The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-10-13
Greltits telegraph
THURSDAY, OCTOBER Is. 1870.
ROBERT II. LEE.

by his tellOw-SuppOrterS OF the loSt cause,
and in the loyal North the passionate feelings
engendered by the conflict against the Rebel
lion have so far died away that there is a
general disposition to dwell rather upon his
personal virtues than to follow him to the
grave with denunciations.
The future historian, in discussing his
character and career, can find no better
apology for the terrible misappica-
tion of his military talents than
his statements at the time he
resigned his commission in the army of the
United States. He declared then that he
never desired to draw his sword again except
in defense of his native State; that he did not
recognize any necessity for the rebellion;
andthat his controlling motive in tenderinghis
resignation was his inability to make up his
mind to raise his hand against his relatives,
his children, and his home. He had no SYM
pathy with the slavery propagandists. In
stead of desiring to perpetuate and extend
the favorite institution of the South, he be-
longed to the class of conservatives who, as
a matter of sentiment, would gladly have
seen slavery abolished, but as a matter of
action were unwilling to adopt speedy and
practical measures for uprooting that gigantic
wrong If the whole South, or even con-
trolling majority of its citizens, had been
imbued with Lees opinions, the Rebellion of
1861 could not have occurred. He had no
afiliation with the agitstors who labored to
fire the Southern heart" but his original
weakness, fault, crime, or call it what you
will, lay in the fact that he loved his State
better than the nation, and that his ideas
of duty were dwarfed by narrow notions of
State sovereignty instead of being enlarged
by the patriotic conceptions which inspired
men like General Scott, General George II.
Thomas, and Admiral Farragut.
After abandoning the nation which had
educated, employed, and honored him, at a
moment when it most imperativey needed
the aid of all its faithful soldiers, Lees sub
sequent embodiment and varied services in
the war followed in logical order. 1t is the
first step that counts. Despite his expression
of an earnest desire, in 1861, that he would
never be called upon to draw his sword except
in defense of his native State, he became the
leader of the only dangerous invasions against
the loyal commonwealths. Not satisfied with
his defeat at Antietam, on the
soil of Maryland, in 1862, he made a second
and bolder venture, on the soil of Pennsyl-
vania in 1868, which resulted in still more
disastrous overthrow at Gettysburg. In both
these enterprises fortune seemed at the out
set to be decidedly in his favor, and the sud-
den conversion of Union troops whom he had
previously beaten badly on his native soil
into conquering hosts, was one of the most
unexpected occurrences of the whole war. A
fatalist like Napoleon would say that in these
fha of fata
but loyal Christians cannot fail to attribute
his defeats to a direct interposition of Provi-
dence.
AS a soldier Lee was held in high estima-
tion by his military associates. He
graduated second in his class, was we'll versed
in the art of war, conducted successfully q
number of difficult campaigns, and retained
the confidence of the South for long
period. These circumstances, united with
the numerous embarrassments arising from
deficient resources and inferior numbers
against which he was obliged to contend go
far to confirm his military reputation. And
yet if he is to be judged either by final re-
suits or separate engagements, he can scarce
ly be classified with soldiers of the first rank.
With all his knowledge, experience,
and capacity for command, he lacked the
brilliant genius for war which distinguishes
supremely great commanders. He was neither
frst-rate defensive nor a first-rate offensive
general In any given military enterprise
he was as likely to be defeated as to be tri-
umphant. His leadership was at no period,
and under no circumstances, a guarantee of
victory. Even when he won a battle he did
not instantly reap all the fruits of
success, and he was contented
with defeating the Union armies without
striving to annihilate them. He was sue
cessful in maintaining resistance to the Army
of the Potomac through series of long and
bloody years, and he could not have done
this if he had not been a good general, but
during this protracted contest he displayed
little of the talent for achieving important
ends with comparatively limited resources
which illuminates the career of wonderfully
great generals.
1t is to Lees credit that his record is not
stained with any wanton act of cruelty. While
he fought zealously and bravely, he endea-
vored to fight honorably, according to the
lights by which he was guided. Even his in
vasion of Pennsylvania was not marked by
unnecessary devastation, and we believe he
has never been accused of direct participation
in the maltreatment of Union prisoners
After the war was over, too, he accepted tn,
decision of the arbitrament of arms, anC
made no efforts to galvanize a new Rebellion