Изображения страниц

it nor readily believe it. Our conviction is that this half page, though taken from his "Old Virginia," to say nothing of his yet more objectionable "Critical Period," is enough to banish from Southern schools Mr. Fiske's history and everything else that he ever wrote. We quote indifferently from other books than the history, as we are merely engaged in proving Mr. Fiske's unfitness as a guide for Southern readers, even if the North is content to follow him. We, therefore, turn again to the "Critical Period of American History." He is speaking of the successive ratifications of the Constitution of 1787. Page 330, speaking of "amendments offered by Massachusetts," he says: "It was not intended that the ratification should be conditional." Pages 336-7-8, he is telling us of the triumph of Madison and Marshall in securing Virginia's ratification by a narrow majority of 89 against 79. He goes on to use these words: "Amendments were offered after the example of Massachusetts." We appear from his statement to have acted after that example. It is perfectly true that both States, after ratifying the Constitution, did recommend certain notable amendments. Not one word is there to indicate any different action at all. We necessarily suppose that here, too, "it was not intended that the ratification should be conditional." Would any uninformed or unsuspicious reader imagine that while the Massachusetts act was a simple acceptance, there occurred in the body of the Virginia act of ratification the following emphatic declaration? "We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will,"

Mr. Fiske evidently did not think this worth mentioning. The effect of the point of view upon the historic perception is simply wonderful.


In speaking of the New York ratification (page 344), he says that Hamilton, fighting over the question whether New York could ratify the Constitution conditionally, reinforced himself with the advice of Madison. The question was, "Could a State once adopt the Constitution and then withdraw from the Union if not satisfied?" "Madison's reply," he says, "was prompt and decisive." Such a thing could never be done. "There could be no such thing as a constitutional right of secession." How much of this he intends to give as direct quotation from Madison's lips does not appear.


The letter itself our readers will find in Hamilton's works, volume I., or more conveniently in Henry's "Patrick Henry," volume II., page 368, where will also be found some interesting comments thereupon. It (the letter) does not contain Mr. Fiske's exact words, but it cannot be said that he overdraws that individual paper. It loses none of its force in his hands. Our author, however, thus presenting Mr. Madison to his readers, deals unfairly in failing to avail himself of the opportunity to give certain very important counter utterances of that statesman. We think that in fairness to him and in order that readers might be more truly informed, a few lines might have been added setting forth the fact that Mr. Madison (with Marshall and Nicholas) procured the passage of the Virginia act that we have quoted, and was himself the reputed author of the "Resolutions of 1798." That being done, Mr. Madison's absolute concurrence with Mr. Fiske as to the whole question, might not have been so clear. The quotation actually given would have at least lost much of its force, as an unbiased reader would have thought Mr. Madison singularly at variance with himself, if not with Mr. Fiske. Let teachers, at least, tell the whole story.

It is enough to say, further, that Mr. Fiske, writing Virginia history, makes no allusion to the Virginia resolution, joining the Union in language which the concurrent debate (Elliott, volume II., pages 625 and 626) proves to have been understood as a condition of right to withdraw. Not universally, of course (nor, perhaps, by extreme Federalists), but so far as to secure its adoption. And so far, be

it said, as forever to debar any other parties to the compact from any question as to the terms upon which we entered the Union. This is Virginia (and United States) history, as it is; but not as Mr. Fiske sees it and teaches it to Virginia children. Even the extreme Federalists supported this view by implication, if not in direct terms. Mr. Madison, on one occasion, replying to Mr. Henry's charge that they were constructing a consolidated government, declares that "the parties to the Constitution are not the people (of the United States) as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Mr. Nicholas uses the words "the condition is part of the compact." At any rate, the resolution which we have quoted (though not from Mr. Fiske's account) passed the Virginia Legislature, and was the law until the 9th of April, 1865.

With respect to New York, the untrained reader would necessarily infer that the failure of the condition in that State was complete, while from the same Elliot's Debates (volume I., pages 327329) we find the language scarcely less emphatic than that of the Virginia resolution-to some minds even more emphatic.

We are not ourselves attempting or professing to give that whole story of both sides of the debates which fair history would require. But Mr. Fiske is writing history, or professes to be. Our duty is to inquire whether he has given us such history as should be taught. We believe and claim that the contrast between his pages and the full records show that he has given but one side, and so has presented a picture unfit to be shown to our schools.


We return to the most offensive doctrine of the books that we condemn, the charge that the Southern soldier fought for slave property. If this charge be just, let the truth be taught. It is false. The answer to it is on every page of our history, and the books that make the charge should not be used in our schools.

We all remember how many Virginians of 1861, knowing that the bloodthirst of Naseby and Marston Moor was unslaked, yet weary of the blood-feud that had antedated the Revolution; tired of sec


tional strife recurring with every question of general interest; simply weary of quarrelling; convinced by the election of Lincoln that the quarrel never would end-went into the war in hope of conquering peace, and before going gave their negroes leave to be free, if they chose. The attitude of one or two prominent fighters with respect to slave property will be sufficient for our purpose. The "Campaigns of Stonewall Jackson," by Colonel G. F. R. Henderson, of the British Staff College, Camberley, England, should be read by every man, woman, and child in the South. It would help the Northern people to a knowledge of the truth. On page 108, volume I., of that great book we find the following extract from a letter of General Robert E. Lee: "In this enlightened age," wrote the future general-in-chief of the Confederate army, there are few, I believe, but will acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race, and while my feelings are strongly interested in the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa-morally, socially, and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race, and, I hope, will prepare them for better things. How long their subjection may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity than from the storms and contests of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small part of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of slavery is still onward, and we give it the aid of our prayers and all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in His hands who sees the end and who chooses to work by slow things, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. The Abolitionist must know this, and must see that he has neither the right nor the power of operating except by moral means and suasion; if he means well to the slave

he must not create angry feelings in the master. Although he may not approve of the mode by which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; and the reason he gives for interference in what he has no concern holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove of their conduct." On the same page Colonel Henderson quotes from the lips of Mrs. Jackson like opinions held by her husband. These are opinions expressed before the war. Do they indicate that Lee and Jackson fought to preserve slave property? I myself know that at the beginning of the war General Lee, wise and far-seeing beyond his fellow-men, was in favor of freeing all the slaves in the South, giving to each owner a bond, to be the first paid by the Confederacy when its independence should be secured; and that Stonewall Jackson, while believing in the Scriptural right to own slaves, thought it would be politic in the white people to free them. He owned two-one a negro man, whose first owner, being in financial difficulties, was compelled to sell. The negro asked General Jackson to buy him, and let him work until he accumulated the money to pay the General back. He was a waiter in a hotel, and in a few years earned the money; gave it to Jackson, and secured his freedom. The other was a negress about to be sold and sent away from Lexington. She asked Jackson to buy her, which he did, and then offered to let her work as the man had done and secure her freedom. She preferred to stay with the General and his wife as a slave, and was an honest, faithful, and affectionate servant. General Joseph E. Johnston never owned a slave. How much of the fighting spirit and purpose of the South was in the breast of Lee, Johnston, and Jackson? Do the facts recited indicate that the desire to retain slave property gave them nerve for the battle? Does any man living know of a soldier in this State who was fighting for the negro or his value in money? I never heard of one. The Stonewall Brigade of the Army of Northern Virginia, was a fighting organization. I knew nearly every man in it, for I belonged to it for a long time; and I know that I am within proper bounds when I assert that there was not one soldier in thirty who owned

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »