THE AMERICAN ARISTOCRACY.
ACAREFUL perusal of the files of American newspapers —not in itself a very improving study—will awaken the reader to a fact too little appreciated in England. This is the existence in the United States of a very peculiar and very repulsive form of aristocracy, an aristocracy of local political notabilities. We are not speaking of course of the higher politicians, whose opinions influence the nation as those of a Cabinet Minister might influence England, but of local magnates, men whose influence is identical in all but permanence with that of an English aristocrat, whose perso- nal adhesion to a party is matter of concern, who must always be treated with deference whatever their characters, whose influence over local patronage is unbounded, and. who can and do ensure promotion, protection, and pohtical good things generally for their intimates and relatives. America is the land of equality, but for all that a clever American partisan could check off thirty or forty men whose " influence " if combined would be at least as great as that of any Whig clique in England in the days when Whig cliques were all important. Some of these men are politi- cians whom a district has been accustomed to trust, and their influence is perhaps the least objectionable of all. It is like the " influence " of Mr. Roebuck in Sheffield, or Mr. Hume in Montrose. But they are not all politicians. Many derive their weight from their wealth, just as much as a ter- ritorial magnate in an English county. The weight is not, it is true, acquired in quite the same way, but it springs from the same source. Out of the South mere extent of ownership is no guarantee for influence, but wealth, if it either comprises the control of large masses of labourers, or is spent on occasion to secure such, is of vast importance. The adhesion, for instance, of Mr. Vanderbilt—Commodore Vanderbilt, as the Americans call him—is worth more than that of any thousand humbler individuals. It matters quite as much whether Mr. Vanderbilt approves Mr. Seward, as whether a Lord Lonsdale approves Lord John Russell. The arrest of Mr. Ross Winans of Baltimore was quite an event, and was supposed to indicate ultra-decision of purpose, simply because Mr. Ross Winans is rich enough to pay a Baltimore mob to do his behest. One " influential " man in New York raises a regiment, and the President has to think not only whether he wants the regiment, but whether he can afford to offend Mr. Sickles. Mr. Bell goes off to the South, and that is regarded as a "great blow," quite as great as Sir John Ramsden's desertion is to the Whigs. A militia general gets himself and his followers into a scrape, but, says the correspondent of the Morning Post, he is connected with Colonel Blair, whose political influence is too great for the President to punish his satellite. One remembers that a Grey who made a mistake has once or twice had absolution for much the same reasons. Half the odd crew appointed to command the volunteers, and with whom General Scott is so irate, are appointed for reasons identical with those which direct a Premier to the choice of a colonel of yeomanry or a lord-lieutenant. None of them can control or guide a party, however small, scattered throughout the nation, as, for instance, Lord Shaftesbury guides a separate party in England. But each can ensure the adhesion of a local constituency, sometimes small, but not unfrequently comprehending an entire State. The lists are not a little curious. One man is appointed a major be- cause he helped to "carry" Pennsylvania ; another, because he is a relative -of the Secretary of State. The action of an - individual of this class who joins a particular movement is carefully reported, and his speech printed as a sign of the success or defeat which is at hand. So thoroughly, indeed, is personal influence recognized, that the advocates of com- promise openly assert that their chances depend, not on this or that change of opinion, but on the adhesion of some twenty men. There are few appointments to be given in America of great pecuniary value, but contracts, both for the 'oederal and State Governments, are notoriously always lotted to men connected with "powerful" local politicians. it :s the same in military affairs. The success of an effort to raise a regiment depends simply on the influence of him who rinses it. In the West especially, there are men who can always raise troops for a tolerably popular cause, who have, in fact, followings bound personally to themselves. In Texas, for example, General Houston, on the strength of such a following, resisted the Convention. He represented no opinion at all, was just as much a Secessionist as those who dismissed him, but it was known that an order for his arrest be resisted by his "friends" in arms. In Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky, the action of the States is really governed by that of about six men, of whom Senator John- son, Mr. Crittenden, and General Lyon are the most pro. minent. We do not say that they could carry their States into a course of action directly opposed to the principles of their followers, any more than the Duke of Northumberland could return a Catholic for his county, or the Marquis of Westminster induce Middlesex to approve a Foreign Assassi- nation Bill. But within certain limits these men, a few politicians by trade, a few partisan leaders, and a few bank directors, and great employers of labour, are just as powerful as the English aristocracy. They could not any more than the rival class in England directly defeat public opinion, but they could modify it most materially. They could not de- cide the people, for example, in favour of compromise as opposed to war, but compromise once endurable they could undoubtedly carry one compromise rather than another. Above all, they can, and do, perform the only really injurious function of the English aristocracy, i.e. shelter their friends from the punishment of incompetence. It was this class who, at the beginning of the war, made the action of the North—till they were overborne by the silent millions they usually mislead—so half-hearted and unwise; it is this class who nominate the "Generals" who blunder so sadly, and but that they cannot dispense with General Scott, would keep them at the head of the armies ; and it is this class who, the instant the excitement dies away, will rule the negotia- tions on which the future career of the Republic must be based. America has an aristocracy just as much as England, with one remarkable difference: the English aristocrat is trained to strive for leadership in a nation, not in a district ; to attract a party, not a personal connexion ; and has nothing to gain for himself except through the general prosperity of the State. The dignity of England adds directly to the dignity of a Duke of Bedford; the dignity of the North adds very little to the position of Mr. Sickles.
Previous page
