ght one-quarter its number of Lee's troops. I prefer my faith in
the stanch, patient army, in its noble rank and file, in its gallant
officers, from company to corps; and I refuse to accept Hooker's insult
to his subordinates as any explanation for allowing the Army of the
Potomac to "be here defeated without ever being fought."

The Army of the Potomac was better than its commanders from first to
last. It was, beyond speaking, superior to its commander during the
fighting days at Chancellorsville. As a corps commander, Joseph
Hooker will always be a type and household word. In logistics, even as
commander of the Army of the Potomac, he deserves high praise. But when
it comes to fighting the army at Chancellorsville, let whoso will keep
his loyalty to Hooker, without protest from me. I claim for myself and
the bulk of my comrades the right, equally without protest, sneers, or
resolutions, to express my loyalty to the rank and file, my loyalty
to the officers, and my loyalty to the army as a whole. And I claim,
moreover, the right, without protest, sneers, or resolutions, to show
that on this field it was the general commanding, and not the army,
whose lapses caused defeat. Not that I object to these Fast-Day
resolutions. I believe that I can still struggle onward in life, even
under the contempt of their authors. But partisanship in matters of
history is a boomerang which always flies back to whack its thrower. And
Fast Day's performance was baldly partisan.

I am satisfied to abide the verdict of all soldiers, of all citizens,
who ever studied the facts of this campaign. What ever the action of any
meeting of old soldiers may be under partial knowledge of facts,
under the influence of heated or sectional discussion, or under the
whipping-in of a member of Hooker's staff, I do not believe that with
the issue squarely put before them, and the facts plainly stated, any
but a very inconsiderable fraction, and that not the most intelligent
one, of the men of the Army of the Potomac, will give their suffrage
to what has been suddenly discovered to be loyalty due to Gen. Joseph
Hooker, as against loyalty to the Army of the Potomac.

The recent course of lectures at the Lowell Institute was intended to
be a purely military one. There was no intention of bringing politics
or sectional pride into the discussion, and it was thought that the
lectures could to-day be delivered without rousing a breath of ancient
animosity. If the