Year: 1870

Noone should atteupt at this day 10 write his
tory of the late war unless he be able to justify the
existence of his work by the assurance of its pos
sessng important elements OF valuable features that
do not appcrtain to the histories already Written III
anv one is able TO produce historical material of
consequence unknown 10 previous writers, or ignored
by them. he has good ground for the production of
n work displaying il. II any one, believing that
previous writers have misrepresented or misunder-
stood the chronicled facts and circumstances con-
sdeIs himself capable of establishing them in their
true relation, he may have defensible reason for
making addition 10 existing histories. Ii any one
has apprchended a philosophical principle, or
moral OF scientific OF political theory the apphea-
ton of which gives new significance or value TO the
historical record, he has justifiable motive 1or
assuming the place of historian. Before undertaking
his work on either of these grounds of Justification
however he should assuredy be well advised of the
worth of his new material or the accuracy of his
apprehension of the facts, OF the validity of his
philosophical or scientific ideas.


The last of the three volumes of Draper's History
of the American Civil War covers vast historical
surfaces 1t records the campaigns, battles, and
military movements of all the armies operating
against the Rebellion from the beginning of the
year 1868 till the close of the 1t also contains
chapters the national finances during this period,
and on the political condition of the cOuntry and it
closes with two chapters of Retrospect and
Prospect" in which the author sets forth certain
theories entertained by him of the scientific evolu-
ton of history.


The narrative of military events in this volume is
rs plain and brief as it well could be. Military tech
nicalites are altogether avoided, and there no
attempts at highy-coored writing 1t would be
quite apparent to the careful reader even if it
not expressly stated that the authors sources of in
formation have been almost exclusively the official
reports and the newspaper reports. This material
was to be found readily at hand, and it enabled him
to perform his work easily and rapidly. We do not
underrate its worth but we do not suppose there
can be any doubt in the mind of historical scholar
that official reports of military movements require
70 be examined no less carefully and critically than
the hastilywTiten letters of the army correspond
ents of the press 1t not that we are to look on
either one OF the other, from this side that, as
necessarily untrustwOrthy, Intentionally falsein
any respect; but we must never lose sight
of the circumstances under which military reports
are ordinarily written, of the limited and
imperfect knowledge upon which many Of their
statements are necessarily based historian of the
American war, writing at the present day, should
not only bring the information derived from these
under very rigid criticism, but he should on
account fail TO supplement it by extensive and
profound researches elsewhere. To this end, much
toll will be required much energy and patience
must be expended; but the results will Justify the
expenditure. There are many evidences of the want
of exhaustive research in the accounts here given of
military operations. There is often lack of pre-
esion in regard to details or a lack of evidence in
points of importance. We demand, in a work of
ths kind. that the author shall be rigorous in the in
vestieatiOn Of matters of fact, that lie shall be de-
terminate in lis analysis that in all respects he shall
display the nearest possible approach TO exacttude
In regard to none of the military operations, the
campaigns, OF the battles, do find any new mate
nal data of any consequence and so far as there
NAV be differences of statement between the author
and previous writers, he refrains from giving any
authority for his conclusions and makes no attempt
ut their historical verihcatiOn. The chapter on the
finances is altogether worthless; and we are sure
every reader will wish that this confusing farragO of
figures had been altogether omitted The chapter on
the political feeling of the North and South during
the war is exceedingly unsatisfactory; it gives not
the slightest idea of the surging exctements and
profound passions Of those tremendous times This
chapter is quite as weak as the the finances is
frOwsy.


But after ALL this volume is best in its narrative
parts and weakest in those parts devoted to specu
lation, philosophy, generalization. In the preface
we are told that attempt has been made Ito rise
10 that perception of the nterrelatiOn of facts i'll
which consists the philosophy of history, and the
success with which 1t is accomplished Is the true
criterion Of any historical composition Though |
thus invited apply this criterion, we will say but
little about the speculatiOns on the philosophy OF
history contained in the closing chapters. 1t is per-
haps hardly worth while to notice the negligence Of
the literary Workmanship of these two chapters,
is it worth while to point out the special errors of
statement which are redundant; but are sure it
would have been to the advantage of the work if
more care and research had been here bestowed
upon matters of STYLE of fact, and of deduction.


The notions which have been derived from Buckle
from Volney, to the necessary and formal laws
by which the historical evolution of the world and
it's various peoples and nations is governed are but
briefly indicated and illustrated here, having been
elabOratey set forth in the previous volumes; but
these notions have never before been stated in a
way that made them appear less satisfactory that
showed more strikingly the necessity of making
place in history for Providence and the
Soul We do not believe that the ultimate cause
of the late war is TO be found in the telluric
differences between the North and the South;
we do not believe il was conflict of climates
do not believe il was a struggle between varying or
ganc or physiological forms. We couldmore readily
accept the SwedenbOrgian idea that it was war of
spiritual forces in which teurc, aerial, and organic
laws were but unessential means. We do not pro-
pose TO argue this point however but merely to say
that we have the most unphilosopmcal
theory Of history more unsatisfactory indicated
than il is in these pages


As a specimen of many illcOnstructed and illogical
sentences in this part of the volume, we quote the
following:


As the Civil War occurred between two sections OF the
Republic which had been made separate by climate II is
plain that the chief problem for American statesmen 10
solve that Of harmOzng Of such discOrdant ele
ments and causing them TO submit TO common rule"