A Frenchman in the United States in 1881

THERE is a curious contrast between the Souvenirs of M. de Bacourt, which were noticed in the Atlantic for February, and the Impressions of the Vicomte d’Haussonville, which are now before us.¹ It would be difficult to imagine a more striking picture of the marvelous progress of the United States than is presented by a comparison of De Bacourt’s description of the crude, unformed civilization, the undeveloped society, the uncomfortable every-day existence which he found here in 1840, and that given by the Vicomte d’Haussonville of the impressions which he gathered during his hasty visit in 1881, as one of the guests of the nation at the Yorktown celebration. One can hardly believe that the two men are writing about the same country. It must be admitted, however, that the difference between the United States in 1840 and in 1881 is hardly more marked than the contrast between De Bacourt and D’Haussonville themselves. The former was a shallow, narrow-minded man, feeble, discontented, and possessing but little imagination. The latter is a shrewd and careful observer, liberal, kindly, generous, with a great deal of imagination, and a pleasant tinge of French romanticism, at which he himself is strongly inclined to smile a little sadly as one of the memories of youthful days.

There are many passages which show M. d’Haussonville to have a strong sense of humor, and he is invariably good-tempered ; but his book is sober and thoughtful, with no effort to be brilliant or witty, and ought to find many readers in this country. It well repays, both in interest and instruction, a careful perusal.

In a necessarily brief notice it is impossible to examine such a book as this as minutely as it deserves, or to do more than touch upon some of its most salient points. It may be said at the outset that M. d’Haussonville found nothing of “ that strange and eccentric character which Frenchmen always foolishlyexpect to find in America.” Another peculiarity is that he was thoroughly grateful for the sincere and hearty hospitality which was shown him. As he gracefully says, in speaking of a fire in New York, he could not help wondering “ whether one of the committee which had received us in the morning had not pushed his gallantry so far as to set fire to his house, in order to give us the pleasure of seeing it extinguished.”

M. d’Haussonville has something to say on a large variety of subjects, and his remarks show great justice and keenness of apprehension. It will surprise some of our Europeanized Americans to learn that he considers our press, even of the second and third class, to have far more news and to be much better edited than the French journals. He also found the former, despite their bitter political articles, singularly free from talk and gossip about private individuals, or about those persons who really desire privacy, and he adds that “ les faits scandaleux et les proces scabreux ” which occupy so large a space in such newspapers as the Paris Figaro are with us relegated to their proper place in a separate column.

He examined with great care, and on the whole sums up very accurately, the state of our politics ; defining the republicans as the centralizing, and the democrats as the states-rights, party,— a description which has perhaps more historical than contemporary exactness.

The old memories and passions of the war, he thinks, are not dead, but the predominant, overmastering feelings at present are love for the Union and national pride. In his judgment, not only slavery, but secession as well, is effaced forever, and those who look for another separatist movement will be wofully disappointed, as they were when the country submitted without a murmur to the decision of the electoral commission, He studied with some care the results of the rebellion, and after every allowance for the evils it brought he says finely, after giving an account of his visit to Arlington, “ After all, only a great people is capable of a great civil war.”

At the same time, his admiration of results does not blind him to existing evils. He points out the demoralizing mischief of the reconstruction period, and finds the perils which now menace us in the political corruption that crops out in our cities and in our great national departments. He regards the “ spoils system ” as part of the same deteriorating influence, and looks upon the inferior character and ability of men in politics and public life as a great misfortune. But M. d'Haussonville also believes that a reaction has begun ; that public opinion, outside of active politicians, is a mighty force, and is both sound and strong. He hopes most, however, from the well-regulated love of liberty, characteristic of the race; the law-abiding instinct shown in the popular deference, as he puts it, for the policeman’s “baton;” and the strong religious respect, in the existence of which he has more faith than most Americans. M. d'Haussonville says too that signs are not wanting to indicate the appearance of a higher class of men in politics, from which he draws encouragement as to our future. Although our political defects are marked, and even dangerous, he has no idea that they will prove fatal, and is of opinion that we have the ability to rise to the level of our unequaled opportunities. His views of our politics, and of our political prospects, without being very rosy or extremely optimistic, are on the whole cheerful, and praise and blame are both awarded with much moderation. He is perfectly satisfied, moreover, that those of his countrymen who speak of us as in a state of decadence are not only very ignorant and prejudiced, but utterly mistaken.

On social matters M. d'Haussonville is no less correct than on matters political, and is far more amusing. In one place, he says that he wishes those who think there are no classes in America would come here and see for themselves. Social distinctions appeared to him veryrigid, and affection for the past and for tradition very strong, — two easily explicable facts, which surprised him not a little. The latter admirable quality is part of the conservatism of the English race, and it is peculiarly vigorous in the United States from the very fact that our history is so brief and our own especial past so limited. As to the social distinctions in a country where all distinctions have been swept away, so far as law and constitutions can do it, it is only natural that, from their inherent weakness and necessary frailty, they should be more jealously guarded than in other lands, where they are fortified by statute, custom, and authority. Yet the democracy and the equality are none the less real because these harmless and rigid social distinctions exist in the United States. Apart from outward graces and refinements, our manners are, on the average and at bottom, better than those of any other people, and for a very simple reason. Democracy destroys forms, but it demands and breeds the kindliness and good-nature which are the essence of the best manners ; and this fact M. d'Haussonville recognizes and admits. He makes an honest confession on this point after describing the Pullman-car conductor on the train to Chicago to whom he was formally introduced. After shaking hands the conductor discussed with him the French reception in Rhode Island and many other topics; all of which seemed to the Vicomte rather absurd, especially when he pressed a fee of two dollars into his friend’s willing hand. But when he comes to the end of this little incident, he frankly grants that the conductor was, in all essentials, a better-mannered man than any of his class in Europe ; and hence follows the further admission of this as a general truth applicable to the people of a country at large. In whatever he says about society, however, M. d’Haussonville shows that penetrating perception of which his race is sometimes capable, and he places his finger with unerring accuracy upon that which is at once our most distinguished social peculiarity and our chief defect. The passage is worth quoting: “ En Amérique lorsque vous partez pour une ville quelconque, on vous dit invariablement, ‘Vous verrez là de très jolies jeunes filles, — very pretty girls' En France on dirait, de très jolies femmes. Toute la différence dont je parle se traduit par l’emploi de ces deux mots. En Amérique, c’est pour les jeunes filles qu’est organisé le mouvement social, — bal, cotillons, matinées, parties de campagne, tout roule sur elles; et les jeunes femmes, sans en être exclues, n’y prennent qu’une part restreinte, le plus souvent sous prétexte de chaperonner une ou plusieurs sœurs, cousines, ou amies. Les jeunes personnes vont également beaucoup au théâtre, dînent seules en ville, ou vont faire des séjours chez des amies mariées. . . . En un mot, elles comprennent la vie telle que la comprend cette vieille ballade du Gâteau de la mariée, qu’on récite ou qu’on récitait autrefois en Bretagne à chaque jeune fille le jour de ses noces: —

et qui se termine par cet avertissement funèbre:—

Nothing could be happier or more clever than this description of the system which prevails everywhere in the United States except in Washington, where it is necessarily limited by circumstances. American society, as now carried on, is maintained solely for the benefit of young girls, and is generally little better than a marriage mart. The parents launch their offspring as well as possible, and display their wares to the greatest advantage, but the business of the market is carried on chiefly by the young girls themselves, instead of by their mothers as in England and Europe. There is no special objection to this method of transacting the business, but it is preposterous that young girls and their affairs should overshadow and shut out everything and everybody else. The result of this absorption in one class and one pursuit is that American society is often insufferably dull and flat. It is made up too exclusively of ignorant girls and their attendant boys. Half the education of a cultivated and attractive woman is of course that which is derived from society and from the world ; and yet American society is almost wholly given up to the business of entertaining and marrying those who are necessarily wholly destitute of such an education. Another effect of the prevalence of social principles of this description is the supremacy of that most rustic and unattractive of habits, the pairing system, which converts society into a vast aggregation of tête-à-têtes. This prevails all over the world to a greater or less extent, but it should never reign supreme. The upshot of the whole thing with us is to drive out of society nearly all married people,—for marriage under such a system is destructive of social value; nearly all unmarried women over twenty-five, who are thought to have overstayed their market; and, finally, a considerable proportion of the unmarried men of thirty and upwards. In other words, except at a few large balls and receptions, all the best and most intelligent part of society is usually lacking. It has been pushed aside, and is obliged to find all its social amusement in small coteries of its own. This retirement is of course voluntary, because the pairing system ruins general society, and makes it, in tact, impossible in the best and truest sense. A clever young Englishman not long ago expressed his surprise at the fact that, whenever he asked who a lady of a certain age, as the French say, might be, he was invariably told, not that she was Mrs. Blank, but that she was the mother of Miss Blank. The girl, like the boy, is properly the most insignificant member of society. When a young man goes forth into the world, he starts at the bottom of the ladder, and works his way up. The same rule should apply to young women in society. They have their place, and it is an important one ; but they should not start in social life at the top, and then slowly descend. Such a system is against every law of nature or of art, and with its inevitable concomitant of universal têteà-têtes makes really attractive general society impossible. We place the social pyramid upon its apex instead of upon its base, and then wonder that it is a poor, tottering, and unlovely object.

M. d’Haussonville is remarkably accurate in all his statements, not only about society, but about everything which he noticed, and which offered food for reflection. We have detected but two errors, and for only one of them is the author wholly responsible. He says, in speaking of Washington’s diary, that the entry of December 13, 1799, was the last, and that on the following night the general was found dead in his bed. Washington died of laryngitis on the night of December 14th, after twentyfour hours of acute suffering. He was perfectly conscious to the end, and, far from being found dead in his bed, died surrounded by his family and friends. The other mistake was due to a Catholic bishop in Rhode Island, who informed M. d’Haussonville that the Roman Catholics were the most numerous of the Christian sects in the United States. The census of 1870, to which the bishop referred, does not give the number of communicants, as the bishop said, but the number of church sittings. By that census the Roman Catholics stood fourth, being surpassed in numbers by the Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. The Methodists are three times, the Baptists twice, and the Presbyterians twenty per cent. larger than the Roman Catholics. The Baptists and Methodists together comprise nearly half of the whole population of the country. But it would be obviously unfair to hold M. d’Haussonville responsible for the misstatements of a Roman Catholic priest.

We have spoken of the contrast between M. d’Haussonville and M. de Bacourt, but there is one point of resemblance which curiously justifies what we said of Frenchmen in our former notice, with reference to their lack of the adventurous, colonizing spirit which has made the English race so great and powerful. M. d’Haussouville talked with the emigrants on the Canada, during his voyage to this country, and wondered greatly at their courage. “ Rather than boldly break,” he says, “ with the memories and the affections which help man to support life, I should prefer to continue to suffer where I have lived, and die where I was born.” But, unlike M. de Bacourt, M. d’Haussonville admires the hardy spirit of the colonist and emigrant, and appreciates its importance and meaning. The French names of towns in the United States led him to mourn that the empire of Franee in the New World has departed, and that her influence, except in the matter of woman’s dress and comic opera, is wholly extinct. “ O France ! ” he cries, “ chère patrie si douloureusement aimée, es-tu done définitivement vaincue dans la grande lutte des nations, et comme la Grèce antique, en es-tu réduite à te venger du monde en lui donnant tes vices ! ” He concludes with an appeal to his country to at least preserve its love for the ideal, its sense of beauty, and its preference of beauty to utility, and ends with the wish that she may deserve to be called, as she has been named, the poet of nations, — a very strange idea in regard to a race which, with all its achievements, is almost wholly destitute of any really great poetry.