The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-08-06
For the Richmond Dispatch.]
Eciri W.. smith.
REPLY OF w. w. H. TO r.. A. rs.

July 81, 1877.
It is very evident from the letter of r. A
r in your issue OF the 30th that he In:
abandoned his heretofore clearlv-stated
and diynified position Of neutrality in tht
discussion as to the veracity OF Captain JONI
Smith, and has entered the lists against III!
greatiy-abused hero--a most tamcntaD ~, re
suit from my rash attack upon Mr.. Ntn M.
Before noticing The confesscdly unW'm."S
assault Of r. A. Il. upon smith, hoMc,,
wouId dispose OF the last very ingenious u,
fort 81 r. A. B. to defend Mr.. NELL as an
accurate and impartial historian. IL IS al
asroa that ! am not full in my quotations;
nnS therefore MIR. Neill is less 10 be p'afneo
sor his omissions. OF course, the conciu.
CO., docs NOT follow from the premises: put
r has sadly mistaken his premises
In writing a newspaper article IL Is al
views desirable to be as brief o. is con
aisrcnt with Justice to your subject. bIt
this does not excuse one Tor omitLihS
quotations which would change the lm-
preston produced by those given inc
1uotations omitted by me and 1urnlsheo
nv r. A, b., however, can make no change
in the evidence l adduced from Mr.. NeilPs
book of his great prejudice against Smith.
AR. Ncill does not contradict himself IN
them. but sticks to his position that Smith
wss unworthy OF trust. Let us examine
these passages: "Captain Smith was tai
ented and adventurous man. but made re-
markab)e allegations (p. 244l. That Is, told
falseholds. II there could be any doubt that
this was Mr.. Neill's meaning the previous
description OF Smith as 4 "gascon" would
remove 1t.
CAPTAIN Smiths General History was
published after the quo ,c0rrdnto was issued
against the Virginia Company, ana IL Is e'i-
dent that he wrote in the interest OF thelr
opponents."-p. I'll.
The plain nsinuation here is that smith,
who had been represented rs friendly 10 ne
company before, deserted 1t ana went 10 It's
enemies, when it was diSsolred-a dlscre-
ditable act.
"There is no evidence beyond his state
ment that the letters which he published as
written to the company were ever received
by them"
plain intimation that he concocted them
long after they were dated, and after tue
dissolution OF the company. rms lnsinua-
tion comes from Mr.. Neil with worse
grace by reason OF the fact that he does
not pretend to have all the papers OF the
.companv. Next follows the passage IN
which Smith is called q gaScon and beSgar,
quoted by me, and then comes the omitted
sentences: HE is, however, worthy OF
being remembered as an early explorer OF
the Atlantic coast. Massachusetts has
already monument to his memory. WIZ
not her example provoke Virginia ana
MARYLAND to the same good work, as the
first map OF James river and chesapeake
bay was prepared for Smiths True ke-
lation''? ca mistake as to the
book. see page 2O2, volume II, of
General History This is intended for
IRONY, or it is balderdash. Is man, because
he huppens to be an early explorer, when
others accompanied and some proceeded
him, or because he makes the first rough
and inaccurate map OF country, entitled
to monument? And are these all the ser
vices for which Smith is worthy to be re-
membered? Even r. A. B. can't stand this
damaging estimate Of Smith. Says he, in
his letter of the Goth instant, II take occa-
sion at this point personally to avow for
Captain John Smith, in his individual
efforts in promotion and in sustenance
OF Virginia colonization, and in the fur
therance and development OF the mari
time interests of New England, the high
est and most unreserved admiration. In
disputably, in indomitable resolution, clear,
incisive Judgment, and perspicuous saga
city, he doomed as master spirit among the
adventuring Virginia colonists, his COM
panions." ... ...--ys s:.i....,
AS r. Neill has proposed to Virginia and
Maryland the "good work" OF monu-
ment to Smith, it will be highly appropriate
know what 1t will be !: - ..,.- . ..,.. ...r
"To the Memory of the Notorious, Self
Important, and Untruthful
..-...s,a.:, CAPT. JOHN SMITH, :" -.,"
"A Gascon and Beggar.
He Made the First Map of the James River
- and Chesapeake Bay. ..... s-.
Born at Willoughby, 1879.
Died in London, 1891"
II these passages show that Mr.. Neiu Is
impartial to Smith, must confess that 1
am greatly at fault -
It seems, however, that r. A. B., who Is
so strict to point out my omissions, IS DIS
posed to extenuate, il not defend, the omls,
sions Of MIR. Neill, which were beyond
doubt Of o serious character. Mr.. NELL
charged that Smiths accounts OF the kind
ness Of the Indians TO him while captive,
piyen in the True Relation, his first account
OF his captivity, were contradicted In his
later book-his General History. he ne
elected to tell his readers that the True
Relation, as written by Smith, was never
published in full; and when he quoted par
aIlel passages from the two books he stopped
short lust as he got to the acknowledgements
OF kindness contained in the Geaeral His
tory, He also committed the blunder OF
putting side by side accounts Of two differ
emit occasions, claiming that they were con-
Trajectory accounts OF the same occasion.
can but admire the friendship which can
extenuate such faults. .....
did, however, make an omission as to
MIR. NeiIPs book, which 1t Is but just that
should correct. It is the note at page 16,
which cites the authorities he was following.
Says he: sssFor the facts relating to the early
DAYS Of the Colony am indebted to Wing
fields Discourse OF Virginia, edited by
Deane, and Captain Newport's Relation
This last came down to 2lst June, 1907, and
Wingfield's account commences the next
day. Wingfield was deposed from the pres
idency by the apparently unanimous voice
OF the Colony, and sent home to answer
charges. He wrote bis Sc Discourse"
to defend himself, taking occasion at
the same time to violently abuse the
Others; To an ordinary man 1t would
seem that the weight OF testimony
was against Wingfeld, and that his. single
voice must Yield to the united voices OF the
Others. But such q conclusion,, we, ma,
would have been great mistake. Mr. Neil,
with an instinct stronger than reason, has
discovered that Wingfeld's account Is the
only reliable one; and SO clear Is this con-
clusion to RI. A. 3. that to hold differently
shows prejudice In bis estimation. Says he :
"Purchas exhibits his friendly prejudice
I'm favor OF SDith) further in the exclusion
OF the narrative Of Edward Maria Wing
field, with whom Smith had been ct bitter
1910