THE GREAT TRIAL.-GENERALS GRANT AND SHERMAN.
[FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.]
New York, June 2, 1865.
I HAVE preferred to leave comment upon the revelations of the trial of the Washington assassins to the editors of The Spectator, should they desire to make it. But as the end seems to be very near, I will tell you of the conclusions which have been drawn from it by most of the people whom I meet,-conclusions which are also my own. We regard it as shown beyond a doubt that the affair was no mere independent attempt of a few reckless fellows, but the result of a long-pondered, deeply-laid, widely-spread con- spiracy,-that the men engaged in it were employed and furnished with money by the so-called Confederate Government,-that these men were expected to throw the Government at Washington into confusion, at first by carrying off President Lincoln and some of his Cabinet as prisoners, a project which itself certainly involved their death if they resisted,-that this plan was subse- quently changed by the immediate managers of it for the plot to assassinate instead of taking prisoner, and that the change, though not avowed, or perhaps spoken of in terms, was known to some of the insurgent leaders. We see no reason to doubt the very explicit. evidence of a man who swore that on the steps of his house in. Charlotte, Jefferson Davis said, on hearing of the assassination, "If, it were done, it were better it were well done ; " and that the next day in the House, when Mr. Breckenridge deplored the event as unfortunate for the South, Mr. Davis replied, " Well, General, I don't know ; if it were to be done at all it were better it were well done ; and if the same were done to Andy Johnson, the beast, and to Secretary Stanton, the job would then be complete." We believe that although the evidence yet produced would not con- vict Mr. Davis in a court of law as an accessory before the fact„ he is morally responsible for Mr. Lincoln's murder, which he could. have prevented.
Before sach interest as any of the readers of The Spectator may
feel in General Grant has begun to fade, let me refer once more to his personal traits of character. When he won his first successes. at Fort Donelson and Pittsburg Landing, he was commonly thought to be only a fighting general, a man who succeeded by main strength, audacity, and readiness. Even of late few people have looked upon him, I believe, as an accomplished military man,- such, for instance, as General M'Clellan is without a doubt. But Professor Mahan, of the West Point Military Academy, has re- cently written a letter in which he says that Grant, when there as his pupil, gained a high position in his scientific studies, and became what is called at West Point "a first-section man" in. mathematics, natural and experimental philosophy and engineer- ing-that is, one belonging to that portion of the head of a class who master all the most abstruse parts of their studies. What high praise this is may be gathered from the fact that at West Point those who compose the lowest third in grade at the end of the first year, the grade being determined both by drill, or the school of the soldier, and by studies proper, are remorselessly sent home, with- out other disgrace than that of not being physically and mentally up to the standard of United States cadets. Professor Mahan
says that Grant was as chary of his words in his boyhood as he is now in his manhood. Sherman, on the contrary, although show- ing a like capacity for scientific studies, was talkative and full of pranks. A story which has recently been told of General Grant by one who knows its truth is very characteristic of the man.
Soon after the victory of Chattanooga he was sitting at head- quarters, with his feet stretched comfortably out to the fire, puffing his eternal cigar, and ruminating silently as he gazed into the smoke-curls. General Meigs, the Quartermaster-General, who by the way, has not made a failure in the whole war, sat near him ; while General W. F. Smith, nicknamed at West Point " paced thoughtfully up and down the floor. Meigs broke the silence by asking, "What are you thinking about, liddy? "
Smith continued his walk without reply, Meigs turned to Grant, and said, Baldy is studying strategy." Grant took his cigar from his lips, and said gravely, "I don't believe in strategy "—his companions turned their heads in surprise —" in the popular acceptation of the term. I use it to get up just as close to the enemy as I can with as little loss as passible."
"And what then ?" "Why then, up, Guards, and at 'em !" stud Grant, with unaccustomed vivacity, and immediately relapsed into silence. But although not a West Point man, I venture to say that getting close to the enemy with as little loss as possible is a good part at least of strategy. Another story in which Sherman appears shows the nature of both the man. It was on occasion of the last movement upon Vicksburg. General Sherman appeared in General Grant's tent and said, " General, I hold myself as a subordinate officer, bound to carry out to the best of my ability the orders of my superior, even on an expedition which I totally dis- approve, and I shall do so now. But as a military man I feel bound to protest against the present movement, and," drawing a paper from his pocket, "I think that I have a right to demand that you shall forward this, my solemn, written protest, to the War Department." " Very well, General," said Grant, taking up the paper, " at the proper time I will forward it." The movement went on, with what consequences you know ; and some weeks after this interview Grant and Sherman were lying together on the grass ge.iore Vicksburg, the surrender of which was daily expected, when an aid-de-campcatne up and asked Grant for a certain paper. He took a handful from his breast-pocket and selected the One required, and then taking out another he handed it to Sherman, saying, " By the way, General, here's a paper in which you are in- terested. Shall I forward it to Washington?" Sherman took the paper somewhat nervously, but a glance at it re-assured him. He tore his solemn protest to pieces, and the subject was never mentioned by Grant afterwards.
It is not for the purpose either of self-justification or contro- versy that I notice an editorial criticism on my letter in the number of The Spectator of May 20, which arrived yesterday. It is there remarked upon my saying that, although we have a vast number of small landed proprietors who till their own ground, we have no peasantry, that this word. " peasantry " "is the only English word you have ever known your correspondent misuse." I fear that my father and my grandfather, who taught me the English that I use, would not give me such a certificate. I know they never did while they were alive. And so I accept the com- pliment, not as paid to me, but to my countrymen ; for as far as idiom and Meaning of words are concerned these letters, I pre- sume to think, may be accepted as fair examples of the manner in which most educated Yankees use their mother tongue. But it is further remarked that in England a peasant is what my statement implies that he is not, a small landed proprietor who tills his own ground, and that the word your corres- pondent is thinking of is "labourer." It becomes the native of one place to be very diffident in even seeming to ques- tion the evidence of a thoughtful and observant native of another as to usage . in the latter ; yet I shall venture the opinion that British and American usage of this word are not quite so different as my critic seems to suppose. If " peasant " means nothing more in England than a small Landholder who tills his own ground, of course I am wrong. But if I have read our literature aright, the word for two hundred and fifty or three hundred years has conveyed another idea, expressed something more. The first British dictionary of the English language upon which I lay my hand—Nnttall's—defines peasant as " a rustic labourer, a hind," thus embodying the very word " labourer," which I was said to have in mind. All others to which I refer conform essentially to this definition, and all give the synonymic definition "hind,"---servant, famulus. Now we do not here, as I have seen it said we do, use " peasant" for "serving-man." Far from it. But we do think of a peasantry as that class of rustic labourers or humble husbaudmen which furnishes the household servant, jam libel. Whether we are right in connecting this idea with the word I shall leave others to decide. Nor should I have brought a verbal discussion into these" letters, save for the opportunity thus afforded me of saying that it is this trait, this position of the peasant, which causes us to regard the word " peasantry" as altogether inapplicable to any of our rural population, however humble their condition. For however humble that condition may bef you could no more obtain a hind, a famuhtl, from among them than you could from the House of Lords.* Go into the remotest and poorest of our rural districts, and find a man living iu a log hut, who labours from rise to set of sun that he may fare coarsely and sleep hardly, and who does not see 100 dols. in the course of a year, and offer him 1,0001. a year to be head groom or butler to a duke, and see what would be his answer. He would either laugh you quietly to scorn or resent your offer as an insult. Do not suppose that this would be because of a rude philosophy or humble content, which leads him to prefer hard fare and independence to comparative ease and wealth. The same man will sacrifice his personal independence, and if need be enter the service of the Government, of a public institution, or a corporation for a few hundred dollars a year. What he would resent in your proposition would be the supposition that he could adopt a position of personal servitude, that he could be induced by money to have any intercourse with another man except on the footing of absolute personal equality. He will not thrust himself into the society of the cultivated and wealthy people around him. He knows well enough that he would be out of place there, and that the most democratic of all rights is a man's right to choose his companions with reason or without. But if these people do have intercourse with him, if they do meet him at all, whether it be in public places or in their houses, it must be on a footing of perfect equality. Europeans who know anything about this country know that Yankee women, not to say men, are never found in our houses as servants. Our cooks, housemaids, waiters, coachmen, and grooms all come from Europe, or are negroes. The children, born and bred in this country, of Irish and German parents are often house-servants, but I have never known an instance of a house-servant of English blood born here. Even when the parents were servants here or in England, their children, who have grown up here, would not take that position except per- haps in the direst necessity. Now the reason of this recoil among Yankees is not the nature of the work which house-servants are called upon to do. They do that often willingly and for wages. There are many respectable restaurants in this city in which the waiter-girls are all Yankees, and on a steamer on Lake Champ- lain I noticed some months ago that all the men waiters were Yankees, and very obliging and attentive they were. A Yankee will drive a stage coach, but for all Dives' wealth he will not be Dives' coachman. It is the personal relation, not the nature of the work, at which he revolts. The waiter-girls in the restaurant feel that they are doing business, that they are in the position of saleswomen, and they talk, somewhat puzzlingly it must be ad- mitted, of going " to the store," meaning to the restaurant. They feel that there they meet as equals the people whom they serve, whereas if they performed the same duties in a household, except for their own family, in their own eyes they would be degraded. It is because this feeling forms no element of our idea of a pea- sant that we think that the word " peasantry" conveys an altogether erroneous notion of any class or condition of men which has a place in our system of society. The feeling may not be a sensible one, but it exists. It is in fact the key-note of our social scale. The distinction which it draws between the people called peasants in Europe and any of our people we regard not as accidental, but as essential, radical. The fact that peasant- p«gson -J1(1.101111.5- meant originally a rustic person of low condition, many of us have learned, but we do not think that that touches the point, that now and for two or three centuries the word has, if we un- derstand its usage in literature and in common conversation, meant in Europe a sort of man that is not produced in this
Previous page
