The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-01-15
MR.. GREG'S DEFAMERS.
MEN NOT IN FULL SYMPATHY WITH
SOUTHERN SENTIMENT.
Eloquent Defense Of IN Impartial For
signer Who Put to the Blush Northern
Traducers Of Our Section.
To the Editor of The Times:

regret that publication was given to the
defamation OF that most able and loyal
friend OF the South, the late Percy Greg.
Any writer who assails Percy Greg's
History of the United States" writes
himself down necessarily as not In SYM
pathy with Southern principles. and a
Southern journal that publishes such COM
munications does Itself. therefore. a grave
injury.
While Northern historians, with their
German allies, Won Hoist and others, are
Systematically writing the annals OF this
country from a partisan. Republican
standpoint. al Englishman comes for
ward, generously enthusiastic I'm the cause
OF the Southern Confederacy. and taking
the doctrine expounded by Jefferson. by
Calhoun and by jefferson Davis for his
own, tells the story Of the great struggle
OF the South for her rights. while in the
Union OF 1889 and the Confederation OF
1861; tells II with such glowing, burning
eloquence that one would suppose his book
must necessarily awaken in all Southern
hearts the warmest and most grateful
emotions. But here is a man In our
midst with soul so dead that no responsive
chord is touched; no answering thrill of
sympathy stirs the cold pulse. l put
aside all aspects of these volumes other
than those concerned with the questions
between the North and the South as be-
side the point which l wish to make. The
Revolution can take care OF itself. We
may give an amused smile to the Tory
views of our historian and make allow
ances for his English training and bias,
as 1t all happened so long ago and the
world has agreed, on the whole, TO under
stand II as we do ourselves. But IL is
wholly different with the war between the
States. Here We nave to combat with the
erroneous teachings promulgated daily,
hourly by the Northern press and plat
form, found alike In Presidential mes
sages and In ignorant Grand Army brava-
does, f~alsities which this section would
fain force upon the world, and which it
eagerly desires to impress upon the youth
of our Southern land, the sons Of those
fathers Of 81, who, perhaps, even more
than the fathers of 1776, deserve our
fealty. Are we so rich, then, In eX-
Founders Of Southern principles among
cultivated foreigners that we can afford
TO have this one maligned and his noble
purpose misunderstood? | maintain that
the whole tone and tenor of Upland's
criticism does the 'grossest injustice to
Percy Greg's book as a "vindication' OF
the South. No true Southerner can read
II and not recognize the claim General
Wade Hampton makes for II, that to the
Southern people ii is "of inestimable
value" In this respect.
Professor II. Heath Dabney, Of the
University of Virginia, through his able
article in your paper last July, called the
attention Of Southern historical students
to these volumes, and by his appeal was
mainly instrumental in causing their re-
publication. | rejoice to know that he
uses them as a text book in his class OF
American history, and / hope that many
teachers in our schools and colleges will
follow his example.
1t is curious to observe now what the
Northern scholars teach as constitutional
history. MIR. Henry Cabot Lodge with
refreshing ~frankress boldly avows that
Webster's famous exposition Of the con-
stitution was Untenable when he pro-
pounded it. In his biography of Web
ster american States men Series Lodge
says: when the constitution was adopt
ed by the votes of States at Philadelphia,
and accepted by the votes OF States In
popular conventions, IT is safe to say
tina there was rot a man in the country
from Washington and Hamilton on the
one side, to George Clinton and George
Mason on The other, who regarded the
new system as anything but an expert
mcnt entered upon by the States. and
from which each end every state h&d
the right peaceably to withdraw, a r1ght
which was very likely TO be exercised
What was the trouble then in 1851, way
were the Southern States not TO exercise
their right peaceably to withdraw" from
a Union Itch was no longer conducive
TO their happiness and prosperity The
extraordinary explanation is that by some
hocus pocps. the doctrines which were
sound and valid in 1872, when New Eng
land had need of them, and even in 1888
49, IL .as.4AIaI l., Ia1af 70 nNlr
Webster, were heresies Of the rankest
sort when the South had need OF them
and the North chose to think differently.
Though the trainers Of the constitution
believed that they had established a
compact between sovereign States, because
their grandsons lat the North) found II
to their interest TO consider this paper
as a national Instrument a "funda-
mental law the grandsons Of the men
of 1888 (at the South must be forced to
accept the radically opposite interp.e-
tation, at the point Of the bayonet.
But in trying TO justify themselves for
their departure from the principles and
doctrines of 1916 and l7S9, Northern theo-
rlsts describe the process of legerdemain
here indicated by the fine and sophistical
name of development" our fathers
planted the seeds of liberty, but the tares
grew along side the wheat. The ground
holds the healthy roots of State SOW
ereignty and the right Of secession. but
we are asked to believe that their flower
and fruit are the monstrous growths we
see to-day, IAN indissoluble Union" So
called. made so by the coercion of I'm
d~estructible States" The phrase is a
contradiction in terms. II the Union
is indissoluble the States are not SOW
ereign or 'indestructible," if the States
are sovereign the Union is dissoluble.
Foreigners, with the facts before them,
naturally, in many cases, exercise their
common sense and come. however re-
luctantly. 10 right conclusions. Professor
Goodwin Smith has %pondered the subject
| since he gave his sympathy To the North
ern Abolitlonists in 1861. and HOW writes in
the North American Review, May, 1890. as
| follows: 1T is useless TO talk of the Sc
| cession as a rebellion. or to contend that
foreign nations ought TO have regarded
II In that light. 1t does not belong to
| that class of events. The South was not
an insurgent party. nor did it seek 10
overthrow or change the Federal Gov
ernment. Two groups of States, rauically
different in social structure. and conse-
uuently in political requirements, had
been Ions yoked together in ill-assorted
and uneasy union. AT last they fell
apart. The seeding group became al
once de facto a nation, with a distinct
| territory OF its own. and a regular gov
eminent, which. through the whole OF that
territory, was perfectly recognized and
obeyed. In invading and reanneXing the
Southern Confederation the North,
though ii might only be doing
mower has always done, could have no title
TO general sympathy on any other ground
than that 1t was executing the ban OF