Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-27

Of feeding the minds OF the children OF
the republic on the husks OF rancor that
had it's day, it's victories, and It's defeats
more than a generation ago.
Think of IT. There are men over forty
years old to-day who do not remember
the war. or remember it only as vague
dream Of the earliest days. Whole
generation has passed away, and IT'S
place been taken by those who know
OF the war only by written and oral re-
cords. The veterans on both sides-the
men who really met on the battlefield
have long passed the age when prejudice
or partisanship plays an active part. II
IS preposterous, therefore, to suppose that
a lust and an impartial history OF the
war showing the different interpretations
of the organic law that finally gave rise
TO the issue which precipitated the con-
Aict would not be warmly welcomed on
both sides.
Such a history would be criticised by
the irreconcilables, perhaps, but 1t would
be gladly approved and adopted by the
great body of the people, who, Whatever
their political views may be, are chleny
interested in preserving the truth, ana
in promoting and perpetuating the
genuine American spirit. 1t is Impossible
to-day to find any southern man who VIII
not agree that Abraham Lincoln was one
of the most remarkable men the country
has produced. combining in his nature
and character the typical American or
all sections, and in his motives the high
est and most ideal impulses of patriotism
II can rufle no sOutherner's feelings 70
be told that Grant and Sherman and
Sheridan and Thomas were great COM
manders. 1t can stir no sane northerner
bile to hear that Lee and Jackson and
\ ~ m.rN xrrnH
rails. No northern man can doubt the
sincerity of the South's convictions, fol
men do not face death for beliefs lghtly
held.
What then. Is all the pother about?
WHY should there be any difficulty in Sc
curing an American history Of the Ameri-
can civil war written by an American
whose methods and purposes are as
we're those of Lincoln, above and beyond
sectioualism and partisan rancor? Let Il
be admitted at once that such hlsto-
Rams are rare I'm any land. We can
write impartially about the Dutch war
ar the conquest of Mexico, ana VIII
rare beauty and felicity about new
France. But where Is the historian VINO Is
able TO rise superior to his environment
and write judicially and dispassionately
an account OF the civil war?
, I know OF but two. One has long been
nrenaring himself for some such work
and his latest, Virginia and Her Neigh
bors." Is the latest development OF me-
, thod at once scholarly, candid, and philo-
sophical. The other Is the author OF "A
History OF Political Parties in the Onltec
States" i'm three volumes-a work as re-
markable for its broad views and Its lach
/ OF all bias as IL is for its clear, vigorous
diction. one IS Professor John Fiske, OF
I 60 DrnfagoOr
Gordy a name which probably very few
readers OF the Review Of Books and Ar
have ever heard, for the reason that his
work was obscurely published.
These TWO are to-day our real historians
And vet IL seems that there should bt
found among those who make 1t theii
business to prepare school books at least
one writer ambitious enough TO link his
name with a history OF the civil wal
which shall meet with the approval Of
the Intelligence and patriotism OF all sec
lions.
1t Is impossible to believe that any sane
person. North or South. can take comfort
I'm futile attempts to convey error, or C
prevent the truth or to cater TO parti
sanship and sectional -ancor. knowine
that such attempts cannot possibly pros
per. In this American community or ours
there Is every reason why those who diffei
should be as lenient toward one another''
convictions as possible. not that error
may be promoted, but that the truth
may be found in good fellowship and
friendly feeling.
The South has no illusions about
slavery-certainly not the Democratic
South: and IL Is perfectly we'll known
that the war was not prosecuted Tor the
purpose OF freeing the negroes. Durine
the war there never was time up 70
1864 that the South could not have pre-
served slavery by laying down It's arms
But IL deliberately sacrificed lis proper -
in defence OF its Interpretation OF tns
Federal compact. There were hunul ~.
or thousands OF men in the south wac
preferred the Union TO secession not pe
cause they doubted the right OF state
. TO secede. but because they thought sepa