the cause of education and agriculture, to which he was ardently devoted to the close of his life. For more than twenty years he presided over the Agricultural Society of Fredericksburg, always assiduous in the discharge of his duty and never flagging, even when his fellow-laborers were in despair. His addresses were characterizd by a zealous devotion to the interests, morals, education, and the improvement in agriculture, not of the people of Virginia only, but of the whole Union. He was happy in his powers of conversation, cheerful amidst adversity and affliction, and died a sincere Christian."

Mr. Garnett was a man of imposing presence, tall and well proportioned, and of great dignity of carriage and manner, even approaching stiffness, but accompanied with great gentleness of disposition, shown especially in his fondness for children. He was a man of the most scrupulous honor and integrity, and his conduct. through life was ever ruled by the principles of the Christian religion.

The late Hon. B. Johnson Barbour who attended the boys school at Elmwood in 1829, being a schoolmate there of Muscoe R. H. Garnett, wrote in 1885 some reminiscences of his school days. He

says:

"Mr. Garnett's presence was very imposing, tall, well proportioned, with a fine eye, a full head of gray hair neatly brought together at the back in a queue, which was the more striking from the fact that that style of dressing the hair had nearly gone out of vogue." Mr. Barbour says of Mrs. Garnett: "I cannot forbear from paying a deserved tribute to Mrs. Garnett. I still cherish her memory with love and gratitude. During my whole stay at Elmwood she was indeed a mother to me, chiding me gently when in fault, encouraging me in every way to press forward, calling me to her chamber to read a portion of the scriptures, and afterwards whatever there might be of interest in the newspapers." He adds of Elmwood: "I need not attempt any description of Elmwood, I will only say that it has suggested some of the fine old English houses to me, and for years after I lived there, when I would be reading an English novel, Elmwood with its fine hall, its library and parlor, its corridors and general spaciousness, would rise up before me."

Mr. Barbour gives an interesting account of the school, and particularly pays a warm tribute to his friend and schoolmate, M. R. H. Garnett.

This sketch may fitly close with the following statement of the Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, Mr. Garnett's nephew, who wrote of him in 1884:

"I have a very distinct conception, not only of his character, but of the nature of the influence which he exerted upon society. I think I may say that his character was a matter of history in Virginia tradition, for no man was known or beloved by a wider or more important circle of friends in Virginia at the time of his death, than James M. Garnett, and none had a more distinct individuality of character in their opinion. Did any great question suddenly arise in American politics, no man of those who knew him, and he was known to many, doubted where he would be found, and the same may be said of questions of social progress or ethical importance.

"Mr. Garnett was a Virginia gentleman, a Christian philosopher, a cultivated scholar, owning a well selected library, which was unusually large for a private individual. He possessed keen powers of observation, exercised over a large circle of acquaintances, a rich turn for humor and rare powers of description and conversation. He knew how to amuse as well as to instruct, making himself agreeable to old and young.

"To the last day of a long life he retained these powers, and in my frequent visits to his home I never failed to derive pleasure and instruction from his conversation. It must be remembered that he was a close observer of all classes of society, for he mingled with them all. He was a lover of mankind."

I have thus endeavored, sir, very inadequately, to portray the moral and intellectual features of my revered ancestor, of whom I have no recollection save an indistinct memory of his personal appearance, and to pay even this small tribute to his memory. I hope that I have been able to bring his picture, even though but a partial one, before the sons of his neighbors and friends, by whom he was so highly esteemed and honored, and to adduce some reasons why his portrait should occupy the prominent position which you have assigned to it. I trust, sir, that others may be led by your example in forming this collection of portraits, to revere the Virginians of the olden time, than whom no nobler race of men has existed on this earth.

THE CONFEDERATE CAVALRY.

ITS WANTS, TRIALS, AND HEROISM.

An Address by Hon. John Lamb, Late Captain of Cavalry, C. S. Army.

[This graphic presentation has several times been delivered before. appreciative audiences of veterans, orally, and from the fullness of his heart, by our faithful representative in Congress of the first Virginia District. It is now printed, from the first "committal to paper in full," made at the request of the Editor.]

In order to form a proper estimate of the services rendered by the Confederate cavalry during the war between the States, we must consider the difficulties under which they labored. The Confederate government was unable to supply horses for all the men who volunteered in this service. The government entered into a contract with the soldier to take his horse at a fair valuation, and furnish food and keep him shod and pay a per diem of forty cents for his use. If the horse was killed, the owner received the muster valuation, but should the horse be captured or worn out in the service, the loss fell on the owner, and he was compelled to furnish another, or be transferred to some other arm of the service. The adoption of such a policy was a misfortune, and resulted in weakening this important branch of the service. The losses and hardships thus imposed on these patriotic men was keenly felt by them and their company officers. At first, all acquiesced cheerfully. Virginia was full of fine horses, and her gallant sons were ready to give up every species of property in aid of the government. But as the war progressed, at some periods half of the command were away at one time on horse details, as they were called; and many noble fellows were reported "absent without leave" because they were unable to purchase a horse and return to their commands within the time prescribed. To punish them would have been an act of injustice, so this led to relaxation of discipline and the cavalry became too much a volunteer association. The men who composed it, particularly during the first two years of the war, were well-to-do farmers and planters, more accustomed to commanding than obeying, and they chafed under military discipline. They criticised freely every officer from the General down, but when the

time came for actio they rode bravely into the thickest of the fight. At the reorganization of the army, in front of General McClellan's position at Yorktown, many officers whose ideas of military discipline were far in advance of the views held by their volunteer soldiers, and more in line with the regular army, were left out, and "more sociable and better fellows" put in their places. In some instances this was unfortunate, and in others it was for the best. About this time the cavalry went through a weeding process. Many doctors were promoted to surgeons in the army, men of influence secured other positions, the commissary and quartermaster department had to be supplied with competent clerks, elderly men found it convenient to go home to raise supplies for the army, a few were taken sick and sent off on furloughs, which were renewed continually until a final discharge came. The gap thus made was quickly filled by recruits, often boys from sixteen to twenty years of age, who made splendid soldiers after a few months' experience. Some companies were recuperated by transfers from the infantry, who were influenced at first, no doubt, by the desire for an easier service, and the comforts of horseback, but in this they were sorely disappointed, for, through two years of the hardest warfare ever experienced by men, they had to fight as infantry all day, and then provide, as best they could, food for their horses at night, and then, early the next morning, feed and curry their horses and repeat the exercises of the previous day. Many of these men were poor, some of them very poor, and it was always a mystery how they kept mounted. Many a gallant fellow, whose horse had been wounded or worn out in the service for these he could get no pay-impoverished himself and denied his family that he might stay with his command and not be transferred to other arms of the service, or enrolled in "Company Q." Many brave men whose horses were in the recruiting camps were forced to remain in the dismounted camp. A history of the cavalry would be incomplete without an appendix telling of the trials and mortifications and encounters of "Company Q." Never having marched or fought with this command, I am unable to do the subject justice, but there are men living who can tell us of their perilous foraging expeditions as well as their heroic defense of our wagon trains.

These drawbacks, and others which might be mentioned, greatly reduced the fighting numbers of this service. Thus, at Kelly's Ford, March 17th, 1863, Fitz Lee's brigade only mustered eight hundred men when it should never have been less than twenty-four

hundred. Even at Chancellorsville, when a large number had returned from horse details, they only numbered fifteen hundred.

Then the lack of arms and equipments placed the cavalry at great disadvantage. These men had to furnish their own saddles and bridles at the beginning of the war. The English roundtree saddle, pleasant and useful at home, soon made soreback horses, and the horrors and discomforts of a soreback horse cannot be described here. After a while the government provided a saddle that helped the soreback horse very much, but many an old cavalryman remembers to this day how sore he was made by these saddles. Had the Federals been compelled to use such, the pension rolls would be much larger to-day, from "injuries received in the service." The question of arms was even more serious. At first many companies were armed with shot guns, and some counties had supplied their volunteer companies with good pistols, but many regiments were without these, even. Some North Carolina regiments were armed with Enfield rifles. An old Confederate carbine or sabre, such as were first issued to the cavalry, would be a curiosity now. They were soon thrown away, for our men "borrowed" their arms and equipments from the Federal troopers. They began this exercise early in the war, and pursued it industriously until nearly every company was well supplied. Along in 1864, Sheridan's people protested against this business, and it became more difficult to pursue it with success. But the work had been accomplished, and on many well fought fields these Southern men from South Carolina and North Carolina and Virginia, met the brave mounted infantry of Sheridan's command with arms and ammunition and saddles and bridles, and often horses, that were rich trophies of battle.

The student of history to-day is astonished to find so little bearing on the numerous splendid fights participated in by the cavalry of the Army of Northern Virginia, and the observation applies with equal force to the operations of the commands under Forrest and Morgan and Wheeler further South. With the exception of McClellan's Life of Stuart and the Campaigns of General Forrest, by Jordan and Pryor, you will find nothing of importance in the Congressional Library at Washington, and the records of the War Department are meagre from the fact that no reports were made by the regimental and brigade commanders of many engagements, while the minor conflicts of almost every-day occurrence-were only subjects for discussion around the camp-fires, and furnished material for letters to the soldier's family and friends. How many readers of