The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-11-18
THE HISTORY OF THE CIVIL WAR.

1t Is curious fact that thus far we have
no adequate history of the War of Seces-
sion. During the two decades which fol-
lowed the peace chronicles appeared by
writers on both sides. Some of them are
meritori0us, but not one of them consti.
tutes a satisfactory history Of one OF the
most momentous struggles in which man.
kind has engaged. A few years ago a
monthly magazine in New York began the
publication of a series of personal expert
ences by generals and other officers who
had taken part in the conflict. They con-
stituie in the aggregate a splendid mass of
material to serve the future historian.
Whether that historian has appeared in
the person of John Goldman Ropes the
first volume Of whose ''Story of the Civil
War" has just appeared from the press of
the Putnams, ths public Will be better a. BILE
to decide when other volumes have made
their appearance.
Mr.. Ropes deserves praise for the candor
and impartiality with which he states the
point OF view of the two belligerents. He
allows that the great mass of the Southern
people believed in the right of secession as
stoutly as the great mass Of the Northern
| people believed in the nations right to
maintain its existence by force OF aims.
BE points out that Southerners were edu-
Gated to regard their States as separa te
| nations, and he quotes a sentence uttered
by General Cass: 81 speak to Cobb. and
he tells me he is a Georgian; to Floyd, and
he tells me he is a Virginian; to Tresco it.
and be says he is CarolinIan. Now, l
am not Michigander; am a citizen of
the United States" This idea must al
ways be kept in view In forming a iudg-
ment Oh secession; the Southerners felt
that they were right and hat the North
was wronging them; If they had not done
so they never would have persevered In
the contest with such pertinacity until
/ they were absolutely exhausted. And,
| considering their Implicit faith In thei.
creed, 1t does seem astonishing that the
| Union armies should ever have conquered
some millions of resolnts men, chiefly of
American stock, trained TO the use of arms
and nhabiting country which Was abun-
dainty able to support tnem..
The different spirit in which the people
of the two sections embarked in the war
is clearly set forth by Mr.. Ropes. The
Southerners were military people, loving
war for wars sake. The great slaye-
Uus
while the poor whites, sharing the in
stincts Of the class above them, and being
lmbued with no gainful propensities,
made admirable troops. On the other
| hand, Northerners were peaceful race,
opposed on general principles to fighting,
which they regarded as au anachronism.
They were as brave, as self-devoted, as
patriotic as their adversaries, but they
looked upon the whole thing as weary
WORK to be undertaken from a sense OF
duty only. They were unconscious of .'the
JOY which warriors feel in foemen worthy
OF their steel" They fought not to con-
quer or to win glory. but simply to pre-
serve the Union.
The volume now before us does not
carry US to the critical era of the war, but
II contains review of The battle of Bull
Run, or Manassas, and it reviews the ar
guments on the question why the South
did not invade Pennsylvania after that
hattie. Mr.. Ropes is of the opinion,