The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-08-07

The Newport Times Herald agrees
with The Times Dispatch in hoping
that the State of Mississippi will not |
place the statue of Jefferson Davis IN
the Statuary Hall at Washington. 1t
says:
I'VE hold Mr.. Davis in high esteem.
He was great and good man and
he was one of the most pathetic |
martyrs in history. From the North
ern point of view he bore all the odium
of secession and from the Southern
point of view he bore all the blame
I for the mishaps of the war. But he
bore both with the dignity and torti-
tude of a statesman. he is worthy of
all the honor his State can bestow
upon his memory. But he does not
need a statue in Washington"
Tho Columbia Daily Record heartily
agrees with The Times-Dispatch and
says:
ITO offer the statue of Mr.. Davis
would be to invite the rantlnss ana
ratings of the pensioners OF the |
North. who would rejoice In the OPP
portunity to revi1e his memory. sure
Nv in life he suffered enough of that
sort of thing and now that he is dead
his people should not care to revive
any of it, Even Mr.. Theodore Roose-
Welt insulted him, an aged man seek.
ing to set himself right in the eyes OF
a youth. The suggestion Is unWise |
and the agitation should cease Plac-
ing his statue there could not add 10
his fame. and his people have shown,
their admiration and respect Tor MS
character and craftsmanship in their
own way. in their own land, in endur-
ing stone"
The New York Times thinks that
The Times-Dispatch discusses a little
psridly the proposition to place a
f.atue of Jefferson Davis in the old
gall of the House of Representatives"
Such, however, was not our purpose.
we only objected to it on the ground
that 1T would do nothing more than
subject him to insult, whom there is
none TO resent, and that no artificial
distinr.lon of this sort is needed to
perpetuate his glorious deeds Or honor
his memory. What the Times says
on the subject is so we'll said and said
with sucn appreciation of the man
/. and his work and is so remarkable
/ withal. coming from such source
/ that it is worth reproduction here, as
follows:
Mr. Davis occupies a marked place
H In American history, which the people
Il OF Mississippi may well be proud OF.
4 TO them probaD.y he will always be
the embodiment of the doctrine OF
State rights, sustained and fought for
in the interest of slavery. But there
is evidence that he was also a power
full instrument in the evolution of the
sentiment of nationality. He was an
eNpansionist, what in I,,ter days would
have been called an imperialist, in
every fibre of his being. His magma
ton was aglow with the vision Of
continental dominion. slavery, for
which he contended so desperately,
was to him, as to the nation, him
drance and q curse. 1t made the
dominion he dreamed of impossible.
and dwarfed his splendid conception
to the realty of a little coterie
of slave oidiag- States struggling
valiantly and hopelessly against the
unifying and progressive force OF ma
tionaiity.
Even in this struggle Mr.. Davis
was a notable figure. The volunteers
who marched through our streets In
the summer of 1861, shouting that
they would hang Jeff Davis on sour
apple tree found that 1t TOOK four
years of terrible war even to get at
that gentleman. and then that there
was no sufficient warrant In law or
reason for hanging him at all. TO nave
guided such stubborn resistance to
overwhelmingly superior force was a
great achievement, and his own peo-
pie are justified in cherishing his
memory. And We of the North mag
do well to reflect that, had he been
free from hampering devotion tc
slavery he might have been one OF
the great statesmen, possibly one o!
the great soldiers of the republic, as
we now honor and love it. We agree
that it would be well not to place hi:
statue in the Capitol. but there arr
statues OF many smaller men in tina
motley collection.
1t is true. as the Times says, tina
to the people Of Mississippi, and t.
the people Of the South as well. Mr.
Davis will always be the embodi
ment of the doctrine of State rights
Il but it is not true. as the Times claims
Is that this doctrine was Sustained ant
fought for in the interest of slavery
by Mr. Davis and his people Mr.. Davi.
has stated the case very clearly II
his Rise and Fall OF the Confederate
Government" in which he wrote: The
basis OF sectional controversy was the
question OF the balance of politIca
power. I. The question of the RICH
or wrong of the institution of SLAYER!
was in no wise involved in the earle
sectional controversies. Nor was i
|g otherwise in those of later period
in which 1t was the lot of the autho
o of rnEEe memoirs TO bear part. The.
were essentially struggles for sec
tional equality or ascendancy--for tn
maintenance or the destruction of tina
balance of power or equipoise betwee
North and South. which was earl
recognized as cardinal principle 1
our Federal system" IT was not tn
question of slavery, as Mr., Davi
| shows that stirred sectional hostilit
30 the admission OF Missouri TO tn
Union in 1920. 10 the annexation {
Texas IN 1874. TO the Louisiana Pun