No More Learning

For this I was compensated by the
fact that there was never any scolding or punishing by my par-
ents; no objection to rational enjoyments, such as fishing, going
to the creek a mile away to swim in summer, taking a horse and


## p. 6602 (#596) ###########################################

6602
ULYSSES S. GRANT
visiting my grandparents in the adjoining county, fifteen miles
off, skating on the ice in winter, or taking a horse and sleigh
when there was snow on the ground.
While still quite young I had visited Cincinnati, forty-five
miles away, several times, alone; also Maysville, Kentucky,-
often, and once Louisville. The journey to Louisville was a big
one for a boy of that day. I had also gone once with a two-
horse carriage to Chillicothe, about seventy miles, with a neigh-
bor's family who were removing to Toledo, Ohio, and returned
alone; and had gone once in like manner to Flat Rock, Ken-
tucky, about seventy miles away. On this latter occasion I was
fifteen years of age. While at Flat Rock, at the house of a Mr.
Payne, whom I was visiting with his brother, a neighbor of ours
in Georgetown, I saw a very fine saddle horse which I rather
coveted; and proposed to Mr. Payne, the owner, to trade him
for one of the two I was driving. Payne hesitated to trade with
a boy, but asking his brother about it, the latter told him that it
would be all right; that I was allowed to do as I pleased with
the horses. I was seventy miles from home, with a carriage to
take back, and Mr. Payne said he did not know that his horse
had ever had a collar on. I asked to have him hitched to a farm
wagon, and we would soon see whether he would work.
It was
soon evident that the horse had never worn harness before; but
he showed no viciousness, and I expressed a confidence that I
could manage him. A trade was at once struck, I receiving ten
dollars difference.
――――
The next day, Mr. Payne of Georgetown and I started on our
return. We got along very well for a few miles, when we en-
countered a ferocious dog that frightened the horses and made
them run. The new animal kicked at every jump he made. I
got the horses stopped, however, before any damage was done,
and without running into anything. After giving them a little
rest, to quiet their fears, we started again. That instant the new
horse kicked, and started to run once more. The road we were
on struck the turnpike within half a mile of the point where
the second runaway commenced, and there was an embankment
twenty or more feet deep on the opposite side of the pike. I got
the horses stopped on the very brink of the precipice. My new
horse was terribly frightened, and trembled like an aspen; but he
was not half so badly frightened as my companion Mr. Payne,
who deserted me after this last experience, and took passage on


## p. 6603 (#597) ###########################################

ULYSSES S. GRANT
6603
a freight wagon for Maysville. Every time I attempted to start,
my new horse would commence to kick. I was in quite a di-
lemma for a time. Once in Maysville, I could borrow a horse
from an uncle who lived there; but I was more than a day's
travel from that point. Finally I took out my bandanna — the
style of handkerchief in universal use then- and with this blind-
folded my horse. In this way I reached Maysville safely the next
day, no doubt much to the surprise of my friend. Here I bor-
rowed a horse from my uncle, and the following day we pro-
ceeded on our journey.
About half my school days in Georgetown were spent at the
school of John D. White, a North-Carolinian, and the father of
Chilton White, who represented the district in Congress for one
term during the Rebellion. Mr. White was always a Democrat
in politics, and Chilton followed his father. He had two older
brothers, all three being schoolmates of mine at their father's
school,- who did not go the same way. The second brother died
before the Rebellion began; he was a Whig, and afterwards a
Republican. His oldest brother was a Republican and brave
soldier during the Rebellion. Chilton is reported as having told
of an earlier horse trade of mine. As he told the story, there
was a Mr. Ralston living within a few miles of the village, who
owned a colt which I very much wanted. My father had offered
twenty dollars for it, but Ralston wanted twenty-five. I was so
anxious to have the colt, that after the owner left I begged to
be allowed to take him at the price demanded. My father
yielded, but said twenty dollars was all the horse was worth, and
told me to offer that price; if it was not accepted I was to offer
twenty-two and a half, and if that would not get him, to give
the twenty-five. I at once mounted a horse and went for the
colt. When I got to Mr. Ralston's house, I said to him, “Papa
says I may offer you twenty dollars for the colt, but if you won't
take that, I am to offer twenty-two and a half, and if you won't
take that, to give you twenty-five. " It would not require a Con-
necticut man to guess the price finally agreed upon. This story
is nearly true. I certainly showed very plainly that I had come
for the colt and meant to have him. I could not have been over
eight years old at the time. This transaction caused me great
heart-burning. The story got out among the boys of the village,
and it was a long time before I heard the last of it. Boys enjoy
the misery of their companions,—at least village boys in that day
-


## p. 6604 (#598) ###########################################

6604
ULYSSES S. GRANT
did, and in later life I have found that all adults are not free
from the peculiarity. I kept the horse until he was four years
old, when he went blind, and I sold him for twenty dollars.
When I went to Maysville to school, in 1836, at the age of four-
teen, I recognized my colt as one of the blind horses working on
the tread-wheel of the ferry-boat.
I have described enough of my early life to give an impres-
sion of the whole. I did not like to work; but I did as much of
it, while young, as grown men can be hired to do in these days,
and attended school at the same time. I had as many privileges
as any boy in the village, and probably more than most of them.
I have no recollection of ever having been punished at home,
either by scolding or by the rod. But at school the case was dif-
ferent. The rod was freely used there, and I was not exempt
from its influence. I can see John D. White, the school-teacher,
now, with his long beech switch always in his hand. It was not
always the same one, either. Switches were brought in bundles
from a beech wood near the schoolhouse, by the boys for whose
benefit they were intended. Often a whole bundle would be used
up in a single day. I never had any hard feelings against my
teacher, either while attending the school or in later years when
reflecting upon my experience. Mr. White was a kind-hearted
man, and was much respected by the community in which he
lived. He only followed the universal custom of the period, and
that under which he had received his own education.
In the winter of 1838-9 I was attending school at Ripley, only
ten miles distant from Georgetown, but spent the Christmas holi-
days at home. During this vacation my father received a letter
from the Honorable Thomas Morris, then United States Senator
from Ohio. When he read it he said to me, "Ulysses, I believe
you are going to receive the appointment. " "What appoint-
ment? " I inquired. -"To West Point; I have applied for it. "
"But I won't go," I said. He said he thought I would, and I
thought so too, if he did. I really had no objection to going to
West Point, except that I had a very exalted idea of the acquire-
ments necessary to get through. I did not believe I possessed
them, and could not bear the idea of failing.


## p. 6605 (#599) ###########################################

ULYSSES S. GRANT
6605
GRANT'S COURTSHIP
From Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. ' Copyright by Ulysses S. Grant,
and reprinted by permission of the family of General Grant
AⓇ
T WEST POINT I had a classmate,- in the last year of our
studies he was room-mate also,-F. T. Dent, whose family
resided some five miles west of Jefferson Barracks. Two
of his unmarried brothers were living at home at that time, and
as I had taken with me from Ohio my horse, saddle, and bridle,
I soon found my way out to White Haven, the name of the
Dent estate. As I found the family congenial, my visits became
frequent. There were at home, besides the young men, two
daughters, one a school-miss of fifteen, the other a girl of eight
or nine.
There was still an older daughter of seventeen, who
had been spending several years at a boarding-school in St. Louis,
but who, though through school, had not yet returned home.
She was spending the winter in the city with connections, the
family of Colonel John O'Fallon, well known in St. Louis. In
February she returned to her country home. After that I do
not know but my visits became more frequent: they certainly
did become more enjoyable. We would often take walks, or go
on horseback to visit the neighbors, until I became quite well
acquainted in that vicinity. Sometimes one of the brothers
would accompany us, sometimes one of the younger sisters. If
the 4th Infantry had remained at Jefferson Barracks it is possible,
even probable, that this life might have continued for some years
without my finding out that there was anything serious the mat-
ter with me; but in the following May a circumstance occurred
which developed my sentiment so palpably that there was no
mistaking it.
The annexation of Texas was at this time the subject of vio-
lent discussion in Congress, in the press, and by individuals. The
administration of President Tyler, then in power, was making the
most strenuous efforts to effect the annexation, which was indeed
the great and absorbing question of the day. During these dis-
cussions the greater part of the single rifle regiment in the army
the 2d Dragoons, which had been dismounted a year or two
before, and designated "Dismounted Rifles "- was stationed at
Fort Jessup, Louisiana, some twenty-five miles east of the Texas
line, to observe the frontier. About the first of May the 3d
Infantry was ordered from Jefferson Barracks to Louisiana, to go


## p. 6606 (#600) ###########################################

6606
ULYSSES S. GRANT
ents.
into camp in the neighborhood of Fort Jessup, and there await
further orders. The troops were embarked on steamers, and were
on their way down the Mississippi within a few days after the
receipt of this order. About the time they started I obtained a
leave of absence for twenty days to go to Ohio to visit my par-
I was obliged to go to St. Louis to take a steamer for
Louisville or Cincinnati, or the first steamer going up the Ohio
River to any point. Before I left St. Louis, orders were received
at Jefferson Barracks for the 4th Infantry to follow the 3d. A
messenger was sent after me to stop my leaving; but before
he could reach me I was off, totally ignorant of these events. A
day or two after my arrival at Bethel I received a letter from
a classmate and fellow lieutenant in the 4th, informing me of
the circumstances related above, and advising me not to open
any letter postmarked St. Louis or Jefferson Barracks until the
expiration of my leave, and saying that he would pack up my
things and take them along for me. His advice was not neces-
sary, for no other letter was sent to me. I now discovered that
I was exceedingly anxious to get back to Jefferson Barracks, and
I understood the reason without explanation from any one. My
leave of absence required me to report for duty at Jefferson Bar-
racks at the end of twenty days. I knew my regiment had gone
up the Red River, but I was not disposed to break the letter of
my leave; besides, if I had proceeded to Louisiana direct, I could
not have reached there until after the expiration of my leave.
Accordingly, at the end of the twenty days I reported for duty
to Lieutenant Ewell, commanding at Jefferson Barracks, handing
him at the same time my leave of absence. After noticing the
phraseology of the order-leaves of absence were generally
worded, "at the end of which time he will report for duty with
his proper command" — he said he would give me an order to
join my regiment in Louisiana. I then asked for a few days'
leave before starting, which he readily granted. This was the
same Ewell who acquired considerable reputation as a Confederate
general during the Rebellion. He was a man much esteemed,
and deservedly so, in the old army, and proved himself a gallant
and efficient officer in two wars-both in my estimation unholy.
started for the country,
There is an insignificant
Barracks and the place
I immediately procured a horse and
taking no baggage with me, of course.
creek, the Gravois, between Jefferson
to which I was going, and at that day there was not a bridge


## p. 6607 (#601) ###########################################

ULYSSES S. GRANT
6607
over it from its source to its mouth. There is not water enough
in the creek at ordinary stages to run a coffee-mill, and at low
water there is none running whatever. On this occasion it had
been raining heavily, and when the creek was reached I found
the banks full to overflowing, and the current rapid. I looked at
it a moment to consider what to do. One of my superstitions
had always been when I started to go anywhere, or do anything,
not to turn back or stop until the thing intended was accom-
plished. I have frequently started to go to places where I had
never been and to which I did not know the way, depending
upon making inquiries on the road, and if I got past the place
without knowing it, instead of turning back, I would go on until
a road was found turning in the right direction, take that, and
come in by the other side. So I struck into the stream, and in
an instant the horse was swimming and I being carried down by
the current. I headed the horse towards the other bank and soon
reached it, wet through and without other clothes on that side of
the stream. I went on, however, to my destination and borrowed
a dry suit from my (future) brother-in-law. We were not of
the same size, but the clothes answered every purpose until I got
more of my own.
Before I returned I mustered up courage to make known, in
the most awkward manner imaginable, the discovery I had made
on learning that the 4th Infantry had been ordered away from
Jefferson Barracks. The young lady afterwards admitted that
she too, although until then she had never looked upon me other
than as a visitor whose company was agreeable to her, had expe-
rienced a depression of spirits she could not account for when
the regiment left. Before separating, it was definitely understood
that at a convenient time we would join our fortunes, and not
let the removal of a regiment trouble us. This was in May 1844.
It was the 22d of August, 1848, before the fulfillment of this
agreement. My duties kept me on the frontier of Louisiana with
the Army of Observation during the pendency of Annexation;
and afterwards I was absent through the war with Mexico pro-
voked by the action of the army, if not by the annexation itself. .
During that time there was a constant correspondence between
Miss Dent and myself, but we only met once in the period of
four years and three months. In May 1845 I procured a leave
for twenty days, visited St. Louis, and obtained the consent of
the parents for the union, which had not been asked for before.


## p. 6608 (#602) ###########################################

6608
ULYSSES S. GRANT
A TEXAN EXPERIENCE
From Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. ' Copyright by Ulysses S. Grant.
and reprinted by permission of the family of General Grant
I
HAD never been a sportsman in my life; had scarcely ever
gone in search of game, and rarely seen any when looking
for it. On this trip there was no minute of time while
traveling between San Patricio and the settlements on the San
Antonio River, from San Antonio to Austin, and again from the
Colorado River back to San Patricio, when deer or antelope
could not be seen in great numbers. Each officer carried a shot-
gun, and every evening after going into camp, some would go
out and soon return with venison and wild turkeys enough for
the entire camp.
I however never went out, and had no occas-
ion to fire my gun; except, being detained over a day at Goliad,
Benjamin and I concluded to go down to the creek - which was
fringed with timber, much of it the pecan—and bring back a
few turkeys. We had scarcely reached the edge of the timber
when I heard the flutter of wings overhead, and in an instant I
saw two or three turkeys flying away. These were soon followed
by more, then more and more, until a flock of twenty or thirty
had left from just over my head. All this time I stood watch-
ing the turkeys to see where they flew, with my gun on my
shoulder, and never once thought of leveling it at the birds.
When I had time to reflect upon the matter, I came to the con-
clusion that as a sportsman I was a failure, and went back to
the house. Benjamin remained out, and got as many turkeys as
he wanted to carry back.
After the second night at Goliad, Benjamin and I started to
make the remainder of the journey alone. We reached Corpus
Christi just in time to avoid "absence without leave. " We met
no one, not even an Indian, during the remainder of our jour-
ney, except at San Patricio. A new settlement had been started
there in our absence of three weeks, induced possibly by the
fact that there were houses already built, while the proximity
of troops gave protection against the Indians. On the evening
of the first day out from Goliad we heard the most unearthly
howling of wolves, directly in our front. The prairie grass was
tall and we could not see the beasts, but the sound indicated
that they were near. To my ear it appeared that there must
have been enough of them to devour our party, horses and all,


## p. 6609 (#603) ###########################################

ULYSSES S. GRANT
6609
at a single meal. The part of Ohio that I hailed from was not
thickly settled, but wolves had been driven out long before I
left. Benjamin was from Indiana, still less populated, where the
wolf yet roamed over the prairies. He understood the nature of
the animal, and the capacity of a few to make believe there was
an unlimited number of them. He kept on towards the noise,
unmoved. I followed in his trail, lacking moral courage to turn
back and join our sick companion. I have no doubt that if Ben-
jamin had proposed returning to Goliad, I would not only have
"seconded the motion," but have suggested that it was very
hard-hearted in us to leave Augur sick there in the first place;
but Benjamin did not propose turning back. When he did speak
it was to ask, «< Grant, how many wolves do you think there are
in that pack? " Knowing where he was from, and suspecting
that he thought I would overestimate the number, I determined
to show my acquaintance with the animal by putting the esti-
mate below what possibly could be correct, and answered, "Oh,
about twenty," very indifferently. He smiled and rode on. In
a minute we were close upon them, and before they saw us.
There were just two of them. Seated upon their haunches, with
their mouths close together, they had made all the noise we had.
been hearing for the past ten minutes. I have often thought of
this incident since, when I have heard the noise of a few dis-
appointed politicians who had deserted their associates. There
are always more of them before they are counted.
THE SURRENDER OF GENERAL LEE
From Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. Copyright by Ulysses S. Grant,
and reprinted by permission of the family of General Grant
WA
ARS produce many stories of fiction, some of which are told
until they are believed to be true.
The War of the Rebel-
lion was no exception to this rule, and the story of the
apple-tree is one of those fictions based on a slight foundation of
fact. As I have said, there was an apple orchard on the side of
the hill occupied by the Confederate forces. Running diagonally
up the hill was a wagon road, which at one point ran very near
one of the trees, so that the wheels of vehicles had on that
side cut off the roots of this tree, leaving a little embankment.
General Babcock, of my staff, reported to me that when he first
XI-414


## p. 6610 (#604) ###########################################

6610
ULYSSES S. GRANT
met General Lee he was sitting upon this embankment with his
feet in the road below and his back resting against the tree.
The story had no other foundation than that. Like many other
stories, it would be very good if it was only true.
I had known General Lee in the old army, and had served
with him in the Mexican War: but did not suppose, owing to
the difference in our age and rank, that he would remember
me; while I would more naturally remember him distinctly, be-
cause he was the chief of staff of General Scott in the Mexican
War.
When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so
soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was
in rough garb. I was without a sword, as I usually was when
on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier's blouse for a coat,
with the shoulder-straps of my rank to indicate to the army who
I was.
When I went into the house I found General Lee. We
greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats. I
had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room
during the whole of the interview.
What General Lee's feelings were I do not know. As he was
a man of much dignity, with an impassible face, it was impossi-
ble to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally
come, or felt sad over the result and was too manly to show it.
Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my
observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant
on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like
anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had.
fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a
cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for
which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the
least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the
great mass of those who were opposed to us.
-
General Lee was dressed in a full uniform which was entirely
new, and was wearing a sword of considerable value, very likely
the sword which had been presented by the State of Virginia;
at all events, it was an entirely different sword from the one
that would ordinarily be worn in the field. In my rough travel-
ing suit, the uniform of a private with the straps of a lieutenant-
general, I must have contrasted very strangely with a man so
handsomely dressed, six feet high and of faultless form. But
this was not a matter that I thought of until afterwards.


## p. 6611 (#605) ###########################################

ULYSSES S. GRANT
6611
He
We soon fell into a conversation about old army times.
remarked that he remembered me very well in the old army;
and I told him that as a matter of course I remembered him
perfectly, but from the difference in our rank and years (there
being about sixteen years' difference in our ages), I had thought
it very likely that I had not attracted his attention sufficiently to
be remembered by him after such a long interval. Our conver-
sation grew so pleasant that I almost forgot the object of our
meeting. After the conversation had run on in this style for
some time, General Lee called my attention to the object of our
meeting, and said that he had asked for this interview for the
purpose of getting from me the terms I proposed to give his
army. I said that I meant merely that his army should lay
down their arms, not to take them up again during the continu-
ance of the war unless duly and properly exchanged. He said
that he had so understood my letter.
Then we gradually fell off again into conversation about mat-
ters foreign to the subject which had brought us together. This
continued for some little time, when General Lee again inter-
rupted the course of the conversation by suggesting that the
terms I had proposed to give his army ought to be written out.
I called to General Parker, secretary on my staff, for writing ma-
terials, and commenced writing out the following terms:-
APPOMATTOX C. H. , VA. , April 9th, 1865.
Gen. R. E. Lee, Comd'g C. S. A.
GE
EN. : In accordance with the substance of my letter to you
of the 8th inst. , I propose to receive the surrender of the
Army of N. Va. on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of
all the officers and men to be made in duplicate. One copy to
be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained.
by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to
give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the
Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and
each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for
the men of their commands. The arms, artillery, and public
property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officer
appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the
side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage.
This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to


## p. 6612 (#606) ###########################################

6612
ULYSSES S. GRANT
their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so
long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where
they may reside.
Very respectfully,
U. S. GRANT,
Lt. Gen.
When I put my pen to the paper I did not know the first
word that I should make use of in writing the terms.
I only
knew what was in my mind, and I wished to express it clearly,
so that there could be no mistaking it. As I wrote on, the
thought occurred to me that the officers had their own private
horses and effects, which were important to them but of no value
to us; also that it would be an unnecessary humiliation to call
upon them to deliver their side-arms.
No conversation, not one word, passed between General
Lee and myself, either about private property, side-arms, or
kindred subjects. He appeared to have no objections to the
terms first proposed; or if he had a point to make against them,
he wished to wait until they were in writing to make it. When
he read over that part of the terms about side-arms, horses,
and private property of the officers, he remarked with some
feeling, I thought-that this would have a happy effect upon
his army.
Then, after a little further conversation, General Lee re-
marked to me again that their army was organized a little dif-
erently from the army of the United States (still maintaining
by implication that we were two countries); that in their army
the cavalrymen and artillerists owned their own horses: and he
asked if he was to understand that the men who so owned their
horses were to be permitted to retain them. I told him that as
the terms were written they would not; that only the officers
were permitted to take their private property. He then, after
reading over the terms a second time, remarked that that was
clear.
--
I then said to him that I thought this would be about the
last battle of the war-I sincerely hoped so; and I said further,
I took it that most of the men in the ranks were small farmers.
The whole country had been so raided by the two armies that it
was doubtful whether they would be able to put in a crop to
carry themselves and their families through the next winter


## p. 6613 (#607) ###########################################

ULYSSES S. GRANT
6613
without the aid of the horses they were then riding. The United
States did not want them; and I would therefore instruct the
officers I left behind to receive the paroles of his troops to let
every man of the Confederate army who claimed to own a horse
or mule take the animal to his home. Lee remarked again that
this would have a happy effect.
He then sat down and wrote out the following letter:
-
ENERAL:
G
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA, April 9th, 1865.
- I received your letter of this date containing the
terms of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia
as proposed by you. As they are substantially the same.
as those expressed in your letter of the 8th inst. , they are ac-
cepted. I will proceed to designate the proper officers to carry
the stipulations into effect.
Lieut. -General U. S. Grant.
R. E. LEE,
General.
While duplicates of the two letters were being made, the
Union generals present were severally presented to General Lee.
The much-talked-of surrendering of Lee's sword and my
handing it back, this and much more that has been said about it
is the purest romance. The word sword or side-arms was not
mentioned by either of us until I wrote it in the terms. There
was no premeditation, and it did not occur to me until the
moment I wrote it down. If I had happened to omit it, and
General Lee had called my attention to it, I should have put
it in the terms, precisely as I acceded to the provision about the
soldiers retaining their horses.
General Lee, after all was completed and before taking his
leave, remarked that his army was in a very bad condition for
want of food, and that they were without forage; that his men
had been living for some days on parched corn exclusively, and
that he would have to ask me for rations and forage. I told him
"Certainly," and asked for how many men he wanted rations.
His answer was "About twenty-five thousand"; and I authorized
him to send his own commissary and quartermaster to Appomat-
tox Station, two or three miles away, where he could have, out
of the trains we had stopped, all the provisions wanted. As for


## p. 6614 (#608) ###########################################

6614
ULYSSES S. GRANT
forage, we had ourselves depended almost entirely upon the coun-
try for that.
Generals Gibbon, Griffin, and Merritt were designated by
me to carry into effect the paroling of Lee's troops before they
should start for their homes,- General Lee leaving Generals
Longstreet, Gordon, and Pendleton for them to confer with in
order to facilitate this work. Lee and I then separated as
cordially as we had met, he returning to his own lines, and all
went into bivouac for the night at Appomattox.


## p. 6615 (#609) ###########################################

6615
HENRY GRATTAN
(1746-1820)
H
ENRY GRATTAN, eminent among Irish orators and statesmen,
was born in Dublin, July 3d, 1746. He graduated from
Trinity College in 1767, became a law student of the Middle
Temple, London, and was admitted to the bar in 1772. He soon be-
came drawn into open political life, entering the Irish Parliament in
1775
In Parliament he espoused the popular cause. His memorable
displays of oratory followed fast and plentifully. On April 19th, 1780,
he attacked the right of England to legis-
late for Ireland. With that address his rep-
utation was made. He became incessant in
his efforts to remove oppressive legislation.
By his eloquence he quickened into life a
national spirit, to culminate in a convention
at Dungannon on February 15th, 1782, where
resolutions in favor of legislative independ-
ence were stormily adopted. Presently, after
a speech of surpassing power from him, the
Declaration of Rights Bill was passed unani-
mously by both houses, with an unwilling
enactment from England. The idol now of
Ireland, Grattan was voted by its Parliament
a grant of £50,000 "as a testimony of na-
tional gratitude for great national services. " The next eighteen years
saw him resolute to secure for Ireland liberal laws, greater commer-
cial freedom, better conditions for the peasantry, the wiping out of
Parliamentary corruption, and especially the absolute emancipation of
the Roman Catholics. After the Union he lived in retirement, devoting
himself to the study of the classics and to the education of his child-
ren until 1805. Then at the request of Fox he entered the imperial
Parliament, making his first speech in favor of Fox's motion for a
committee on the Roman Catholic Petition, an address described as
"one of the most brilliant speeches ever made within the walls of
Parliament. " In 1806 he was elected a member for Dublin, which city
he represented until his decease. His last speech was made on May
5th, 1819, in favor of Roman Catholic emancipation. It is to be noted
that he was by profession and conviction a Protestant. He died in
HENRY GRATTAN



## p. 6616 (#610) ###########################################

6616
HENRY GRATTAN
1820. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, near the graves of Chat-
ham and Fox.
In spite of great natural drawbacks, Grattan achieved the highest
rank as an orator; and his passionate eloquence has rarely been
equaled in fervor and originality.
ON THE CHARACTER OF CHATHAM
THE
HE Secretary stood alone; modern degeneracy had not reached
him. Original and unaccommodating, the features of his
character had the hardihood of antiquity. His august mind
overawed majesty; and one of his sovereigns thought royalty so
impaired in his presence that he conspired to remove him, in
order to be relieved from his superiority. No State chicanery,
no narrow system of vicious politics, sank him to the vulgar
level of the great; but overbearing, persuasive, and impracticable,
his object was England, his ambition was fame. Without divid-
ing, he destroyed party; without corrupting, he made a venal age
unanimous.
France sank beneath him. With one hand he smote the
house of Bourbon, and wielded with the other the democracy of
England. The sight of his mind was infinite; and his schemes
were to affect, not England and the present age only, but Europe
and posterity. Wonderful were the means by which these schemes
were accomplished; always seasonable, always adequate, the sug-
gestions of an understanding animated by order and enlightened
by prophecy.
The ordinary feelings which render life amiable and indolent
were unknown to him. No domestic difficulty, no domestic weak-
ness reached him; but aloof from the sordid occurrences of life,
and unsullied by its intercourse, he came occasionally into our
system to counsel and to decide. A character so exalted, so
strenuous, so various, and so authoritative astonished a corrupt
age; and the treasury trembled at the name of Pitt, through all
her classes of venality. Corruption imagined indeed that she
had found defects in this statesman, and talked much of the
ruin of his victories; but the history of his country and the
calamities of the enemy refuted her.
Nor were his political abilities his only talents: his eloquence
was an era in the Senate; peculiar and spontaneous, familiarly


## p. 6617 (#611) ###########################################

HENRY GRATTAN
6617
expressing gigantic sentiments and instinctive wisdom; not like
the torrent of Demosthenes, or the splendid conflagration of
Tully, it resembled sometimes the thunder and sometimes the
music of the spheres. He did not, like Murray, conduct the
understanding through the painful subtlety of argumentation, nor
was he, like Townshend, forever on the rack of exertion; but
rather lightened upon the subject, and reached the point by
flashings of the mind, which like those of his eye were felt but
could not be followed.
Upon the whole, there was something in this man that could
create, subvert, or reform: an understanding, a spirit, and an
eloquence, to summon mankind to society, or to break the bonds
of slavery asunder and to rule the wilderness of free minds with
unbounded authority; something that could establish or overwhelm
empires, and strike a blow in the world which should resound
throughout the universe.
OF THE INJUSTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION OF CATHOLICS
From the Speech of May 31st, 1811
WHA
HATEVER belongs to the authority of God, or to the laws of
nature, is necessarily beyond the province and sphere of
human institution and government. The Roman Catholic,
when you disqualify him on the ground of his religion, may with
great justice tell you that you are not his God, that he cannot
mold or fashion his faith by your decrees. You may inflict pen-
alties, and he may suffer them in silence; but if Parliament as-
sume the prerogative of Heaven, and enact laws to impose upon
the people a different religion, the people will not obey such
laws. If you pass an act to impose a tax or regulate a duty,
the people can go to the roll to learn what are the provisions of
the law. But whenever you take upon yourselves to legislate.
for God, though there may be truth in your enactments, you
have no authority to enforce them. In such a case, the people
will not go to the roll of Parliament, but to the Bible, the testa-
ment of God's will, to ascertain his law and their duty. When
once man goes out of his sphere, and says he will legislate for
God, he in fact makes himself God. But this I do not charge
upon the Parliament, because in none of the Penal Acts has the


## p. 6618 (#612) ###########################################

6618
HENRY GRATTAN
Parliament imposed a religious creed. It is not to be traced in
the qualification oath, nor in the declaration required. The qual-
ifying oath, as to the great number of offices and seats in Par-
liament, scrupulously evades religious distinctions; a Dissenter of
any class may take it, a Deist, an atheist, may likewise take it.
The Catholics are alone excepted; and for what reason? Certainly
not because the internal character of the Catholic religion is
inherently vicious; not because it necessarily incapacitates those
who profess it to make laws for their fellow-citizens. If a Deist
be fit to sit in Parliament, it can hardly be urged that a Christ-
ian is unfit. If an atheist be competent to legislate for his coun-
try, surely this privilege cannot be denied to the believer in the
divinity of our Savior. But let me ask you if you have forgotten
what was the faith of your ancestors, or if you are prepared to
assert that the men who procured your liberties are unfit to make
your laws? Or do you forget the tempests by which the Dissent-
ing classes of the community were at a former period agitated,
or in what manner you fixed the rule of peace over that wild
scene of anarchy and commotion? If we attend to the present
condition and habits of these classes, do we not find their con-
troversies subsisting in full vigor? and can it be said that their
jarring sentiments and clashing interests are productive of any
disorder in the State; or that the Methodist himself, in all his
noisy familiarity with his Maker, is a dangerous or disloyal sub-
ject? Upon what principle can it be argued that the application
of a similar policy would not conciliate the Catholics, and pro-
mote the general interests of the empire? I can trace the con-
tinuance of their incapacities to nothing else than a political
combination; a combination that condemned the Catholic religion,
not as a heresy, but as a symptom of a civil alienation. By this
doctrine, the religion is not so much an evil in itself as a perpet-
ual token of political disaffection. In the spirit of this liberal
interpretation, you once decreed to take away their arms, and on
another occasion ordered all Papists to be removed from London.
In the whole subsequent course of administration, the religion has
continued to be esteemed the infallible symptom of a propensity
to rebel. Known or suspected Papists were once the objects of
the severest jealousy and the bitterest enactments. Some of these
statutes have been repealed, and the jealousy has since somewhat
abated; but the same suspicions, although in a less degree, per-
vade your councils. Your imaginations are still infected with


## p. 6619 (#613) ###########################################

HENRY GRATTAN
6619
apprehensions of the proneness of the Catholics to make cause
with a foreign foe. A treaty has lately been made with the
King of the Two Sicilies. May I ask: Is his religion the evidence
of the warmth of his attachment to your alliance? Does it enter
into your calculation as one of the motives that must incline him
to our friendship, in preference to the friendship of the State
professing his own faith? A similar treaty has been recently
entered into with the Prince Regent of Portugal, professing the
Roman Catholic religion; and one million granted last year and
two millions this session, for the defense of Portugal. Nay, even
in the treaty with the Prince Regent of Portugal, there is an
article which stipulates that we shall not make peace with France
unless Portugal shall be restored to the house of Braganza. And
has the Prince of Brazil's religion been considered evidence of
his connection with the enemy? You have not one ally who is
not Catholic; and will you continue to disqualify Irish Catholics,
who fight with you and your allies, because their religion is evi-
dence of disaffection?
But if the Catholic religion be this evidence of repugnance, is
Protestantism the proof of affection to the Crown and government
of England? For an answer, let us look at America. In vain
did you send your armies there; in vain did you appeal to the
ties of common origin and common religion. America joined
with France, and adopted a connection with a Catholic govern-
ment. Turn to Prussia, and behold whether her religion has had
any effect on her political character. Did the faith of Denmark
prevent the attack on Copenhagen? It is admitted on all sides
that the Catholics have demonstrated their allegiance in as strong
a manner as the willing expenditure of blood and treasure can
evince. And remember that the French go not near so far in
their defense of Catholicism, as you in your hatred of it in your
own subjects and your reverence for it in your allies. They
have not scrupled to pull down the ancient fabrics of supersti-
tion in the countries subjected to their arms. Upon a review of
these facts, I am justified in assuming that there is nothing in-
herent in Catholicism which either proves disaffection, or disqual-
ifies for public trusts. The immediate inference is that they
have as much right as any dissentient sect to the enjoyment of
civil privileges and a participation of equal rights; that they are
as fit morally and politically to hold offices in the State or seats
in Parliament. Those who dispute the conclusion will find it


## p. 6620 (#614) ###########################################

6620
HENRY GRATTAN
their duty to controvert the reasoning on which it is founded. I
do not believe the Church is in any danger; but if it is, I am
sure that we are in a wrong way to secure it. If our laws will
battle against Providence, there can be no doubt of the issue of
the conflict between the ordinances of God and the decrees of
man: transient must be the struggle, rapid the event.
Let us
suppose an extreme case, but applicable to the present point:
Suppose the Thames were to inundate its banks, and suddenly
swelling, enter this House during our deliberations (an event
which I greatly deprecate, from my private friendship with many
members who might happen to be present, and my sense of the
great exertions which many of them have made for the public
interest), and a motion of adjournment being made, should be
opposed, and an address to Providence moved that it would
be graciously pleased to turn back the overflow and direct the
waters into another channel. This, it will be said, would be
absurd; but consider whether you are acting upon a principle of
greater intrinsic wisdom, when after provoking the resentments
you arm and martialize the ambition of men, under the vain
assurance that Providence will work a miracle in the constitution
of human nature, and dispose it to pay injustice with affection,
oppression with cordial support. This is in fact the true char-
acter of your expectations; nothing less than that the Author of
the Universe should subvert his laws to ratify your statutes, and
disturb the settled course of nature to confirm the weak, the base
expedients of man. What says the Decalogue? Honor thy father.
What says the penal law? Take away his estate! Again, says
the Decalogue, Do not steal. The law, on the contrary, pro-
claims, You may rob a Catholic!
ON THE DOWNFALL OF BONAPARTE
From the Speech of Ma 25th, 1815
HE French government is war; it is a stratocracy, elective,
THE
aggressive, and predatory; her armies live to fight, and
fight to live; their constitution is essentially war, and the
object of that war the conquest of Europe. What such a person
as Bonaparte at the head of such a constitution will do, you may
judge by what he has done and first he took possession of a
greater part of Europe; he made his son King of Rome; he
:


## p.