Ah,
distinctly I remember it was in the bleak November of 1847 that a protracted and public controversy
involving myself and another literarily inclined pulpitarian, the Reverend Joel T. Headley, as well as our respective publishers, Carey & Hart and Baker & Scribner, began appearing in the pages of the New York newspapers. It is my intent to document as much of this squabble (without commentary except to clarify certain matters to our devoted readers) as I am able, which is dependent upon the availability of the newspaper articles involved.
In the Autumn of 1847 Carey & Hart published a book under the title "
Washington and the Generals of the Revolution", which I had edited and had written about one third, for
little money and no reputation. A few months prior to this a similar book by Mr. Headley had been published by Baker & Scribner. In explanation of this "coincidence" Carey & Hart had attached the following preface to my volume:
The publishers deem it a duty they owe to the public, to explain the cause of the nearly simultaneous issue of two works, corresponding very closely in name and appearance, but by different authors and from different houses. They cannot explain it more fairly than by giving the following extract from their letter to the Rev. J. T. Headley, written last September, requesting him to undertake the authorship of these volumes, viz:
“PHILADELPHIA. Sept. 9, 1846
“We have had in contemplation the publication of a work to be entitled “The Generals of the American Revolution,” to make one or two 12mo. Volumes and should like to know if you would be willing to undertake the authorship of it. It you feel inclined to do so, please let us know your terms.”
Also an extract from his reply, viz:
“STOCKBRIDGE, Mass. Sept. 21, 1846.
“I have just received your favor of the 9th inst. I scarcely know what to say in reply, as I do not yet know what my engagements will be for the winter.…but before I undertake it, I shall want to inquire respecting the materials for it, and whether they are easily accessible. I am afraid the archives of the separate States will have to be searched. There is another consideration; whether it would be better for me as an author to write such a work….I shall return to New-York in a week or two, when I shall decide on what I undertake.”
From the above letter, it will be perceived, the Rev. J. T. Headley states that he could not then decide whether to undertake such a production, as he did not know that it would add to his reputation as an author, or that he could obtain the requisite materials without searching the archives of the separate states. Since the date of that letter, however, he has not written a line to the publishers; though they suggested the idea of the work to him, he has arranged with Messrs. Baker and Scribner, of New York, (who were perfectly aware of the circumstances of his correspondence on the subject with Carey and Hart,) for its publication.
The publishers have only to add that, as they were the originators of the work, their suggestions in regard to it should not have been used by Rev. J. T. Headley, for his own benefit or that of any other house, without first giving them notice and obtaining their consent. As well might a publisher make use of a MS submitted for publication by an author, by appropriating that author’s ideas in the preparation of a similar work, while he should be under the impression and expectation that the publisher was deciding upon the merits of his literary labours.
Philadelphia, 1847.
The whole correspondence, in reference to this work, between the Rev. J. T. Headley, Messrs. Baker & Scribner, and the publishers, can be seen at the store of Messrs. Carey & Hart, 126 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia.
Feeling his "good name" had by the import of this preface been besmirched, Mr. Headley in retaliation wrote the following letter, which appeared in the New York Courier & Enquirer for November 2nd, 1847:
We
give place to the following letter, simply as an act of justice to Mr. HEADLEY,
not desiring or designing to take any part in the controversy.
To the Editors of
the Courier & Enquirer:
GENTLEMEN,--As
I have been unwillingly dragged before the public by a portion of the press,
and accused of dishonesty in the publication of my “Washington and his
Generals,” will you do me the favor to allow a word of explanation in your
columns? Messrs. Carey & Hart of
Philadelphia have issued a work bearing a similar title and copied after mine
in form, size, binding, &c. so closely that no one can doubt their
intentions. In doing this they have
found it necessary, in order to exculpate themselves, to assail me with heavy
charges which have been repeated and enforced in several of the papers. They say in their introduction that they
cannot explain this course more fairly than by giving the following extracts
from our correspondence on the subject.
The following are the extracts they give:--
“PHILADELPHIA,
Sept. 9, 1846.
“We
have had in contemplation the publication of a work to be entitled “The
Generals of the American Revolution.” to make one or two 12mo. volumes and
should like to know if you would be willing to undertake the authorship of
it. If you feel inclined to do so,
please let us know your terms.”
Also
an extract from my reply, viz:--
“STOCKBRIDGE.
MASS., Sept. 21, 1846.
“I
have just rec’d your favor of the 9th inst. I scarcely know what to say in reply, as I do
not yet know what my engagements will be for the winter; …but before I
undertake it I shall want to inquire respecting the materials for it, and
whether they are easily accessible. I am
afraid the archives of the separate States will have to be searched. There is another consideration; whether it
would be better for me as an author to write such a work…I shall return to New
York in a week or two, when I shall decide on what I undertake.”
They
then state that—
“Since
the date of that letter, however, he has not written a single line to the
publishers; though they suggested the idea of the work to him, he has arranged
with Messrs. Baker and Scribner, of New York, (who were perfectly aware of the
circumstances of his correspondence on the subject with Carey & Hart,) for
its publication.
“The
publishers have only to add, that as they were the originators of the work,
their suggestions in regard to it should not have been used by the Rev. J.T.
Headley, for his own benefit or that
of any other house, without first
giving them notice and obtaining their consent.
As well might a publisher make use of a MS submitted to him for
publication by an author, by appropriating that author’s ideas in the
preparation of a similar work, while he should be under the impression and
expectation that the publisher was deciding upon the merits of his literary
labors.
“Philadelphia,
1847.”
Messrs.
Carey & Hart here distinctly assert that they suggested an entirely new
work to me, and that, while they supposed I was deliberating on their
proposals, I coolly appropriated their plan and made arrangements with another
house. To substantiate this charge of
dishonesty they adduce my letter as the proof and the only proof. Now to show the
nature of this proof, and where the dishonesty and falsehood rest, I give the
letter as written by me, that it may be compared with the extract made by
them:--
“STOCKBRIDGE.
MASS., Sept. 21, 1846.
“I
have just rec’d your favor of the 9th inst., forwarded from New
York. I scarcely know what to say in
reply, as I do not yet know what my engagements will be for the winter; I have
had such a work as the one you propose to publish in contemplation for some
time; last spring I was spoken to on the subject in New York, but before I
can undertake it I shall want to inquire respecting the materials for it, and
whether they are easily accessible. I am
afraid the archives of the different States will have to be searched. There is another consideration; whether it
would be better for me as an author to write such a work,” &c.
Thus
it is seen that they have endeavored to suborn a witness, in order to make it
sustain a false accusation. They quote a
letter intended to prove that I had acknowledged them to be the originators of
the book;--yet that very letter asserts my claim to it in the strongest
manner. They cite the letter to prove by
my confession, their priority over any other house; that letter informs them I
had already been spoken to on the subject.
And yet, with this letter in their
hands, with all these facts before them, they have publicly claimed the idea of
the book as their own, charged me with having dishonestly appropriated it
to my own useland benefit, and then, to sustain these charges, have garbled the
very letter which refutes them all!
Among honorable men such an act would stamp the author of it with
lasting disgrace.
With
regard to the abstract question, who suggested the work, it is too ridiculous
to be entertained a moment. Every one
who has taken the trouble to think on the subject at all, believes that
“Washington and his Generals,” grew out of “Napoleon and his Marshalls.” The materials of our revolutionary history
are not new—they have been lying ready for use for more than half a century,
and their being taken up and put in this particular form just now, is owing
entirely to the success of “Napoleon and his Marshalls.” Indeed many of the newspapers which noticed
the last mentioned work, formally suggested that I should take up our own
military chieftains. It is worthy of
note, by the way, that Carey & Hart have copied that work throughout in the
manner of getting up their own, and also appropriated a part of my title
“Washington and his Generals,” when they confess in their note that their book was to be called “The
Generals of the Revolution.” Another man
in Philadelphia, I am told, has accused me of obtaining my plan from him;--at
least, subsequent to the appearance of mine, he published a book with the same
title.
Now
I wish it distinctly understood that the claims of these gentlemen, however
much urged, and their publications on me of similar works, however injurious,
could not have provoked a public reply, had not several influential papers
reiterated their accusations. I must
confess my surprise that so respectable a journal as the Richmond Enquirer, should be one of them. I must protest against this freedom of a
certain portion of the press in dragging my private affairs before the public,
and thus forcing me into a contest as absurd as it is annoying. Especially must I protest against this
reckless decision on my conduct from an exparte
statement. The Literary World has made itself prominent in this affair, and for
the benefit of those who have hitherto considered it a fair literary journal, I
would state that the articles on the subject have been written chiefly, if not
wholly, by Rufus W. Griswold, who wrote
the first sixty pages of Carey & Hart’s book, and who for certain
considerations, growing out of his connection with these publishers, has
undertaken their defence in New York.
Mr. Hoffman has lent the Literary World to this interested person, and
while he has given him his columns, has made the proprietors pay him also for
his articles. Mr. Hoffman, also wrote, I
am credibly informed, a portion of the
work himself, and a portion too, which in a recent number of his paper, was
declared to be written with “spirit, judgement and grace.” But I will forbear as I design soon to make
through another channel disclosures respecting the joint labours of these
literary gentlemen, which will surprise them as much as their friends. Very respectfully and truly
yours,
J.T.
HEADLEY.
Around 8 o'clock that evening I was informed by Charles F. Briggs of this attack upon my dear friend, the esteemed poet Charles Fenno Hoffman, and me, and I immediately put pen to paper in reply...
TO BE CONTINUED.
