On each side there is impossibility. Territory may be conveyed, but not a people. I allude to this suggestion only because,appearing in the public press, it has been answered from England.
But the United States can never be indifferent to Canada, nor to the other British provinces, near neighbors and kindred. It is well known historically, that, even before the Declaration of Independence, our fathers hoped that Canada would take part with them. Washington was strong in this hope; so was Franklin. The Continental Congress, by solemn resolution, invited Canada, and then appointed a Commission, with Benjamin Franklin at its head, “to form an Union between the United Colonies and the people of Canada.” In the careful instructions of the Congress, signed in their behalf by John Hancock, President, the Commissioners are, among other things, enjoined “in the strongest terms to assure the people of Canada that it is our earnest desire to adopt them into our Union as a sister Colony, and to secure the same general system of mild and equal laws for them and for ourselves, with only such local differences as may be agreeable to each Colony respectively”; and further, that in the judgment of the Congress “their interest and ours are inseparably united.”[112]
Long ago the Continental Congress passed away, living only in its deeds. Long ago the great Commissioner rested from his labors, to become a star in our firmament. But the invitation survives, not only in the archives of our history, but in all American hearts, constant and continuing as when first issued, believing, as we do, that such a union, in the fulness of time, withthe good-will of the mother country and the accord of both parties, must be the harbinger of infinite good. Nor do I doubt that this will be accomplished. Such a union was clearly foreseen by the late Richard Cobden, who, in a letter to myself, bearing date, London, 7th November, 1849, wrote:—
“I agree with you that Nature has decided thatCanada and the United States must become onefor all purposes of intercommunication. Whether they also shall be united in the same Federal Government must depend upon the two parties to the union. I can assure you that there will be no repetition of the policy of 1776 on our part, to prevent our North American colonies from pursuing their interests in their own way. If the people of Canada are tolerably unanimous in wishing to sever the very slight thread which now binds them to this country, I see no reason why, if good faith and ordinary temper be observed, it should not be done amicably.”
“I agree with you that Nature has decided thatCanada and the United States must become onefor all purposes of intercommunication. Whether they also shall be united in the same Federal Government must depend upon the two parties to the union. I can assure you that there will be no repetition of the policy of 1776 on our part, to prevent our North American colonies from pursuing their interests in their own way. If the people of Canada are tolerably unanimous in wishing to sever the very slight thread which now binds them to this country, I see no reason why, if good faith and ordinary temper be observed, it should not be done amicably.”
Nearly twenty years have passed since these prophetic words, and enough has already taken place to give assurance of the rest. “Reciprocity,” once established by treaty, and now so often desired on both sides, will be transfigured in Union, while our Plural Unit is strengthened and extended.
The end is certain; nor shall we wait long for its mighty fulfilment. Its beginning is the establishment of peace at home, through which the national unity shall become manifest. This is the first step. The rest will follow. In the procession of events it is now at hand, and he is blind who does not discern it. From the Frozen Sea to the tepid waters of the Mexican Gulf, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the whole vast continent, smiling with outstretched prairies, where the coal-fieldsbelow vie with the infinite corn-fields above,—teeming with iron, copper, silver, and gold,—filling fast with a free people, to whom the telegraph and steam are constant servants,—breathing already with schools, colleges, and libraries,—interlaced by rivers which are great highways,—studded with inland seas where fleets are sailing, and “poured round all old Ocean’s” constant tides, with tributary commerce and still expanding domain,—such will be the Great Republic, One and Indivisible, with a common Constitution, a common Liberty, and a common Glory.
Lecture delivered in the Music Hall, Boston, October 21, 1869.
Man is a name of honor for a king;Additions take away from each chief thing.Chapman,Bussy d’Ambois, Act IV. Sc. 1.All men have the same rational nature and the same powers of conscience, and all are equally made for indefinite improvement of these divine faculties, and for the happiness to be found in their virtuous use. Who that comprehends these gifts does not see that the diversities of the race vanish before them?—Channing,Slavery: Works, Vol. II. p. 21.The Christian philosopher sees in every man a partaker of his own nature and a brother of his own species.—Chalmers,Utility of Missions: Works, Vol. XI. p. 244.
Man is a name of honor for a king;Additions take away from each chief thing.Chapman,Bussy d’Ambois, Act IV. Sc. 1.
Man is a name of honor for a king;Additions take away from each chief thing.Chapman,Bussy d’Ambois, Act IV. Sc. 1.
Man is a name of honor for a king;
Additions take away from each chief thing.
Chapman,Bussy d’Ambois, Act IV. Sc. 1.
All men have the same rational nature and the same powers of conscience, and all are equally made for indefinite improvement of these divine faculties, and for the happiness to be found in their virtuous use. Who that comprehends these gifts does not see that the diversities of the race vanish before them?—Channing,Slavery: Works, Vol. II. p. 21.
The Christian philosopher sees in every man a partaker of his own nature and a brother of his own species.—Chalmers,Utility of Missions: Works, Vol. XI. p. 244.
MR. PRESIDENT,—In asking you to consider the Question of Caste, I open a great subject of immediate practical interest. Happily, Slavery no longer exists to disturb the peace of our Republic; but it is not yet dead in other lands, while among us the impious pretension of this great wrong still survives against the African because he is black and against the Chinese because he is yellow. Here is nothing less than the claim of hereditary power from color; and it assumes that human beings cast in the same mould with ourselves, and in all respectsmen, with the same title of manhood that we have, may be shut out from Equal Rights on account of the skin. Such is the pretension, plainly stated.
On other occasions it has been my duty to show how inconsistent is this pretension with our character as a Republic, and with the promises of our fathers,—all of which I consider it never out of order to say and to urge. But my present purpose is rather to show how inconsistent it is with that sublime truth, being part of God’s law for the government of the world, which teaches the Unity of the Human Family, and its final harmony on earth. In this law, which is both commandment and promise, I find duties and hopes,—perpetualduties never to be postponed, and perpetual hopes never to be abandoned, so long as Man is Man.
Believing in this law, and profoundly convinced that by the blessing of God it will all be fulfilled on earth, it is easy to see how unreasonable is a claim of power founded on any unchangeable physical incident derived from birth. Because man is black, because man is yellow, he is none the less Man; because man is white, he is none the more Man. By this great title he is universal heir to all that Man can claim. Because he is Man, and not on account of color, he enters into possession of the promised dominion over the animal kingdom,—“over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” But this equal copartnership without distinction of color symbolizes equal copartnership in all the Rights of Man.
As I enter upon this important theme, I confess an unwelcome impediment, partly from the prevailing prejudice of color, which has become with many what is sometimes called a second nature, and partly from the little faith among men in the future development of the race. The cry, “A white man’s government,” which is such an insult to human nature, has influence in the work of degradation. Accustomed to this effrontery, people do not see its ineffable absurdity, which is made conspicuous, if they simply consider the figure our fathers would have cut, had they declared the equal rights ofwhitemen, and not the equal rights ofmen. The great Declaration was axiomatic and self-evident because universal; confined to a class, it would have beenneither. Hearkening to this disgusting cry, people close the soul to all the quickening voices, whether of prophet, poet, or philosopher, by which we are encouraged to persevere; nor do they heed the best lessons of science.
I begin by declaring an unalterable faith in the Future, which nothing can diminish or impair. Other things I may renounce, but this I cannot. Throughout a life of controversy and opposition, frequently in a small minority, sometimes almost alone, I have never for a moment doubted the final fulfilment of the great promises for Humanity without which this world would be a continuing chaos. To me it was clear from the beginning, even in the early darkness, and then in the bloody mists of war, that Slavery must yield to well-directed efforts against it; and now it is equally clear that every kindred pretension must yield likewise, until all are in the full fruition of those equal rights which are the crown of life on earth. Nor can this great triumph be restricted to our Republic. Wherever men are gathered into nations, wherever Civilization extends her beneficent sway, there will it be manifest. Against this lofty truth the assaults of the adversary are no better than the arrows of barbarians vainly shot at the sun. Still it moves, and it will move until all rejoice in its beams. The “all-hail Hereafter,” in which the poet pictures personal success, is a feeble expression for that transcendent Future where man shall be conqueror, not only over nations, but over himself, subduing pride of birth, prejudice of class, pretension of Caste.
The assurances of the Future are strengthened, when I look at Government and see how its character constantlyimproves as it comes within the sphere of knowledge. Men must know before they can act wisely; and this simple rule is applicable alike to individuals and communities. “Go, my son,” said the Swedish Chancellor, “and see with what little wisdom the world is governed.”[113]Down to his day government was little more than an expedient, a device, a trick, for the aggrandizement of a class, of a few, or, it may be, of one. Calling itself Commonwealth, it was so in name only. There were classes always, and egotism was the prevailing law. Macchiavelli, the much-quoted herald of modern politics, insisted that all governments, whether monarchical or republican, owed their origin or reformation to a single lawgiver, like Lycurgus or Solon.[114]If this was true in his day, it is not in ours. In the presence of an enlightened people, a single lawgiver, or an aristocracy of lawgivers, is impossible, while government becomes the rule of all for the good of all,—not the One Man Power, so constant in history,—not theTriumvirate, sometimes occurring,—not an Oligarchy, which is the rule of a few,—not an Aristocracy, which is the rule of a class,—not any combination, howsoever accepted, sanctioning exclusions,—but the whole body of the people, without exclusion of any kind, or, in the great words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”[115]
Thus far government has been at best an Art, like alchemy or astrology, where ministers exercised a subtle power, or speculators tried imaginative experiments, seeking some philosopher’s-stone at the expense of the people. Though in many respects still an Art only, it is fast becoming a Science founded on principles and laws from which there can be no just departure. As a science, it is determined by knowledge, like any other science, aided by that universal handmaid, the philosophy of induction. From a succession of particulars the general rule is deduced; and this is as true of government as of chemistry or astronomy. Nor do I see reason to doubt, that, in the evolution of events, the time is at hand when government will be subordinated to unquestionable truth, making diversity of opinion as impossible in this lofty science as it is now impossible in other sciences already mastered by man. Science accomplishes part only of its beneficent work, when it brings physical nature within its domain. That other nature found in Man must be brought within the same domain. And is it true that man can look into the unfathomable Universe, there to measure suns and stars, that he can penetrate the uncounted ages of the earth’s existence, reading everywhere the inscriptions upon its rocks, but that he cannot look into himself, or penetrate his own nature, to measure human capacities and read the inscriptions upon the human soul? I do not believe it. What is already accomplished in such large measure for the world of matter will yet be accomplished for that other world of Humanity; and then it will appear, by a law as precise as any in chemistry or astronomy, that just government stands only on the consent of the governed, that all men must be equal before the law of man as they are equal before the law of God, and that any discrimination founded on the accident of birth is inconsistent with that true science of government which is simply the science of justice on earth.
One of our teachers, who has shed much light on the science of government,—I refer to Professor Lieber, of New York,—shows that the State is what he calls “ajuralsociety,” precisely as the Church is a religious society, and an insurance company a financial society.[116]The term is felicitous as it is suggestive. Above the State rises the image of Justice, lofty, blindfold, with balance in hand. There it stands in colossal form with constant lesson of Equal Rights for All, while under its inspiration government proceeds according to laws which cannot be disobeyed with impunity, and Providence is behind to sustain the righteous hand. In proportion as men are wise, they recognize these laws and confess the exalted science.
“Know thyself” is the Heaven-descended injunction which ancient piety inscribed in letters of gold in the temple at Delphi.[117]The famous oracle is mute, but thedivine injunction survives; nor is it alone. Saint Augustine impresses it in his own eloquent way, when he says, “Men go to admire the heights of mountains, and the great waves of the sea, and the widest flow of rivers, and the compass of the ocean, and the circuits of the stars,and leave themselves behind.”[118]Following the early mandate, thus seconded by the most persuasive of the Christian Fathers, man will consider his place in the universe and his relations to his brother man. Looking into his soul, he will there find the great irreversible Law of Right, universal for the nation as for himself, commanding to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and under the safeguard of this universal law I now place the rights of all mankind. It is little that I can do; but, taking counsel of my desires, I am not without hope of contributing something to that just judgment which shall blast the effrontery of Caste as doubly offensive, not only to the idea of a Republic, but to Human Nature itself.
Already you are prepared to condemn Caste, when you understand its real character. To this end, let me carry you to that ancient India, with its population of more than a hundred and eighty millions, where this artificial discrimination, born of impossible fable, was for ages the dominating institution of society,—being, in fact, what Slavery was in our Rebellion, the corner-stone of the whole structure.
The Portuguese were the first of European nations to form establishments in India, and therefore throughthem was the civilized world first acquainted with its peculiar institutions. But I know no monument of their presence there, and no contribution from them to our knowledge of the country, so enduring as the word Caste, or, in the Portuguese language,Casta, by which they designated those rigid orders or ranks into which the people of India were divided. The term originally applied by them has been adopted in the other languages of Europe, where it signifies primarily the orders or ranks of India, but by natural extension any separate and fixed order of society. In the latter sense Caste is now constantly employed. The word is too modern, however, for our classical English literature, or for that most authentic record of our language, the Dictionary of Dr. Johnson, when it first saw the light in 1755.
Though the word was unknown in earlier times, the hereditary discrimination it describes entered into the political system of modern Europe, where people were distributed into classes, and the son succeeded to the condition of his father, whether of privilege or disability,—the son of a noble being a noble with great privileges, the son of a mechanic being a mechanic with great disabilities. And this inherited condition was applicable even to the special labor of the father; nor was there any business beyond its tyrannical control. According to Macaulay, “the tinkers formed an hereditary caste.”[119]The father of John Bunyan was a tinker, and the son inherited the position. The French Revolution did much to shake this irrational system; yet in many parts of Europe, down to this day, the son emancipates himself with difficulty from the class in which he isborn. But just in proportion to the triumph of Equality does Caste disappear.
This institution is essentially barbarous, and therefore appears in barbarous ages, or in countries not yet relieved from the early incubus. It flourished side by side with the sculptured bulls and cuneïform characters of Assyria, side by side with the pyramids and hieroglyphics of Egypt. It showed itself under the ambitious sway of Persia, and even in the much-praised Cecropian era of Attica. In all these countries Caste was organized, differing somewhat in divisions, but hereditary in character. And the same phenomenon arrested the attention of the conquering Spaniards in Peru. The system had two distinct elements: first, separation, with rank and privilege, or their opposite, with degradation and disability; secondly, descent from father to son, so that it was perpetual separation from generation to generation.[120]
In Hindustan, this dreadful system, which, under the name of Order, is the organization of disorder, has prolonged itself to our day, so as to be a living admonition to mankind. That we may shun the evil it entails, in whatever shape, I now endeavor to expose its true character.
The regular castes of India are four in number, called in Sanscritvarnas, orcolors, although it does not appear that by nature they were of different colors. Their origin will be found in the sacred law-book of the Hindoos, the “Ordinances of Menu,” where it is recorded that the Creator caused the Brahmin, the Cshatriya, theVaisya, and the Sudra, so named fromScripture,Protection,Wealth, andLabor, to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thigh, and his foot, appointing separate duties for each class. To the Brahmin, proceeding from the mouth, was allotted the duty of reading the Veda and of teaching it; to the Cshatriya, proceeding from the arm, the duty of soldier; to the Vaisya, proceeding from the thigh, the duty of cultivating the land and keeping herds of cattle; and to the Sudra, proceeding from the foot, was appointed the chief duty of serving the other classes without depreciating their worth. Such was the original assignment of parts; but, under the operation of natural laws, those already elevated increased their importance, while those already degraded sank lower. Ascent from an inferior class was absolutely impossible: as well might a vegetable become a man. The distinction was perpetuated by the injunction that each should marry only in his own class, with sanguinary penalties upon any attempted amalgamation.
The Brahmin was child of rank and privilege; the Sudra, child of degradation and disability. Omitting the two intermediate classes, soldiers and husbandmen, look for one moment at the two extremes, as described by the sacred volume.
The Brahmin is constantly hailed as first-born, and, by right, chief of the whole creation. This eminence is declared in various terms. Thus it is said, “When a Brahmin springs to light, he is born above the world”; and then again, “Whatever exists in the universe is all in effect the wealth of the Brahmin.” As he engrosses the favor of the Deity, so is he entitled to the veneration of mortals; and thus,“whether learned or ignorant, he is a powerful divinity, even as fire is a powerful divinity, whether consecrated or common.” Immunities of all kinds cluster about him. Not for the most insufferable crime can he be touched in person or property; nor can he be called to pay taxes, while all other classes must bestow their wealth upon him. Such is the Brahmin, with these privileges crystallized in his blood from generation to generation.
On the other hand is the Sudra, who is the contrast in all particulars. As much as the Brahmin is object of constant veneration, so is the Sudra object of constant contempt. As one is exalted above Humanity, so is the other degraded below it. The life of the Sudra is servile, but according to the sacred volume he was created by the Self-Existent especially to serve the Brahmin. Everywhere his degradation is manifest. He holds no property which a Brahmin may not seize. The crime he commits is visited with the most condign punishment, beyond that allotted to other classes subject to punishment. The least disrespect to a Brahmin is terribly avenged. For presuming to sit on a Brahmin’s carpet, the penalty is branding and banishment, or maiming; for contumelious words to a Brahmin, it is an iron style ten fingers long thrust red-hot into the mouth; and for offering instruction to a Brahmin, it is nothing less than hot oil poured into mouth and ears. Such is the Sudra; and this fearful degradation, with all its disabilities, is crystallized in his blood from generation to generation.
Below these is another more degraded even than the Sudra, being the outcast, with no place in either of the four regular castes, and known commonly as the Pariah. Here is another term imported into familiar usage tosignify generally those on whom society has set its ban. No person of the regular castes holds communication with the Pariah. His presence is contaminating. Milk, and even water, is defiled by his passing shadow, and cannot be used until purified. The Brahmin sometimes puts him to death at sight. In well-known language of our country, once applied to another people, he has no rights which a Brahmin is bound to respect.[121]
Such a system, so shocking to the natural sense, has been denounced by all who have considered it, whether on the spot or at a distance,—unless I except the excellent historian Robertson, who seems to find apologies for it, as men among us find apologies for the caste which sends its lengthening shadow across our Republic. I might take your time until late in the evening unfolding its obvious evil, as exposed by those who have witnessed its operation. This testimony is collected in a work entitled “Caste opposed to Christianity,” by Rev. Joseph Roberts, and published in London in 1847. I give brief specimens only. A Hindoo converted to Christianity exposes its demoralizing influence, when he says, “Caste is the stronghold of pride, which makes a man think of himself more highly than he ought to think”; and so also another converted Hindoo, when he says, “Caste makes a man think that he is holier than another, and that he has some inherent virtue which another has not”; and still another converted Hindoo, when he says, “Caste is part and parcel of idolatry and all heathen abomination.” But no testimonysurpasses that of the eminent Reginald Heber, the Bishop of Calcutta, when he declares that it is “a system which tends, more than anything else the Devil has yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevolence, and to make nine tenths of mankind the hopeless slaves of the remainder.”[122]Under these protests, and the growing influence of Christianity, the system is so far mitigated, that, according to an able writer whose soul is enlisted against it, “the distinctions are felt on certain limited occasions only.”[123]These are the words of James Mill, interesting always as the author of the best work on India, and the father of John Stuart Mill. It is now admitted, that, under constraint of necessity, the member of a superior caste may descend to the pursuits of an inferior caste. The lofty Brahmin engages in traffic, yet he cannot touch “leather”; for contact with this article of commerce is polluting. But I am obliged to add that no modification leaving “distinctions” transmissible with the blood can be adequate. So long as these continue, the natural harmonies of society are disturbed and man is degraded. The system in its mildest form can have nothing but evil; for it is a constant violation of primal truth, and a constant obstruction to that progress which is the appointed destiny of man.
Change now the scene,—from ancient India, and the shadow of unknown centuries, to our Republic, born on yesterday. How unlike in venerable antiquity! Howlike in the pretension of Caste! Here the caste claiming hereditary rank and privilege is white, the caste doomed to hereditary degradation and disability is black or yellow; and it is gravely asserted that this difference of color marks difference of race, which in itself justifies the discrimination. To save this enormity of claim from indignant reprobation, it is insisted that the varieties of men do not proceed from a common stock,—that they are different in origin,—that this difference is perpetuated in their respective capacities; and the apology concludes with the practical assumption, that the white man is a superior caste not unlike the Brahmin, while the black man is an inferior caste not unlike the Sudra, sometimes even the Pariah; nor is the yellow man exempted from this same insulting proscription. When I consider how for a long time the African was shut out from testifying in court, even when seeking redress for the grossest outrage, and how at this time in some places the Chinese is also shut out from testifying in court, each seems to have been little better than the Pariah. In stating this assumption of superiority, which I do not exaggerate, I open a question of surpassing interest, whether in science, government, or religion.
Here I must not forget that some, who admit the common origin of all men, insist that the African is descended from Ham, son of Noah, through Canaan, cursed by Noah to be servant of his brethren, and that therefore he may be degraded even to slavery. But this apology is not original with us. Nobles in Poland seized upon it to justify their lordly pretensions, calling their serfs, though white, descendants of Ham.[124]Butwhether employed by Pole or American, it is worthy only of derision. I do not know that this apology is invoked for maltreating the Chinese, although he is descended from Ham as much as the Pole.
Two passages of Scripture, one in the Old Testament and the other in the New, both governing this question, attest the Unity of the Human Family. The first is in that sublime chapter of Genesis, where, amidst the wonders of Creation, it is said: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”[125]The other passage is from that great sermon of Saint Paul, when, standing in the midst of Mars Hill, he proclaimed to the men of Athens, and through them to all mankind, that God “hath made ofone bloodall nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”[126]If, as is sometimes argued, there be ambiguity in the account of the Creation, or if in any way its authority has been impaired by scientific criticism, there is nothing of the kind to detract from the sermon of Saint Paul, which must continue forevermore venerable and beautiful.
Appealing from these texts, the apologists hurry to Science; and there I follow. But I must compress into paragraphs what might fill volumes.
Ethnology, to which we repair, is a science of recent origin, exhibiting the different races or varieties of Man in their relations with each other, as that other science, Anthropology, exhibits Man in his relation to the animalworld. Nature and History are our authorities, but all science and all knowledge are tributary. Perhaps no other theme is grander; for it is the very beginning of human history, in which all nations and men have a common interest. Its vastness is increased, when we consider that it embraces properly not only the origin, distribution, and capacity of Man, but his destiny on earth,—stretching into the infinite past, stretching also into the infinite future, and thus spanning Humanity.
The subject is entirely modern. Hippocrates, one of our ancient masters, has left a treatise on “Air, Water, and Place,” where climatic influences are recognized; but nobody in Antiquity studied the varieties of our race, or regarded its origin except mythically. The discovery of America, and the later circumnavigation of the globe, followed by the development of the sciences generally, prepared the way for this new science.
It is obvious to the most superficial observer that there are divisions or varieties in the Human Family, commonly called Races; but the most careful explorations of Science leave the number uncertain. These differences are in Color and in Skull,—also in Language. Of these the most obvious is Color; but here, again, the varieties multiply in proportion as we consider transitional or intermediate hues. Two great teachers in the last century—Linnæus, of whom it was said, “God created, Linnæus classified,”Deus creavit, Linnæus disposuit,[127]and Kant, a sincere and penetratingseeker of truth—were content with four,—white, copper, tawny or olive, and black,—corresponding geographically to European, American, Asiatic, and African. Buffon, in his eloquent portraiture, recognizes five, with geographical designations. He was followed by Blumenbach, who also recognizes five, with the names which have become so famous since,—Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Here first appears the popular, but deceptive term, Caucasian; for nobody supposes now that the white cradle was on Caucasus, which is best known to English-speaking people by the verse of Shakespeare, making it anything but Eden,—