The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1874-09-16
Associate Reformed Presbyterian
The American CyclopGdia--- Jefferson
Davis. and Columbia, S. G.

We suppose it is principle univer
sally admitted and generally observed
by all writers, that in the statement OF
any fact or facts largely disputed,
notoriously questioned-by persons, too,
just as competent every way to judge
of their correctness as the writer him.
self-we say it would be universally
confessed that this fact, (of dispute,
should also be stated. TO announce as
a fact, undisputed and uucontroverted,
that which is denied by hundreds of i'll
telligent and reliable witnesses, is spe-
cies Of untairness so gross and inexcusa-
bic as to cast suspicion and doubt over
everything that is stated. With all
calm and impartial readers it is fatal to
the authority Of the writer. -.
In examining recently some articles in
the American Cyclopedia (new edition., /,
we think it is justly chargeable. with
this unfairness. We refer particularly
to the articles on Jefferson Davis and
Columbia, S. G. That one on Mr.. Da-
Wis is, in the main, unobjectionable, just
and fair. 1t accords to him due praise
as q statesman, characterizes his man
agement of the War Department Of the
Uuited States as distinguished by "auil-
| ity and energy" But the whole narra-
tive is spoiled by incorporating that
miserable story about Mr.. Davis wear
| ing his wife's cloak and attempting to
escape from his pursuers under pretence
of being woman. And this is men
toned as if there was not the slightest
dispute about it-as if it was finally set
tied as matter of history.
Now, we do not suppose that there is
one man or woman iu every five thou
sand in the Southern States that believes
one word of this. 1t has been contra
dicted q hundred times. We do not
propose going into the evidence in the
case. What we say is this, that the
statement was not in any way necessary
to the completeness of tia article, and,
moreover, to insert it as an unquestioned
fact, while very large proportion Of
the "American" people never gave it
the slightest credence, this, we say, looks
very much like partisanship, such as is
utterly unworthy place i'll work like
the American Clyclopedia. I ask, in
the name of historic trntf, would it not
have been enough simply to say that
Mr.. Davis was captured near 1rwins-
vile, Ga, Oh such day, by so and so ?
Why give place to statement which,
| it is we'll known, no intelligent person
in this section credits? 1t could be
tolerated in a newspaper, it might be
endured in school history, (such as
Goodrich's, for example, but we confess
we had not expected it In work claim.
ing to be calm, impartial, American"
What we complain of is not the inser-
ton of fact, however painful and hu-
initiating, but it is the stating, as mat
ter finally settled, an incident which has
vet to be established as real before this
great people.
How would the Northern people
Judge of work Of this kind prepared
at the South, and which, in an article
on Mr.. Lincoln, should insert the news
paper story about the military cloak
and Scotch cap "a story which certain
Iy has as much foundation as the one
about Mr.. Davis. Would they not
brand the work as blindly sectional, and
just as we feel like doing with this En-
cyclopedin,) spew it out Of their mouth {?
We bring the same charge Of unfair
ness (also unnecessary, too, except to
give the South stab,) against the En-
cycloprdia in the article on columbia,
S. c." and "Conhagrotion." Here you
have it stated, as if 1t were never denied,
that Gen. Hampton's forces set fire to
Columbia by firing the cotton in the
streets. Now the writer Of this article
surely could not have been ignorant Of
the fact that Gen. Hampton himself,
certainly competent witness, and many
citizens of Columbia, who saw the whole
thing, state most positively that the city
was fired by Sherman's forces. And
this was abundantly and publicly estab-
lished last year in the testimony ad-
duced in the case Of British claimants.
In these cases the crime was fixed be-
yond doubt with all the solemnities
and formalities of civil trial. And
yet, with a persistent purpose, as it
seems to us, to misrepresent, this terrible
disaster is laid at the door of Southern
soldiery. Now, we ask in this case, as
in the other, why was the origin Of the
fire mentioned at all, since it was matter
Of dispute? The fact could have been
stated that the city was burnt at that
time, and, if thought necessary, it might
have been further stated that it was not
certainly known how the fire originated,
some ascribing it to Gen. Sherman's
forces, and others to Gen. Hampton's.
Historic fidelity, impartial justice i'm
peratively demanded the entire omission
or material qualification of these state
ments. And we protest that 10 work
in which they are found can with any
propriety be called American"
w, M. G.
The Dawson Journal gives the follow
IN oI vino RI 70