Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Complete
Court House, on the 9th of April, 1865. The sudden collapse of the
rebellion monopolized attention to the exclusion of almost everything
else. I regarded Mackenzie as the most promising young officer in the
army. Graduating at West Point, as he did, during the second year of
the war, he had won his way up to the command of a corps before its
close. This he did upon his own merit and without influence.
CONCLUSION.
The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United Status
will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war
began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half
slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free,
or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of
the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole
question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.
Slavery was an institution that required unusual guarantees for its
security wherever it existed; and in a country like ours where the
larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and
well-to-do population, the people would naturally have but little
sympathy with demands upon them for its protection. Hence the people of
the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government
to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution. They were
enabled to maintain this control long after the States where slavery
existed had ceased to have the controlling power, through the assistance
they received from odd men here and there throughout the Northern
States. They saw their power waning, and this led them to encroach upon
the prerogatives and independence of the Northern States by enacting
such laws as the Fugitive Slave Law. By this law every Northern man
was obliged, when properly summoned, to turn out and help apprehend
the runaway slave of a Southern man. Northern marshals became
slave-catchers, and Northern courts had to contribute to the support
and protection of the institution.
This was a degradation which the North would not permit any longer than
until they could get the power to expunge such laws from the statute
books. Prior to the time of these encroachments the great majority of
the people of the North had no particular quarrel with slavery, so long
as they were not forced to have it themselves. But they were not
willing to play the role of police for the South in the protection of
this particular institution.
In the early days of the country, before we had railroads, telegraphs
and steamboats--in a word, rapid transit of any sort--the States were
each almost a separate nationality. At that time the subject of slavery
caused but little or no disturbance to the public mind. But the country
grew, rapid transit was established, and trade and commerce between the
States got to be so much greater than before, that the power of the
National government became more felt and recognized and, therefore, had
to be enlisted in the cause of this institution.
It is probably well that we had the war when we did. We are better off
now than we would have been without it, and have made more rapid
progress than we otherwise should have made. The civilized nations of
Europe have been stimulated into unusual activity, so that commerce,
trade, travel, and thorough acquaintance among people of different
nationalities, has become common; whereas, before, it was but the few
who had ever had the privilege of going beyond the limits of their own
country or who knew anything about other people. Then, too, our
republican institutions were regarded as experiments up to the breaking
out of the rebellion, and monarchical Europe generally believed that our
republic was a rope of sand that would part the moment the slightest
strain was brought upon it. Now it has shown itself capable of dealing
with one of the greatest wars that was ever made, and our people have
proven themselves to be the most formidable in war of any nationality.
But this war was a fearful lesson, and should teach us the necessity of
avoiding wars in the future.
The conduct of some of the European states during our troubles shows the
lack of conscience of communities where the responsibility does not come
upon a single individual. Seeing a nation that extended from ocean to
ocean, embracing the better part of a continent, growing as we were
growing in population, wealth and intelligence, the European nations
thought it would be well to give us a check. We might, possibly, after
a while threaten their peace, or, at least, the perpetuity of their
institutions. Hence, England was constantly finding fault with the
administration at Washington because we were not able to keep up an
effective blockade. She also joined, at first, with France and Spain in
setting up an Austrian prince upon the throne in Mexico, totally
disregarding any rights or claims that Mexico had of being treated as an
independent power. It is true they trumped up grievances as a pretext,
but they were only pretexts which can always be found when wanted.
Mexico, in her various revolutions, had been unable to give that
protection to the subjects of foreign nations which she would have liked
to give, and some of her revolutionary leaders had forced loans from
them. Under pretence of protecting their citizens, these nations seized
upon Mexico as a foothold for establishing a European monarchy upon our
continent, thus threatening our peace at home. I, myself, regarded this
as a direct act of war against the United States by the powers engaged,
and supposed as a matter of course that the United States would treat it
as such when their hands were free to strike. I often spoke of the
matter to Mr. Lincoln and the Secretary of War, but never heard any
special views from them to enable me to judge what they thought or felt
about it. I inferred that they felt a good deal as I did, but were
unwilling to commit themselves while we had our own troubles upon our
hands.
All of the powers except France very soon withdrew from the armed
intervention for the establishment of an Austrian prince upon the throne
of Mexico; but the governing people of these countries continued to the
close of the war to throw obstacles in our way. After the surrender of
Lee, therefore, entertaining the opinion here expressed, I sent Sheridan
with a corps to the Rio Grande to have him where he might aid Juarez in
expelling the French from Mexico. These troops got off before they
could be stopped; and went to the Rio Grande, where Sheridan distributed
them up and down the river, much to the consternation of the troops in
the quarter of Mexico bordering on that stream. This soon led to a
request from France that we should withdraw our troops from the Rio
Grande and to negotiations for the withdrawal of theirs. Finally
Bazaine was withdrawn from Mexico by order of the French Government.
From that day the empire began to totter. Mexico was then able to
maintain her independence without aid from us.
France is the traditional ally and friend of the United States. I did
not blame France for her part in the scheme to erect a monarchy upon the
ruins of the Mexican Republic. That was the scheme of one man, an
imitator without genius or merit. He had succeeded in stealing the
government of his country, and made a change in its form against the
wishes and instincts of his people. He tried to play the part of the
first Napoleon, without the ability to sustain that role. He sought by
new conquests to add to his empire and his glory; but the signal failure
of his scheme of conquest was the precursor of his own overthrow.
Like our own war between the States, the Franco-Prussian war was an
expensive one; but it was worth to France all it cost her people. It
was the completion of the downfall of Napoleon III. The beginning was
when he landed troops on this continent. Failing here, the prestige of
his name--all the prestige he ever had--was gone. He must achieve a
success or fall. He tried to strike down his neighbor, Prussia--and
fell.
I never admired the character of the first Napoleon; but I recognize his
great genius. His work, too, has left its impress for good on the face
of Europe. The third Napoleon could have no claim to having done a good
or just act.
To maintain peace in the future it is necessary to be prepared for war.
There can scarcely be a possible chance of a conflict, such as the last
one, occurring among our own people again; but, growing as we are, in
population, wealth and military power, we may become the envy of nations
which led us in all these particulars only a few years ago; and unless
we are prepared for it we may be in danger of a combined movement being
some day made to crush us out. Now, scarcely twenty years after the
war, we seem to have forgotten the lessons it taught, and are going on
as if in the greatest security, without the power to resist an invasion
by the fleets of fourth-rate European powers for a time until we could
prepare for them.
We should have a good navy, and our sea-coast defences should be put in
the finest possible condition. Neither of these cost much when it is
considered where the money goes, and what we get in return. Money
expended in a fine navy, not only adds to our security and tends to
prevent war in the future, but is very material aid to our commerce with
foreign nations in the meantime. Money spent upon sea-coast defences is
spent among our own people, and all goes back again among the people.
The work accomplished, too, like that of the navy, gives us a feeling of
security.
England's course towards the United States during the rebellion
exasperated the people of this country very much against the mother
country. I regretted it. England and the United States are natural
allies, and should be the best of friends. They speak one language, and
are related by blood and other ties. We together, or even either
separately, are better qualified than any other people to establish
commerce between all the nationalities of the world.
England governs her own colonies, and particularly those embracing
the people of different races from her own, better than any other
nation. She is just to the conquered, but rigid. She makes them
self-supporting, but gives the benefit of labor to the laborer. She
does not seem to look upon the colonies as outside possessions which she
is at liberty to work for the support and aggrandizement of the home
government.
The hostility of England to the United States during our rebellion was
not so much real as it was apparent. It was the hostility of the
leaders of one political party. I am told that there was no time during
the civil war when they were able to get up in England a demonstration
in favor of secession, while these were constantly being gotten up in
favor of the Union, or, as they called it, in favor of the North. Even
in Manchester, which suffered so fearfully by having the cotton cut off
from her mills, they had a monster demonstration in favor of the North
at the very time when their workmen were almost famishing.
It is possible that the question of a conflict between races may come up
in the future, as did that between freedom and slavery before. The
condition of the colored man within our borders may become a source of
anxiety, to say the least. But he was brought to our shores by
compulsion, and he now should be considered as having as good a right to
remain here as any other class of our citizens. It was looking to a
settlement of this question that led me to urge the annexation of Santo
Domingo during the time I was President of the United States.
Santo Domingo was freely offered to us, not only by the administration,