Page images
PDF
EPUB

DESTINY NOT MANIFEST

BY H. M. CHITTENDEN

IN the January Atlantic I discussed certain events in which the course of American history was in accordance with what we have come to speak of in this country as manifest destiny. There are other events of importance in which no such relation existed, or at least was discernible at the time, but rather quite the contrary; and one of these seems of sufficient interest to justify separate consideration. The selection made will no doubt jar the sensibilities of ardent patriots; but they need not worry, for at best it is only a harmless speculation upon what might have been. I was about to use the word idle instead of harmless; but such speculations are really not idle or valueless, impotent though they may be to alter in the slightest degree the record as already made up. Events once enacted are irrevocable; but philosophy assumes that they might have been changed beforehand. The practical value of history is based upon this assumption. It is the fixed belief that mankind, of its own volition, can control events to some extent, which makes it desirable to consult the experience of the past, and justifies speculation as to how the course of history might have been changed to the advantage of the race.

The event which we are about to subject to such speculation is the fundamental fact of United States history. The American Revolution was not in accordance with manifest destiny, but rather in violation thereof. Figuratively speaking, it was a family imbroglio

something which is neither natural nor inevitable. Harsh and oppressive treatment of an offspring by a parent, so that the offspring feels constrained to abandon the parental abode, is a negation of normal tendencies. The natural course of events is the development of the offspring under parental guidance and protection, with growing freedom and independence, eventuating in separation more or less complete, but in an unimpaired maintenance of the filial tie, and possibly in a continuous working relationship.

This was the universal feeling among the American colonists immediately prior to the Revolution. They never sought separation as a thing in itself desirable. It was with genuine grief that they decided to go, and only as a last resort. The affection of the child for the parent was deep and sincere, and nothing but blind and contumacious treatment by the parent could have led to such a step. The colonists knew how valuable to them was an honorable dependence upon the mother-country. They were proud of their ancestry, proud of the history of England, proud of her example of constitutional liberty, and they were reliant upon her for protection and for commercial advantages which could not be had without her. Manifest destiny was that this relation should continue, essentially as it has with Canada, which has practical autonomy in all local matters, but is united to the mothercountry in those interests common to both. Let us assume that Great Britain

had pursued this generous policy, and consider what would have been the course of American history under that hypothesis.

As to territorial expansion, essentially the same acquisitions would have taken place as early as they actually did. That of Alaska is most doubtful, though it might have come with the Crimean War, and, if not, would certainly come with the adjustments of the present European war. British North America would be practically what the United States and Canada are to-day. Of the islands, events could scarcely have failed to lead to the acquisition of Hawaii, with a strong presumption in favor of West Indian acquisitions.

In commercial and industrial development, progress would have been more rapid, orderly, and substantial than it has been in either the United States or Canada. The immense handicap of Great Britain's opposition on the ocean, the loss of our rich West Indian colonial trade, the many years of misunderstanding and commercial paralysis that culminated in the War of 1812, would all have been avoided. There would never have been any destruction of our merchant marine. The development of that common highway, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, so that heavy ocean vessels could reach every port on the Lakes, would long ago have been an accomplished fact. The intricate physical problems connected with the St. Lawrence system would be handled by a single authority instead of by the cumbersome method of joint commissions, which have never yet proved effective so far as any expenditure in actual work is concerned. Intercourse across the border would have been as free as across our state lines. The immense cost of the frontier customs service, the handicap on interchange, the inevitable friction and

estrangement, would all have been absent. At the same time the abounding energy of the whole people would have had freer scope; awkward situations like that created by the Alaska boundary would not exist, and the united evolution of the whole country would have been more normal and effective. The Panama Canal would have been built just the same, doubtless much sooner than it was, and the long diplomatic controversies relating to it would never have taken place.

In political and foreign affairs, the advantages of maintaining the old relation would have been inestimable. The differences which led to the War of 1812 would never have developed, or the persistent spirit of antagonism between the two nations which has disappeared only in this generation. And that most unnecessary and regrettable of all our wars -the War of the Rebellion-how different it would have been! The very foundation upon which the legal fabric of rebellion the right of secession was built would have been non-existent. The South had the logic of the argument on its side in the claim that the Union was a compact from which any state could legally withdraw; but no such right could have been claimed as against the mother-country. Withdrawal would have meant revolution, without any legal justification. On the slavery question, which was, of course, the moving force behind secession, not only would the sentiment of the North have been against it, but that of the mother-country as well. The wholly unnatural sympathy of England with the South which actually did exist during the Civil War would have been with the North. Against such odds the slave power would never have undertaken armed resistance. In some way or other, on an equitable and peaceful basis, emancipation would have been worked out; and the frightful loss of life, the

industrial prostration of the South, the political and social sins of reconstruction, would have been avoided. By any just estimate of cause and effect, as applied to the painful history of the slavery question in this country, the method of settlement finally resorted to was one of those calamities which must be pronounced unnecessary. Manifest destiny did not lead in that direction until after it was violated in the American Revolution.

In that matter which touches our national life more nearly than almost any other, the character of our population, we have undoubtedly been losers by the separation. The mothercountry would certainly have placed some restraint upon the indiscriminate influx of immigrants. When we reflect that, in proportion as immigration has increased, the native birth-rate has declined; that under the earlier birthrate and without immigration our population would have increased as fast as it actually has; that immigration has therefore meant, not growth of population, but displacement of the original stock, a stock to which we still love to refer as the foundation of our national character; when we reflect on these things, the course of our history in this vital matter can bring satisfaction only to the unthinking. With that smug complacency which is one of our chief national weaknesses, we extol the virtues of the great 'American meltingpot,' never pausing to consider that a melting-pot should have intelligent supervision of its ingredients if it is to yield a valuable product. A non-assimilable mixture of good, bad, and indifferent would make a sorry mess in the physical laboratory. Have we any right to assume that it will have a wholly contrary effect in this great national laboratory?

Coming down to the immediate present, when a firmer establishment of

world-peace is becoming one of the greatest objects of human endeavor, consider what an all-controlling factor in the problem would be an actual union of the English-speaking peoples. Its control of the seas would be absolute as against any conceivable combination; and used, as it would be, as the English sea-power for a generation has been, not to prevent the legitimate expansion of trade by any state, but to maintain freedom of intercourse, it would be a power for peace such as it is impossible to look for under existing conditions.

If we study our national history with a frank and open mind, as an impartial outside critic might study it,

we must admit that our separation from the mother-country was not by any means an unmixed blessing. It brought, as the violation of natural relations is always likely to do, many and grave misfortunes in its train. The estranged offspring has indeed grown to a lusty adult, but there is no evidence that its growth has been so well-rounded and harmonious, or even so vigorous and healthy, as it would have been if that estrangement had never taken place.

All this, as we said, is, in a sense, idle speculation, for the past is fixed and immutable. But the imaginary view here given of the reverse side of the picture which enthusiastic patriotism always holds before our eyes, may give us a more rational conception of our relation to the great people from which we sprang. It suggests the hope that some of the blessings which we forfeited by separation may be restored by a union - not, of course, political, but of a nature to deal with those common problems which it seems to be the manifest destiny of the English-speaking peoples to work out together. Could there be any better beginning for a genuine league of peace than a working

agreement between Great Britain and the United States? We talk much of a Pan-American union, but our ties with South America are not, nor can they ever be, so close as are those with England. The natural bond is there, and also the bond of material interest. Into such a union France would inevitably be drawn - France, who helped separate America from England, but who is now a loyal friend to both. A maritime coalition like this would in

sure peace upon the ocean and indirectly promote it upon the land, and would gradually draw other nations into its fold. The remarkable concurrence of events of the times in which we live has made such a beginning of practical world-organization a possibility of this generation. Is it too much to hope that Pan-Anglicism in this twentieth century may permanently heal the sores left by the Anglo-schism of the eighteenth?

MRS. MAXWELL AND THE UNEMPLOYED

BY FLORENCE CONVERSE

THE great idea came to her on the way home from the Unemployed Committee meeting at the Settlement, where she had spent a bewildered afternoon. The committee, enlarging at discretion and in need of funds, had taken her on because she was Mrs. Gilbert Maxwell. But Gilbert's orders had been explicit:

'Don't let the philanthropic sharks get your goat, Posy. If it's the psychology of the unemployed they're after, feed 'em up on my state of mind since the Stock Exchange shut down. But leave your check-book at home.'

Hence, when the committee adjourned, there were still a great many thousand men, including Gilbert, out of work in the city, and the subtle chairman somehow conveyed the impression that this was Posy's fault.

Limousine upholstery cannot cushion a bruised spirit, and the car was creeping snail-fashion through streets clogged with seedy idleness. Dull, envious

eyes, in rows along the curb, watched the very-much-employed chauffeur.

'I know she thinks we might engage another indoor man,' moaned Posy, obsessed by the chairman's displeas ure. 'I just know she does.'

And suddenly, like a Japanese sparkler, the idea coruscated.

It was characteristic of Posy's simplicity that she did not unfold her plan to Gilbert that evening. Experience with the most indulgent of husbands had taught her that the surest way of doing as she liked was to do it first, and to tell him about it afterwards. So when he asked if her committee had solved the problem of the unemployed, she only said, 'How could they, when you would n't let me subscribe anything?' and tried to pretend she saw the joke, because Gilbert laughed.

In the morning, when he had read the war news and cursed the stock market-for those were the early days of the warand had gone down to the

[ocr errors]

street where now there was 'nothing doing,' she sent word belowstairs by Taplow the butler that she wanted to see all the servants in her sitting-room in half an hour.

Taplow looked horribly startled, for him, but he only said, 'Will you 'ave them one at a time, Mrs. Maxwell, or hall at once?'

'Oh, no; not one at a time, Taplow,' said Posy. 'And we shall need two or three more chairs.'

Taplow paused in the doorway. 'Did you say chairs, m'm?' he inquired.

Posy hesitated, blushed, but decided that she had said chairs.

'Has he failed, do you think?' whispered Cook to Nurse, as they creaked upstairs in the wake of the younger, sprightlier servants.

'Well, if he has,' murmured Nurse, 'he's made somethin' out of it. I would n't ask to see a cheerfuler human bein' than kissed the baby good-bye this mornin'. But then, he'd laugh at a funeral; he's that kind.'

'Maybe she's missed somethin',' said the housemaid anxiously. 'She leaves her things around somethin' awful.'

'Well, it's nothing out of the wash that's missing, I tell you that,' the laundress declared truculently. 'I'll bet she's after shifting the work, or expecting me to finish in less than my three days a week, or putting in his collars and cuffs; but I tell you right now, I'll not do them. I-will-not-do-themcollars-and-cuffs.'

'She can't cut my wages and keep me,' the chauffeur remarked succinctly to Taplow, who awaited them at the door of the sitting-room.

'You'll go in first, Mrs. 'Anlon,' said Taplow to Cook, 'and the rest'll follow.'

"Turn to the left around the coffin,' said the chauffeur. He was an American.

'Come in, everybody,' called Posy. 'Come in, Cook, and sit down. I want you all to sit down.'

But when Taplow had marshaled them to chairs, and every eye of dread was turned her way, Posy's well-meaning little heart was smitten with bewildering compunction.

'Oh, don't look so scared!' she cried. 'It's nothing serious!'

It was only that there were thousands and thousands of people out of work in the city. Did they know?

They did. Cook had two nephews living off their mother, and her taking in laundry to support the three of them. Nurse's cousin's husband was that discouraged, had n't he turned to drink? And the housemaid's young man three years they'd been keepin' company, and all his savin's meltin' away since he was laid off. - Posy patted her hand. And my husband,' said the laundress, 'he just sets at home and reads the shipping news, to see if there ain't some chance for him loading to the docks. That's his job, when he works.' And Posy patted her hand, too. And was n't the butler's 'alf brother in England on strike? Munitions 'e made, Jack Johnsons and bums. As for the chauffeur, his ten fingers couldn't count the husky young fellahs, skilled mechanics, every one

'But we can't engage them all,' fluttered Posy. 'I mean, I want to do something about it. Don't you? But Mr. Maxwell's business - he's as unemployed as anybody, since the war. And the New York and New Haven so I must n't ask him to increase expenses now.' Posy's pretty hands went out appealingly. 'But could n't we do something together? What if you and I coöperated? I've thought it out, and if each of you will do with a dollar a week less wages, I will hire another indoor man. Not a trained man for that money, but one who-who is hungry;

« PreviousContinue »