declaring that he sought service on the rebel side, and only determined to stand by the Union when he failed to receive such rank as he desired among his enemies.

When peace reopened intercourse between the North and South, these voices of calumny were silent, and remained so as long as THOMAS was alive to answer. But when he was dead, his defamers ventured again to speak. The spectacle of a grateful nation standing in grief around his honored grave, awakened to new energy the envy and malice of those who had staked all and lost all, in the mad attempt to destroy that Republic which THOMAS had so powerfully aided to save. I should dishonor his memory, were I even to notice the wicked assaults made upon him in rebel journals, by writers who withheld their names, or shielded themselves behind the impersonalty of a newspaper editorial.

One attack, however-and, so far as I know, only one-has had the indorsement of a responsible name. The Richmond (Va.) Dispatch, of April 23, 1870, contains a letter from FITZHUGH LEE, late a general in the rebel army, and before the war a lieutenant in the regiment of which THOMAS was major.

In this letter, LEE asserts: That just before the war THOMAS' feelings were strongly Southern; that in 1861 he expressed his intention to resign; and about the same time, sent a letter to GOVERNOR LETCHER, offering his services to Virginia.

To this statement I invite the most searching scrutiny. That prior to the war the sentiments of THOMAS were generally in accord with those which prevailed in Virginia, and that he strongly reprobated many of the opinions and much of the conduct of Northern politicians, were facts well known to his friends and always frankly avowed by himself. That in the winter of 1860-61 he contemplated the resignation of his commission, we have no proof except the declaration of FITZHUGH LEE. But it would not be in the least surprising or inconsis

tent, if, at that time, it seemed to him more than probable that disunion would be accomplished, and the army dissolved by political action and without war. Should that happen, he must perforce abandon his profession and seek some other employment. If it should appear that at that time he made inquiries looking toward a prospective employment as professor in some college, the fact would only indicate his fear that the politicians would so ruin both his country and its army, that the commission of a soldier would be no longer an object of honorable desire.

The charge that he ever offered or proposed to offer his sword to Virginia, or to any rebel authority, except point foremost, and at the head of his troops, is utterly and infamously false. Not a shadow of a proof has ever been offered, nor can it be. When FITZHUGH LEE's letter was published, he was challenged on all sides to produce the letter which he alleged THOMAS had written, tendering his services to the rebellion. His utter failure to produce any such letter, or any proof that such a letter was ever written, is a complete refutation of the charge.

A few weeks after his first assault, LEE did indeed publish what purports to be a letter written by GENERAL THOMAS, dated New York city, January 18, 1861.

Whether this letter is genuine or not, and if genuine, whether printed as it was written, we have no other evidence than our faith in those who received and published it. But waiving the question of its genuineness, and of the correctness. of the printed text, I appeal to the letter itself. It is not addressed to GOVERNOR LETCHER, nor to any rebel authority; nor does the writer tender his services to Virginia or to any government or person. It is a letter addressed to a gentleman who had advertised in the newspapers for some one to fill a professorship in a military college in Virginia. The letter

inquires what salary pertains to the situation. It expresses no intention or willingness to resign; and states as the writer's reason for making the inquiry, that from present appearances he fears it will soon be necessary for him to be looking up some means of support. This letter strongly confirms the views I have taken of GENERAL THOMAS' character and feelings.

Since the publication of LEE's letters, testimony has come from all quarters which annihilates forever all ground for this charge; and now, while the witnesses are living, I desire to put on record at least a small portion of their testimony. GENERAL HARTSUFF, now and for many years a soldier of whom the nation is proud, writes that he saw THOMAS many times, near the close of 1860, in the city of New York, and heard him discuss the state of the country, in company with many officers who afterward went into the rebel army. He says:

"GENERAL THOMAS was strong and bitter in his denunciations against all parties North and South that seemed to him responsible for the condition of affairs. But while he reprobated, sometimes very strongly, certain men and parties North, in that respect going as far as any of those who afterward joined the rebels, he never, in my hearing, agreed with them respecting the necessity of going with their States; but he denounced the idea, and denied the necessity of dividing the country, or destroying the Government. This was before the actual secession of any of the States, when the prospect of war was not strong."

These statements of GENERAL HARTSUFF are abundantly corroborated by other testimony. Let it be remembered that the question is not what were GENERAL THOMAS' opinions of the political causes that led to the war; nor who was at fault in bringing on the agitation; but it is this: Did he give any countenance, sympathy, or support to the idea of disunion, or of war against the Government?

Listen to the testimony of GENERAL R. W. JOHNSON, for

many years a gallant soldier of our army, and now an honored member of this Society. He says:

"After the surrender in Texas, my regiment (of which THOMAS was major) concentrated at Carlisle Barracks. I was intimately associated with GENERAL THOMAS from that time until the close of the war. During the PATTERSON campaign we messed together, and frequently conversed freely together in regard to the war. I remember to have asked him what he should do if Virginia seceded. His reply was characteristic of the man: 'I will help to whip her back again.' GENERAL THOMAS never flinched nor faltered, nor wavered in his devotion to his country."

GENERAL PATTERSON, under whose command THOMAS performed his first duty in the field, in May and June, 1861, says of him:

"GENERAL THOMAS contemplated with horror the prospect of a war between the people of his own State and the Union; but he never for a moment hesitated, never wavered, never swerved, from his allegiance to the nation that had educated him and whose servant he was. From the beginning I would have pledged my hopes here and hereafter on the loyalty of THOMAS. He was the most unselfish man I ever knew; a perfectly honest man, who feared God and obeyed his commandments."

What weightier testimony can be conceived than that of his classmate and friend of many years, the GENERAL of our Army, the great soldier with whom THOMAS served so grandly in the darkest hours of the war. GENERAL SHERMAN has favored me with a letter from which I quote. After stating that he went to Williamsport to visit THOMAS early in 1861, he says:

"It was June 16, the very day PATTERSON'S army crossed the Potomac. I had a long personal conversation with THOMAS that day, and after discussing the events that then pressed so heavily on all who dreaded civil war, especially the course taken by our friends who had abandoned our service and gone South, I asked him how he felt. His answer was emphatic: 'I have thought it all over,' he said, 'and I shall stand firm in the service of the Government.''

GENERAL SHERMAN also writes, under date of August 1,

1870:

"I have seen the letters published by FITZHUGH LEE, sustaining the assertion that, at the outset of our civil war, THOMAS leaned to the South. I understand the state of his mind at that dreadful crisis, and see how a stranger might misconstrue him. At the time to which FITZHUGH LEE alludes, the BUCHANAN administration was in power, and had admitted that the Federal Government could not coerce a sovereign State; and his cabinet did all they could to make army officers feel insecure in their offices. The Northern politicians, as a rule, had been unfriendly to the army, and when the election of LINCOLN and HAMLIN was complete, they (the officers) naturally felt uneasy as to their future, and cast about for employment, Several of them, I among the number, were employed at the military colleges of the South, and it was natural that THOMAS should look to his friend, and our classmate, GILHAM, then employed at FRANK SMITH'S military school at Lexington, Virginia. THOMAS also entertained, as you must know, that intense mistrust of politicians to which the old army was bred, and feared the complications of 1860 would result in some political compromise or settlement, if not in a mutual agreement to separate; in which case it is possible he would have been forced for a support to have cast his lot with the Southern part. It is more than probable that, at the mess-table, THOMAS may have given vent to some such feelings and opinions, then natural and proper enough. But as soon as Mr. LINCOLN was installed in office, and manifested the deep feeling of love for all parts of the country-deprecating civil war, but giving the key-note that the Union should be maintained, even if it had to be fought for, and that forcible secession was treason-then THOMAS, like all national men, brushed away the subtleties of the hour, saw clearly his duty, and proclaimed it, not by mere words, but by riding in full uniform at the head of his regiment and brigade, invading without a murmur his native State, and commanding his men to put down forcible resistance by the musket."

This just and masterly analysis is more than sufficient to settle the whole controversy. But I can not dismiss the subject without opposing to his slanderers the stainless shield of