character when absent.
This is more than a ruling member of the Council of Pennsylvania can say."
Washington learned of this criticism in a letter from Lee to Reed, which
was opened at head-quarters on the supposition that it was on army
matters, and "with no idea of its being a private letter, much less the
tendency of the correspondence," as Washington explained in a letter to
Reed, which had not a word of reproach for the double-dealing that must
have cut the General keenly, coming as it did at a moment of misfortune
and discouragement. Reed wrote a lame explanation and apology, and later
sought to "regain" the "lost friendship" by an earnest appeal to
Washington's generosity. Nor did he appeal in vain, for the General
replied that though "I felt myself hurt by a certain letter ... I was
hurt ... because the same sentiments were not communicated immediately to
myself." The old-time intimacy was renewed, and how little his personal
feeling had influenced Washington is shown in the fact that even previous
to this peace-making he had secured for Reed the appointment to command
one of the choicest brigades in the army. Perhaps the friendship was never
quite as close, but in writing him Washington still signed himself "yours
affectionately."

John Laurens, appointed an aide in 1777, quickly endeared himself to
Washington, and conceived the most ardent affection for his chief. The
young officer of twenty-four used all his influence with his father (then
President of Congress) against the Cabal, and in 1778, when Charles Lee
was abusing the commander-in-chief, Laurens thought himself bound to
resent it, "as well on account of the relation he bore to General
Washington, as from motives of personal friendship and respect for his
character," and he challenged the defamer and put a bullet into him. To
his commander he signed himself "with the greatest veneration and
attachment your Excellency's Faithful Aid," and Washington in his letters
always addressed him as "my dear Laurens." After his death in battle,
Washington wrote, in reply to an inquiry,--

"You ask if the character of Colonel John Laurens, as drawn in the
_Independent Chronicle_ of 2d of December last, is just. I answer, that
such parts of the drawing as have fallen under my observation, is
literally so; and that it is my firm belief his merits and worth richly
entitle him to the whole picture. No man possessed more of the _amor
patriae_. In a word, he had not a