« السابقةمتابعة »
long remove the capital from Washington, so duced Giddings to withdraw them. But he as to be rid of connection with that disgrace. must be punished for his daring. John Minor
When an appropriation of $100,000 was Botts of Virginia at once drew up a series of asked for to remove the Seminoles, Mr. Gid resolutions of censure, which Weller, of Giddings exposed the causes of the Seminole War, dings's own state, offered, moving the previous which were rooted in slavery and in the aid question, the adoption of which would cut off given to it by the general government. Mr. any defense on the part of Mr. Giddings. No Adams's Diary speaks of this speech, with its opportunity was given him, and under the predocumentary proofs, as an “ exquisite torture vious question the vote of censure was passed of the Southern duelists and slave-mongers," by 125 to 69. Mr. Giddings promptly rewho, at its close, insulted Giddings as much as signed, appealed to the people of his district, possible by abusive language, Black of Georgia and was reëlected. But the ordinary course and Waddy Thompson of South Carolina tak of business was altered for one year to keep ing the lead. Giddings retorted with spirit. him from offering his resolutions again. The speech was circulated extensively at the One thing more could be done. One NorthNorth, with great effect.
ern member, Cilley of Maine, had been murThe next attempt to crush the outspoken dered in a duel by Graves of Kentucky and Northerner was connected with the Creole Case. Wise of Virginia, having been shot after both A coasting ship, the Creole, with 130 slaves, seconds had urged that the duel should cease. was going (Nov. 1841) from Virginia to New As Mr. Giddings would not accept a challenge, Orleans, when the slaves rose upon the whites, a collision must be had in which he could be killed one man, and took the vessel to Nassau murdered. Only a few were in this scheme, where they were free by British laws. Mr. for only a few of the Southerners were bullies. Webster, Secretary of State, demanded that After Giddings had spoken on the coastwise the negroes be delivered to the United States. slave-trade, Dawson of Louisiana passing him Senators and others declared that if England gave him a violent push, which he recognized should fail to restore them, the United States with the exclamation, “ Dawson!” would have reason to declare war. Webster
" That member turned around and seized the handle carried his servility so far as to say to En of a bowie-knife which partially protruded from his gland, what he knew to be false, that the slaves bosom, and immediately advanced toward Giddings unwere property under the Constitution of the til within striking distance, when Giddings said, look
ing him in the eye, Did you push me in that rude United States. Mr. Giddings was indignant
manner?' He answered, Yes.' •For the purpose of at this attempt to nationalize slavery. He pre insulting me?' 'Yes,' said Dawson, as he partially repared resolutions which affirmed the local rights moved the knife from the scabbard. Giddings rejoined, of the Slave States, but declared that slave No gentleman will wantonly insult another. I have laws could not by state law be extended to the
no more to say to you, but turn you over to public con
tempt, as incapable of insulting an honorable man.' By high seas, and hence did not cover the Creole
this time Mr. Moore of Louisiana and other members on her voyage. But the glove was thrown in seized Dawson and took him from the hall. ... It the face of the Southern representatives by the was generally believed that Dawson intended to proseventh and eighth resolutions.
voke a blow from Giddings which would have served as (7) “ That the persons on board said ship, in resum
an excuse for assassination.” ing their natural rights to liberty, violated no law of the This was on February 14, 1843. Two years United States, incurred no legal penalties, and are
later, Dawson reappears in the same characjnstly liable to no punishment." (8) “ That all attempts to regain possession of or to
ter. Giddings had spoken on an appropriare-enslave said persons are unauthorized by the constitu- tion bill and exposed some Georgians who tion or laws of the United States, and are incompatible had obtained enormous sums for indefinable with our national honor.”
constructive losses. Black of Georgia replied The resolutions were presented March 21, with vile personalities, saying, among other 1842, and twice read, the second time amidst things, that Giddings would be in the penitenthe closest attention. Their audacity was as tiary, as he deserved, if the House could send tounding. Everett of Vermont moved to lay him there; and he added two false charges, them on the table, and expressed his “utter which involved the honor of Mr. Giddings. abhorrence of the fire-brand course of the gen Giddings replied, and referred to the fact that tleman from Ohio.” Fessenden of Maine, Mil Black had been discarded by his constituents, lard Fillmore, and others, wished to avoid an as unworthy, after one election. Black adimmediate debate and vote upon them, and in- / vanced on Giddings with a cane raised to
strike, and cried, “ If you repeat those words of " the time when I may lay aside the cares I will knock you down !” Giddings imme- and responsibilities of public life, and making diately repeated the words. But Black's | my bow to the people, I may be allowed to refriends caught him in their arms and carried tire from the arena of strife and danger to the him off.
bosom of my family.” “Giddings continued his remarks, when Mr. Dawson | Mr. Adams was in a similar tired and hopeof Louisiana, who had assaulted him on a previous oc less condition. As chairman of a special comcasion, came across the hall within a few yards of him,
mittee on rules of the House, he had prepared and placing his hands in his pocket, said “I'll shoot him, by G-d! I'll shoot him!' at the same time taking
a code without the famous twenty-first or care to cock his pistol so as to have the click heard by “gag” rule, when this incident occurred : those around him. Mr. Causin, a Whig from Maryland,
“Giddings relates that during the progress of this instantly took his position in front of Giddings and be
debate, on entering the hall one morning he found Mr. tween him and Dawson, folding his arms across his
Adams greatly burdened in mind. His appearance breast with his right hand apparently resting upon the
indicated the loss of sleep. He declared that our handle of his weapon; while Mr. Sliddell of Louisiana
government had become the most perfect despotism and Mr. Stiles of Georgia, with two other Democratic
of the Christian world; that he was physically disqualimembers, at the same moment took their position near
fied to contend longer for the floor; and that he must Dawson. . . . At the same time, Kenneth Raynor, a
leave the vindication of his report to Giddings, as duty North Carolina Whig, fully armed, took his place on the
to himself forbade further attempt on his part. He left of Giddings, while Mr. Hudson of Massachusetts
said he had indulged the hope of living to see the gagplaced himself on his right, and Mr. Foot of Vermont
rule abrogated; but he now considered this doubtful.” at the entrance of the aisle through which Black had made his exit. With armed foes in front and friends Giddings soon fulfilled the old man's wish ; on either hand, Giddings continued his remarks; but the and in the following December (1844) Mr. slave-holders in front began to realize the awkwardness
Adams's customary motion to strike out that of their position, and quietly returned to their seats, except Dawson, who remained until Giddings closed his
rule prevailed by a vote of 108 to 80. speech, Causin facing him. ... Giddings ... says
The relation of these two mighty men to that this was the last effort made to silence a member each other was at first that of friendship and of the House by violence during his service in Congress.” coöperation ; but it grew to be a love like that
We have cited these incidents to show what of Jonathan and David — or, perhaps it is betneed there was of the highest moral and phys ter to say, like that of father and son. It ical courage on the part of Anti-slavery repre found frequent expression in words and deeds. sentatives. They needed to be men who Comrades in what seemed like a desperate, al“ looked rather to the day of judgment than most hopeless battle, they had soon in public to the day of election.” Only two of them, life the same friends, the same foes, the same Adams and Giddings, were returned term hopes and fears for their country, and the after term by appreciative constituencies. As same plans for its future welfare and security. we read their lives, we cannot wonder that No sadder mourner than Giddings followed they tired of their burdens, fell into hopeless- the body of the old man eloquent to its grave ness, and wished to retire from political life. in Quincy. This mood of mind came upon Giddings in But when Adams departed, the prospect 1842, after the censure had been passed upon was already brighter. The group of defendhim and before his first encounter with Daw ers of liberty in Senate and House was growson. Accordingly he wrote to the editor of ing, and soon included Chase, Hale, Sumner, the “ Ashtabula Sentinel,” requesting him to Wilmot, Preston King, Allen, Durkee, Julian, announce his withdrawal. Instead of doing Howe, Root, and Tuck, all able and brave that, Mr. Fassett summoned friends of Mr. men. And though there came the dark time Giddings and of the cause, who persuaded him of the compromises of 1850, the Fugitive-Slave to continue in the service of the people. In Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, it was this they were aided by the congratulatory let- plain that the tide of love of Freedom was ters and addresses which came to him from rising to an irresistible flood. Giddings's hopevarious sources, and which showed that his fulness and his faith in humanity found inwork was not only appreciated, but effective creasing reasons for their existence. He did in advancing the cause of freedom. However not live to see the end of the war, though it much like a warrior he has seemed in scenes was plainly approaching when he died, May we have sketched, he loved peace; only love of 27, 1864, while he was consul at Montreal; justice drove him into conflict. In a letter of his heart failed suddenly, and in eight minutes this time to his wife, he speaks with longing he was dead.
In this review of Mr. Julian's excellent bio- Since Dr. Mivart's philosophy is avowedly graphy of this hero of the great struggle, it based on science, the first step in an examinahas been impossible to give even a sketch of tion of his thought is naturally to c the large amount of work done by Mr. Gid- scientific views. His attitude toward modern dings with tongue and pen, or to show how theories is well known, and the teaching of this his reputation grew and honors were heaped book is the same as that of his “Genesis of upon him : for these things we refer to the book. Species.” He defines " evolution ” as “the unIt has seemed better to show something of the folding from potential into real existence of condangers and difficulties that beset the political stantly new forms of animals and plants”: a opponents of slavery from 1838 to 1848, and formula which recalls Aristotle's theory that to present the hero since we could not show matter exists only potentially, attaining actual the full man. The younger and the middle- being solely through form. In harmony with aged men of to-day know of the Civil War and such conceptions, Dr. Mivart holds that speits great men ; but only by reading lives of Gid cies originate by the operation of " innate law, dings and his co-workers can they see where modified by the subordinate action of Natural the greater battles of freedom were fought. The Selection.” His disbelief in the adequacy of greatest task was to stir the nation to see the natural selection to explain the differentiation dangers that threatened our liberties of thought, of species is connected with his conception of speech, and political action. No American human reason as an isolated fact, not to be reshould be ignorant of our critical periods, among ferred to any antecedents in sensation, however which we must include those shameful days. remote. His denial of reason and the moral
A few words on the book itself. It is ad sense in animals practically begs the question, mirable as to paper and type, so that it is easy since the point is not, of course, whether these to read and pleasant to the eye. We have faculties are actually developed in animals, but found no misprint. The publishers are to be whether they do not possess such rudiments of congratulated on their share of the work, and them as may be safely considered an adequate Mr. Julian on his successful authorship. basis for their higher development in man. SAMUEL WILLARD.
The distinction between “ degree” and “ kind” of intelligence seems merely assumed.
Yet even on his own ground, Dr. Mivart's
logic is open to criticism. Thus, he makes selfTHE PRINCIPLES OF MODERN MEDIÆ. VALISM.*
consciousness the basis of true rationality, de
claring that no animal has this. But elsewhere In a leading Roman Catholic journal, Dr.
he says that no true memory can exist in a creaSt. George Mivart explained, some years ago,
ture devoid of true self-consciousness," definthat he had not assumed the position of Cath
ing two kinds of “true memory," "one in which olic apologist in the arena of biological sci
the will intervenes, and which may be spoken ence” on his own responsibility, but “in a
of as recollection, and the other in which it spirit of obedience.” He is thus a man with a
does not, and which may be termed reminismessage ; and in whatever estimation this may
cence.” All unconscious psychical accompanibe held, it is impossible not to admire the pa
ments of automatically repeated actions, or of tient persistency with which, led by conviction,
organic habits, are expressly excluded from the he continues to explore the same ground and
definition. But nothing is more certain about arrive at the same conclusions, — hoping, evi
animals psychologically than that they do condently, by many metaphysical droppings to
sciously remember, in the second, at least, of wear away even the stony hearts of the agnos
these two ways ; so that, according to Dr. tic school. His two somewhat ponderous vol
Mivart's statement, they must possess true selfumes of “Essays and Criticisms” deal, in a
consciousness. Again, in denying reasoning more or less popular way, with a wide range
powers in animals, he observes, àpropos of of subjects, which may be classified, for the
ideas of number: purpose of review, as scientific, philosophical,
“The real gulf lies between the animal able to ethical and religious, and political. Of so ex
count two [the savage] and the animal not able to tensive a survey, of course only the briefest and count at all. The difference between being able to most fragmentary criticism can be attempted. count two and having the integral calculus at one's
fingers' ends is but a difference of degree.” * ESSAYS AND CRITICISMS. By St. George Mivart, F.R.S. In two volumes. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
That this is a dangerous admission is proved
by the anecdote cited from Galton by Sir John Lubbock :
“Once while I watched a Dammara floundering hopelessly in a calculation on one side of me, I observed Dinah, my spaniel, equally embarrassed on the other. She was overlooking half a dozen of her newborn puppies [to see if any were missing]. . . . She kept puzzling and running her eyes over them, backwards or forwards, but could not satisfy herself. She evidently had a vague notion of counting, but the figure was too large for her. Taking the two as they stood, dog and Dammara, the comparision reflected no great honor on the man.”
The arguments with regard to the lack of language among animals are equally unsatisfactory, especially since Mr. Garner has succeeded in identifying definite words of the monkey tongue. Another criticism that may be made of Dr. Mivart's treatment of the subject of brute intelligence is that he considered only the two departments of sensation and reason, leaving that of emotion quite unnoticed. But certainly the emotions of affection and gratitude, so common among the higher animals, are a true link between them and humanity. As for the moral sense, the appendix on “ Judyism” to Spencer's “Justice” ought to convince any unprejudiced mind that some animals possess at least a rudimentary morality. How many persons have known some creature like Matthew Arnold's dog Geist, into whose short years were crowded “all that life and all that love,” a “ loving heart” and “patient soul”; a being so distinct in personality that not all the infinite resource of nature
“Can ever quite repeat the past,
Or just thy little self restore.” Dr. Mivart's system of evolution is certainly well adapted to spare certain theological prejudices. The value of the theory may be questioned, however, after the controlling idea of constant unbroken development has been changed for that of a mere physical continuity existing throughout a series of predetermined stages, isolated by unfathomable gaps between inorganic beings, the “ vegetative," the “ ani. mal,” and the “ rational ” souls. As Mr. Leslie Stephen has observed, “Creation' is really nothing but a name for leaving off thinking, and giving to cessation of thought a positive name.” Dr. Mivart's well-known contention that the theory of evolution not only is in perfect harmony with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but was actually anticipated, in a way, by some of her early theologians, is certainly well calculated to exasperate his rationalistic opponents. Dispassionate observers will be likely to consider his process of thought
analogous to the misleading habit of much modern liberalism in another field, so acutely described by Sir Frederick Pollock in his “ Jurisprudence and Ethics”:
“Just as the law which is enounced in deciding a new case is by an inevitable fiction conceived as having always been the law, so the moral rules proceeding from the invisible and informal judgment-seat of righteous men, which yet is more powerful than any prince or legislator, are referred to doctrines originally based on a far narrower foundation."
The papers on Spencer and Lotze are chiefly vehicles for the conveyance of Dr. Mivart's
Y own philosophical creed. An important point of this is his denial of the “ relativity of knowledge" doctrine. He argues that if all our knowledge is relative and phenomenal, the proposition which asserts the fact must share the same limitations. “ It has no absolute value, does not correspond with objective reality, and is therefore false.” The italicised words are rather astonishing. They show a confusion of two very distinct ideas : the denial that we can know objective reality, and the denial that objective reality is what it appears to be. The former proposition alone could accurately be called agnosticism. But Dr. Mivart speaks, later, of Spencer's system as one " which asserts that neither extension, nor figure, nor number, is in reality what it appears, or that the objective connections amongst these properties are what they seem to us to be." Yet he goes on in the same sentence to quote Spencer's words: “What we are conscious of as properties of matter ... are but subjective affections produced by objective agencies which are unknown and unknowable.” “What we are conscious of " is by no means to be identified with objective "extension, figure, and number.”
Dr. Mivart objects also to the doctrine of the conservation of energy, on the ground that it savors of realism (in the ancient sense, as opposed to nominalism), energy being apparently conceived as a real entity apart from its special manifestations. He observes in another place that even these are “ in themselves nothing but abstractions of the mind. There is no such thing as heat' or as “motion’; though of course there are numberless warm bodies," etc. Yet in the essay called “ Why Tastes Differ," he seeks to establish the idea of absolute - goodness," " truth,” and “ beauty," as actual entities, regardless of the fact that in consistency he should find these qualities only in particulars. But the way of the believer in innate ideas is hard. Dr. Mivart's
favorite theory of prototypal ideas " is most solute and supreme, if it is impossible even to consuspiciously realistic. Like St. Thomas Aqui. ceive an evasion of its universal and unconditional
authority, then the ethical principle must be rooted, as nas, he would maintain that the ideas or
it were, within the inmost heart, in the very foundathoughts of things in the divine mind, antece.
tion, so to speak, of the great whole of existence which dent to creation, were unirerealia ante rem." it pervades. The principles of the moral law must be * The teaching of what we believe to be true at least as extrnsive and enduring as are those starry philosophy," he says, " is that the types
heavens which shared with it the profound reverence of
Kant." shadowed forth to our intellects by material existences are copies of divine originals, which
The supremacy of ethics could not be asserted respond to prototypal ideas in God."
in a nobler spirit; and the same lofty concepDr. Mivart, of course, asserts the freedom
tion pervades the paper on - The Meaning of
Life." of the will; and this point leads to the consider. ation of his ethical and religious views. - Fully
There is a saying related of a certain Amer. maintaining that atheists generally are not only
ican political scholar: - The State is an organin error but culpable," he is horrified at Pro
ism -- but keep it dark!” Dr. Mivart's retifessor Huxley's saying that the necessity of a
cence is not so great, as he devotes several belief in a personal God, in order to a religion
pages to the exposition of the familiar physioworthy of the name, is a matter of personal
logical parallel. One is more grateful for his opinion." He himself once defines God as the
protest against the metaphysical conception of concrete infinity," -- a quite overwhelming
the State as an actual Ding an sich, and not term. He seeks to show an anthropomorphic
merely as a name for " the nation in its col. deity legislating in behalf of an anthropocen.
lective and corporate character," to use one of trie universe. God has willed that the lower
Matthew Arnold's aptly-chosen phrases. His animals should minister to man, to whose care,
own theory of the State, however, is not clearly he has entrusted them. The highest motive 1 defined, and there seems to be some inconsistfor the cultivation of art and science" is, ency in
science" is, ency in the different views of social organization " their cultivation for God's sake." The utility
itility' which he puts forth. For instance, adopting the of a reëstablished Benedictine abbey is set
idea of the subdivision of labor, he observes that forth thus:
* class distinctions must, if we are not to re- No thoughtful man, while admiring the beanties of
i trograde, hereafter increase in number, and our erration, or enjoying the multifold benefits which social condition become, in a certain sense, an spring from the harmonious coördination of its parts increasingly divided one." It is not quite and powers, can but feel impressed with the insuffi- ' easy to see how an increase of class distineciency of his own acts of grateful recognition and rev. tions is to be harmonized with even the qualierent homage. To one so impressed, the knowledge cannot be unwelcome that there is a new community
fied - liberty, equality, and fraternity" which of men in the land, whose whole lives are set apart to he elsewhere advocates. He even glows over atone for and supply the neglects of others."
the social contract theory, very justly reaHappy England! since, while the numbers of soning: her criminals and slums are still undiminished, But, because the theory is false historually, is it a company of men can be found willing to de. , necessarily devoid of all value? Have on this account vote their lives to the sufficient object of
its many eloquent and philanthropic advocates written
or declaimed altogether in vain? ... By no means. making up the arrears of national thanksgiv- False as an historical fact, it is a pregnant truth as an ing! Worse than these crudities is the ques ideal for the future. What else, indeed, is all constitution, in a paper on National Education," tional government but an approximation towards such * What harm can be done by reinforcing mor.
an ideal ?" ality by religious sanctions ?" Dr. Mivart, An ideal, it may be added, after which our own however, does not really believe that morality government was, to a considerable extent, conis reinforced by sanctions, and proves in an- sciously framed. Dr. Mivart, however, does other essay ("Why Tastes Differ") that the not admire our methods. He opposes governremark quoted is but a passing inconsistency. ' ment by the masses, and demands the repre
* Some religious persons will probably say that the sentation of interests, not of numbers. Per* goodness of anything depends on the will of God. haps an increased familiarity with the work. ... But in our perception of duty and moral obliga ings of Tammany and its compeers would tion we recognize that it addresses conscience with an essentially alsolute and unconditional imperativeness.
lead him to regard us as rapidly approaching ... But if .goones' cannot be dependent even on this political summum bonum. For the pres. the will of God, if the commands of conscience are ab- ent we must be grateful for the mildness of