Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-08

2 ------------------
| Ever cest.u,isss Rsesansntis~ slahsss
a. IA, ssesesssr IN Csnmsnd Or chs Aras
| sr Members ysssininf
| To The Editor cffhe Dispcseh:
In an article recently published II
was stated that In the final conference
that was held before the surrender al
Appomattox Malone WAS one Of the
| two officers with whom alone General
Lee consulted, and that General Lee,
when asked on one occasion at his own
| table whom he would have recon.
mcndcd as his successor, replied, Ma
hone.
Having had my attention called to
the article, and decming that justice to
General Lees memory required that the
foregoing statements should not 60 I'M
challenged, I addressed to General Gus
It's Lee the following letter:
"LYScHBURG. January q, 1855.
I" Ny Dear General:
~ see that some one has reiterated
the story that appeared some years ago
in communication to the New York
Herald, that at a dinner at his own
house, at Lexington, some time after
the war. your father, in reply to ques-
ton by one Of the guests as to whom he
would have recommended as his sue
cessor in the event Of his resign
ing or being disabled, stated that he
would have recommended Malone. 1t
is also stated tSat Malone was one Of
two officers whom alone your father
consulted about the surrender at Apo
mattox. When the story appeared in
the Herald / published an article in the
Commonwealth Royall's paper which
think demonstrated its absurdiry, and
also the falsehood Of some expressions
Malone alleged your father had used in
regard to Mr.. Davis.
1.-THE repetition of this story now, j
think. demands q yindication Of the
memory of your father against such an
iinputation as it implies. | therefore
write to ascertain if you know any
thing of its origin, and what? ! want
your statement in regard to the matter,
but Of course | will not publish any
thing you may say to me without your
consent. Very truly yours,
81. A. EARLY.
3" General G. W. c. Lee"
To that letter ] have received the
subjoined reply, to which there is
postscript in which, after expressing a
very natural reluctance to appear in the
papers in regard to such subject. Cen
eral Gusts Lee submits the question of
publication to my discretion
LEXINGTON, VA. Feb. 2, 1885.
" My Dear General:
81 received several days ago your
letter Of the 9th ultimo. but have de-
ferred answering it until inquiries could
be made of those most likely to have
heard, or heard of, the statement to
which you refer. ! cannot find any one
here who remembers to have ever heard
General Lee mention the name of Gen
eral Malone and | have other reasons
for believing that my father never
said anything to the effect that
10 would have recommended Gen
,ral Malone for the command of |
he Army of Northern Virginia.
know nothing of the reported
consultation at Appomattox; had never
heard of it before the reading of your
etter, nor do know anything Of the
,rigin of the stories. Possibly Colonel
Taylor or other members of the staff
nay have some information OH the sub
cct.
- | remain, with best wishes for your
appiness, faithfully yours,
"G. w. c. LEE.
General J. A. EariH Lmchbuvg, !
I'd.n
1t must be borne in mind that Gem
raj Gusts Lee. who was connected
nth the Military Institute, was a resi-
ent at | exington while his father lived
here. and If not actually member Of
he household of the latter, must have
cen very frequent visitor there. If,
therefore,, he not only can find no one
4 Lexington who ever heard his father
lention the name of Malone, but has
easons Of his own for believing that
is father never said that he would
ave recommended Malone for the
ommand of the Army of North
m Virginia, it would seem that it
ould be eminently proper that some
ne of those ideal guests TO whom Gen
raj Lee revealed his hidden purpose of
akipg Malone his successor in GER
in contingency should now reveal HIM
If. Then, too, if Malone was one of
20 whom alone General Lee called
to council about the surrender at APP
and if the former "was the
ey Of the retreat from Petersburg" !
stated in the article. it is a little
rious that General Lee should have
Generals Longstrcet, Cor !
IN, and Pendleton as commissioners
r adjusting the details of the surren- Z
r, thus ignoring Malone entirely, and j
at bis letter to Mr.. Davis, dated the e
I'll of April. 1865, giving an account )
the retreat from Petersburg and the $
rrender at Appomattox, should con- e
in no mention Of Mahone's name v
en-. [See letter, Jones'S Personal ,
of General X. f.. Lee.-
ges 3ll-4.l 1t may be observed also
It in none of General Lees published =
icial reports, including that of the
itysburg campaign, which was pro-
bly, the last detailed report he
de, does Mahone's name ever occur. T
n it be that General Lee was jealous
the rising greatness of his subordi-
Ie and dreaded being supplanted by W
n, for which reason he suppressed
appreciation Of Mahones wonder
genius until the avowal was elected -.
IN him under the seductions of the co
by his mythical guests !? &c
ally. can there be any doubt but that :.
whole story is most "improba- e
felton," which has been :. manu- \
tured from the whole cloth?"
~