I had an invitation to meet several members of the New York
press association at breakfast. Among the company were — Mr. Bayard Taylor,
with whose extensive notes of travel his countrymen are familiar — a kind of
enlarged Inglis, full of the genial spirit which makes travelling in company so
agreeable, but he has come back as travellers generally do, satisfied there is
no country like his own — Prince Leeboo loved his own isle the best after all —
Mr. Raymond, of the “New York Times” (formerly Lieutenant-Governor of the
State); Mr. Olmsted, the indefatigable, able, and earnest writer, whom to
describe simply as an Abolitionist would be to confound with ignorant if
zealous, unphilosophical, and impracticable men; Mr. Dana, of the “Tribune;” Mr.
Hurlbut, of the “Times;” the Editor of the “Courier des Etats Unis;” Mr. Young,
of the “Albion,” which is the only English journal published in the States; and
others. There was a good deal of pleasant conversation, though every one
differed with his neighbor, as a matter of course, as soon as he touched on
politics. There was talk de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis, such as
Heenan and Sayers, Secession and Sumter, the press, politicians, New York life,
and so on. The first topic occupied a larger place than it was entitled to,
because in all likelihood the sporting editor of one of the papers who was
present expressed, perhaps, some justifiable feeling in reference to the
refusal of the belt to the American. All admitted the courage and great
endurance of his antagonist, but seemed convinced that Heenan, if not the
better man, was at least the victor in that particular contest. It would be
strange to see the great tendency of Americans to institute comparisons with
ancient and recognized standards, if it were not that they are adopting the
natural mode of judging of their own capabilities. The nation is like a growing
lad who is constantly testing his powers in competition with his elders. He is
in his youth and nonage, and he is calling down the lanes and alleys to all
comers to look at his muscle, to run against or to fight him. It is a sign of
youth, not a proof of weakness, though it does offend the old hands and vex the
veterans.
Then one finds that Great Britain is often treated very much
as an old Peninsula man may be by a set of young soldiers at a club. He is no
doubt a very gallant fellow, and has done very fine things in his day, and he
is listened to with respectful endurance, but there is a secret belief that he
will never do anything very great again.
One of the gentlemen present said that England might dispute
the right of the United States Government to blockade the ports of her own
States, to which she was entitled to access under treaty, and might urge that
such a blockade was not justifiable; but then, it was argued, that the
President could open and shut ports as he pleased; and that he might close the
Southern ports by a proclamation in the nature of an Order of Council. It was
taken for granted that Great Britain would only act on sordid motives, but that
the well known affection of France for the United States is to check the
selfishness of her rival, and prevent a speedy recognition.
SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and
South, p. 28-9
No comments:
Post a Comment