Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 27.djvu/379

 /,;,

493), in curious contrast to the above, Lincoln's extraordinary insen- sibility to the ills of others.

After such an army of the concessions against him quoted and re- ferred to above, it is worth while to repeat the statement about those authors that is made in the third paragraph of this letter, and to add that every one of them is shown, in his book quoted or referred to, to be an ardent admirer of Lincoln and a partisan of the North against the South. To reconcile their concessions with their admira- tion is not the duty of the writer of this letter. There are some unconscious betrayals of their estimate of their hero that are very significant. A number of these eulogists have thought it worth while to declare very expressly their belief that Lincoln did not pur- posely betray General McClellan and his army to defeat in the Seven Days' Battles before Richmond. McClure (page 207) is one; Hol- land (page 53, et seq.} is another; and John Codman Ropes declares it, in his Story of the Civil War, Part II (page 116), and reaffirms his belief on more than one other page. McClellan, in his celebrated dispatch after his retreat, reproached Stanton with this atrocious crime, and so worded the dispatch that he imputed the same guilt to Lincoln. McClure, in his Lincoln, etc. (page 202), and Nicolay and Hay, in their Abraham Lincoln (pages 441, 442 and 451), deplore that McClellan should have believed Lincoln capable of it, both con- ceding to McClellan the most exalted character, ability and patriot- ism. See McClure's Lincoln, etc. (page 208), and Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln (Volume VI, page 189, et seg.)

This letter will also appear in the Richmond Dispatch, as did that of the i4th January last.

CHARLES L. C. MINOR.

700.2 McCulloh St., Baltimore.