Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-10-03

short. and the duty letter is a palpable
avoid the belief that General Leo was
cognizant OF the appearance Of both
publications and that-if he did not
inspire the population lctter-there
would have been some announcement
from him on the subject
LETTER FROM CUsTIs LEE
TO PROFESSOR GRAVES
The letter from General Custis Lee
to Professor Graves. III reply to note
OF inquiry. points strongly In the same
direction as the reputation. This let
ter Is OF date October 90, 1910, and Is
as follows:
General Leo was a member OF the
Corps OF Engineers, United States
Army. until the spring or summer of
1865. when he was appointed lieuten-
ant-colonel Of the Second Cavalry. The
First and Second Regiments OF Cavalry
wcre authorized by act Of Congress.
passed during the winter of ls54-55.
and had no previous existence. The
first part of the letter inclosed was not,
therefore. written by General Lee.
'As to the rest of the letter as a
whole. have no recollection Of IT. al
though the sentiments expressed may
have been contained in one or moro let
tiers received by me before April. 1852.
1 was then in my twentieth year of
age. and had respectable standing at
tho United States Military Academy.
II Is probable that the letter In uues-
tion~w 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 fathers style. and
Is probably taken In part from some Of
his letters. q. w. g. LEE"
Thus closes the direct testimony. 1t
leaves the candid mind convinced that
the duty letter" as whole is spurious,
because II contains statements which
, are absolutely false, and which Cen
eral Lee could not have made. Fur
Their. the weight OF probability Is
strongly to the effect that General Lee
repudiated the authorship In so many
words
The effort to save" the situation ha }
developed several suppositions b.
critics who persuade themselves that,
! with certain emcndations. the letter
may be taken as genuine. OF these
snppositions, that which might be
named the wrong date theory" Is the
fecblcst. Its supporters insist that the
date given was some years too early,
and that the letter was written after
| General Lee was appointed to the cav
airy command. There is no date which
can possibly save the situation. What
ever date Is chosen there must be con-
| current with II two events. Cd Cen
cral Lee must be at home and in the
act OF leaving for New Mexico. and
! % his fne old regiment must have re.
Gently been ordered TO New Mexico
The facts are that General Lee was
never in New Mexico. and the Second
cavalry was never there The ad-
herents of the wrong date theory Mt
rthiS point desire lenNe to amend and
write Texas for New Mexico. seeing
! that the department records and nu.
mcrous other proofs show that Colonel
Lee joined his regiment I'm Texas
! This leave TO amend may be granted
with safety since the facts are as fol.
, low. The records OF the adjutant-Sen-
cral Office and General Lees memoran-
dum book covering the period from tho
organization Of the Second Regiment
until early in 1861 both demonstrate
that General Lee left homo to join his
regiment In Texas once in February
Hence. one of these years must be as
sumod as the year OF the letter. and
Texas as the location of the Second
| Regiment. But the officially recorded
movements Of General Lee during both
| these years effectively negative the pos.
sibility that tho date may be fixed in
! either. and GUSTS Lee graduated from
| West Point In 1854.
| WOULD EDIT ERRORS
OUT OF duty LETTIR-
: Some critics. like Mr.. MONTGOMERY
wright suggests that errors should be
! edited out of the DUTY Letter" on the
! convenient assumption that they have
previously been edited in. by n stroke
OF editorial genius such as this the
bible could readily be turned into the
D BOOK OF Mormon and vice versa and
poems OF Rowlcy and Epistlcs OF
Philaris might occupy the places on
our shelves vacated by Milton and Ci-
zero. IT Is hard to imagine how any
forgery might be detected except by
circumstances which would point out
the existence of the falsity. and IL is
even more difficult to sec WHY VIC
should trouble ourselves TO distinguish
between the true and the false at all
II our moral sense may be satisfied
, by the elimination from forgery or
| such details as prove II false with the
understanding that we are going to
accept whatever remains as true
| Some effort 10 save" the duty SEN
tencc has been made by the suggestion
that the Duty Letter is constructed
or sentences taken from various let
| te-s OF General Lee and strung to-
, gether in an appearance OF harmonious
whole 1t Is quite possible that the
letters OF General Lee may contain
all the words In the duty" sentence
much as the dictionaries current in his
| time did so. and II may be possible that
some unknown lotter OF his contained
the contested sentence a whole But
| no such letter has been found. Until
| it's discovery. the assumption Is too
feeble TO notice. and on Its discovery
the pretensions OF the Duty Letter
| VIII necessarily vanish.
|