Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-11-09

committee in Richmond So much for the
statement OF the Baltimore Herald. quot
ed by Mrs. Garnctt, that the Virginia
Division went back on the action OF It's
committee To refute the constitutional
point as TO name, reference has been
made TO the fact that the Grand Division
Of Virginia retained its name without any
| objection being made by the United
Daughters. This is quite true: it is also
true that the twenty or more chapters be-
| longing TO the Grand Chapter in 1891 paid
nothing for their charters: IT being hein'
no doubt justly. that those chapters nav
ing purchased their charters from the
Grand Division. when it was an independ-
ent organization, should not pay Tor them
! twice: many other constitutional require
ments were waived. This of course, was
perfectly legitimate the general conNen-
tio,> United Daughters of the Confeder-
acy. composed of representatives of the
States forming the organization, having
a perfect right TO do as they liked with
the constitution they had formed, but:
when it is Il question of one of these
States laying aside any article Oh l!ils
constitution. the difference is manifest.
The Virginia Division in voting on the
badge article. adopted the article as laid
down in the United Daughters OF the Con-
fedcracy constitution and added TINS
clause: The badge of the Grand DiNl-
sion is also authorized to be used if pre-
ferred.'' AS a.. Daughters are privileged OF
wear the badge Of the general society,
the addition of this c1suse placed the
Grand. Division badge on very nearly
equal footing with that of the United
Daughters of the Confederacy: remember
ing that the maiori1y Of the committee
from the Virginia Division did not vote
for a wholesale adoption of the Grand
Division badge. we again fail to see room
for the accusation that the Virginia lolVl-
sion repudiated The action of its COM
mittee. Mrs. Garrett is in error as to
-four out OF five of the committee having
changed their minds One member OF
the committee was not in Richmond.
never attended meeting, hence only four
OF our committee ever had N opportunity
TO change their opinions: of one of these
Mrs. Garnett wrote on July 18TH little
more than a month after the Joint ses-
sion was held, Mrs. Merchant told me
she would never vote for the Grand DlVl-
sion badge, also when the question or
name came up she announced that OF
course Virginia division would be kept,
as the United Daughters of the Confed-
cracy constitution SO required About
the same date, nr Il little earlier Mrs.
Garnett also wrote that the union would
never be consummated until the proper
persons are placed at the head of affairs
in the Virginia Division Evidently,
Mrs. Garrett did not then think the
ladies SO ardently desired union as to
consolidateupon any terms. The Virginia
Division is not opposed TO the union of tn
two divisions IF it can be satisfactorily
arranged; SO We declared in q resolution
sent from the convention of the Virginia
Division TO the General Division in which
the Virginia Division declared they would
gladly unite upon the constitution as
amended / repeat. we are not antago-
nistic 10 union, but this will never be
effected by airing our differences through
the medium of newspaper controversy.
Reading this / have kept silent while
almost every newspaper, of any note, in
the State has made its cut at the Eir-
ginia Division, and it is with the great
est reluctance and only after much per-
Suason that ] have said even this much
Oh the subject. In conclusion l wish to
say that ] trust Mrs. Garnett, all men,
berS of the Grand Division, every Daugll-
ter who reads this article will believe
that not one atom Of spite. malice or
bitterness points my pen and that While
the two societies may remain divided in
name, ] trust each year may draw us
nearer in oneness of purpose, purity of
motive. and love for the men whose valor
we perpetuate.
Very respectfully,
MRS. ". G. ". MERCHANT.
President Virginia. Division, United
Daughters Of the Confederacy