TOPICS OF THE DAY.
AMERICA AND ENGLAND.
MR. SHERMAN, the American Secretary of State, or, as we should say, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, denies that be said the offensive things in regard to England which he was reported to have said by a New York newspaper. As to the accuracy of this denial there will, no doubt, be much controversy, for already the American Press is beginning to dwell with its wonted frankness on the shortness of Mr. Sherman's memory. They say in plain terms that his health has suffered, and that he is not capable of remembering even the faces of his own departmental officials. But whether Mr. Sherman did or did not use the unfriendly and insulting words attributed to him really matters very little. Unhappily, that is made unimportant by the tone and temper of his own official despatch,—a public document about which there can be no sort of doubt or denial. Considering its official character, the last despatch on the seal question was a far greater outrage than any interview, how- ever violent and discourteous. The contradicted inter- view has, too, a significance of its own. Whoever wrote it, or said it, the statement, it cannot be doubted, embodies the recent attitude of official America towards this country. Whether authentic or unauthentic, it breathes the very spirit in which the Government at Washing- ton and the Senate have acted ever since the begin- ning of the difficulties in regard to Venezuela. The state- ment displays the temper of the Message which so nearly made President Cleveland famous in history as the man who, next to George III., could claim to have done most to injure the English-speaking race. It was this temper which inspired the attacks on England indulged in by the professional politicians on both sides during the Presidential Election ; which guided the Senate in its treatment of the Arbitration Treaty ; which evoked Mr. Sherman's despatch re-opening the seal- fishery dispute. Whatever its origin, then, the statement is important, as containing the concentrated essence of the policy pursued, we do not for a moment suggest by the American people towards England, but by the politicians who lead. and rule them.
The actual terms of the most vital part of the statement are worth quoting at length :—"England," Mr. Sherman is supposed to have said to the reporter of the New York World, "is a great country, but it is not always safe to assume she is ready to follow up every quarrel with blows. She quarrels oftener than she fights, and it would be ex- ceedingly difficult for her to fight us alone about our seal- catching. Russia and Japan are in a similar position, and any quarrel between the United States and England on this score would in all probability involve them. In my opinion England will hesitate long before getting into such a scrape. Japan, as a nation, is not to be despised, but I do not believe that we shall ever have any serious difficulty with England. Our refusal to be intimidated has had a salutary effect." This is exactly the attitude assumed towards this country by American politicians during the last two years. England is a. big, cowardly bully, who will bluff, but never fight. Therefore, it is perfectly safe to threaten her if and when con- venient, and to press her up to any point. She may look big, but she never fights. The patriotic American, therefore, may safely humble the vain and pompous English, and may refuse to make any com- promise with them without the slightest fear of unpleasant consequences. 'If you know how to handle the Britishers, you can always have your own way with them.' That is the attitude which is now held to be a proper one to assume towards this country. Though competent observers at first hand repeatedly pressed upon us the fact that this had become the attitude of the State Department and of the Jingo Press and the Jingo politicians, we for a long time refused to believe that any notion so foolish and shortsighted, as well as so unfriendly, could possibly prevail in America. The strong feeling for the American half of our race which we have always felt and always expressed in these columns, made us loth to credit such reports. Unfortunately, the logic of facts has at last most reluctantly obliged us to come to the conclusion that we were mistaken, and that those who attributed not merely bad manners and unreasonable irritability, but actual and calculated unfriendliness to the American Govern- ment, were in the right. It is not a pleasant admission to have to make from any point of view, but Mr. Sherman's despatch and the other indications we have mentioned above, the spirit of which is summarised in the supposed interview with Mr. Sherman, compel us to make it in the interests of truth. We should be guilty of a culpable and voluntary blindness were we any longer to pretend that the ruling politicians of America are actuated by a friendly spirit towards this country. It is clear that they are not, and that the two nations must unhappily accept the conse- quences of this unfriendliness as long as it con- tinues. When they speak of American unfriendliness, Englishmen must, however, be careful, as we have been, to distinguish between the American people and the men who control their politics. We do not believe that the American people as a whole are hostile to this country, and we know that there is a large section which, while firmly patriotic and national in the best sense, are dis- tinctly anxious to live in amity with the land from which they sprung. It is the politicians of both parties who have adopted the attitude we have described, and who vie with each other in their foolish and wicked declarations that it is not only safe, but wise and necessary, to twist the lion's tail as much and as often as possible. Possibly it may be urged that the politicians do not count. Unfortunately, in a matter of this kind they are almost supreme. The mass of the American nation are an inland people who never see the sea, and who know nothing about foreign countries. They are, however—and we honour them for it—intensely patriotic. But this fact, and their ignorance of all non- domestic questions, make the American people the prey of any man who professes to state what is the patriotic course. Dr. Johnson said that patriotism—meaning, of course, the cant of patriotism—was the last refuge of a scoundrel. In America this cant of patriotism is too often the last refuge of the party politician who wants to divert attention from the scandals and corruptions for which he and his are responsible. Patriotism is something on which all can agree. But patriotism has of late come to signify abuse of England. The ordinary American Citizen is told that most of the European countries are about the size of the larger States of the Union, and not so prosperous, and he thinks of them as quite un- worthy of his notice. England, however, he does know, or thinks he knows, and when he is told that she must be kept in order, and that if he is a good American he will oppose her, he opposes her accordingly. His democratic principles are called into play to intensify the antagonism, for England is represented as inhabited by a race of slaves and paupers, and ruled by a cruel gang of haughty and oppressive feudal nobles. Of course, many Americans, even in the West, know that a good deal of this talk is nonsense, but still some of it sticks. At any rate, they have always the comfortable maxim to fall back on, "My country, right or wrong." Again, in America, as in all other countries, men are inclined to feel about foreign relations that the only safe thing is to leave them in the hands of the Government. "They know what is going on behind the scenes, and I don't. Therefore, I had better leave them alone and let them play the game unfettered." That is a sentiment which is doubtless very widely spread in the United States.
We should fail in a public duty if we did not point out, in the strongest possible manner, the grave risks that are likely to ensue from the attitude thus taken up by the American politicians. Unless, which we fear is hardly the American Government assumes a very different tone, a. grave crisis is certain to arrive sooner or later. If our Government were to act in the future as it has acted in the past, and were to go on treating the American Government as one treats a person of bad manners with whom it is neces- sary to have relations—i.e., were to politely ignore such indiscretions as Mr. Sherman's last despatch—the result could not really be satisfactory. The American politician does not understand Mr. Kipling's principle,—" But, oh, beware my country when my country grows polite," and would be sure to go.on taking our reticence for weakness. He would, that is, be confirmed in his belief that England never fights, and would continue to threaten her with the enmity of Japan, and to tell her that she has no business in Canada. At last, however, he would go too far, and then this country would suddenly, and with overwhelming force, demand some course of action or retort from its own Government which could only end in war. As Confucius said to his disciple, the worst part of wiping your cheek silently and politely when a man has spit in your face, is that it tempts him to forget himself again and to spit in your face once more. He held, therefore, that you should "let it dry on." We fear, then, we shall only tempt the American politicians to insult us again if we silently wipe away the results of their bad manners. But when a man has insulted you twice, and is clearly mistaking the meaning of your forbearance, there is nothing for it but to knock him down. Lord Salisbury, therefore, will not be able to help taking strong action tho next time he has such a despatch read to him as that lately produced by Mr. Sherman. But, considering how far things have drifted already, we cannot conceal from ourselves that the sudden change from meekness to stiffness may have most unfortunate results. Be that as it may, the risk must be run, for the other line of action, the plan of continuing our policy of forbearance, could ultimately have no result but a quarrel of the kind which usually proves the most deadly of all,—a quarrel on a point of national honour. It is hardly necessary to point out what a failure, from a practical point of view, has been this policy of studied unfriendliness to England pursued by the American politicians of both parties and by the State Department in its official and corporate capacity. As things now stand, nearly two years after President Cleveland's Message, England is far less inclined to yield to American demands than she was at the end of 1895. Then, if Lord Salisbury had chosen to take up a very stern and uncompromising attitude in regard to America, and had refused to make any conces- sions unless and until Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Obaey had entirely altered their tone, it is possible, nay probable, that the country would not have supported him with any- thing approaching unanimity. The vast majority of people here have so warm a feeling towards America, and are so anxious to keep friends with her, that they would have argued, as indeed they did argue : "The American Government have shown themselves exceedingly for- getful of international courtesy, let alone of the sense of kinship, but for the sake of our common blood we must overlook their bad breeding and forget it. We must show them a consideration we would show to no other Power in the world. We cannot strike blood relations, and must take from them what we would not endure for an instant from strangers." There was something fine, if impolitic, in this attitude. In any case, it is not an attitude which would now be taken up here. Opinion has changed greatly in the last few months, and now, even if Lord Salisbury were ever so anxious to turn the other cheek, he would not be allowed to do so. American demands, if urged in unfriendly language, would now be resisted by a unanimous nation. There would be no party or sectional feeling in the matter, only a stern resolve to be bullied no longer. In a word, the policy based on the belief that England will never fight, and that she may be pushed and pressed indefinitely, has had for its result that this country is now in a mood which will make it very difficult for its rulers to yield on any points which are urged intemperately, even if those points are not really important. That is a situation which it is the object of all good diplomatists to avoid. That they have brought it about the American politicians have none to thank but themselves. We have been obliged to write, as we never dreamed we should be forced to write, about a country which is only less dear to us than our own. We are not among those who dislike or distrust America. Rather we love and admire her. Nor, again, do we despair of America or regard her as politically or socially in danger. America will, we trust and believe, survive all her difficulties. Not to point out to her the extreme danger of the present course taken by her Government would, however, be the height of unfriendliness. If America does not keep a better watch upon her politicians they may hurry her into a conflict with this country, of which no man will be able to see the end. We are not the effete or worthless country that the American politicians pretend, and if we were once to enter upon a quarrel which we believed to be just, we should not withdraw from it lightly. God forbid that such a conflict should ever come. If it does, the folly and insolence of the American politicians will have much to answer for. The American people are, we believe, at heart as sound as our own ; but what consolation will that be to them or to us if the politicians end by some day provoking an unjust and unnecessary quarrel ?
Previous page
