The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-03-05
Boards COPY
REJECTED BY
n. Y. EDITOR
LETTER IN REPLY TO ONE BY
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN
FLORIDA UNIVERSITY WAS RE-
JEcTED BY EDTToR-LETTERs
AND COMMUNICATIONS.

IN the University OF Elor1dAs conttAA-
uted an article to the Independent c1
New York city, under the caption cd
A semf-Centennial View Of Secession.
70 which Hon. John S. Beard, former
resident of Pensacola, took exception
zTr Picard sent articles to The Pensa-
cola Journal and other Florida peri
odicals condemning this professor and
saving he should not be allowed 10
teach In q southern university. The
Tndependent was also asked by Mr..
Beard 10 allow him to answer the ar
fieIs bv Professor Banks, which the
editor declined to allow. The corre-
snondence which took place between
Mr.. Beard ana the editor Of the Inde-
pendent and the contribution which
Mr.. Beard wanted published are as
'ssfollows:
The Communications.
- Staunton Va February 81. 1911
Editor Of the Independent. New YORK;
N 7.
- Dear Sir: : an enclosing you for
nnhIicstion in your Magazine. an ar
-ficIe in reply to "a Semi Centennial
View OF Secession" by Professor Enoch
9 NJ. Banks, published in your issue Oh
February g. 1911. I assure that IN
fairness. you viii publish the enclosed
article. however much you may dinelF
from it
am a native and citizen of the
State Of Florida, though residing at
present at Staunton, Virginia MY
grandfather was a member Of the Se-s
cession Convention OF Florida; my
father was an officer in the Confed-
crate Army; I was one Of the Presi-
dent Electors Tor the State Of Florida
at large in 1900; a delegate from the
- State Of Florida at large TO the Demo-
cratic National Convention at St.
Louis In 1904. have been member
Of the Senate of the state Of Florida
T,,.rinz the campaign of 1900 and 1904.
spoke IN some OF the middle west
and eastern states at the initiative
and under the auspices Of the National
Democrats Executive Committee.
While I feel assured that you will
in fairness publish my article. am
enclosing you an addressed stamped
envelope that you may return 1t to
me. in the event you decline to publish
It in order that may have it put In.
some southern publication.
am also enclosing you my check
for $500 as subscription to your Maya
zine. Please send it to me beginning
with the issue Of February 3, 1911.
Very truly yours.
JOHN s. BEARD.
February %, 1911.
John S. Beard, Esq. Staunton, Va
Dear Sir: It is extremely seldom
that we allow The Independent to be
the arena for discussion between con-
tributors and feel obliged to return
Won this article. I suggest that you
send It to Professor Banks.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM HAYES WARD,
Editor.
stanton, Va February %. 1911.
Mr.. VIM Hayes Ward. Editor indie
pendent, New York. n. Z.
Dear sir: Your letter enclosing the
article that I sent you for publication
has been received foolishiy thought
that. in a spirit OF fairness. You would
known better.
must thank you for your gratu-
itous, silly and impertinent suggestion
that I send It to Prof. Banks. How
ever, it viii be published In number
of Southern periodicals. prefaced with
nv letter to you and your reply re-
turning the article.
enclose you a clipping from the
Jacksonville Metropolis. containing a
communication that has been pub
: lished in every paper OF consequence
in the State OF Florida
Very truly yours.
- JOHN S. BEARD.
(Reiected Artiele.)
Staunton, Va February 81. 1911.
Editor OF the independent: In the
tssue Of your Magazine OF February
9. 1911, there appears an article "A
Semi Centennial View of Secession
by E. NJ. Banks, who, short bio
graphical sketch heading his article
states, Is q native OF Georgia, and al
present Professor OF History and
Economics In the Florida University
The position held by Mr.. Banks in
q Southern University gives this ar
ticle a significance that its intrinsic
merits do not command. In fact, Il
Mr.. Banks were not occupying the po-
sition that he does, doubt very mucl
e his article would have appeared IL
the Independent.
Two Questions Involved.
It Is not my intention to go into al
argument in defense of secession. Al
every tolerably well informed maj
knows, there were two questions In
svolved in that movement, viz:
1st. Did the Southern States hav,
the sovereign right to secede?
End. Was the occasion such as I,
justify the exercise of this right?
That the Southern States did hav,
the sovereign right to secede and tina
they did not act without occasion no
disproportionately to the occasion Ia
been established beyond the power o
refutation. Mr.. Banks assumes in thi
article TO write from a broad phiIoso
phical point OF view. The whole ar
ticle however, shows that he total.
misapprehends the spirit Of the Gov
eminent under which he lives and tina
he mistakes retrogression for progress
In the science of Government. Tn
- tone of his entire article is that sue
cess is the criterion OF right Mr.. Bank
- asserts that, most intelligent south
~ erners would now concede that for on
country a confederacy with the recog
nized right OF secession Is not the bes