If any work of romance contains more fiction in the same s.p.a.ce, it is my fortune not to have seen that work. The circulation of the _Boston Courier_ in which the papers were printed was very limited. It did not go into barrooms nor into workshops. It was read chiefly by the converted and semi-converted abolitionists. As to fashionable pulpits thenceforth preaching abolition it is to be said that there was only one leading pulpit, Theodore Parker"s pulpit, in which abolitionism was tolerated until years after the appearance of the "Biglow Papers." As to society, it is to be said that in the Fifties Charles Sumner, a Senator, was ostracized for his opinions upon slavery.
It is nearer the truth to say that what pa.s.ses for society in New England never tolerated abolitionists nor encouraged abolitionism.
The one writing which in an historical point of view contributed most largely to recruit the armies of the Republic during the Rebellion was Webster"s speech in reply to Hayne. The closing paragraph of the speech was in the schoolbooks of the free States, and it had been declaimed from many a schoolhouse stage.
Lowell deserves credit for what he did. He chose his place early and firmly on the anti-slavery side, but it is absurd and false to say that thenceforward and therefor abolitionism became popular and abolitionists the sought for or the accepted by society. Mr. Lowell was the son of a Boston Unitarian clergyman. In the Forties he had not gained standing ground for himself, to omit all thought of his ability to carry an unpopular cause.
Indeed, up to the time of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise the whole array of anti-slavery writers and speakers had not accomplished the results which the reviewer attributes to the "Biglow Papers."
Indeed, should there be a signal reform in the fashion and cost of ladies" dresses it might with equal propriety be attributed to Butler"s poem "Nothing to Wear."
GENERAL GARFIELD AND GENERAL ROSECRANS
The statement is revived that General Garfield, when chief of the staff of General Rosecrans in the campaign which ended at Chickamauga was false to Rosecrans. The allegation and the fact are that he wrote to Mr. Chase, then in Mr. Lincoln"s Cabinet, that Rosecrans was incompetent to the command. Garfield"s statements, as I recall the letters, were free from malice and the professional and ethical question is, "Was Garfield justified as a citizen and soldier, in giving his opinion to the Administration?" His view of Rosecrans was confirmed by events, and it may be a.s.sumed that the opinion was free from any improper influence when the letters were written. On this a.s.sured basis of facts I cannot doubt that Garfield did only what was his duty. Neither the President nor the War Department could obtain specific knowledge of the officers in command except through a.s.sociates and subordinates unless they trusted to newspapers and casual visitors to the army. The struggle was a desperate one and the volunteer army was composed of men who were citizens before they were soldiers and they remained citizens when they became soldiers. Garfield was of the citizen soldiery and to him and to the country the etiquette of the army and the etiquette of society were subordinate to the fortunes of the nation. Of General Rosecrans"
unfitness for any important command there can be no doubt. After the disaster of Chickamauga, Rosecrans was relieved and General Thomas was put in command and General Grant was ordered to the field. He met Rosecrans at Nashville where they had an interview. From General Grant I received the statement that Rosecrans had sound views as to the means of relieving the army; "And," said General Grant, "my wonder was that he had not put them in execution."
This one fact expresses enough of the weak side of Rosecrans as a military leader to warrant the opinion given to Chase by Garfield, and that opinion having been formed upon a knowledge of facts and of Rosecrans as a military man and not from prejudice or rivalry, Garfield should be honored for his course, rather than condemned.
GEORGE BANCROFT
The death of Mr. Bancroft at the age of more than ninety years removes one of the few men in private life who can be ranked as personages. He was, perhaps, the only person in private life whose death would have received a semi-public recognition from any of the rulers of Europe.
Such a recognition was accorded by the Emperor of Germany, and chiefly, as it is understood, on account of the friendship which existed between Mr. Bancroft and the grandfather of the present Emperor.
Mr. Bancroft"s long and successful career as a writer and diplomatist would seem to be evidence of the presence of qualities of a high order, and yet no one who was near him accepted that opinion. His conversation was not instructive, certainly not in later years, nor was he an original thinker upon any subject. He was an enthusiast in politics in early and middle life, and while his mental faculties remained unimpaired his interest in political movements was great--and usually it was in sympathy with the Democratic Party. He was an adhesive man in politics, capable of appearing to be reconciled to the success of his opponents and ready to accept favors from them in the way of office and honors and yet without in fact committing himself to their policy.
He was a laborious student, and he had access to standard and in many particulars to original authorities. At the commencement of his history he erred in denying with much confidence the claim of the visits of the Northmen to this continent in the ninth and tenth centuries.
That early claim seems to be supported by evidence which is nearly, if not absolutely, conclusive. Of all his chapters that on Washington was most attractive to me and it is quite the equal of Mr. Everett"s oration, that yielded a large sum of money, that the orator applied to the purchase of Mount Vernon. Mr. Bancroft aimed to ill.u.s.trate his history by an exhibition of philosophy. This feat in literature can be accomplished successfully only by a great mind. First the events, then the reasons for or sources of, then the consequences, then the wisdom or unwisdom of the human agencies that have had part in weaving the web, are all to be considered. Examples are Gibbon and Buckle.
GENERAL GRANT AS A MAN AND A FRIEND
The simplicity of General Grant"s nature, his frankness in all his intercourse with his fellow men, his freedom from duplicity were not touched unfavorably in any degree by his rapid advancement from the ordinary pursuits of ordinary men to the highest places in military and civil life. There was never in his career any ostentatious display of power, never any exercise of wanton or unnecessary authority.
He disliked controversy even in conversation, and his reticence when not in the company of habitual companions and trusted friends was due in part to his rule of life on this subject.
From the many years of my acquaintance with General Grant I cannot recall an instance of a reference to theological opinions upon controverted topics of faith.
The humanitarian side of his nature was strong, but it was not ostentatiously exhibited--indeed it was concealed rather than proclaimed. It was made known to me by his interest and by his lack of interest in appointments in the Treasury Department.
Of salaried places he controlled the appointment of General Pleasanton as commissioner of internal revenue, and of that only.
On several occasions he suggested the designation of a person named for employment in some menial and non-salaried service. The person named was in every instance the widow or daughter of some soldier of the war.
At intervals, not widely separated, he would bring the subject to my notice. Thus, without a command, I was forced to follow his suggestion.
The purity of his conversation might have been a worthy example for the most carefully trained person in etiquette and morals. My intercourse with General Grant was intimate through many years, and never on any occasion did he repeat a story or a phrase that contained a profane remark or carried a vulgar allusion. He had a relish for untainted wit and for genial humor, and for humor he had some capacity. He was not an admirer of Mr. Sumner and a trace of irony may be found in a remark attributed to him: When some one said: "Mr. Sumner does not believe in the Bible," General Grant said: "No, I suppose not, he didn"t write it."
General Grant was attracted by a horse driven by a butcher. He purchased the animal at the cost of five hundred dollars. He invited Senator Conkling to a drive behind the new horse. The Senator criticised the animal, and said: "I think I should prefer the five hundred dollars to the horse." "That is what the butcher thought,"
said General Grant.
He was sincere and devoted in his friendships, but when he discovered that his confidence had been misplaced, a reconciliation became impossible. With him there could be no genuine forgiveness, and his nature could not tolerate any degree of hypocrisy. All voluntary intercourse on his part had come to an end.
There was a time when a demand for my removal from office was made by some Republican Senators and by the New York _Herald_, to which he gave no attention.
The imperturbability of spirit which was indicated in his conversation and movements was deep-seated in his nature. I was with him in a night trip to New York; when the train was derailed in part. As the wheels of the car struck the sleepers, he grasped the back of the seat in front of him and remained motionless, while many of the pa.s.sengers added to their peril by abandoning their seats.
On a time General Grant received a pair of large roan horses from his farm in Missouri. He invited me to take one of the horses and join him in a ride on the saddle. I declined the invitation. I was then invited to take a seat with him in an open wagon. When we were descending a slight declivity one of the horses laid his weight on the pole and broke it, although the parts did not separate. General Grant placed his foot upon the wheel, thus making a brake and saving us from a disaster. General Grant"s faculties were at command on the instant and under all circ.u.mstances.
When the Ku Klux organizations were active in the South, the President gave members of Congress to understand that he would send a message with a recommendation for punitive legislation. Upon reflection he came to doubt the wisdom of the measure, especially as the use of the military forces at New Orleans and elsewhere had been criticised in the country. While the subject was thus undisposed of, I received a message from the President which ended with a request that I should accompany him to the Capitol. On the way he informed me that he doubted the wisdom of a message and that he intended to so inform those to whom he had given encouragement. At the interview which followed several members who were present urged adherence to the original policy.
While the discussion was going on, the President returned to his original opinion and wrote a message which was transmitted to the Congress after one or two verbal changes that may have been suggested by Secretary Fish or Secretary Robeson.
General Grant"s sense of justice was exact and he did not spare himself in his criticism. He said to me in conversation, what is indicated in his Memoirs, that he a.s.sumed some responsibility upon himself for the removal of General Warren at Five Forks. He had known that General Warren was disqualified by natural defects from command in the field, and hence that it was an error on his part that he had not a.s.signed Warren to duty at a station.
Again he said to me that his final campaign against Vicksburg was the only one of his campaigns that he could not criticise adversely when tested by reflection and experience.
During my term of service an appointment of some importance was made by the collector of New York. The appointment was approved by me. In the meantime some opponents of the appointee approached the President. Upon his suggestion the appointment was suspended. After a delay I received a letter from the President dated June 28th, 1869, in which he says: "If it should still be the pleasure of Mr. Grinnell to confer the appointment before tendered, let it be so, so far as I am concerned.
I am not willing knowingly to do anyone injustice as I now am led to believe I may have done in the case of General Egan."
In the month of December, 1884, there were paragraphs in the newspapers which justified the apprehension that General Grant was suffering from a cancer. In the late days of the month, I called upon him at his house in New York. He was then in good health, apparently. I found him in his library engaged in the preparation of articles for the _Century Magazine_. In the days of our more intimate acquaintance he had said to me that it was his purpose to leave the history of his campaigns to others. He referred to that remark and said that his financial embarra.s.sments had forced him to change his purpose. As I was about to leave, he referred to a difficulty in his throat that he had noticed for about six months. He expressed the fear that he had neglected it too long. I avoided any serious remark in reply. Soon after my return to Groton my daughter received a letter from him, which, in photographic copy, I here give. It contains his parting words to me and my family. It is a precious souvenir of my acquaintance and service with a man who was great and good above any estimate that the world has placed upon him.
I called upon him in the month of June. He rose to receive me. His power of speech was much impaired, and our interview was brief. The final parting was a sad event to me.
[Facsimile]
New York City, January 3d, 1884;
My dear Miss Boutwell:
Many thanks for your New Year welcome, just received. There is no family that I have ever known whose friendship I prize more highly than that of your father. I wish for him and his family many returns of new years, and that all of them may find him and his in the enjoyment of good health and peace of mind.
Very truly yours, U. S. Grant
GRANT AS A SOLDIER*
When General Grant came before the public, and into a position that compelled notice, he was called to meet a difficulty that his predecessor in the office of President had encountered and overcome successfully.
An opinion existed in the cultivated cla.s.ses, an opinion that was especially local in the East, that a great place could not be filled wisely and honorably, unless the occupant had had the benefit of a university training.
Of such training Mr. Lincoln was dest.i.tute, utterly, and the training which General Grant had received at West Point, where it was his fortune to attain only to advanced standing in the lower half of his cla.s.s, was at the best the training thought to be necessary for the vocation of a soldier. That minority of critics overlooked the fact that the world had set the seal of its favorable judgment upon Cromwell, Washington, Franklin, Napoleon, Hamilton and others who had not the advantages of university training. Napoleon in a military school and Hamilton in Columbia College for the term of a year, more or less, did not rank among university men.
That minority of critics did not realize the fact that colleges and universities cannot make great men. Great men are independent of colleges and universities. In truth, a really great man is supreme over college and universities.
Lincoln was such a man in speech, in power of argument, in practical wisdom, by which he was enabled to act fearlessly and with success in the great affairs of administration.
Such a man was General Grant on the military side of his career. With great military capacity, he was dest.i.tute of the military spirit.
During the period of his retirement from the army after the close of the Mexican War he gave no attention to military affairs. When he came to Washington in 1865 as General of the Army, he was not the owner of a work on war nor on the military art or science.
His military capacity was an endowment. It might have been impaired or crippled by the training of a university; but it is doubtful whether it could have been improved thereby, and it is certain that it was, in its quality, quite outside of the possibilities of university training.
As General Grant approached the end of his career the voice of the critics, who judged men by the testimony of college catalogues and the decorations of learned societies, was heard less frequently; and his death, followed by the publication of his memoirs, written when the hand of death was upon him, silenced the literary critics at once and forever.