New Westminster B.C. 320-2^nd St., April 3, /14

 

My dear Mr Hopkins,

            My wife, whose eyes have now to do duty for both of us, has read me your book, which we have found most interesting. First, I am delighted by its candid, chivalrous, humane spirit. You have no love of war for its own sake, but regard it as a terrible necessity to which we are sometimes exposed. Having committed yourself to it, you fought it through, and at the same time recognize that your enemies were sincere and brave. Aside from its spirit, your narration is always graphic, and your pictures often very vivid. It is a good book for both sides to read. You were for a time a prisoner, and recount the treatment to which you were sometimes subjected. You condemn northern severities, in the Shenandoah Valley and elsewhere. I consider these in my volumes, and need not repeat here what you have / already read. Such things I feel are inevitable in a war fought to the finish, like ours, part of the horrors which must come until war shall be no more.

 

            As to new information, I feel especially indebted to you, (not to speak of my large general obligation), for your interpretation of part of the strategy of the Gettysburg campaign. I have never been able to understand why Lee, good general that he was, ordered, or suffered, the movement of the Cavalry eastward, through which he quite lost touch with Stuart and was without his help at the time when he needed it most, in the manoevering preliminary to the battle. Your explanation is quite new to me,—that Lee in stretching out his army in the long thin line which Lincoln urged Hooker to break, was setting a trap which he hoped Hooker would fall into. Relying upon that, he sent Stuart where he could serve as a rallying-point. Hooker might break Lee's line somewhere near the Potomac. Then A.P. Hill marching quickly from the southeastward, and Ewell and Longstreet from the northwestward, would find the cavalry before Wash- / ington, and a situation come about most promising for success. Hooker, however, resisted pressure and did not attack the long slim line, pursuing a course which made Stuart a factor in the campaign almost negligible, and contributed powerfully to the Confederate misfortune immediately after. I think I state your view correctly. To me it is a new one, and very interesting. If it is a correct interpretation it is certainly the best thing Hooker ever did and makes me think he may have been a better soldier than I have given him credit for being.

 

            I hope my book, "The Last Leaf", which I directed the Putnams to send you, has reached you.

 

            Thanking you warmly for the satisfaction your book has given me,

 

                  very truly,

                   James K. Horner

SOURCES