The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-09-12
TO THE PUBLIC.


with me question of historical accuracy, replied
to him in February last, by producing document
which even he himself cannot but esteem conclu-
sve. Having aignaly failed in his attempt to sacri-
fee the good name Of patriot of Rhode Island to
his desire to find in the wrong, instead Of frank
ly retracting the charges which are now proved be.
yond dispute 10 have been uniounded, he has en-
ployed his leisure in writing publishing, and at his
own cost circulating pamphlet Of ifty-nine pages,
to impeach my motives, and expose" as he calls
l., my conduct towards Mr.. Grahame, the author
Of the error which | had corrected.
1t is good saying, that "blessed are the peace
makers" Instead of applying this rule to the lit
tie misunderstanding, which Mr.. Grahame himself
wished might be forgotten, Mr.. Quincy has sought
to magnify it into ga controversy between rival his
torians," intimatins want Of disposition on my
part to do justice to this rival historian; insisting
that "the publication Of Mr. Grahame's work was
very annoying" to me; that regarded MIR. Gu-
hame in the light Of rival" shat the publication
of Grahames revised work would certainly inter-
fere with my profits" together with other charges of
the same nature.
How little reliance is to be placed on Mr.. GUM
cy's statements, will appear from the following plain
and faithful narrative.
In 1882, | first read Mr.. Grahame's work. at
once communicated my view Of its merits to Mr.
Robert Walsh, of Philadelphia, and obtained his
leave to make notice Of il in the American Quar-
terly Review, Of which Mr. Walsh was the editor
Accordingly, in that periodical, in December, 1882,
stated that "the work Of Mr.. Grahame had by no
means received, among us, the attention to which
1t fairly entitled" that he deserved "the praise
of candor and liberality;" that "there was ample
room to commend the diligence with which the
sources Of our history were investigated by him."
and annexed from his volumes long extract,
such most likely to arrest the curiosity and
conciliae the favor of the American people.-lsee
note A.
Following my suggestion of making Mr.. Ora
hames work better known to the American public,
Mr.. Walsh, at early day, entered into the plan Of
an American edition Of it. My name was in the
the correspondence connected with the design,
which always met my cordial appreciation.
Thus it appears that was one of the very first to
acquaint the American public with the merits of
Mr. Grahame, and particularly that was the first
to conciliae towards him the warm feelings and fa
cy has alluded.
When, afterwards, it was minated to me that Mr..
Grahame thought of desistng from the continuance
of his enterprise, wrote to him urging him to per-
severe, and pointed out to him the advantage Of
having the same topic treated by persons of differ
ent nations. Mr.. Grahame never replied to me-
having been offended at what l readily acknowl-
edge was the abrupt manner Of my correcting his
error about Clarke. He said moreover, that
thereafter he could never hold the slightest inter-
course with me'
took no offence at his remarks, attributing their
tone, as it now appears rightly, to disease, and
made no public reply. Not word of reproach or
complaint fell from my pen or escaped my lips.
To my friends explained the error into which Mr..
| Grahame had fallen, and in which he persisted.
One of them, very ardent one, himself undertook,
| in the Boston Post, the defence of Clarke. gave
him access to my papers and collections, but
charged him to deal most tenderly with Grahamc,
| and, above all, not to introduce one word of COM
| mendation of myself The statement of Mr.. Gum
| cy, that | made this ian occasion for sef-hattery
and laudaon," is directly the opposite of the truth,
-[See note B.
Grahame, reiterated in very strong terms indeed,
my respect for that authors writings and urged him
to retract the historical error into which he had
fallen Mr. Grahame had acknowledged that my
course towards him was marked "by liberal cour-
tesy," and sent me in private message of his ere
spectful and afectonate regard but two letters Of
mine, addressed directly to himself remained UNI
answered; and adhering to his purpose of having
no direct intercourse with me, he still replied, ind-
rectly, referring me to Chalmers. About the same
time, he published, in the the New York American
October, 1889, letter containing fresh insinuations
against me- and putting himself still more in the
wrong.
Again l made no public reply, but at once quiet
y and privately, through my friend Mr.. Prescott
| pointed out to Mr. Grahame the precise nature Of
his misrepresentation of Chalmers, in language and
manner which, at this day, I still perfectly APP
prove.-[See note CT
As Mr. Grahame, Notwithstanding my friendly
warning, persevered in his error, gave up the
hope of enghtening him on the subject, and chang
ing the word that had offended him. left the matter
to take care Of itself
To show how perfectly the public of Boston UNI
derstood my feelings towards Mr.. Grahame, | must
summon Mr.. Quincy's own son as my witness.
Mr. Grahame died in ls42. At the literary eel
ebraton at Cambridge, the day after commence
ment, notice was taken of him, and, in connection
with it, Mr.. Quncy's son turned to me to pro-
nounce his eulogy. He did right He knew that
my mind was unclouded by the slightest shade Of
jealousy or ill-wi, and in the presence Of Mr.
Quincy, the father, and very large and most re-
spectacle audience, performed the duty assigned
me. In the National InteIigencer of September
10Th, of that year, MIR. William B. Read, Of Penn
sylvania, reports that bore cheerful and generous
testimony to Mr.. Grahame's merits a historian"
l--Lsee note d. ra 30 ....
This was done at the very moment whSn the