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?

VALLEY FORGE.

October, 31st,

We give another communication to-day, from the writer of the articles under this signature. We are satisfied that Valley Forge is what he represents himself to be—that he is sincere, honest, and will, as soon as circumstances will permit, establish the authenticity of every document he has furnished for publication. We shall refrain from pushing our searches any further, for the purpose of discovering the person of Valley Forge, for the good reason that we are satisfied that we know him already. On comparing the note of the 14th inst., to us, written evidently by Valley Forge himself, but in a disguised hand, with a letter of a recent date, in the natural handwriting of the person who we believe assumes that name, there are innumerable evidences that most clearly establish his identity, satisfactorily to us.

A word to our enemies now. Let them go on and pour forth their malice, give full vent to their venom, and pile obloquy, mountain high; we regard it as the idle wind, that passeth by and harmeth not. We have long been accustomed to be traduced and slandered. For making the exposition of the mal-appropriation of the money of the Bank of the United States, by Mr. Biddle, the first that was ever made, we brought down on our head the whole weight of the power of that institution and its legions of friends and supporters. We were charged with having perjured ourselves in that matter. And what has become of that charge now? No one believes it. We have triumphed over all the allegations made against us in the matter, and thousands of individuals are left to weep now, because they did not believe, and act on our testimony at the time it was given.

So in the present case, we are charged with publishing forged letters, and even with forging them ourselves. But on what authority? Why, on the assertion of Mr. John Spear Smith, of Baltimore, made, we do not doubt, in all sincerity, but evidently hastily, and without giving a single reason for his coming to that conclusion.

We do not entertain a single apprehenson[TN] but that in this case, every thing will very soon come out right, and that we shall triumph over our enemies and their slanders, as we did in the affair of the Bank of the United States. Nous Verrons.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] Reed always said that this reply was the joint protection of Benj. Rush, Dr Wm. Smith and Gen. John Cadwalader.

[B] See Gov. Johnstone's speech in the House of Commons, March, 9th, 1779, to be found in the Philadelphia Library in a volume of the Pennsylvania Packet, February 20th, 1779, No. 384.

[C] Mrs. Ferguson's letter will be found in the same volume in the Numbers for February 20th, and March 9th.

[D] Here the following anecdote will afford an occasion of recriminating. When Mr. Reed was proposed as a Brigadier in the army, Mr. John Adams, now our minister in Holland, openly objected, in Congress, to his appointment, saying he was of a factious spirit, and had been notoriously instrumental in fomenting discords between the troops of the different States.

[E] When Mr. Ingersoll waited on me with General Reed's first letter, 9th of September last, I mentioned to him the situation of my family, and the necessity of my leaving the city. This has been candidly related by Mr. Ingersoll to Mr. Reed, as appears by the following extract from his letter, in answer to mine on the 17th of March, on this subject.

Extract from Mr. Ingersoll's letter, dated Philadelphia, 8th March, 1783.

"The conversation that passed, I reported with candour, and I believe with precision, but still supposed, that the reply from General Reed would be founded entirely upon your answer. Your declaration, with respect to your intention of leaving town, I think I can repeat in nearly the words in which you expressed yourself.

"After discoursing upon the subject of the letter I had put into your hands, you mentioned to me that your furniture was packed up to go to Maryland; that you had been waiting for rain to lay the dust, and that if anything was to come of this business, it must be speedily.

"I ENDEAVOUR to give the words used,—I certainly do not deviate from the purport of what was said."

This is not the least of the many misrepresentations in which Mr. Reed is convicted in the course of my reply.

[F] Being called upon by General Cadwalader to recollect the conversation we had at the Coffee-House, in the fall of the year seventy-eight, when he related what had passed between him and Mr. Reed at Bristol, I remember the subject corroborates with those queries I have since seen published in Mr. Oswald's paper, of the 7th of September, 1782. I likewise remember giving him a hint, that some of Mr. Reed's friends were present, on which he repeated what he had related before, and then addressed himself to the gentlemen, and informed them, if any of Mr. Reed's friends were present, they were at liberty to make what use they pleased of it.

THOMAS PRYOR.

Philadelphia, March 8, 1783.

[G] See Gen. Reed's Address to the Public, pages 24, 25.

[H] As a proof of my having made this declaration, and the occasion of it, I offer the following letter:

DEAR SIR:—I have, at your request, charged my recollection with what fell from you, in the hearing of myself and several others, at the trial of Mr. William Hamilton, on the subject of Mr. Reed, who assisted the prosecution; it was in terms to this effect; that it indicated the extremity of baseness in him, to attempt to destroy another for taking the very step he had once lifted his own foot to take. This, at the instant, made a deeper impression me, as having never till then, though living in the closest intimacy, heard you drop the most distant hint of any intended defection of Mr. Reed, of which I myself had no suspicion.

Your humble servant, GEORGE CLYMER. March 2d, 1783. General Cadwalader.

[I] If the countryman was sent, as he insinuated, for intelligence, and not for a protection for Mr. Reed and his friend, is it not very extraordinary, in a case of this nature, after the man had so narrowly escaped with his life, that no circumstance relating to so delicate an affair, (transacted in so private a manner) should ever have come to my knowledge, till I heard this testimony from Major Lennox?

I will venture to say that no officer of the army, at that critical period, would have risked his reputation, though he had afforded no cause to suspect his firmness, by instructing a spy to apply for a protection for him, with a view of gaining intelligence, without mentioning it to his commanding officer before the transaction. But in the instance before us, it is worthy notice, that in so critical a situation of public affairs, Mr. Reed, knowing how dangerous such a plea as the messenger had used might prove to his reputation, in the hands of the enemy, should not have endeavoured to obviate such a tale, by mentioning the circumstance to the commanding officer at Bristol, who might have vouched for his innocence, in case Donop should attempt to injure him afterwards.

[J] I have ample proofs of Mr. Ellis's attachment to the enemy, which may be produced, if necessary.

[K]

M'Kenney's Ferry, 25th December, 1776, 6 o'clock, P. M.

Dear Sir,—Notwithstanding the discouraging accounts I have received from Col. Reed, of what might be expected from the operations below, I am determined, as the night is favourable, to cross the river, and make the attack on Trenton in the morning. If you can do nothing real, at least create as great a diversion as possible.

I am, sir, your most obedient servant,

GEO. WASHINGTON.

[L] The following extracts from General Reed's letter to his Excellency the President and the Honorable the Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania, dated Philadelphia, 22d July, 1777, assigning his reasons for not accepting the office of Chief Justice, may serve to prove his opinions of the constitution at that time. "If there is any radical weakness of authority proceeding from the Constitution; if in any respects it opposes the genius, temper or habits of the governed, I fear, unless a remedy can be provided, in less than seven years, government will sink in a spiritless langour, or expire in a sudden CONVULSION. It would be foreign to my present purpose to suggest any of those alterations, which, in my apprehension are necessary to enable the constitution to support itself with dignity and efficiency, and its friends with security. That some are necessary I cannot entertain the least doubt. With this sentiment, I feel an insuperable difficulty to enter into an engagement of the most solemn nature, leading to the support and confirmation of an entire system of government, which I cannot wholly approve." Again, "the dispensation from this engagement,[M] first allowed to several members of the Assembly, and afterwards to the militia officers, has added to my difficulties, as I cannot reconcile it to my ideas of propriety, the members of the same state being under different obligations to support and enforce its authority." But he adds, "If the sense of the people who have the right of decision, leads to some alterations, I firmly believe it will conduce to our happiness and security; if otherwise, I shall esteem it my duty, not only to acquiesce, but to support as far as lays in my power, a form of government confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." Here, then, he says, "he feels an insuperable difficulty to enter into an engagement of the most solemn nature, leading to the support and confirmation of an entire system of government, which he cannot wholly approve; but he shall think it his duty to acquiesce, and support the government,—if confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." How inconsistent, then, must his conduct appear, when it is notorious, that he took a decided part in support of government, accepted of his seat in Council, and afterwards the Presidency, long before the sense of the people was expressd[TN] by the fabricated instructions to the members of Assembly, requiring them to rescind the resolution for calling a convention for the purpose of revising the constitution. And yet he says, in the 27th page of his pamphlet, he "so effectually vindicated every part of his conduct, that every gentleman present, (myself excepted,) acknowledged his mistake."

These were the ostensible reasons for not accepting the Chief Justiceship, and taking the oath of office; but an oath of another kind, no doubt, induced him to decline this appointment. He had not taken the oath of allegiance which the law, (passed the 13th June, 1777,) required of every male white inhabitant; nor did he take it, as appears by the publication signed Sidney, in the Pennsylvania Journal, No. 1565, 12th February, 1783,) till the 9th of October, 1778, which was the very day he was elected a Councillor for the County of Philadelphia. And though disfranchised of all the rights of citizenship, and incapable of being elected into, or serving in any office, place, or trust, in this commonwealth, Mr. Reed dared to disregard the voice of the people, and violate the law, by accepting the Presidency, and exercising the powers of government annexed to that office. If he had taken the oath of allegiance, agreeable to law, why did he take it again, on the day he was elected a councillor? as the mere oath of office only, upon that occasion, would have been required of him.

As Mr. Reed has not touched this point in his pamphlet, or furnished his friends with a single argument to defend him, against a charge supported by authentic proofs from public records, the public have very justly pronounced him guilty. If certificates can be produced of his oaths of abjuration and allegiance, agreeable to law, why have they not been published? If he is not defranchised[TN] of the rights of citizenship, why was his vote refused at the last election? or is this one of the subjects reserved for "legal examination?" and if so, why does he not suspend the public opinion by such information?

[M] By the "dispensation from this engagement," above mentioned, is meant, that the oath prescribed by the constitution was dispensed with, and many members of Assembly were permitted to take another oath, in which they were not bound to support the constitution.

[N] That this opinion was not entertained by Congress, may reasonably be inferred from the following letter:

"Philadelphia, 12th September, 1778.

"SIR,—His excellency, General Washington, having recommended to Congress the appointment of a General of horse, the House took that subject under consideration the 10th instant, when you were unanimously elected Brigadier and commander of the cavalry in the service of the United States.

"From the general view above mentioned, you will perceive, sir, the earnest desire of the house, that you will accept a commission, and enter as early as your convenience will admit of, upon the duties of the office; and I flatter myself with hopes of congratulating you in a few days upon this occasion.

"I have the honour to be, with particular regard and esteem, sir, your most humble servant,

HENRY LAURENS, "The Hon. Brigadier-General Cadwalader. "President of Congress,"

But not wishing to have it suggested, that I entered into the service at so late a period of the war for the sake of rank, as the French treaty had taken place, and I had conceived all offensive operations at an end, I declined the appointment in these terms.

Maryland, 19th September, 1778.

SIR,—I have the highest sense of the honour conferred upon me by Congress, in appointing me a Brigadier in the Continental service, with the command of the cavalry, more particularly as the voice of Congress was unanimous.

I cannot consent to enter into the service at this time, as the war appears to me to be near the close. But should any misfortune give an unhappy turn to our affairs, I shall immediately apply to Congress for a command in the army.

I have the honour to be, with the greatest regard and esteem, your excellency's most obedient humble servant,

JOHN CADWALADER. His Excellency Henry Laurens, Esq., President of Congress.

THE END