porarily obscured or postponed; but in no distant future, I believe it will come in all of its splendor, to rejoice the hearts of the righteous everywhere. It is already predicted by military experts of the highest authority that the present convulsion, even if not speedily composed, will be the last conflict of arms between civilized nations. If all that is desired is not achieved at once, still great good is done by causing, even for a brief period, the war drums to keep silent and the war columns to mark time. To many minds this talk of peace has always seemed idle. The yawning chasm of war that lies open before them may confirm them in this belief. Nevertheless, if it be true that war cannot prevented, who can estimate the good that is done, the evil averted, whenever it is checked in its mad career? At any rate, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to continue in line with and follow the leadership of the great lawyers I have heretofore named and from whom I have quoted-Lord Russell and Lord Haldane on the other side, and Ex-President Taft, Senator Root and President Wilson on this side, of the Atlantic, who deem it worth while to devote a good part of their valuable lives to this world-wide movement for peace. If but a dream, it at least affords the joy of hope to anxious hearts, and if in God's good time and of His great mercy, this dream of great minds becomes a reality, and the long-sought goal is reached, when "Peace on earth and good will toward men" shall be everywhere proclaimed, may we not expect to hear again that "the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy"? The Forged Letter of General Robert E. Lee. A PAPER READ BY PROFESSOR CHARLES A. GRAVES, I.. Nearly fifty years ago, on November 26, 1864, the New York Sun published a letter, purporting to be by General Robert E. Lee to his son, G. W. Custis Lee, with this heading and introduction: "PRIVATE LETTER FROM GENERAL LEE." "The original of the following private letter from General Lee to his son was found at Arlington House, and is interesting as illustrating a phase in his character". This is the forged letter; and as printed in the Sun, it is in these words and figures, to wit: ARLINGTON HOUSE, "April 5, 1852. "My Dear Son: I am just in the act of leaving home for New Mexico. My fine old regiment has been ordered to that distant region, and I must hasten to see that they are properly taken care of. I have but little to add in reply to your letters of March 26, 27 and 28. Your letters breathe a true spirit of frankness; they have given myself and your mother great pleasure. You must study to be frank with the world: frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted you mean to do right. If a friend asks a favor, you should grant it, if it is reasonable; if not, tell him plainly why you cannot; you will wrong him and wrong yourself by equivocation of any kind. Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one; the man who requires you to do so is dearly purchased at a sacrifice. Deal kindly, but firmly, with all your classmates; you will find it the policy which wears best. Above all, do not appear to others what you are not. If you have any fault to find with anyone, tell him, not others, of what you complain; there is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man's face and another behind his back. We should live, act and say nothing to the injury of any one. It is not only best as a matter of prin ciple, but it is the path to peace and honor. "In regard to duty, let me, in conclusion of this hasty letter, inform you that nearly a hundred years ago there was a day of remarkable gloom and darkness-still known as the dark day— a day when the light of the sun was slowly extinguished as if by an eclipse. The Legislature of Connecticut was in session, and as its members saw the unexpected and unaccountable darkness coming on, they shared in the general awe and terror. It was supposed by many that the last day-the day of judgment -had come. Someone, in the consternation of the hour, moved an adjournment. Then there arose an old Puritan legislator, Devenport of Stamford, and said, that if the last day had come, he desired to be found at his place doing his duty, and, therefore, moved that candles be brought in so that the house could proceed with its duty. There was quietness in that man's mind, the quietness of heavenly wisdom and inflexible willingness to obey present duty. Duty, then, is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things like the old Puritan. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. Never let me and your mother wear one gray hair for any lack of duty on your part. "Your affectionate father, "R. E. LEE. "To G. W. CUSTIS LEE." 1 1. I am indebted for a verified copy of the above letter to Mr. E. P. Mitchell, of the Editorial Staff of the New York Sun. After stating that the letter is taken from the third column of the editorial page, Mr. Mitchell continues: "From what I have observed of the editorial methods of that time (1864), and considering the place on the page, the manner of exhibition, and II. Is it a fact that the above letter is a true copy of a letter written by General R. E. Lee? The Sun does not profess to print from the original, which is not produced, nor its absence accounted for. Whoever sent the copy to the Sun affirmed that the original had been found at Arlington House, and the Sun published the letter on the faith of that statement. This, at least, is the presumption. No one now connected with the Sun has any knowledge of the facts. Without insisting on the rules of evidence, but freely admitting any matter, which, as a basis of inference, is in its nature probatory, let us examine on what grounds the authenticity of the above letter, which we shall hereafter call The Duty Letter, has been questioned. And without inquiry as to the legal burden of proof, let us concede that this letter should be taken as prima facie genuine, and that those who deny its authenticity should prove it spurious by a preponderance, at least, of evidence. For this letter has been accepted as genuine by two generations of Americans. In the South, it has been esteemed by many as almost a new gospel; and it has been taught to children with the Bible and the catechism. And when its authenticity is denied, the lovers of Lee (and who is not?) cling to it with a passionate tenacity that is almost pathetic, as if the class of matter similarly displayed in the same place on other days, I should personally be slow to assume, without other evidence, that this was the earliest appearance in print of the forged letter. It looks, introduction and all, quite as much like reprint of current matter in other publications as like first hand and previously unedited news.' It is probable that the question here raised will never be settled. It does not seem important. It is certain, I think, that the Richmond (Va.) Whig (as to which see post) copied The Duty Letter from the Sun. It gives no credit to any paper, but prints the letter with precisely the same heading and introduction as the Sun. Besides this, the Whig prints The Duty Letter verbatim et literatim as it appears in the Sun, even to reproducing the erroneous spelling Devenport for Davenport, the right name. At the time of the publication of The Duty Letter, the editor and proprietor of the New York Sun was Moses S. Beach. Mr. Charles A. Dana bought and took over the Sun in 1868. If the astute Dana had been editor of the Sun in 1864, it is probable that the forged letter would not have passed his scrutiny. their loyalty to Lee required loyalty to The Duty Letter. 2 In the words of Dr. Gamaliel Bradford, Jr., author of Lee the American, an appreciative and discriminating psychography of General Lee: "A document so widely known as this (referring to The Duty Letter), and, as I understand it, studied and quoted constantly by thousands, is certainly worthy of being examined with the closest scrutiny. It is as if Washington's Farewell Address, or Lincoln's Gettysburg Speech, were brought into dispute." 3 III. The Duty Letter was published, as has been stated above, in the New York Sun on November 26, 1864. On December 2, 1864, it was published in the Richmond (Va.) Whig, precisely as printed in the Sun, but without being credited to the Sun, or to any other paper. And on December 16, 1864 (just two weeks after its appearance in the Whig), The Duty Letter was published in the Richmond (Va.) Sentinel, with credit to the Philadelphia Inquirer. 4 And now comes a dramatic denouement in the history of The Duty Letter. The Sentinel, a semi-weekly publication, had printed the letter, with high praise, in its issue of Friday, De 2. In this connection, it may be permitted the writer to say that, while repudiating The Duty Letter as not written by General Lee, he yields to no one in loyalty to that great name. In the writer's opinion loyalty to Lee requires repudiation of a letter falsely masquerading under his name. If a personal allusion may be pardoned here, the writer will state that he became a student in Washington College, Lexington, Va., (now Washington and Lee University) in 1865, soon after the accession of General Lee to the Presidency, and received his degree four years later from General Lee's hands. He is, therefore, one of "General Lee's Boys," as the students of that period delighted to call themselves. The last year of General Lee's life (he died in October, 1870), the writer was an assistant professor in Washington College, reporting weekly to General Lee, and receiving his admonition and advice. His connection with Washington and Lee University continued unbroken until 1899, thus covering the whole of the twenty-six years during which General G. W. Custis Lee was President. 3. Letter to the writer, July 22, 1914. 4. This credit is erroneous, as a thorough search (for which I am indebted to Mr. A. Estoclet, of the editorial staff of the Inquirer), has failed to discover the letter in that paper. It was no doubt taken by the Sentinel from the Sun or the Whig. |