From the 17 March 1900 issue of The New York Times.
Robert E. Lee.
To The New York Times Saturday Review:
Will you permit a Southern woman, and a subscriber to THE SATURDAY REVIEW, who has read your criticism on Gen. James F. Rushing's book, "Men and Things I Saw in Civil War Days," to add her comments on what the author is willing to admit—that Gen. Robert E. Lee amounted to much. How absurd, how narrow, how full of prejudice it sounds! The recognition of the greatness of Lee is world-wide, and his character as a man and his abilities as a commander shine out resplendent in the light of impartial history. He was never outgenerald by Grant in all the campaigns from the Rappahannock to James River. He came from Mexico as a mere boy covered with honors, and when Gen. Scott made his wonderful march to the capital of Mexico young Lee was his right-hand man. Why did the North offer him the command of the Northern army when he resigned to cast his fortune with his beloved Virginia? When his death occurred The Lond Standard said of him: “No one pretending to understand in the least either the generl principles of military science or the particular condition of the American war doubts that Gen. Lee gave higher proofs of military genius and soldiership than any of his opponents." But Lee, the pure, spotless cavalier, sans pere et sans réproche. "with high-created thoughts sealed in a heart of courtesy," needs no words of commendation. He was Caesar, wihtout ambition, Frederick without tyranny, Napoleon without selfishness, and Washington without reward.
ELLEN MEADE CLARKE.
Radford, Va., March 12, 1900.