The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1895-04-04

'@tsS13
the following personal and private letter
written several years ago by the author o
the work, the late Prof. Steele:
ICopy.l
ELMIRA, N. Y, Dec. z, 1885.
~ DEAR SIR: 1t is strange task assigned
me, to reply to charge of disloyaity in my
book. A Union soldier. with a rebel bullet in
my hand, and receiving pension from the
Government, l am generally considered where
4 an personally known as above suspicion or
taint on that score. In reply to the charges
made by the article you inciose, can only
enter formal denial.
To be more explicit, / would say that the
chapter on the Civil War contains, / think,
exactly three quotations, in notes, from Pol
lard's Lost Cause. These are with reference to
the destruction at New Orleans by the Con-
federates tpage 231), the massacre at Fort Pillow
tpage 26J) ANA the destruction at the fall OF
Richmond by the Southern Generals (psge 273).
All OF these points being distasteful to the
South, aDd denied by many, | give by quota
tien from Southern sources, and hence in no
danger of being colbred by Northern prejudice,
etc. therefore not TO be disputed.
/ did not follow Pollard, but did follow, in
my general consultationpf Of nthorities. Draper's
Civil War. Ny aecoupt has. however, since
been compared with ipd often rewritten in
accordance with ShermaD, Badeau, Humphrey,
etc, as well AS the recent articles in the Century
as fast as these new sources Of information have
appeared. - aH
| do not pronoHnce the Wilderness a Con-
federate victory. say1 distinctly (page 260),
Neither side had. conquered" This means a
drawn BATTLE" just as ahe writer himself calls
it. fy
As to my "coldnessi and indifference" in
treating OF Union, victories. / would refer to
my description of. the battle of Chattanooga,
page PAT. think no one will com plain of any
lack of fire or enthusiasm on the part of the
author in portraying the triumph of Grant. /
could namU other piacoss but refrain.
1t is little curious that this very week
there came to me violent onslaught upon my
account of the Civil War, written to my r-5-
fishers by Southerner. and charging me with
seeing every thing ont of Northern eyes aud
from Northern standpoint, and so discrimi-
mating against the South. Such is the result
Of trying to write an impartial history. IL is
matter of astonishment to me that anyone can
read my book through, and then accuse me of
trying to tickle the Southern sentiment From
the beginning TO the end flows the strong cur
rent Of loyalty. True. do not call the Con-
fcderates rebels or traitors. You could hardly
expect son OF Southern soldier to study
history that applied such name to his father.
But we do not want a Southern history and
-NoithefH HiStoiy PuiSutu III iiHeIeHt pdEts oi
our country; such result would soon SOW the
seeds OF another civil war. Every loyal man
now desires mn assimilation of the two sections.
My aim has BEEN therefore, to inspire pride
in the National name-Americans, a deep and
abiding love for the Union. To this end re-
elimination does not tend. There never will
be anything but jealousy between the North
aud South so long as each section insists upon
intensifying its own prejudices and refuses to
gee auy good i'm the other. If there iS pool
in the South. why did fight to keep it in
the Union7 If its soldiers did not show
bravery, what were our armies doing for those
long, bloody years? / would enter the army
tomorrow If it were necessary once more to
fight to save tho Union, but will not descend
to abuse fellow foe. nor teach my child to
hate my oldtime antagonist who is now my
fellow conntryman. Sincerely yours.
(Signcd) JOEL DoRMAN STEELE.