CONCERNING THE BOYSON ESSAY AND ITS DEFENCE Prepared, 1909 by Morgan Poitiaux Robinson, Richmond, Va. At the Request, an'd under the Supervision, of MRS. J. ENDERS ROBINSON, Historian-General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy Richmond, Va. ONE THOUSAND COPIES PRINTED Class _Z:iJ2^^:^ Book \ 10 f Copyright N^. COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. «/fe CONCERNING THE BOYSON ESSAY AND ITS DEFENCE Prepared, 1909 by Morgan Poitiaux Robinson, Richmond, Va. At the Request, and under the Supervision, of MRS. J. ENDERS ROBINSON, Historian-General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy Richmond, Va. ONE THOUSAND COPIES PRINTED Copyright, 1909, by Morgan Poitiaux Robinson, Richmond, Va. , 1 249836 EXPLANATORY The IT. D. C. Prize of $100 was established at Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York City, for the purpose of encouraging prospectivie teach- ers to investigate the sources of Confederate History. For the year 1908, the U. D. C's. Committee of Judges was composed of Dr. Edwin A. Alderman, Virginia, chairman; Dr. .John H. Finley, New York, and Dr. C. Alphonso Smi'th, North Carolina. This Committee awarded the prize for that year to the paper entitled, Roiert E. Lee — A Prese?it Estimate, by Miss Christine Boyson, of Minnesota, which appeared in the Confeder- ate Veteran, December, 1908. There were many protests against this award, and it seemed proper that this office should issue some statement upon the subject, but stress of work occasioned by editing the pamphlet, "The Restoration of the Name of Jef- ferson Davis," forced me to delegate the preparation of this monograph, as is stated upon the title page. In addition to this, I desire to acknowledge the services of Mr. William L. Phillips, editor of the Sigma Phi Epsilon, Journal, of Washington, D. C., who aided in checking out and verifying the percentages and proportions. In view of the fact that there has been criticism of many U. D. C. Chap- ters, because they criticised adversely the award of the prize to the Boyson Essay, the Historian-General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy feels no hesitancy in offering this analytical discussion of the essay and its defence for the specific purpose of showing that the various loyal Chap- ters were fully justified in their adverse criticism of the essay and of the judges who made the award. Copies of this monograph may be obtained at the folloAving rates: Single copies, delivered 10 cents. Dozen (to Chapters and Camps), delivered $1.00. (As no price is printed en the pamphlet, Chapters and Camps may find it to their advantage to buy at $1.00 per dozen and retail at such price as local conditions seem to justify.) Send only 2-cent stamps for single copies; only money orders for larger amounts. Address Mrs. J. Enders Robinson, Historian-General, U. D. C, No. 113 Third Street, South, Richmond, Va. CONCERNING THE BOYSON ESSAY AND ITS DEFENCE* THE ESSAY. Well-informed persons have never seriously denied that the South, prior to the War between the States, contained a higher percentage of illiteracy than most of the other sections of the country, and than the country as a whole, the reasons for this higher percentage being the plantation system, which practically prevented an elaborate development of the free school, because miles of forest ofttimes separated the plantations; the slave, whose presence was a greater menace if he could read the inflammatory and incen- diary propaganda of the abolitionists; and the still more potent fact that, primarily, the slave was not a human being, but was recognized as a chattel by the Constitution of the United States (Art. I, Sees. 2 and 9; Art. IV, Sec. 2), as well as by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United Statea (Prigg v. Penn., 16 Peters, 611), in which case Mr. Justice Story said: "Historically, it is well known that the object of this clause [Art. IV, Sec. 2] was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete right and title of ownership in their slaves, as property in every State in the Union into which they might escape from the State where they were held in ser- vitude. The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the security of this species of property in all the slaveholding States; and, in- *In the following statements, the groupings of the various States and Territories are those laid down in the United States Census of 1860, Agri- culture, XLVII-XLIX, at which time the United States was officially divided as follows: New England States — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont — 6. Middle States — New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and District of Columbia — 6. Southern States (THE SOUTH) — Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Ala- bama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida — 11. Western States — Ohio, Indiana, Michigan. Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Kansas, and Nebraska — 11. Pacific States* — Cal- ifornia, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington and Utah — 5. Unassigned to any grouping — Colorado, Dakota and Nevada — 3. For the purposes of this discussion, the territorial areas of the several sections, as given above, have been retained as cons'tant quantities through- out, except in the cases of Arizona, Idaho, Indian Territory' (with Okla- homa), Montana and W^yoming, mostly formed since 1860, each of which is composed either of territory other than that included in the above group- ings or else of parts of several of the States included in these groupings, and so the population, etc., of any of these five States in the Cens'us of 1900 could not be justly credited to any single one of the States named in the grouiiings given above. deed, was so vital to the preservation of their domestic interests and insti- tutions that it cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamental article, without tlie adoption of wliich the Union could not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevalent in the non-slaveholding States, by preventing them from intermeddling with, or obstructing, or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves." And this decision of Mr. Justice Story seems not extraordinary when we consider the fact that every one of the original thirteen States except Pennsylvania was slaveholding in 1787, when the present Constitution of che United States was adopted. However, with all its illiteracy and the reasons therefor — which latter are really immaterial so far as the present discussion is concerned — not until the recent utterances of Miss Boyson and her learned and able judges, had we heard of so flagrant departure from the facts of Southern History as is contained in the following quotation from her essay, entitled, "Robert E- Lee — A Present Estimate:'' ^'■Intellectually, the South loas practically dead. Most of her people were densely ignorant; hence the great religious and educational movements which in the North had built a church and a schoolhouse at every cross- road, had swept by them unheeded." (Italics ours.) Inasmuch as this "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" condition seems to have arisen because "the great religious and educational move- ments, which in the North had built a church and a schoolhouse at every crossroads," had failed to leave the accustomed church and schoolhouse at 'every crossroads in the South, it appears desirable to ascertain from his- tory what the condition of the South really was so far as churches and schools were concerned. And since all things are comparative — as a build- ing is tall by comparison with buildings which are not so tall — so the South must have been "densely ignorant" by comparison with some section which was simply "ignorant" — must have been "intellectually dead" by comparison with some section which was "intellectually dying", so to speak. Miss Boyson says, "To understand what this social order [of which Lee was the finest representative] was, one need but glance at the conditions of the South at the opening of the war." (Italics ours.) Miss Boyson and her judges seem to have "but glanced," but we have made a deeper inves- tigation of the conditions of the South, before, "at the opening of," and after the war, in order to get a more comprehensive and correct view of the subject than they seem to have acquired in their dilettante effort to chronicle Confederate history. It will be noted that no sources have been utilized in the discussion of the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" condition of the South, other than the Census of the United States for 1840,* 1850, 1860 and 1900. *A11 data for 1840 are taken from the figures for that year, as given in the Census for l!s50. This is because the edition of 1840 contained numerous errors, which were corrected in the edition of 1850, as stated in a note on the back of the title page of this later edition. three of which were printed prior to the War Between the States and one after it, while all were published by the United States Government; so, if there be any presumption of partiality, it must necessarily be against the South. It should be noted further that no Confederate or Southern source or authority has been used in the preparation of this paper. CHURCHES. There are no church statistics given in the United States Census of 1840, nor in that of 1900, so the nearest we can get to the present religious condi- tions of the country is the Census of 1890.* However, from the Census of 1850, combine Table 1 (ix) for population and Table XXXVIII (Ivii) for churches; from the Census of 1860, combine Population (iv) and Miscellaneous (p. 501) for churches; from the Census of 1890, combine Table 1 (pp. 2-3 of Part 1 of Vol. I) for population and Ta- ble 2 (pp. 8-13 of Vol. VIII), and we get the following tabulated statements: (See Table "A" and "B" on following page.) From Tables "A" and "B" it will be seen that, while the United States had an increase of 41.9 per cent, of churches for an increase of 35.6 per cent, of population between the years 1850 and 1860, and New England had an increase of 14.9 per cent, of churches for an increase of 14.9 per cent, of population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South had an increase of 37.4 per cent, of churches for an increase of 25.1 per cent, of population for that same period. Again we see that, while the United States had an increase of 162.2 per cent, of churches for an increase of 98.2 per cent, of population between the years 1860 and 1890, and New Eng- land had an increase of 31.2 per cent, of churches for an increase of 50.0 per cent, of population, yet this same South had an increase of 213.1 per cent, of churches for an increase of 80.9 per cent, of population during these three decades. However, as percentages are confusing to some persons, we have added the following table, which will doubtless make the subject a bit clearer for *Census Bulletin, No. 103 (September, 1909) gives the church statistics for 1906, but, as we have no population data for that year and no church data for 1900, we must fall back to 1890 before we get to a point where we can compare church and population data of the same year. O OO 0> '=0 O ":»< "I - 05 10 "H ITS 00 CO rH UJ rC ^ M e»3 T- 10 t- T-i -^ to to (O M t- T- OS 10 si, U U i. U U U o o o o o o o L_J ^ ^^ ^' ^ Oi CO ■^ en o> K' 00 i-i tC CX> ^ IM C— O T-T Oi |C ■^ cq tH CO CO ^ .2 ■-^ C Si 1 rn n 71 m 03 72 'C tn 00 c -a c 1^ u ■* -* t- 00 00 CO T-T T-^ CO .rt Cd 00 CO LO 00 05 S 3 -"i CO T- (TJ to ft CO 00 oT o (-1 pq ■^ o .2 00 ci O CD 00 >;1- o 00 1-1 00 in o iH rH_ Oi 05 O 00 00 -^ CO CD 00 P cq cq h* 00 t^ a t-^ CM_ CO tH (M CD r^ CD dl -a »3 -p i< +-' ^- ■►- " 5 o o bo :2; §1- C= Pm P tc uj u; Ji t- 10 OJ CO o CO -r, CO ■* 00 w 05 T-H o i-'a2t-OCT>c^«D ?? 3cO^Nrinr4cOT-H S^ cq in ^ U CO pj CO H ^^^^# : W 05 CO ^ ia 00 . u CJ ■>*< in h- tH tH I tf g 02 CO CO CO <>q CO C 1— 1 CO CO "S- CO c^ • fc 00 00 05 OC • CD '^f^ CO CO CO ^ CO H CB <; H K ^ 03 l-H cd ni -a 3 he 50c X! p: o5 'C s o tw O o _ J-. "=" " -o 03 fl he O > O ^ CO o 3 O O ^ Q d) '•' — r-i r-, a "? a CO o m si ^ S ^ ^ CO O) CO •>-> O 0) +-> t< o> CO 00 03 ^ C •H ,fl -I-' 01 O 1- „ 3 •c 2 02 CO 0) C) ;^ ■^ CO Si 01 02 03 03 "cO 03 01 bit CO bJD 03 0. 02" 02 0) fl ts CO Si 3 ^ CO CO Xi .2 02 >. ft 02 02 3 CD 00 .2 02 03 .2 a iH a CO V ft "*"* <(-l S CO "cO he C 02 be C Si ft 02 13 0) 02 0) 13 "o ft 3 C 02 02 CO 02 So 01 bo C 02 Si 0) ■*^ tn £ 2 > Oj CO +-» Sh 02 02 02 .s 3 s S-, 02 _cO ^ C 02 '5 ^ Si . *•> •-■ 03 02 +j O fi 12 CO > Si 02 ^4-1 S 02 "O 02 -o '11 C2 d 02 a fl 4) S d C Si 03 t2 *g ^ 02 Si "bo -S 'O 5 ^ d p 02 i> erf 05 ^ ^ t> -!-> Oj O *-> ? .S _i « -l VI d) ,C CO ,H in Oi tH O "^ LC o> to o Jh 'M O lO 'O ^ 5 if^ co" rC t-' x: ^ 1- th Q O CO CVI CO (M tH •42 CO CO CO to -^ c- rf '•^- CO CO 10 00 03 o IS in 5 <='' CO CO c-^ c-^ LO to CO •* c- -* oo a tH CO T— irq 10 T-H s- 00 oT ^ o H-l ^^#^#^ o «-l "= 10 • 00 T— to C5 ^ O -tt< T- C- rH O to to 00 00 rH Sh n<" 05 cvT O P ■«- r-l o O to 00 ^ O 00 •-- ^ 00 in o ^ *i 1-1 05 0>_ O 00 —I 00 -^ CO to 00 p cvi c^ h^ CO t^ a i- to oj_ CO T-i o c 1— I C oi t- O 05 in «M oi LO t- -l-J -^ OS CT> to 05 00 Cu C- -*■<*-* CO o •«i^ -^ <0 CO eg rH c O H - t> oj « ^ 11 Here it will be seen that in these thirty years (1860-1890), while the United States so increased the number of its churches that it reduced the ratio of churches to population from 582 to 440, or 142 points, and New Eng- land increased her ratio from 592 to 678, or 86 points, yet the poverty- stricken, "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South so increased the number of her churches that her ratio was reduced from 517 to 299, or 218 points. Furthermore, the figures show that at both of these dates (1860 and 1890), this same South had more churches to its population than any other section and than the United States as a whole. This develops the fact that the "intellectually dead" and "densely ig- norant" South of 1860 had more churches to its population than the coun- try as a whole, or any other section of it at that time; also thikt An 1860 it not only had more than any other section in 1890 (except the Western States), but more than the country as a whole in 1890, except for itts own large percentage. In other words, the South of 1860 was more than thirty years ahead of its time, so far as furnishing churches for its population was concerned. So much for churches. We will now turn our attention to an investiga- tion of the schools of the South. SCHOOLS.* In this discussion of educational institutions, as shown by the Censuses of ISJfO, 1850 and 1S60, and the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1900, the method of these issues has been followed in that the number of schools, as compared with the total free population of each section, for we find no returns for slaves attending school. f It should be noted that the figures and results take no account of the number of tutors and govern- esses or of the number of "home schools" (all of them widely popular edu- cational methods of the Old South) ; nor do they undertake to embrace the number of Southern students who were being educated abroad (also a popu- lar method in the Old South), and this because we have no data on these several points, although tutors and governesses are evidently classified un- der the general head of "teachers" in the lists of occupation. *As in the case of churches (above), it is presumed that not a single school of any kind in The South was destroyed during the War between the States, which presumption is necessary, as we have no data on that point. tWhile there will doubtless be some adverse criticism of thus eliminating the whole of the slave population, when ascertaining the school percentages, yet we anticipate no objections on the part of the Committee of Judges, since their chairman evidently holds the same opinion as to the status of the slave as we do, for reference to Facts About Southern Educational Progress, 1905, p. 3, will show where "The Campaign Committee of the Southern Edu- cation Board" (of which the chairman of the Judges was a member) gives its approval to this same method of eliminating the slaves for the purpose of ascertaining the percentages of Illiteracy, as can be seen by reference to pp. 43 and 45 of that pamphlet. 12 As stated, the number of educational institutions is contrasted with the total free population instead of the usual method of comparing the number of students returned with the free population of the States to which they are credited. This because, not only would Virginia (for example), an acknowledged school centre, get the credit for students who were not her own sons, and so would not enrich her intellectually, but at the same time the States to which these students really belonged would get no credit at all for their sons who were actually students, although in other Sta/tes, and would ultimately add to the intelligence of the mother State. This method is applied to sections in the hope that we are getting a more correct idea of the provision in the matter of educational institutions, which each State felt called upon to make for its educable population. Of course, this provision was to an extent for the educable populations of the other sections which sent their students, but by comparing sections (instead of States) in this manner, the error seems to be reduced to a minimum. The following tables are based upon these references: For the year 1840, combine (from the Census of 1850) Table I (ix) for population and Table XLIV (Ixi) for schools; from the Census of 1850. combine Table I (ix) for population and Table XLIl (Ix) for schools; from the Census of 1860, com- bine Population, pp. .592-5 and Miscellaneous, pp. 505-6 for schools; and from the Census of 1000, use Table VII (xxii) for population, but this is-< sue of the Census contains no data as to schools — presumably because this ifc within the province of the Bureau of Education. Therefore the data as to public schools are based upon the Reports of the Commissioner of Education. 1900, Ixxiii, 1901, Ixxxv, and 1902, Ixxxi, where we find the "number of buildings used as schoolhouses" — the three Reports being necessary to get complete data for 1900. The 1900 data for the second grand division of edu- cational institutions — "academies and other schools" — is to be found in the same Report for 1899-1900, 2, p. 2145. The 1900 data for universities and colleges is obtained by eliminatng the duplicates, after combining the fol- lowing tables, taken from the same Report for 1899-1900, Vol. 2: Tables 3 (p. 1880); 15 (p. 1892); 19 (p. 1894); 23 (p. 1898); 29 (p. 1904); 31 (p. 1944) 32 (p. 1946); 33 (p. 1954); 9 (p. 1976); 10 (p. 1986); 11 (p. 1992); 1 (p. 2071); and 9 (p. 2079). This combination is necessary because the earlier Censuses include theological, law, medical, military, normal and agricultural schools under the genera] classification "colleges and univer sites." As the educable population differs from that given in Table "A" above— the slaves being eliminated for the reasons already stated — the following table is necessary; Ol M O CD ■* u, u t- %^ '':' u O O O O O o lo lo o> lo T— I o t- GC CM lO O T— ( O lO CO C^ O t— o^ M in o-I li^ CO O T— I X— O CO rJH -Tt* t- T— 00 CO l-H T^ CO 0-5 T-H h~ ■* cti i; 5? h fe ^ ^- qj O O O O O O e) c-5 •* t^ -* CO o O O O CD CO CO O CO '^ O tH ■* 05 csi T— o lo ^ 00 Si tH C^^ O d CO O 05 Oi 00 lO CO tH T-H 0"j 0> OO CO t>. lO O 0> CD CO CO CO -^ r^ CJi i-H •^ ,-1 c-q in 00 lo CO oo' m Oi^ ^ o l-H a, ^^^^ : : i-i O CM la . . to C o t- c^ CM lO ^" o o o" CO cq CO 05 1.-1 o rl^ « c-f lo CO CO m "^ be 1,1 -t-> '^ tfl h ;^ Oh ^ t> o l— ^^^^^S^ ^ o la SM CD iH o t^ OO I> h- ,-i LO t- o to T-< CM 1-H oo iH ira rt CO fi rt HH CD CO in o cyj CO ^., CM oo 00 T-H CO "*< 1-H OO >-i ■* CO CO o O 0) CO m rj- (M ^ 03 CO > LO CO in CO r~ lO t- -a ' -* CO CO Ot.' CO C^J T-H 0; C^] CO ^ t- e-3 to 'o 0) t3 ri +J £ O L- LO in oq T-H i-H ^ IS Kl O .ii ,-1 I- CO CO LO LO e-1 O C 5 CM co'tI- 03 co c-f CD ^ co" O to ^S 05 o CO lO oo ^ Q, lO rH 05_ o LO t>^ cT c- CO o-i LO ^ PL, -^ T- C^l t^ ' '-' •" « J= cj o O "- to CC -3 '^ q; +-' 'C o S^ r> t « O 3 O ' ' o to C cc" 73 03 >; c r^ rf ^a ^ - to rt CC D O -o +j ^ o o u to to to Q) II ■c) to X 01 to . 0> tf a "cS ew Engla iddle Sta HE SOU M +-; oi rt to CO O CO o to to m o s ^ O 02 CD CO -4— ++ ^ Si- fi fcP P CO -.^i in as o !i t-, I. tn S- i< O O O o o o OS ^ rH in 00 .-I 00 iM in Co t- t— 05 O I— I "^ ■kV vS> v9 vV CO t- ^a- oq u< u :. U U t-, o o o o o o CO I- 00 CO CO . t^ 1.-^1 O CD 1— I "JO L- 00 lO lo CO in o CO o -!j< o '^^ jh 05 cq to cq ^' CO ^5 oj" ^ oo ^ O tr- ^ . o oo CO CM CO i- . oo C- 05 O iH CT> • oo in ^ 00 00 t- tH (N T- -^ o o C ^ C^l O CO T-H t_ CO CO (O (M eg ^- (M co ■H oo L. Ij 1. !^ t. , , -1-1 ,— ■S -5 D «2 5 s H a; (O ^ o •- : « (0 |o| m 3 w o a, C 0) O ■" x: - 2 o a « -u CD ^- £ a -9 P * CM ■ ^ ft P ft 15 Tables "D" and "E" show that, while the United States had an increase of 71. (i per cent, of public schools for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of cdu- cable population between 1840 and 1850, and New England had an increase of 11.8 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 22.1 per cent, of educable population during this same period, yet the South had an increase of 138.4 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 30.2 per cent, of educable population; also that between the years 1850 and 1860, while the United States had an increase of 33.2 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase of 5.6 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 14.9 per cent, of educa- ble population, yet the South had an increase of 32.5 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 25.0 per cent, of educable population. Between 1860 and 1900 we find that, while the United States had an increase of 129.9 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 172.1 per cent, of edu- cable population, and New England had a decrease of 6.2 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 78.4 per cent, of educable population, yet the poverty-stricken South had an increase of 316.3 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 257.3 per cent, of educable population — the freedom of the slaves bringing them into this class. And finally we see that at the close of the two decades ending 1860, while the United States had an increase of 128.5 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 88.1 per cent, of -educable population, and New England had an increase of 18.1 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 40.3 per cent, of educable population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South had "at the opening of the war" an increase of 215.8 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of educable population. Here, however, we will leave the confusing percentages and consider the following proportions, based upon the references already given: (See Table "F" on following pacre.) Here we see that the South of 1840, with less than one-fourth of the edu- cable population of the whole country, had 12.09 per cent, of the public schools of the whole country, or one public school for every 601 of her educable population, while New England had 28.24 per cent, of the public schools, or one school to every 168 of her educable population, and the United States had one to every 309; in 1850 the United States had one to every 247, and New England had one to every 183, while the South had one to every 328; in 1860, the United States had one to every 254, and New England had one to every 199, while the South had one to every 310; and in 1900, the United States had one to every 302, and New England had one to every 379, while the South had one to every 266. It will be seen that in the first decade (1840-1850), while the United States so increased the number of its public schools that it reduced the ratio of these schools to educable population from 309 to 247, or 62 points, and New England increased its ratio from 168 to 183, or 15 points, yet the South decreased its ratio from 601 to 328, or 273 points; likewise, between ™ O 05 0> CO CO tH -^ CO 1^ O O ^ oo oo ;d o ^ ^ 02 L— "^ Cd CO O 05 Oi Ij* -^ C~ -^ 10 cq o ro CO CO ^ ^ CO tH 00 00 JJ _, 00 c» CM O 2? '-' ,-1 oj n '■•^i '^ CO m CM c^ M '"' 15 O < P CIi o H W u p w o o o u u ra 00 Hi ^ Lo CO m o O -^ O r 00 iM IM to 00 C~ I- LO 00 05 «D 1^ I— e d o> _cS t- c^i CM lo "^ 3 '*' 00 CO c^ CO s» Ch (>J '^ ^_ . C ^^ Oi o O LO <^ Oi CO T— o cq i-l CO CO C ^ t"" S W (M M O fci i^ t. t< f- tn C O O O O O O CO -0 00 Oi '-^ o:) 00 T-i o »^ CO ^ oc CO to «jd O O O O o o >XI lO «^ O oo lO as T- m ,—1 00 cc CM o th ^ o .iii 55 If) t~ OO 00 ..-1 »3- 05 t-H OS CV ^ CO I— ( 02 h^ o o M o 02 vV^ ^O -..C vC CO c- a> oi tf 0) U3 oi 00 o H 02 LO 00 If) f^ o o o Sfefeog ^ -_ <-r '— ' uo M to '^^ 5 Q < CO -fi!t^ : 02 S § •H Q "~ CJ5 2 Z oo ^3 T— H ^- T— * erf l-H CJ W <^ m -a^ W « o :?^ 0) OQQQP 05 Oi O) 00 ,-( !^ ;h t. ^ ;^ ^ o o o o o o QQQQQ T-H CO (^ t^ ^ UO 00 -*" O ■* ^^ t- T*< 00 as C^ CO O O ^ liO in CO CO in ^ i-H M Tt< to ^ T-H r- '.^ '^j %^f -rr 2 S «= o C«J CO -< C O) J- cd ^ ti H *^ ClflQ ^ H ., CO H 72 C ?:SUJ (« y 03 5 S X ►'^ =« c -Z HI '^ f^ 5 « i ^ -s p # CO M rf 05 T-H CO lO rf 00 oo ^ lO 00 I — 1— I C^ CP 1-H CD to O t^ t- # t- CO CM tc 'y^ C-< en 00 05 ^t5 c-^ ■* T- c^^ t"-; 00 T-T in T^ ^ lo ;p- C '=" 00 ^TJ lO t^ "^ O^ CTi 0> O t- CO ^ o lO OO po LO c <0 in t^ in ra GO CO rf t-' P4 o lO «5 to oo rf o Ph O H h4 PQ o1 U P CS ^^t>S> O CO Oi r^ o W ■«< 00 o t- ^ Oi ^_j 1^ O O CO CO rH H m g i H L- lO (O O] Q o lO 00 rt << "^ LO 00 h- O] O '-' CO t< OJ .-H a< t- ■>: oq to" ^ oi oo N CT> o CO in oo o in ,— I 0> t^ oo CO c- in in T-i '^ CO O in CO c- CO c^i CM -^ in t~ t— 00 00 in r-H M CM O CO co' -S" CM l>-' -"jH ^ w S O Tt< T- t^ M CO CO ^ J Qj to o CM CO m -c .-l" T-^ << h < 00 o> in t^ oo 00 C O t^ c^i CM in -»r o o o CO -"^l ^ "^ OJ O 'J^ 00 csf in CO c O) a: 6D 5 3 M '^ 4) CO /<; ^ I- i:^ (ii P OX) ^-^ c^i O 2 UJ ^ £ ^ ii J ^ I ^ rt c c 5^ Sh p: pH p D 20 v?ducable population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South, "at the opening of the war" (quoting the "Prize Essay") had an increase of 98.6 per cent, of academies for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of educable population. Again, however, we will leave the percentages an look at the proportions, the references being those already given: TABLE "H"— ACADEMIES TO EDUCABLE POPULATION. (See Table "H" on preceding- page.) Here we see that the South of 1840, with less than one-fourth of the edu- cable population of the whole country, had 37.97 per cent, of the academies of the whole country, or one academy to every 2,786 of its educable popula- tion, while New England had 19.43 per cent, of the academies, or one to every 3,547 of its educable population, and the United States had one to every 4,498; that in 1850, the United States had one academy to every 3,313 of its educable population, and New England had one to every 2,770, while the South had one to every 2,281; that in 1860, the United States had one academy to every 3,986 of its educable population, and New Englaji^ had one to every 3,173, yet the Sou'th had one to every 2,282; and that in 1900 the United States had one academy for every 38,131 of its educable population, and New England had one for every 21,760, while the South had one' for every 31,196. Again, we see that in the first decade (1840-1850), while the United States so increased the number of its academies that it reduced the ratio of academies to its educable population from 4,498 to 3,313, or 1,185 points, and New England reduced its ratio from 3,547 to 2,770, or 777 points, yet the South reduced its ratio from 2,786 to 2,281, or 505 points; likewise, that between 1850 and 1860, while the United States increased its ratio from 3,313 to 3,986, or 673 points, and New England increased its ratio from 2,770 to 3,173, or 403 points, yet 'the South increased its ratio from 2,281 to 2,282, or only one point — thereby nearly holding its own in spite of the general increase all over the country. In the four decades ending 1900, the United States increased its ratio from 3,986 to 38,131, or 34,145 points,* and New England increased its ratio from 3,173 to 21.760 or 18.587 points, yet the wrecked and devastated South increased its ratio from 2,282 to 31,196, or only 28,914 points, although the slaves had been freed and the educable population had increased 257.3 per cent. In the period from 1840 to 1860, while the United States decreased its ratio from 4,498 to 3,986. or 512 points, and New England decreased its ratio from 3,547 to 3,173, or 374 points, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South, just here "at the opening of the war" (quoting the "Prize Essay"), decreased its ratio from 2,786 to 2,282, or 504 points. * Note that during these decades the academy lost srouncl enormously all over the country. In spite of a larg-e increase of population. 21 Furthermore, we see that the South, in 1840, had one academy for every 2,786 of its educable population; in 1850, one to every 2,281; in 1860, one to every 2,282; and also that at each of these dates the South had not only more academies to its educable population than any other section of the country, and the country as a whole, but also more than any other section or the country as a whole in 1900; in other words, the South of 1840 was more than sixty years ahead of its time so far as furnishing academies for its educable population was concerned. We will now look into the matter of universities and colleges, the third g'eneral classification, and the institutions for higher education. Still using Table "D" for educable population, we get the following table from the references already given: TABLE "I-.T"— INCREASE OF COLLEGES. (See Table "I-J" on following page.) From Tables "D" and "I-J" we see that, while the United States had an increase of 35.3 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of educable population between the years 1840 and 1850, and New England had an increase of 5.3 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 22.1 per cent, of educable population during this same period, yet the South had an in- crease of 44.4 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 30.2 per cent, of edu- cable population; that between the years 1850 and 1860, while the United States had an increase of 100.0 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase of 4.7 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 14.9 per cent, of edvicable population, yet the South had an increase of 135.8 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 25.0 per cent, of educable population; and also that between the years 1860 and 1900, while the United States had an increase of 147.3 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 172.1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase of 247. G per cent, of colleges for an increase of 78.4 !)er cent, of educable population, yet the South, with all its poverty and deso- lation, had an increase of 72.2 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 257.3 per cent, of educable population, the freeing of the slaves making an abnormal increase. "We also note that at the close of the two decades, ending 1860, while the United States had an increase of 170.0 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 88.1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase of 10.5 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 40.3 per cent, of educable population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South, "at the opening of the war," had an increase of 246.4 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of educable population. t- \o CM CO <3> . ■^ LO N. u:5 oo irq ira i-h eg . U, i^ i- U S-, u O O O O O o O "^ 00 rH "^ ,-t n ^ -^ <^ (M CO ■<»< m o H ^ H a yA o a fa o en CD o bfl <5 oo :z; ■-1 o o Z t- t- 00 bB S^ D m W

t^ C CD S^ O o la T— CD 05 *^ -*l LO 1— Ol L-^ >H to cq^ in cq "^ CO t-H in ^ l^ _ CO lO Td- CO t- £^1 in OoOOOOtDlO'^ L-- ■^-' to •* to C5 CO ^ "0 ^HtDi— IO)i-HI>^"^ "^ t- CO lo to ■^ '^ to 1> (M in 00 L- ™ CO O T^- CO i-H O' 'I' L-^ T-H CO '^ to '^•' in; c-; ^ to i-O L- o r3 CO >o' rf t-" 'X uo O] C-1 lO XI L^ o ■Xi o in <* O to' ^ to Hi w J ^ t^l>^^ D 3 CO o r^ in 05 05 CO C- Q «t-( H o O CO C\J l- c^ CO o] 5 t- m in ci:-c/DCO B* in t-^ ^ C-- c^f '"' 1> S^- v^ vO - '« w ^ o in C^l o n o lO in 1— 1 to M< CM o ( ) ^_j i-~ o T— T— 1 '-' o :> -3 Ml ■" .t: tn t; 2 '^ ;- ^J tC CO o* — ' X V ci ^ ^ §H P^ ^ P 0) 25 TABLE "L"— INCREASE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. (See Table "L" on following page.) From Tables "D" and "L" it will be seen that, while the United States had an increase of 72.4 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of educable population between 1840 and 1850, and New Eng- land had an increase of 13.8 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 22.1 per cent, of educable population, y^et the South had an in- crease of 123.7 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 30.2 per cent, of educable population during that period; that between 1850 and 1860, v.'hile the United States had an increase of 32.1 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of population, and New Eng- land had an inci'ease of 5.3 of educational institutions for an increase of 14.9 of population, yet the South had an increase of 32.1 of educational in- stitutions for an increase of 24.9 of population; and also that between the years 18G0 and 1900, while the United States had an increase of 116.6 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 172.1 per cent, of popu- lation, and New England had a decrease of 9.9 per cent, of educational in- stitutions for an increase of 78.4 per cent, of poi)ulation. yet the battle- scarred, wrecked, "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South had an increase of 219.5 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 257.3 per cent, of educable population — the freeing of the slaves making this increase greatly abnormal. We also note that at the close of the two decades ending 1860, while the United States had an increase of 107.9 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 88. 1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase of 19.8 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 40.3 per cent, of educable population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South, just "at the opening of the war" (quoting our "Prize Essay") had an increase of 195.4 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of educable population. We will now look to the proportions for educational institutions, which are based upon the references already given: CO 1-- ■r- -< in CT5 "-< S- !-. t. !-. t, o o o o o en (M [— 05 lO «0 LO to o o t-^ CO to C- T— I t^ ,-1 H^^ (£ a <^-' rA rH CM ey| ■* 00 00 f^ i>0 t< M t. t. f ;^ o o o o o o »tO ■^ OS CD O^ O ^ _; co" oo' to tA OJ r^ tn -I- +j CO ^^ M o r- M F K, 'O III *-' _ M OJ ■- I jj CS = ^ ^1- tS CM P C I' ^ »-• +j ^ TO ■^ 5 D 0} r^ "*^ * 4: 0/ 2 UJ "S tn CO 2^ o * ^^ .- I ^ ?^ c ^ §1- !^ CLh ;^ 27 TABLE "M"— EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIOxVS TO EDUCABLE POPULA- TION. (See Table "M" on following page.) Here we find that the South of 1840, with less than one-fourth of the educable population of the whole country, had 13.82 per .cent, of the edu- cational institutions of the whole country, or one institution for every 490 of her educable population, while the United States had one institution for every 288 and New England had one institution for every 160; also that in 1850, the United States had one for every 229, and New Englano had one for every 171, while the South had one for every 285; further- more, that in 18C0 the United States had one for every 238, and New Eng- land had one for every 187, while the South had one for every 270; and that in 1900, the United States had one for every 299, and New England had one for every 371, while the South had one for every 262. It will be seen further that, in the first decade (1840-1850), while the United States so increased the number of its educational institutions that it reduced its ratio of educational institutions to educable population from 288 to 229, or 59 points, and New England increased its ratio from 160 to 171, or 11 points, yet the South decreased its ratio from 490 to 285, or 205 points; also that, between the years 1850 and 1860, the United States increased its ratio from 229 to 238, or 9 points, and New England increased its ratio from 171 to 187, or 16 points, while the South decreased its ratio from 285 to 270, or 15 points. Upon an examination of the data for the four decades ending 1900, we see that, the United States increased its ratio from 238 to 299, or 61 points, and New England increased its ratio from 187 to 371, or 184 points, while the wrecked and poverty-stricken South decreased its ratio from 270 to 262, or 8 points, in spite of the abnormal increase in educable population caused by the freeing of the slaves. The next item is the two decades from 1840-1860. Here we see that, the United States decreased its ratio from 288 to 238, or 50 points, and New England increased its ratio from 160 to 187, or 17 points, yet this same "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South "at the opening of the war," decreased its ratio from 490 to 270, or 220 points. Furthermore, we see that the South of 1850 had one educational institu- tion to every 285 of her educable population, and in 1860 one to every 270. while the United States in 1900 had one to every 299. In other words, the South of 1850 and 1860 had made better provision in the matter of fur- nishing educational institutions for its educable population than the United States had made in 1900, and so was better off in this respect in 1850 and 1860 than the United States was in 1900. AND Now^ TO SUMMARIZE— The South of 1860 was more than thirty years ahead of its time so far as supplying churches for its population was con- cerned. The South of 1860 was substantially as well off in the matter of supplying public schools to its educable population as the United States fO lO CO tH oo c 00 o 00 00 1^ -* XI lO o ^ LO 00 o C>1 ■^^ CM '^J ^ P ■* CM t- rf "S O CV3 CO CO C« 2 -I CD >* t- =0 lo' ira in o _; T-H CM T- CO ^ C^ r— t~™ CM i-H O LO <^ ^ i-H "<^ ID LO t^ oo oo ^ c^ oo CM (M (D 00 l^ l^ LO 'J- O "-t cm" -J? ^ 5i5 m in -*> ^ Tf o> o o ^ 0> c- ij:: o^ vO ve sij ^ ic m CM ,-1 1— I jr t~ to tc ir; uo ~ ^ »* ■* c- c- g? „ o> CO CJ3 «r> g CO O) r-l 02 ^ o o O cm CD c— cy> Lo i-l CM >^ CO X) O -<}• f>] t^ O O lC CT. CD O) O l^ CM O T— I liO •^ LO lO CD O t^ era CO i^ r-i CD CD O ctT rt" i-H CM CM ■^ ,-1 O +^ ■* c3 GO •- rH 3 a o Ci OO CO 00 cn 35 <3> o l^ CM CM lO V o O o CO >.M CO 03 CM O ^ iO cm" ic CO ^ §1- ^ ClH P O CC t— I CM O C^l CO o oi 05 CO i;7t cc th ^^ Oi o>^ 00 CC> l^ LO O O CD oo" Co" CO -^ h«- Oi T-H tT tH CM lO oc lO CO OO in 05 13 » I ^ ;: oj ^ern mistakes are instances of 'infatuated ignorance' and a Southern victorj^ always a mys- tery. JLee is the arch traitor (Black ours'), and every movement of his army is made synonymous with vandalism and lawlessness. (Most of these epi- 33 thets are borrowed from 'A History of the Civil War,' by John S. C. Abbott, and published in 1S66.)" So much for the quotation. The essayist then says, "_A11 such accouiits are manifestly prejudiced and exaggerated. Nevertheless they indicate what in essence at least was once a widely prevalent attitude. * * * wiien such a man could consent to lead in such a cause, there was but one name for his conduct." (Italics ours,) Then she continues: "It is just here that the new estimate diverges from the old. It maintains that Lee's attitude toward the war was inevitable. It goes farther; it insists that any other attitude would have been treason to his convictions and to the social order of which he was the finest representative." In spite of this, we find that further on in this PRESENT Estimate this same writer says: "He [Lee] was a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, 'but so were George Washington and John Hampden and William of Orange.' (C. F. Adams, in a speech 'Shall Cromwell Have a. Statue?') * * * To do now what he [Lee] did then would be treason, for the Civil War has since then taught what was right in this regard." (Black ours.) But how "treason," if "the matter of secession had purposely been left open by the framers of the constitution." (See below. Italics ours.) It seems odd that this Present Estimate should revert to the language of the old estimates, which our essayist has just described as "manifestly prejudiced and exaggerated." The old estimate, so she says, classified Lee as the arch traitor. She makes him simply a common, ordinary, every- day traitor. It is amusing to note that the 7ieio estimate maintains that Lee's attitude toward the war was inevitable, yet this Present Estimate says: "To do noio what he did then would be treason, for the (Hvil War has since then taught ivhat is right in this regard." (Italics ours.) She has just said that his "attitude was inevitable." Poor General Lee! Miss Boyson and her learned judges have placed him between the fires. They evidently adhere to the doctrine that "might makes right," even if two of them are Soutliern. though we can recall no amendment to the Constitution to uphold the theory that "the Civil War has since taught ^ohat is right in this regard." However, the seceding States were re-ad- mitted to the Union only after they had incorporated in their constitu- tions of the seventies a clause repudiating secession,* the government thus inadvertently admitting that they had the right. How could they repu- diate a right, unless they had it? In order to enable her the more completely to prove General Lee a traitor, she calls to her aid Mr. C. F. Adams, who is of the opinion that George *Charters and Constitutions, 48, 79, 120, 347, .'!59, 7C9, 1082, 1095, 1124, lir;7, 1247, 1419, 1436, 1646, ISOl. 1S19, 1836, 1953, 1994. 34 Washington, John Hampden and William of Orange were traitors, when he was discussing another subject. Mr. Adams' opinion of these gentlemen is wholly extraneous, and irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing upon the situation. General Lee's case must stand upon its own merits. This is silly and weak and was evidently resorted to because she thought that no one would object to her calling Lee a traitor, so long as she placed Washington in the same category, but, as a matter of fact, she states un- qualifiedly that both Lee and Washington were traitors. No "if" about it, but "so were George Washington, and John Hampden, and William of Orange." QUOTATION No. 2. "No State," said Mr. Lincoln, "can upon its own mere motion lawfully get out of the Union. * * * The Union is unbroken, and, to the extent of my ability, I shall tal-ce care * * * that the laws of the Union be faithfully exe- cuted in all the States. (Hosmer's 'Appeal to Arms,' p. 15.) The same theme, union now and forever, kindled Webster's loftiest eloquence. His opponent in that famous controversy of ideals' was the voice of the whole South." It is barely possible that the essayist and her judges never read Mr. Webster's speech, made at Capon Springs, Va., in June, 1851, during the course of which he said: "I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat it, that if the Northern States refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Con- stitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress pro- vides no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. [Immense applause.] A bargain cannot be broken on one side. I say to you, gentlemen, in Virginia, as I said on the shores of Lake Erie, and in the city of Boston, and as I may say again in that city or elsewhere in the North, that you in the South have as much right to receive your fugitive slaves as the North has to any of its rights and privileges of navigation and commerce. I desire to be understood here among you, and throughout the whole country, that in hopes, thoughts and feelings, I profess to be an American — altogether and nothing but an American, and that I am for the Constitution and the whole Constitution. [Long and continued cheering.]* (Black ours.) QUOTATION NO. 3. "In a country where the mass of the people accepted ready-made opinions, misceptions carried ideas forward and made false maxims seem working principles, so that before 1860 the people in general believed that they had a right to secede." (Black ours.) Probably no people ever "accepted ready-made principles" less than did the people of the South, as may be seen from an examination of the publi- cations of the day. In regard to the statement "so that before 1860 the people in general believed that they had a right to secede," presumably as a result of the *Curtis' Life of Webster, Vol. II, p. 519: It is interesting to note that Mr. Curtis was an eminent New York lawyer and legal writer, making a specialty of constitutional law and the Life of Webster, and that this work was pub- lished in 1870. 35 above misconceptions and false maxims, we would say that a study of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, its debates, and the lives of those who composed it, will show abundant evidence to the effect that, not only was the South's interpretation of 1S60 the same as that of thoso who made the Constitution, but also that there would have been no United States at that time, had it been otherwise. On this point. Gen. Francis A. Walker,* has this to say in his Making of the Nation (pp. 29-30.): "On the subject of the relations of the several States to the United States, there was in the Convention [Constitutional] a great diversity of opinion; but, in a general way, three distinct views may be said to have been held. First, that the States remained, in spite of all that had been granted to the Revolutionary Congress for the sake of carrying on the war and in spite of all that had been conceded in the Articles of 17S1, sovereign and independent States of undiminished authority and competent at any time to resume the entire control of their own interests by simply "denouncing" the Articles of Confederation. The second view was that which held that the course of events during the Revolution and the grants of power made to the Conti- nental Congress and the Confederation of 1781, had established a nation which existed of its own right, which had the full constitutional authority, even though power were lacking to assert itself against individual States, were that necessary. * * * Between these two views which have been described was the opinion held, probably with better reason, which may be expressed in the language of Eldridge Gerry: 'We were neither the same nation nor different nations.' " (Black ours.) Further on (p. 2G8), the same author says: "It is perfectly true that the Convention of 1787 dodged the vital question of nationality. Had the Constitution contained an explicit declaration that, in any attempt of nullification or secession, the general government might raise the military force of the country, as was done in 1861, that instrument would not have had a chance of ratification by the States." (Black ours.) On this point. Miss Boyson herself, evidently forgetting the above quo- tation, says further on: "But the matter of secession had purposely been left open by the framers of the Constitution, and in the minds of many sincere people, both North and South, it was still a question." (Black ours.) QUOTATION No. 4. "He was a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, 'but so were George Washington, John Hampden and William of Orange.' (C. F. Adams, in a speech 'Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?')" (Black ours.) *Born in Boston; a brigadier- general in the Federal Army; a Federal office- holder, and president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1881 until his death (1897). 36 A person can be a traitor either in the technical or in the infamous sense. So far as Lee's having been a traitor in the technical sense is con- cerned, we have seen that, had any other interpretation than that of Lee and the South in 1860 been explicitly declared in the Constitution, "that instrument would not have had a chance of ratification by the States." So far as his having been a traitor in the infamous sense of the word is concerned, such a thing is preposterous and beyond the pale of discussion. How a "traitor" if "the matter of secession had purposely been left open by the framers of the constitution?" ( Italics ours.) QUOTATION No. 5. "Before long we shall come to think of Lee as the English have come to think of Washing-ton, whom they lately regarded as a rebel; for, indeed, he differed from the greater Washington only in choosing the wrong side." (Black ours.) Before long, then, the essayist and her judges hope to relieve General Lee of the odium of being regarded as a rebel. There is but one conclu- sion — they at present regard him as a rebel, but prophesy that soon the stigma will have been removed. Very good, but how can this come to pass, for they say that he chose the "wrong side."? But how a "rebel," if the matter of secession had purposely been left open by the framers of the constitution?" (Italics ours.) QUOTATION No. 6. "This justification of Lee's attitude toward the Union may be nottd as the first and in some respects the most important aspect of the new- estimate of him." (Black ours.) This is probably the boldest bit of slieer nerve that the essayist and her judges have yet exhibited, for, while many have maintained that se- cession was taught at West Point, although a recent article seems to show that it was not, yet none will question that General Lee and all who were educated at West Point were taught, and sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and, according to this same essayist herself, "the mat- ter of secession had purposely been left open by the framers of the Consti- tution." Why, then, should Miss Boyson and her judg'es feel called upon to offer any justification for his attitude, when the Constitution of the United States and the country's best constitutional . lawyers and the neio estimates of Lee have long since relieved them of the task? QUOTATION No. 7. Since the essayist broaches the subject, it may be well to note the atti- tude of the Federal authorities in regard to prisoners of war. Although it was a notorious fact that the Confederacy was scarcely able to feed its men in the field, yet Secretary of War Stanton's General Order No. 207,* dated July 3, 1868, wiped out the cartel for the. exchange of pris- *This order, sometimes erroneouusly referred to as General Order NO'. 209, is to be found in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series II, Vol. 6. (Serial No. 119), p. 78-9. 37 oners which had been in effect for nearly a year, because of violations by both Federal and Confederate officers. But this attitude is more clearly illustrated by General Grant's order (from City Point, Va.) to General But- ler,* under date of August 18th, 1864: "* * * On the subject of exchange, however, I differ from General Hitch- cock. It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man we hold, when released on parole or otherwise, becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to flght on until the South is exterminated. If we hold those caught, they amount tO' no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel prisoners would insure Sherman's defeat and would compromise our safety here." QUOTATION No. S. "He had to struggle with ignorant and inferior assistants who often mis- understood his orders and often made his faith in them a cloak for carrying out their own designs." Upon comparing a list of the general officers of the Confederate Army with General Cullum's Biographical Register of the officers and graduates of the U. S. Military Academy (1891), we find that of the 309 Brigadier Generals, 77 were graduates of West Point; of the 82 Major Generals, 39 were graduates of West Point; of the 19 Lieutenant Generals, 15 were graduates of West Point; of the 7 Generals (full rank), all were graduates of West Point, and General Lee, the Commander-in-Chief was a graduate and Superintendent of West Point. In view of these facts, it seems odd that he should have had to "struggle with ignorant and inferior assistants." There must have been something radically wrong with West Point that it should have made "ignorant and inferior" officers of so many of the Southern cadets who were appointed to the Military Academy, for these were General Lee's "assistants." In- cidentally, it is an Interesting sidelight to note that General George H. Thomas, one of the best "fighting" generals in the Federal Army, was a son of the South and a product of the civilization of that day, as were also Wingfiekl Scott, and Farragut, but they gave their allegiance as they saw it — to the Union. QUOTATION No. 9. "But it is neither as' the product of a civilization that is passed, nor as a commander that Lee will be given a permanent place. F^r neither as the exponent of a form of patriotism which the results of tht^ war have made treason, nor as the leader of a lost cause could be attract anything but fientimental interest." (Black ours.) From this, we can but conclude that the essayist and her judges hold that the "results" (defeat) made the South's position "treason," BUT had '-Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series II, Vol. 7 (Serial 120), pp. 606-7. 38 the South been victorious, there would have been no treason in her position, an odd doctrine of Constitutional law. However, in regard to "But it is neither * * * that Lee will be given a permanent place." With characteristic abandon, Miss Boyson (a woman) and her judges (none of whom "saw service") unhesitatingly throw their lay opinions into the balance against the opinions of the trained soldiers of the world. Nor do our leducator friends seem to remember that she has just said: "Yet^ Lee will go down in history as one of the great generals. His skill as a strategist and a tactician, together with his splendid audacity is unsurpassed in all history.'^ QUOTATION NO. 10. "His real worth lies in the spirit of the man himself, the loftiness and dignity of his character, the richness of his soul." Strangely enough, she is now describing the man who a few lines back was "a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, but so were George Washington, etc." — "The exponent of a form of pa- triotism which the results of the war have made treason." (Italics ours.) QUOTATION NO. 11. But in the same paragraph with Quotation No. 9, above, we find this: "Doubtless his fine presence and genial,* sunny manner cast an irresistible spell over all who came into personal contact with him, but for the historian of a later day to represent him as a man of stainless virtue is to make him ridiculous." (Black ours.) What is it that Miss Boyson and her judges know that justifies them in saying that it would make General Lee "ridiculous" "to represent him as a man of stainless virtue"? This seems to be a fitting climax to this scan- dalous libel, to which two Southern educators gave their unqualified ap- proval. Such is the incongruous collection of contradictions, known as the Boy- son Essay, to which three educators, and two of them learned and distin- guished Southern educators, awarded the prize offered by the United Daugh- ters of the Confederacy for an historical essay. It is said that there were several other essays in the contest. It is hard to realize that they could have been worse than this one, but If this be so, then there should have been no award at all, on the ground that the material offered did not justify an award. So much for the essay. We will now turn our attention to an analysis of *His manner was anything but genial, if Miss Boyson (the teacher of English) and her educator-judges have used that word in its generally ac- cepted sense. He was almost severely quiet, dignified and reserved in manner. 39 ITS DEFENCE. The Confederate Veteran of December, 190S, officially published the Boy- son Essay. Immediately protests against the award began appearing on all sides, but it was not until the Resolutions of Protest by the Richmond (Va.) Chapter on January 28th that they "drew fire" from the judges. The reply of the Carolina Judge appeared in the Richmond afternoon papers of February 3rd, which is the only form in which we have been able to secure it, so this must be accepted as a correct copy of his defense. However, we are more fortunate in the matter of the reply of the Virginia Judge, for after it had appeared in the newspapers, he re-published it, along with several favourable editorials, as a broadside, which was distributed from his office at Charlottesville, Va., a copy of which was sent to the writer (as well as to others) upon request being made for the same. In the preparation of this paper, only this broadside has been used for the reply of its author, in the hope that chance of error and misunderstanding be reduced to a minimum. The deferential, but disappointing, silence of the New York Judge prevents us from knowing what his opinion of the essay really is. It would be interesting to know whether he upholds his asso- ciates or based his award upon something more substantial. THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDGE regrets that none of the judges was notified of the intention of the Rich- mond Chapter to pass its resolutions, says that he examined the four essays on the first of June, 1908 "with the utmost care"; protests against fragmen- tary quotations and says: "Her paper has many statements with which I do not agree. It contains not a few crudities of thoug-ht and expression. But in the range of read- ing shown in her bibliography, in her use of English, in her ability to weld thought with thought and paragraph with paragraph, in her sincerity of purpose, in her sense of historic proportion, in her noble admiration of Lee, and in the excellence of her style and substance as a whole, her paper is incomparably the best of those submitted." (Black ours.) All of which may have been the case, yet the fact remains that this com- parison with the other three essays submitted is hardly a good recom- mendation, judging from how poor they must have been, which seems to be conceded by all. The judge declines to accept as his own the historical opinions and statements set forth in the essay, yet he did not hesitate to , give it the stamp of his approval, without the slightest protest. He says: "Had the paper attempted to prove or had it even remotely implied that Lee or the humblest soldier who followed him was a traitor, I should have cast her essay aside as unworthy of further reading." (Black ours'.) In spite of the doctrine laid down here, yet he tells us that he voted to award the prize to this essay, but it is doubtful if he can find maniy close readers of the essay who will agnee with him that it does not ''even 40 remotely imply that Lee or the humblest soldier who followed him was a traitor," for it says in so many words that "he was a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, but so were George Washington, John Hampden, and William of Orange." Here is the bold and unqualified statement, the saving grace being that he was in good company, but certainly that made him none the less a traitor, for it speci- fically states that ''so were George Washington and John Hampden and William of Orange," only placing Washington, Hampden and William of Orange in the same category, thanks to Mr. Adams. Following the conten- tion of our Judges, we cannot but conclude that, if a tormented soul went to the nether world and there found the three gentlemen named, the climate would at once become more temperate. THE DEFENCE OF THE VIRGINIA JUDGE. He says: "It would have been an act of courtesy which I would have greatly ap- preciated, if I had been consulted before these resolutions were passed and given to the American press." Our gallant Virginia Judge forgets himself and intimates that the ladies of the Richmond Chapter were lacking in "courtesy," in that they did not wait to hear from him before passing their resolutions of protest and giving them to the press. As a matter of fact, Mr. Judge, the ladies had read enough to satisfy them that the time had come for them to act unless they wanted the seal of their approval to remain unquestioned upon the essay, "Robert E. Lee — A Present Estimate." They had read the essay in the December, 1908, Confederate Veteran and, presuming that their judges had read it before awarding the prize, they very naturally concluded that the essay conformed to the opinions of these judges so far as the history cov- ered was concerned, although it soon developed that the judges repudiated the statements of the essay as vehemently as did the Daughters. Had there been no protest, you may be sure that we would not have heard one word from the judges — they would have been glad enough to keep under cover — nor was there any reason why they should speak again, for they had had their say. And so the Boyson Essay would have gone out as offlcially en- dorsed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, thanks to our learned judges. Furthermore, why should the Judges have had any objection to giving these resolutions of protest to the press, if they were sure of their position? QUOTATION NO. 2. "I was ill at the time preparing to go abroad, but gave the papers as careful attention as I had the strength to give and after doing so voted to award the prize to the paper entitled "Robert E. T^ee, — A Present Estimate." It will be noted that there is an absence of any statement to the effect that he had ever read the paper before voting to award the prize to it. 41 QUOTATION NO. 3. "Instructions for the award of the prize, if any had ever been sent me, were not before my eyes at the time, but I understood that the judges were to consider literary merit, structural ability and general thoughtfulness, as well as historical iionesty and fairness." (Black ours.) If the Judges undertook to award the prize without any instructions on the subject — the imputation being that the Daughters -were derelict in the matter of furnishing such instructions — then the Judges simply undertoolt to do a thing without knowing what they were trying to do. So far a,s understanding that literary merit, structural ability, etc., were to be con- sidered is concerned, it is an accepted rule in such cases that if the essays are so nearly even and historically correct that a choice is well-nigh im- possible, then it is proper to look to the "literary merit" and "structural ability" (a very euphoneous combination of phraseology, but without bear- ing upon this case) to enable the Judges to decide, but this last resort was manifestly unnecessary, since the North Carolina Judge says that it was "incomparably the best of those submitted," while the chairman of the Committee of Judges tells us that this essay "impressed me as pre-eminently the best of those submitted." "Why, then, should it have been necessary to go outside of the primary essentials of an historical essay, if this essay was so vastly superior to all the rest. And it is a significant fact that neith- er the essayist, her judges, her admirers, nor any endorsing Chapter has had a single word to say in behalf of the history recorded in this historical essay. QUOTATION NO. 4. Again, "Inasmuch as the prize was for an es'say and not a eulogj^ and had been establis'hed at the most cosmopolitan American University, where it might be competed for by young men and women of all sections and nations, I supposed that one would be expected to allow for wide differences in his- torical point of view." All of which is true enough, but had it occurred to the Chairman of the Judges that allowing for "wide differences of historical point of view" hardly justifies the granting of an historical prize for distorted history or for a lack of history? What the Daughters wanted was an historical essay — neither a eulogy, nor a random collection of the private opinions of the essayist and her learned Judges. QUOTATION NO. 5. "I did not consider it our duty to exclude any paper which had been sub- mitted to us as eligible by the Daughters of the Confederacy, because it did not square with our historical point of view and I imagined my own to be essentially that of the Daughters, provided the paper was not malignant or vituperative, or meanly narrow or manifestly unjust." Had it occurred to our honored Chairman that, had the Daughters know- ingly submitted to them "malignant, etc," papers, they, the judges, would 42 have had less right to reject them on account of this "malignant"? Had our Judges suspected that the Daughters had already passed upon the papers before they were turned over to them to judge? What did the Judges think that they had been invited to act for, unless it were to use their judg- ment and discretion in judging the papers submitted to them in the man- ner in which historical papers are usually judged? But they undertook to make these confessedly erroneous statements and opinions the official posi- tion of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It was supposed that these gentlemen would use more discrimination in the matter. They did not. That is where the trouble is. QUOTATION NO. 6. "Neither did I think that by our vote as judge in such a contest, we were to be put in the attitude of endorsing every word or opinion of the matter any more than a judge of debate, who must often, as a matter of duty, award the palm for the side contending for positions not held by the judges." Very good, but have these Judges, when acting as judges of debate, been in the habit of "awarding the palm" to sides whose contentions were not supported by fact, logic or reasoning? Here the Judges ha\e, by giving their approval to confessed historical errors of the most glaring kind, placed the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the position of officially approving their opinions (for such they must be, since they are not histori- cal facts), which opinions or facts (whichever you wish to call them) the learned Chairman of the Judges immediately repudiates when they appear in print and are subjected to criticism. QUOTATION NO. 7. "I noted here and there sentences which were unwarranted generaliza- tions, or which embodied what I thought unsound opinions and if conformity with my own thought had been the sole test, I should have blue- penciled' them quickly, but I did not expect scientific accuracy or a perfect point of view from a youthful collegian, male or female. I saw no evidence of unworthiness of mind or purpose, but rather nn illustration of how ;i young person, nourished on a certain brand of text-books, bred in another atmosphere of feeling and thinking, expresses herself in transition to a larger and juster point of view, and I thought that the ultimate purpose of the prize after all was to bring about such transition in such persons in the noblest possible way — that is through self-enlightenment. I He noted that it contained sentences which he thought embodied "un- sound opinions," yet he gave it his hearty approval without the first sign of protest. QUOTATION NO. 8. "If it \vere not the purpose for the establishment of this prize in a North- ern College by the Daughters of the Confederacy, what possible purpose could the Daughters have had? Under the circumstances, is it conceivable that a failure to conform to their views should operate as a total disqualification of this paper?" 43 In the quotations above, the thought of disqualification seems never to have occurred to the Judges. In view of this analysis, one may well ques- tion the wisdom of the establishment of the prize at all; however, it seems pertinent to suggest that, irrespective of the point of view, the lacli of Ms- tory is usually accepted as a fairly good reason for the disqualification of an liistorical essay. After this experience, one might not be surprised to hear that the Daughters of the Confederacy question the wisdom of the establishment of the prize. QUOTATION NO. 9. "If I had thought for one moment that this young- woman meant to set up and defend the thesis that Robert E. Lee was a traitor, I should have characterized her paper as too malignant and too narrow tor our considera- tion in a prize essay in such a competition at such a time as this." Although the essayist opens her paper by disavowing any purpose to call Lee the "arch traitor," and leads us to believe that she is going to treat the subject in an unprecedentedly liberal-minded manner, yet she cannot control herself and says: "He was a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, but so were George Washington, .lohn Hamp- den and William of Orange." * * * "To do now what he did then would be treason, for the Civil War has since taught what was right in this regard." * * * "Before long we shall come to look upon Lee as the English have come to look upon Washington, whom they lately regarded as a rehel: for, indeed, he differed from the greater Washintgon in that he chose the icrong side." * * * "For neither as the exponent of a form of patriotism which the results of the war have made treason, nor as the leader of a lost cause could he attract anything but sentimental interest." It would be interesting to know what dictionary our distinguished Judge uses, and, if the essayist and her judges can get anything but traitor and treason out of these passages, at the same time maintaining the integrity of the English Language, they will be able to accomplish a good deal more than the customary usage of that language permits and more than their apologists have been able to accomplish for them. QUOTATION NO. 10. "Nowhere in this essay, in my judgment, can any fair interpretation dis- cover a purpose to claim, or a statement to the effect that Robert E. Lee was a traitor in any odious sense. It is an axiom of interpretation, that it is fundamentally unfair and productive of wrong conclusions to judge of any literary production, by detached sentences taken from it. and even more un- just and confusing to cut in twain the sentences thus detached." 44 QUOTATION NO. 11. "She, like Adams, is trj-ing to reduce to an absurdity any contention of a mere technicalist or literalist, that I^ee was a traitor by saying that he was no more of a traitor than George Washington, John Hampden or Wil- liam of Orange. The deduction is plain. If Lee and Washington and Hamp- den and William of Orange were traitors, then treason ^heds its ancient odium and shines forth as a thing glorious and we may all well strive to grow into the statue of traitors. This, at least, is my understanding of her purpose. As a matter of personal belief, I do not agree with Mr. Adams that Lee or any other Southern man was by the baldest technicality of defini- tion a traitor." (Black ours.) A moment ago, Mr. Judge, you agreed Avith Mr. Adams that Lee was a traitor, but "so were George Washington and Hampden and William of Orange" and consequently he was in good company; now you say that you "do not agree with Mr. Adams that Lee or any oth'er Southern man was by the haldest technicality a traitor." How now? Above in the tenth quotation from your reply, you say that you cannot "discover a purpose to claim, or a statement to the effect that Robert E. Lee was a traitor in any odious sense." Here you say that you do not agree "that Lee or any oth'er Southern man was by the haldes't technicality of definition a traitor." We know of but these two kinds of traitor, the infamous and the technical. The essay unquestionably contains that word attributed to General Lee. You deny that he was a traitor in either the infamous or the technical sense. What kind of a traitor, then, is it that this essay calls General Lee? (Italics ours). QUOTATION NO. 12. "Miss Boyson's use of the phrase 'wrong side' at the end of the first paragraph quoted and 'the Civil War has since taught what was right in this regard,' in the same paragraph were infelicitous and jarring, but I came to the conclusion that she meant 'unsuccessful' in the one and in the other 'forever settled.' " This would appear a queer and rather strained interpretation of the language, when we remember the elaborate use of the words "traitor," "rebel" and "treason" in connection with General Lee. These along with the "wrong side," could hardly be interpreted as "unsuccessful" without distorting the language. Here, then, we see that this essay is given unqualified approval, although the Chairman of the Judges concedes that the quotations under considera- tion are open to almost any interpretation from "wrong side" to "unsuc- cessful," from treason to "forever settled." SHOULD SO WIDE A SCOPE OP INTERPRETATION HAVE RECEIVED THE STAMP OP UNQUALI- FIED APPROVAL? It would hardly be a safe historical guide foi an undiscriminating student of history. 45 QUOTATION NO. IS. "And so I might go on quoting a hundred detached sentences of noble praise of Lee and the South, with here and there a sentence of criticism, not s'o much of General Lee, for I find no essential criticism of him, but rather of the conditions under which he worked." Not so, for the Judges themselves have already placed the ban upon d'e- tached sentences. HoM'ever, since he has suggested it, we might offer a few sentences of "noble praise of Lee and the South," e. g. "Intellectually the South was practically dead," "he was a traitor in that he sacrificed," etc., "To do now what he did then would be treason," etc. QUOTATION NO. 11. "Some of her critical opinions were inexact and irritating, but never to my thinking abusive or malicious. For instance, the assertion that most of the people of the South were densely ignorant was a foolish echo of an erroneous view current at one time in her section and in many Northern minds, based upon unanalyzed statistics of illiteracy, and the added state- ment that the South was intellectually dead, derived from the same mis'- understanding, was as offensive to me as to my critics. But I do not think that such misstatements disqualified the paper." (Black ours.) Explanations why the essayist was laboring under these delusions about conditions in the South are wholly irrelevant. If she still retained such ideas, granted by the Judge to be an erroneous view, it would not seem, that her study of conditions in the South had sufficiently enlightened her upon the subject to justify the award of the prize to her, when it is known that the purpose of the prize was to encourage teachers to become familiar with these conditions. It would be interesting to have a sample of what in our worthy Judge's opinion would justify the disqualification of an historical essay. As to its "literary merit" and "structural ability": Dr. Johnson says in the Preface to Latham's Edition of Shakespeiare, "He has outlived his century, the term commonly fixed as the test of lite- rary merit:' Does our Judge pretend to say that this essay would even ever have been heard of, had it not been for the protests called forth by its glaring inaccuracies, much the less "outlived its century"? So far as "structural ability" is concerned, it has been difficult to find any statement or opinion in the essay, except "intellectually the South was practically dead," etc., which is not contradicted by a statement or opinion in another part of it. Even General Lee to whom is applied the term "traitor" is a person, whose "real worth lies in the spirit of the man himself, the loftiness and dignity of his character, the richness of his soul," yet in the very same paragraph she says "but for the historian of a later day to represent him as a man of stainless character is to viake him^ ridiculous:' Wonder what she really does think of General Lee? Refer- ence to quotations No. 1-11 from the essay, above, will illustrate its con- spicuous lack of coherence and structural abilitv. 46 A manufacturing firm offers a prize of $100 for the best formula of making paste. Many are submitted and the prize is awarded to one be- cause it had "literary merit" and "structural ability." BUT THE PASTE WON'T STICK. Should there have been any award? Why not? For the elementary reason that the product lacks the fundamental, essential and basic quality of STICKING, and it is a well-known and accepted fact that paste, if worth anything, STICKS. For that reason, it was not deemed neces- sary to tell the judges that the paste to be made from the prize formula was expected to stick. So also, in this contest, it was presumed that it' would not be necessary to impress upon our judges that an historical essay, to be worth anything, should contain HISTORY. Again, when a student takes an examination on history and hands in a paper, say, with the clearness of Swift, the force of Dante, the elegance of Addison, the literary merit of Shakespeare and the structural ability of the logicians, but is LACKING IN CORRECT HISTORY, does any oniB pretend to say that this student is entitled to a "pass" on history? Then finally: When an educational institution engages a Professor of History, does the head of that institution feel that he should go and tell this new Professor of History that he is expected to teach History, and not English Literature — not synthetical chemistry? Some have argued that the Judges should have made a qualified award, pointing out the errors and other items to which they excepted, instead of making an unqualified award on the flimsy pretext of alleged literary merit and supposed structural ability. Result of this; Boyson Essay gets the prize just the same, although it be devoid of history. However, their exceptions would probably reject the better portion of the essay. On this point, the Historian-General of the Daughters is of the opinion that no award should have been made at all, if the prize essay was the best of those submitted — all of the papers submitted being disqualified on the ground of lack of history: but that, so long as the award was made, Miss Boyson had a legal and a moral right to the prize of $100, and it was the right and proper thing for the Daughters to pay it. As a collection of pleasing platitudes and disconnected commonplaces. Miss Boyson's Essay seems to have taken high rank with her Judges and amongst lovers of light literature, but wb are of the opinion that there is little likelihood that it will ever appeal strongly to the serious studen/t of history. We heartily agree with Mr. Eugene L. Didier, of Baltimore, when he says in his The Poe Cult (p. 283) that the Judges "either did not read the essay before awarding the prize, or they agreed with the writer of the essay who pronounced General Lee a "traitor." However, the Judges have removed all doubt on this score, for they give us to understand thalj they did read the essay first. Therefore, we can but conclude that they concur in the opinions ex- pressed, as they did not except to them. They have premeditatedly placed themselves in this awkward position. They must take the consequences. OCT 20 1909 :qpy hr to cat. oiv. DEC 14 1909 '■^ V -r^ '^7,