He thanks McMaster for a letter. He did not think that anything hostile to him had appeared in the Journal. What he meant was that the notice of "Jackson" was critical and discriminating, as he wished it to be, and not a more "puff". He points out that his knowledge of military science is limited, but the aim was to draw a portrait of Jackson. He appreciates McMaster's notice of the moderate tone of the book, and says he has little sympathy for writers of the North and South who reproduce the violence engendered by the late war. He feels that these violent swordsmen with the goose-quill were not as active with the "carnal weapon". He himself served from an honest sense of duty and from principle, but is not disposed to accept the issue as the fair result of a fair fight. It is lawful to narrate the events of the war, but not to stir up strife when the war is done. He thanks McMaster again for his obliging terms in remarking on his biography of Jackson. :: I-1-n A.L.S. 4pp. 12mo.