a component part of Lee’s character.* (* Lord Wolseley, Macmillan’s Magazine, March, 1887.) On assuming command of the Army of Northern Virginia, in spite of Mr. Davis’ protestations, he resigned the control of the whole forces of the Confederacy, and he submitted without complaint to interference.  Jackson’s action when Loring’s regiments were ordered back by the Secretary of War is sufficient proof that he would have brooked no meddling with his designs when once they had received the sanction of the Cabinet.  At the same time, it must remain undetermined whether Jackson was equal to the vast responsibilities which Lee bore with such steadfast courage; whether he could have administered a great army, under the most untoward circumstances, with the same success; whether he could have assuaged the jealousies of the different States, and have dealt so tactfully with both officers and men that there should have been no friction between Virginians and Georgians, Texans and Carolinians.

It is probable that Jackson’s temper was more akin to Grant’s than Lee’s.  Grant had the same whole-hearted regard for the cause; the same disregard for the individual.  He was just as ready as Jackson to place a recalcitrant subordinate, no matter how high his rank, under instant arrest, and towards the incompetent and unsuccessful he was just as pitiless.  Jackson, however, had the finer intellect.  The Federal Commander-in-Chief was unquestionably a great soldier, greater than those who overlook his difficulties in the ’64 campaign are disposed to admit.  As a strategist he ranks high.  But Grant was no master of stratagem.  There was no mystery about his operations.  His manoeuvres were strong and straightforward, but he had no skill in deceiving his adversary, and his tactics were not always of a high order.  It may be questioned whether on the field of battle his ability was equal to that of Sherman, or of Sherman’s great antagonist, Johnston.  Elsewhere he was their superior.  Both Sherman and Johnston were methodical rather than brilliant; patient, confident, and far-seeing as they were, strictly observant of the established principles of war, they were without a

touch of that aggressive genius which distinguished Lee, Grant, and Jackson.

Nevertheless, to put Jackson above Grant is to place him high on the list of illustrious captains.  Yet the claim is not extravagant.  If his military characteristics are compared with those of so great a soldier as Wellington, it will be seen that in many respects they run on parallel lines.  Both had perfect confidence in their own capacity.  “I can do,” said Jackson, “whatever I will to do; “while the Duke, when a young general in India, congratulated himself that he had learned not to be deterred by apparent impossibilities.  Both were patient, fighting on their own terms, or fighting not at all.  Both were prudent, and yet, when audacity was justified by the character of their opponent and the condition of his troops, they took