The Chautauquan, Vol. 05, June 1885, No. 9Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Philosophy
The Chautauquan, Vol. 05, June 1885, No. 9
Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Chautauqua Institution -- Periodicals; Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle -- Periodicals
There is very general regret, at home and abroad, that the new
administration has removed Professor James Russell Lowell from the
office of American minister at the court of St. James. There is no
disposition to complain; but there is some natural wonderment. Mr. Lowell
was an ideal American diplomat; he represented worthily the people as
well as the government of the United States. It is no disparagement to
his successor to say that no other American can quite fill the place
Mr. Lowell has made for himself. It should be remembered that we,
fortunately, have very little proper diplomatic business anywhere in the
world; and whenever any serious negotiation is to be undertaken, it can
be done at Washington. Our important treaties are made in the national
capital; and our gravest foreign affairs are always directly administered
by the Secretary of State. Since Franklin it has seldom happened that a
minister has been entrusted with any grave duties or burdened with any
serious responsibilities. Even during the civil war Mr. Seward managed at
Washington the more serious business of the foreign department.
In this generation, we have had some successful foreign ministers;
but their success has in every case been in non-official or
extra-official lines. Mr. E. B. Washburne, our minister in Paris
during the Franco-German war, won a high reputation, not as a diplomat
of his country, but as an American minister entrusted, by an act of
international courtesy, with the rights and welfare of Prussians in
Paris. As the agent of the Berlin government during the war and siege,
Mr. Washburne endeared himself to the large German population of Paris by
his kindness, common sense, and energy in caring for a body of subjects
of a hostile country. No one but a typical American could have done this
work at all well. A man trained to diplomacy would have failed. It needed
a man who could put his character and American office into a breach made
by war, and devise means of providing for an extemporaneous necessity.
Most men would have failed; Washburne succeeded because he was a typical
American of the largest pattern—able, frank, tireless, resourceful.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account