devoted patriotism, his diligence, his courage, and the sanctity of his morals. The reader will note a certain polemic tone in the disqussions which attend the narrative; and while strict truthfulness has been studied, candid expression has been given to the feelings natural to a participant in the recent struggle. The explanation is, in part, this: that the whole work was written before the termination of the contest; the first portion, containing all the controversial matter, was published in Great Britain more than a year ago, and has been circulated in that country and this; and the remainder of the biography was in process of publication when the Confederate armies surrendered. The animus of my book will not appear strange to any one who remembers, that when it was published, my fellow-citizens were universally engaged in a strenuous war against the United States, and I was myself in the military commission of the Confederate States. The question may be asked, Does not the termination of that contest by the complete submission of the South, point out the propriety of modifying the tone of the work? After a careful consideration of this question, I have been constrained to believe, that it was best to leave my original work substantially untouched. As has been stated, the first eight chapters, containing all that is most controversial, had been irrevocably given to the public, many months before the end of the war. To attempt to recall and suppress it now, would appear rather a foolish scrupulosity than sound wisdom. Nor would this course be consistent with the interests of literature. It has been often said, that cotemporaries. cannot write impartial histories of their own times, because of their too lively sympathy with the passions which agitate the actors. more certainly true, that if cotemporaries do not write, with such partiality or impartiality as they may, it will be impossible for any other historian in posterity, to write a truthful narrative. None bat eye-witnesses and actors can contribute the facts, which are to be the materials of future history. And their facts are esteemed by the philosophic and judicial compiler of the subsequent age, as scarcely more important than their animus. He wishes to know, not only what men did, but how they felt, It is how the events transpiring affected them, While from what impulses and views they acted. he does not blindly adopt the passions of either party, it is these which enable him to reproduce the very complexion and color of the times he describes. Hence, it is for the interests of historic truth that those who describe cotemporary events, should give candid expression to the emotions of their times, It may also be asked: Does not the duty of promoting mutual forbearance, and the restoration of good feeling between the sections lately at war, require the suppression of controverted opinions, and of accusations, which, however true, can now be urged with no good result? In answering this objection, I shall candidly acknowledge myself utterly sceptical, both by temperament and conviction, of that deceitful and glozing philosophy, by which it is dictated. There is no true and solid basis for public well-being, but rectitude. The truth, manfully spoken, can never be unwholesome. If the complaints of the conquered section are just, then they ought to be stated and discussed, until a stable foundation for peace, good government, good feeling, and prosperity, is laid in just and magnanimous treatment. If those complaints are unjust, still it is best that they be candidly stated, respectfully listened to, and calmly discussed, as long as they are sincerely entertained in the hearts of the sufferers: for only in this way can they be eradicated. It is to me simply incredible, that a people so shrewd and practical as those of the United States, should expect us to have discarded, through the logic of the sword merely, the convictions of a lifetime; or that they could be deceived by us, should we be base enough to assert it of ourselves. They know that the people of the South were conquered, and not convinced; and that the authority of the United States was accepted by us from necessity, and not from preference. Should they hear the Southern people now disclaining and reprobating the principles which are unfolded in my book as the animating principles of General Jackson, they must inevitably remember, that this Southern people, three years ago, was unanimously applauding and inciting him in acting them out: so that it would be self-evident to our conquerors, that we were either traitorously false to our darling hero, then; or are equally false to them, now. The people of the United States have too much shrewdness ever to suppose, that the sons of the Revolutionary sires who, as their comrades, assisted in winning liberty from the British Lion, and who have recently given new proofs of their undegenerate manhood, are spaniels, to be made affectionate by stripes. The people of the South went to war, because they sincerely believed (what their political fathers had taught them, with one voice, for two generations) that the doctrine of State-sovereignty for which they fought, was absolutely. essential as the bulwark of the liberties of the people. They have been convinced by main force, that they are unable to save that doctrine. The only way to make them truly loyal again to the government of the United States, is to convince them by just treatment, that they went to war under a misapprehension, and that their liberties may still be securely and fully enjoyed under a consolidated government. It would be only a useless and degrading concealment, for the people of the South to profess a suppression of the honest convictions upon which they have lately acted, either at the dictate of deceit on their part, or of persecution on the part of their conquerors. For these reasons, it has appeared to me every way most manly and beneficial, to leave this explication and defence of General Jackson's resistance to the Federal Government, as it was written during the progress of the conflict. Its suppression would conceal nothing, and deceive nobody: its publication will give to subsequent generations a lively picture of the temper of the times. But I am ready to add, with equal candor, that when I thus declare boldly the principles upon which the Virginians of 1861 acted, I do not intend to be understood as retracting that acquiescence in the result of the arbitrament of the sword, and that submission promised by me in common with almost the whole South. I have voluntarily sworn to obey the government of the United States, as at present established and expounded to us by force of arms. That oath it is my purpose to keep. The Federal agent who administered it to me taught me expressly that its obligation was of this extent, and no more: that it did not bind me to think or say the principles on which I had acted were erroneous; but to abstain, in future, from the asser tion of them by force of arms. It only remains to add a few words in explanation of the illustrations which accompany the text. It is earnestly recommended to the attentive reader, that he shall connect his perusal of the descriptive parts of the narrative with a careful study of the map of Virginia. This is so accessible to all Americans, that it was thought superfluous to burden this work with the expense of its insertion. A simple diagram is inserted, to facilitate the comprehension of each of the more important battles. These plates have been carefully prepared, from actual inspections and surveys, made by Confederate engineers; but they are simplified by leaving out all except the most essential lines and features. The intelligent reader, even though not a military man, will readily apprehend, that the representation of the positions of brigades and divisions of troops in action, by lines upon a diagram, can only be approximately correct. The lines of ink are, of course, stationary; the lines of troops in action are never long so. The relative position assigned to two divisions on the diagram may be a correct representation of their relation on the field of actual strife, for a fleeting moment only; a minute more may have changed it. The diagram must, perforce, either contain both of two divisions at once, which in fact only occupied the field successively; or it must suggest a still graver error, by the total omission of one of them. But if these obvious considerations are borne in mind, and the illustrations are studied in connection with the narrative, they will convey no mistake, and will be found to represent, with general correctness, the positions and movements of the Confederate troops. ROBERT L. DABNEY. UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, VA., April 1, 1866. |