Chapter LXXIX: Introduction (4)

General Washington frequently appears in the recital of M. Blanchard, who sometimes had personal relations with him. Even at that time, in the eyes of all who knew him, the commander-in-chief of the American troops was a great man. No one doubted that this judgment of his contemporaries would be ratified by posterity. At the close of the first interview of our generals with Washington, M. Blanchard writes:

"A gracious and noble air, broad and upright views, the art
of making himself beloved--these points in his character were
observed by all of us who saw him. It is his extraordinary
ability that has defended the liberty of America, and if she
one day enjoys freedom, it will be to him she will owe it."

In a note; "I wrote the above in 1780. The Americans are
indebted for their success to the courage of Washington, to his
love for his country, and to his prudence. He never committed
an error, and was never discouraged. In the midst of successes
as well as in reverses, he was ever calm and undisturbed,
always self-possessed, and his personal qualities have kept
more soldiers in the American army, and procured more adherents
to the cause of liberty, than the enactments of Congress."

There is, I think, something to blame in this judgment, where there is evidently a tendency to personify a cause in a single man--a tendency so prevalent among us.

An American dinner in the tent of Washington is thus described:

"On the 29th, (June, 1781,) I mounted my horse to look at the
barracks in which an American regiment had been quartered
during the winter at Fishkill Landing. My intention was
to establish a hospital there. On the way I met General
Washington, who, having recognized me, stopped and invited
me to dine with him that day at three o'clock. I went. There
were twenty-five covers laid. The guests were officers of his
army, besides the lady of the house in which the general was
stopping. We dined in a tent. The general placed me beside him;
one of the aides-de-camp did the honors. The dinner was served
in the American style, and every thing was in abundance. There
were vegetables, roast-beef, lamb, chicken, salad, pudding, and
a pie--a kind of tart very much in use in England and among the
Americans; and all was served together. They gave on the same
plate, meat, vegetables, and salad, (which was eaten without
dressing except vinegar.) When dinner was over, the cloth
being removed, Madeira wine was passed round, and they drank
the health of the King of France, the army, etc. The general
made apologies for the reception he had given me; to which I
replied that I had enjoyed myself very much in his company, as
I did everywhere in America, which I liked much better than
Corsica, where I had been for many years. He then told me that
the English papers announced that the Corsicans were about to
rise in rebellion. I replied that I did not believe it; that
the Corsicans were not dangerous, and besides, that Paoli was
not General Washington. The countenance of the general has
something grave and serious about it; but it is never severe.
On the contrary, it is gentle, and usually wears a pleasant
smile. He is affable, and talks in a familiar and lively manner
with his officers. I forgot to mention that at the beginning of
the meal a clergyman who was present asked a blessing, and at
its close returned thanks. I knew that General Washington was
accustomed to say grace himself when he had no clergyman at the
table, as is the custom of the heads of families in America;
the idea being that a general in the midst of his army is as
the father of a family."

Here is a last quotation, in which we see the American general at a very critical period of his career:

"On the 24th and 25th, (August, 1781,) the troops finished
crossing the North River. The passage was a tedious one, as the
river was wide, and they were obliged to cross it on boats and
rafts, which had been brought together in great numbers. On the
25th, I went myself to the place, and saw many troops cross
with their baggage. General Washington was there. They had
arranged a sort of observatory for him, whence he superintended
every thing with close attention. He seemed to see in this
passage, in the march of our troops toward Chesapeake Bay,
and in our junction with M. de Grasse--he seemed, I say, to
see the dawn of a better destiny for America, which, at that
stage of the war, with her resources exhausted, had need of
some great success to raise her courage and her hopes. He shook
my hand with much emotion when he quitted us, and crossed the
river himself. It was about two o'clock. He immediately joined
his army, which marched the next morning.

"NOTE.--The event justified his anticipations; for the taking
of Yorktown, after our junction with M. de Grasse, did much
toward bringing about peace, and the acknowledgment of American
independence."[300]

As for General Rochambeau, wisely chosen by Louis XVI. himself to command this expedition undertaken under such peculiar circumstances, he made the French character appear in his own person in the noblest light. The Americans, before his arrival, imbued with English prejudices--prejudices often justified in the eighteenth century--against the light tone and reputed affectation of our young nobility, were prepared to find the French general (as several of them afterward confessed) a mere courtier, opposed to their ideas and customs, and with whom their relations would be constrained, in consequence of difference of character. They saw, on the contrary, a type of our old France, who seemed formed on the same model as their own leading men, loving justice, seeking good, worthy and dignified.

"He has served well in America," wrote our commissary, "and has given a favorable idea of our nation. They pictured to themselves a French fop, and they found a thoughtful and dignified gentleman. '_Your general is very self-possessed_,' said an American who dined beside me, and who observed the moderation with which General Rochambeau responded to the numerous toasts proposed, and which were drunk as they went round by all present. He has given many other proofs of moderation and wisdom."

He had also his faults, and they are related with impartiality: a mistrustful character, unamiable manners, and an unpleasant temper, of which his officers often complained. Nevertheless, General Rochambeau remains on the whole a fine specimen of the old army.

We meet many allusions, also, to La Fayette:

"On that day, (September 17th, 1781, a short time before the
taking of Yorktown,) and the following days, I was constantly
with M. de La Fayette, who wished to assist me in the
provisioning of the troops. It would be difficult to find more
clearness, patience, and honesty in the discussion of business
matters. He reminded me of Scipio Africanus in Spain, equally
young and modest, and with the reputation already of an able
general; for his recent campaign, in which, with inferior
forces, he maintained himself against Cornwallis, has brought
him much glory, and justly."

If America and the Americans of the war of independence constitute the chief interest of this journal, whatever relates to the organization of our troops at that time, as well as to their spirit and military customs, is not the less deserving of attention.

In this "_memento_" of an expeditionary army corps, there naturally appear, in the course of the recital, the shortcomings of the past, and in contrast the progress since made--for instance, in the _materiel_ and weapons of war. It was necessary, at that time, to erect the baking-houses in the neighborhood of the encampments; and when the army advanced, men were sent to establish them ahead. But they did not march very rapidly in those days.

There was a certain want of discipline among our soldiers, and a carelessness on this point in the officers, which shock our modern ideas; and yet the army corps of General Rochambeau, which was composed of picked troops, was cited for its exemplary conduct at that period. The Marquis de Custine,[301] then colonel of a regiment, having allowed himself, in a fit of passion, to make use of intemperate language toward one of his officers, the latter committed suicide. The news spread at the moment of parade, when M. de Custine was hooted, insulted, and his life threatened by his soldiers. "Unless some officers had interfered, worse would have happened to him," says M. Blanchard. It does not appear that any punishment was inflicted for this serious insubordination. It would seem as if a disturbance of this kind did not cause much uneasiness to the commander-in-chief.

The distinctions between the officers were less marked than at present. The military spirit was not then what it has since become, and, in truth, war was a less serious matter at that time than it is now.

We might mention, also, the punishments of the past, and thus mark the changes that have since been made. A French soldier struck an officer with his sword. He attempted to kill himself afterward, but was taken, tried, and condemned to death. What kind of death? His hand was cut off, and he was then hanged. Some years have elapsed since 1789!

These soldiers of Rochambeau are of our race and blood. They are our great-grandfathers. Nevertheless, how widely the French army of that period, which is so near and so far at the same time, differs from our present army in its _esprit_, its conduct, and its habits!

We said in the beginning that the history of the French intervention had not been written by any contemporary historian. If one were to appear to-day who would treat fully this subject, hitherto so much neglected, we should have lost nothing by the delay. Indeed, after nearly a century of the greatest changes, the moment would doubtless be excellent to treat this important episode of our military and political history, and compose a work based on authentic documents, which would have at each step the interest of thrilling contrasts. The author would draw a parallel between the military organization of the expedition of 1781 and of one of the present day of equal importance. The means of action, the expenses, and the general way of doing things, the improvements of every kind, would be compared, and give rise to curious and useful observations. But above all, we would see in this retrospective view the dawning of a nation which has since developed to a degree which has no parallel, when we consider the shortness of the time. A century has not yet elapsed, and these three millions of rebellious English colonists have become the forty millions of Americans who hold so important a place in the world of to-day. Finally, the author would endeavor to depict the extraordinary part assigned to this nation toward whose foundation we contributed, and of which we might be truly called the god-parents. He would show its tendencies, its work, its future. Has not, in fact, the birth of the United States, even to the dullest mind, become an historical fact of equal importance with the French Revolution? In an important document of recent date, (the diplomatic circular of M. de La Valette, of September 16th, 1866,) appear the following words, which deserve attention:

"While the old populations of this continent, in their confined
territories, increase with measured slowness, the republic
of the United States may, before a century, number a hundred
millions of men."

Some will say that the independence of the United States was a necessity, and that it would have been accomplished without any assistance from France. In the course of time, very likely. But if France had not come forward when she did, with men and money, we can readily believe that the new state would have fallen again, for some time to come, under the yoke of the mother country. As a consequence, the development of this people, which has been owing largely to the principles of the American constitution, would have been greatly retarded, and the United States would not be to-day at that point where we now behold her.

Be this as it may, it is curious to see the old French monarchy lending its aid to the birth of a society most opposed to its principles and traditions. This arises from the fact that all unite to aid a cause when its hour has come. However, Bourbon royalty, carried away by the national sentiment, performed then a wise and generous act of the highest importance, the remembrance of which will never be effaced on either side of the Atlantic.

FOOTNOTES:

[290] Thus designated in the royal almanacs from 1762 to 1768. His successor in the office of general secretary to the "Swiss Grisons" was the Abbé Barthélemy, author of _Le Jeune Anacharsis_.

[291] These expressions are copied from the letter of General Berruyer, "Gouverneur des Invalides," announcing to the minister the death of the commissary.

[292] Claude Blanchard had a son who was himself a commissary, and who died recently, at the age of ninety, at La Flèche, (Sarthe.) The writer of this review is a great-grandson of Claude Blanchard.

[293] The treaty of Paris (1763) had deprived France of Canada and Louisiana.

[294] The only contemporary history is the Abbé de Longchamp's _Histoire de la Dernière Guerre_, in three volumes.

[295] This first expedition comprised five thousand men; it was followed a year afterward, by a second corps of three thousand, brought from the West-Indies, but which remained only a short time in America. They were commanded by MM. de Saint-Simon and d'Autichamp.

[296] Duportail, camp-marshal, who was minister of war for some time toward the end of 1790, went through the American campaign as a volunteer in the service of the United States.

[297] Cornwallis, a skilful general, though unfortunate on this occasion, was highly esteemed by Napoleon I.

[298] "We quartered with the Americans, but we asked nothing from them but shelter. Each officer brought with him his provisions and cooking utensils, his bed and bedding, and we occasioned no expense whatever to our hosts. I had for my use two wagons or covered conveyances drawn by good horses, and I had all I stood in need of."

[299] Does not this remark, written in the darkest period of the Reign of Terror, and under danger of death, indicate the most profound convictions? A very tragical equality! and one that brought M. Blanchard and the royal family together under circumstances deserving of notice. On the 10th of August, when Louis XVI. and his family sought refuge in the hall of the Legislative Assembly, they were kept with their suite for many hours in a small apartment, and when the dauphin, who afterward perished in the Temple, was in danger of being stifled with heat, he was let down from the chamber into the hall, and received upon the knees of Deputy Blanchard, who held him there for a long time.

[300] The preliminaries of this peace, which recognized the existence of a new nation, were signed the 10th of January, 1783. M. Blanchard received the news the following March at Porto-Cabello, New Spain, where the fleet which had brought our troops with a view to an expedition against the English Antilles, was lying at this moment. "The assurance of this peace caused me great joy, both because I am a citizen, and because I saw in it the termination of my anxieties in regard to my family. The news was received with enthusiastic joy by all, with the exception of some few ambitious men who thought only of themselves and their own fortunes."

[301] What has become of the journal of M. de Custine, of which the manuscript of M. Blanchard makes mention in the following passage? "To-day, M. de Custine, who has just been travelling into the interior of America, showed me his journal and the result of his observations, which appear to me wise and liberal." We have found no other trace of the Memoirs of General de Custine on the campaign in America.

THE EMIGRANT.