Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-10-27
DETHRoNING HISTORY.

| MIS-. SuSdn Il. Lee . fistOry OF the
| United States has. we learn from the
Boston Herald. stirred up considerable
feeling among the Grand Army people.
and one Massachusetts Grand Army
| post has gone so far as to issue a for
NAL manifesto against it. This mani
festo, which takes up two columns OF
| the Herald, consists largely OF run
| ming comment pronouncing as false and
partisan various extracts that 1t quotes
from Mrs. Lees work.
The Grand Army post that comes so
prominently TO the front in this mat
ter poses as champoning the teaching
Of the truth Of history In the schools
OF the country. But If It is sincere; If
1t represents the knowledge OF the ave-
rage northern man of the history OF the
United States-particularly the history
OF the war period and the causes OF
the war-it were well that II employ
its patriotic zeal in securing a speedy
revision of the histories that are the
vogue North. Assuming that the post is
sincere. the series Of challenges in the
manifesto of Mrs. Lees statements ar
CUES sad pollution with ignorance of the
fountains OF the posts historical in
formation.
But the assumption of sincerity is a
violent one. Towards the end the mani |
festo warns up. and the real animus |
Of the attack on Mrs. Lees history |
develops In the declaration that our |
school histories should teach that 'in
the great struggle for the Union the
most sacred principles of human rights
we're involved. and that the North was
light and the South was wrong" 1t
$ true that an effort is made to sugar
,oat this declaration, but the sugar.
coating is rendered exceedingly nauseous
~ the element Of hypocrisy IT contains
nd the patronizing way in which 1t is
ought to administer the pill. WheS
arefully analysed the manifesto means
hat its authors would dethrone Clio and
nthrone in her stead the partisan and
fetish to which the McMasters
nd the Goodwin Smiths minister as high
RESTS.
The Boston Herald endorses the mani
esto in an editorial, in which 1t aims
} doubt to be kind and conciliating.
ut when our contemporary says that
q worse perversion of the facts of his
Try than this book (Mrs. Lees history
ontains is not easily conceivable" II
scomes open TO the suspicion of having
so drunk from fountains of historical
formation that were polluted with
norance or falsehood, or renders itself
lble to the charge of not having read r
e manifesto critically and understand ,
gly. We are inclined to attribute the :
erald's comment to the latter trouble. /,
e snow 1t to be usually well informed, | ,
id we think it strives to be fair. This :,
ing so, it is not easily conceivable that !,
could have made so sweeping an as o,
rtion as the above had 1t studied it's :
xt. n
Another thing that surprises us In d.
@ Herald's article is the sentiment fc
at ut is but a poor compliment to a
c southern people to represent them as
wing been overcome by States whose
use was as unjust and whose manner | &
conducting 1t was as oppressive as II
here represented" C
This is not a refutation of a single W
Itement made by Mrs Lee. 1t does not fl
stain a single denial, direct or I'M Il
ed, made in the manifesto. 1t is "a
nj, pure and simple. 1t is by impli- N
n "holier than thou proclamation. le
embraces the doctrine that the war
far as the North was concerned was
jehad. tn
We were about to say that the mani ga
to of the Massachusetts, Grand Army c.
It and the Heralds comments thereon ar
serve no good purpose. But we cor Of
t ourselves. They will serve a good in
pose-wll serve the cause of right up
justice and truth and duty If We Of a
South draw from them the lesson
should draw. That lesson is perse-
ance in our determination not to use TIN
our schools any histories that do in ine
tice to the South. ap