did not report him correctly.
's review, and took the liberty in his letter of asking the accomplished soldier what
's reply was not intended for publication, but is so candid and so valuable, as illustrating the importance of our being able to furnish material to those who desire to know and to tell the truth of our history, that we trust he will pardon us for giving his letter in full:
Dear Sir — Some days ago, when I was about to start on a little journey, I received a letter from you dated July 9th, together with a number of pamphlets concerning different episodes of the late civil war. Enclosed were the advanced proof-sheets of an article by
Rev. J. L. M. Curry, commenting on an article which
Rev. Dr. Thompson, of
Berlin, had published in the
Independent.
You will permit me to write a few words in answer to
Rev. Dr. Curry's statement concerning my notion of
General Lee's resignation, as stated in
Dr. Thompson's paper.
Before I begin, I must beg you, however, to keep in mind that I am writing in a foreign language, and that I cannot express my views so clearly and precisely as I could in my own language.
Dr. Curry says in his paper: “This matter of
breach of faith, so quietly assumed in this accusation by
Captain Mangole and
Dr. Thompson, turns entirely upon the character of our government.”
Nothing has been farther from me than to “quietly assume the accusation of breach of faith.”
It is true I have said that we (the Prussian officers),
according to our understanding, could never comprehend how an officer could ever feel called upon to decide on which side he will fight, if one of the two contending parties carries the flag to which he has pledged his faith and allegiance by a solemn oath, and that, therefore,
to our understanding, the decision of
Lee would always remain incomprehensible.
This part of my lecture, no doubt, gave origin to
Dr. Thompson's remark, that to a Prussian officer the violation of an oath appears a crime so damnable as to be inconceivable.
Now, I do not pretend to say that a Prussian officer is any more sensitive to the guilt, of the violation of an oath than any other honorable man, and by the very emphasis I put on the words--
our understanding--I meant to induce the hearer to refrain from judging and condemning
Lee, as there must be circumstances veiled
to our understanding, which, if fully known and appreciated by us, would let
Lee's decision appear in another light than that of the violation of an oath.
Moreover, I then went on to say (and I translate the following paragraph literally from the Ms. of my lecture): “The more incomprehensible it is to us that
Lee came to this and not to the opposite decision, the more it becomes our duty to seek an explanation; and if we consider all the circumstances, we think we are justified in saying that a ”
