The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. II., No. 8, July, 1836Various
General
The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. II., No. 8, July, 1836
Various
American literature -- 19th century -- Periodicals
It is, moreover, impolitic, and may often produce most pernicious and
disastrous results in moments of difficulty and danger. There is a
vast difference between the efforts of two men, in such crisis, one of
whom may rationally anticipate having his merits duly appreciated, and
to a certain extent remunerated, if he perform any very gallant or
brilliant exploit—the other almost equally certain, that do what he
may, he will probably be overlooked altogether, or, if his exploit be
commemorated, it will be after a tedious delay of ten, fifteen or
twenty years. In such great emergencies, as I referred to above, the
former is stimulated to volunteer his services as one of a forlorn
hope, where the chances are twenty to one against his escape—the
other, if detailed for the service, will doubtless perform his duty,
but will have had little temptation to offer himself as a volunteer.
Doubtless such considerations have great influence on the conduct of
British military and naval officers. Whenever they perform any very
signal or glorious exploit, they are morally certain of due and prompt
attention being paid them. With us, if an officer victoriously defends
a fort against an overwhelming superior force, as Colonel Croghan
did—if he intrepidly destroy an important vessel of war, belonging to
an enemy, and by that glorious act spread the fame of his country in
remote nations, as Decatur, and his brave companions did—if he defeat
a numerous army, as Scott and Brown have done—if he preserve a vessel
of war by a rare union of ardor, tact, and energy, as Hull did when
pursued by a fleet—if he capture or destroy an entire fleet, as Perry
and M’Donough have done—what is his reward? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps
after a lapse of ten, a dozen, or twenty “lingering, lagging years” of
suspense, he is, at a time when the exploit by which it was earned is
almost forgotten, rewarded with a gold-hilted sword!
By-the-bye, swords are, except for officers in actual service, a very
injudicious mode of testifying national gratitude. To such officers
they may be very appropriate, as they may carry them on their persons,
and their appearance will recall the recollection of the action for
which they were awarded.[1] But a service of plate, which might not
cost as much as a gold-hilted sword, lying on a sideboard, or used by
the party in his entertainments, would more effectually tend to
gratify that laudable pride and ambition, which, say what we may, have
a powerful tendency to produce almost every thing estimable in human
conduct.
[Footnote 1: Lieutenant Webster, in a letter received from him some
years since, corroborated this idea: “I keep the sword generally in my
closet, unless a friend should request to see it.”]
Of the striking cases in our history, which have called forth, and
which justify these strictures, I shall present those of General
Starke, Commodore Decatur, and Lieutenant Webster.
_General Starke_.
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