The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-15

hone Mr.. L. G. Edwards. of Oxford
who knew him for probably hfty-fiVe
years will prepare all artlcle' upon
him. He could do it well.
I have already said that as an MS
torian / have no confidence in Prof,
Guy Carleton Lee, of Johns Hopkins
University. He can write well, but ne
| is not informed often as to the facts
| he undertakes to handle. ] mention
ed his lamentable ignorance or the
battle of Gettysburg | do not sup
pose he designed to misrepreSent the
truth and 10 perpetrate q great IN
| Justice against North CarOlnlanS III
the battle, but he was guilty OF the
wrong through sheer ignorance. his
volume has the unfortunate title OF
THE True History of the Civil War.
1t is probably as far from being that
as any book since Pollard wrote his
living book, and some others that fol-
| lowed in his wake. Prof. Lee writes
of his own performance, and he is EVIL
IDENTIFY well pleased with his accom-
plishments as an historian:
What is said of any section is said
as partisan of that section l give,
therefore, book of extremes-of UNI
L cOfflD1OI11SltlS
men and events as they were, not as
they might have been. In this presen-
tation / have necessarily written
plainly, perhaps brutally, but in every
case in strict honesty
He wrote "brutally'' of North Caro-
| inians In the Gettysburg battle, and
| perhaps elsewhere. | have before me
a short review of his book written by
our able North Carolina Professor at
Randolph Macon College, Va William
E. Dodd l clip the following which
shows more of the spirit and accuracy
of Prof. Lee:
"A comparison of a part of Mr.
Rhodes's account of the battle of the
Wilderness, May 6, 1854, with that Of
the author will surffice to show the
difference between the two. Rhodes,
Vol. ~, Page All. says Measured
by casualties, the Confederates came
nearer victory. The Union loss was
1866, authorities cited); that of the
Confederates certainly less, although
an accurate report of it is lacking. 1t
is stated as half, and, again, as nearly
two-thirds of that of the Federals.
Lee, Page 34S.
THE honors of the day, though both
sides had fought with great vigor and
bravery, rested with the Confeder-
ates. A correspondent of The London
Herald wrote from the scene: The
results to the enemy in some parts
of the field cannot be described by
any word less forcible than massacre
He estimated that the Federal killed,
wounded, prisoners, and missing not
far from 10000 men,
The absence of definite statements is
conspicuous enough.
This Vagueness. this seeming avoid
ance of making estimtes of the actual
numbers engaged in the great battles,
of the number of killed and wounded,
characterizes and seriously effects the
value of the whole book"
y The reference is to Mr.. j. Il.
Rhodes's elaborate work in several
volumes on the great war. He is
Northern. Prof. Dodd finds many
errors of more or less consequence" in
Lees laundering book. The Confed-
crates were charged with plundering
the deserted Federal camp at the bait
tie of Cedar Creek. Gen. Gordon, in
his book, as / learn from Prof Dodd,
fully exposed the falsity of the charge.
but of course Prof Lee repeats the Old
story as Prof. Dodd says. He never
searches for factS-"thee truth. /
give one more informing extract from
Prof. Dodds refutation:
'Jn the first part of the book it is
confidently asserted that the great
controversy between the North and
South was essentially a struggle for
the control of the National overnment,
and this control was desired by each
section in order to win economic su-
premacy. That is. it was a race for
material gain, and not a question of
morals; which may be a correct view.
Yet on page $50 we read that the
army was fighting for a great moral
purpose This is one of the disadvan-
tages of writing from two points of
view
Let the Southern readers refuse to
spend money on such an untlmely
and unreliable book as Prof. Lees
historical tumble.