Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 03.djvu/207

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
Discussion of the Prison Question.
197

The Nation on Our Discussion of the Prison Question.

Our readers will remember that we devoted the numbers of our Papers for March and April of last year (1876) to a discussion of the "Treatment of Prisoners during the War between the States." We sent copies of the numbers containing this discussion to all of the leading newspapers of the country, and wrote them a private letter enclosing proof-sheets of our summing up, and asking of them such review as they might think proper. Our Southern papers generally published full and most complimentary notices of the discussion; but the Northern press, so far as we learned, were silent, except a few such ill-natured paragraphs as the one which appeared in the New York Tribune, to the effect that the "country wanted peace," and they did not see why we could not let it have the peace after which it longed.

Among other papers to which we sent our articles was The Nation, from which we hoped to have had a review. It was silent, however, until in its issue of April 5th, 1877 (twelve months after our publication), it honors us with a notice which, while ably and very adroitly put, utterly fails, we think, either to fairly represent our argument or to meet the issues involved. At all events, we are willing for our readers to judge between us, and we give herewith in full The Nation's review:

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN THE CIVIL WAR.

The Southern Historical Society has just published the report of its Secretary on the treatment of prisoners by the South in the late war—a subject spoken of by us only a few weeks ago (vol. xxiii, p. 385). The report of such a society is entitled to consideration from its source; but we regret to say that its treatment is not judicial, and that it adds but little to our knowledge of the matter. The evidence of abuses at the largest Southern prisons—Libby, Bell Isle, and especially Andersonville—is so extensive and so excellent (including the statements of both the investigating officers sent by the Confederate Government) that general denials by the author, or persons like General Lee, who do not appear to have had any personal knowledge of the matter, will hardly receive the attention the Secretary seems to expect, particularly as it appears plainly enough from the report that there is only too much foundation for the charges. The author, however, seems to think that any weakness on this point is fully covered if he can show that the North was responsible for the stoppage of exchange and that Southerners suffered in Northern prisons, having the impression,