<* 
 
 cops 
 
 N.C 
 
 ^*ncx 
 
 0, 
 
 irn^ % n % ^^ 
 
 . 
 
 I »n 
 
 Tke, Ci v i I W 
 
 • ". 
 
C&e Liorarp 
 
 Of Vt)t 
 
 CHnitier0ttp of H3ortfi Carolina 
 
 Collection ot jRortf) Carolmiana 
 <TO0 boolt toao presented 
 
 W 
 
 6? 
 
 
 C^^no.1 - Gl^\So 
 
 a ^ 
 
OFFICIAL RHKO 
 
 OF THE 
 
 History Committee 
 
 OF the 
 
 GRAND CAMP, C. V, 
 
 Department of Virginia. 
 
 by 
 
 HON. GEO. L. CHRISTIAN, Chairman. 
 
 Read at Newport News, Va., October 28th, 1903, and 
 
 Published by Order of the Grand 
 
 Camp of Virginia. 
 
 North Carolina and Virginia in the 
 Civil War. 
 
 History Committee. — Geo. It. Christian, Chairman; R. T. Barton, 
 Carter R. Bishop, R. A. Brock, Rev. B. D. Tucker, John W. Daniel, 
 James Mann, R. S. B. Smith, T. H. Edwards, W. H. Hurkamp, John 
 W. Fulton, Micajah Woods. 
 
 CONFEDERATE VETERAN (NASHVILLE) FOR APRIL, 1904. 
 
THE following report was submitted to the Grand Camp of 
 Confederate Veterans of Virginia at its annual meeting, 
 held at Newport News, Va., October 28th, 1903. It was then 
 unanimously adopted, and five thousand copies were directed by 
 the Camp to be published in pamphlet form. A few days after 
 this action on the part of the Camp, the author saw a statement 
 in the newspapers to the effect that a committee had been ap- 
 pointed by the North Carolina Historical Society to investigate 
 the statements contained in the report. The author was most 
 anxious that if there were any errors in the report, they should 
 be corrected before it was put in a more permanent form; and 
 it was with this view that the publication has been postponed 
 until this time. GEO. L. CHRISTIAN, Chairman. 
 
 Richmond, February 20th, 1904. 
 
OFFICIAL REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 History Committee of the Grand Camp, C. V., 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 October 28th, 1903. 
 
 To the Grand Camp of Confederate Veterans of Virginia: 
 
 Your History Committee again returns its thanks to you 
 and the public for the nattering and cordial way in which 
 you have received its last report. It will be as gratifying to 
 you as it is to the committee to know that we have heard 
 of no attempt to controvert any statement contained in any 
 report of this committee up to this time. It will also be 
 gratifying to you to learn that at the late reunion of the. 
 United Confederate Veterans, held in New Orleans, the 
 several reports of your committee were not only incorpo- 
 rated as a part of the report of the History Committee of 
 that great organization, but received its unanimous and un- 
 qualified indorsement. 
 
 REGRETS OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 We had expected in this report to discuss a very different 
 subject from that which now claims our attention. Indeed, 
 we deeply regret that the matter which demands our atten- 
 tion at this time should have to be considered by us at all. 
 But we conceive it to be our first duty to our Mother State 
 to see that her record in the Confederate war is kept true, 
 and not misunderstood or misrepresented by either friend or 
 foe. We have always deprecated controversies between 
 Confederates. We think, as Gen. Early once said, there is 
 glory enough attached to the Confederate struggle for all 
 of us to have a share, that we should stand together and 
 see that the truth of that conflict is preserved; this is all we 
 have a right to ask, and we should be content with nothing else. 
 
 This being our position, we repeat our sincere regret that 
 some recent publications from representatives of our sister 
 State of North Carolina have come to us in such a way, and 
 that these publications emanate from such sources, that they 
 demand consideration and attention at the hands of your com- 
 mittee. We again repeat our sorrow that we feel compelled 
 to notice these matters, and in doing so we shall strive to 
 say nothing which will even tend to detract from the fame 
 
won by the glorious "Old North State" in the Confederate 
 war, except in so far as attempts have been made to augment 
 that fame at the expense of Virginia. 
 
 PEOPLE OF NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 We know the people of North Carolina and greatly ad- 
 mire their many virtues and noble characteristics. We knew 
 the soldiers sent by her to the Army of Northern Virginia. 
 We have seen their splendid bearing and frightful sacrifices 
 on many a field of carnage, and we bear willing testimony 
 to the fact that no truer, better, or braver soldiers ever 
 stood on the "bloody front of battle." North Carolina is 
 truly a great State, inhabited by a noble people, and with a 
 record of which she has a right to be proud. We love State 
 pride, and particularly that State pride and devotion to prin- 
 ciple which has made North Carolina do what she could to 
 preserve the names and records of her soldiers in the Con- 
 federate armies. Every other Southern State should follow 
 her example, no matter what it may cost to do so. 
 
 No truer patriots ever lived or died for their country 
 than those who fought in the Confederate armies. These 
 men are as well satisfied now as they ever were that their 
 cause was just. They enlisted at the command of their sev- 
 eral States; they did their duty to the best of their ability; 
 they are, and have a right to be, proud of their achievements, 
 and they have a right to expect that their States will see to 
 it that their names and the record of their deeds are pre- 
 served. 
 
 CLAIMS MADE BY NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 Conceding, as we cheerfully do, the great fame achieved by 
 North Carolina in the Confederate war, it seems to us, from 
 reading the publications to which we have referred, that some 
 of our friends from that State have not been either just or 
 generous in some of their allusions to her sister States, and 
 have seemed both spiteful and boastful in some of their charges, 
 claims, and references to their "next-door neighbor," Virginia. 
 What Virginia may have done to provoke this, we are not ad- 
 vised. If aught, we regret it. It is these charges, these claims 
 and seeming reflections on Virginia alone, that we now pro- 
 pose to consider, as we feel in duty bound to do. In doing 
 this we shall not imitate the course pursued by some of the 
 writers to whom we have referred. Some of these have not 
 hesitated to reflect on the people and soldiers from Virginia 
 in the harshest and, in our opinion, most unjust manner. We 
 shall not imitate these writers (i) because we feel confident 
 they do not, in their criticisms of Virginia and her people, re- 
 
fleet the real feelings of North Carolinians toward Virginians, 
 and (2) because neither the people of Virginia nor the soldiers 
 sent by her to the Confederate armies need any defense at 
 our hands. The presentation of the truth of what Virginia 
 did and dared and suffered for the Confederate cause is her 
 complete vindication, and it is a part of this task that we now 
 filially but cheerfully assume. 
 
 THAT SHE FURNISHED MORE TROOPS. 
 
 First: The first and most serious claim made by 
 North Carolina is that she furnished more troops to 
 the Confederacy than any other Southern State. 
 
 This claim has been made and published far and wide, 
 and, as far as we know, no attempt has been made to con- 
 trovert it. It generally assumes the form of a boast, but 
 is sometimes made the basis of a complaint. We saw not 
 long since in a North Carolina paper (the Charlotte Observer 
 of May 17, 1903) a statement from the pen of a distinguished 
 writer of that State, in which he complained that partiality 
 had been shown to Virginia, and consequent injustice done 
 to North Carolina, during the war, in the appointment of the 
 general officers of the army, especially, he said, since Virginia 
 had furnished only about 76,000 troops to the Confederacy, 
 to North Carolina's 126,000, or 50,000 more than Virginia. 
 
 PRESIDENT DAVIS. 
 
 So far as the question of partiality is concerned, since 
 President Davis, who made all these appointments, was not 
 a Virginian, there was no reason why he should have been 
 partial to Virginians unless their merits warranted it. And, 
 in our opinion, no good reason is given by this writer for 
 any such alleged misconduct on his part. We believe Mr. 
 Davis was not only a true patriot but a great and good man, 
 and that it would have been almost impossible to have found 
 any one who could or would have discharged the delicate 
 and difficult duties of his office more satisfactorily to all 
 than he did. 
 
 But what concerns us far more is the claim made by this 
 writer that North Carolina, with a smaller white population 
 than Virginia, furnished fifty thousand more troops to the 
 Confederacy. This claim necessarily implies that North 
 Carolina was more loyal to the Confederate cause than Vir- 
 ginia, or, in other words, discharged her duty in this, the 
 greatest crisis in the history of these States, better than 
 Virginia. 
 
RECORD OF TROOPS FURNISHED. 
 
 Let us examine the record on this point first, then, and see 
 if this claim is sustained by it. 
 
 In Series IV., Vol. III., at page 95, of what are termed 
 "The War of the Rebellion Official Records," will be found 
 a carefully prepared official report to the "Bureau of Con- 
 scription" of the Confederate War Department, giving in 
 much detail the number and character of the troops furnished 
 by the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
 Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi up to January 25, 186.1. 
 This report shows that the "total number of men sent to the 
 field" by Virginia up to that time was (page 102*) 153,- 
 876, whilst the total number sent by North Carolina up to 
 that time was only 88,457, or 65,419 less than Virginia. 
 
 This report further shows that according to the then 
 last census there were remaining in Virginia, between the 
 ages of eighteen and forty-five, 13,248 men to be accounted 
 for as soldiers; and in North Carolina 12,877. So that, if 
 every man of those unaccounted for in North Carolina had 
 been subsequently sent to the field, and not one of those 
 from Virginia, still, according to this report, Virginia would 
 have furnished fifty-two thousand, five hundred and forty- 
 three more than North Carolina. 
 
 At page 99 of this report, in referring to North Carolina, the 
 following statement is made: 
 
 "The Adjutant General of the State has estimated 
 that the State has put into the service 100,000 men, 
 but his calculations contain an apparent error, in 
 which he has accounted for 14,000 men twice. His 
 estimate should therefore be less than mine." 
 
 We do not quote this for the purpose of intimating that 
 North Carolina may (unintentionally, of course) still be 
 counting "twice," in making up the number she now claims, 
 but only to show that her own Adjutant General did not 
 then claim that North Carolina had furnished more than 
 one hundred thousand men, whilst Virginia had then sent to 
 the field, as shown by this report, one hundred and fifty-three 
 thousand, eight hundred and seventy-six, and rather more than 
 double the number with which she is credited by the distin- 
 guished writer to whom we have just referred. 
 
 At page 100 of this same report, in accounting for the 
 troops furnished by South Carolina, occurs this item and 
 statement — viz. : 
 
 "Without passing through camps 13,953." 
 
 "A large part of this number (13,953) will be found 
 
to have volunteered in North Carolina regiments, hav- 
 ing been drawn into that State by the inducements of 
 double bounty, which was at one time offered to vol- 
 unteers." 
 
 These troops from South Carolina are, doubtless, counted 
 by North Carolina in the number she now claims, and may, 
 to some extent, account for how she furnished 10,000 more 
 soldiers to the Confederacy than her voting population, as 
 shown in a then recent election, of which fact she now justly 
 boasts. 
 
 REPORT CORRECT. 
 
 As showing that the report from which we have quoted 
 is substantially correct, the largest number of troops we 
 have seen anywhere claimed to have been furnished by 
 North Carolina is that contained in the report from the pres- 
 ent Adjutant General's office, and this number is put at 
 about 127,000, and, of course, this includes the "total of all 
 men disposed of" from the State — all in the field, and all ex- 
 emptions from whatever cause. The report from which we 
 have quoted above (page 103) gives North Carolina 126,623 
 and to Virginia (counting in the same way) 178,933, or 52,- 
 316 more than North Carolina. 
 
 COMPARATIVE NUMBER OF REGIMENTS, ETC. 
 
 Whilst this report gives the number of regiments, bat- 
 talions, and batteries furnished by Virginia, it does not give 
 the number of those furnished by North Carolina. But we 
 are enabled to supply this apparent omission from another 
 source, to be found in the same volume at page 722. As late 
 as October 11, 1864, Gov. Vance wrote to Gen. Bragg (a 
 native of North Carolina), then stationed in Richmond, ask- 
 ing Bragg to furnish him with the number of troops fur- 
 nished by North Carolina to the Confederacy, and saying he 
 wished this information in order to "know what North Car- 
 olina had done in comparison with the other States," in view 
 of a proposed meeting of the Governors of the South, then 
 about to assemble at Augusta, Ga. On this letter of inquiry 
 there is an indorsement stating that, whilst the number of 
 troops furnished by North Carolina could not be given 
 without laborious research, there was then in the Confed- 
 erate service from that State sixty-seven regiments, five bat- 
 talions, twelve unattached companies, two State regiments 
 doing service for the Confederacy, and nine battalions of 
 reserves then organized. The report of January 25, 1864, 
 above referred to, shows that Virginia had then sent to the 
 
field sixty-three regiments of infantry, forty battalions of 
 infantry, twenty regiments of cavalry, forty battalions of 
 cavalry, and one hundred and twenty-five batteries of ar- 
 tillery (page 96). 
 
 A comparison of these organizations of the two States 
 gives this result — viz.: That where North Carolina had fur- 
 nished the Confederacy, in all arms of the service, sixty-nine 
 regiments, Virginia had furnished eighty-three; where North 
 Carolina had furnished fourteen battalions, Virginia had fur- 
 nished eighty; and where North Carolina had furnished 
 twelve unattached companies (presumably batteries), Vir- 
 ginia had furnished one hundred and twenty-five batteries ; 
 and it is worthy of remark, that the report showing the 
 number of these Virginia organizations is dated eight months 
 in advance of that showing the number of the North Caro- 
 lina organizations. 
 
 COMPARATIVE EXEMPTIONS. 
 
 Second: Another charge made by another distin- 
 guished North Carolina writer (Capt. W. R. Bond in 
 his pamphlet entitled "Pickett or Pettigrew") is that 
 "citizens of Virginia were filling nearly one-half of the 
 positions of honor and trust, civil and military" in the 
 Confederacy. 
 
 So far as the appointment of the general officers of the 
 army is involved in this charge, we have already said that 
 we believed they were made by Mr. Davis solely on the 
 merits of the appointees; and we think it will be admitted 
 by all that some of these appointments could not have been 
 improved upon, or perhaps made at all from any other State. 
 
 As to the charge, so far as it applies to the other military 
 officers, this was made by Gov. Vance during the war, and 
 if any one wishes to see a complete refutation of it, they 
 have only to refer to the letter from Gen. Lee to the Con- 
 federate Secretary of War, dated September 9, 1863, Reb. 
 Rec, Series I., Vol. XXIX., Part II., p. 723. 
 
 As to the civil positions of honor and trust of which this 
 writer says one-half were filled by Virginians, and that Rich- 
 mond thought "all should be thus filled." If he means by 
 this to charge that Virginia had a larger number of men 
 exempted from military duty to fill these places than any 
 other State (as would have been reasonable, since she had 
 the largest number in the field and was the seat of the capi- 
 tol, with all the departments of the government), then the 
 report, from which we have just quoted, shows that in this 
 he is greatly mistaken. This report, at page 103, shows that 
 the "total exempts" in Virginia at that time were twenty-five 
 
thousand and sixty-three; whilst those in North Carolina num- 
 bered thirty-eight thousand, one hundred and sixty-six. And in 
 the same volume in which this report is to be found, at page 
 851, will be found this remarkable exhibit, under the heading 
 "Number of State Officers" in each Southern State exempted 
 on certificates of their Governors. This last paper shows 
 that while the number of these officers exempted in Vir- 
 ginia was one thousand, four hundred and twenty-two, the 
 number exempted in North Carolina was fourteen thousand, 
 six hundred and seventy-five, more than ten times as many as 
 in any other Southern State. 
 
 EFFECTS OF FIGHTING OF THE "BETHEL REGIMENT." 
 
 Third: A third claim made by another distinguished 
 North Carolina writer is that one of the effects of the 
 fight made by the "Bethel Regiment" at Bethel was 
 the "possibly holding Virginia in the Confederacy." 
 (See article by Maj. Edward J. Hale, "North Carolina 
 Regiments '61 to '65," Vol. I., p. 123.) 
 
 The only theory on which we can account for this uncalled- 
 for suggestion is, that the writer wished to attribute to this 
 regiment the greatest possible achievement the fecundity of 
 his imagination could conceive of, and hence this "un- 
 kindest cut of all" at our old mother. Virginia joined the 
 Confederacy before North Carolina; and we will show later 
 on, by the testimony of ail the representatives of all the 
 Southern States, that no State in the Confederacy showed 
 more devotion to the cause, and that none was ready to make or 
 made greater sacrifices in its behalf. 
 
 NO DESIRE TO MAGNIFY WORK OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 We have no intention or desire to magnify either the serv- 
 ices rendered by Virginia to the Confederacy or the suf- 
 ferings and sacrifices of her people for the Confederate cause. 
 Indeed, from what we know of these, we think it would be 
 difficult to do this. But since some North Carolina writers 
 have laid so much stress on the part performed by their 
 State in these directions (a claim we have no disposition to 
 contest), it seems to us both pertinent and proper to call 
 attention to two things which apply to Virginia, but do not 
 apply to North Carolina or to any other Southern State. 
 These are: 
 
 VIRGINIA A "BATTLEGROUND." 
 
 I. Virginia was a "battleground" from the beginning to 
 the end of the war. No people who have not had this ex- 
 
8 
 
 perience can form any conception of what it means, and this 
 was literally true of Virginia "from her mountains to her 
 seashore." Every day and every hour for four long years 
 the tramp or the camp, the bivouac or the battle of both 
 armies were upon Virginia's soil. Six hundred of the two 
 thousand battles fought were fought in Virginia, and the 
 fenceless fields, the houseless chimneys, the charred ruins 
 and the myriad graves left all over Virginia at the close of 
 the war marked and measured the extent to which her ma- 
 terial resources had contributed to that struggle, and the 
 devotion of her people to the Confederate cause. These 
 things also showed in the utter desolation produced by the 
 war, and in the difficulties and disadvantages the State and 
 her people have labored under ever since. 
 
 VIRGINIA DISMEMBERED. 
 
 2. Virginia was the only Southern State dismembered by 
 the war. One-third of her territory (the richest in many 
 respects) and one-third of her people were actually torn from 
 her by the mailed hand of war not only without her consent 
 but contrary to an express provision of the Federal Constitu- 
 tion. The true history of this "political rape," as it was 
 termed by Gen. Wise, is one of the blackest political crimes in 
 the annals of history. 
 
 OTHER CLAIMS MADE BY NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 Fourth: The fourth claim or claims (and the last to 
 which we can refer) preferred by North Carolina are 
 set forth in these very striking terms — viz. : That she 
 was 
 
 "First at Bethel; Farthest to the Front at Gettysburg 
 and Chickamauga; Last at Appomattox." 
 
 This legend in this form is inscribed on the cover of each of 
 the five volumes published by the State, entitled "North Caro- 
 lina Regiments, 1861-65," to be thus perpetuated throughout all 
 time. 
 
 Of course, such claims, thus asserted, and conveying to 
 the world what these necessarily do, should be above and 
 beyond all criticism or cavil. Let us see if these will stand 
 this test. Before instituting this inquiry, let us first ask, 
 respectfully, why these claims are made at all. The learned ed- 
 itor of the volumes to which we have just referred disclaims 
 that they are intended as a boast. But we again respectfully 
 ask: Can they mean anything else than that North Carolina 
 means by them to proclaim the fact that the troops furnished 
 
by her were better, and therefore did better at the important 
 points named, than those from any other State. 
 
 It is worthy of note, too, that our friends are getting more 
 aggressive in their claiming with the passing of time. The 
 first form assumed by this legend, and inscribed on the Con- 
 federate monument at Raleigh, was only: 
 
 "First at Bethel; Last at Appomattox." 
 
 We next hear of it as inscribed on her memorial room in 
 Richmond as: 
 
 "First at Bethel; Farthest to the Front at Gettysburg; 
 Last at Appomattox." 
 
 And now Chickamauga's "bloody front" is also included. 
 One of her writers has already claimed that "Chancellors- 
 ville" was a "North Carolina fight," and that Gettysburg 
 ought to be so denominated, too; and so our friends go on 
 claiming from step to step just as during the war. 
 
 "From rank to rank their volleyed thunders flew." 
 
 As before stated, we have no intention or desire to detract 
 one iota from the fame of North Carolina, except where at- 
 tempts have been made to augment that fame at the expense 
 of Virginia. Keeping this purpose steadily before us, we 
 now propose to inquire whether or not some of the claims 
 set up by North Carolina in this legend do injustice to Vir- 
 ginia. And first as to the claim that she was "first at Bethel." 
 
 "first at bethel." 
 
 In Volume IV. of the "Confederate Military History," at 
 page 19, will be found a carefully prepared account of the 
 battle at Bethel, written by D. H. Hill, Jr., son of the in- 
 trepid soldier of that name who commanded the First North 
 Carolina in that fight, and, therefore, one with every natural 
 incentive to say all that could be said truthfully, both on 
 behalf of his father and his regiment. He says: "About nine 
 o'clock in the morning of the 10th (June) the Federals ap- 
 peared on the field in front of the Southern works, and Gre- 
 ble's battery took position. A shot from a Parrott gun in 
 the Confederate works ushered in the great Civil War on 
 the land." 
 
 This first shot was fired from the battery of the Richmond 
 (Va.) Howitzers, which had already fired the "first shot" 
 fired on Virginia's soil nearly a month before at Gloucester 
 Point. We are not claiming, however, any special credit 
 
for having fired this conceded first shot, the firing of which 
 was only fortuitous. But Virginia was at Bethel, along with 
 North Carolina, not only represented by the commanding 
 general, himself a Virginian, but by all three arms of the 
 service (infantry, artillery, and cavalry), and these troops 
 are mentioned by the commanding general, along with those 
 from North Carolina, net only in his report of the battle but 
 also, and in complimentary terms, in the report of Gen. 
 (then Col.) D. H. Hill, commanding the only North Carolina 
 troops there. Was not Virginia at Bethel, then, standing 
 side by side with North Carolina? Did she not do her duty 
 there as well? If she did, why 'the invidious claim that 
 North Carolina was first at Bethel? Is this just to Virginia? 
 We think not, in all kindness and courtesy. Bethel is in Vir- 
 ginia, and to claim that the troops of any other State were 
 more prompt in defending her soil than those from Virginia 
 necessarily reflects on Virginia. 
 
 FARTHEST AT GETTYSBURG. 
 
 As to Gettysburg: We were there, and by reason of our 
 position on the field, we saw that battle as we never saw 
 any other. We saw the charges of Pickett's, Pettigrew's, 
 and Pender's Divisions. We saw some of Pickett's men go 
 over the enemy's works and into their lines. We did not 
 think then, and do not think now, that Pettigrew's and Pen- 
 der's went so far, and we know this was the consensus of 
 opinion of those around us at the time. 
 
 But be this as it may, the world's verdict is that Pickett's 
 men went as far as men could go and did all that men could 
 do. Mr. Charles Francis Adams has recently written of 
 them, that the vaunted charge of Naooleon's "Old Guard" 
 at Waterloo did not compare with that of Pickett's men. 
 and was "as boys' play beside it." 
 
 Gen. John B. Gordon, of Georgia, perhaps the most dis- 
 tinguished Confederate officer now living, who was at Get- 
 tysburg, has very recently written that the "point where 
 Pickett's Virginians, under Kemper, Garnett, and Armistead, 
 in their immortal charge swept over the rock wall, has been 
 appropriately designated by the government as the high-water 
 mark of the rebellion." And we believe this will be the ver- 
 dict of history for all time. 
 
 Since there has been so much discussion on this point, 
 and some of it, we think, both unfortunate and intemperate, 
 we propose to consider this claim calmly and dispassionately, 
 not from what we saw, or what we and others may have 
 thought at the time of the battle, or may think now, but from 
 the official reports of the commanding officers, written only a 
 
II 
 
 few days after the battle. These reports are the best evidence, 
 and must and will be accepted as conclusive of what then oc- 
 curred. We have read so much of all of these reports, Con- 
 federate and Federal, as we could find published and as would 
 throw light on this question, and we propose to make such 
 extracts from the most important of these as we think should 
 settle this controversy for all time. It is proper to say in this 
 connection that the statements contained in these reports were 
 accepted as true at the time, and remained so for thirty years. 
 History, both at the North and at the South, has been based 
 on them, and it seems to us remarkable that this controversy 
 should have arisen so long after the happening of the events as 
 thus established. But the controversy has now arisen, and 
 hence the necessity for appealing to the record to settle it. 
 The question is, Which troops went "farthest to the front" — 
 i. e., penetrated the enemy's works farthest — on the 3d day 
 of July, 1863. at Gettysburg in the famous charge of that day — 
 Pickett's, Pettigrew's, or Pender's? We say Pickett's; North 
 Carolinians say Pettigrew's. 
 
 In order to understand the situation and the quotations 
 we shall make from the reports, it is necessary to state what 
 forces constituted the "charging column" and the dispositions 
 and alignments of these forces. This column was composed 
 of Pickett's Virginia Division on the right and a part of 
 Heth's Division (commanded by Pettigrew) on the left, with 
 a part of Anderson's Division to guard the left flank of Petti- 
 grew, and Wilcox's and Perry's Brigades of Anderson's Divi- 
 sion the right flank of Pickett. Pickett's Division was called 
 the "directing division," and was composed of Kemper's, Gar- 
 nett's, and Armistead's Brigades — Kemper's on the right, 
 Garnett's on the left, supported by Armistead in the rear and 
 center. Pettigrew's Division was composed of Archer's, Petti- 
 grew's, Davis's, and Brockenbrough's Brigades, supported by 
 Scales's and Lane's Brigades of Pender's Division, then com- 
 manded by Gen. Trimble; Scaies's Brigade (commanded by 
 Col. Lowrance) being in rear of Archer's (commanded by 
 Col. Fry), and Lane's being on the left of Scales, supporting 
 Pettigrew's Brigade (then commanded by Col. Marshall). 
 All of the reports refer to the magnificent way in which all of 
 these troops advanced to the charge, and we shall institute no 
 comparison between them ; they were all gallant and glorious 
 Confederate soldiers, and, we believe, the "best the world ever 
 saw," as they have been pronounced by the present Chief Mag- 
 istrate of this country. 
 
 We come now to the reports. We quote first from that of 
 Gen. Lee, written after he had received those of his subordi- 
 nates, and based upon what was contained in them, as well as 
 
12 
 
 what he saw on the held; and his position on the field was 
 such that he could see the whole movement with distinct- 
 ness. He says this in his official report: 
 
 "Gen. Longstreet ordered forward the column of 
 attack, consisting of Pickett's and Heth's Divisions in 
 two lines, Pickett on the right. Wilcox's Brigade 
 marched in rear of Pickett's right to guard that flank, 
 and Heth's (commanded by Pettigrew) was supported 
 by Lane's and Scales's Brigades under Gen. Trimble. 
 The troops moved steadily on under a heavy fire of 
 musketry and artillery, the main attack being directed 
 against the enemy's ieft center. His batteries opened 
 as soon as they appeared. Our own, having nearly 
 exhausted their ammunition in the protracted can- 
 nonade that preceded the advance of the infantry, 
 were unable to reply or render the necessary support 
 to the attacking party. Owing to this fact, which 
 was unknown to me when the assault took place, the 
 enemy was enabled to throw a strong force of infantry 
 against our left, already wavering [italics ours] un- 
 der a concentrated fire of artillery from the ridge in 
 front and from Cemetery Hill on the left. It (the 
 left) finally gave way, and the right, after penetrating 
 the enemy's lines, entering his advanec works, and 
 capturing some of his artillery, was attacked simulta- 
 neously in front and on both flanks and driven back 
 with heavy loss." 
 
 We have only to remember that Pettigrew's Division was 
 on the left and Pickett's on the right to understand clearly 
 what Gen. Lee here says. 
 
 We next quote from Gen. Longstreet's report, who was 
 standing not very far from Lee and saw the whole movement. 
 He says : 
 
 "The advance was made in very handsome style, all 
 the troops keeping their lines accurately and taking 
 the fire of the batteries with coolness and deliberation. 
 About halfway between our position and that of the 
 enemy a ravine partially sheltered our troops from the 
 enemy's fire, where a short halt was made for rest. 
 The advance was resumed after a moment's pause, all 
 still in good order. The enemy's batteries soon opened 
 on our lines with canister, and the left seemed to 
 stagger under it, but the advance was resumed and 
 with the same degree of steadiness. Pickett's troops 
 did not appear to be checked by the batteries, and only 
 
halted to deliver a fire when close under musket range. 
 Maj. Gen. Anderson's Division was ordered forward 
 to support and assist the wavering columns of Pctti- 
 grew and Trimble. Pickett's troops, after delivering 
 fire, advanced to the charge, and entered the enemy's 
 lines, capturing some of his batteries and gaining his 
 works. About the same moment, the troops that had 
 before hesitated broke their ranks and fell back in 
 great disorder [italics ours], many more falling under 
 the enemy's fire in retiring than while they were at- 
 tacking. This gave the enemy time to throw his entire 
 force upon Pickett [italics ours J, with a strong pros- 
 pect of being able to break up his lines or destroy him 
 before Anderson's Division could reach him, which 
 would in its turn have greatly exposed Anderson. He 
 was, therefore, ordered to halt. In a few moments 
 the enemy, marching against both flanks and the front 
 of Pickett's Division, overpowered and drove it back, 
 capturing about half of those of it who were not killed 
 or wounded " 
 
 Surely comment here is unnecessary, and no one who has 
 read Longstreet's book will accuse him of partiality to Vir- 
 ginians. 
 
 We next quote from the report of that gallant soldier and 
 splendid gentleman, Gen. James H. Lane, who was at first 
 in command of Pender's Division, but having been relieved 
 of that by Gen. Trimble, then commanded his own North 
 Carolina Brigade. He says : 
 
 "Gen. Longstreet ordered me to form in the rear of 
 the right of Heth's Division, commanded by Gen. Pet- 
 tigrew. Soon after I had executed this order, putting 
 Lowrance (commanding Scales's Brigade) on the right, 
 I was relieved of the command of the division by Gen. 
 Trimble, who acted under the same orders that I re- 
 ceived. Heth's Division was much larger than Low- 
 rance's Brigade and my own, which were its only sup- 
 port, and there was consequently no second line in 
 rear of its left. Now in command of my own brigade, 
 I moved forward to the support of Pettigrew's right, 
 through the woods in which our batteries were plant- 
 ed, and through an open field about a mile in full 
 view of the enemy's fortified position and under a 
 murderous artillery and infantry fire. As soon as 
 Pettigreu''s command gave back [italics ours] Low- 
 rance's Brigade and my own, without ever having 
 halted, took position on the left of the troops, which 
 
M 
 
 were still contesting the ground with the enemy [ital- 
 ics ours]. My command never moved forward more 
 handsomely. The men reserved their fire, in accord- 
 ance with orders, -until within good range of the en- 
 emy, and then opened with telling effect, repeatedly 
 driving the cannoneers from their pieces, completely 
 silencing the guns in our immediate front, and break- 
 ing the line of infantry which was formed on the crest 
 of the hill. We advanced to within a few yards of 
 the stone wall [italics ours], exposed all the while to 
 a raking artillery fire from the right. My left was 
 here very much exposed, and a column of the enemy's 
 infantry was thrown forward from that direction, 
 which enfiladed my whole line. This forced me to 
 withdraw my brigade, the troops on my right having 
 already done so." 
 
 The troops directly on Lane's right were those of Low- 
 rance. But if he refers to Pickett's too, then he does not 
 pretend that his own men entered the enemy's works, as 
 Pickett's did, which, as we shall see, is the real point at issue. 
 Scarcely a more striking illustration of the frailty of human 
 memory or the unsatisfactory nature of the post-bellum 
 statements relied on entirely, it would seem, by the advo- 
 cates of North Carolina's claim, can be found than by con- 
 trasting Gen. Lane's report with what is said by Capt. Louis 
 G. Young (now of Savannah, Ga., a gallant and gifted Con- 
 federate who was in charge as an aid on Gen. Pettigrew's 
 staff), in an address recently delivered by him on Gettys- 
 burg, a copy of which he has kindly sent us. Capt. Young 
 says : 
 
 ''Gen. Trimble and his brigade (division) were not, 
 and had not been, in supporting distance. They also 
 must have been delayed, as was Davis's Brigade, in 
 the woods on Seminary Ridge. Be this as it may, 
 they were too late to give any assistance to the as- 
 saulting column. When I delivered my message I 
 knew it was too late, and I recall my sad reflection, 
 'What a pity that these brave men should be sacri- 
 ficed !' Already had the remnant of Pickett's and 
 Heth's Divisions broken. They broke simultaneously. 
 They had together struck the stone fence, driven back 
 the enemy posted behind it. looked down on the mul- 
 titude beyond, and, in the words of Gen. McLaws, 
 who was watching the attack, 'rebounded like an In- 
 dia rubber ball.' The lodgment effected was only 
 for an instant. Not twenty minutes elapsed, as 
 claimed by some, before the handful of braves was 
 
15 
 
 driven back by overwhelming numbers. Then Trim- 
 ble's command should have been ordered to the rear. 
 It continued its useless advance alone, only to return 
 before it had gone as far as we had." 
 
 It will be seen that this statement is (unintentionally, we 
 know) not only at variance with the report of Gen. Lane, 
 but also with those of Gens. Lee. and Longstreet, both of 
 whom confirm Gen. Lane in the statement that Pettigrew's 
 men gave way before those of Piekett did. 
 
 But let us quote again from the official reports, and this 
 time from that of Col. Lowrance, who, it will be remembered, 
 commanded Scale's North Carolina Brigade, which was sup- 
 porting Pettigrew. He says : 
 
 ''We advanced upon the enemy's line, which was in 
 full view at a distance of a mile. Now their whole 
 line of artillery was playing upon us, which was on 
 an eminence in front strongly fortified and supported 
 by infantry." . . . "All went forward with a cool 
 and steady step ; but ere we had advanced over two- 
 thirds of the way troops from the front came tearing 
 through our ranks [italics ours], which caused many 
 of our men to break, but with the remaining few we 
 went forward until the right of the brigade touched 
 the enemy's line of breastworks as we marched in 
 rather an oblique line. Now the pieces in our front 
 were silenced. Here many were shot down, being 
 then exposed to a heavy fire of grape and musketry 
 upon our right flank. Now all, apparently, had for- 
 saken us." 
 
 Now the troops in front of Lowrance were those of Petti- 
 grew, and he says they gave way a third of a mile before 
 they got to the enemy's works. But be this at it may, he 
 nowhere says that any of his men entered the enemy's works-; 
 and none of the reports that we have seen say that any 
 North Carolina troops did this, which, as we have seen, is 
 the real point at issue. We have already shown, and will 
 do so more conclusively later, that Pickett's men, or some 
 of them, certainly did this. The report of Maj. Joseph A. 
 Englehard, assistant adjutant general of Pender's Division, 
 then commanded by Trimble, is substantially to the same 
 effect as those of Gen. Lane and Col. Lowrance, and for that 
 reason we do not quote what he says. That of Col. Shepard, 
 of Arcrrer's - Brigade, after describing the* charge, and saying 
 ■our lines, both right and left, gave way, says : 
 
i6 
 
 "Archer's Brigade remained at the works fighting, 
 as long as any other troops, either on their right or 
 left, so far as I could observe. Every flag in the 
 brigade, excepting one, was captured at or within the 
 works of the enemy:" (Italics ours.) 
 
 This is the only official statement we have found which 
 claimed that any other troops than those of Pickett entered the 
 enemy's works. But since Archer's Brigade, which, Gen. Heth 
 says, were the "heroes of Chancellorsville," was composed 
 entirely of Tennesseeans and Alabamians, we hardly think 
 our North Carolina friends can mean their claim to be mis- 
 taken for what the men of this brigade did. 
 
 The report of Maj. J. Jones, of the Twenty-Sixth North 
 Carolina, who commanded Pettigrew's Brigade after Col. 
 Marshall was wounded, says : 
 
 "When within about 250 or 300 yards of the stone 
 wall, behind which the enemy was posted, we were 
 met with a perfect hailstorm of lead from their small 
 arms. The brigade dashed on, and many had reached 
 the zvall, when we received a deadly volley from the 
 left. The whole line on the left had given way, and 
 we were being rapidly flanked. With our thinned 
 ranks and in such a position it would have been folly 
 to stand, and against such odds. We, therefore, fell 
 back to our original position in rear of the batteries." 
 
 It will be seen that this officer does not claim that any of 
 his men entered the works or that the troops on his right 
 (Pickett's and Archer's) gave way first; but those on his left, 
 the other two brigades of Pettigrew's Division. The reports 
 of Gens. A. P. Hill, Heth, and Davis throw no light on the 
 question, and we have been unable to find any from Gen. 
 Pickett or from any officer of his division, except that of 
 Maj. Charles S. Peyton, of Garnett's Brigade, which would 
 throw any further light on this question. Maj. Peyton says 
 this: 
 
 "Our line, much shattered, still kept up tli£, advance 
 until within about twenty paces of the wall, when for 
 a moment it recoiled under the terrific fire that poured 
 into our ranks both from their batteries and from their 
 sheltered infantry. At this moment Gen. Kemper 
 came up on the right and Gen. Armistead in rear, 
 when the three lines, joining in concert, rushed for- 
 ward with unyielding determination and an apparent 
 spirit of laudable rivalry to plant the Southern banner 
 on the walls of the enemy. His strongest and last 
 
17 
 
 line was instantly gained ; the Confederate battle flag 
 waved over his defenses, and the fighting over the 
 wall became hand-to-hand and of the most desperate 
 character ; but, more than half having already fallen, 
 our line was found too weak to rout the enemy. We 
 hoped for a support on the left (which had started 
 simultaneously with ourselves), but hoped in vain. 
 [Italics ours.] Yet a small remnant remained in des- 
 perate struggle, receiving a fire in front, on the right, 
 and on the left, many even climbing over the wall 
 and fighting the enemy in his own trenches until en- 
 tirely surrounded ; and those who were not killed or 
 wounded were captured, with the exception of about 
 300 who came off slowly, but greatly scattered, the 
 identity of every regiment being entirely lost and 
 every regimental commander killed or wounded." 
 
 Col. Walter H. Taylor, of Gen. Lee's staff, who was on 
 the field standing by Gen. Lee and saw the movement, says. 
 
 "It is needless to say a word here of the heroic 
 conduct of Pickett's Division. That charge has al- 
 ready passed into history as 'one of the world's great 
 deeds of arms.' While doubtless many brave men of 
 other commands reached the crest of the heights, this 
 was the only organized body which entered the works 
 of the enemy." 
 
 Gen. Long, who was also on Gen. Lee's staff, after describ- 
 ing the order in which the charge was made, says : 
 
 ''But the tempest of fire which burst upon the de- 
 voted column quickly reduced its strength. The troops 
 of Heth's Division (Pettigrew's), decimated by the 
 storm of deadly hail which tore through their ranks, 
 faltered and fell back in disorder before the withering 
 volleys of the Federal musketry. This compelled 
 Pender's (Trimble's) Division, which had marched 
 out to support the movement, to fall back, while Wil- 
 cox, on perceiving that the attack had grown hopeless, 
 failed to advance, leaving Pickett's men to continue 
 the charge alone. The other supports, Hood's and 
 McLaw's Divisions, which had been expected to ad- 
 vance in support of the charging column, did not 
 move, and were too remote to offer any assistance. 
 The consequence was that Pickett was left entirely 
 unsupported. 
 
"Yet the gallant Virginians marched steadily for- 
 ward through the storm of shot and shell that burst 
 upon their devoted ranks with a gallantry that has 
 never been surpassed. As they approached the ridge 
 their lines were torn by incessant volleys of musketry 
 as by a deadly hail. Yet, with unfaltering courage, 
 the brave fellows broke into the double-quick, and 
 with an irresistible charge burst into the Federal 
 lines and drove everything before them toward the 
 crest of Cemetery Hill, leaping the breastworks and 
 planting their standards on the captured guns with 
 shouts of victory." 
 
 Whilst nearly all of the Federal reports which refer to this 
 charge do so in almost as enthusiastic terms as the Confed- 
 erate, yet only two or three of them designate by name the 
 troops who were in advance and who actually entered their 
 works. These few, however, leave no doubt on this point. 
 Gen. Flancock says: 
 
 "When the enemy's line had nearly reached the 
 stone wall, led by Gen. Armistead" [italics ours], etc. 
 
 Gen. Webb, who commanded the brigade immediately in 
 front of Pickett, says : 
 
 "The enemy advanced steadily to the fence, driving 
 out a portion of the Seventy-First Pennsylvania Vol- 
 unteers. Gen, Armistead passed over the fence with 
 probably over a hundred of liis command [italics ours] 
 and with several battle flags," etc. 
 
 Gen. Henry J. Hunt, who commanded the Federal ar- 
 tillery, says : 
 
 "The enemy advanced magnificently, unshaken by 
 the shot and shell which tore through his ranks from 
 the front and from our left. . . . When our can- 
 ister fire and musketry were opened upon them it oc- 
 casioned disorder, but still they advanced gallantly 
 until they reached the stone wall, behind which our 
 troops lay. Here ensued a desperate conflict, the 
 enemy succeeding in passing the wall and entering our 
 lines [italics ours], causing great destruction of life, 
 especially among the batteries." 
 
 The other reports show what "enemy" is here meant. 
 It will thus be seen that every one of the official reports, 
 both Federal and Confederate (with the exception of that of 
 
19 
 
 Col. Shepard, of Archer's Brigade, not composed of Caro- 
 linians), which refer to the troops who entered the enemy's 
 works, point unmistakably to those of Pickett's Virginians. 
 This is the positive testimony on this point, and the negative 
 is almost as strong; which is that none of the official reports 
 from the officers commanding the North Carolina troops 
 make any such claim for their troops — a claim that would 
 certainly have been made if the facts had warranted it. Not 
 only is this true, but Gen. Lane, in his letter published long 
 after the war in the "Southern Historical Society papers," 
 whilst complaining (and, perhaps, justly) of the little credit 
 given the North Carolina troops for their conduct in this 
 charge, makes no such claim for them. Indeed, Capt. S. 
 A. Ashe, of North Carolina, late adjutant general of Pender's 
 Division, who was in the charge, in his address published in 
 Volume V. of "North Carolina Regiments, '61-65," whilst 
 claiming at the close that North Carolina troops "advanced 
 the farthest and remained the longest," says at page 152 : 
 
 "Some of Pettigrew's North Carolinians advanced 
 to the wall itself [italics ours], doing all that splendid 
 valor and heroic endurance could do to dislodge the 
 enemy, but their heroism was in vain." 
 
 And only a very few of the many post-bellum witnesses 
 quoted from by Capt. Ashe claim any more than the official re- 
 ports show. As to the value of these post-bellum statements, as 
 compared with the "official reports" prepared at the time, we 
 cannot do better than to quote from what Gen. Lane said 
 in the article in the Southern Historical Society papers be- 
 fore referred to. He says, speaking of his own report of 
 the battle of Gettysburg : 
 
 "I am sure the public will consider this official paper, 
 written about a month after the battle, a more valua- 
 ble historical document than the many recent articles 
 written from memory, which is at all times treach- 
 erous, and as every Confederate soldier knows, par- 
 ticularly so as regards the incidents, etc., of our heroic 
 struggle for independence." 
 
 He then goes on to give instances of the unreliability of 
 these writings from memory. 
 
 We have heretofore said we could find no official report 
 of this battle from Gen. Pickett. The following letter ex- 
 plains why this report was not published. It will be found 
 in Series 1, Volume XXVII., Part III., page 1075, "Reb. Rec./' 
 and is as follows : 
 
"Gen. George E. Pickett. Commanding, etc. 
 
 ''General: You and your men have crowned your- 
 selves with glory ; but we have the enemy to fight, and 
 must carefully, at this critical moment, guard against 
 dissensions which the reflections in your report would 
 create. I will, therefore, suggest that you destroy 
 both copy and original, substituting one confined to 
 casualties merely. I hope all will yet be well. 
 
 "I am, with respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 "R. E. Lee, General." 
 
 We make no comment on this letter, and when read in the 
 light of the official reports, it would seem to need none. 
 
 We do not intend to be misunderstood. We have not done so 
 and do not intend to reflect in any way on any of the North 
 Carolina troops. On the contrary, we think, considering the 
 fact that they were engaged and sustained heavy losses in the 
 first day's battle, and were thus deprived of many of their 
 brigade, regimental, and company officers they behaved with 
 signal gallantry. But our contention and our only point is: 
 that the present claim set up by North Carolina that her 
 troops were "farthest to the front" at Gettysburg is not sus- 
 tained by the record. 
 
 We have recently learned that our friends from North 
 Carolina do not now claim that their men entered the 
 enemy's works, as some of Pickett's did. Yet they say that 
 inasmuch as at the point where Pickett's men struck these 
 works they were farther advanced to the front than where 
 Pettigrew's men struck them, and as "Capt. Satterfield and 
 other North Carolinians of the Fifty-Fifth North Carolina fell 
 within nine yards of that wall. This settles (it) that the 
 men from this State (North Carolina) fairly earned the title 
 "Farthest at Gettysburg." (Note by the editor, "North Caro- 
 lina Regiments, '6i-'6$," Vol. V., p. 101.) 
 
 We remark in the first place that the Fifty-Fifth North 
 Carolina was in Davis' Brigade, the farthest brigade to the 
 left (save one) in the "charging column," and being without 
 any support, as explained by Gen. Lane, we thought it was 
 conceded that this brigade and Brockenbrough's zvere the 
 -first troops to give way. 
 
 But surely our friends are not basing their claim on any 
 such narrow and technical ground as is here indicated, and 
 as surely this is not the meaning they intended to convey by 
 this claim. We might as well claim that the picket on the 
 flank of Meade's army or captured within his lines was "farthest 
 to the front." Every soldier knows that the "front" of an 
 army is wherever its line of battle is (whether that line is 
 
zigzag or straight), and the opposing troops which penetrate 
 that line are farther to the front than those which do not. 
 
 We have shown, we think, conclusively that the Virginians 
 under Pickett did penetrate the enemy's line on the 3d of 
 July, '63, in the famous charge at Gettysburg, and that the 
 North Carolinians, under Pettigrew and Trimble, did not. 
 
 Another ground on which, we understand, North Carolina 
 bases this claim is, that her losses in this battle were greater 
 than those of Pickett. All the statistics of losses we have 
 seen of the battle of Gettysburg include those in the dif- 
 ferent commands in all three days combined. Since, there- 
 fore, Pettigrew's and Trimble's men were engaged in the 
 battles of the first day as well as those of the third, and as 
 Pickett's were only engaged on the third day, of course the 
 losses of the first two divisions in the two days' battles 
 were greater than those of the last named in the one day's 
 battle. 
 
 If our friends from North Carolina would adopt the lan- 
 guage of her gallant son, Capt. Ashe, from whom we have 
 already quoted, and say of Gettysburg, 
 
 "It was, indeed, a field of honor as well as a field of 
 blood, and the sister States of Virginia and North 
 Carolina have equal cause to weave chaplets of laurel 
 and cypress there," 
 
 1/ 
 
 no one in Virginia would have just cause of complaint 
 and certainly none would ever have come from this committee 
 on this point. But when her claim is set forth in the in- 
 vidious (and, we think, unjust) form it is, we think it not only 
 our right but our duty to appeal to the record, and to set 
 Virginia right from that record, and this is all we have tried 
 to do. 
 
 AS TO CHICKAMAUGA. 
 
 As to Chickamauga : We have already protracted this re- 
 port too far to warrant us in investigating the ground on 
 which this claim is based by North Carolina. Virginia was at 
 Chickamauga, too, along with North Carolina. We have al- 
 ways understood that these Virginia troops did their duty on 
 this field as well as those from any other State. This is all 
 we claim, and all that was claimed for North Carolina until 
 very recently. We can only remark as to this belated claim 
 that we have read the full and detailed report of this great 
 battle, written by the commanding general, a native of North 
 Carolina, and in it he nowhere refers to any specially meri- 
 torious services rendered by the few North Carolina troops 
 there. 
 
AS TO APPOMATTOX. 
 
 As to Appomattox : The writer had been permanently dis- 
 abled by wounds before Appomattox, and, therefore, can- 
 not speak personally of what occurred there, and there are 
 no official reports to appeal to. From what we have heard of 
 the surroundings there — the scattered condition of the differ- 
 ent commands, the desultory firing, and the confusion inci- 
 dent to that event — we should think it difficult, if not im- 
 possible, to prove with any degree of certainty what troops 
 were really entitled to the honor claimed there by North 
 Carolina. 
 
 V/e do not know, however, that m this honor is claimed by 
 troops from several of the Southern States ; and we have 
 heard it asserted with great plausibility that the last fighting 
 was done by troops from Virginia. We cannot prolong this 
 report to discuss the merits of these several claims, a dis- 
 cusssion which would, in our opinion, be both fruitless and 
 entirely unsatisfactory. 
 
 ENOUGH GLORY TOR ALL TO HAVE A SHARE. 
 
 In the Army of Northern Virginia nearly every Southern 
 State was represented. The Confederate Secretary of War 
 says of that army in his report of November 3, 1864, that it 
 was one "in which every virtue of an army and the genius of 
 consummate generalship had been displayed." And this 
 again, we believe, is the world's verdict. Is not this glory 
 enough to give us all a share? Let us then not be envious 
 and jealous of each other where all did their part so well. 
 
 Virginia's claims. 
 
 Virginia makes no boast of the part borne by her in that, 
 the greatest crisis of her history. She only claims that she did 
 her duty to the best of her ability. She has, therefore, no apol- 
 ogies to make either for what she did or may have failed to do. 
 It is true that she was somewhat reluctant to join the Con- 
 federacy, not because she had any doubt of the right of 
 secession or of the justice of the Confederate cause, but only 
 because of her devotion to the union of our fathers which 
 she had done so much to form and to maintain from its 
 foundation. But when she did cast her lot with her South- 
 ern sisters, she bore her part with a courage and devotion 
 never surpassed; and the record shows this in no uncertain 
 way. In the address issued and signed by every member of 
 the Confederate Congress in February, 1864, not written by 
 a Virginian, she is thus referred to : 
 
23 
 
 "In Virginia the model of all that illustrates human 
 heroism and self-denying patriotism, although the 
 tempest of desolation has swept over her fair domain, 
 no sign of repentance for her separation from the 
 North can be found. Her old homesteads dismantled; 
 her ancestral relics destroyed ; her people impover- 
 ished; her territory made the battle ground for the 
 rude shocks of contending hosts, and then divided 
 with hireling parasites, mockingly claiming jurisdic- 
 tion and authority, the Old Dominion still stands with 
 proud crest and defiant mien ready to trample beneath 
 her heel every usurper and tyrant, and to illustrate 
 afresh her Sic Semper Tyrannis, the proudest motto 
 that ever blazed on a nation's shield or a warrior's 
 arms." 
 
 On such testimony as this Virginia can safely rest her 
 title to share equally with her Southern sisters in the "wealth 
 of glory" produced by the war, and this equality is all she 
 asks or would have. She disdains to pluck one laurel from 
 a sister's brow. 
 
 SCH00LB00KS. 
 
 We have but little to add, since our last report, about the 
 books used in our schools, as there has been no change in 
 these so far as we know. We have received from the pub- 
 lishers, the American Book Company, a copy of the 
 "School History of the United States," by Philip A. Bruce, 
 Esq. This work is well-written, accurate in its statements, 
 as far as we are capable of judging, well gotten up by the 
 publishers, and is a very good school history. Mr. Bruce is 
 a Virginian, and his book is therefore written from a South- 
 ern point of view. But we think he fails to state the South's 
 position, in reference to the late war, as strongly as it can or 
 should be stated to our children — e. g., at Section 418, he 
 says, 
 
 "The Southern people maintained that the Constitu- 
 tion was simply a compact or agreement between sov- 
 ereign and independent States," 
 
 etc., without saying whether they were right or wrong in so 
 maintaining. Again, at Section 419, he says, "The South 
 thought," etc. We think we know what the opinions of the 
 author are on these important questions, and that our children 
 should have the benefit of these opinions, wherever they are 
 based on such well-ascertained facts as are here referred to. 
 
24 
 
 "stepping-stones to literature." 
 
 The volumes with this title have been brought to our at- 
 tention by Capt. Carter R. Bishop, of Petersburg, a member 
 of the committee; and at our request he has prepared the fol- 
 lowing, it would seem, well-merited criticism, which we re- 
 spectfully commend to the serious consideration <of the 
 Board of Education of the State. 
 
 Capt. Bishop's paper is as follows: 
 
 "This committee has hitherto confined its attention 
 entirely to matters of history proper ; but the lamented 
 Dr. Hunter McGuire, in outlining our work, included 
 among the subjects of our criticism such text-books of 
 our schools as failed to do justice to the South. 
 
 "We have recently examined, critically, the series of 
 readers in most common use, and find them far from 
 what they should be. An intelligent child soon learns 
 that authors may dogmatize in the statement of facts 
 about which there may be a difference of opinion. 
 This puts him on his guard, and he accepts the teach- 
 ings of his history as truths subject to such future cor- 
 rection as may be justified by a wider knowledge of 
 the matter. 
 
 "But the most ineradicable opinions are those 
 formed by inference, without assertion or contradiction, 
 during the formative period of a child's mind. The 
 error thus implanted is never suspected till it is un- 
 alterably fixed. There are poisons whose only mani- 
 festation is the inexplicable death of the victim. An 
 antidote would have saved him, but its need was not 
 indicated till death made it useless. 
 
 "Did the South, during the last century and a half, 
 have no orators, poets, nor writers whose works might 
 be of service in the literary development of the child? 
 Were the Southerners so enervated by the luxury of 
 slavery as to produce nothing worthy of a place among 
 the selections from the best writers and speakers of 
 the language? The average child using the 'Step- 
 ping-Stones to Literature' would be forced so to con- 
 clude. For, mark you, this series of readers consists 
 of seven grades; the majority of children in our 
 schools never reach the last or the seventh, and in 
 this one only is there a word from a Southern lip or 
 pen. The selections were made, or approved, by a Bos- 
 ton lady, naturally, from the literature with which she 
 was most familiar. The New England school of au- 
 thors is fully represented, and biographical notes make 
 
25 
 
 sure that the child shall know the section to which 
 they belong and the loving reverence in which they 
 are held. But the information of this kind about the 
 Southern authors is marked in its meagerness. Its 
 extent is as follows: Patrick Henry 'lived in Virginia 
 during the Revolutionary War;' Mrs. Preston 'was 
 born in Philadelphia and lived in Lexington, Va. ;' 
 'Gen. Gordon was a Confederate officer ;' and 'Sidney 
 Lanier was a Southern poet.' For the man who does 
 not want his child to know more than this of the 
 home and nativity of Southern authors, these books 
 are good enough. But if there is such a man in our 
 land, his only plea for such a wish would have to be 
 his own unbounded ignorance. 
 
 "The South has produced orators whose impetuous 
 eloquence has made men rush with a glad cheer into 
 the very jaws of death; statesmen whose wise counsel 
 has restrained the fierce heat of a hot-blooded people; 
 preachers whose words have convinced the sinner, 
 cheered the saint, and comforted the bereaved; writers 
 whose sentiments have placed the wreath of undying 
 glory on the tomb of heroes, and inspired a people of 
 desolated homes to rehabilitate their land made sacred 
 by the graves of such heroes; poets whose graceful 
 fancy has gilded the mountain tops with the lights 
 of other days and caused those in the gloom of despair 
 to look up and resolve to lead lives worthy of such 
 hallowed associations. 
 
 "Must the children of the South grow up in igno- 
 rance of these authors? Such is the unconscious in- 
 tent of our Board of Public Education, as evinced by 
 their adoption of these readers for our schools. 
 
 "The seventy-eighth Psalm contains a long catalogue 
 of God's dealings with his chosen people. It was ap- 
 pointed to be sung in the temple service. Was it that 
 the elders might warm their hearts afresh and restrain 
 their evil inclinations as the}' recited again and again 
 God's mercies and his wrath? Possibly this was one 
 result of its use, but that it was not its main object 
 we learn from the introduction to this psalm of in- 
 struction where we read: 'For he established a tes- 
 timony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which 
 he commanded our fathers that they should make 
 them known to their children ; that the generation to 
 come might know them, even the children which 
 should be born ; who should arise and declare them 
 to their children.' There you have it. The divine 
 
26 
 
 plan was to lodge that which we wish to remain in 
 the mind of the cliild. Can we improve upon His 
 plan? 
 
 "If we wish the authors so dear to us, of whom we 
 are so justly proud, to be loved in the future, or even 
 known outside of a mere handful of dry and bloodless 
 bookworms, we must to-day make them known to our 
 children. 
 
 "All the criticisms so far made on the 'Stepping- 
 Stones to Literature' are negative. We have pointed 
 out things that are wanting. But there is one selec- 
 tion to which we shall call special attention. It is 
 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic,' by Julia Ward 
 Howe, in the Sixth Reader, which represents the in- 
 vading Northern army as the coming of the Lord in 
 vengeance. Comment on such blasphemy is unneces- 
 sary. Surely no Southerner could have taken the 
 trouble to advise himself of the existence of such an 
 outrage on our children." 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 George L. Christian, Chairman. 
 
New History Committee. — John W. Daniel, Chairman; 
 George L. Christian, R. T. Barton, Carter R. Bishop, R. A. 
 Brock, Rev. B. D. Tucker, James Mann, R. S. ' B. Smith, 
 T. H. Edwards, W. H. Hurkamp, John W. Fulton, Micajah 
 Woods, John W. Johnston, Thomas D. Ranson. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL 
 
 00032721252 
 
 This book may be kept out one month unless a recall 
 notice is sent to you. It must be brought to the North 
 Carolina Collection (in Wilson Library) for renewal. 
 
 Kwrx 
 
 Form No. A-369