THE

UNITED STATES REVIEW.

JANUARY, 1855.

THE CZAR OF RUSSIA.

It is somewhat amusingly melancholy to witness the sway exercised by the British press generally, and the British public journals, periodicals, and reviews most especially, over the manners, morals, and political opinions of our transatlantic brethren," as they pleasantly call us, by way of sweetening the dose of sarcasm and calumny occasionally administered in the spirit of fraternal affection and universal philanthropy. Our literature, as our politics, is equally subjected to this, the most dangerous species of foreign influence, and it is not too much to say that at this moment, or at least until within a very brief period, a great portion of what is courteously styled the more enlightened citizens of the United States, comprehended in the Federal or Whig party, had scarcely any opinions of their own with respect to either books or men. They waited for the fiat of the British press before venturing to praise either one or the other. An American writer remained comparatively unknown even among his own countrymen, until patented by some anonymous British reviewer; and an American statesman or orator might never aspire to the respect or admiration of his more enlightened constituents until he had reached the apotheosis of what is styled "a European

reputation." In order to attain to this, the highest object of ambition to American writers, all know that it is absolutely necessary studiously to abstain from all obnoxious republican principles, as well as all sentiments of patriotism, and to minister adroitly to the overweening vanity of Englishmen.

This degrading subserviency of so large a portion of the Whig press to British dictation, and this deleterious influence over the opinions of so many of those who have so powerful an agency in giving a direction to the public sentiment in communities where they reside, constitute one of the great obstacles to a good understanding between the United States and Great Britain. The latter invariably mistakes the manifestations of this Anglo-American press for the prevailing sentiment of the people of the United States, and is thus encouraged to pursue a hostile course of policy, which ultimately ends in a serious misunderstanding, if not in actual war. The ministers of England seem not yet to have discovered that these straws do not even show which way the wind blows, and that such weather-cocks are only unerring guides in pointing out its exactly opposite direction. It was well known at the time, that the British ambassador, incited by the language of the Federal newspapers and the dreams of the Federal leaders at Washington, actually wrote home to his government, the very day before the adoption of the declaration of war by the Senate of the United States, the positive assurance that there was not the slightest danger that such a proposition would be sanctioned by that body. In this way the British ministry are uniformly deceived. They mistake the clamors of a minority for the voice of a majority of the people of the United States, and under the influence of this delusion believe they may not only safely persevere in any course of policy injurious to their interests or their honor, but offer new aggravations with perfect impunity.

The course of the Anglo-American press is most strikingly exemplified in all cases where the policy or interests of England come in competition with those of the United States. The moment a President of the United States or a Secretary of State bristles up or shows his teeth in opposition to British insult or British encroachments, however he may be sustained by principles of justice or international law, the result is inevitable. The London Times, or some other great Choryphæus of the British press, gives the signal; the bull-terriers are let loose upon him, and as a matter of course their yelpings are echoed and reechoed by an obsequious pack of

"mongrel, puppy, whelp, and hound, and curs of low degree, who scamper about, cocking their tails, lifting their legs, and barking vociferously, in musical response to the leaders of the foreign kennel.

The same measure is meted out by these discriminating dispensers of immortal fame to the rulers and statesmen of other nations, and the same standard adopted in exhibiting their character and actions to the world. If a monarch or a minister descends to become the instrument or the tool of a government distinguished above all others for its hypocritical pretensions to superiority in piety, humanity, and justice, but which in fact is altogether governed by the sordid maxims of trade, he is held up to the world as a prodigy of wisdom and virtue; but if, on the other hand, he declines to sacrifice the interests of his country to the avarice and ambition of England, he never fails to become a monster of folly and wickedness.

of

Thus has it happened with the Emperor Nicholas of Russia. Unfortunately for his reputation, he stands in the way British policy in the East, and has become highly obnoxious to the Emperor of France, whether on personal or political grounds is of no consequence in connection with our present subject. It has therefore pleased the press of both these countries to present him before the world as a stern, inflexible tyrant, as regardless of the interests and happiness of his subjects as of his political pledges to other nations, and in short, equally destitute of integrity either as a man or a monarch. The people of the United States are expected to believe all this, and our Anglo-American press has, according to custom, pliantly lent itself as an instrument in echoing these spiteful effusions of angry and disappointed rivals and enemies. We do not think it altogether becoming a great and intelligent people to be thus directed in their opinions of public men or public measures by the press of any foreign nation. Neither the London Times nor the Paris Moniteur is a fit oracle for them; nor is the base subserviency of that portion of the American press, which prostitutes itself in becoming an instrument for spreading and enforcing their opinions, any more entitled to presume to give a direction to the popular feeling in this country. They are not the organs of the free people of the United States, but the instrumentsshall we say the purchased instruments?-of foreign powers. They cherish not the slightest regard for the honor or interests of their country; their feelings are entirely expatriated, and they always stand ready to reecho the cry of the foreign pack

against any administration that has the hardihood to resist or resent any aggression or insult from any power, whether it comes from a giant or a pigmy, from England or France, from Mexico, Spain, or the King of the Mosquitoes.

Without pretending to be the advocates of a sovereign now standing in the position of a friend of the United States, while his adversaries and detractors have on various occasions evinced a hostile policy towards them, it seems but an act of justice to the Czar of Russia briefly to inquire whether he really merits the harsh censures of the British and French press, either in his private or public character. That monarch employs no hired scribblers, no subsidized journals, either here or at home, for the sole purpose of misrepresenting the character of the people of the United States, and degrading their government and institutions in the estimation of the civilized world. The press of Russia is not like that of England, one of her most dangerous weapons of war, a quiver of poisoned arrows, ever at work in pouring forth to the world a succession of libels on every nation and every government that excites its jealousy or awakens its apprehensions. If-as is without doubt the case-the Russian press is the mere organ of the Czar, its uniform tone towards the United States is only the more significant as indicating his friendly disposition, as well as that feeling of magnanimity which disdains to enlist falsehood and calumny as auxiliaries of policy or the sword. Such being the case, both justice and courtesy seem to require that the press of the United States should deal with him as he deals with us. Let us then briefly inquire whether, either as a private or public man, he merits the imputations so liberally bestowed on him by the press of England and France.

And first, as to the partition of Poland, and the intervention between Austria and Hungary, we consign him to the verdict of posterity without attempting to justify either one or the other. We shall only observe, that in the former outrage on the independence of nations, he does not stand alone, and should not therefore be selected as the sole delinquent. Others shared in the spoil; and both Austria and Prussia, which England and France are now using all their efforts to unite with the entente .cordiale, if they were not partners in the fight, reaped their full share in the fruits of victory. Neither they, therefore, nor those who are at this moment wooing their friendship and cooperation, have a right to single out the Czar as the residuary legatee of all the infamy of that transaction. We know that his blacks can not make a white; but in meting out