The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-10-26

whilst of the Confederate prisoners In
Federal prisons 26.iS6 dice. and the re-
port of the Federal Surgeon General
Barnes, published after the war, showing
that the whole number of Federal PTS
oners captured and confined inN South
ern prisons during the war was. N
round numbers, 10000, while the WEGles
number of Confederate prisoners cap
tured and confined in Northern prisons
was. in like round numbers, go, 00o. From
these two reports it will be seen that,
whilst there were $1,000 more prisoners
in Southern than in Northern prisons
during the war the deaths We're 1oui
thousand less, the per centun1 OF deaths
in Southern prisons being under nine
while the per gcentum OF deaths IN ~ u =
arn prisons was over twelve.
We think it useless to prolons tlils us
cussion. and feel confident that we can
]. "a felvI submit our conduct on this, as on
every other point involved in the war. TO
the Judgment of postcrity and the impair
tial historian, and can justly apply TO
the Southern Confederacy the language
az Philip Stanhope Worsley, OF OXFORD
University. England, in the dedlcatlon
Of his translation OF Homer 5 lii'lu -
General Robert E. Lee, the most sesiiil-
less Of earthly commanders ;, anu y
cent in fortune, the greatest.
..1,,v TROY is fallen. thy dear land
Is marred beneath the spoilers heei'
cannot trust my trembling mana
no write the things feel.
..,,,, ra.,1n, Of tombs; but let her bear
This blazon to the end CT time
No nation rose SO white anu Ia. liii'
None fell so pure OF CRIME. s.fo,-p
HISTORIES NON USED iN -
800 d
,,,-s ,,,,tseJittle to add to what was
s,id ii our former reports concerning
The histories now being taught IN our
schools. except to express our sincere re-.
,r,.a+ That fine State Board OF Educatlon,
#af+ar first excluding it, reversed It's ac-r
#+;on and mt on the list of histories TO
ba used in our public schools the work
entitled "Our Country. by Messrs.
cooner. I.still & Lennon. And with the
pofoundest respect for each memper OF
the board, we think they committed an
unintentional mistake.
we understand the board based It's
later action on the GROUND mat the edl-5
ton of this work, published IN 1901, con-
tanned important amendments. as well as
omissions not found in that OF 1886 which
vas. in our opinion, so justly criticised
and condemned by the late DR.. Hunter.
MCGUIRE and Rev. S. Taylor Martin, p
D.. in their reports to this camp in 1899.
Whilst it is true that this latest edition
has been freed from many OF the obJec-.
tons then urged against the former edl-5
ton, and it is apparent that the authors
have profited by these criticisms. and
tried to adapt this new issue to the
sentiments which gave them birth. yet
there fundamental oolecuons
this work that should, IN our opinion,
have excluded it from our schools for
ever In the first place. we call item
stionsto the fact. that the new edition does
not show on the cover, or elsewhere, that
it is a new edition at all. 1t IS bound
and labelled just as the. former was; the
preface in the new edition IS dated in 1885.
and is the same as the Old SO that. If
the publishers were so disposed, they
could easily palm off on the unWary
teacher or child the old for the new
edition.
HISTORIES TO ORDER.
But we have other objections to the
book. of a much more serious character.
The first is that the authors are the
same in both editions, and authors who
could state the causes of the war, as
stated in the frst edition of section so.
a,,d then state them (when objected toy
40 in section $50, in the new edition. are
IN o,,,. opinipn. such historians as we
should allow to write history for
ar children. it matters not If they are
Southern writer's This smacks too much
of The methods said to be pursued by the
"a r. Of ..making history to order
As DR.. Martin wrote of the first edition.
30 think we of this. He SAID:
~