Chapter VII: Front Matter (7)

What is the cause of this? It can only be ascribed to the one great ruling passion which is so strong that it will admit of no check, or obstacles being thrown in its way, and will listen to no argument or entreaty; and because, in a country when every thing is decided by public opinion, the women are as great slaves to it as the men. Their position at present appears to be that the men will not raise themselves to the standard of the women, and the women will not lower themselves to the standard of the men; they apparently move in different spheres, although they repose on the same bed.

It is, therefore, as I have before observed, fortunate that the marriages in America are more decided by prudence than by affection; for nothing could be more mortifying to a woman of sense and feeling, than to awake from her dream of love, and discover that the object upon which she has bestowed her affection, is indifferent to the sacrifice which she has made.

If the American women had their due influence, it would be fortunate; they might save their country, by checking the tide of vice and immorality, and raising the men to their own standard. Whether they ever will effect this, or whether they will continue as at present, to keep up the line of demarcation, or gradually sink down to the level of the other sex, is a question which remains to be solved.

That the American women have their peculiarities, and in some respects they might be improved, is certain. Their principal fault in society is, that they do not sufficiently modulate their voices. Those faults arising from association, and to which both sexes are equally prone, are a total indifference to, or rather a love of change, "shifting right away," without the least regret, from one portion of the Union to another; a remarkable apathy as to the sufferings of others, an indifference to loss of life, a fondness for politics, all of which are unfeminine; and lastly, a passion for dress carried to too great an extent; but this latter is easily accounted for, and is inseparable from a society where all would be equal. But, on the other hand, the American women have a virtue which the men have not, which is moral courage, and one also which is not common with the sex, physical courage. The independence and spirit of an American woman, if left a widow without resources, is immediately shewn; she does not sit and lament, but applies herself to some employment, so that she may maintain herself and her children, and seldom fails in so doing. Here are faults and virtues, both proceeding from the same origin.

I have already in my Diary referred to another great error in a portion of the American women. Lady Blessington, in one of her delightful works, very truly observes, "I turn with disgust from that affected prudery, arising, if not from a participation, at least from a knowledge of evil, which induces certain ladies to cast down their eyes, look grave, and shew the extent of their knowledge, or the pruriency of their imaginations, by discovering in a harmless jest nothing to alarm their experienced feelings. I respect that woman whose innate purity prevents those around her from uttering aught that can arouse it, much more than her whose sensitive prudery continually reminds one, that she is _au fait_ of every possible interpretation which a word of doubtful meaning admits."

The remarks of Miss Martineau upon the women of America are all very ungracious, and some of them very unjust. That she met with affectation and folly in America, is very probable--where do you not? There is no occasion to go to the United States to witness it. As for the charge of carrying in their hands seventy-dollar pocket-handkerchiefs, I am afraid it is but too true: but when there is little distinction, except by dress, ladies will be very expensive. I do not know why, but the American ladies have a custom of carrying their pocket-handkerchiefs in their hands, either in a room, or walking out, or travelling; and moreover, they have a custom of marking their names in the corner, at full length, and when in a steamboat or rail-car, I have, by a little watching, obtained the names of ladies sitting near me, in consequence of this custom, which of course will be ascribed by Miss Martineau to a wish to give information to strangers.

The remark upon the Washington belles, [note 2] I am afraid is too true, as I have already pointed out that the indifference to human life in America extends to the softer sex; and I perfectly well remember, upon my coming into a room at New York with the first intelligence of the wreck of the `Home,' and the dreadful loss of life attending it, that my news was received with a "dear me!" from two or three of the ladies, and there the matter dropped. There is, however, much truth in what Miss Martineau says, relative to the manner in which the women are treated by their lords and masters, in this new country. The following quotation from the work is highly deserving of attention:--

"If a test of civilisation be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of that half of society over which the other half has power,-- from the exercise of the right of the strongest. Tried by this test, the American civilisation appears to be of a lower order than might have been expected from some other symptoms of its social state. The Americans have, in the treatment of women, fallen below, not only their own democratic principles, but the practice of some parts of the Old World.

"The unconsciousness of both parties as to the injuries suffered by women at the hands of those who hold the power, is a sufficient proof of the low degree of civilisation in this important particular at which they rest, while woman's intellect is confined, her morals crushed, her health ruined, her weaknesses encouraged, and her strength punished, she is told that her lot is cast in the paradise of women: and there is no country in the world where there is so much boasting of the `chivalrous' treatment she enjoys. That is to say,--she has the best place in stage-coaches: when there are not chairs enough for everybody, the gentlemen stand she hears oratorical flourishes on public occasions about wives and home, and apostrophes to woman: her husband's hair stands on end at the idea of her working, and he toils to indulge her with money: she has liberty to get her brain turned by religious excitements, that her attention may be diverted from morals, politics, and philosophy; and, especially, her morals are guarded by the strictest observance of propriety in her presence. In short, indulgence is given her as a substitute for justice."

If Miss Martineau had stopped here, she had done well; but she follows this up by claiming for her sex all the privileges of our own, and seems to be highly indignant, that they are not permitted to take their due share of the government of the country, and hold the most important situations. To follow up her ideas, we should have a "teeming" prime minister, and the Lord Chancellor obliged to leave the woolsack to nurse his baby; Miss M forgets that her prayer has been half granted already, for we never yet had a ministry without a certain proportion of _old women_ in it; and we can, therefore dispense with her services.

There is, however, one remark of Miss Martineau's which I cannot pass over without expressing indignation; I will quote the passage.

"It is no secret on the spot, that the habit of intemperance is not infrequent among women of station and education in the most enlightened parts of the country. I witnessed some instances, and heard of more. It does not seem to me to be regarded with all the dismay which such a symptom ought to excite. To the stranger, a novelty so horrible, a spectacle so fearful, suggests wide and deep subjects of investigation. If women, in a region professing religion more strenuously than any other, living in the deepest external peace, surrounded by prosperity, and outwardly honoured more conspicuously than in any other country, can ever so far cast off self-restraint, shame, domestic affection, and the deep prejudices of education, as to plunge into the living hell of intemperance, there must be something fearfully wrong in their position."

Miss Martineau is a lady; and, therefore, it is difficult to use the language which I would, if a man had made such an assertion. I shall only state, that it is one of the greatest libels that ever was put into print: for Miss Martineau implies that it is a general habit, among the American women; so far from it, the American women are so abstemious that they do not drink sufficient for their health. They can take very little exercise, and did they take a little more wine, they would not suffer from _dyspepsia_, as they now do, as wine would assist their digestion. The origin of this slander I know well, and the only ground for it is, that there are two or three ladies of a certain city, who having been worked upon by some of the Evangelical Revival Ministers, have had their minds crushed by the continual excitement to which they have been subjected. The mind affects the body, and they have required, and have applied to, stimulus, and if you will inquire into the moral state of any woman among the higher classes, either in America or England, who has fallen into the vice alluded to, nine times out of ten you will find that it has been brought about by religious excitement. Fanaticism and gin are remarkable good friends all over the world. It is surprising to me that, when Miss Martineau claims for her sex the same privilege as ours, she should have overlooked one simple fact which ought to convince _her_ that they are the weaker vessels. I refer to what she acknowledges to be true, which is, that the evangelical preachers invariably apply to women for proselytes, instead of men; not only in America but everywhere else; and that for one male, they may reckon at least twenty females among their flocks. According to Miss Martineau's published opinions, there can be no greater weakness than the above.

In the United States, divorces are obtained without expense, and without it being necessary to commit crime, as in England. The party pleads in _forma pauperis_, to the State Legislation, and a divorce is granted upon any grounds which may be considered as just and reasonable.

Miss Martineau mentions a divorce having been granted to a wife, upon the plea of her husband being a gambler; and I was myself told of an instance in which a divorce was granted upon the plea of the husband being such an "_awful swearer_;" and really, if any one heard the swearing in some parts of the Western country, he would not be surprised at a religious woman requesting to be separated. I was once on board of a steam-boat on the Mississippi, when a man let off such a volley of execrations, that it was quite painful to hear him. An American who stood by me, as soon as the man had finished, observed, "Well, I'm glad that fellow has nothing to do with the engines: I reckon he'd burst the _biler_."

Miss Martineau observes, "In no country I believe are the marriage laws so iniquitous as in England, and the conjugal relation, in consequence, so impaired. Whatever may be thought of the principles which are to enter into laws of divorce, whether it be held that pleas for divorce should be one, (as narrow interpreters of the New Testament would have it;) or two, (as the law of England has it;) or several, (as the Continental and United States' laws in many instances allow,) nobody, I believe, defends the arrangement by which, in England, divorce is obtainable only by the very rich. The barbarism of granting that as a privilege to the extremely wealthy, to which money bears no relation whatever, and in which all married persons whatever have an equal interest, needs no exposure beyond the mere statement of the fact. It will be seen at a glance how such an arrangement tends to vitiate marriage: how it offers impunity to adventurers, and encouragement to every kind of mercenary marriages; how absolute is its oppression of the injured party; and how, by vitiating marriage, it originates and aggravates licentiousness to an incalculable extent. To England alone belongs the disgrace of such a method of legislation. I believe that, while there is little to be said for the legislation of any part of the world on this head, it is nowhere so vicious as in England."

I am afraid that these remarks are but too true; and it is the more singular, as not only in the United States, but in every other Protestant community that I have ever heard of, divorce can be obtained upon what are considered just and legitimate grounds. It has been supposed, that should the marriage tie be loosened, that divorces without number would take place. It was considered so, and so argued, at the time that Zurich (the only Protestant canton in Switzerland that did not permit divorce, except for adultery alone,) passed laws similar to those of the other cantons; but so far from such being the case, only one divorce took place, within a year after the laws were amended. What is the reason of this? It can, in my opinion, only be ascribed to the chain being worn more lightly, when you know that if it oppresses you, it may be removed. Men are naturally tyrants, and they bear down upon the woman who cannot escape from their thraldom; but, with the knowledge that she can appeal against them, they soften their rigour. On the other hand, the woman, when unable to escape, frets with the feeling that she must submit, and that there is no help or hope in prospect; but once aware that she has her rights, and an appeal, she bears with more, and feels less than otherwise she would. You may bind, and from assuetude and time, (putting the better feelings out of the question,) the ties are worn without complaint; but if you bind too tight, you cut into the flesh, and after a time the pain becomes insupportable. In Switzerland, Germany, and I believe all the Protestant communities of the old world, the grounds upon which divorce is admissible are as follows:--adultery, condemnation of either party to punishment considered as infamous, madness, contagious chronic diseases, desertion, and incompatibility of temper.

The last will be considered by most people as no ground for divorce. Whether it is or not, I shall not pretend to decide, but this is certain, that it is the cause of the most unhappiness, and ultimately of the most crime.

All the great errors, all the various schisms in the Christian church, have arisen from not taking the holy writings as a great moral code, (as I should imagine they were intended to be,) which legislates upon broad principles, but selecting particular passages from them upon which to pin your faith. And it certainly appears to me to be reasonable to suppose that those laws by which the imperfection of our natures were fairly met, and which tended to diminish the aggregate of crime, must be more acceptable to our Divine Master than any which, however they might be in spirit more rigidly conformable to his precepts, were found in their working not to succeed. And here I cannot help observing, that the heads of the Church of England appear not to have duly weighed this matter, when an attempt was lately made to legislate upon it. Do the English bishops mean to assert, that they know better than the heads of all the other Protestant communities in the world--that they are more accurate expounders of the gospel, and have a more intimate knowledge of God's will? Did it never occur to them, that when so many good and virtuous ecclesiastics of the same persuasion in other countries have decided upon the propriety of divorce, so as to leave them in a very small minority, that it might be possible that they might be wrong, or do they intend to set up and claim the infallibility of the Papistical hierarchy?

Any legislation to prevent crime, which produces more crime, must be bad and unsound, whatever may be its basis: witness the bastardy clause, in the New Poor Law Bill. That the former arrangements were defective is undeniable, for by them there was a premium for illegitimate children. This required amendment: but the remedy has proved infinitely worse than the disease. For what has been the result? That there have been many thousands fewer illegitimate children _born_, it is true; but, has the progress of immorality been checked? On the contrary, crime has increased, for to the former crime has been added one much greater, that of infanticide, or producing abortion. Such has been the effect of attempting to legislate for the affections; for in most cases a woman falls a sacrifice to her better feelings, not to her appetite.

In every point connected with marriage, has this injurious plan been persevered in; the marriage ceremony is a remarkable instance of this, for, beautiful as it is as a service, it is certainly liable to this objection, that of making people vow before God that which it is not in human nature to control. The woman vows to love, and to honour, and to cherish; the man to love and cherish, until death doth them part.

Is it right that this vow should be made? A man deserts his wife for another, treats her cruelly, separates her from her children. Can a woman love, or honour, or cherish such a man--nevertheless, she has vowed before God that she will. Take the reverse of the picture when the fault is on the woman's side, and the evil is the same; can either party control their affections? surely not, and therefore it would be better that such vows should not be demanded.

There is another evil arising from one crime being the only allowable cause of divorce, which is that the possession of one negative virtue on the part of the woman, is occasionally made an excuse for the practice of vice, and a total disregard of her duties as a wife. I say negative virtue, for chastity very often proceeds from temperament, and as often from not being tempted.

A woman may neglect her duties of every kind--but she is chaste; she may make her husband miserable by indulgence of her ill-temper--but she is chaste; she may squander his money, ruin him by expense--but she is chaste; she may, in short, drive him to drunkenness and suicide--but still she is chaste; and chastity, like charity, covers the whole multitude of sins, and is the scape-goat for every other crime, and violation of the marriage vow.

It must, however, be admitted, that although the faults may occasionally be found on the side of the woman, in nine times out of ten it is the reverse; and that the defects of our marriage laws have rendered English women liable to treatment which ought not to be shewn towards the veriest slaves in existence.

I must now enter into a question, which I should have had more pleasure in passing over lightly, had it not been for the constant attacks of the Americans upon this subject, during the time that I was in the country, and the remarks of Mr Carey in his work, in which he claims for the Americans pre-eminence in this point, as well as upon all others.

Miss Martineau says, "The ultimate, and very strong impression on the mind of a stranger, pondering on the morals of society in America, is that human nature is much the same every where." Surely Miss Martineau need not have crossed the Atlantic to make this discovery; however I quote it, as it will serve as a text to what is to follow.

The Americans claim excessive purity for their women, and taunt us with the _exposees_ occasionally made in our newspapers. In the first place--which shews the highest regard for morality, a country where any deviation from virtue is immediately made known, and held up to public indignation? or one which, from national vanity, and a wish that all should _appear_ to be correct, instead of publishing, conceals the facts, and permits the guilty parties to escape without censure, for what they consider the honour of the nation?

To suppose that there is no conjugal infidelity in the United States, is to suppose that human nature is not the same every where. That it never, to my knowledge, was made public, but invariably hushed up when discovered, I believe; so is suicide. But _one_ instance came to my knowledge, during the time that I was in the States, which will give a very fair idea of American feeling on this subject. It was supposed that an intrigue had been discovered, or, it had actually been discovered, I cannot say which, between a foreigner and the wife of an English gentleman. It was immediately seized upon with ecstasy, circulated in all the papers with every American embellishment, and was really the subject of congratulation among them, as if they had gained some victory over this country. It so happened that an American called upon the lady, and among other questions put to her, inquired in what part of England she was born. She replied, "that she was not an English-woman, but was born in the States, and brought up in an American city."

It is impossible to imagine how this mere trifling fact, affected the Americans. She was then an American--they were aghast--and I am convinced that they would have made any sacrifice, to have been able to have recalled all that they had done, and have hushed up the matter.

The fact is that human nature _is_ the same every where, and I cannot help observing, that if their community is so much more moral, as they pretend that it is, why is it, that they have considered it necessary to form societies on such an extensive scale, for the prevention of a crime, from which they declare themselves (comparatively with us, and other nations,) to be exempt? I once had an argument on this subject with an elderly American gentleman, and as I took down the minutes of it after we parted, I think it will be as well to give it to my readers, as it will shew the American feeling upon it--

"Why, Captain M, you must bear in mind that we are not so vicious and contaminated here, as you are in the old country. You don't see our newspapers filled, as your's are, with crim. cons, in high life. No, sir, our institutions are favourable to virtue and morality, and our women are as virtuous as our men are brave."

"I have no reason to deny either one assertion or the other, as far as I am acquainted with your men and women; but still I do not judge from the surface, as many have done who have visited you. Because there are no crim. cons. in your papers, it does not prove that conjugal infidelity does not exist. There are no suicides of people of any station in society ever published in your newspapers, and yet there is no country where suicide is more common.

"I grant that, occasionally, the coroner does bring in a verdict so as to save the feelings of the family."

"That is more than a coroner would venture to do in England, let the rank of the party be of the highest. But, if you hush up suicides, may you not also hush up other offences, to save the feelings of families? I have already made up my mind upon one point, which is that you are content to substitute the appearance for the reality in your moral code--the fact is, you fear one another--you fear society, but, you do not fear God."

"I should imagine, captain, that when you have conversed, and mixed up with us a little more, you will be inclined to retract, and acknowledge what I have said to be correct. I have lived all my life in the States, and I have no hesitation in saying, that we are a very moral people. Recollect that you have principally confined yourself to our cities, during your stay with us; yet even there we may proudly challenge comparison."

"My opinion is, that unless you can shew just cause _why_ you should be more moral than other nations, you are, whether in cities or in the country, much the same as we are. I do not require to examine on this point, as I consider it to be a rule-of-three calculation. Give me the extent of the population, and I can estimate the degree of purity. Mankind demoralise each other by collision; and the larger the numbers crowded together, the greater will be the demoralisation, and this rule will hold good, whether in England or the United States, the Old World or the New."

"That argument would hold good if it were not for our institutions, which are favourable to morality and virtue."

"I consider them quite the contrary. Your institutions are beautiful in theory, but in practice do not work well. I suspect that your society has a very similar defect."

"Am I then to understand, captain, that you consider the American ladies as _not_ virtuous?"

"I have already said that I have had no proofs to the contrary; all I wish is to defend my own country, and I say that I consider the English women at all events quite as moral as the Americans."

"I reckon that's no compliment, captain. Now, then, do you mean to say that you think there is as much conjugal infidelity in New York, in proportion to the population, as there is in London? Now, captain, if you please, we will stick to that point."

"I answer you at once. No, I do not believe that there is; but--"

"That's all I want, captain--never mind the _buts_."

"_But_ you must have the _buts_. Recollect, I did not say that your society was more moral, although I said that there was in my opinion less infidelity."

"Well, how can that be?"

"Because, in the first place, conjugal infidelity is not the only crime which exists in society; and, secondly, because there are causes which prevent its being common. That this vice should be common, two things are requisite--time and opportunity; neither of which is to be found in a society like yours. You have no men of leisure, every man is occupied the whole day with his business. Now, suppose one man was to stay away from his business for merely one day, would he not be missed, and inquiries made after him; and if it were proved that he stayed away to pass his time with his neighbour's wife, would not the scandal be circulated all over the city before night? I recollect a very plain woman accusing a very pretty one of indiscretion; the reply of the latter, when the former vaunted her own purity, was, `Were you ever asked?' Thus it is in America; there is neither time nor opportunity, and your women are in consequence seldom or ever tempted. I do not mean to say that if they were tempted they would fall; all I say is, that no parallel can in this instance be drawn between the women of the two countries, as their situations are so very different. I am ready to do every justice to your women; but I will not suffer you to remain in the error, that you are more moral than we are."

"Why, you have admitted that we are from circumstances, if not from principle."

"In one point only, and in that you _appear_ to be, and I have given you a reason why you really should be so; but we can draw no inference of any value from what we know relative to your better classes of society. If we would examine and calculate the standard of morality in a country, we must look elsewhere."

"Where?"

"To the lower class of society, and not to the highest. I presume you are aware that there is a greater proportion of unfortunate females in New York, taking the extent of the populations, than in London or Paris? I have it from American authority, and I have every reason to believe that it is true."

"I am surprised that any American should have made such an admission, captain; but for the sake of argument let it be so. But first recollect that we have a constant influx of people from the Old Country, from all the other States in America, and that we are a sea-port town, with our wharfs crowded with shipping."

"I admit it all, and that is the reason why you have so many. The supply in all countries is usually commensurate with the demand; but the numbers have nothing to do with the argument."

"Then I cannot see what you are driving at; for allow me to say that, admitting the class to be as numerous as you state from American authority, still they are very orderly and well behaved. You never see them drunk in the streets; you never hear swearing or abusive language; and you do in London and your seaports. There is a decorum and sense of propriety about them which, you must admit, speaks well, even for those unfortunate persons, and shews some sense of morality and decency even in our most abandoned."

"You have brought forward the very facts which I was about to state, and it is from these facts that I draw quite contrary conclusions. If your argument is good, it must follow that the women of Paris are much more virtuous than the women of London. Now, I consider that these facts prove that the standard of morality is lower in America and France than it is in England. A French woman who has fallen never drinks, or uses bad language; she follows her profession, and seldom sinks, but rises in it. The grisette eventually keeps her carriage, and retires with sufficient to support her in her old age, if she does not marry. The American women of this class appear to me to be precisely the same description of people; whereas, in England, a woman who falls, falls never to rise again--sinking down by degrees from bad to worse, until she ends her days in rags and misery. But why so? because, as you say, they become reckless and intemperate--they _do_ feel their degradation, and cannot bear up against it--they attempt to drown conscience, and die from the vain attempts. Now, the French and the American women of this class apparently do not feel this, and, therefore, they behave and do better. This is one reason why I argue that the standard of morality is not so high in your country as with us, although, from circumstances, conjugal infidelity may be less frequent."

"Then, captain, you mean to say that cursing, swearing, and drinking, is a proof of morality in your country?"

"It is a proof, not of the morality of the party, but of the high estimation in which virtue is held, shewn by the indifference and disregard to everything else after virtue is once lost."

This is a specimen of many arguments held with the Americans upon that question, and when examining into it, it should be borne in mind that there is much less excuse for vice in America than in the Old Countries. Poverty is but too often the mother of crime, and in America it may be said that there is no poverty to offer up in extenuation.

Mr Carey appears to have lost sight of this fact when he so triumphantly points at the difference between the working classes of both nations, and quotes the Report of our Poor Law Commissioners to prove the wretchedness and misery of ours. I cannot, however, allow his assertions to pass without observation, especially as English and French travellers have been equally content to admit without due examination the claims of the Americans; I refer more particularly to the large manufactory at Lowell, in Massachusetts, which from its asserted purity has been one of the boasts of America. Mr Carey says:--

"The following passage from a statement, furnished by the manager of one of the principal establishments in Lowell, shows a very gratifying state of things:--`There have only occurred three instances in which any apparently improper connection or intimacy had taken place, and in all those cases the parties were married on the discovery, and several months prior to the birth of their children; so that, in a legal point of view, no illegitimate birth has taken place among the females employed in the mills under my direction. Nor have I known of but one case among all the females employed in Lowell. I have said known--I should say heard of one case. I am just informed, that that was a case where the female had been employed but a few days in any mill, and was forthwith rejected from the corporation, and sent to her friends. In point of female chastity, I believe that Lowell is as free from reproach as any place of an equal population in the United States or the world.'"

And he winds up his chapter with the following remark:--

"The effect upon morals of this state of things, is of the most gratifying character. The number of illegitimate children born in the United States is small; so small, that we should suppose one in fifty to be a high estimate. In the great factories of the Eastern States there prevails a high degree of morality, presenting a most extraordinary contrast to the immorality represented to exist in a large portion of those of England."

Next follows Miss Martineau, who says--"The morals of the female factory population may be expected to be good when it is considered of what class it is composed. Many of the girls are in the factories because they have too much pride for domestic service. Girls who are too proud for domestic service as it is in America, can hardly be low enough for any gross immorality, or to need watching, or not to be trusted to avoid the contagion of evil example. To a stranger, their pride seems to have taken a mistaken direction, and they appear to deprive themselves of a respectable home and station, and many benefits, by their dislike of service; but this is altogether their own affair, they must choose for themselves their way of life. But the reasons of their choice indicate a state of mind superior to the grossest dangers of their position."

And the Reverend Mr Reid also echoes the praise of the factory girls given by others, although he admits that their dress was above their state and condition, and that he was surprised to see them appear "in _silks_, with _scarfs, veils_, and _parasols_."

Here is a mass of evidence opposed to me, but the American evidence must be received with all due caution; and as for the English, I consider it rather favourable to my side of the question than otherwise. Miss Martineau says that "the girls have too much pride for domestic service," and, therefore, argues that they will not be immoral; now, the two great causes of women falling off from virtue, are poverty and false pride. What difference there is between receiving money for watching a spinning-jenny, and doing household work, I do not see; in either case it is servitude, although the former may be preferred, as being less under control, and leaving more time at your own disposal. I consider the pride, therefore, which Miss Martineau upholds, to be _false_ pride, which will actuate them in other points; and when we find the factory girls vying with each other in silks and laces, it becomes a query whether the passion for dress, so universal in America, may not have its effect there as well as elsewhere. I must confess that I went to Lowell doubting all I had heard--it was so contrary to human nature that five hundred girls should live among a population of fifteen hundred, or more, all pure and virtuous, and all dressed in silks and satin.

When I went to Lowell I travelled with an American gentleman, who will, I have no doubt, corroborate my statement, and I must say that, however pure Lowell may have been at the time when the encomiums were passed upon it, I have every reason to believe, from American authority as well as my own observation, that a great alteration has taken place, and that the manufactories have retrograded with the whole mass of American society. In the first place, I never heard a more accomplished swearer, east of the Alleghanies, than one young lady who addressed me and my American friend, and as it was the _only instance_ of swearing on the part of a female that I ever met with in the United States, it was the more remarkable. I shall only observe, that two days at Lowell convinced me that "human nature was the same every where," and thus I dismiss the subject.

Mr Carey compels me to make a remark which I would gladly have avoided, but as he brings forward his comparative statements of the number of illegitimate children born in the two countries as a proof of the superior morality of America, I must point out to him what I suspect he is not aware of. Public opinion acts as _law_ in America; appearances are there substituted for the reality, and provided appearances are kept up, whether it be in religion or morality, it is sufficient; but should an exposure take place, there is no mercy for the offender. As those who have really the least virtue in themselves are always the loudest to cry out at any lapse which may be discovered in others, so does society in America pour out its anathemas in the inverse ratio of its real purity. Now, although the authority I speak from is undoubted, at the same time I wish to say as little as possible. That there are fewer illegitimate children _born_ in the United States is very true. But why so? because public opinion there acts as the bastardy clause in the new poor law bill has done in this country; and if Mr Carey will only inquire in his own city, he will find that I should be justified if I said twice as much, as I have been compelled in defence of my own country to say, upon so unpleasant a subject.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. Bigamy is not uncommon in the United States from the women being in too great a hurry to marry, and not obtaining sufficient information relative to their suitors. The punishment is chipping stone in Sing Sing for a few years. It must, however, be admitted, that when a foreigner is the party, it is rather difficult to ascertain whether the gentleman has or has not left an old wife or two in the Old World.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 2. A Washington belle related to me the sad story of the death of a young man who fell from a small boat into the Potomac in the night,-- it is supposed in his sleep. She told me where and how his body was found; and what relations he had left; and finished with "he will be much missed at parties."

VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER TWO.

PUBLIC OPINION, OR THE MAJORITY.

The majority are always in the _right_, so says Miss Martineau, and so have said greater people than even Miss Martineau; to be sure Miss Martineau qualifies her expression afterwards, when she declares that they always will be right in the _end_. What she means by that I do not exactly comprehend; the end of a majority is its subsiding into a minority, and a minority is generally right. But I rather think that she would imply that they will repent and see their folly when the consequences fall heavily upon them. The great question is, what is a majority? must it be a whole nation, or a portion of a nation, or a portion of the population of a city; or, in fact, any _plus_ against any _minus_, be they small or be they large. For instance, two against one are a majority, and, if so, any two scoundrels may murder an honest man and be in the right; or it may be the majority in any city, as in Baltimore, where they rose and murdered an unfortunate minority [see note 1]; or it may be a majority on the Canada frontier, when a set of miscreants defied their own government, and invaded the colony of a nation with whom they were at peace--all which is of course right. But there are other opinions on this question besides those of Miss Martineau, and we shall quote them as occasion serves.

I have before observed, that Washington left America a republic; and that in the short space of fifty years it has sunk into a democracy.

The barrier intended to be raised against the encroachments of the people has been swept away; the senate (which was intended, by the arrangements for its election, to have served as the aristocracy of the legislature, as a deliberative check to the impetus of the majority, like our House of Lords), having latterly become virtually nothing more than a second congress, receiving instructions, and submissive to them, like a pledged representative. This is what Washington did not foresee.

Washington was himself an aristocrat; he shewed it in every way. He was difficult of access, except to the higher classes. He carried state in his outward show, always wearing his uniform as General of the Forces, and attended by a guard of honour. Indeed, one letter of Washington's proves that he was rather doubtful as to the working of the new government shortly after it had been constituted. He says:--

"Among men of reflection few will be found, I believe, who are not _beginning_ to think that our system is better in _theory_ than in _practice_, and that notwithstanding the _boasted virtue_ of America, it is more than probable we shall exhibit the _last melancholy proof_, that mankind are incompetent to their own government without _the means of coercion in the sovereign_." [Washington's letter to Chief Justice Jay, 10th March, 1787.]

This is a pretty fair admission from such high authority; and fifty years have proved the wisdom and foresight of the observation. Gradually as the aristocracy of the country wore out (for there was an aristocracy at that time in America), and the people became less and less enlightened, so did they encroach upon the constitution. President after president gradually laid down the insignia and outward appearance of rank, the senate became less and less respectable, and the people more and more authoritative.

M. Tocqueville says, "When the American revolution broke out, distinguished political characters arose in great numbers; for public opinion then served, not to tyrannise over, but to direct the exertions of individuals. Those celebrated men took a full part in the general agitation of mind common at that period, and they attained a high degree of personal fame, which was reflected back upon the nation, but which was by no means borrowed from it."

It was not, however, until the presidency of General Jackson, that the democratic party may be said to have made any serious inroads upon the constitution. Their previous advances were indeed sure, but they were, comparatively speaking, slow; but, raised as he was to the office of President by the mob, the demagogues who led the mob obtained the offices under government, to the total exclusion of the aristocratic party, whose doom was then sealed. Within these last ten years the advance of the people has been like a torrent, sweeping and levelling all before it, and the will of the majority has become not only absolute with the government, but it defies the government itself, which is too weak to oppose it.

Is it not strange, and even ridiculous, that under a government established little more than fifty years, a government which was to be a _lesson_ to the whole world, we should find political writers making use of language such as this: "We are for _reform, sound, progressive reform_, not subversion and destruction." Yet such is an extract from one of the best written American periodicals of the day. This is the language that may be expected to be used in a country like England, which still legislates under a government of eight hundred years old; but what a failure must that government be, which in fifty years calls forth even from its advocates such an admission!!

M. Tocqueville says, "Custom, however, has done even more than laws. A proceeding which will in the end set all the guarantees of representative government at nought, is becoming more and more general in the United States: it frequently happens that the electors who choose a delegate, point out a certain line of conduct to him, and impose upon him a certain number of positive obligations, which he is pledged to fulfil. With the exception of the tumult, this comes to the same thing as if the majority of the populace held its deliberations in the market-place."

Speaking of the majority as the popular will, he says, "no obstacles exist which can impede, or so much as retard its progress, or which can induce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state of things is fatal in itself, and dangerous for the future."

My object in this chapter is to inquire what effect has been produced upon the morals of the American people by this acknowledged dominion of the majority?

1st. As to the mass of the people themselves. It is clear, if the people not only legislate, but, when in a state of irritation or excitement, they defy even legislation, that they are not to be compared to _restricted_ sovereigns, but to despots, whose will and caprice are law. The vices of the court of a despot are, therefore, practised upon the people; for the people become as it were the court, to whom those in authority, or those who would be in authority, submissively bend the knee. A despot is not likely ever to hear the truth, for moral courage fails where there is no law to protect it, and where honest advice may be rewarded by summary punishment. The people, therefore, like the despot, are never told the truth; on the contrary, they receive and expect the most abject submission from their courtiers, to wit, those in office, or expectants.

Now, the President of the United States may be considered the Prime Minister of an enlightened public, who govern themselves, and his communication with them is in his annual message.

Let us examine what Mr Van Buren says in his last message.

First, he humbly acknowledges their power.

"A national bank," he tells them, "would impair the rightful _supremacy_ of the popular _will_."

And this he follows up with that most delicate species of flattery, that of praising them for the very virtue which they are most deficient in; telling them that they are "a people to whom the _truth_, however unpromising, can _always_ be told with _safety_."

At the very time when they were defying all law and all government, he says, "It was reserved for the American Union to test the advantage of a government entirely dependent on the continual exercise of the popular will, and our experience has shewn, that it is as _beneficent_ in _practice_, as well as it is just in _theory_."

At the very time that nearly the whole Union were assisting the insurrection in Canada with men and money, he tells them "that temptations to interfere in the intestine commotions of neighbouring countries have been thus far successfully resisted."

This is quite enough; Mr Van Buren's motives are to be re-elected as president. That is very natural on his part; but how can you expect a people to improve who _never hear the truth_?

Mr Cooper observes, "Monarchs have incurred more hazards from follies of their own that have grown up under the adulation of parasites, than from the machinations of their enemies; and in a democracy, the delusion that still would elsewhere be poured into the ears of the prince, is poured into those of the people."

The same system is pursued by all those who would arrive at, or remain in place and power: and what must be the consequence? that the straight-forward, honourable, upright man is rejected by the people, while the parasite, the adulator, the demagogue, who flatters their opinions, asserts their supremacy, and yields to their arbitrary demands, is the one selected by them for place and power. Thus do they demoralise each other; and it is not until a man has, by his abject submission to their will, in contradiction to his own judgment and knowledge, proved that he is unworthy of the selection which he courts, that he is permitted to obtain it. Thus it is that the most able and conscientious men in the States are almost unanimously rejected.

M. Tocqueville says, "It is a well-authenticated fact, that at the present day the most talented men in the United States are very rarely placed at the head of affairs; and it must be acknowledged that such has been the result in proportion as democracy has outstepped all its former limits: the race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkably in the course of the last fifty years."

Indeed, no high-minded consistent man will now offer himself, and this is one cause among many why Englishmen and foreigners have not done real justice to the people of the United States. The scum is uppermost, and they do not see below it. The prudent, the enlightened, the wise, and the good, have all retired into the shade, preferring to pass a life of quiet retirement, rather than submit to the insolence and dictation of a mob.

M. Tocqueville says, "Whilst the natural propensities of democracy induce the people to reject the most distinguished citizens as its rulers, these individuals are no less apt to retire from a political career, in which it is almost impossible to retain their independence, or to advance without degrading themselves."

Again, "At the present day the most affluent classes of society are so entirely removed from the direction of political affairs in the United States, that wealth, far from conferring a right to the exercise of power, is rather an obstacle than a means of attaining to it. The wealthy members of the community abandon the lists, through unwillingness to contend, and frequently to contend in vain, against the poorest classes of their fellow-citizens. They concentrate all their enjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where they occupy a rank which cannot be assumed in public, and they constitute a private society in the State which has its own tastes and its own pleasures. They submit to this state of things as an irremediable evil, but they are careful not to shew that they are galled by its continuance. It is even not uncommon to hear them laud the delights of a republican government, and the advantages of democratic institutions, when they are in public. Next to hating their enemies, men are most inclined to flatter them. But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious attentions to the preponderating power, it is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The populace is at once the object of their scorn and of their fears. If the maladministration of the democracy ever brings about a revolutionary crisis, and if monarchial constitutions ever become practicable in the United States, the truth of what I advance will become obvious."

It appears, then, that the more respectable portion of its citizens have retired, leaving the arena open to those who are least worthy: that the majority dictate, and scarcely any one ventures to oppose them; if any one does, he is immediately sacrificed; the press, obdient to its masters, pours out its virulence, and it is incredible how rapidly a man, unless he be of a superior mind, falls into nothingness in the United States, when once he has dared to oppose the popular will. He is morally bemired, bespattered, and trod under foot, until he remains a lifeless carcase. He falls, never to rise again, unhonoured and unremembered.