New-York tribune., 1885-02-17
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
pETPIEITD POLITICS.


mn X 4S3. HonghtOu. Mihlin d CO.
Nr Sbaler is best known as professor OF paleon-
@oloov at Harvard, but he is native OF Kentucky
md has been much occupied with the concerns OF
that State He has some special personal qualified
tions therefore for the task which he hasundertaken
in this volume; he is familiar with the character
istics of the population, the resources aud pecuiar
ties of the country, and many Of the conditions
which have affected the course of Kentucky
history The origin of the commonwealth was
different from that of other menoors OF the Union.
II was formed by emigration from Virginia and Its
original settlers were almost wholly OF British
stock-chicny from the rural districts of England
The population of Kentucky has always remained
more homogeneous than that of oar other com
munities; and Mr.. Shaler declares that 1t Is the
largest body of pure English folk that has, speaking
generally. been separated from the mother country
for two hundred years. The history of such
transplanted people presents some interesting
features which our author fully recognizes and II
he has not developed his subject with entire clear
ness the defect is owing to want OF literary skill
rather. than to an imperfect appreciation OK the
facts TO get rid of dsagreeable point at once, we
may as well say that Professor Shalers literary
equipment is extremely light lie has no style; he
is not always grammatical; and he has little art IN
the arrangement of his materials. The story OF tho
Kentucky pioneers might have been made highly
toOgical museum.
1t is in the last third of his book, however which
covers the period of the rebellion that Professor
Shalers work Is most open to CRITICISM lie Dc
longed during the war to the socalled Conserva-
tive Union party, for which there was great
deal of tenderness and sympathy at the North more
on account of the difficulties of its position than the
justness of its principles; and he has not yet dis
covered the exact place of that party in the history
To;ta al RnrHar
lists. who were opposed to secession, but also op-
posed to preventing it, did render great service to
the Nation by refusing to join the COnfederacy,
md it is impossible not to admire the steadfast ness
with which they resisted the many influences
drawing them toward the Southern side; but 1t
must be confessed that they were sometimes
terrible embarrasSm sSment to the Federal Government
and that their position would often have seemed
ridiculous if the terrors of civil war had not beset it
SO closely Professor Shaler was and apparently is
STILL believer in radical Statesrights heresies; he
goes so far as to declare that the distinct OBJ
iect of the American Revolution lad been TO secure
local g0renment" which, of course, is very gross
error the object of the Revolution having been self
government, which is not at all the same thing as
local government; and he holds that the Demo-
cratic party, at the secession epoch. was the Con-
servative party of the Commonwealth, desiring to
maintain;the existing state Of institutions against a
way revolutionary in its tendencies in that it was
willing TO take some dcre concerning sldrey"
AS if the Democratic party for o generation
previous to that time, had been anything else than
a conspiracy " to take some active measures con-
cerning slavcryn! And as if it was " revolution
ary" to insist that slavery should be pushed no
further
Mr.. Shaler has great deal to say OF the revolu-
tionary proceedings of the Radicals" and the
e % narfv hat n
pearcd to be willing to destroy the Common wealth
if it stood in the way of its purposes "; and he is
absurd enough to maintain that " the people OF
Kentucky endured far more outrage from the acts
OF Federal provost marshals than they did from oil
the acts of legitimate war put together lie has
an extravagant admiration for the futile invention
of neu trality" by which the anti-seeessoniss OF
kentucky imagined that the Commonwealth could
maintain an attitude of strict impartality between
LOYALTY and treason and, holding the combatants at
arms length, forbid either of them to step upon
Kentucky soil. Kentucky assumed at that time to
be entirely Independent of both the Federal and the
Confederate Governments she regarded them both
rs invaders when they crossed the socalled neutral
boundary; and to the Presidents trst call for
troops the Governor returned an insulting REFUSAL
winch the LEGISLATURE by the votes of both parties,
formally approved. Mr. Lincoln prudently
humored the kentucky vagary for while, and a
more reasonable Union sentiment began to assert
itself. When the COnfederates invaded the State,
the Legislature Resolved, That the invaders must
be expelled and gravey requested" the Federal
commander of the department. General Robert
Anderson to take instant command" of the
necessary force and eXpel the invaders by authority
of the Common wealth. Perhaps this made no great
difference in the movements of the Federal armies,
and added no very awful power to General Ander-
sons command; but it was doubtless great salts
faction to the Legislature. Grotesque, however, as
the collapse of the neutrality fiction Professor
Shaer thinks that the behavior of Kentucky will
be regarded as one of the best evidences of general
political capacity that this country has yet
afford ed"
The whole of the rebellion history is written by
Professor Shalcr in the style of party advocate.
with so many evidences of heat, prejudice and
rancor that it often reads like Border State Dem
ocratic newspaper of twenty-five years ago. PLAINLY
he has stepped outsle his proper path in trying to
write history. We hope that he does not try to
alleviate the monotony of lessons on the mastodon
by lecturing to the young at Harvard on
paaopolitics.