Изображения страниц

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

or ever expected to own a slave. The South fighting for the money value of the negro! What a cheap and wicked falsehood!


Finally, and this deserves a separate paragraph-with respect to the motives of action, we would be glad if Mr. Fiske or any other Northern author would relieve us of the mental confusion resulting from the contemplation of the facts that Robert E. Lee set free all of his slaves long before the Sectional War began, and that U. S. Grant retained his as slaves until they were made free as one of the results of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.*

Soldiers and gentlemen, we accepted in full faith and honesty the arbitrament of the sword. We are to-day all that may be honorably meant by the expression "loyal American citizens." But we are also loyal to the memory of our glorious dead, and the heroic living of the Confederacy, and we will defend them in our poor way from the false and foul aspersions of Northern historians as long as brain can think or tongue and pen can do their office. that our children shall be animated by the same spirit.

We desire

Mr. Fiske furthermore teaches our children that, but for the war the South would have reopened the slave trade. He tells, without quotation of authorities, a certain story of slave ships landing their cargoes in the South. Those of us who were men in the later fifties will remember a rumor that about that time a vessel (called The Wanderer, and commanded by a Southern man) brought a cargo of Africans into a Southern river. It was also rumored that one or more ships, owned and commanded by Northern men, were engaged in the same work. The stories may or may not have been true. Granted the truth; the fact that one or more Yankee slave-traders had returned to the sins of their fathers does not prove that 20,000,000 of them were about to do so; nor does the purchase of such

*" "Few, perhaps, know that General Grant was a slave-holder, but the fact is that he had several in the State of Missouri, and these were freed, like those in the South, by the Emancipation Proclamation. 'These slaves,' said Mrs. Grant, came to him from my father's family, for I lived in the West when I married the General, who was then a lieutenant in the army.'


cargoes by half a dozen Southern planters prove that 5,000,000 of them had determined thus to strengthen their working forces.


In his work Mr. Fiske overlooks the fact that the Confederate Government, at the first meeting of its Congress, incorporated into its Constitution a clause which forever forbade the reopening of the slave trade. I beg you to consider the following contrast: George III. forced the Virginia Governor to veto our Virginia act of 1769, prohibiting the further importation of slaves. Mr. Fiske tells us that "in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence this act (of the King) was made the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia, the clause was struck out by Congress."

The different impressions made on different authors by the same facts is to be observed. Mr. George Lunt, of Boston (Origin of the Late War), understood Mr. Jefferson to show that the omission was very largely due to "the influence of the Northern maritime States." Mr. Jefferson wrote the passage and describes the incident. To us, it appears from his account that this denunciation was of the King not less than-perhaps more than-of this traffic to which we Virginians were so much opposed. As to the omission of the passage, he gives Mr. Fiske's statement as to South Carolina and Georgia, but adds the following, which Mr. Fiske omits: "Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under these censures, for though their people had very few slaves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others." Of course, historians cannot say everything-must omit something. We could wish, however, that our author had displayed a less judicious taste in omissions. Be it understood that we ourselves omit many things that we would say, but for the fact that we are only seeking to supply some of Mr. Fiske's omissions, and so establish our proposition that our children cannot get true pictures from this artist's brush, and that his book ought not to be in our schools.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »