Johnson, John G.
A Criticism of Mr. Wm. B. Reed's Aspersions on the;
Character of Dr. Benjamin Rush...

Philadelphia, 1867.

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

A CRITICISM

MR. WM. B. REED'S ASPERSIONS

CHARACTER OF DR. BENJAMIN RUSH,

WITH AN INCIDENTAL CONSIDERATION OP

GENEEAL JOSEPH EEED'S CHAEACTEE.

MEMBER OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR.
" And he that stands upon a slippery place,
Makes nice of no vile hold to stay him up." — Kins John.

PHILADELPHIA:
COLLINS, PRINTER, 705 JAYNE STREET.
1867.

G'b4A-.cJ,§

INTRODUCTION.

Understanding that the descendants of Dr. Ben
jamin Eush will not reply to Mr. "Wm. B. Eeed's
recent assault upon their ancestor, the writer, per
sonally acquainted with many of them, and, as an
American, indignant at Mr. Eeed's attempt to de
preciate the national inheritance in the fair fame of
the Founders of our Independence, by exhibiting to
the public as a true picture of one of these patriots, a
portrait which, with no light other than that of a
treacherous imagination, he has outlined by little
stabs with a stiletto steeped in the gall of his pas
sions, has felt impelled to do so himself and to
unmask the real motives of the attack.
In doing this, however, he has ventured upon no
systematic review of Mr. Eeed's work, and has re
spected the feelings of those universally esteemed
descendants of General Eeed, who have never joined

4
in Mr. Wm. B. Eeed's efforts to force their ancestor
into an undue prominence, nor in his assaults upon
those whom the sanctity of the grave should have
shielded. He has therefore declined a discussion of
the charge of treason so frequently made, and, in
support of those he has considered, has neither
searched for new materials, nor availed himself of
old ones not already known to the public through
the Cadwalader Pamphlet, and the "Life and Corre
spondence of Joseph Eeed, by his Grandson." J. G. J.
Philadelphia,
13th May, 1867.

NOTE.

Mr. Benjamin Rush's Reply, which has been received since the comple
tion of this Criticism, has removed one of the reasons -which induced its
preparation.

A CRITICISM

MR..WM. B. REED'S ASPERSIONS.

There are, in this community, many who, whilst
they might favorably consider an application for the
defendant's pardon, in Commonwealth vs. Eeed, have
ever felt it their duty to frustrate, not only his
accomplished "advocate's" unprofessional attempts
to set aside a verdict, which has stood, for upwards
of eighty-four years, unappealed from and unshaken,
but still more his efforts to substitute for the notoriety
which justly attached to his client the greatness
which was not his due, by making astronomical
observations in the Eevolutionary sky through a
telescope reversed whenever the Satellite Eeed was
not in the field of vision. They have done this by
republishing, twice or thrice since 1847, the un
answered and unanswerable charges, specifications,
and proofs, of the Cadwalader indictment.
There are others, however, of whom the writer,
until recently, was one, who, in admiration of the

6
untiring industry with which Mr. Reed has so long
labored at his Herculean task of cleaning the Augean
stable of his grandfather's reputation, and still more
out of regard for the sanctity of the grave and the
susceptibilities of the living, have felt no disposition
to interfere with his endeavors to deceive the public
as to the exceeding smallness of his patrimony in
that particular in which, according to Home Tooke,
the children of Sir John Scott were so unfortunate.
Such interference, however, has now become an im
perative duty, since, not content quietly to submit to
his failure to remove the remains of his ancestor from
the Valley of Humiliation in which, though un-
honored, they were mouldering undisturbed, to that
Laurel Hill in which lie entombed only the "ac
credited" patriots of the Eevolution, Mr. Eeed has
striven, in his revenge, to disfigure and overturn the
monuments which the gratitude of posterity had
erected over the honored dead.
During General Eeed's lifetime he was publicly
charged by a responsible accuser, upon adduced
testimony, with,
First. Such cowardly disaffection during the month
of December, 1776, whilst holding a responsible
position in the American Army, as inclined him to
consider favorably the propriety of applying for the
protection offered by the British Commissioners to
those who accepted it prior to January, 1777.

Second. An actual application for this protection.
This second count, for the reason given in the
Introduction, will not be discussed. If, goaded into
desperation by Mr. Bancroft's mere allusion to what,
in the shape of formal charges and proofs in a
pamphlet published upwards of eighty-four years
ago, neither his ancestor, himself, nor any of his
immediate descendants ever refuted, Mr. Eeed has
succeeded in demonstrating that his grandfather was
unjustly accused of being a traitor, none more than
the writer will rejoice. Though he may not de
sire to have General Eeed canonized, even in the
order of " Latter-Day Saints," he cannot, if he was
innocent, sufficiently deplore the singular hardness
of the fate by which, without concert or mutual
knowledge, he became the victim of entries in pri
vate "Journals," of the adverse "rumors" of the
enemy's camp, of the accusations of his countrymen,
and of the harsh criticisms of travellers. How
thoroughly Mr. Eeed has succeeded in demolishing
the " Donop Diary," and in convicting Mr. Bancroft
of perversions and false assertions, with materials
admitted to have been furnished by the "malicious
defamer" himself; and how far, even upon his own
version,* the words " Colonel Eeed having received a
protection" are to be taken as the statement, in
* Page 91 of Mr. Reed's Reply.

8
parenthesis, of a fact, or as a part of the rumors,
must be for others to discuss and decide.
This charge, however, does not necessarily imply
the existence of a treacherous heart General Eeed's
sympathies must have ever been, not with the British,
but with the people amongst whom his life had been
passed; and if he was led astray, it must have been
by his fears. If this "Eeed," which the sun of King
George's royal favor could not warp, was broken at
last, it was not until after it had been "shaken by
the winds" of adversity which swept with such ter
rible force over the sands and through the pines of
New Jersey. Whilst he lay at Burlington, with his
family safely disposed of, on that memorable Decem
ber morning when the days of grace were so nearly
numbered, he must have still hoped for news of such
a victory for America as would render safe, in the
future, adhesion to her cause. His " Pomroy" letter,
though manifesting no desire to lead or even to join,
the forlorn hope he counselled, shows an anxiety not
only that it should be formed, but also that it should
attack with success, before "the sixty days expire
which the commissioners have allowed."
"There is in this country," says Mr. Eeed, "a class
of men, happily not numerous, who take pleasure in
disparaging the accredited patriots of the first Eevo-
lution. They do so either from hereditary or personal
animosity, or on a principle of paradox and contradic-

9
tion." Before attempting to demonstrate the truth
of Dr. Eush's statements concerning General Eeed,
and the groundlessness of Mr. W. B. Eeed's attacks,
which will involve an incidental consideration of the
first of the above counts, it will be shown that the
attack was unnecessary and unprovoked, and could
only have originated in the instincts of one of the
class which Mr. Eeed, fearlessly disregarding the
odium attaching to the accomplice-informer, has so
graphically described.
Not altogether unmindful of the public censure
usually visited upon assaults like his, Mr. Eeed has
endeavored, by innuendoes, to stigmatize Dr. Eush
as the persecutor of his grandfather, and to fasten
upon him the authorship of the " Brutus" queries and
of the charges in the Cadwalader pamphlet ; but, he
has adduced no proof either that Dr. Eush was
" Brutus," that he commenced the attack upon General
Eeed, or that he did more than give his testimony
when summoned by a gentleman whose assertions
had been questioned. That any other member of Dr.
Eush's family ever, directly or indirectly, raised hand,
voice, or pen, against General Eeed or his descend
ants, Mr. Eeed does not even hint. His failure to
produce any such evidence, after thirty years' search
with a microscope, proves its non-existence.
The nature of Dr. Eush's connection with the
charges against General Eeed will best appear in a
brief history of the controversy, divested of what, in

10
other cases, Mr. Reed has called " gloss"— China
gloss as it will be termed, when used by him.
Rumors — many of which reached him* — had been
for years circulating in Philadelphia, charging Gene
ral Reed upon the authority of General Cadwalader
with contemplated, and upon that of Major Lennox
with consummated, treachery, during the month of
December, 1776. Though, as a politician, he must
have been keenly sensitive to the importance of in
stantly meeting them with indignant denial and over
whelming proof, General Reed never noticed them
until those which rested on the authority of General
Cadwalader, in the form of queries, signed " Brutus,"
were published in the "Independent Gazetteer" of
Sept. 7, 1782. This publication, rather than General
Cadwalader's frequent statements in conversation
and the often repeated rumors, has been capriciously
designated by Mr. Reed, the commencement of the
attack. General Reed then, for the first time, de
manded of General Cadwalader a contradiction of
the report; but, having received in its stead an
emphatic and unqualified confirmation, he published
a pamphlet in which he joined issue with the latter
on some of his statements. In March, 1783, Gene
ral Cadwalader published his celebrated reply. In
connection with other certificates from Thomas Pryor,
* " After repeated gross and illiberal attacks of every kind from weakness
to treason, for great pains have been taken to prove me in the interests of
the enemy," &c. Letter of Reed to Greene in June, 1781.

11
Alexander Hamilton, P. Dickinson, John Nixon,
Jacob Rush, Joseph Ellis, Franklin Davenport, Wil
liam Bradford, David Lennox, and Francis Nichols,
there appeared one from Dr. Rush, in which it was
stated that, whilst holding a responsible position in
the army, General Reed, in conversation with him,
had displayed great want of firmness, had regretted
that the war was ever commenced, and had justified
the conduct of those who had deserted the cause. It
was in these words : —
A few days before the battle of Trenton, on the 26th of De
cember, 1776, 1 rode with Mr. Keed from Bristol to headquarters
near New Town. In the course of our ride, our conversation
turned upon public affairs, when Mr. Reed expressed himself in
the manner following.
He spoke with great respect of the- bravery of the British
troops, and with great contempt of the cowardice of the Ameri
can, and more especially of the New England troops. So great
was the terror inspired by the British soldiers into the minds of
our men, that he said, when a British soldier was brought as a
prisoner to our camp, our soldiers viewed him at a distance as a
superior kind of being.
Upon my lamenting to him the supposed defection of Mr.
Dickinson, who it was unjustly said, had deserted his country,
he used the following words : " Damn him — I wish the devil had
him, when he wrote the Farmer's letters. He has begun an oppo
sition to Great Britain which we have not strength to finish."
Upon my lamenting that a gentleman of his acquaintance had
submitted to the enemy, he said " that he had acted properly, and
that a man who had a family did right to take that care of them."
The whole of his conversation upon the subject of our affairs
indicated a great despair of the American cause.

12
Upon my going to Baltimore, to take my seat in Congress, the
latter end of January, I mentioned the above conversation to my
brother. I likewise mentioned it to the Hon. John Adams, Esq.,
with whom I then lived in intimacy, a day or two after his return
from Boston to Congress. I did not mention it with a view of
injuring Mr. Reed, for I still respected him, especially as I then
believed that the victory at Trenton had restored the tone of his
mind and dissipated his fears, but to show Mr. Adams an instance
of a man possessing and exercising military spirit and activity,
and yet deficient in political fortitude. To which I well remember
Mr. Adams replied in the following words : " The powers of the
human mind are combined together in an infinite variety of ways."
BENJAMIN RUSH.
Philadelphia, March 3, 1783.
General Cadwalader charged General Reed with a
rapidly forming intention to imitate the treachery
which, in the conversation with Dr. Rush, had been
merely justified. He said: —
I had occasion to speak with you a few days before the intended
attack on the 26th December, 1776, and requested you to retire
with me to a private room at my quarters ; the business related
to intelligence ; a general conversation, however, soon took place,
concerning the state of public affairs; and after running over a
number of topics — in an agony of mind, and despair strongly
expressed in your countenance and tone of voice, you spoke
your apprehensions concerning the event of the contest — that our
affairs looked very desperate, and we were only making a sacrifice
of ourselves ; that the time of General Howe's offering pardon
and protection to persons who should come in before the 1st
January, 1777, was nearly expired, and that Galloway, the Aliens,
and others, had gone over, and availed themselves of that pardon
and protection, offered by the said proclamation ; that you had
a family, and ought to take care of them, and that you did not

13
understand following the wretched remains (or remnants) of a
broken army; that your brother (then a colonel or lieutenant-
colonel of militia — but you say of the five months' men, which is
not material) was then at Burlington, with his family ; and that
you had advised him to remain there, and, if the enemy took pos
session of the town, to take a protection and swear allegiance ;
and in doing so he would be perfectly justifiable.
This was the substance, and I think nearly the very words ;
but that "j/OM did not understand following the wretched remains
(or remnants) of a broken army," I perfectly remember to be the
very words you expressed.
Mr. Philemon Dickinson said : —
Hermitage, 5th October, 1782.
Dear General, — In the winter of 1776, after we had crossed
the Delaware, General Reed, in conversation with me, said that
he and several others of my friends were surprised at seeing me
there. I told him I did not understand such a conversation;
that as I had engaged in the cause from principle, I was deter
mined to share the fate of my country; to which he made no
reply, and the conversation ended. As I had the honor of com
manding the militia of New Jersey, both duty and inclination led
me to use every exertion in support of a cause I had engaged in
from the purest motives. I was really much surprised at General
Reed's manner, considering the station he then acted in, and his
reputation as a patriot; but I considered it as the effect of de
spondency, from the then gloomy prospect of our affairs.
This I mentioned to several of my friends at the time, who all
viewed it in the same point of light.
I am, dear General, yours, P. DICKINSON.
General Cadwalader.

14
Mr. John Nixon said : —
I do hereby certify that, in December, 1776, while the militia
lay at Bristol, General Reed, to the best of my recollection and
belief, upon my inquiring the news, and what he thought of our
affairs in general, said that appearances were very gloomy and
unfavorable; that he was fearful or apprehensive the business was
nearly settled, or the game almost up, or words to the same effect.
That these sentiments appeared to me very extraordinary and
dangerous, as I conceived they would, at that time, have a very
bad tendency, if publicly known to be the sentiments of General
Reed, who then held an appointment in the army of the first con
sequence. JOHN NIXON.
Philadelphia, March 12, 1783.
Col. Joseph Ellis said : —
Joseph Ellis, a colonel of militia, in the county of Gloucester,
and State of New Jersey, doth hereby certify that, upon the retreat
of a body of militia from before Count Donop, in the neighbor
hood of Mount Holly, in Burlington County, in the month of
December, 1776, he met with Charles Pettit, Esq., then Secretary
of the said State ; that a conversation ensued between them re
specting the situation of the public dispute at that period ; that
Mr. Pettit, in said conversation, representing that our affairs were
desperate, Col. Ellis endeavored to dissuade him from such an
opinion, when Mr. Pettit replied, "What hurts me more than all
is, my brother-in-law, General Reed, has (or I believe he has)
given up the contest." That a good deal more passed between
Mr. Pettit and Col. Ellis during the said conversation, but omitted
here, as being thought unnecessary.
w „ ,. „,„„., JOSEPH ELLIS.
Woodbury, March 9, 1783.
Mr. William Bradford said : —
These are to certify that, in December, 1776, and January, 1777,
I, the subscriber, was major of the second battalion of Phila-

15
delphia militia, whereof John Bayard was colonel, and then lay
at Bristol, and part of the time opposite Trenton, on the Penn
sylvania side. That while we lay at Bristol, Joseph Reed, Esq.,
joined us ; that during his being there and near Trenton, he often
went out for intelligence, as Col. Bayard told me, over to Bur
lington, in which place the enemy frequently were; that being
absent frequently all day and all night, I as frequently inquired
what could become of Gen. Reed. Col. Bayard often answered
me, he feared he had left us, and gone over to the enemy. One
time in particular, being absent two days and two nights; if not
three nights, Col. Bayard came to me with great concern, and
said he was fully persuaded Gen. Reed was gone to. join the
enemy and make his peace. I asked him how he could possibly
think so of a man who had taken so early a part, and had acted
steadily. He replied, he was persuaded it was so ; for he knew
the General thought it was all over, and that we could not stand
against the enemy ; and at the same time wept much. I endea
vored all I could to drive such notions from him, but he was so
fully persuaded that he had left us, and gone over to the enemy,
that arguing about the matter was only loss of time; Col. Bayard
often making mention that he knew his sentiments much better
than I did. After being absent two or three nights, Gen. Reed
returned, and I never saw more joy expressed than was by Col.
Bayard; he declaring to me that he was glad Gen. Reed was
returned, for he was fully convinced in his own mind, that he was
gone over to the enemy. WILLIAM BRADFORD.
Manor of Moreland, Philadelphia County, March 15, 1783.
Major David Lennox said : —
Having been called on by General Cadwalader respecting a
report which has been propagated concerning Mr. Joseph Reed —
I declare on my honor the circumstances are as follows. In the
spring of 1780 I obtained permission for an interview with my

16
brother at Elizabethtown. In the course of conversation, one day,
he happened to mention that there were men among us, who held
the first offices, who applied for protection from the British while
they la}' in New Jersey. I was alarmed at this assertion, and
insisted on knowing who they were: — He said that when the
British army lay in Jersey, in 1776, Count Donop commanded at
Bordentown ; that he was often at that officer's quarters, and pos
sessed some degree of his confidence ; that one day an inhabitant
came into their lines, with an application from Mr. Joseph Reed,
the purport of which was, to know whether he could have protection
for himself and his property (there was another person included
in the application whose name it is not necessary here to men
tion). The man was immediately ordered for execution, but it
was prevented by the interposition of my brother and some other
persons, who had formerly known him. Perhaps Mr. Reed and
his friends may say that Count Donop would not have ordered
the man executed, had he not thought he came for intelligence.
No doubt that officer would have justified his conduct by putting
upon the footing of a spy, but why was another person included
in the application, and one who was not looked on as a trifling
character ? His name I will mention to any one who will apply
to me. However, my brother said the man who was sent with
the application was a poor peasant, and the most unfit person in
the world to send for intelligence ; this argument was what had
weight with Count Donop, and which saved his life. These cir
cumstances being mentioned by a brother, and which he declared
to be true, naturally produced an alteration in my sentiments of
Mr. Reed ; for, previous to this, there were few men of whom I
entertained so high an opinion. On my return to Philadelphia,
I made no secret of what I heard ; indeed, I thought it my duty
to mention it publicly, that it might prevent further power beino-
put into the hands of a man who might make a bad use of it.
The report circulated daily, and I was often called on to mention
the circumstances, which I always did, and which I should have

17
done to Mr. Reed, had he applied to me. I remember, among the
number who came to me was Major Thomas Moore, who said he
intended to inform Mr. Reed ; but whether he did or not, I cannot
pretend to say.
There is another thing I wish to mention. My brother came
into the river in a flag of truce, on special application of our
commissary of prisoners, to take a number of prisoners who were
exchanged, to save us the expense and trouble of sending them
by land; this was in the month of May, lYSl. He was detained,
about nine miles below the city, upwards of four weeks, and never
permitted to visit it, although application was made for that pur
pose by several captains of vessels, who had been prisoners, and
to whom he had rendered civilities. I declined making applica
tion myself, as I supposed my being in the service from the com
mencement of the war, and having endured a rigorous confinement
for eighteen months, in the worst of times, to have been sufficient
to have obtained permission for a brother to have been in my
house, in preference to a cabin in a small vessel in a river ; how
ever, I endeavored to make his situation as agreeable as possible,
by visiting him often, and by taking my friends with me. I re
member Col. Francis Nichols went with me, one day, to whom
my brother mentioned Mr. Reed's intended desertion, and who,
I doubt not, will acknowledge it, on any person's applying to
him ; he is at present in Virginia, but is expected in town in a
few days. DAVID LENNOX.
Mr. Francis Nichols said : —
Having been called upon, by General Cadwalader, to certify,
so far as my knowledge extends, as to the matter hereinafter
mentioned, I do declare that in the spring of the year 1781 I
went with Major Lennox, of this city, on board of a flag of truce
vessel, then lying in the river Delaware, where she had arrived
from New York, and heard Mr. Robert Lennox, deputy commis-
2

18
sary of prisoners under the British king, say that in the year of
1776 a person had arrived at Count Donop's quarters, near Bor-
dentown, in New Jersey, who told the Count that he had been
sent to him by General Reed and another person, whose name I
do not think necessary to mention, to procure a protection for
them ; that the Count refused to grant them a protection in that
manner, and was about to treat the person who had applied to
him as a spy, but was prevented by the entreaties of the said
Robert Lennox and some other gentlemen. FRANCIS NICHOLS.
Philadelphia, 17th March, 1783.
This mass of testimony, more damning than that
of Dr. Rush, shows that he was not the " chief wit
ness" against General Reed, and that he was not
exceptionally active in the last stages of the contro
versy. What was his connection with its earlier
ones? Mr. Reed wishes his readers to infer, what he does
not dare positively to assert, that Dr. Rush was
" Brutus." As an unequalled specimen of literary
thimble-rigging, three of his paragraphs are given, in
which, with the lightning's rapidity, he makes Rush
disappear under Brutus, Brutus under Rush, and
then both to disappear, widely separated, forever.
" The newspapers of the date attribute it to Dr. Benjamin Rush,
and, as he subsequently made himself a chief witness in support
of the accusations against Mr. Reed, was bitterly hostile to him,
and was addicted to this mode of secret assault; there is reason
for attributing to his busy pen the initiation of this wretched con
troversy"-^ controversy which maintains its character in Mr.
Reed's hands. » But, if Dr. Rush be ' Brutus,' and this, on the

19
evidence, is my belief; if it is he who started this wretched con
troversy, then his relation to the whole affair is widely different."
" If Dr. Rush was ' Brutus,' it is very clear that, so far as he is
concerned, the allegata and probata strangely conflict ; for the
' Queries of Brutus' and the certificate of Rush do not refer to
the same facts, or similar facts, in any single point of resemblance.
Why, one may ask, this discrepancy, the agents or authors being
the same ? Was it that, one accusation being made anonymously,
another was purposely held back to be used as a sort of corrobo
ration? Why was it, 'Brutus' being Rush, that the queries
referred to what Mr. Reed is reported to have said to 'the com
manding officer at Bristol,' and not at all to what he said to the
companion of the ride to Newtown ? If Dr. Rush was ' Brutus,'
or, indeed, if he were only ' Brutus' ' chief authority," &c. &c.
" Brutus never came from his ambush."
Did it never occur to Mr. Reed whilst- shaping and
reshaping his query, "Why this discrepancy, the
agents and authors being the same," that the riddle
he propounded was akin to the celebrated problem
in specific gravity with which King Charles so long
puzzled the savans, and that it was only upon his
assumption of what did not exist, that any question
arose? Fascinating as the athletic amusement of
setting up and knocking down ten-pins may be, to
one who has never previously indulged in other
exercise than the turning of political somersets, it
is astonishing to see such ardor in the game as con
fuses the player's recollection of the fact that the
pins over whose downfall he rejoices were never in
jeopardy until placed there at his own instance.

20
As 'Brutus' never alluded to the conversation
with Dr. Rush, but quoted from that with General
Cadwalader, which was matter of public notoriety,
why identify him with the former rather than with
one of that host of enemies of whose numbers Gene
ral Reed so bitterly complained? Because he was a
"chief witness?" It has been shown that he was
not. Because he was "bitterly hostile?" So were'
hundreds of General Reed's cotemporaries. Because
"he was addicted to this mode of secret assault?"
No such habit has been proven.
In Mr. Reed's abuse of Dr. Rush he has acted in
anything but the Biblical spirit, on the Biblical
maxim, " It is more blessed to give than to receive ;"
but he has attacked with such bitter hostility and
with so little regard to success in his avowed design,
that his course must be attributed to some cause
other than the one he has assigned. Must we explain
it by quoting from Mr. Reed in his own condem
nation ?
" A calumny may have been buried in obscurity for
centuries and millenaries, and at length some literary
truffle dog will hunt it out." Is it to the instincts of
" the literary truffle dog," whose Roman nose, more
Roman at least than his virtue, lacks the trueness of
scent which characterizes the convoluted nostrils of
his prototype, that we must attribute this exhuming
of what, even with " China gloss," hardly rises to the
dignity of calumny?

21
Or, must we attribute it to the spirit of the next of
kin to the literary truffle dog — the dog in the man
ger — to Mr. Reed's determination, his hoisting pro
cess having failed, to still place General Reed on a
level with the accredited patriots of the Revolution,
by dragging the latter down? Did he hope, in his
ancestor's words, provided he could afterwards sur
reptitiously trim off its blackened wick, and supply
a more modern illuminating material from his own
manufactory, that the> ancestral "candle would shine
better if every other was extinguished ?"
Having thus shown the animus and unprovoked
nature of Mr. Reed's attack on Dr. Rush, it remains
to show its want of foundation, which will be done
by attempting to demonstrate the following proposi
tions, involving necessarily an incidental considera
tion of many of the specifications of the first of the
above counts. The peculiar line of defence, an attack
on the character of the witnesses for the. common
wealth, which alone seemed open to Mr. Reed after
eighty-four years' deliberation, is one only adopted
in very desperate cases, inasmuch as the citadel is
left entirely unprotected, if the assaulting column
into which has been drafted the whole garrison, is
once beaten. Though fire-ships rarely destroy the
vessels against which they are launched, they are
always themselves consumed.
First. Dr. Rush's credibility has been impeached

22
without any regard to the rules of evidence, and
without any proofs or even specifications of a want of
veracity. Second. His testimony is outside the range of Mr.
Meed's impeachment, inasmuch as it was given before
the "passions were involved," on whose existence the
latter predicated his aspersions.
Third. There is nothing derogatory to Dr. Rush's
character in any particular, in the matter of Mr.
Reed's specifications, though the collocation and
manner of statement are offensive.
Fourth. His testimony is corroborated by its own
intrinsic evidence and by extrinsic proofs.
Fifth. It has never been directly contradicted; nor
has the corroborative testimony relied on ever been
assailed, otherwise than by the unsupported denial of
General Reed, who was not only disqualified from
testifying by his interest in the result, but was also,
in any such matter, "utterly unworthy of belief."
Sixth. Mr. Reed's aspersions are utterly at va
riance with cotemporaneous opinions of Dr. Rush.
First. Dr. Rush's testimony is entitled to no
weight if Mr. Reed's assertion that he was " utterly

23
unworthy of belief" is correct. This must be estab
lished, however, in accordance with widely adopted,
long-established rules — by the evidence of those
who, knowing the character of the impeached witness
for veracity amongst his neighbors and acquaint
ances, from the badness of his reputation, in this
respect, would not believe him on his oath. Under
the avalanche with which he would have been over
whelmed from tradition, eulogiums, biographies,
encyclopaedias, and histories, Mr. Reed does not
venture an assertion that Dr. Rush's reputation for
veracity, amongst those who knew him, was bad.
Nor is the utterance of a single falsehood proven ;
nor any act involving a deficiency in truthfulness.
Whence then does he draw the conclusion that Dr.
Rush was utterly unworthy of belief? From his
failure to appreciate Washington's military ability ?
From his letter to Richard H. Lee manifesting a
desire to punish the Tories who had maltreated his
father-in-law ? From a surgical statement as to the
immediate cause of General Mercer's death ? From
the charges of mal-practices and neglect, whose
truth Mr. Reed does not question, made to Dr. Ship-
pen's official chief? From his slight participation in
the politics of Pennsylvania, of whose demoralizing
effects none better than Mr. Reed can speak ? From
Mr. Jacob Rush's disappointment in obtaining an
office of which he was little desirous? These are
all the specifications which have been accumulated

24
in a thirty years' apprenticeship to the trade of the
literary scavenger, and as they do not sustain the
charge, it falls. No greater tribute to Dr. Rush
could be paid by the most lavish praise, than by this
failure of Mr. Reed, who lacked neither time, spleen,
nor ability, and whom no regard for the living or
dead restrained ; nor could a more damaging admis
sion of the hopelessness of General Reed's cause be
made, than by the paltriness of the expedients to
which his able advocate has felt obliged to resort.
Secondly. Dr. Rush's testimony stands unim-
peached by Mr. Meed, if it can be shown that it was
given before his "passions were involved."
In January, 1777, when no such passions could
have been subserved by General Reed's defamation,
as he had not yet deserted the ranks of the Anti-
Constitutionalists, this testimony, as subsequently
repeated, was first given. So Dr. and Judge Rush
assert, in their respective certificates of 3d March,
1783, and the former refers to Mr. John Adams,
whose comments are quoted, as one who heard it.
Every man, from his own personal experience, esti
mates the extent to which falsehood is induced by
private and political passions. If Mr. Reed believes
that these passions would instigate two persons, not
hopelessly depraved, to the deliberate utterance of
false, malicious, easily detected untruths, he cannot

25
be convinced that these confirmatory conversations
were ever held ; but the more fortunate experience of
others will, it is thought, render an appeal to their
beliefs much more successful. A single line of de
nial from Mr. Adams, too, who was never involved in
Pennsylvania affairs, and whose politics were widely
different from those of Dr. Rush, at any time during
the succeeding thirty years, would have convicted
the latter of a gross falsehood. This denial was never
obtained. Nor would Dr. Rush, if the conversation
was imaginary, have assigned to Mr. Adams a part
in it which could have been so much more safely
filled by any one of the hosts whom the havoc of war
had swept into the grave.
In this connection, in illustration of the danger of
touching pitch, occurs one of the too numerous
instances of the "vice" of mis-quotation which,
" seen too oft" by Mr. Reed in his researches in Ban
croft, he has at last himself " embraced." Dr. Rush
never said of the effect of General Reed's conversa
tion that it "did not diminish his respect," but
merely that for other qualities he "still respected"
the latter.
The third proposition will be demonstrated by a
detailed examination of the different specifications
of Mr. Reed's charges, in their order.
He has painted a portrait and labelled it "Dr.

26
Rush," the lineaments of which are those of a " re
vengeful, exasperated man," a " tattler," a " fisher in
troubled waters," a "scoffer at the grave of the
dead," a monger in " scandal," a " writer of anony
mous defamation," "a busy, restless, indirect man,
emphatically a man of animosities," a man " utterly
unworthy of belief as a witness for anything in which
his passions were involved," in the drawing of which,
inasmuch as it cannot be identified with its ostensi
ble original, he must have imitated the practice of
those artists who, lacking the means or the inclina
tion to procure suitable models, delineate the human
figure after intense examination of a mirror hung
before themselves.
Safe in the knowledge that on behalf of the dead
no action for slander will lie, Mr. Reed gleefully re
fers to the "fearful retribution" Dr. Rush experienced
in the "fierce invectives" of Wm. Cobbett, "the Por
cupine;" but, he fails to narrate the sequel, of a
refusal of the satisfaction then usually accorded by
gentlemen, and an award, by a jury, of damages in
the amount of $5000, subsequently apportioned by
Dr. Rush amongst the poor.
After having admitted that he was utterly unfit to
judge of Dr. Rush's professional abilities, Mr. Reed
sneers at him for recording "in his dreary Note-book
that General Mercer did not die of his wounds, but
from natural causes." A similar statement is to be

27
found in well-authenticated cotemporaneous diaries,
and Mr. Reed ought not to expect that any one, after
a lapse of ninety years, will prefer his opinion on a
medical question to that of a competent physician,
at the time;
Mr. Adams' letter to Dr. Rush of the 18th April,
1790, quoted as if written in complaint of the latter,
was penned in a far different spirit, and breathes sen
timents of the warmest friendship and most cordial
esteem. Without any pretence that his charges were mali
cious or unfounded, Dr. Rush is sneered at as still
engaged in the " work of secret (?) accusation which
never seemed to intermit," because, to the Comman
der-in-Chief, he preferred charges against Dr. Shippen
of mal-practices and neglect, in the office of Director-
General of the Middle Department, which had come
under his official notice whilst he was himself Sur
geon-General of military hospitals for the same de
partment. Must we accuse Judge Rush of the invention of
one, and Dr. Rush of the invention, with every mi
nuteness of detail, of three, imaginary conversations,
because of General Reed's ill-mannered response to
the former's intimation, through a third party, " not
wishing to make a point of it or to urge it, that he
would be willing to accept the Attorney-Generalship
in case of an appointment" ? If it must be inferred

28
from Mr. Reed's remarks that pique or revenge would
carry him thus far, and he will not claim to be judged
by a more favorable standard than that by which he
judges, it is much to be regretted, that in taking to
his quills in imitation of the "Porcupine" he so much
admires, he has also fallen into the error into which
its fury leads it, whilst emptying its quiver, of help
lessly exposing to its assailants its weakest parts.
The matter, however, upon which ' Mr. Reed most
relies as demonstrating Dr. Rush's want of credibility,
is his failure, during the early years of the Revolution,
to appreciate Washington's military abilities. Dr.
Rush's unflinching determination to maintain to the
end the struggle for his country's independence is
admitted. In common, however, with John and
Samuel Adams, and many other leading men of the
time, during those gloomy and disastrous years in
which Washington's great talents were obscured, he
felt that intense, unselfish craving for success, through
change, which every loyal man experienced with such
fearful earnestness during the stagnant years of the
recent Rebellion. Having irretrievably committed
himself by signing the Declaration of Independence,
Dr. Rush, though he felt no inclination to retrace his
steps or to temporize, was anxious beyond measure
to see at the head of the army one who could chain
Victory to its banners. Did an error of judgment
under such circumstances affect his veracity ?

29
Early in 1778, Dr. Rush addressed to Patrick
Henry a letter, not signed, in which were these
words : —
" The Northern Army has shown us what Ameri
cans are capable of doing with a General at their
head. The spirit of the Southern Army is no ways
inferior to the spirit of the Northern. A Gates, a
Lee, or a Conway, would in a few weeks render, them
an irresistible body of men. The last of the above
officers has accepted the new office of Inspector-
General of our army, in order to reform abuses ; but
the remedy is only a palliative one. In one of his
letters to a friend he says, 'A great and good God
hath decreed America to be free, or the General and
weak counsellors would have ruined her long ago.' "
Of the weakness of some of Washington's counsellors
and of the abuses in the army, General Reed himself,
in his correspondence, had frequently complained.
No desire to " stab in the dark" is displayed in any
part of this letter, but merely the wish to " awaken,
enlighten, and alarm our country." Dr. Rush's pen
was restrained by no profuse oral and written protes
tations of respect for Washington's military abilities,
by no friendly relation as custodian of his secrets,
and by no membership in his military family. That
Washington was deeply wounded by this as by all
the other evideiice of a non-appreciation by the public
of his labors, is beyond doubt, and, thus wounded,

30
he said, "The anonymous letter with which you were
pleased to favor me, was written by Dr. Rush, so far
as I can judge from a similitude of hands. This man
has been elaborate and studied in his professions of
regard for me; and long since the letter to you."
There was of course in Dr. Rush's professions of re
gard for Washington as a man — 'professions in which
few failed to unite — nothing inconsistent with the
distrust of his military capacity expressed to Mr.
Henry. This letter was not anonymous in a censurable
sense. Its writer, whilst entertaining no wish to
withhold its authorship from his correspondent, might
well take precautions, whilst communications were so
uncertain, to conceal it from strangers into whose
hands it might fall.* For the purpose of giving the
clew to Mr. Henry, the letter, though written from
Yorktown, announced that it was from one of his
"Philadelphia friends," and directed attention to the
handwriting, which was so marked that Washington,
who had no better reason for recognizing it than Mr.
Henry, had no difficulty in its identification.
If Dr. Rush's mere repetition of the anecdote of
Washington's interview with the clergy is open to
the charge of "scoffing at the dead" (for the por
tions of the Ana not quoted show that the comment
•* The reader is referred to Peter Force's Archives, 4th series, vol. i. pp.
892 and 963, for instances of a like precaution adopted by General Joseph
Reed in two letters to Josiah Quincy, Jr.

31
objected to was not his, but Mr. Asa Green's), then is
Jefferson, who reduced it to writing, equally guilty,
and Mr. Reed, who so long after it was forgotten has
resurrected it, more guilty than all.
Fourth. The testimony of Dr. Rush bears upon it
the sterling mark of truth. Its intrinsic evidence is
strongly in its favor. All the details are given clearly
and naturally, without any of that haziness of state
ment which characterizes a garbled story. General
Reed's subsequently published correspondence, too,
evinces the same strong dislike of New England
troops to which Dr. Rush testifies.
As to the extrinsic proof.
General Reed's previous history induces a more
ready belief that the words reported by Dr. Rush
were really uttered by him, than if they were charged
against one who had been an early and uncompro
mising advocate of separation from Great Britain.
Almost against his will, as will be shown, he became
a participant in the war, an officer of the army, and
a supporter of the Declaration of Independence.
He conducted a unilateral correspondence with
Lord Dartmouth, the British Secretary of State for
the Colonies, in which, for upwards of eighteen
months, he kept the latter fully informed of the pro
gress of disaffection in America. About two months
before the battle of Lexington, viz., on the 10th day
of February, 1775, amidst the din of preparation for

32
the then almost inevitable conflict, though condemn
ing the British taxation and coercion measures, to
which he was, of course, always opposed, he wrote : —
" If the confidence my fellow-citizens repose in me, and which
has led to more activity than I wished or intended, have not ren
dered me unworthy of your Lordship's further notice, (!) I shall
cheerfully continue my communications; and do with sincerity
declare that my present or any future influence shall be faithfully
exerted, not to widen the present breach, but to dispose the minds
of those around me to such measures as may be consistent with
the dignity and interest of the Mother Country and the safety of
this. I hope and believe I have already been instrumental in
guarding this city and province from measures which had an irri
tating tendency ; and while I am thus employed, I trust I am act
ing the part of a good subject and citizen." In the Provincial
Convention which had just met, "it was intended to take some
steps towards arming and disciplining the province, a measure
which I opposed both publicly and privately."
To his wife, in a letter announcing and half apolo
gizing for his sudden acceptance of the position of.
Adjutant-General to which he had been elected on
the 5th day of June, 1776, he said : —
" I have been much induced to this measure by observing that
this Province will be a great scene of party and contention this
summer. The courts are stopped, consequently no business done
in my profession, and at all events my time so engrossed that I
have not a moment to devote to keeping up my stock or adding
to my law knowledge. The appointments of the office are equal
to £700 per annum, which will help to support us till these calami
tous times are at an end. Besides, this post is honorable, and if
the issue is favorable to America, must put me on a respectable

33
scale.* Should it be otherwise, I have done enough to expose
myself to ruin."
To his brother-in-law, Mr. De Berdt, 20th Febru
ary, 1777, he said : —
"I then waited impatiently for a public disclosure of some
terms or propositions from Lord Howe and his brother. If they
had been such as would give my country any (!) security against
the unlimited powers of your Parliament to deprive us of our
property at any time and in what proportions they pleased, I
should have applied myself most earnestly to have brought about
an accommodation, and if those in power had wantonly or wickedly
rejected the proposition, I should have retired from the army to
a private and obscure station."
To Robert Morris, after the Declaration of Inde
pendence, in referring to Lord Howe's Commission,
he said : —
" I fear the die is irrevocably cast, and that we must play the
game, however doubtful or desperate. My principles have been
much misunderstood if they were supposed to militate against
reconciliation." These sentiments were so well known to the ene
mies of his country, that in 1776, and again in 1778,
he was applied to by the British Commissioners as
* "Mammon, the least erected spirit that fell
From Heaven ; for even in Heaven his looks and .thoughts
Were always downward bent, admiring more
The riches of Heaven's pavement, trodden gold,
Than aught divine or holy else enjoyed
In vision beatific."
3

34
being one most likely to lend a willing ear to propo
sitions of compromise.
Again, in corroboration. Though the occurrence
of a conversation can only be directly proven by those
who overheard it, evidence of other conversations of
a like nature by the same person at about the same
time, and of a general frame of mind in harmony with
that indicated by it, is strongly persuasive, if not
in exact accordance with strict legal rules.
By Mr. Charles Pettit, his brother-in-law, and most
intimate friend, who subsequently became one of his
executors, General Reed was believed to have "given
up the contest." Mr. Reed condemns, as " hearsay
gossip," the testimony of Col. Ellis and Mr. Daven
port ; but, in an investigation like this, such evidence
is free from the objection which so justly excludes
"hearsay" from the courts, viz., the impossibility of
obtaining any refutation of it before the rendering of
the verdict. Wherever there was the slightest open
ing, as in the case of Mr. Wm. Bradford's testimony,
General Reed was very prompt in procuring the de
nial of the person with whom any damaging conver
sation was alleged to have been held. His failure to
obtain from Mr. Pettit, with whom he was so inti
mate, any such denial, is very significant. We thus,
in effect, have one of his bosom friends testifying to
his belief, one which without imperative cause he
would have been slow to entertain and still slower to

35
confess, that General Reed, in December, 1776, "had
given up the contest."
To Mr. P. Dickinson, whom, though an officer in
the militia force, no official position compelled to be
with the army, General Reed, on "seeing him there,"
at a time when the exigency demanded the presence
of all who could bear arms, expressed surprise.
General Cadwalader, whose veracity Mr. Reed has
not openly and directly impeached, but at whom he
has aimed side blows, testifies to utterances of Gene
ral Reed, in December, 1776, much more censurable
than those reported by Dr. Rush.
Mistakes are attributed to General Cadwalader in
two minor particulars, for the purpose of discrediting
the general accuracy of his memory.
The first is thus imagined by Mr. Reed : —
" Again, there is an illustration of mistaken memory, when, in
reply to the statement in Mr. Reed's address, that he went to
Burlington before day, but did not leave Dunk's Ferry till he
saw the last man embarked, General Cadwalader in his pamphlet
of 1783, said this could not be, for 'there is no circumstance bet
ter ascertained than that many of the men were not brought back
till eight o'clock the next morning.' Writing to General Washing
ton, on the very day (25th), Cadwalader said : ' We concluded to
withdraw the troops that had passed, but could not effect it till
near four o'1 clock in the morning. The whole was then ordered to
march back to Bristol.' Four o'clock on Christmas morning is
certainly long 'before day.' "
Though the truth or falsity of the statement made
by General Cadwalader in his pamphlet was in the

36
knowledge of hundreds of living men, no one ven
tured to contradict it. An announcement of a with
drawal at four o'clock appears inconsistent with the
return of "many of the men" four hours later, to no
one whom the recent Rebellion made familiar with
the evil of "straggling from the ranks." General
Reed's assertion, to which exception was taken, was,
not that he had waited for the embarkation of the
main body, but for that of the " last man."
The second inaccuracy is thus manufactured : —
" The troops at Bristol crossed the Delaware on the 27th, it being
supposed that Washington was still on the left bank. On landing,
it was ascertained that he had re-crossed, and it became a question
what should be done by the force below. Writing of this, in 1783,
General Cadwalader, in his pamphlet says, that on the receipt of
news that Washington had re-crossed, ' Colonel Hitchcock pro
posed returning to Bristol. / instantly declared my determination
against it, and recommended an attack on Mount Holly, as,
from the information we had of the force there, we might easily
carry it.' There now lies before me a certified copy from the State
Department of a letter from General Cadwalader to Washington,
dated on the very day of the occurrence, ' Burlington, ten o'clock,
27th,' in which he says : * * * ' I thought it most prudent to re
treat, but Colonel Reed was of opinion that we might safely pro
ceed to Burlington, and recommended it warmly,'" &c.
The implied conflict of statements is produced by
Mr. Reed's closing General Cadwalader's sentence,
which, in full, reads : " Col. Hitchcock proposed re
turning to Bristol. I instantly declared my determina-

37
tion against it, and recommended an attack on Mount
Holly, as, from the information of the force there, we
mighty easily carry it, and should then have a retreat
open towards Philadelphia, if necessary," with the
words " might easily carry it." He quotes so as to
make it appear that but two courses of action were
discussed, a retreat and an advance, whilst, in reality,
there was a medium course, combining both, viz: a
march to Mount Holly, which General Cadwalader,
who from the outset opposed the others, strongly
favored. A further attempt is made to refute General Cad-
walader's assertion that General Reed had informed
him he had advised his brother to remain at Burling
ton, "and if the enemy took possession of the town, to
take protection," by means of an affidavit by Mr.
Bowes Reed that he was never advised to "seek"
protection, which besides being evasive, is wholly
irrelevant to the real issue, General Reed's report
to General Cadwalader of the advice he had given.
In imitation of the military tactics of the Celestials,
with whom dragons and gongs are esteemed more
potent than powder and ball, the ghost of "party
rage" is conjured from its grave by the modern Witch
of Pkidor. Again, however, it is found that the tes
timony, first given in the Campaign of 1777, ante
dates the era of party passions. Alexander Hamil
ton proves this, and Mr. Reed can only evade his

38
blow by suppressing his exact words and erroneously
stating their substance. He says : —
" There is not a trace of General Cadwalader having breathed
this accusation until the Treason trials of 1778. The only attempt
to show that he ever whispered it before, is in Col. Hamilton's
letter of the 14th of March, 1783, in which he says that after an
effort of memory ' he thinks' the matter was mentioned to him
some time in the Campaign of 1777, and with great caution he
adds : ' It is the part of candour to observe that I am not able to
distinguish with certainty whether the recollection I have of these
words arises from the strong impression made by your declara
tion at the time or from having heard them more than once re
peated within a year past.' "
The extent of Mr. Reed's misquotations will appear
upon reading Col. Hamilton's own language : —
Philadelphia, 14th March, 1783.
Dear Sir : Though disagreeable to appear in any manner in a
personal dispute; yet I cannot, in justice to you, refuse to comply
with the request contained in your note. I have delayed answer
ing it, to endeavor to recollect, with more precision, the time,
place, and circumstances of the conversation to which you allude.
I cannot, however, remember with certainty more than this ; that
some time in the campaign of seventy-seven, at headquarters in
this State, you mentioned to me and some other gentlemen of
General Washington's family, in a confidential way, that at some
period in seventy-six, I think after the American army crossed the
Delaware in its retreat, Mr. Reed had spoken to you in terms of
great despondency respecting American affairs, and had intimated
that he thought it time for gentlemen to take care of themselves,
and that it was unwise any longer to follow the fortunes of a
ruined cause, or something of a similar import. It runs in my
mind that the expressions you declared to have been made use of

39
by Mr. Reed were, that he thought he ought no longer to " risque
his life and fortune with the shattered remains of a broken army;"
but it is the part of candor to observe that I am not able to dis
tinguish with certainty whether the recollection I have of these
words arises from the strong impression made by your declara
tion at the time, or from having heard them more than once re
peated within a year past.
I am, dear sir, with great esteem,
Your obedient servant,
To General Cadwalader. A. HAMILTON.
Col. Hamilton "remembers with certainty" that
some time in the campaign of 1777 the matter was
mentioned to him, and also that the substance of the
conversation was that first given by him. The pre
cise phraseology, as stated in the last sentence, was
alone a little doubtful.
Mr. Reed labors to show such treatment of his
ancestor by General Cadwalader as was inconsistent
with a belief of his own charges. The latter's
answer to a somewhat similar argument by General
Reed, needs no supplement now.
Fifth. In discussing the weight to be attached to
General Reed's denial of a portion of the charges
against him, it will be shown that he was guilty of
many falsehoods, and that, therefore, where his own
interests were involved, he was " utterly unworthy of
belief." After having ignored every rule of evidence
himselfj Mr. Reed cannot now object, in resisting his
guerilla attack, to this irregular mode of impeaching

40
the credibility of one not legally admissible as a
witness. General Reed's mendacity will not be proven by
any quotations from the discredited and discreditable
" Y alley Forge" letters. Two publications alone will
be used, the one known as the " Cadwalader Pam
phlet," the other a work whose descriptions of its
hero's great deeds— deeds which may be eulogized
in the words by which faith has been defined* — are
made life-like by a recital which consumes fully as
much time in the telling as was required for the doing,
and of which may be asserted what was said of the
picturesque style of Macaulay's History, and with
more truth, "It reads like a romance" — the "Life and
Correspondence of General Reed by his Grandson."
Before entering the pasteboard palace in which Mr.
Reed had enshrined his idol, it was found necessary
to rearrange a little the cards with which he had
constructed it ; but then, the privilege of " cutting"
after those very adroit in shuffling, must be exercised
in most games of cards.
Though a careful sifting of the evidence with which
Mr. Reed has sought to prove the alleged offer of
£10,000 sterling, as a bribe,f leads to an almost inevi
table conviction of the truth of Gov. Johnstone's
emphatic denial of it, especially in view of his candid
admission, whilst disclaiming their use with General
Reed, that he had "used other means besides per-
* Hebrews xi. 1. f Life of Reed, vol. i. pp. 381 to 394.

41
suasions" in some cases, yet, as Mrs. Ferguson, with
out authority, may have offered the bribe, and may
have asserted to the latter that such authority had
been given her, his assertions in this matter will not
be discussed under the present head.
A passing allusion alone will be made both to Gen
eral Reed's misrepresentation, during the correspond
ence antecedent to the pamphlets, of Mr. Ingersoll's
report of General Cadwalader's remarks as to the
time he was expecting to leave Philadelphia; and to
his assertions in his Address to the Public that he
had " left a lucrative practice and fair prospects to
impoverish himself in their service," though, as he
admitted in a private letter to his brother-in-law,
"the war being brought to our own doors" * * *
" banished every idea of law, so that the profession for
which it had been my earliest study to qualify my
self is become entirely useless," and though he en
tered the public service, partly, at least, as the letter
to his wife, already quoted, shows, because " its ap
pointments, equal to £700 per annum," would help to
support his family.
General Reed, however, was accused by General
Cadwalader in these words of what he never ven
tured to deny : —
" And further (with respect to your veracity), if any
other instance is necessary, let me add one which hap
pened at camp (at head-quarters) in the year 1777,
soon after the battle of Germantown, when in my

42
hearing, an4 in the presence of three officers of the
first rank in the army, you was charged to your face
with a falsehood, and which was fully proved the next
day by the general officer who made the charge."
The transaction, however, which put upon General
Reed an ineffaceable brand, is the one so well known
that its narration is justly chargeable by his grand
son, who seems strangely insensible to the strong con
demnation which lies therein, with the accusation of
being " stale."* It grew out of that desire to be on
the winning side, unlike Dr. Rush's sympathy, which
Mr. Reed has noticed, with those "under a cloud,"
which prompted General Reed, after the brilliant vic
tory at Saratoga, whilst for Washington's military
capacity, to Washington himself, he was still loud
in his protestation of respect, to flatter General Gates
by saying, " This army, notwithstanding the efforts
of our amiable (!) chief, has as yet gained no laurels.
I perfectly agree with the sentiment which leads to
request your assistance."
On the 16th day of November, 1776, Fort Wash
ington, the policy of whose retention had been warmly
canvassed in the American councils, with its whole
* After all the following matter connected with the Lee-Reed corre
spondence was in type, the writer, who had never before seen Mr. John C.
Hamilton's history, though it had been referred to by Mr. Reed, found that
the whole subject had been therein considered in a manner so similar that
his own will only be regarded as a quotation from Mr. Hamilton. Its
appositeness, however, is none the less, and it is therefore retained.

43
garrison, was captured by the British. Washington's
conduct in the matter was by some severely censured,
but, conceiving that under the instructions of Con
gress he had not been permitted to evacuate it, such
unfavorable criticisms pained him exceedingly.
General Charles Lee, who had formerly held high
rank in the British army, was at the time looked upon
as the probable successor of Washington, against
whom he was intriguing. General Reed was then
Washington's Adjutant-General, professed himself
his bosom friend and warmest admirer, was thorough
ly acquainted with his views and feelings, and was
intrusted with his confidence. To Lee, then in com
mand of the rear-guard on the east side of the
Hudson, whilst basking in the sunshine of his Chief's
favor, General Reed addressed the following letter.
The italics in this and the subsequent ones are the
writer's. Hackinsac, November 21, 1776.
Dear General, — The letter you will receive with this contains
my sentiments with respect to your present situation. But be
sides this I have some additional reasons for wishing most earn
estly to have you where the principal scene of action is laid. I
do not mean to flatter or praise you at the expense of any other,
but I confess I do think it is entirely owing to you that this army,
and the liberties of America, so far as they are dependent on it,
are. not totally cutoff. You have decision, a quality often wanted
in minds otherwise valuable, and I ascribe to this our escape from
York Island, from Kingsbridge, and the Plains, and have no
doubt, had you been here, the garrison of Mount Washington would
now have composed part of this army. All these circumstances

44
considered, I confess I ardently wish to see you removed where I
think there will be little call for your judgment and experience to
the place where they are likely to be so necessary, nor am I sin
gular in my opinion. Every gentleman of the family, the officers
and soldiers generally, have a confidence in you — the enemy con
stantly inquire where you are, and seem to be less confident when
you are present. Colonel Cadwalader, through a special indul
gence, on account of some civilities shown by his family to General
Prescott, has been liberated from New York without a parole.
He informs me that the enemy have a southern expedition in view
— that they hold us very cheap in consequence of the late affair at
Fort Washington, where both the plan of defence and execution
were contemptible. If a real defence of the lines was intended,
the number of troops was too few — if the fort only, the garrison
was too numerous by half. General Washington's own judgment,
seconded by representations by us, would, I believe, have saved the
men and their arms, but unluckily General Greene's judgment was
adverse. This kept the General's mind in a state of suspense till
the blow was struck. Oh ! General, an indecisive mind is one of
the greatest misfortunes that can befall an army ; how often have
I lamented it this campaign. All circumstances considered, we
are in a very awful and alarming situation — one that requires the
utmost wisdom and firmness of mind. As soon as the season
will admit, I think yourself and some others should go to Con
gress and form the plan of the new army, point out their defects
to them, and it may possibly prevail on them to lend their whole
attention to this great object, even to -the exclusion of every
other. If they will not or cannot do this, I fear all our exertions
will be vain in this part of the world. Foreign assistance is soli
cited, but we cannot expect they will fight the whole battle. But
artillery and artillerists must be had if possible. I intended to
say more, but the express is waiting, and I must conclude with
my clear and explicit opinion that your presence is of the last
importance. Yours, &c.

45
To this letter, Lee, highly delighted with such
evidence of disaffection and distrust in Washington's
military family, replied as follows : —
Camp, November 24, 1776.
My Dear Reed, — I received your most obliging, flattering let
ter, lament with you that fatal indecision of mind which in war
is a much greater disqualification than stupidity, or even want of
personal courage ; accident may put a decisive blunder in the
right, but eternal defeat and miscarriage must attend the man of
the best parts if cursed with indecision. The General recom
mends in so pressing a manner as almost to amount to an order,
to bring over t"he Continental troops under my command, which
recommendation or order throws me into the greatest dilemma
from several considerations. Part of the troops are so ill fur
nished with shoes and stockings, blankets, &c, that they must
inevitably perish in this wretched weather. Part of them are to
be dismissed on Saturday, and this part is the best accoutred for
service. What shelter we are to find on the other side of the
river is a serious consideration ; but these considerations should
not sway me. My reason for not having marched already is that
we have just received intelligence that Rogers'' Corps, the Light
Horse, part of the Highlanders and another brigade lie in so ex
posed a situation as to give the fairest opportunity of being car
ried. I should have attempted it last night, but the rain was too
violent, and when our pieces are wet you know our troops are
" hors du combat." This night I hope will be better. If we suc
ceed we shall be well compensated for the delay ; we shall like
wise be able on our return to clear the country of all the articles
wanted by the enemy. In every view, therefore, the expedition
must answer. I have just received a most flattering letter from
Don Luis Venzaga, Governor of New Orleans. He gives me the
title of " General de los Estados Unidos Americanos," which is a
tolerable step towards declaring himself our ally in positive terms.

46
The substance is, that he is sensible of the vast advantages which
must result from the separation to his master and nation — that he
cannot positively enter into a regular system without consulting
his master, but in the mean time he will render us all the service
in his power. I only wait myself for this business of Rogers and
company being over. I shall then fly to you ; for, to confess a
truth, I really think our Chief will do better with me than with
out me. I am, dear Reed, yours most sincerely,
CHARLES LEE.
"This letter was forwarded to camp by express,
and being supposed to relate to official business, was
opened and read by Washington, Colonel Reed being
absent on special duty at Burlington. It appears to
have wounded him deeply." It was transmitted by
Washington, with a few cold words of explanation,
on the 30th of November, 1776.
Until Lee's capture induced General Reed to hope,
as he admitted himself, that the former would "be
sent to Europe, where, of course, there was little
probability of any one obtaining it," he did not dare
to assert that the former's letter was not justified by
his own; but, after this event had occurred, and after
several months and hosts of opportunities for oral
and written explanations had passed, his appoint
ment as a general of cavalry being then pending, he
addressed Washington a letter under date of the 8th
of March, 1777, in which this passage occurs :—
" I could have wished to have one hour of private conversation
with you on the subject of a letter to me written by General Lee

47
before his captivity. I deferred it in hopes of obtaining from him
the letter to which his was an answer. I fear from what we hear
that he will be sent to England, and of course there will be little
probability of my obtaining it. While he stays in America, I
cannot give up my hopes, and in the mean time / most solemnly
assure you, that you would see in it nothing inconsistent with that
respect and affection which I have and ever shall bear to your
person and character. My pressing him most earnestly to join you
as soon as possible, and mentioning that Mount Washington was
taken before any decision was had respecting it, led to expressions
and an answer which must have been disapproved by you, and
which I was far from expecting. I had rather multiply instances
than repeat assurances of my respect and attachment. No man
in America, my dear General, more truly and ardently wishes
your honor, happiness, and success, or would more exert himself
to promote them. I say more upon this occasion from a proba
bility that we shall not renew our military connexion, and there
fore can have no interest than that of securing your esteem, free
from all selfish principles."
On the 4th of June, 1777, Reed again addressed
Washington, thus: —
" The abuse and calumny which, with equal cowardice and base
ness, some persons have bestowed, would have given me little
pain if I did not apprehend that it had lessened me in your friend
ship and esteem. In this part I confess I have received the
severest wound; for I am sure you are too just and discerning to
suffer the unguarded expressions of another person to obliterate
the proofs I have given of a sincere disinterested attachment to
your person and fame, since you first favored me with your
regard. I am sensible, my dear sir, how difficult it is to regain
lost friendship, but the consciousness of never having justly for
feited yours, and the hope that it may be in my power fully to
convince you of it, are some consolation for an event which I never

48
think of but with the greatest concern. In the meantime, my
dear general, let me entreat of you to judge of me by realities,
not by appearances, and believe that I never entertained or ex
pressed a sentiment incompatible with that regard I professed for
your person and character, and which, whether I shall be so happy
as to possess your future good opinion or not, I shall carry to my
grave with me."
Though General Reed asserts that Lee's expres
sions, at which Washington took offence, were in no
way responsive to his own, which contained nothing
" inconsistent with respect for your character," and
that the mere mentioning that Mount Washington
had been taken before any decision was had respect
ing it, led to " expressions which must have been dis
approved by you, and which I was far from expecting,"
they were, in truth, infinitely more friendly and re
spectful than Reed's. Lee thinks " our chief will be
better with me than without me," laments that " fatal
indecision of mind which in war is a much greater
disqualification than stupidity or even want of per
sonal courage," and asserts that " eternal defeat and
miscarriage must attend the man of the best parts if
cursed with indecision." This is all. Reed however
says : "It is entirely owing to you that this army, and
the liberties of America so far as they are dependent on
it, are not totally cut off You have decision, a quality
often wanted in minds otherwise valuable." " Ihave no
doubt, had you been here, the garrison of Fort Wash
ington would now have composed part of this army."

49
He adds that Washington's mind remained in a state
of suspense till the blow was struck, and philoso
phizes : " Oh ! General, an indecisive mind is one of
the greatest misfortunes that can befall an army ; how
often have I lamented it in this campaign /"
The following extract from Washington's reply of
the 14th June, shows that his confidence was com
pletely restored by reason of the deceit which was
thus practised upon him : —
" I thank you most sincerely for the friendly and affectionate
sentiments contained in yours of the 4th inst., and assure you that
1 am perfectly convinced of the sincerity of them. True it is, I
felt myself hurt by a certain letter which appeared at that time to
be the echo of one from you. I was hurt, not because I thought
my judgment wronged by the expressions contained in it, but
because the same sentiments were not communicated immediately
to myself. The favorable manner in which your opinions upon all
"occasions had been received, the impression they made, and the
unreserved manner in which I wished, and required them to be
given, entitled me, I thought, to your advice upon any point in
which I appeared to be wanting. To meet with anything, then,
that carried with it a complexion of withholding that advice from
me, and censuring my conduct to another, was such an argument
of disingenuity, that I was not a little mortified at it. However, I
am perfectly satisfied that matters were not as they appeared from
the letter alluded to."
"From this moment," says Mr. Wm. B. Reed,
" such was the influence of frank and manly expla
nations, all distrust and apparent estrangement were
4

50
removed, and the ancient relations of friendly confi
dence effectually restored."
A fear that Lee would publish his letter must have
been the bane of Reed's existence, and he appears to
have taken considerable pains, by friendly assurances,
to prevent it ; for, on the 22d July, 1778, after the
battle of Monmouth, in reply to what must have been
an effort of this kind, Lee says to him : —
" I am pleased in your having confirmed me in the opinion I had
entertained of your regard and friendship, and I am sorry that
you should suppose me for a single moment capable of availing
myself of some expressions you had made use of in a confidential
letter, to embroil you with a man that the public interest certainly
and perhaps your personal concerns, render it necessary you
should be on good terms with."
General Reed, however, prudently saved himself
from the discredit of being a personal friend of such
an unpopular man, by informing General Greene, in
a " confidential" letter dated 5th Nov. 1778, that as
to General Lee and himself "We are utterly out.
After laboring to convince me he had great merit at
Monmouth, and I to convince him that he had behaved
very ill, which I knew from his own mouth and my
own observations" — observations which must have
antedated the letter that had so pleased Lee — "we
have parted mutually unconvinced. I only added one
piece of advice to him, to forbear any reflections on
the Commander-in-chief."
Nothing but the strongest confidence in his ability

51
to maintain Lee's secrecy, or a belief that the letter
had been lost, could have emboldened General Reed,
in the summer of 1779, to make in print, and forward
to Washington, the following unblushing asser
tions : —
" In the fall of 1116, 1 was extremely anxious that Fort Wash
ington should be evacuated; there was a difference in opinion
among those whom the General consulted, and he hesitated more
than I ever knew him on any other occasion, and more than I
thought the public service admitted. Knowing that General Lee's
opinion would be a great support to mine, I wrote to him from
Hackensack, stating the case, and my reasons, and, I think, urg
ing him to join me in sentiment at the close of my letter ; and,
alluding to the particular subject then before me, to the best of
my recollection, I added this sentence : ' With a thousand good
and great qualities, there is a want of decision to complete the
perfect military 'character.' Upon this sentence, or one to this
effect, wrote in haste, in full confidence, and in great anxiety for
the event, is this ungenerous sentiment introduced into the world.
The event but too fully justified my anxiety ; for the fort was sum
moned that very day, and surrendered the next. I absolutely
deny that there is any other ground but this letter ; and if there
is, let it be produced. I have now only to add that, though Gene
ral Washington soon after, by an accident, knew of this circum
stance, it never lessened the friendship which subsisted between
us. He had too much greatness of mind to suppose himself inca
pable of mistake, or to dislike a faithful friend who should note
an error with such circumstances of respect, and on such an
occasion." All the assertions of this letter are so amazing
that it is impossible to mark the worst ones by italics.
The possession of a " thousand great and good quali-

52
ties" and an " otherwise perfect military character"
had never been ascribed to Washington by Reed, and
as Fort Washington had surrendered five days before
the letter was written, its design could hardly have
been to secure a confirmatory opinion from Lee as to
the propriety of an evacuation.
Washington's friendship has ever been as a tower
of strength to General Reed ; but, obtained by false
pretences like those unveiled, it reflects but little
lustre upon the latter. The trustfulness of Washing
ton's nature rendered him peculiarly susceptible to
the arts of those who surrounded him. General Reed
himself, in one of his letters, thus cautions him
against this weakness of which he afterwards so suc
cessfully availed himself: "Do not let the goodness
of your heart subject you to the influence of opinions
from men in every respect your inferiors." There is
reason to believe, from the entire cessation of corre
spondence and otherwise, that in the year 1781
Washington became acquainted with the deception
which had been practised upon him. On the 16th
day of June, 1781, Lee wrote a letter to Mr. Morris
" filled," according to Mr. Wm. B. Reed, " with viru
lent denunciations of Mr. Reed and his friends."
The thunder of his denunciations was most probably
accompanied by the lightning's flash that revealed to
Washington the " Scarlet Letter." To General
Greene, on the 1st Nov. 1781, General Reed com
plains that "the incessant misrepresentations and

53
calumnies with respect to myself, and some un
friendly characters about him, have raised some pre
judices, of what nature I cannot tell."*
Washington's much relied upon letter to Reed, of
the 15th September, 1782, written in compliance with
the latter's pressing request, by its freezing tone, its
non-responsiveness, its reference to a past confidence
alone, its lack of indignation at the charges against
the latter, and an absence of those closing words of
affection which marked its writer's earlier correspond
ence, makes the conjecture of this discovery almost a
certainty. Its probability is not affected by the fact
that in an official escort furnished Washington when
he left Philadelphia in March, 1782, Gen. Reed,
whose Presidency had expired only two months pre
viously, was included. Mr. Reed must have felt hard
driven when he hunted for this straw, through the
dusty files of the "Freeman's Journal. "f
Sixth. As to the opinion of Dr. Rush, entertained
by his cotemporaries.
Under the plea of "utter unfitness" for the task, to
which none will demur who have witnessed the result
of his labors upon some of them, Mr. Reed ignores
* Forgetful of this evidence, Mr. Reed says, " With this exception (a
letter from his grandfather to Mrs. Reed alluding to Washington's cold
ness) / do not find the least trace of the difference which the busy and
malevolent men of the day have insinuated."
t Reed's Reply, page 122.

54
the principal portions of Dr. Rush's life, and un
dertakes an investigation, similar in kind, however
dissimilar in results, to that of Professor Owen in
determining the structure of the Mastodon from one
of its teeth. As eminence in the medical profession,
whose practitioners are brought into daily contact
with the pains and sorrows of life and the stern reali
ties of death, has been seldom found conjoined with
the disposition attributed to Dr. Rush, it was im
possible to arrive at a correct estimate of his moral
character, without considering his merits and career
as a physician. Belittling observations with his re
versed telescope should therefore have contented Mr.
Reed, without any previous quartering of the object
to be viewed.
Truly, and not sneeringly, may it be said of Dr.
Rush, in view of the incessant study by which he
stored his mind with its immense fund of know
ledge; of the labor and toil with which he assisted
in laying the foundations for the world-wide fame
of the Philadelphia medical schools; of his con
tributions to science ; of his writings, translated into
many tongues, rewarded by the crowned heads of
Europe with medals and by the leading scientific
men of his time with the warmest encomiums; of
his active participation in the humane institutions
of this city ; of his bold and successful confronting
of an epidemic in whose terrible presence men stood
spell-bound, or before whose ravages they fled in

55
terror ; of his large and wearying practice — that he
was a "busy" man.
Even in his brief political career, to which Mr.
Reed has so slightingly referred, and which was only
an episode in his "busy" life, he distinguished him
self greatly, as a man of strong, decided character, an
unflinching patriot, an ardent worshipper of liberty.
In the "Edinburgh Encyclopaedia" it is stated: "In
June, 1776, he was a member of the Provincial Con
ference which met at Philadelphia, and, on the 23d
day of that month, moved for a committee to draft
an address expressive of the sense of the Conference
respecting the independence of the American Colo
nies. Dr. Rush, who, with James Smith and Thomas
McKean, had been appointed for this purpose, the
next day reported a Declaration, which was adopted
in the Conference and presented to the American
Congress the day after. This Declaration, even its
phraseology, anticipated almost the whole of the
Declaration of Independence."
Dr. Rush, with others, was elected to Congress
for the express purpose of signing the Declaration
of Independence. He there laid or broadened the
foundations of life-long friendships with many of the
immortal men of American history, amongst others
with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, between
whom, shortly before his death, he effected a recon
ciliation, and with whom, through long years of bitter

56
political dissensions, he ever preserved the most inti
mate relations.
His foresight and statesmanlike breadth of view,
may be gathered from a speech he delivered in Con
gress, in July, 1776, in the course of which he said: —
" We represent the people ; we are a nation ; to vote
by States will keep up colonial distinctions ; and we
shall be loath to admit new colonies into the confede
ration. The voting by the number of free inhabit
ants will have the excellent effect of inducing the
Colonies to discourage slavery. If we vote by num
bers, liberty will always be safe ; the larger Colonies
are so providentially divided in situation as to render
any fear of their combining visionary. The more a
man aims at serving America, the more he serves his
colony ; I am not pleading the cause of Pennsylvania ;
I consider myself a citizen of America."
The spontaneous tributes of respect which were
cast upon Dr. Rush's grave whilst the memory of his
virtues and the grief for his loss were still fresh,
were paid to those features of character most incon
sistent with the existence of defects such as those
alleged by Mr. Reed. These features too were selected
because they were salient ones, and not because they
had been impeached or assailed ; for, until the advent
of Mr. Reed, no one had been found, so reckless of
that charity to the dead he had himself so frequently
invoked, of the feelings of the living with whom he
was on terms of social intimacy, of the statements,

57
aye, more, of the truth of history, as to assert of Dr.
Rush that he was " utterly unworthy of belief."
In " Rees' Cyclopaedia" is found this passage : —
" Above his eminence, said the Rev. Dr. Staughton,
as a patriot and physician, rose his character as a
Christian. Convinced of the truth of the Scriptures,
he endeavored to promote their universal circulation.
His defence of the Bible as a school-book, written at
a time when infidelity carried a more brazen front
than at the present day, has been highly beneficial to
his country. He was a prime mover of the Phila
delphia Bible Society, the first established in the
United States. He was uniform in the discharge of
Christian duties, and died professing a hope in the
Saviour of sinners."
In the " Encyclopaedia Americana" it is said : " He
was moreover philanthropic, kind, and religious."
In the "New American Cyclopaedia" that: "He
had the highest reverence for the Holy Scriptures,
and was equally distinguished for his piety as for
his learning."
The celebrated Dr. Hosack, in an address before
the College of Physicians and Surgeons, delivered
on the 3d Nov. 1813, said : —
" But the virtues of the heart, like the faculties of
his mind, were also in continued exercise for the
benefit of his fellow men, while the numerous
humane, charitable, and religious associations which
do honor to the city of Philadelphia, bear testimony

58
to the philanthropy and piety which animated the
bosom of their departed benefactor ; let it also be re
membered that, as with the Good Samaritan, the
poor were the objects of his peculiar care, and that
in the latter and more prosperous years of his life,
one-seventh of his income was expended upon the
children of affliction and want. The last act of Dr.
Rush was an act of charity, and the last expression
which fell from his lips was an injunction to his son,
' Be indulgent to the poor.' "
Dr. David Ramsay, in an address before the Medi
cal Society of South Carolina at Charleston, in June,
1813, said : —
" Piety to God was an eminent trait in the charac
ter of Dr. Rush. In all his printed works and in all
his private transactions he expressed the most pro
found respect and veneration for the great Eternal."
In Thacher's "American Medical Biography" it is
stated that " Dr. Rush readily forgave injuries and
the ingratitude of those on whom he had conferred
favors." Dr. Francis, in the course of an Address before the
Rutgers' Medical Faculty, which has been incorpo
rated into many of the standard biographies and
encyclopaedias, said: —
" There are other qualities which entitle Dr. Rush
to our respect and esteem. In private life his dis
position and deportment were in the highest degree
exemplary. Admired and courted for his intellectual

59
endowments, he riveted the affections of all those
who enjoyed the pleasure of an intimate acquaint
ance. The affability of his manners, the amiable-
ness of his temper, and the benevolence of his
character, were ever conspicuous. He was ardent
in his friendships, and forgiving in his resentments ;
and yet entertaining a due regard for himself and a
nice sense of honor, he possessed a manly independ
ence of spirit, which disdained everything mean and
servile. He had an extraordinary command of lan
guage, and always imparted his thoughts in a pecu
liarly impressive and eloquent manner. His elo
quence as a public teacher surpassed that of all his
contemporaries. "He never evinced any of that haughtiness and
affectation of importance which sometimes attach to
men of eminence. He was a believer in Christianity
from an examination of its principles and the deepest
conviction. The purity of its doctrines and the ex
cellence of its precepts were a frequent topic of his
conversation ; its practical influence upon his conduct
through, life he often acknowledged, and cherished
with a fervent hope the animating prospects it affords.
With the good old Bishop Burnet he fully coincided,
' that a man living according to the rules of religion,
becomes the wisest, the best, the happiest creature he
is capable of being.' His writings in numerous
places bear testimony to his Christian virtues; he
designed to conclude his literary and professional

60
labors with a distinct work on the medicine of the
Bible ; and in a letter written a short time before his
fatal illness he candidly declares that he had acquired
and received nothing from the world which he so
highly prized, as the religious principles he received
from his parents. To inculcate those principles which
flow from the source of all truth and purity, and to
impart them as a legacy to his children, was an object
dear to his heart, and which he never failed to pro
mote by constant exhortation, and the powerful influ
ence of his own example."
Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams of the 27th
May, 1813, announcing Dr. Rush's death, says : —
" Another of our patriots of '76 is gone, my dear
sir, another of the Signers of the Independence of our
country. And a better man than Rush could not
have left us, more benevolent, more learned, of finer
genius, or more honest."
It is not deemed necessary to quote further from
the immense mass of similar testimony at hand, inas
much as no eulogium of Dr. Rush is here designed.
In conclusion, it is greatly to be hoped, that when
next Mr. Reed assumes the offensive defensive, his
production will be a little the latter and not so exclu
sively the former, and further, that his great powers will
be exercised in behalf of a more worthy person than the
one who admitted of himself in one of those spasms
of truth with which the most mendacious are some-

61
times seized, that he was " not worth purchasing," and
whose want of importance was such that Mr. Ban
croft, when summoned by his advocate (Reed's Reply,
p. 84), was compelled to say : —
"In looking through the archives here (London)
which have been opened to me with great liberality,
I have looked for traces of your grandfather, but as yet
have found nothing of much importance."
And the ever friendly Mr. Sparks, who would have
found it difficult to count the number of times the
name of Washington was mentioned, to testify: —
" In the public offices in London I have examined
all the correspondence between the British officers in
America and the Ministers during the war. I have
no recollection of seeing General Meed's name men
tioned in these papers on any occasion."

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

f Manujaciuita .
6AYLORD BROS. In
Syracuse, N. Y.
Stockton, Calif,

3 9002 03452 8431