cember 16, 1864 5. But in its next issue, Tuesday, December 20, the Sentinel confesses that it was imposed on, and denounces the letter as a "Yankee Forgery," and prints as its authority a letter, unsigned, but described as "from a source entitled to know." This letter which we shall call the Repudiation Letter, is as follows:

"I have read the published letter, said to have been written by General R. E. Lee. There is nothing about it that can be recognized as genuine by anyone familiar with his style. He never dated any of his letters Arlington House. In April, 1852, he never had belonged to any regiment, and could not, therefore, have been about to search for it in New Mexico. He was transferred to the Cavalry in 1855, and had previously been in the Engineer Corps. In the spring of 1852, he was engaged in the construction of the Fort at Sollers Point Flats (near Baltimore), and preparing to go to West Point, as Superintendent of the Military Academy there. He has never been to New Mexico. This plain statement of facts is made to furnish another example of the mendacity of our enemies, and how

5. The laudatory comment is as follows: "The habit of publishing private letters, without their owners' consent, merely because they have chanced to fall into the hands of some unworthy person, is so much to be condemned that we are always reluctant to treat as public what has thus become so. The following letter we shall be pardoned, we hope, for making an exceptional case. It is so excellent a letter, and so full of admirable sentiments, that every father in the Confederacy will be most happy, if his sons shall consider it as addressed specially to themselves. In the hope that it will be thus received, and thus become universally profitable, we throw ourselves upon the author's indulgence for our readers' pleasure and benefit."

6. The Sentinel's confession of imposition is as follows: "We have received the following from a source entitled to know, in reference to the letter imputed to General Lee, which lately appeared in this paper, into which it had been copied from a United States print. It seems that it was a Yankee forgery. In this characteristic act, the Yankees, while illustrating their own depravity, paid the only tribute of which they were capable to General Lee's worth. They knew that to give vraisemblance and credibility to the fraud, it was necessary to fill the letter with elevated sentiments, borrowed where they could find them. The defects of style they took care to guard against, by pleading haste of composition. We are not often deceived by forgeries of this sort, whether in the manufactured correspondence which is a part of the 'enterprise' of the Northern journalism, or in the clumsy imitations which are occasionally ventured upon by such Confederate newspapers as are willing to copy after such teachers. A glance usually suffices to detect the trick. But in the instance to which we are now referring, in common with many other Confederate journals, we were imposed upon."

they publish things that are utterly false. There seems to have been no object in this publication but to amuse the people. So far, it is a harmless deception, yet the cause of truth needs this refutation.” 7

This Repudiation Letter, from "a source entitled to know," administers a knock-out blow to The Duty Letter. Unforunately it lay hidden in the files of the Sentinel for nearly half a century, when it was discovered, in 1913, in a search made on my behalf, by Louis K. Gould, Esq., Counselor at Law, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, to whom I am indebted for the discovery of the original publication of The Duty Letter in the New York Sun. I can but think that if this Repudiation Letter had been known to the early biographers of General Lee, The Duty Letter would never have attained its vogue and celebrity.

IV.

But who was "the source entitled to know," from whom the Sentinel received the Repudiation Letter? Obviously someone very near to General Lee. Never did a letter speak more ex cathedra; and every fact stated in it is correct. More than this, whoever wrote this letter had doubtless consulted with General Lee (there was ample time during the two weeks after its first publication in the Whig), for who but General Lee would know that he never dated any of his letters "Arlington House" (though his father-in-law, G. W. Parke Custis, did), or that he had never been in New Mexico? And, without authority from General Lee, who would have dared to denounce publicly, as "utterly false," a letter like The Duty Letter, which many still refuse to believe spurious, and esteem worthy of the South's great hero? General Lee was at Petersburg, only 22 miles from Richmond. He could easily have been consulted, personally or

by letter.

7.

Can it be believed that this was not done?

Whig and Sentinel, and of the Repudiation Letter as it appeared in the Sentinel, to Mr. H. R. McIlwaine, the courteous and efficient Librarian of the Virginia State Library, Richmond, Va. This is only a small part of the cheerful and unremunerated service rendered by the Virginia State Library in my quest for information concerning The Duty Letter, for all of which I owe thanks to Mr. McIlwaine and to his assistants.

I am indebted for a copy of The Duty Letter as it appeared in the

But if General Lee did not give his express assent to the Repudiation Letter surely he knew of it, and acquiesced in it. He was an assiduous reader of the newspapers Northern and Southern, as, indeed, was his duty. He was in winter quarters, an hour's ride by rail from Richmond. On December 14, 1864, only two days before the publication of The Duty Letter in the Sentinel, and six days before its repudiation in the same. paper, General Lee wrote to President Davis: "Everything at this time is quiet in the Departments of Virginia and North Carolina."

Both the Whig and the Sentinel were small papers; and the Repudiation Letter in the Sentinel was accompanied by extended comment. How could General Lee have failed to see The Duty Letter in the Whig and Sentinel, and its commendation and final repudiation in the Sentinel? And if he had overlooked all of these, would they not have been brought to his attention by some member of his staff, or certainly by some member of his family? In December, 1864, Mrs. Lee and her three daughters were residing in Richmond. General Custis Lee was stationed in Richmond. There were other Lees in the vicinity, officers in the Confederate army. How could General Lee have remained ignorant of The Duty Letter, and of its repudiation? And if he knew of the repudiation, and passed it by in silence, did he not acquiesce in the repudiation? And can it not be claimed that The Duty Letter was repudiated by General Lee himself? And this explains why it has always been repudiated by the Lee family.

Another consideration which tends strongly to prove that the "source entitled to know" was so close to General Lee as to be virtually himself, is the conduct of the editor of the Sentinel on the receipt of the Repudiation Letter. He had uttered an "exceeding bitter cry," when he found that he was "stung." He knew the "source entitled to know" (though we can only guess), and did not doubt or question. The psychology of this is impressive. This editor had believed the letter genuine; but when he learned the source of its repudiation, he submits at once, as De Bracy, in Ivanhoe, surrenders, "rescue or no rescue," when the name of Richard Cœur de Lion is whispered

in his ear. And the editor does not imagine, as some now do, that there is hope of escape from the forgery of The Duty Letter. Like De Bracy, he surrenders, “rescue or no rescue."

V.

We have now seen that The Duty Letter was, on its first appearance in Richmond, repudiated, virtually at least, by the alleged writer. But how as to the person to whom it purported to be written, G. W. Custis Lee? Did he accept it as genuine? Fortunately, he can speak for himself. When, nearly four years ago, I decided to inquire into the authenticity of The Duty Letter, I wrote to General Custis Lee, at Ravensworth, and received this reply, dated October 23, 1910:

"General Lee was a member of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, until the spring or summer of 1855, when he was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel of the Second Cavalry. The First and Second Regiments of Cavalry were authorized by Act of Congress passed during the winter of 1854-'55, and had no previous existence. The first part of the letter enclosed was not, therefore, written by General Lee. 8

"As to the rest of the letter as a whole, I have no recollection of it, although the sentiments expressed may have been contained in one or more letters received by me before April, 1852. I was then in my 20th year of age, and had a respectable standing at the U. S. Military Academy. It is probable that the letter in question was compiled from several letters from my father, with such additions and variations as suited the compiler's fancy. The general tenor of the letter is very much in my father's style, and is probably taken in part from some of his letters. "G. W. C. LEE."

(Signed)

It would seem that The Duty Letter, repudiated by both the alleged writer and the addressee, is so discredited, that its spuriousness would be conceded, "without hope of rescue." But

8. The Duty Letter bears date April 5, 1852, more than three years before General Lee became Lieut. Colonel of the Second Cavalry. The first part of The Duty Letter referred to is as follows: "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 cared for."

this is by no means the case; and we must now examine several theories (or suppositions) upon which its substantial genuineness is by some still maintained. These theories I shall call (1) The Wrong Date Theory; (2) The Editorial Emendation Theory, and (3) The Compilation Theory. Let us examine them in their order.

VI.

1. THE WRONG DATE THEORY.

This is the theory of several valued correspondents; and at first blush it seems plausible. The date of The Duty Letter, it will be remembered, is "April 5, 1852," three years before General Lee became Lieutenant-Colonel of the Second Cavalry. He could not, therefore, at that time, have written the first two sentences.

But may not "April 5, 1852," it is asked by those who espouse The Wrong Date Theory, be an error of General Lee, or of the copyist, or of the printer? Should not the date be changed to some other time which will fit the facts? Is it not more reasonable, they ask, that there should be an error in the date of The Duty Letter, than that the first two sentences, assuming the date to be correct, should contain so glaring an anachronism, so egregious a blunder? And they insist, when General Custis Lee declares, after showing the mistake in the first two sentences, "The first part of the letter enclosed was not, therefore, written by General Lee," that this means no more than that it was not written by General Lee at the date on the face of the letter. General Custis Lee may not have thought of the possibility of an erroneous date; and his statement must be confined to the time when the letter bears date. 9

9. It is suggested by some who contend for The Wrong Date Theory, that, besides changing the date of The Duty Letter to fit the facts, the name of the addressee may also, if necessary, be changed. Instead of "G. W. Custis Lee" as the addressee, as was printed in the Sun, why, they argue, may not this be a mistake for "W. H. Fitzhugh Lee" (often called "Rooney" Lee), General Lee's second son, the letter being written to him, at a later date, while he was a student at Harvard University? But as is shown in the text, no date can be found which will reconcile the statements in the first two sentences of The Duty Letter with the actual facts, and this is equally true whether the letter be supposed to have been written to the addressee, "G. W. Custis Lee," or to his brother, W. H. Fitzhugh Lee, or to anybody else.