Читать книгу Confederate Military History - Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry - Страница 8

In one important respect the history of the United States differs from the history—transcends the history—of any other great power of the world. Its boundaries have never receded. It is true, indeed, that some of the great powers have gained important territorial acquisitions, and have lost others; their boundary lines advancing and receding. At certain points of their history they may have claimed that their boundaries had never receded. This statement is now true of no great power except the United States.¹

This is a fact of deep significance. It refutes the theory formerly so prevalent in Europe, and entertained to some extent in America, that a vast confederated republic could not possess cohesive force sufficient to hold its several parts together. Yet experience has shown that the United States, alone of all the great powers of the world, has preserved intact all the territory it has ever acquired.

In another respect American history is distinctive. Every great war in which the United States has ever been engaged, has been accompanied by a large acquisition of territory. Although we have grown to greatness, like ‘the great robber, Rome,’ by successive wars and successive acquisitions of territory, yet these wars have not been undertaken for the purpose of foreign conquest. Such a purpose has never been charged against the United States except in the case of the Mexican war.

These several wars, accompanied by acquisitions of territory, have been so interspersed along our history, that they form the true key of our chronology. Not the successive presidential administrations, bat the successive epochs of growth in the acquisition of territory, and the corresponding eras of development in the assimilation of the territory acquired, form the true principle upon which the history of the United States should be studied and written.

Whether these several wars and acquisitions shall be viewed as connected by the relation of cause and effect, or as forming a chain of remarkable coincidence, it is certain that an examination of the territorial map, in connection with a table of dates, will verify the chronological sequence.

1. The Revolutionary war, practically closing in 1781 with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, was formally terminated in 1783 by the treaty of Paris, confirming the title to our original territory, and defining its limits.

2. The war with France is sometimes omitted from the list of wars, on account of its short duration and its distance from American shores. War, however, actually existed, and had an important influence upon foreign relations: Peace was restored by the convention of September 30, 1800. On the next day, October 1, 1800, France acquired Louisiana, by retrocession from Spain. April 30, 1803, Louisiana was ceded to the United States.

3. Our next war, growing out of the purchase of Louisiana, and a logical sequence of the transaction, was the second war with Great Britain, closing in 1815 with the brilliant battle of New Orleans. As a corollary, came the complications with Spain and the Indian wars leading up to the treaty of Washington, made between John Quincy Adams and Don Luis de Onis, February 22, 1819. By this treaty the United States acquired Florida, and the cession of all ‘rights, claims and pretensions’ of Spain to the territory of Oregon.

4. Next came the Mexican war, preceded in 1845 by the acquisition of Texas, and followed in 1848 by the Mexican cessions under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and in 1853 by the Gadsden purchase. In 1846, the treaty with Great Britain decided the northern boundary of Oregon.

5. Last came the Civil war, fought among ourselves, certainly not undertaken for any purpose of foreign conquest, yet attended by the uniform result of all our wars. It closed in 1865, and was followed in 1867 by the acquisition of Alaska.

In this policy of territorial expansion, the South was the leading factor. It is one of the contributions which the South as a section of the Union, and as a factor in its upbuilding, has given to the United States. Historians have not chosen to emphasize this fact. It is written, however, in the records of the nation, and cannot be successfully denied. This treatise will be devoted to demonstrate its truth.

Before entering upon the discussion, attention is invited to the consideration of several important points which the student of American history is apt to overlook, but which are essential elements to a clear comprehension of the territorial growth, and to an unbiased judgment of the forces which have been the factors in building the Union. The digression will, also, serve to indicate to the reader that this work is not conceived in a partisan spirit.

1. While it is true, that the ‘broad Atlantic’ rolls between America and Europe, apparently separating the United States from the great powers of the world; yet, nearly every important era or turning point in our history has been more or less affected by the condition of affairs in Europe. This fact is conspicuously illustrated in our acquisitions of territory. Our territorial growth reveals the hand of destiny, and was made possible only by the coincidence of peculiar conditions in America and Europe, affording opportunities which our ancestors might seize, but could not create.

2. Territorial expansion was the foundation of American power and greatness. From the beginning of history to the present time, no country ever exerted a controlling power over the world until it had acquired a wide extent of territory. Greece, while a little peninsula, jutting out into the Mediterranean, did, indeed, possess a population of genius and intelligence, affording light to herself and her neighbors; but she did not reach power and control until after her fleets traversed the Mediterranean, until finally her conquering phalanx swept over the known world, and Alexander wept because there were no more worlds to conquer. Her sister peninsula, Rome, stretching likewise out into the Mediterranean, exerted no controlling influence until her victorious legions had carried the Roman eagles under Scipio into Africa, under Pompey into Asia, under Caesar into Gaul and Britain; subduing a wider world than Alexander had conquered, and reaching the ultima thule. The same is true of Asiatic domination. The empire of Charlemagne, Spanish domination, French domination, rose and fell with the gain and loss of territory. What power did the English race possess while confined to the British Isles? Britain's greatness began when her navy won the dominion of the seas, and placed upon her masthead, ‘Britannia rules the wave.’ Then came the spreading of her territory until now, in the language of Daniel Webster, her ‘morning drum-beat, following the sun and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of the martial airs of England.’

No nation has reached, or can reach power and greatness, until it rests upon the strong foundation of a wide extent of territory. Had the United States been confined to the limits proposed at the treaty of Paris, accepting the Alleghany mountains for its western boundary, or the Ohio river for its northern boundary; had its progress been arrested at the Mississippi river or at the Florida line; this country might have become a prosperous and happy people, but it would not have been a great and powerful nation. With due respect for the opinions of those who opposed the territorial expansion, experience now enables us to point out their error of judgment, and all should rejoice that the wiser policy prevailed.

3. It is idle to disguise the fact that this country is divided by natural laws into geographical sections differing in soil, climate and domestic interests. ‘Let there be no North, no South, no East, no West,’ is a figure of speech used to convey the sentiment that there should be no hostility between the sections. In its figurative sense, this is a patriotic expression worthy of all praise. Taken literally, it would be an absurd protest against the laws of nature. The State lines are political and may be changed. The geographical divisions are natural and ineffaceable. Although the irritating cause, slavery, has been removed, yet other causes remain which must ever render the sections geographically distinct, and must lead to conflicts of interest. Stronger causes bind them together, and enforce conciliation and compromise.

This division into geographical sections need not be deplored by the patriot, and cannot be disguised by the historian. It constitutes the peculiar strength of American institutions. These differences of interest are implanted by nature and must exist whether the several sections are organized into separate nations, or united under one government. Wide extent of territory involves the union of these several sections under better safeguards for the protection of their conflicting interest than could be obtained under separate governments. No lover of mankind could wish to see them united upon the plan of the spoliation of one section, or the neglect of its interests, for the aggrandizement of the other sections.

Our ancestors did not rush into union blindly. They pondered deeply and cautiously, often hesitating over the questions at issue. Gradually and firmly there grew up an abiding confidence in the benevolence, moderation and good faith of the several States and sections. A confederated republic, with its limitations and ‘checks and balances,’ was the result. The Union was built by many factors. No one factor could have built it; neither the North, nor the South, nor the East, nor the West. It needed the distinctive genius of each, and the combined energy of all. No similar spectacle of national development has ever been presented to the world; so vast, so excellent, so progressive, so permanent. Even its internal struggles are evidences of its strength, and its powers of recuperation prove its healthy constitution.

Every step in the formation, growth and preservation of the Union has been almost a historical miracle. It is wonderful that thirteen separate and independent sovereignties, scattered over a wide extent of territory, should voluntarily unite themselves under one government. It is no less wonderful that such a union should survive the reaction of local jealousies and conflicting interests in the earlier periods, when no effort at coercion would have been entertained.

The first century of national government witnessed many tests of the relative strength of its centrifugal and centripetal forces. In the first reaction, in the early periods of the government, there were minor insurrections. They were easily quelled. As the government progressed, there were serious conflicts of interest and opinion, leading to fierce political strife, and ending in concession and compromise. The territorial acquisitions, becoming alternately the cause and effect of political contests, and complicated with questions of foreign policy, have applied the most severe tests to the centrifugal and centripetal forces of the Union. Questions growing out of the organization of acquired territory disturbed the federal relations when about to settle into quiet and routine. Each section in turn became dissatisfied, and threatened secession. The South, although making an early protest, was the last section to threaten secession, and the only section to carry its threats into execution. The Civil war applied the crucial test, and almost broke the cohesion of the parts. The South, which had made so many sacrifices to establish the Union, was required to make fresh sacrifices for its restoration.

The equilibrium of these forces could not have been maintained, or when disturbed, could not have been restored, without the constant operation of a silent force, operating upon the minds of men unexpressed, sometimes unconsciously, but always controlling the hearts of the American people. It was the same centripetal force which held together the thirteen sparsely settled colonies and enabled them, without constitution or government, to contend successfully against the greatest power of the world on land and sea, to win the battles of the Revolution and the liberties of America. It was the same force which attracted together the scattered elements, and organized them into a confederated republic, which brought to the Union prosperity and expansion, and which has made the United States the only great power whose boundaries have never receded.

This force is the sentiment, deep-seated in the heart of every American, the feeling of American brotherhood, a love for the American system of government, and confidence in American institutions. This sentiment led to the magnanimous cession by Virginia of the Northwest Territory, appeasing jealousy and establishing the confederation. It brought the reluctant state, Rhode Island, finally to ratify the Constitution, controlled the West in the crisis of the Spanish intrigues, restrained New England at the Hartford convention, and made the Confederate soldier ‘love the Star Spangled Banner while he fought it.’ This sentiment led to the offer and acceptance of honorable terms of surrender, and to the restoration of peace, and now disposes the hearts of the American people to recall the Civil war with emotions of national pride, rather than sectional malice.

This war did, indeed, arouse deep passions, and threatened to implant sectional animosities which time could never heal, but it was fought on questions of principle and public policy; it did not spring from feelings of mutual antipathy. During its progress, resentments were aroused, but the sentiment of American brotherhood was never destroyed, and feelings of fixed hatred were not engendered. The American people belong to a race of strong passions, but not of sullen temper. They belong to the great Anglo-Saxon-Norman race, the race of heroes, of warriors and of statesmen. After the conquering races had commingled their blood in the British Isles, the nursing ground of the heroic English race, their descendants began to spread over the world, and have everywhere been its leaders. The Southern people inherit the strong passions of their ancestors. They know how to love, how to hate and how to forgive. They could be bound permanently to no country by humiliating ties. The only ties which can bind people of English blood are the ties of love and pride. The Southern people love American institutions, and they are educating their children to be patriots.

If any one doubts the patriotism of the Southern people, let him visit their schools, and listen to the lessons which they teach their children, or let him attend the annual reunions held by the soldiers who fought the Confederate battles. Here are some of their expressions, taken from the report of the committee on history, unanimously adopted by the United Confederate Veteran Association at its annual reunion at Richmond, Va., June 30, 1896:

‘Our children and our children's children, trained by us to sentiments of patriotism, will grow up with love and admiration for the institutions of the United States —those munificent institutions to which their fathers have contributed so much.’ Referring to the Confederate soldier: ‘He surrendered as the brave surrender. His surrender meant peace and conciliation.’ * * * ‘He returned to the Union as an equal, he has remained in the Union as a friend. With no humble apologies, no unmanly servility, no petty spite, no sullen treachery, he is a cheerful, frank citizen of the United States, accepting the present, trusting the future, and proud of the past.’ * * * ‘He must love some country, and he has no other country to love.’ * * * ‘He learned to love that flag when he was a boy. He loved it even when he fought it.’ * * * Referring to the Confederate historian the report says: ‘Then let the Confederate historian be like his model, the Confederate soldier. He must be patriotic, for he is representing the cause of patriots. He must be candid, for a partisan work will not live in history, and will fail to convince the world.’ * * ‘He must be bold and fearless, but always liberal. He must be eloquent, for he is dealing with a lofty theme—the most gigantic internal struggle which history records—the grandest contribution which the nineteenth century has made to human greatness—America's proudest title to martial glory. He is painting for future ages the picture of that eventful epoch, whose memories are the joint heritage of all Americans, and which is destined to occupy in American history the pathetic place which the Wars of the Roses now occupy in the annals of England, and in the hearts of Englishmen.’ Such are the sentiments expressed by Confederate soldiers. Has the great centripetal force, the sentiment of American brotherhood, the love for the American system of government, and confidence in American institutions, yet lost its power over the hearts of the American people?

There is one irritating cause, too petty to exert any controlling influence, but which tends to keep alive passions which war and political strife have failed to perpetuate. A class of partisan writers have attempted to ignore the South as a factor in American institutions, and persist in representing the Southern section as inferior or hostile to the other sections, and have even stained the page of history by false pictures of its people, representing them as drones in the national hive, ungrateful participants in the blessings which other sections have conferred. Such writers deserve rebuke at the North as well as at the South. Their partisan coloring fades in the light of facts. The patriot who loves his country is just to all its sections, and finds in its history abundant reason to rejoice that each factor has performed a distinctive part in its upbuilding.

The above digression, it is hoped, will indicate to the reader that a cordial admiration for the joint work of all the sections in building the greatest nation of the world, is in harmony with an analysis of the distinctive work of each.

A calm review of the development of the United States cannot fail to disclose to the candid mind that the South was the leading factor in promoting the territorial expansion, at each period of acquisition, unless the acquisition of Alaska be excepted.

This discussion must be sectional, as it is written in vindication of a particular section; it must also be national, since it deals with that section as one of the factors of the nation; it must be patriotic as well, for it relates the history of patriotic devotion and sacrifice. If any apology were needed, it would be found in the fact that this distinctive work of the South, although no new discovery, has not received due recognition. This is not surprising. The sections whose genius has made them leaders in commerce, manufactures and internal improvements, while contributing to the greatness of the whole country, have in the same work built up their own wealth. The evidences are visible on their soil, and attract the eye of the observer. They may be verified in statistics, population, products and tax lists. The results of the Southern policy of territorial expansion have accrued to the whole country, but have left no mark or memento on Southern soil. The controversies to which the organization of the several territorial acquisitions has given rise, have been mingled with collateral questions, leading to the slavery agitation, and culminating in the Civil war.

These collateral questions have been of such immediate and absorbing interest as to divert attention from the due consideration of the causes and effects of the several acquisitions. Discussion has been directed rather to the contests which arose over the assimilation of the territory acquired, its organization into States, and the relations of the new States to the contending political parties. In the contest for control of the acquired territory, the South was outstripped in the race, and its agency in the acquisition has been ignored. Let us now consider each acquisition in chronological order.