(2 of 5)
Washington was 49 at Yorktown, his war career done.
Andrew Jackson at 48 won at New Orleans. Scott at 28 closed the Niagara campaign. These were the only creditable campaigns of the War of 1812.
In the Civil War, Sherman opened the Atlanta Campaign at 44. ... Stonewall Jackson was 39 when fatally wounded at Chancellorville. . . . Grant was almost 43 at Appomattox. Lee, his opponent, superb in defense and not so good in the offensive campaigns of Antietam and Gettysburg, was 56. ...
Sheridan, best Northern cavalryman, was 34 at the end of the war. Nathan B. Forrest, whom General Sherman called "that devil Forrest," and doubtless the best Southern cavalryman, was 44 in 1865. . . .
Leaders of World War I ? All too old. . . . R. D. JOHNSTONE San Francisco
Mistaken Identity
Sirs:
I enjoyed reading your write-up of the promotion of my friend Jay Cooke which appeared on page 94 of the Oct. 26 issue of TIME, but would suggest that you republish it with Jay's picture instead of mine as some of his friends might want to save it.
WILLIAM S. HOUGHTON Lieut. Colonel, Infantry Leesville, La.
>Herewith TIME gladly reproduces a true likeness of Jay Cooke Ill.—ED.
Slow But Sure
Sirs:
In this controversy between professionals and amateurs as to the wisdom of an immediate second front, doesn't anyone give thought to the fact that the entire British war machine was built after Dunkirk, and while the nation was fighting for its life ? If the Few-to-Whom-so-Many-owe-so-Much had waited for the supplies and reinforcements that they needed at that moment, Great Britain wouldn't be singing There'll Always Be an England today.
We parallel that situation in the Pacific. If our Few had sat down and waited for the tools and help they so desperately needed, who would be in control of our West Coast today ?
Democracies have always built as they fought. Is the modern pattern to adjust the last pleat before inviting the neighbors into the new house? . . .
MOLLIE MARSON
Hollywood
The Big Money
Sirs:
What do you mean "higher prices reduce the demand for goods?" (TIME, Nov. 2).
It didn't during and after the last war. Foolish women paid $80 for $10.95 dresses; $18.50 for $4.50 shoes; $100 rent for $30 apartments; $3.95 for $1.25 hose; $2.95 for 50¢ cosmetics. The younger generation don't believe us when we tell them we realize we were fools to do it. They jingle big money in their pockets and coin purses, and look around for something expensive to buy, something they never felt they could afford before. We thought the big money came our way just because we were smart. So now the younger generation are so much smarter than we were 25 years ago that we can't tell them anything.
M. M. OVERSTREET Sedalia, Mo.
>But higher prices still do reduce the demand for goods, if for no other reason than that a woman with $80 can buy only one $80 dress instead of seven $10.95 dresses.—ED.
Horrible Example
Sirs: