صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

case, they are quite willing to give others an opportunity of serving their country better than they, if they can do it; or if the majority of the nation think they can. If they do not withdraw in this manner, we are convinced that it is because they have been dissuaded from it by men who are capable of appreciating their services. It is true, that there may be no need for the navy for some time to come, but we have already paid far too dearly for the lesson that it is not when war has actually broken out we should prepare our fleets for active service.

Be this as it may, at no period of our history has it been more important that our finances should be skilfully managed than it is at present; and who has the necessary abilities, experience, and integrity to manage them in such a manner as to enable us to return to specie payments without creating a revulsion, or injuring the national credit, and, consequently, the national honour, if Mr. McCulloch retires? We really do not know one, save Mr. Chase, whose position precludes him from returning to the Treasury. Mr. Fessenden is, indeed, honest and upright, and is by no means an indifferent political economist, but we confess we have not much faith in his financial theories.

There are, however, two cabinet officers whose retirement, or removal, would be no serious loss to the nation namely, the Secretary of State, and the PostmasterGeneral. Mr. Seward has never proved himself a states

man.

cian.

The best that could be said of him in his palmiest days was, that he was a wily and not very reliable politiDuring the war he was constantly blundering; he never was able to comprehend the position in which the country was placed. Had he been a man of a different calibre had he possessed even ordinary political foresagacity, and known how to avail himself of it,

sight or

the Southern Confederacy would never have been recognised by any of the great nations of Europe as a belligerent power. He really encouraged France and England to do what they did by his quibbles and prevarications. The manner in which he wavered from day to day-flatly contradicting in one long letter, what he positively asserted, or maintained as an "eternal principle," in anothermade most of the nations of Europe think that the fate of Republic was sealed. Indeed, we narrowly escaped being involved by him in a war with France and Eng

the

land.

It is true, however, that Mr. Seward evinced consid

erable capacity, but not in statesmanship, or even in politics; he proved himself an excellent, though rather tyrannical, police officer. Even Fouché was not more prompt, or more cunning in making arrests. By his accomplishments in this department he rendered some of our forts nearly as celebrated as the French Bastile; but as there is nothing of this kind to be done now, at least in the North, Mr. Seward's services can be dispensed with for the remainder of President Johnson's term. Then with the leisure for thought thus afforded him for seven or eight months he might be able to alter his views to such an extent that he could be a thorough Radical or Democrat, as the case might be, by the fourth of March, and consequently be able to serve his country, without injuring his conscience, under the new régime.

We do not know whether Mr. Randall possesses equal facility in altering his principles to suit the times; we rather think not, however: what he seems to surpass all other postmasters in is, putting letters and periodicals astray. We do not think he does so intentionally; doubtless he cannot help it; but certainly the nation can better spare him than so many letters; and if the only loss we suffer from the Impeachment trial be that of the services of Messrs. Seward and Randall for a few months, it will be admitted that it has not proved a very serious affair after all.

[blocks in formation]

WE have often been told that Gail Hamilton is a very clever writer, but this is the first of her productions which we have found time to read; we trust it is not a fair specimen. We are very willing to believe that her stories are very good, at least for children and for adults who have no thoughts of their own; but we cannot help thinking that she is a very indifferent moralist, and that her philosophy is rather crude. It is very evident, however, that she thinks differently herself; and doubtless there are many honest people who accept her own estimate of her genius, and regard her as a shining light. Be this as it may, we should have found no fault with her performances had she not assumed the

character of a new lawgiver, and as such sought to cast Moses, Solon, Confucius, and Paul into the shade, as mere smatterers and blunderers.

That a woman should be the champion of women is perhaps right enough; that is, when they need a champion; when they are really wronged, and when the men have become so degenerate, that instead of protecting, they aid in oppressing her. But is this true of the men of America? Is it true of the men of any, civilized country? That some women are wronged is very true, but are not men wronged also; nay, does not man wrong his fellow-man much oftener and more readily than be wrongs woman. But we are speaking of veritable wrongs, whereas the wrongs so valiantly attacked by Gail Hamilton belong exclusively to the imaginary species.

Women are wronged, our author tells us, because they are not allowed to vote; because it is denied that they are equal to men; because they are not permitted to occupy certain positions now generally monopolized by men; because in short, they are prevented from discarding their petticoats and wearing pantaloons in their stead.

No doubt there are ladies who regard these as great evils, but do they belong in general to the respectable class? Is it the modest and virtuous class of women that want to go to the polls and compete for those offices whose influence even on the ruder sex is so degrading? By no means; and it is equally certain that it is not that class who want to employ such champions as Gail Hamilton, or that set any value on such books as "Woman's Wrongs." At the same time we entirely acquit our author of any intention to do wrong; nay, we readily believe that her wish is to do good, but the tendency of her book is to do mischief, by rendering weak-minded women discontented with their present position, and anxious to obtrude themselves into a sphere which is foreign to their nature, and in which few, if any, of the sex escape contamination.

It requires little reflection to see that women who are intelligent, modest, and gentle, need no laws to entitle them to vote; their voice is always heard without any such law; nay, they are much more powerful in their parlours and dining-rooms than the most favourable franchise law could possibly render them at the polls. that their influence is all pervading; in the most gloomy despotisms, where no voting is recognized, the softening voice of woman is heard, and her

influence

have

Nor is it alone in republics

is felt, although it may not be perceived. The worst tyrants yielded to her modest and touching appeals as a wife, mother, or

lover, what he would have contemptuously denied had she claimed it on the ground of her being equal to man, as a politician, a soldier, a lawyer, an astronomer, &c., &c.

But let us turn our attention to "Woman's Wrongs" for a few moments, and allow Gail to speak for herself, and show whether we do her injustice or not. Our author takes up, as a sort of text, some letters written by the Rev. Dr. Todd on "Woman's Rights." We know as

[ocr errors]

little about Dr. Todd personally as we do about Gail Hamilton; and certainly we would rather agree with the lady than with the gentleman, if it were possible for us to do so conscientiously, but whoever Dr. Todd is, we hold that he is a much better logician, moralist, and philosopher than Gail Hamilton. This opinion we have formed from the extracts which the lady has given in her book; for we have never seen the performances of which "Woman's Wrongs purports to be a review, nor have we ever heard of them from any other source. In general, his arguments, as quoted by Gail, are pretty sound; but those by which she pretends to refute them are, in general, no arguments. The lady is very flippant. She is at no loss for words, but, unhappily, she fails to imbue them with much sense. She gives a quotation from the Doctor, finds fault with his grammar, and is somewhat abusive of himself, and then flies off at a tangent, to pick up a few things that have no conceivable bearing on the argument which she fancies she is all the time "refuting." She tells us very gently about the Doctor's "impotent and sometimes ridiculous logic," his "irreverent assumption of the Divine prerogatives," his "sentimental silliness," &c., &c. (p. 4). In the same page we are informed that "marriage became in his hands a base commercial transaction," because he would advise women to stay at home and mind their business, rather than gad about,-because he would have them attend domestic affairs in preference to the affairs of the nation.

In short, because the Doctor thought that making a pie or a pudding might be as useful as making a speech, he has "reduced women to the level of the beasts that perish ” (Ib.). What a monster! At page 7, our author proceeds to inform us how it was that this dangerous matter was brought to her attention. "In late issues," she says, "of an able, if not the leading, religious newspaper in New England, appeared a series of articles from the pen of Dr. Todd, entitled Woman's Rights.'" Then the recommendation which they received from the editor is quoted; next we are informed that "an able, if not the leading secular newspaper of New England,” was so ungallant and stupid as to praise the saine matter as soon as it appeared in book form, saying that it is "full of good, strong common-sense, which will commend it to the great majority of American women" (p. 8).

Whether this be true or not, it is certainly more than could be said of the book which purports to be a refutation of it. Dr. Todd wishes, it seems, to address himself to the sensible and modest portion of the sex; he desires to reason with them on the subject without making any claim to superiority, a proposition which Gail Hamilton disposes of by quoting a line of elegant poetry (p. 14), which shows that her taste is nearly as good as her logic:

[ocr errors]

"Will you,

will you, will you, will

you

walk in, Mr. Fly."

Dr. Todd is of opinion that the delicate organization of woman unfits

her for long-continued labour, even in those spheres for which it is claimed by the advocates of woman's rights they are best calculated. "Did you ever know a woman," he asks, "who could endure being a teacher till seventy-five, as men often do," &c. The reply of Gail Hamilton to this is that men "might, in some cases, till seventy-five thousand," for all the fatigue their teaching need cause them" (p. 20).

Dr. Todd tells the ladies that if they take off their robes, put on pants and run about unbidden to do the work of men, they cannot be good wives and mothers, &c. All this Gail Hamilton "refutes " after the following fashion: "During the late war was there not an army of women at home as large as the army of men in the field, and did they not work as long and as efficiently?" (p. 33). Those who went to the war, however, were the best types of womanhood; accordingly we have long and glowing accounts of some of them in "Woman's Wrongs." What a splendid specimen of the sex was Mrs. Bickerdyke, for example? quite a goodly number of pages are devoted to her achievements. Gail tells us that this lady was called the mother of a regiment, if not of a whole brigade (p. 191 et seq.). No doubt she deserved the title; but it is to be feared that some patriotic Amazons are as much the wife as the mother of the regiment. Gail admits that, exemplary as Mother Bickerdyke was, there were surgeons who "cursed her and clamoured for her removal" (p. 192). True, they were not the right kind of surgeons who did this, but the faithless and ignorant. Those of the opposite character could not have done without her. Among the womanly exploits of Mrs. Bickerdyke which Gail Hamilton calls upon us to admire, is the following (it is only necessary for the reader to bear in mind that a "sanitary shirt" had been appropriated by one not entitled to it, and that the good mother detected the culprit):

"Where did you get that shirt?' she said, fiercely. 'It's none of your business,' he answered. I'll see if it isn't,' she replied; and seizing it, as he had no coat on, she drew it over the head of the unfortunate wight, stunned into silence. Now let me see your feet,' said she, stooping and taking one in her hand. Off came the socks and slippers in a twinkling, to the infinite delight of the patients. The denuded thief slunk off suddenly, a sadder and a wiser man, and Mrs. B. had no further trouble in this hospital concerning sanitary stores."-pp. 193-4.

This was a model woman. She did not permit herself to be hampered by any conventionalities; she did what she liked, and what she disliked she did not do, no matter who asked her; or if she obliged anybody it was somebody who had no claim upon her. "I should like to see Dr. Todd tiptoeing up to Mother Bickerdyke," says our author "and telling her that her happiness consisted in her dependence as wife, mother, and daughter" (p. 197). Probably she would give him a fist or a kick, or draw his shirt over his head!

Now one of the worst wrongs of women, be it remembered, is that they are not permitted by their tyrannical husbands or fathers to per

« السابقةمتابعة »