Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 2.
Reverend J. William Jones, Ed.

[216] historian of the conflict, “was a blank denial of the necessity of compromise, and showed of course that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation.”

In like manner the project of the Peace Conference, which had been inaugurated by Virginia, was summarily and even contemptuously rejected by the same party.

Now, these are the unquestionable facts of the case, and it is against perversions of these that we enter our protest. We are not now dealing with matters of opinion at all. The Count of Paris may think this rejection of all overtures for compromise an eminently wise and commendable proceeding on the part of the Republican party--an opinion, indeed, which, with that reckless disregard of self-contradiction that is so striking a feature of his book, he soon afterwards expresses. He has an indisputable right to form, and to maintain after his fashion, any opinions that may please him on the questions at issue between the two sections; nor do we conceive the Southern cause in the slightest danger from the power of his logic. What we do object to is the persistent misrepresentation of facts, which cannot of course impose upon any one tolerably acquainted with the history of the times, but which may be productive of considerable harm by misleading and prejudicing that astonishingly large class of Europeans which is profoundly ignorant of our history and our institutions.

Another instance, of a character similar to that which we have just been examining, is the light in which the relations between the Southern Commissioners and the Government at Washington are presented.

“Mr. Lincoln,” we are told (in reference to the question of evacuating Fort Sumter), “did not hesitate; but being always disposed to deal fairly even towards a perfidious enemy, he deemed it proper to inform the authorities of South Carolina of his intentions.”

Now, it so happens that upon this very interesting episode of the late contest, the public is in possession of particularly clear and ample information, entirely at variance with the representation given in this volume. If its author was in the habit of rendering a reason for his belief, or adducing evidence in support of his assertions, it might be worth while to inquire for what reason and upon what evidence he here applies the epithet “perfidious” to the opponents of Mr. Lincoln's government. But in the case of a writer who evidently considers this quite unnecessary, and distributes praise and abuse not only without scruple, but without the art and