this 'insolence of office' you do impute to me, and the facts on which the imputation rests." I desire to say, in brief, that I meant no such imputation at all, and deny that my language can be fairly so interpreted. I simply meant to say that I did not hold you responsible for these things-this harshness and cruelty of subordinates-and in using the word "all" I intended it to convey no implication whatever of a part for which you were responsible. I trust I am incapable of needlessly and wantounly insulting the Chief Magistrate of the Confederate States, and have ever endeavored in making unpleasant statements to you to avoid discourtesy, while expressing myself with candor. If I have made a different impression in my last or any former letter I now assure you, once for all, that it has resulted from my misfortune in the employment of terms and not from any want of the respect due you personally or officially. You object seriously to that part of my letter which alleges that there seemed to have been a studied exclusion of all once termed anti-secessionists from office in this State, even from promotions in the amry, which many of them had puchased with their blood, and you deny the allegation, affirming that all your appointments in the army have been influenced by military considerations alone, and generally made upon ht erecomendations of the superior officers. As your denial of the allegation relates only to the army appointments, I presume that you admit its justice in regard to the civil appointments, and I need cite no cases of the latter character.
You will please observe that I only charge that there 'seemed" to have been a studied exclusion, &c. It is, of course, impossibvle for me to prove that any other than military considerations have governed your army appointments; but I desire to call your attention to the fact that out of some twenty-five or thirty generals apponted from North Carolina only three were anti-secessionists, two of whom-Gatlin and Baker-were old army officers, and the other was my brother-a civilian. Now, does it not seem strange, when it is remembered that two-thirds of the people of this State were opposed to secession until Lincoln's proclamation, that God should have endowed the remaining one-third with all the military talents; that "military considerations" should divest two-thirds of our citizens, however brave, patriotic, and intelligent, of the capacity to serve their country except in the ranks or as subordinate officers? Branch, Clingman, Scales, Ransom, and Gordon-all politicians-are promoted at once. What representative of the old Unionists was thought fit to receive similar favors? Colonel McRae, of the Fifth North Carolina Regiment, was the senior colonel of his brigade. On the first vacancy a junior officer from another State was put over him. He was a Douglas Democrat. Colonel Garrett, his successor, was an old Union Whig previous to the war; had fought for three years, and was covered with wounds. On the nest vacancy in the brigadiership Lieutenant-Colonel Johnston, a secessionist, was put over him. Colonel McElroy, of the Sixteenth North Carolina Troopts, who had fought his glorious regiment from 1,200 down to 150 men, and was himself distigured with wounds, and who was, I learn, recommended by General Pender for promotion, was superseded by Colonel Scales, a secessionist. I make no complaint against any of these gentlemen, but only wonder at the passing strangeness of this singular freak of nature in so partially and arbitrarily distributing the military capacity of the country. As to the allegation that the great bofy of the people of North Carolina have been 'suspected" by their Government, which you deny and invite me to specify wherein it is evident, I deem the facts just alluded to-the exlusion of the anti-secessionists from office,