The times., 1898-09-05
THE HISTORY OF THE WAR.
Is 1t Thoroughly Impartial in Its
Statement Of Factss

Statement Of Factss
To the Editor of The Times:
In your issue of August % (evening)
there Is an editorial article or report on
the Government History Of the Great
Civil War; You comment on many in
teresting features-its great extent and
enormous cost-coupled with the remark
that 1t Is worth the money. or words to
that effect: that both sides in the civil
ano when completed that it will be a work
which the whole nation can contemplate
with pride and honor.
Now, is IL really fact that both sides
are fully and impartially represented in
these records of the war? In truth, are
they not almost wholly a Union history
of the war? There is good deal OF doubt
in some quarters if they give all the rec
ords or in some cases even an ineligible
portion of them. In two instances I can
demonstrate that for some reason un-
known gross injustice has been done the
other side by the suppression of val
liable documents known to be in existence
and probably today on file in the Govern
ment archives.
l refer to the tyrannical arrest OF the
Baltimore police commissioners and Chief
of Police George p. Kane on July /, 1851.
the official account of which appears In
volume 2, from pages 1873 to 156 inclusive.
1t is an entirely one-sided history of that
unjustifiable act. supposed to have orig
mated with William Fl. Seward wholly
II.
tiles. When the House by resolution asked
the President for the grounds, the rea-
son and evidence upon which these men
were thrust into Fort McHenry, Mr.. Lin
coin replied that 1t was Judged to be in
compatible with the public interest al this
time TO furnish the information called
for. Nor was the Information ever fur
nished the public or the House at that or
any subsequent date.
Moreover careful search through all
the 1l2 volumes of this unbiased history
of both sides of the Civil War fails to
develop the information sought by the
House of Representatives thirty-seven
years ago More extraordinary STILL the
vast collection is strangely silent upon
the vital point II these prisoners so cru
ely torn from their homes, were ever re-
leased from Fort McHenry So far as
this luminous history of both sides is
concerned. the world might suppose Mr.
Stewards prisoners were still rotting in
the old fort out in the harbor No order
for their release can be discovered. nor
Is there any correspondence showing that
they were ever set at liberty, or tried
Tor their alleged crimes. Now, what sort
OF history of both sides" is this? Me-
thinks The Times must reconsider its
statements on this head
can cite more fragrant instance If
Z "a
Is done TO a number of distinguished cit
liens of Maryland. charged with sympa-
thizing with the South. / refer to the
| arrest of "disloyaf' members of the
| Maryland legislature and others which
! took place on the 18th of September. 1851.
among them the Hon. Fl. May, a member
| OF Congress at the time; Hon. s. T. Wal
| lis, l. ParkiH Scott, Henry u. Werfield,
ana others OF equal prominence The
| historical account of these arrests is;
| found on pages 193-l97. Vol. s. of this his
| tory OF both sides. 1t therein appears that
| these people were first sent to Fort Nc
| Henry by order OF Gen Dix of shoot him
on-the-spot' fame, and within few davs
| to Fort Monroe, and from there they
were sent by Gen. Wool to Fort Lafay-
ette, New York harbor There so FAR
/ as this exhaustive history of liz volumes
| Is concerned, these victims of somebody S
/ malice totally disappear from the public
| knowledge. There is not a scrap of Of
/ hciai records showing what was the
! eventual fate of these leading citizens of
Maryland; whether they were ever tried
/ and condemned: whether they were exon
! Grated and releasd; whether they died in
| prison or are stiil immured in the case
| mates of Fort Lafayette is a tale untold
| in this great impartial work which The
| Times lauds as giving all the records of
| the war on both sides.
| Two or three years ago there was print
| ed IN the Sun of this city, in the Rich
mond papers. and all over the South pro-
tests against the proposed suppression
| OF any portion of the Official records of
the war, | reckon from the foregoing
that the suppression or systematic ornis-
sion of certain of the records was then
no new proposition or practice. 1t began
with the very first volume issued, and
! has continued TO the end
| There is still sore place in Mary
land because of those unjustifiable ar
rests. There was always a mystery about
| them, which it has long been hoped would
| be cleared up in the official records of
| the rebellion. Nobody ever owned up to
| the shameful infamy of having ordered
| them. Gen. Mcclellan was charged with
! it, but when he was before the Chicago
| convention in 1864, his friends hastened
! to deny his completely with or knowl-
| edge of the arrests. 1t seems that an
| event of such Importance should have
| been fully exploited in these costly and
| exhaustive tones and the full truth un-
| folded TO the world. Why should only
| part of the story of these arrests be
| told? A P SCOTT
Baltimore, Aug. IS.