ago it was said by a wise Hindu, that “ God is the God of all mankind, and not of Mohammedans only”;- nor of AngloSaxons alone, he might have added, if living now, when these noble but narrow men are, if possible, even more exclusive (many of them, not all) than the followers of Mohammed. Theirs is the old Jewish spirit, which could not see beauty and truth apart from the Hebrew Scriptures and traditions. Against this bigotry the Christians fought their battle and triumphed, so enlarging the Jewish pale as to take in the worlds of Greece and Rome and Germany, preparing for themselves new and broader Scriptures and traditions. But here they stopped to gather up their gains, and harmonize their antagonisms. The remainder of the human family, then almost unknown, was left outside, beyond sympathy and appreciation. There they are still left. And now, as many claim, they may be admitted within the pale of brotherhood only on the hard condition of renouncing what they have learned from the Universal Teacher, the education secured by many thousand years of development under the all-comprehending Providence. Even the spirit of toleration, a high virtue attained throughout two thirds of Asia, must be renounced, and Asiatics, if admitted to our fellowship, must come in stripped of their best attainments, and degraded. And this exclusiveness is set up as the only true Christianity! When shall men, “unscaling their long-abused sight,” look forth with as free an eye on the world of man, his worships and beliefs and cultures, as on the world of matter, on the stars and the strata, the attractions and orbits ? Does not more than half of our present Christian civilization come from the Greeks and Romans and Germans? Why forbid that it be still further enlarged and enriched ? When shall we understand that God is universal, pervading the universe, and not dwelling outside of it in some sectarian corner, — pouring his inspirations through all men and all ages, — recognizing a general harmony in the vast chorus of variously modulated voices ? Has not the Creator and Educator of all long enough and widely enough set us the example of comprehensiveness ? Let us then at length make room for our brethren the Hindus, the Chinese, the Mohammedans, to worship the common Father at the common altar; doing no injustice to any; abating no reasonable claims of our own; forbidding no partialities, nor even prejudices, except such as war against the general toleration and harmony; and so, as the humane result, securing the rights, the developments, the adaptations, the excellences, the nationalities, the civilizations of all. Even if we insist on drinking commonly, as hitherto, each from his own sectarian tank, let us not ignore the great living streams of general thought, the wide seas of common sentiment. While each shall think his own thought, pray his own prayer, frequent his own church, let us also learn to walk reverently through the venerable groves of the ages, and to worship unreluctantly in the spacious cathedrals of man. It is time we had grasped St. Paul's idea, that God is God of Gentile as well as Jew; that in Heathendom as well as Christendom the kingdom of God is within us, and the kingdom of evil also; that we are all in one great school, though in widely different classes and grades, from Plato and Paul and Bacon and Leibnitz in the highest, to Batta and Dyak and Australian in the lowest.


as A

1. Correspondence of CHARLES, first MARQUIS CORNWALLIS. Edited,

with Notes, by CHARLES Ross, Esq. In three volumes. Lon

don. 1859. 2. History of England, from the Peace of Versailles to the Peace of

Utrecht. 1713 – 1783. By LORD MAHON (EARL STANHOPE).

Vol. VII. London. 1854. 3. The Life of Frederic William von Steuben, Major-General in the

Revolutionary Army. By FRIEDRICH KAPP. New York: Ma

son Brothers. 1859. 6 Stone THERE is hardly an American school-boy who has not asked himself, when he read of the capitulation of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, — the dénouement, as it proved, of our Revolution, — what his business was there, - how or why it happened that, with an army of several thousand men, he should have been situated, in mid-summer, in one of the few places on the continent where a French fleet could blockade him, while an American-French army cooped him in by land. At the time of his capitulation a war of pamphlets attempted to solve this question, but left it still rather an open question to the general reader. We looked, therefore, with particular interest to the publication of Lord Cornwallis's Correspondence, hoping that some additional light might be thrown on what is a curious point in our national history.

We have not been wholly disappointed. The painstaking editor of the letters does not himself set forth, with great success, the lessons which Lord Cornwallis's maiden campaigns teach. But in a few private letters, which he publishes for the first time, are some little hints which illustrate the more cumbrous public despatches which Lord Cornwallis himself published in 1783.* What comes more to the point is a glimpse of family history in its connection with the melancholy administration of England at that period. The coolness between Clinton and Cornwallis is easily enough understood, when we see, in the former, only the unfortunate commander-in-chief sent out to work impossibilities, with no friends at court, and in the other, the dashing young nobleman, who had backers in plenty at home, who was always kept in his sinecure or his laborious offices whether successful or unsuccessful, whether voting with government or with the opposition. We may add, that whoever chooses to read the history with the parallel volumes of Tarleton's Campaigns, Greene's and Lafayette's letters, Washington's correspondence, the new Life of Steuben, and the contemporary memoirs of Clinton and Cornwallis themselves, will have as striking an illustration as he can ask for, of those vices of administration which seem inseparable. from British government, — at which, however, as if they were novelties, the world expressed such naïve surprise when they exhibited themselves lately, highly magnified, but with sharp outline, on the field of the Crimea.

Now that it is all over, and that the passage of the better part of a century enables us to begin to read history truly, there is something very entertaining, often really pathetic, in

* An Answer to that part of the Narrative of Sir Henry Clinton which relates to the Conduct of Earl Cornwallis. London. 1783.

following along the different moves on the chess-board, as revealed by the different players in this square game, when there were two partners on each side. Lafayette was in his maiden campaign, as commander-in-chief, in that part of this summer where he opposed Cornwallis. In face of Earl Stanhope, of Mr. Ross and Mr. Kapp, we hold to the opinion of Colonel Tarleton, who was nearer the field than they, that the campaign does Lafayette high credit as a military man. Tarleton says specifically, that there is but one instance “ where Lafayette committed himself in a very difficult campaign,” and repeats this judgment more than once. Nor does Lord Cornwallis ever express any other opinion. Such testimony, direct and indirect, may be set against the military speculations of civilians. Lafayette, in his familiar letters to Washington, constantly confides to him his suspicions and his surprises. Why were the Earl's troops embarked, and then disembarked ? Why did he march here, and then march back again? These questions, and the speculations with which he tries to answer them, are of curious interest now, when we can parallel them with Cornwallis's sulky notes, explaining that he had been obliged to change plans of a sudden, because Clinton had so ordered. Lafayette's study of an enemy's plan of campaign might well be difficult, when, as it proved, that enemy was not permitted to follow such plan as he had himself formed. Lafayette's “ intelligence” proves curiously accurate, now that the whole of both sides is so nearly opened to us.

The history of Lord Cornwallis's Virginian campaign may be briefly told in language adapted to those readers who would not consult their maps if we alluded nicely to localities. The English government was not strong in generals at this period. With those it had, we suppose the American service, after the first, was not popular. Lord Effingham, who was a LieutenantGeneral, had thrown up his commission, because he thought the Colonists in the right. General Gage was recalled in disgrace very early. Fortunately for us, Clive died, by his own hand, just before the war began. After it began, Lord Percy, whose rank in the peerage must have given weight to his impressions, soon saw enough of fighting, and went home. His reasons have never, we believe, been made public. General Burgoyne's experiment did not prove creditable, and Carleton and Howe both quarrelled with the government and were recalled. Meanwhile the statesman in charge of the war in the English Cabinet was Lord George Germaine, who in 1760 had been found guilty of disobedience to orders at Minden (where he failed to do just what Lord Cardigan did at Balaklava), “ and unfit to serve his Majesty in any military capacity whatever.”* This verdict, however, had been rendered in face of the favor of George the Third, then heir apparent, — and Lord George Germaine regained place, though never popularity. These facts make it, in a measure, intelligible, why, when Lord Cornwallis, who had already distinguished himself at the battle of Brandywine in this country, offered his services to the king, in the spring of 1779, they should have been accepted, though his appointment wounded Clinton, his superior, who at once tried to withdraw, — and though Cornwallis himself had steadily acted and voted with the opposition in the House of Lords. He was a nobleman, — he was young, active, and ambitious, – and he was everybody's cousin, or grandson, or nephew, or brother-in-law. He had any amount desirable of influence, while poor Sir Henry Clinton, as we have intimated, had little or none. It would have been better policy to have put the young gentleman into the first place, and to have recalled Clinton, as he asked them to do. But with peculiar skill in disaffecting everybody, the government compelled Clinton to remain in command, while they sent Cornwallis as second to the Southern Colonies, making him nominally Clinton's inferior, but really trusting him, and distrusting that hardly-treated officer.

With Clinton at New York, and Cornwallis in South Carolina, the latter bidden to report directly home, as well as to his nominal superior, and the two often a month or more apart, with land communication quite impracticable, the trans

*“Our six regiments did wonders ; and our horse would have done, if my Lord George Sackville only had let them. But when Prince Ferdinand said “Charge!' his Lordship could not hear, or could not translate the German word for ‘Forward!' and so we only beat the French, without utterly annihilating them, as we might, had Lord Granby or Mr: Warrington had the command. My Lord is come back to town, and is shouting for a court-martial.” – Mr. George Warrington to his brother Harry, London, August 20, 1759.

« ElőzőTovább »