The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-08-13
ipor tho Richmond Dispatch.l
Ncill VS.. Smith.
REPLY OF w. w. IE. TO REV. f. ID.
NELL. '

In YOUR paper Of this date the Rev. f. d.
Neill replies to my review Of his letter on
(;antain John Smith. ne does not endeayor
10 sustain his letter in those particulars IN
which criticised it, and [ shall therefore
contine myself to notice OF his aaoft'onai
reasons for discrediting Smith:
R,,t first let me say that he has mistaken
me 10 surprising i intended to appear 20 any
Ioca, nraiIldice i'm this discussion. fatIey
= wrote history OF New England. ana 1
snore nj him as "the New England histo-
Ran, Stith wrote a history OF Virginia
and I spoke OF him rs sour (s1rg'h'a) A''-
torian." ,,ua,, p,rcbos
nv describing him as one VINO ~rote anu nue.
the patronage Of Sir Thomas s,n.tn' wy
was relieved OF the presidency OF tne Lom,
don Company because OF MS atarlcious
,,rac,ires. and that he only knew virginia
.. the friends Of Sir Thomas Smith knew
II Allow that he wrote under the patron
AGE OF Sir Thomas Smith, who was ayarl-
cious. does that disqualify Purcaas from
he;rn, truthfulp I have no evidence, now
cycr, TINT Sir Thomas Smith WAS his patron,
and II he was it was far more likely that he
would hsye prejudlccd him against John
smith than in his favor. 1t was while
Sir Thomas ruled the company that
the government OF the Colony was changed,
and Smith aud tho Council at Jamestown
were displaced by president sent from
England, Captain Archer, John Smitns
enemy, commanding one OF the sh'ps when
brought over the new government ana
ad6;fionaI settlers. It was also while Cap
tain John Smith was q member OF tue COM
many. and asking iayors at It's hands,
according TO Mr.. Ncill, that Fir Thomas
Smith united with others and broke IL up.
am inclined to the opinion, however, tnat
Sir Thomas Smith was not relieved OF ms
office OF treasurer and president OF tue
company for avaricious practices, rs una
in MIR. NeiIls book on Virginia, at pages
144-5, q speech made by Sir Thomas, on the
2sth April, 1919, declining a reelection be-
cause .tbcing now appointed by the Hing
commissioner OF the nayie he could not
give such good attendance As he therein
desired"
I learn also from Mr.. Neilrs book that
Purchas was member OF the London
Company. lie must have had access, there
fore, to all its papers-not only those USED
by Mr. Neill. but those admitted to be now
lost. Purchas states that ne had Wlngneips
Discourse-accepted BY Mr.. NELL Us cor
rec:-and be had the great advantage OF
knowing personally the writer's and actors
connected with the company, including
Rolfe and Pocahontas. He is regarded uni
yersalIy, / believe, as high authority, and his
book must settle this controversy with all
fair-minded men. ..'
The fact that Mr.. NELL finds no nention
OF Smiths rescue In the earlier writings on
Virginia cannot overcome the positive state
ments made by Smith in bis letter to the
Queen on behalf OF Pocahontas In 1916, in
his " New England Tryalls," published in
1922, and his General History" published
in 1924, backed as it is by Purchas in his
"Pigrims," in 1925. All OF these writings
appeared while many OF the coonists were
alive, some OF whom have left direct teStl-
mony to the truth OF Smiths narrative. |
The alleged silence OF the earlier publica-
tons is easily explained, however. The
first writing, "Smith's True Relation"
never having been published in full, may or [
may not have mentioned the reasons. We
can never know. The next, Wingfield's
Discourse, was by Smiths enemy defend
ing his own practices, for which be had
been removed from the presidency. Itwould
have been strange had he given an account
Of. the incidents OF Smiths captivity, in no
way connected with his object or agreeable
to his temper. Accordingly, we find he
simply mentions Smiths being taken cap
tive by Pamaunkis's !" men, carried across
the country with ayiew to identify him, and
closes his account of his captivity with
these words: " At last he brought him TO
the great Powhatan lot whom before we
had no knowledge, who sent him hoNe to
our town the 9Th January" AS he does not
pretendto give what occurred while Powha-
tan held him, his silence cannot be evidence
either way. The next work: The Oxford
Tract OF 1912. by. DR.. simons, was
compiled from the writings OF various
coEonists, Smith not being one OF them.
These writer's had doubtless given ,what
they saw, and their compiler condensed
their narratives. Whether they mentioned
the incidents OF Smiths captivity we know
not. but the compiled Tract leaves out these
incidents and simply states the TACT OF MS
captivity and return in few Words-at least
I so learn from the writings OF Dir. Charles
Deane. never having seen copy mysef.
The rest OF the resident writers on Flr-
Enthusiastically, Hamer, and holfe-aii ar
rived after Smith left, and confined their
writings to what they. saw, not pretend
ing to give a history OF Smiths ad-
ventures or the occurrences prior 10
their arrival. Purchas's first Dook, MS
Pilgrimage, published In 1913, FOL
lowed and condensed the Oxford Tract
OF 1912, and his subsequent editions MAGE
no change as tt" the captivity OF Smith,
and gave, OF course, no incidents OF his stay.
BIS next, and greatly fuller book his PHI
arims-does give the incidents OF the. cap
tiyity, including the rescue. IL the silence
of the earlier writers proves anything, I'll
proves that nearly every incident OF his
captiyfty given by Smith was false, as they
are not mentioned by any but Smith. Ger
tain it is that, though, bis companions were |
killed, Smith was preserved, and ever after
wards we find Pocahontas devoted to him,
and be, time and again, attributing to her
the preservation Of bis life. =. -.
Mr.. Neill does Purchas great injustice in
attempting to produce the impression that
he quotes from Thomas Studley concerning
Smiths captivity, while Studley was dead
at that time. Purchas divided his work on
Virginia into different parts, giving the
names OF the authors from whom be quofegd
at the bottom OF the divisions. HIS nrst|
division included the history from l6W.,l
the settlement-to the return OF the sDlp
Phoenix to England, .inI160S, and 'he gives
the names s'Thomas Stldley ana AneS lou
kill" as his authorities for this DIVISION.
But as he had stated before that Studiey
died on the 2Sth August, 1907, II IS pialn
he quoted TodkilI as authority Tor the
events subsequent to Studley's death.
The discrepancy between Wingheld and
Smith as to the time Smith was held in cap
tiyity is beyond doubt the fault OF Wing
field, who Is very loose about dates. ire
ur,ently leaving them blank, and who eyl-i
IDENTIFY wrote his narrative after his return
a nav