New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-14

was one Of wholly inexcusable baseness ana
infamy. il could not efface the honoraoie anu
glorious achievements which preceded ~
BENEDICT Arnold fell, like Lucifer, never 10 Iise
ogain ~ but he had a career before his fau the
contemplation Of which by every canoid hiinu
must temper execration with regret
Charles Lee has never been the object Oh pop
Mar condemnation, like Arnold, yet 1t is open 10
question whether putting aside dramatic Access
series. he was not as black traitor as the man
who drew poor Andre into the trap-and left MIN
there Lee, too, abused his position IN inc army
TO further designs which were certainly ressohaoe'
We agree witch Mr.. Fiske that he ought 70 nave
been shot after Monmouth. and that the plu1uIV
inadequate sentence passed upon him by the
oourt-martiai was danger to the cause, ana III
some sense betrayal of the public interests. But
the whole episode serves to illustrate the diverse
side of the Revolution, and to show how many
obstructive and dangerous influences were at work
both In the Army and in politics The defenders OF
Charles Lee were, Of course. the enemies OF wash
ington for Lee himself a most bitter and vim
dictiye foe of the Commander-in-chief. and the
malignant adventurer really believed that he was
Git for the highest position in the Army.
OF course no modern account of the American
Revolution could afford to omit careful study
Fiske has furnished spirited sketch Of the last
oampaiens of the last absolute English sovereign.
lie has, moreover, duly emphasized the dependence
Of British freedom and Parliamentary reform upon
the issues of that distant struggle and he has done
well to dispute the general tradition of George
tho Thirds stupidity. No doubt it is very human
to impeach the intelligence of those who differ
from u.s. but it is not philosophical a scientific
position to take. George the Third was man
whose whole character arrayed him against the de-
mands of liberty-loving men. He cared only Tor
absoutism and he resolved If possible. to restore
il in England. He could not endure constltu-
tional Government Minister responsible TO the
people. That is why he chung to the North Min
istry. which was without independence or spirit
mere echo of the Royal will. While North was
at the head of affairs ostensibly the stubborn
old monarch could say his sic volo; sic jubeo'
without exaggeration. And this is the reason he
hated the elder Pitt so rancorously and persist
emily 1t has been said that he was so narrow
minded as to be willing to sacrifice the interests
Of the Kingdom to the qualification of his personal
preudices. but that is itself narrow view TO take
of his conduct. To him the interests of the crown
were paramount; that is the real explanation of
his course He wished to be on absolute ruler
and naturally he subordinated all other consd-
erations to that Moreover, in opposing any change
of policy in regard TO the American colonies he was
consistent, for his aim clearly was TO break down
the liberties of Engiishmen 5000 miles away
as a preliminary to introducing the same tyran-
MES at home If this not more widely recog
nized in England the abuses of the time explain
the general dulness of apprehension. The House
of Commons was then a nest Of rotten boroughs
The press was neither able nor influential nor
particularly honest. The common people had no
representation, and were. moreover, densely lg
norant, as q rule. Mr.. Fiske opportunely remarks
upon the evidence which goes 10 show that the
ratio of public intelligence in this country was far
larger than that of England at the time. Dis
cussion and elbow-room had opened the American
mind 1t was still crude enough, but it had gone
| ahead of the British mind, which was fastened
in its ruts by caste, convention and an arstocrac
system. We speak of intelligence, not of morals
There is nothing TO show that American ethics
had progressed in the proportion or, it might
be said, in any proportion They were probably
up to the general standard Of Europe, but no more
can be said.
| There is one more point In Mr. Fiske's careful
survey which deserves TO be noticed. 1t is the
practical solidarity of all the interests of civlza-
ton, demonstrated in the gradual inclusion or the
| governments seemingly least interested, in the
| American Revolution. Commercial interests, and
then the balance of power, wrought this interior
ence, until, before peace was declared, England
found herself threatened with what might very
easily have expanded into with all the world.
AS such war must have been waged upon the
sea, she might have been able to undertake it
there, but its maintenance would certainly have
exhausted her strength eventually. Primarily 1t
may be said that the outcome of the Revolution,
| like its inception was due to the obstinate and
despotic aims of one selfish man in England. But
he was sustained and encouraged by Minis
| tiers even more blind and no whit less selfish
| and the Colonies In turn owed much of their sue
cess in the war 10 the bunders and incapacity of
! commanders who committed the fatal, error OF
| Understanding unknown adversary until II
was too late TO revise judgment And if one man
in Europe was especially responsible for all the
| suffering and evil Of the Revolution, thouge his
i'll turned despite him, to good in the long run, 50
| on the American side the virtues, patriotism, self
| devotion and genius Of one turned the odds
| heavily against the invaders, more than Offset
| their superiority in numbers and ornament, and
| held the country firm against its own weakness
| and sluqgshnesS. Never can the study Of this
| great historic picture cease to be interesting and
| Instructive; nor is there any better way Of pre-
septing il than that which Mr.. Fiske has taken in
these volumes-volumes, let US add, which are in
all respects worthy of his high reputation