The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-07-30
rrcjudscatton OF History.
CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH, i,
w. W. II. versus Rev. +. ID. Noill.
nr40rHnRQ AE II
RE3OrNDER OF X. A. II. .

w. W. II. versus Rev. r. ID. Noill.
REJorNDER OF X. A. b..
RICHMOND, July %, 1877.
Nessrs. Editors Of the Dispatch:
may express admiration at the abound
iny zeal OF W. W. II. IN behalf Of an un
dimmed fame Of " our Virginia hero" (snt
hardly less that OF New Englandl. as fur
Their and still SO ieaIously displayed in
your issue OF this date, though / may bt
unable to endorse fully his general conclu
sions, and unwilling TO allow him to mis-
interpret my clearly-statcd position az re.
CARDS the credence due to each and oil oil
the statements Of Captain John smith af'.
pearing in the published writings accredlteo
70 him. Though have nothing to oner IN
response to the last article OF W. W. ~
which was not as readily accessible 10 NM
vet may peychance, by cssaying some re-
ierences. afford him all opportunity TO 1ur-
ther entrench himself IN the public esfima-
t;on in the line OF his devoted hPro-Wor-
shin. Free ventilation. W. ". Il. Woutd
not willingly stife single historical TRUTH
"a has been exenplificd by my failure to no.
lice the two responses OF w. W. IL. pre-
ced;nr- his last, or that ostcnsbly in reply
TO MI. Neil's sketch OF John Smith, which
contained such an estimate OF Dir. NELL
that felt myself constrained to take cScep-
lions TO ii, which was the lmpelilng motive
OF nv communication; for, though l did
not desire to enter into a discussion OF John
Smiths personal qualities, yet was far
from conceding that the position and propo-
sil;ons Of W. ". Ii. were impregnabie. II
his article at present under notice was in
tended as an dmende to Mr.. Neil, I can but
regard it as an equiyocal one, for the animus
against him is no less apparent throughout
than is his prejudice" in favor OF John
Smith
As to the given explanation OF his criti-
cism Of Mr.. Nell, do not know that
need complain OF it. even with all OF its
speciousneSs, for the admission it contains
OF q knowledge OF one only or the numerous
books on divers subjects written by Mr..
Ncill certainly disqualiies w. W. II. IS in
competent as Il witness, and much less to
sit in judicial tribunal as to or upon the
general accuracy OF the former as his
torical writer. The book cited against him
THE History OF the London Company. like
that OF Holy Writ, may, in the hands OF the
ingenious, be made 10 support more views
than one. As an Offset to the charged Gin
vetarstc dislike" OF and disinclinstion to do
Justice 70 the character and due fame OF
Smith, beg to quote from the identlcal!y
same notes Of Mr.. Neill, the remaining por-
tions Of which, though apparently IN part
much more gratifying to the expressed
taste OF w. W. L.. he his seen fit to re-
isct:
"Captain Smiths General History Was
published after the quo lcdrrGni0 was issued
against the Virginia Company, and 1t is ev-
ident that be wrote in the interests OF their
opponents. There Is no evidence beyond
his statement that the letters which he pub
l;shed as written to the Company appear
ing in his General History were ever re-
ceiycd by them. He is, how
early explorer OF the Atlantic coast. Mas
.sachusetts has already monument to his
memory. Will not her example provoke
Virginia and Maryland to the same good
work, as the first map OF the James River
and Chesapeake Bay was prepared for
Smiths True Relation ?"-NeilPS Virginia
Company Of London, foot note, PIP. 2l1-12.
"Captain Smith was talented and adven-
turous man. but made remarkable allega-
Hons Ibid, p. PA.
must disagree with w. w. H. in his u-
ira judgment, and conclude the last clause
OF the Immediately preceding extract to
furnish the key to the qualified admiration
OF Mr.. Neill for John Smith.
The proof that Smith ever wrote letter
to Queen Anne commendatory OF the. vir-
tues and services OF PocahoniaS, which is
so confidently adduced y W. w. II. as
fully corroboratiyc OF the truth OF the ro-
mantle story Of the rescue, lies only in its
publication by Smith in his General His
torie" after the death Of the Queen. There
is no evidence that he wrote the letter dll-
ring her lifetime, or that it was received by
I. h,x,n II
reliable fact to sustain him in his opinion to
the contrary, | ask it Of him, in behalf of
John Smith, in his claimed reputation rs
sans peur Ct sans repr0che, and i'll the
name Of the public-some Of whom might
consider it OF precious yalue-though l con-
Tess that am not to the slightest degree
afflicted with petulant concern as to the
truth of the story, or as to phe fate OF this
controversy not It all desired by me, or
in any degree peaSurable diversion in
this intolerably hot and humid weather.
AS to the statement made by Smith in the
last page OF the General History OF Virginia,
that "in the companies name l was re-
quested to doe it" (prepare it), the very
time and place OF its appearance might be
regarded as effectually discrediting it-for
it must strike the least observant that an au-
thorization SO desirable would have found a
place on the title-page OF the history. There
are, furthermore, serious doubts as to whe-
Their the work appeared in 1924, as indicated
by the title-page. One OF the most careful
and reconcile of our historical writer's
Charles Deane, A. NJ, LII. D.-holds the
apparently well-supported opinion that it
was not published until after the appear
ance Of "Purchas's Pilgrims which was
in 1925, and in which the acknowledgment
OF materials as from Smith is made as fol-
lows &" Partly by word Of mouth, partly by
his mappe thereof in print [The Oxford
Tract Of 1922, and more fully by manu-
script which he has courteously communi-
Gated to me."-Preface TO Dsane'S True
Relation, PIP. 1888.
A word as to Smiths letter to Lord Ba-
con: Whatever estimate W. w. II. may put
upon it as a proper and manly application,
be will hardly attempt to prove that Bacon
held the deserts OF Smith in the same re-
gard that he does, or that there is any evil
dence that he noticed the application at all.
AS TO the charge Of inaccuracy Of quotation
on the part of Mr.. NELL as attempted to be
shown by parallel passages given by W.
". II. (Juv 18th, comparison OF that
from the General History, given by him with
that previously presented by Mr.. NeiA, will
exhibit that its sole deficiency lies in the
extent Of matter quoted-a fault much
less yeuia!ly manifested in W., W. HIS
~