If ♦ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 2: 
 
 ^^**s^ 
 
 Class 
 
 Book 
 
 Ej.a±...... 
 
 nx 
 
 Author. 
 
 Title 
 
 Imprint. 
 
 16—47372-1 «PO 
 
A ^EW 
 
 "SARTOR KESARTUS." 
 
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS 
 
 PAMPHLET ENTITLED 
 
 "A Review of Mr. Seward's J)iplomacy.' 
 
 By dr. syntax, JR 
 
 • M.VUAM, TEACH YOUK SON TO RKAD AND WRITE; liltAMMAR AM> 
 
 WItlTIXU ma'am; THINGS. WHTOH IF NOT TATGHT IN VERY KARLY 
 
 r,ll'K. ARE SELDOM OR NEVER TAUGHT TO ANY PURPOSE; AND WITITOIT 
 THE KNOWLEDGE OP WHICH, NO SUPERSTRUCTURE OP I.EARXINt; OK 
 KNOAVLBDGK CAN BE BUILT." Dt. JohuSOJl.. 
 
 MARO H, 1862. 
 
A NEW 
 
 U 
 
 SARTOR RESARTUS.' 
 
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS 
 
 PAMPHLET E^^TITLED 
 
 "A Review of Mr. Seward's Diplomacy." 
 
 By DE. syntax, jXJ..^^*J^ 
 
 " MADAM, TEACH YOUR SON TO READ AND WRITE ; GRAMMAR AND 
 
 WRITING ma'am; THINGS, WHICH IF NOT TAUGHT IN VERY EARLY 
 
 LIFE, ARE SELDOM OR NEVER TAUGHT TO ANY PURPOSE ; AND WITHOUT 
 THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHICH, NO SUPERSTRUCTURE OF LEARNING OR 
 KNOWLEDGE CAN BE BUILT." — Dr. JolinSOU. 
 
 MARCH, 186S. 
 
i 
 
 
 A^^" 
 
 Arba Biodget 
 
 
INTEODUCTION. 
 
 This pamphlet has ah'eady been reviewed, and 
 that not in the kindliest spirit. 
 
 Its authorship is universally attributed to a 
 prominent member of the Philadelphia Bar — who 
 was charged with an important foreign mission, 
 under the late Administration, and who has ever 
 since been supposed to enjoy the especial confi- 
 dence of its Chief. 
 
 It is not our purpose to discuss, as has already 
 been done so freely, the loyalty of this gentleman — 
 s:ave so far as it may legitimately be questioned 
 from the language and spirit of his pamphlet. 
 
 Most especially shall we avoid all such offensive 
 allusions to his ancestry, as some of his critics have 
 delighted to indulge in. Whether those imputa- 
 tations be well or ill founded, is not a matter 
 having the slightest relation to the subject before 
 us at this time. 
 
So far from raking among the ashes of the past 
 for such offensive memorials, we would rather most 
 tenderly recal the obligations that our own com- 
 munity, and might we not add the community of 
 literature, are under, to one, nearly connected with 
 this writer, who has but recently passed away from 
 amongst us; one who adorned society by the 
 modest worth of his character, and its happy 
 blending of literary, social and christian graces. 
 
 We shall endeavor to, review this pamphlet 
 fairly; and if, in the discharge of this duty, it 
 becomes necessary to speak plainly, we hope to 
 do so without offence. 
 
 It is no part of that duty to attempt any vindi- 
 cation, in this essay, of President Lincoln or Mr. 
 Seward. They need none. The full pubUcations 
 of the British diplomatic papers, and the universal 
 tone of the Foreign Correspondence, of latter time, 
 show conclusively that the Secretary is esteemed, 
 in Europe, to be an able, shrewd, and successful 
 statesman. As for Mr. Lincoln, we can best illus- 
 trate our opinion of him by a paragraph from 
 Sydney Smith: 
 
 " You spend a good deal of ink," — said he, in his 
 admirable letters of Peter Plymley, — "about the 
 character of our present Prime Minister. Grant 
 
you all that you write ; I say, I fear he will ruin 
 Ireland — and pursue a policy destructive to the 
 true interests of his country : and you tell me he 
 is faithful to Mrs. Perceval, and kind to the master 
 Perceval s. 
 
 These are undoubtedly the first qualifications to 
 be looked to, in a time of the most serious public 
 danger. But somehow or other, if public and 
 private virtues must always be incompatible, I 
 should prefer that he interfered with the domestic 
 happiness of Wood or Cockell — owed for the veal 
 of the preceding year — whipped his boys — and 
 saved his country." 
 
 We believe that Mr. Lincoln has saved his 
 country; and that he will occupy, in the temple 
 of our Nation's history, a place so lofty that but 
 one name shall be written above his. He can well 
 afford to smile contemptuously at all anonymous 
 slurs on " The President's Social Meridian," or 
 sneers at his "homely style" and "bungling 
 syntax." 
 
 When we have completed our task, we think 
 our readers will agree with us, that were the salva- 
 tion of our country dependant on its observance of 
 the laws of Grammar, or the rules of Rhetoric, and 
 were fidelity to these, a test of individual loyalty, 
 
it would become immediately necessary, out of a 
 due regard for the public safety, to send this 
 pretentious and arrogant Pamphleteer to Fort 
 Lafayette. 
 
 DR SYNTAX, JE 
 March, 1862. 
 
REVIEW. 
 
 This Critic comes before the Public with no ordinary 
 pretensions. 
 
 He professes to be clad in the impenetrable armor of 
 "candor and the spirit of frankness;" an'd proclaims, 
 with, a flourish of trumpets that he comes "In the name 
 of American Scholarship and taste," to snatch away 
 the " literary and political trophies" of the Secretary of 
 State; and to dispute his claim ''to^be considered as a 
 representative of American Scholars, or his crude and 
 tawdry effusions, as fair specimens of American writing." 
 He speaks contemptuously of the "bungling rhetoric," 
 the "awkward grammar," the "grotesque platitudes" of 
 Mr. Seward ;" the " homely style" and " clumsy syntax 
 of the President, characteristic of the man and his social 
 meridian;" the "ineffable trash" of Minister Clay; the 
 " acrid dogmatism" of the Minister to Holland ; the " bad 
 English" of Minister Adams; and in short of the "terri- 
 ble deterioration" of all the "State Papers" and the 
 " debased tone" of the " Public Documents." 
 
 Our first impulse, on glancing at all these imposing 
 demonstrations, was humbly to exclaim like the poor 
 Jew, whom Mr. Coleridge overwhelmed with such a tor- 
 rent of lofty invective — " I beg your honor's pardon ; I 
 had no idea that we had such a great scholar among us." 
 
8 
 
 It was only after a careful reading of the Pamphlet, 
 and a recurrence to certain standard authorities whom 
 we revered in our school days, — particularly a treatise on 
 English grammar by a person named Lindley Murray, 
 and another treatise on the Laws of Ehetoric by one Dr. 
 Whately, both of which we believe still occupy a re- 
 spectable position in the schools, — it was only after forti- 
 fying ourselves by a reperusal of these excellent works, 
 that we began to hesitate, and doubt whether there might 
 not still be some chance for Mr. Seward and Mr. Lincoln ; 
 whether all these professions of literary superiority, on 
 the part of their Critic, were well founded ; and whether 
 in fact it were not due to "■ American Scholarship and 
 taste," that the pretensions of this writer to be classed 
 as an "American Scholar" at all, should be examined 
 and exposed. 
 
 Since this line of argument seems to have escaped his 
 other Eeviewers, we propose, with all diffidence, to 
 undertake the task ; and if any of our remarks appear 
 hypercritical, let it be remembered that we are analyzing 
 the performances of an arrogant and most merciless 
 Critic ; one too who has sought to cover with confusion 
 and ridicule the honest and successful efforts, of one of 
 our greatest Statesmen, to maintain our National dignity 
 at home, and our influence abroad, under the most un- 
 precedented and difficult circumstances. 
 
 The case not only admits of, but demands the most 
 inflexible application of the severest rules of criticism. 
 
 One who deals his own blows so unsparingly on every 
 side, cannot complain of a fair counter thrust. One who 
 assumes to represent "American Scholarship," by that 
 assumption, invites and challenges the most exact, critical 
 judgment of the schools. 
 
 If it be found, that this gay bird, when by such an 
 
ordeal a few fine feathers have been plucked off, shall 
 prove to be but a Jackdaw after all, the fault is not ours. 
 He might have flaunted and fluttered the plumage to his 
 heart's content if he had been satisfied to remain silent. 
 Like Jefi". Davis, all that the other birds wanted " was to 
 be let alone." 
 
 Passing now to the Pamphlet, we proceed to repro- 
 duce literally a few sentences, taken at random from this 
 extraordinary performance, and for writing which, any 
 small boy in one of our Grammar Schools would be 
 soundly flogged. 
 
 That there may be no doubt about the accuracy of the 
 extracts, we have in all cases cut them out of the printed 
 pamphlet ; which an " errata" prefixed, shows to have 
 been carefully revised by its author. 
 
 " Self-glorification, a greed for literary or political 
 laurels, is, at any time, a poor motive." 
 
 Here are two nominatives, to a verb singular. No one 
 will pretend that "self-glorification," a result, and "a 
 greed for political or literary laurels," a motive, are con- 
 vertible terms. 
 
 The same remark applies to the following: 
 
 " The selection as Ambassadors of Anti-Slavery Agi- 
 tators, and the proscription of all the moderate men of 
 the South was not accidental. 
 
 "Was" should be "were," there being two separate 
 nominatives. The sentence is also ungrammatically 
 arranged. 
 
 The critic, in another place, takes our view of "self- 
 glorification" — prefixing the words "a desire of" — with 
 his usual infelicity of language however. 
 
 " And can it be possible, the reader may well ask, that 
 
10 
 
 there is not injustice in imputing these discreditable reve- 
 lations to the desire of self-glorification in a single man?" 
 
 This is altogether -ungrammatical. What he means to 
 say is, " the desire, in a single man," of " self-glorifica- 
 tion," Again : 
 
 " One might pause and smile, were it not the hoar of 
 our country's agony and our country's shame, at such 
 ineffable trash as this, thus written and thus proclaimed. 
 But it is too solemn for levity P 
 
 What is too solemn for levity ? The " trash " would 
 be, according to Lindley Murray. But our critic evi- 
 dently means either the "shame," or the "agony," or the 
 "hour;" we cannot tell which. 
 
 The ''awkward grammar" of the following, needs no 
 comment — save that our "wonder" extends even to the 
 fact of such " nonsense " being " written," by so elegant 
 a scholar : 
 
 " Mr. Clay's despatch concludes with a passage on 
 which no other comment is necessary than this, that 
 while we may not wonder at such vulgar nonsense being 
 written, we thought there was discretion enough in the 
 old clerks at what Mr. Seward somewhere describes as 
 " the modest little State Department," to prevent it being 
 published." 
 
 Here is another sentence still more incorrectly worded : 
 
 " The sorrow for the heavy personal bereavement, as 
 the death of the Queen's husband seems to be, which the 
 British nation feels, is modified and shared by the regret 
 at the possibility of another fraternal war between them." 
 
 What the critic means to say is, " The sorrow which 
 the British nation feels for the heavy personal bereave- 
 ment " &,c., &c. 
 
 There are several inaccuracies however in the sentence, 
 which cannot be corrected by a mere re-arrangement of 
 
11 
 
 the words; — a " sorrow " may be " modified " possibly by 
 a "regret" — but it can not be "shared" by it. The 
 nation may have a share both in the sorrow and the 
 regret. 
 
 The impudence of the following paragraph in regard 
 to our excellent chief magistrate, is happily relieved by 
 its audacious violation of all the rules of grammar and 
 good writing: 
 
 "If we had to choose, we much prefer the homely, 
 honest style of the President, no doubt characteristic of 
 the man and of his social meridian, through which a 
 meaning struggles for expression, to the ambitious, af- 
 fected, bungling rhetoric of the Secretary." 
 
 Here "■ we much prefer," should be " we would much 
 prefer." The construction of the sentence represents the 
 President's "meaning" as strugfflin;]^ "throusrh his social 
 meridian " for " expression " to the " ambitious," " bung- 
 ling rhetoric " of the Secretary ; which would certainly 
 produce a singular colloquy. By the way " ambitious" 
 and "bungling" are applied altogether incorrectly to the 
 "rhetoric," The "Secretary" may be "ambitious," and 
 he may be "bungling," — and his rhetoric may be " lofty" 
 or "bungled," There can be no possible inherent vitality 
 in the rhetoric itself, however, to warrant the use of the 
 active participle "bungling," or the adjective "ambi- 
 tious," in regard to it. 
 
 What the critic means to say probably is "that he 
 would prefer the homely style of the President to the 
 bungled rhetoric of the Secretary, 
 
 This misapplication of the adjective seems to be a 
 chronic infirmity, since it frequently occurs in the scholar- 
 like performance we are reviewing. 
 
 For example we find "laborious rhetoric" — when it is 
 manifest that although Mr. Seward may be " laborious " 
 
12 
 
 his rhetoric can only be " labored " or elaborate ; the 
 meaning of laborious being simply diligent or assiduous. 
 We have also " patriotic criticism" ; — the critic may be 
 patriotic but not the work. 
 
 Again, the writer states, " This silence was not thought- 
 less''' — meaning not unintentional — silence evidently hav- 
 ing no capacity for thought. He says in another place, the 
 President on some topic, was " measurably silent." Now, 
 silence is an absolute state ; — as much so as death. A 
 man may be occasionally silent, or generally silent, but 
 he can never be " measurably silent." 
 
 Judging from this whole performance, we should say 
 that our critic has altogether very confused and indistinct 
 notions on this subject of Silence — and we would suggest 
 to him whether for a time at least it would not be advis- 
 able for him to study it. We feel very sure that neither 
 his political nor his literary reputation would in the 
 interim suffer by such a course. 
 
 This writer delights in paradoxical expressions. As 
 Sydney Smith somewhere says, " He never seems hur- 
 ried by his subject into obvious language." He states 
 that the President " relegated foreign affairs to Mr. 
 Seward." Eelegated means sent into exile. Delegated 
 is probably what was intended to be said. He speaks of 
 retracing "the recent past;" says, "another instalment of 
 diplomatic correspondence has been given to the world," 
 when every lawyer knows that an instalment must, by its 
 very terms, be paid and cannot be given. He quotes 
 what he is pleased to style the " vigorous language of 
 Mr. Davis," that " the Confederate States looked on in 
 contemptuous astonishment," &c. Astonishment means 
 amazement, confusion, and cannot be qualified by such 
 an adjective as contemptuous; which implies an ac- 
 
13 
 
 tion of the judgment. We express a contemptuous 
 opinioa for example. 
 
 It was well said by a French writer that " adjectives 
 are often the worst enemies of nouns, even though they 
 agree with them in gender, number and case." 
 
 Equally infelicitous with our critic's choice of adjec- 
 tives are his metaphors. 
 
 He says Mr. Seward 
 
 "Imagined that the public mind of Europe had been 
 poisoned by the machinations of the past, and it was in 
 the power of his magic pen to conjure down the evil 
 spirit." 
 
 Dr. Whately would advise the immediate administra- 
 tion of an antidote in cases of poison ; and the employ- 
 ment by all means of magic to conjure down evil spirits. 
 He is very emphatic, however, on the subject of " mixing 
 metaphors ;" a practice universally avoided by all good 
 writers, even by those who do not make any high profes- 
 sion of " scholarship and taste." 
 
 It is instructive and refreshing to find amid all this bad 
 grammar and false rhetoric such decidedly cool passages 
 as the following : 
 
 "The great secret, said the poet Gray, of study, and 
 he might have added of composition, is ' never to fling 
 away your time in reading inferior authors, but to keep 
 your mind in contact with master spirits;' in plain Eng- 
 lish, to avoid low company. Mr. Seward writes like a 
 man who has been reading newspapers and associatmg 
 with half-educated politicians all his life, and the charac- 
 ter of American scholarship suffers, by his being thought 
 to be its representative." 
 
 Or this : 
 
 " Within a month there has been spoken in the Abbey 
 Church of Westminster, by the tongue of a gentle and 
 accomplished Christian minister— a master of the pure 
 English language, which we cannot, if we would, re- 
 
14 
 
 noLince — words on "whicli the eye has just lighted, and 
 which are reproduced here, to illustrate what we are 
 trying to say. It is sorrowing, sorely afflicted, not, 
 according to Mr. Sumner, 'penitent England' that speaks 
 in the voice of one of her gentlest, purest sons." 
 
 These allusions show that our critic is familiar with 
 the reputation, at least, which Gray and Dean Trench 
 deservedly hold for correct and elegant writing. It is 
 very doubtful whether the latter gentleman, so truly dis- 
 tinguished, both in verse and prose, for his faultless 
 Saxon English, would feel very much flattered by such 
 an" awkward, ungrammatical, incomprehensible notice of 
 his eminent attainments, as we have last quoted ; for in 
 all the various volumes of sermons or poetry or criticism 
 that Mr. Trench has published, we cannot find a single 
 sentence to compare, for confusion and irregularity, with 
 this memorable paragraph of his admirer; and yet there 
 are fifty such in this pamphlet. 
 
 Here is a choice bit of " vigorous and characteristic 
 English" to use a favorite expression of our critic, which 
 reminds us strikingly of Samuel Foote's celebrated lines: 
 
 "So she went into the garden to get a cabbage leaf to 
 make an apple pie ; at the same time a great she bear 
 coming up the street popped its head into the shop ; what 
 no soap ! so he died ; and she very imprudently married 
 the barber," etc., etc. 
 
 " Accordingly, we find in these dispatches, not a few 
 specimens of abolition propagandism, though it is fair to 
 say, not as many as we looked for from the antecedents 
 of the writer, and that he very soon dropped the subject, 
 on finding that foreign statesmen had no inclination to 
 trouble themselves about it, and could not be seduced 
 into sentimentalism on the subject of the African, at a 
 time when they had other things, practically, to deal 
 with." 
 
15 
 
 The following paragraph is so thoroughly incorrect 
 and confused that we give it without comment beyond 
 calling attention to the negative at the commencement, 
 which qualifies the whole sentence. 
 
 " Neither in his Message of July, nor in that of Decem- 
 ber, do we find an explanatory word — indeed, only a 
 singular, meagre, and not very intelligible sentence, from 
 which one would hardly infer that during the short recess 
 of Congress, if not during the extra session, an elaborate 
 attempt had been made to ameliorate the whole code of 
 sea law, with an offer to surrender unconditionally a part 
 of the war-making power recognized in the Constitution, 
 and that it had failed. Yet, such these papers show to 
 be the fact." 
 
 The truth is, we may say of our critic, as Dr. Johnson 
 said of a writer in his day : 
 
 " Sir^ his parentheses are ohjectionahle ; his involved clauses 
 and want of harmony. Every substance has so many acci- 
 dents. To he distinct, ice must talk analytically. If we 
 analyze language ive must speah of it grammatically ! if 
 we ayialyze argument we must speak of it logically J'' 
 
 Before passing from the rhetoric, to a consideration of 
 the bad logic of this pamphlet, we cannot refrain from 
 quoting a passage in regard to our minister to Great 
 Britain. 
 
 " What is meant by this ? Mr. Adams, when he wrote 
 this letter, could not have studied carefully the history 
 of the recognition of Greece by the European powers. It 
 is on all fours with what is doing noio.^'' 
 
 We respectfully beg leave to echo "What is meant by 
 this" elegant expression — "on all fours with what is 
 doing now." The great powers recognized the independ- 
 ence of Greece. If we could only find out with certainty 
 what " on all fours" in diplomacy means, we should have 
 a most valuable clue to " what is doing now." Will oar 
 
16 
 
 critic explain ? — Had he any experience in regard to the 
 necessity of this attitude, in the course of his Oriental 
 negotiations ?* 
 
 To return to Europe, however, — 
 
 We feel perfectly sure, for our own part, that nothing 
 " is doing now" which looks, in the least, towards a recog- 
 nition of the Southern Eebellion, by the great powers 
 of Europe. 
 
 Hence, we might safely conclude that if our critic be 
 correct in his assertion, then " on all fours" must mean 
 something highly dissimila)' ; and in fact indicates a pre- 
 cise contradistinction between the subjects so felicitously 
 compared. 
 
 We fear, however, from the context that it was in- 
 tended to indicate an equally precise and emphatic simi- 
 larity and resemblance. 
 
 * We believe that it is customary, in some parts of India, 
 for the diplomatist to execute a profound salam before 
 the reigning sovereign ; this obeisance and prostration 
 being extended till the palms of the hands touch the 
 ground. 
 
 Again, the ambassadors, in many eastern countries, 
 make their approach to the ineffable presence, on their 
 knees. 
 
 It has just occurred to us, that while residing near the 
 
 court of the celestial emperor, our critic may, in his 
 
 'diplomatic capacity, have happily combined these two 
 
 forms of obeisance ; and thus have given to the world 
 
 the elegant figure of diplomacy '^ on all fours' 
 
 It would be an interesting inquiry to ascertain if he 
 were joined in this attitude by the ambassadors of the 
 belligerent powers. One can imagine the touching and 
 impressive scene : — our critic, with his plaintive cries for 
 a peaceful recognition, "on all fours," in a semi-circle 
 with those growling, snarling, "dogs of war," Lord 
 Elgin and Baron Gros — around Commissioner Yeh I 
 
17 
 
 Let us pass now to the argument of the critic. We 
 have established that his pretensions to "scholarship and 
 good taste" are not altogether unquestionable. We think 
 we can show that his professions of " candor and fair- 
 ness" are equally to be doubted ; that his logic, in short, 
 is as shallow and false as his rhetoric seems to be. 
 
 He commences by arraigning Mr. Seward for publish- 
 ing the correspondence at all. 
 
 ''That it is unusual," says he, "and on general prin- 
 ciples inexpedient, with no special call on one part, and 
 without reserve on the other, to lay wholesale diplomatic 
 correspondence before the watching and perhaps cen- 
 sorious world, and especially the confidential instruc- 
 tions sent to all our Ministers, will hardly be disputed. 
 There is no precedent for it, at home or abroad." 
 
 Passing over the bad English of this sentence, we em- 
 phatically deny the correctness of the assertion. In fact 
 the ink had scarcely dried on this pamphlet, before a 
 great Blue Book was published by the British Foreign 
 Oflfice, in accordance with its yearly custom, laying before 
 the world all the most delicate and detailed negotiations 
 between that Government and our own. 
 
 The letters of Lord Lyons — so highly creditable to him 
 as a Statesman and as a man — are given without reserve; 
 together with the most minute instructions of Earl 
 Eussell to that minister, how to act under every con- 
 ceivable variety of circumstances. 
 
 In our own country, under the late administration, 
 it may be remembered that a ponderous volume of 
 Chinese dispatches was published, unveiling many 
 delicate secrets belonging to other nations, but of which 
 a "desire for self-glorification," or some other motive, 
 prompted the fullest display. 
 
 After entering this general protest however, our critic 
 proceeds to enumerate some cases of pecdiar impro- 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 priety, in tbe publication of certain letters Mr. Seward 
 had written to Mr. Dayton ; and which at the time of 
 writing he had instructed Mr. D. to regard as confidential. 
 Observe this burst of virtuous indignation. 
 
 " On the 22d of June, 1861, Mr. Seward wrote a des- 
 patch of a most delicate nature, to Mr. Dayton, at Paris 
 — at once minatory and persuasive — concluding with 
 these words : " This despatch is strictly confidential." 
 So Mr. Dayton had a right to think it would be, and one 
 may imagine his surprise to find it so soon in print, 
 without any call from Congress, or any public exigency. 
 The assurance that a letter is confidential, even in private 
 correspondence, is a pledge which cannot be withdrawn 
 but by mutual consent." 
 
 " The remark applies with greater force to the incul- 
 patory despatch of the 6th of July, 1861, in which he 
 says to Mr. Dayton : " This paper is, in one sense, a con- 
 versation merely, between yourself and us. It is not to 
 he made public^ Yet it, too, is spread before the world." 
 
 Now let us for a moment consider the force and ten- 
 dency of this reasoning — a merchant for example sends 
 his clerk to travel on the business of the house, and 
 gives him minute and definite instructions — informing 
 him that he must consider these as strictly confidential. 
 
 A Minister of State sends an Ambassador abroad on 
 business of the State and gives him detailed and confi- 
 dential instructions. 
 
 Both messengers perform their duty ; and a time arrives 
 when their principals, respectively, deem that the interests, 
 confided to these servants, will be best promoted by a 
 publication of the previously confidential instructions 
 under which they had acted. 
 
 Now, according to the shallow, special pleading of this 
 pamphleteer, they would be debarred from doing so, by 
 having once placed an injunction of secresy upon their 
 subordinate agents ; and the laws of honor, and of ordi- 
 
19 
 
 nary intercourse among gentlemen are invoked. Tlie 
 sophistry needs no further exposure. 
 
 The following extract is remarkable, on several ac- 
 counts; firstly, for a mis-quotation of the text; secondly, 
 for the ungrammatical and absurd construction of the 
 sentence ; and thirdly, for the audacious insult to " our 
 readers" contained in the last line : 
 
 " And to the whole record, ending as we think it does, 
 in the realization of Mr. Burke's })hilosophy, that the 
 most terrible of revolutions is one luhich hreahs a proud 
 natiovLS hearty in a spirit of genuine and rational loyalty, 
 we invite the attention of our readers. Philip, we are 
 inclined to hope, is fast becoming sober, and will listen." 
 
 Mr. Burke's remark was precisely the reverse of this. 
 He says : 
 
 "To a people who once have been proud and. great, 
 and great because they were proud, a change in the 
 national spirit, is the most terrible of all revolutions." 
 
 The meanina: of the great Euo;lish statesman is obvious. 
 A decadence of the national spirit, a gradual decay of 
 their pride and their love of independence on the part of 
 a great people are indeed the evidences of a sad revolu- 
 tion ; but it suits this pamphleteer to represent Mr. Seward 
 as having ruthlessly "broken a proud nation's heart." 
 " Mr. Burke's philosophy" therefore, is modified to accom- 
 modate this hypothesis. It is consoling to notice that the 
 "proud nation's heart," according to grammatical con- 
 struction, is broken " in a spirit of genuine and rational 
 loyalty." 
 
 Among all the memorable features of this paragraph, 
 however, the last line deserves, we think, especial pre- 
 eminence ; "We invite the attention of our readers. 
 Philip is fast becoming sober and will listen." 
 
 There is nothing certainly to be found in all the 
 records of Mr. Seward's diplomacy, so conciliating at the 
 
20 
 
 outset as this ; nothing better calculated to ensure a 
 tranquil and favorable reception of what is to follow. 
 
 The idea of addressing such an insult to his readers, is 
 so shocking, that, to use our critic's language on another 
 occasion, " We prefer to take refuge in the awkward 
 grammar and bungling rhetoric" of the writer, and to 
 assume that he meant to apply the charge of inebriety 
 to the nation; of whom he was speaking just before. 
 
 Another important instance of mis-quotation appears 
 in the following sentence, which he professes to "quote 
 literally" from Mr. Seward's instructions to our minister 
 at Vienna. Our critic is describino; the effect on the 
 Austrian minister at Washington, of this publication and 
 says : 
 
 " He now has to learn from the strange publication 
 before us, and especially from the following sentence, 
 quoted literally, what sort of a ricketty government he 
 represents, and that while our country is filled with 
 Magyars, and Jews, and Germans, every one is ashamed 
 to admit that he is an Austrian. 
 
 Mr. Seward said no such thing. He was speaking not 
 of the "ricketty government of Austria," but of its varied 
 population. Here are his words, which every one knows 
 to be literally true. 
 
 "We meet everywhere here, in town and country, 
 Italians, Hungarians, Poles, Magyars, Jews and Germans, 
 but no one has ever seen a confessed Austrian amongst 
 us." 
 
 The remark will bear an interpretation complimentary 
 to Austria — ; but we suppose Mr. Seward simply inten- 
 ded to state a fact, without conveying thereby either a 
 compliment or an insult, and so we leave it. 
 
 Our readers however will have, from these few in- 
 stances, which might be greatly multiplied, an idea of 
 
21 
 
 " the spirit of candor and fairness'' in which the pamphlet 
 has been written. 
 
 Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Truth, all the acknowl- 
 edged rules of language, and we might add of honor m 
 criticism, are over-ridden or set aside by this reckless 
 writer. His one object seems to be to attack Mr. Seward 
 and to hold up to ridicule the successful foreign diplo- 
 macy of our State Department. 
 
 Before conclusion let us glance for a moment, at the 
 evidences of party spirit; and of a total ivant of true 
 public spirit and loyalty, which abound in this pamphlet. 
 As stated in the introduction, we have nothing to do 
 with our critic's ancestry, or with his own personal 
 history in past times. We put aside, therefore, all con- 
 sideration of the wonderful agility with which he leaped 
 over the ring, and landed securely amidst a host of men 
 and principles which he had been combatting during a 
 lono- life; but which he suddenly espouses and defends, 
 with all the zeal and bitterness of a new convert. The 
 mission to China explains, and we suppose, with pro- 
 fessed politicians, justifies all this. 
 
 We also pass over, for the present at least, cer am 
 public speeches made by this gentleman, little more than 
 a year since, in which he advocated entirely the cause of 
 the South ; and poured out a torrent of merciless invective 
 against the principles of the incoming adninustration ; 
 extending Ms remarks even to personal ridicule of its 
 
 Chief. ,, 1 , 
 
 The "guns of Fort Moultrie," our critic says, "awakened 
 Mr Seward and the nation from their dream of peace. 
 The ^uns of Fort Sumter and their tremendous rever- 
 beratron throughout the length and breadth of the land, 
 say we, silenced in a moment all traitors ; and hushed, for 
 a time at least, the faintest mutterings of treason. _ 
 It was wonderful to observe the effect of this music. 
 
 Ai 
 
22 
 
 We read that — 
 
 "Orplaeus' lute was strung with poet's sinews, 
 Whose goklen touch coukl soften steel and stones, 
 Make tigers tame, and huge Leviathans 
 Forsake unsounded deeps, to dance on sands." 
 
 Those who remember the marvellous softening of the 
 pro Slavery Democratic hearty to all the impressions 
 that an exasperated public sentiment insisted on its forth- 
 with receiving, last April ; the rapidity with which these 
 fierce "tigers" were "tamed;" and the lively " dance" 
 that many "huge Leviathans" of party were obliged to 
 lead at the bidding of an awakened people, will be able 
 to comprehend and realize, in some measure, the magic 
 power of Orpheus. 
 
 Let all that pass. But we do not at all like the follow- 
 ing sentiment of our critic : 
 
 " If, by any method of war, the Government can be 
 restored to its condition before this dreadful strife began, 
 let us pray for its early consummation, with the least 
 possible bloodshed, and with every merciful appliance 
 of pardon and amnesty, and reconciliation, that can be 
 devised ; and if it cannot — if peace and separation be 
 inevitable — let us hope for the coming man amongst 
 ourselves, who shall have mental and moral elevation to 
 see the reality soonest, and not shrink from its recogni- 
 tion ; who will bend all the energies of the great mind, 
 (for such must be his,) to let the separation be made with- 
 out further convulsion or more ghastly scars." 
 
 This is not the medicine for the hour. It smacks too 
 strongly of the poisonous infusions of Jeff. Davis, and 
 Stephens, and Mason, and Yancey, and Slidell, but one 
 short year ago. They all said precisely this. What does 
 the writer mean? He knows, and all the world knows, 
 that there is no possibility of the North and the West 
 consenting to the disruption of this Union. They will 
 not, even for a moment, discuss such an absurdity. 
 
 LofC. 
 
23 
 
 We tliink, that by a full consideration and study of 
 this paragraph, and other similar expressions, scattered 
 throughout the pamphlet, the true animus of this attack 
 on Mr. Seward may be be-tter understood. 
 
 When we see such an atrocious sentiment suggested 
 as this : 
 
 " On the judgment and action of other nations, our 
 future may depend, and as to what that future can or 
 ought to be, wise and patriotic, and brave, and loyal 
 men may widely differ," 
 
 We begin to suspect that the pamphleteer may pos- 
 sibly represent other interests than those of his country ; 
 and in proportion to the success of Mr. Seward in 
 defeating foreign intrigue, may he necessarily be ex- 
 posed to the animadversions of this writer. 
 
 Whether this suspicion be well or ill founded, we be- 
 lieve that the bare suggestion of such a foreign inter- 
 ference as is here threatened, will rally round our Gov- 
 ernment and its able defenders, every true loyal national 
 heart. 
 
 The administration of that unhappy Old Man, whose 
 imbecility and complicity with treason, have plunged the 
 country into this fearful struggle, is now a thing of the 
 past. 
 
 The cool judgment of History Avill soon be passed 
 upon the whole question ; and its verdict be recorded for, 
 or against, the various actors in this strange scene. 
 
 It will be well for this arrogant pamphleteer if he be 
 not arraigned before that tribunal, as one of the principal 
 advisers of the fatal policy which has led to such deplora- 
 ble results. 
 
 He was certainly one of the most intimate confidants 
 of Mr. Buchanan and up to the latest moment one of the 
 
24 
 
 most strenuous and bitter advocates of all his public 
 measures. 
 
 His course since then has been far from satisfactory ; 
 and this pamphlet will constitute no very strong record 
 in his favor. 
 
 FINIS.