R. M. WHITNEY, Esq., Dear Sir,--I am favored with your note,
refering me to General Cadwalader's pamphlet, which you inform
me has been abstracted from the Philadelphia Library. I have
access to _material_, far beyond any thing in importance and
value which could possibly be obtained by General Cadwalader;
nevertheless the _abstraction_ of his pamphlet is a
circumstance which I will not fail to turn to good account.
The gentleman to which I so often refer, in my communications
as the revolutionary soldier who has furnished me with
information, is a near relative of mine, who knew Gen. Joseph
Reed thoroughly. I shall continue my communications from time
to time; and you may rely upon my giving you nothing, which
does not admit of literal substantiation. Among other letters
which I have, are several from "George Clymer," (whom you
mention in your note,) which hit the nail on the head.
Will you permit me the liberty of suggesting a continuance of
your vigorous editorials upon Stephen Girard? The word
"finessed" in my last, your compositor has transformed into
_finified_.
Respectfully &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
Sept. 25, 1842.
REUBEN M. WHITNEY, Esq., Dear Sir,--I am afraid that, in
copying Sergt. Kemp's first letter, I have made an error of
date, on which account I am glad my communication has not
appeared to-day, as it gives me an opportunity of correction.
I am anxious to avoid even the slightest mistake in my
communications. The letter is dated "June 23rd, 1778." I am
not certain that I did not so transcribe it; but if I did not,
be good enough to make the correction. I particularly wish you
would _italicise_ my interrogatory to Reed relative to his
grandfather's correspondence with General Wayne. There is a
_point_ in it which _he_ will fully understand, and which will
give him more uneasiness than all else. I intend reserving my
extracts from that correspondence for the very last.
Respectfully, &c.
VALLEY FORGE.
Sept. 27, 1842.
R. M. WHITNEY, Esq.,--Dear Sir--I am provoked to find that,
upon comparing my copy of Col. Smith's letter to Col. ----,
with the original, that I have made another error! I hope this
will reach you in time for its correction. Speaking of his
visit to Gen. Washington at Mount Vernon and _Washington_, it
should be, and _Philadelphia_.
Respectfully, &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
Sept. 28, 1842.
R. M. WHITNEY,--Dear Sir--I have been absent for a day or two
from the city, and did not receive your note until to-day. I
enclose a note for publication--oblige me by letting it appear
to-morrow. I cannot imagine how so stupid an error could have
occured as the erroneous date of Kemp's discharge by Gen.
Washington. But the error almost corrects itself--as Kemp's
letter of July 2d, speaks of the battle of Monmouth on the
28th. I do not know whether the blunder is that of your
workman, or mine in the haste of transcribing. One or two
other errors, which are mine, I made the subject of two notes,
which I addressed you through the Post-office. My absence from
town, and my intended absence to-morrow, prevent my preparing
another article for Saturday. Possibly, I will have it ready
for Monday, and certainly for Tuesday. Acknowledge its
receipt, and that it will appear on Monday or Tuesday. I have
not yet come to the _real gems_ of my budget. Reed shall have
a surfeit.
Respectfully, &c.,
VALLEY FORGE
Sept. 30, 1842.
R. M. WHITNEY, Esq: Dear Sir--Nothing could have afforded me
more pleasure than the publication which has been made by the
Reeds. It has given me the opportunity, which I have from the
first been seeking, of bringing the question of General Reed's
revolutionary exploits to a _crisis_. I pledge myself to you,
that I will overwhelm them with confusion and shame.
I have not called for your letter at the Post-office, because
_I know that I am watched_; and I do not desire to be known
till the adoption of my proposition to the Reeds, of which I
speak in the accompanying communication, and which I will
furnish for publication in Monday's Journal. They have fallen
completely into the snare.
Yours, &c., very truly,
VALLEY FORGE.
October 14, 1842.
In his explanatory communication of yesterday's date, Valley Forge speaks
of many more papers "which are yet to come:" we suppose he means yet to be
published. If so, we feel constrained to say now, that we cannot publish
any thing more relating to the matter until he announces to us, at least,
his real name.
From the Evening Journal.
R. M. WHITNEY, Esq: Dear Sir,--I am pained beyond measure, at the situation
in which I have been so unfortunately instrumental in placing you. But for
circumstances _which I cannot possibly control_, I would promptly
communicate to you my name and residence. A pledge, rigidly exacted by my
venerable relative, Col. ----, and solemnly given by me at the time he
consented that I should communicate to you the letters of the late General
Smith, and the other papers with which he furnished me, that I should not
make either him or myself known without his consent, binds me as with links
of iron. Col. ---- is slowly recovering from the paralytic affection with
which he was seized on the 20th of this month; and let me assure you, most
sacredly and solemnly, that as soon as his health is sufficiently restored
to allow a conversation of any length to be had with him, I will not fail
to convince him of the propriety--of the _necessity_--of permitting me to
call upon you, or invite you to his residence, where, preliminary to my
taking the proper steps to convince the public of their authenticity, I may
exhibit to you all the writings which have been so exultingly
prounounced[TN] to be "audacious forgeries."
You do me but justice, when you say, that "a careful perusal of the letters
of Valley Forge, confirms the belief, that he is neither an impostor nor a
forger of letters." Why should I be? What motive could induce any rational
being to originate a _fabrication_ so sure to be detected? You will find,
ere very long, that I have given you nothing but the truth. Only _one_
liberty did I venture to take with any of the correspondence--that was from
considerations of delicacy, which I now believe to have been _fastidious_,
and to which, at the time, I reluctantly yielded. In Gen. Smith's letter to
Col. ----, dated Oct. 2d, 1832, I substituted a _blank_ for the name of
_Mrs. Ferguson_," which Gen. Smith gives as that of the lady from whom was
taken the letter of Governor Jonstone to Gen. Reed. This, the _only_
alteration I ever made, you must allow, was a pardonable error.
"Truth is mighty and must prevail;" and in this case, to the joy of your
friends, and the consternation of your enemies, it shall be signally
exemplified. _For the present_, let me entreat you to rest satisfied with
my assurances; assurances which will soon be most thoroughly redeemed; and
that you will desist from your endeavor to discover who I am--efforts which
can give you but vain trouble, which _must_ prove fruitless; for the
precautions which I have adopted for the preservation of my _incognito_, it
is impossible to overcome.
Very truly, &c.,
VALLEY FORGE.
October 29th, 1842.
From the Evening Journal, October 31st.
_"Valley Forge" and General Joseph Reed--Is there a Sepulchral Sanctuary
for Public Men?--The success of the American Revolution--Justice and Truth
essential Elements of History--"Forgery"--The Editor, &c._
Whatever motives may have actuated "Valley Forge" to the publication of
documents affecting the revolutionary services and fame of General Joseph
Reed, and we pretend not either to scan them, or doubt their honorable
complexion--for truth, when on the side of country and patriotism, admits
not of suspicion or mistrust--whatever motive, we say, may have impelled
him to the revelation of these important historical documents, there can
exist no doubt as it respects the principle which sustains the ransacking
of the grave, for the sake of _truth_. Begin at any period of history,
however early, and it will be found that _public men_ have always been
considered as public property--their characters, their conduct and their
opinions, belonging to the world, with no privilege of sanctuary, either in
life or in the _tomb_. It was so with the Hebrews, it was so with Persians,
the Babylonians, the Grecians, the Romans, the French, the English, and
even the Chinese. Indeed, so obvious is the principle, as almost to
dispense with argument. It bears on its very face, the irresistible force
of a first principle; for if the grave cannot cover up the _good_ deeds of
men, it never can be made to conceal their evil ones. The lessons of
history, like the lessons of life, are derived more from the wicked than
the good. The striking contrast of example, comes from the man who has
perpetuated deeds that curdle the blood with fear, or crimson the cheeks
with shame. Virtue is negative, quiet, undismayed--but vice rides aloft on
the back of desecrated principles and violated laws, accompanied by the
tumultuous rush of a moral whirlwind, overturning the fruits, blossoms and
harvest of life; bearing blasts upon its brow, and leaving havoc in its
train. And so do the laws of all well governed countries dispose of the
remains of notorious felons, who, instead of being suffered to repose in
the grave, are denied all interment; their bodies being delivered over to
the surgeons for the benefit of science, or exposed on a gibbet, till the
crows, eagles and vultures, devour their flesh, and then, even their bones
are left to blacken in the winter's blast, as a warning to man, to shun the
deeds that led them to their doom.
Where is the sepulchral sanctuary for Buonaparte? or for Nero? or for
Marius, Sylla, Otho, Galba, Charles of Burgundy, or Ferdinand of Spain? How
many patriots are commemorated in the Lives of Plutarch? Expunge from the
History of England the great scoundrels who disgraced their diadems, on the
plea of sepulchral sanctuary, and how many kings will remain to grace
their pages with the splendor of their virtues? The same question may be
asked in reference to all histories, and the same answers given; there
would be no history, if the grave silenced the tongue to speak of the vices
and crimes of the dead who disgraced their nature.
To return to the principle of success, as a standard of virtue, in great
revolutionary movements. The intrinsic merit of a civil movement, or
commotion, to produce a change of government by force of arms, or social
intimidation without bloodshed, is not sufficient to glorify its actors.
Success is essential to give renown which confers fame and glory on its
authors. This was fully understood during the American Revolution. A host
of calculating spirits stood mute, inactive, or luke-warm, watching the
changes of the contest, and fearful of embarking in a cause that might
miscarry. In such a crisis, the wavering, the doubtful and the timid, were
more dangerous to their country's cause than the open traitor in arms
against freedom. The generous, the brave, the frank, the self-devoted
patriot, rushed headlong into the contest, putting in peril, life, honor,
property, fame, family, friends, children--all that is dear to life, and
all that life endears. The calculating and timid palsied their daring
counsels by weak irresolution of wicked duplicity. Among these
time-servers, it seems General Joseph Reed stood prominent. Careful of his
person, he shunned danger. Calculating the probable miscarriage of the
Revolution, he occupied the prudent ground of a tory royalist, seeming to
battle for liberty, but ready, at any moment; to assume the scarlet
uniform, and shout "God save King George!" A traitor in his heart to the
cause of Independence, lest that cause, by failing, should make him a
traitor to his king, for whom he felt a warmer affection than for the
rebels--he stood always on the alert, to join the British, or to appear
their greatest foe; practising the meanest arts to seem brave, yet always
held in open contempt for his timidity and cowardice. If the Revolution
succeeded, he calculated to pass for a patriot. If the royal arms
triumphed, he stood prepared to claim the rewards of his fidelity to the
KING, more valuable than an open adherent because a secret spy, who
betrayed the cause of the rebels, while pretending to fight under its
colors, in the uniform of an American Officer of the army of George
Washington!
Such appears to have been the character of General Joseph Reed, from
documents decidedly authentic--so authentic as to have led to their partial
destruction, by his vain and silly descendants, who imagined that _truth_
could be extinguished, while vanity was kindling a spurious flame to
consummate an imaginery[TN] _apotheosis_, for one whose actual deeds
consigned him to the keeping of the furies and his country's execration.
If such men are to be allowed an enrolment on the page of fame, as
revolutionary patriots, who achieved our independence, there is no merits
in those who stood side by side with Washington, in the darkest hour of the
Revolution, when dismay sat on the bravest brow--spurning the temptation of
British bribes--bidding defiance to British battalions, and enduring the
pangs of hunger, thirst, and howling blasts--naked amidst winter's snow,
with earth for a pillow, and the canopy of heaven for a covering--treason
thundering in their ears--rewards offered for their heads, and nothing but
liberty and independence, with the secret assurance of heaven's succour
from a just God, to cheer and console them--bleeding, dying, desolate.
Shall the _time-serving_ traitor take his position by the side of such men?
Shall all merit be levelled into one common mass of calculating
selfishness? For such must be the effect, if General Joseph Reed is to
occupy a niche of glory in the same temple with George Washington. But
there is no moral crucible to melt down such deeds into a general and
indiscriminate mass. Truth revolts from such profanation. Justice spurns
the contamination. Nature herself rises up in arms against the thought, as
doing violence to all her holiest sympathies; her purest heart-throbs, her
noblest aspirations. God himself denounces the impiety.
Having demonstrated the importance of the revelations of "Valley Forge" to
the truth and accuracy of history--of that history, in which we are all so
intensely interested--as belonging to the fame of the fathers, and as
destined for an inheritance to our children, to the end of time--it remains
to consider how the editor of the Evening Journal, in giving publicity to
corroborative materials for history, has merited that torrent of
scurrility, that has been vomited upon him from the sympathisers in the
royal cause of George the Third--who, even up to this day, still retain in
their veins, the poison of tory blood! "Valley Forge" makes no _fresh_
charge against the tories of 1776. He but deals in specifications of
treasonable designs, common to every history of our Revolution, and to be
found in every life of George Washington. If he has ventured on the daring
task of committing fabrications of letters from General Smith to Colonel
----, he has perpetrated _supererogatory_ crime, for no sensible
purpose--for all that General Smith's letters told us, we knew before, as
notorious facts of history. For this reason, we do not believe he has
committed "forgery"--from the mere love of crime, or any other motive. If,
then, the sympathisers in the Royal cause, are so offended by these
letters, as to pour forth the phials of their wrath upon the editor of this
paper, it must be from some other motive than virtuous sensibility or
wounded patriotism. But this is not all. What was the character--what the
tendency of the letters of "Valley Forge" who has unquestionably committed
a deep injury, in maintaining his anonymous character, and failing to
redeem "his gage," thrown down with so much defiance to Mr. Spear
Smith--what, we say, was the tendency of his letters? It was laudable,
noble, exemplary. It was to vindicate Washington, and his co-patriots, from
all suspicion of being associated with General Joseph Reed, the secret
royalist--the wavering tory--all which he is known to be, on the authority
of Cadwalader, as well as Washington himself--from all suspicion of being
associated, we say, with Reed as _a friend_--a bosom, and confidental[TN]
friend. Their direct tendency is, to exalt the patriots of the Revolution,
and to depress those English spies in the American uniform, who correspond
in cypher, with the royal commissioners, and sought to sell the liberties
of their country, for a price, at the very crisis of her fate. And what
reply is made to "Valley Forge?" Do the parties criminated, defend their
ancestor? No.--Do they question the truth of history? No.--But they charge
"Valley Forge," with fabrication. Yet, if he be guilty, does it make Reed
innocent? No.--Then why not defend themselves?