Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-10-26
we to fight on until the whole South
exterminated. II we hold those caught
-, :, -, ~ mora than dead men.

Il that OF the confederate soldiers III ttle
field, except in so far as the condition
of those in prison must of necessity be
worse than that of men who are free
and active outside"
This is the statement as we have said
of the Federal Assistant Secretary OF
War during the var. and. of course, he
knew whereof he wrote. He was the man
by whose authority General Miles pu,
the shackles upon Mr.. Davis when he
/ was in prison at Fortress Monroe. and
! was therefore prejudiced in the highest
degree against Mr.. Davis and the Con
| federate authorities generally. And his
| statement must be taken as conclusive
| Of this whole question.
| When we add to this the pregnant TACT
] that the report of. the Federal Secretary
| of War, Mr.. Stanton. dated July -. 1866,
| shows that of the Federal prisoners
| in Confederate prisons, only 22,576 died;
whilst Of the Confederate prisoners in
Federal prisons, 26.436 died. and the re-
| port of the Federal SurSeon-Generai
Barnes published after the war, showing
| that the whole number of Federal pris-
| oners captured and confined in South
| ern prisons during the war was, IN
| round numbers 27O,CO0 while the whole
number of Confederate prisoners cap
tured and confined in Northern prisons
was in like round numbers, 100000. From
these two reports It will be seen that,
whilst there were $4,000 more prisoners
in Southern than in Northern prisons
during the war the deaths were tour
thousand less, the per centum Of deaths
in Southern prisons being under nine,
while the per centum OF DEANS IN Norln-
err prisons was over twelve.
We think it useless to prolonS this dis
cussion, and feel confident that we can
safely submit our conduct on this, as on
every other point involved in the war. to
the Judgment of posterity and the impair
tia1 historian. and can justly apply to
the Southern Confederacy the language
of Philip Stanhope Worsley. of Oxford
University England, in the dedication
of his translation of Homer,s lhad TO
General Robert E. Lee, ''the most stain
less of earthly commanders. and. ex-
cept in fortune, the greatest"
"Tfy Troy is fallen, thy dear land
Is marred beneath the spoilers heel;
I cannot trust my trembling hand
70 write the things I feel.
"Ah! realm of tornbs; but let her bear
This blazon to the end Of time;
No nation rose SO white and fair,
None fell SO pure Of crime"
OUR HISTORIES.
we
said in our former reports concerning the
histories now being taught in our schools.
except to express our sincere regret that
the State Board of Education. after first
excluding it, reversed it's action. and
put on the list of histories to be used
in our public schools the work entitled
"Our Country" by Messfs. Cooper, Estill.
& Lennon And with the profoundest
respect for each member Of the board. we
ri~fnp
mistake.
We understand the board based Its later
action on the ground that the edition Of
this work, published in 1901, contained
important amendments, as well as onlls-
sions not found in that of 1896. which was.
in our opinion, so justly criticised and
condemned by the late Dr.. Hunter Nc
CURE and Rev. S. Taylor Martin. D. 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 edi-
tion and it is apparent that the authors
have profited by lnese criticisms. and
tried to adapt this new issue" to the
sentiments which gave them birth; yet
there are fundamental objections to this |
work that should in our opinion. have ex-
Guided it from our schools forever. In |
the first place. we call attention to the |
on the cover or elsewhere. that it Is
new edition at all. It is bound and label |
led 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 pub
fishers were so disposed they could easily
palm off on the unwary teacher or child
the old for the new edition.
But we have other objections to the !
book of much more serious character
IT. q, t1a
same in both editions. and authors who
could state the causes Of the war. as
stated in the first edition of section 81.
md then state them (When objected TOD
as in section 500, in the new edition sare
not, in our opinion, such historians as
we should allow to write history for our
it matters not if lney are south
arn writer's. This smacl1s too much Of the
methods said to be pursued by the
Grand Army Of the Republic of making
history to order" AS DR.. Martin wrote of
the first edition., so think we of this. He
said
"The book is a feeble production. The
controlling idea is evidently the produc-
lion of history that would be accepta-
bic to both North and South
To accomplish such a task is (as it
should be) an impossibility. But we con-
denim this work more for what it fails to
say aUOul lie CAUSES VI llle "dI tiidH
Cor any inaccuracies we have noticed in
what 1t does say on that and other SUBJ
facts. It's text is on the order of those
who say Eve thought we were right"
"ather than that I'VE were right"
We did know we were right then, and
we do know it now; and we are entitled
20 have this told to our children.
Writers at the North are almost daily
saying to the world tnar the Southern,
States had the right to secede. Even
Goodwin Smith, the most learned and