Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1865-09-26
COMMUNICATED.
For the Spectator.
To THE EDITOR or. THE SpECT AToR:

For the spectator
To THE EDITOR OF. THE SPECTATOR:
SRA friend has called my attention to the
recent Card of Mr.. Lewis, and beg leave through
your paper to correct several errors into which
Mr.. Lewis has, (no doubt Inadvertently fallen.
1st. Mr.. Lewis says, that ssfve days after the
passage of the Ordinance Mr. Stuart, in a speech
delivered at the c. H. of his county, advised his
constituents to vote for the ratification of the
Ordinance of secession, and subsequently can
vassed his county urging his constituents to vote
for the ordinance"
Mr.. Lewis is mistaken in regard to both Of
these important propositions. I made speech
on the occasion referred to, but 1T aOas on an en-
tirely different subject. proposition was pending
before the County Court, TO appropriate sum of
money for the benefit of the wives and children
Of soldiers then in, or to be in, the field I
was called on to express my opinions on that sub
ject, and did so, by earnestly advocating it.
made no speech in favor of the ordinance, and so
little was known of my opinions 1.-THE seal Of Sc
crecy not having been removed from the proceed
ings of the Convention that a note signed by a
number of our best citiZ ems was addressedsto me,
probably month after wards, and few days be-
fore the vote was to be taken on ratification or
rejection, asking my views the subject.
So far from canvassing my county in favor of
the ordinance, / returned to my seat in the Con-
vention, the day after making the speech above
referred to, and remained in Richmond until "a
short time before the vote was taken.
ID. Mr.. Lewis processes to quote from some
private letter addressed by me to some person
whose name is not given. / shall make no point
in regard to the propriety of quoting from pri-
vate letter without my permission, but would
have preferred that if any part of the letter was
published, the whole should have been given. I
think the context was material to the true under
standing of the letter. If Mr.. Lewis will examine
the whole letter, he will probably find that his re-
port of it is not accurate.
remember that, in February last, a gentleman
wrote to me, urging immediate re construction
replied, stating in substance, that feared his
hopes misled his better judgment; that public
sentiment was not ripe for it, and that any ar
rangemeat which might be patched up, in the
then condition of public affairs, would be but a
hollow truce, and that, ere long, hostilties would
again break out, probably commencing in the
halls Of Congress.
I am still of the same opinion. I believe that
if anything like treaty Of peace had been made,
before the defeat of great armies, there would
have been large party in the country who never
could have been persuaded otherwise than that if
we had continued the contest, we would have been
ultimately successful. This party would have
been powerful, defiant and ready, at any moment
to renew the struggle. Nothing but such disas
tiers as did befall our arms, would have produced
the conviction that the contest was hopeless, and
made that party willing to accept the result as a
final settlement of the matters in issue.
Mr.. Lewis insists that he did not voluntarily en-
ter into any contract with the Confederate States
Government to furnish iron for military purposes.
certainly did not intend to do Mr.. Lewis any
injustice He does not deny that he entered into
such Co attract That is an indisputable fact. I
have no disposition to discuss refined distinctions
with Mr.. Lewis. / have been taught to believe
that every contract implied walIngness the part
of those who entered into it, and apprehend that
Mr. Lewis will find that Congress will not stop to
have privy examination of contractors to see how
far they assented tocontracts. The fact that they
signed. sealed and executed them, will be taken
as conclusive on that point.
ALEX. Fl. FL. STUART.