His intention to write the history of his Virginia campaigns--Called
before a committee of Congress--Preaches patience and silence in the
South--Shuns controversy and publicity--Corresponds with an Englishman,
Herbert C. Saunders
My father had a strong desire at this time to write a history of his
campaigns. I think, however, he gradually gave it up when he saw the
great difficulties to be overcome and the labour required to produce
anything worthy of the subject, especially as he began to realise that
his strength was slowly failing--a fact which his letters indicate. Just
after the cessation of hostilities, he had taken some preliminary steps
toward acquiring the necessary material. In a circular letter which he
sent out to a great many of his general officers, he wrote:
“I am desirous that the bravery and devotion of the Army of Northern
Virginia be correctly transmitted to posterity. This is the only tribute
that can now be paid to the worth of its noble officers and soldiers,
and I am anxious to collect the necessary information for the history
of its campaigns, including the operations in the Valley and in Western
Virginia, from its organisation to its final surrender....”
In a letter to the Honourable W. B. Reid, of Philadelphia, he writes on
the same subject:
“...I concur with you entirely as to the importance of a true history of
the war, and it is my purpose, unless prevented, to write the history of
the campaigns in Virginia. With this view, I have been engaged since
the cessation of hostilities in endeavouring to procure the necessary
official information. All my records, reports, returns, etc., etc., with
the headquarters of the army, were needlessly destroyed by the clerks
having them in charge on the retreat from Petersburg, and such as had
been forwarded to the War Department in Richmond were either destroyed
in the conflagration or captured at the South in the attempt to save
them. I desire to obtain some vouchers in support of my memory, or I
should otherwise have made some progress in the narrative, they have
not even my letter or order-books to which to refer. I have thought
it possible that some of my official correspondence, which would be of
value to me, might be found among the captured records in Washington,
and that General Grant, who possesses magnanimity as well as ability,
might cause me to be furnished with copies. I have, however, hesitated
to approach him on the subject, as it is one in which he would naturally
feel no interest.”
In a letter to General Early, written in November, 1865, on the same
subject, he says:
“...I desire, if not prevented, to write a history of the campaigns in
Virginia.... Your reports of your operations in ‘64 and ‘65 were among
those destroyed. Can not you repeat them, and send me copies of such
letters, orders, etc., of mine (including that last letter, to which
you refer), and particularly give me your recollections of our effective
strength at the principal battles? My only object is to transmit, if
possible, the truth to posterity, and do justice to our brave soldiers.”
Here is another letter to General Early, written March 16th, containing
references to the same subject, and to two letters of General Early
which had been published in the papers. It is interesting, also, as
showing his moderation in speaking of those who had misrepresented his
words and acts:
“My Dear General: I am very much obliged to you for the copies of my
letters, forwarded with yours of January 25th. I hope you will be able
to send me reports of the operations of your commands in the campaign,
from the Wilderness to Richmond, at Lynchburg, in the Valley, Maryland,
etc.; all statistics as regards numbers, destruction of private property
by the Federal troops, etc., I should like to have, as I wish my memory
strengthened on these points. It will be difficult to get the world to
understand the odds against which we fought, and the destruction or loss
of all returns of the army embarrass me very much. I read your letter
from Havana to the New York Times, and was pleased with the temper in
which it was written. I have since received the paper containing it,
published in the City of Mexico, and also your letter in reference to
Mr. Davis. I understand and appreciate the motives which prompted both
letters, and think they will be of service in the way you intended. I
have been much pained to see the attempts made to cast odium upon Mr.
Davis, but do not think they will be successful with the reflecting or
informed portion of the country. The accusations against myself I have
not thought proper to notice, or even to correct misrepresentations of
my words or acts. WE SHALL HAVE TO BE PATIENT and suffer for awhile at
least; and all controversy, I think, will only serve to prolong angry
and bitter feeling, and postpone the period when reason and charity
may resume their sway. At present, the public mind is not prepared
to receive the truth. The feelings which influenced you to leave the
country were natural, and, I presume, were uppermost in the breasts of
many. It was a matter which each one had to decide for himself, as
he only could know the reasons which governed him. I was particularly
anxious on your account, as I had the same apprehensions to which you
refer. I am truly glad that you are beyond the reach of annoyance, and
hope you may be able to employ yourself profitably and usefully. Mexico
is a beautiful country, fertile, of vast resources; and, with a stable
government and virtuous population, will rise to greatness. I do not
think that your letters can be construed by your former associates as
reflecting upon them, and I have never heard the least blame cast by
those who have remained upon those who thought it best to leave the
country. I think I stated in a former letter the reasons which governed
me, and will not therefore repeat them. I hope, in time, peace will be
restored to the country, and that the South may enjoy some measure of
prosperity. I fear, however, much suffering is still in store for
her, and that her people must be prepared to exercise fortitude and
forbearance. I must beg you to present my kind regards to the gentlemen
with you, and, with my best wishes for yourself and undiminished esteem,
I am,
“Most truly yours,
“R. E. Lee.”
That his purpose had been heard of in the outside world is evident from
this reply to a publisher in Cincinnati:
“Near Cartersville, Virginia, August 26, 1865.
“Mr. Joseph Topham, Cincinnati, Ohio.
“My Dear Sir: I have just received your letter of the 17th inst.,
in reference to a history of the late war to be written by myself.
I cannot, at present, undertake such a work, but am endeavouring
to collect certain material to enable me to write a history of the
campaigns in Virginia. Its completion is uncertain, and dependent upon
so many contingencies that I think it useless to speak of arrangements
for its publication at present. Thanking you for your kind proposition,
I am,
“Very respectfully yours,
“R. E. Lee.”
There were a great many letters of this kind from Northern publishing
houses, and his replies were all of the same character. His failure to
carry out this much cherished wish is greatly to be deplored. How much
we and our children have missed, those who know his truth and honesty of
purpose, his manliness, simplicity, and charity, can best tell.
During the last days of February he was summoned to Washington to appear
before a committee of Congress which was inquiring into the conditions
of things in the Southern States, with a view to passing some of the
so-called reconstruction measures. His testimony was simple, direct, and
dignified, and is well worth reading by all who wish to hear the plain
truth. It was his first appearance in any city save Richmond since the
war, and being at a time of such political excitement, his visit was an
occasion of absorbing interest to the crowds then in the capital.
When in Washington, Armanda, one of the house-servants at Arlington,
called on him but failed to see him. In answer to a letter from her, my
father replies as follows:
“Lexington, Virginia, March 9, 1866.
“Amanda Parks.
“Amanda: I have received your letter of the 27th ult., and regret
very much that I did not see you when I was in Washington. I heard on
returning to my room, Sunday night, that you had been to see me; and I
was sorry to have missed you, for I wished to learn how you were, and
how all the people from Arlington were getting on in the world. My
interest in them is as great now as it ever was, and I sincerely wish
for their happiness and prosperity. At the period specified in Mr.
Custis’s will--five years from the time of his death--I caused the
liberation of all the people at Arlington, as well as those at the White
House and Romancoke, to be recorded in the Hustings Court at Richmond;
and letters of manumission to be given to those with whom I could
communicate who desired them. In consequence of the war which then
existed, I could do nothing more for them. I do not know why you should
ask if I am angry with you. I am not aware of your having done anything
to give me offense, and I hope you would not say or do what was wrong.
While you lived at Arlington you behaved very well, and were attentive
and faithful to your duties. I hope you will always conduct yourself in
the same manner. Wishing you health, happiness, and success in life, I
am truly,
“R. E. Lee.”
Shortly after his return to Lexington, he writes to Mrs. Jefferson
Davis. In this letter he expresses such noble sentiments, and is so
moderate and sensible in his views of those who were harassing him and
the South, that all who read it must profit thereby:
“Lexington, Virginia, February 23, 1866.
“My Dear Mrs. Davis: Your letter of the 12th inst. reached Lexington
during my absence at Washington. I have never seen Mr. Colfax’s speech,
and am, therefore, ignorant of the statements it contained. Had it,
however, come under my notice, I doubt whether I should have thought it
proper to reply. I HAVE THOUGHT, FROM THE TIME OF THE CESSATION OF THE
HOSTILITIES, THAT SILENCE AND PATIENCE ON THE PART OF THE SOUTH WAS THE
TRUE COURSE; and I think so still. CONTROVERSY OF ALL KINDS will, in my
opinion, only serve to continue excitement and passion, and will prevent
the public mind from the acknowledgement and acceptance of the truth.
These considerations have kept me from replying to accusations made
against myself, and induced me to recommend the same to others. As
regards the treatment of the Andersonville prisoners, to which you
allude, I know nothing and can say nothing of my own knowledge. I never
had anything to do with any prisoners, except to send those taken on the
fields, where I was engaged, to the Provost Marshal General at Richmond.
I have felt most keenly the sufferings and imprisonment of your husband,
and have earnestly consulted with friends as to any possible mode of
affording him relief and consolation. He enjoys the sympathy and respect
of all good men; and if, as you state, his trial is now near, the
exhibition of the while truth in his case will, I trust, prove his
defense and justification. With sincere prayers for his health and
speedy restoration to liberty, and earnest supplications to God that
He may take you and yours under His guidance and protection, I am, with
great respect,
“Your obedient servant,
“R. E. Lee.”
In further illustration of these views, held so strongly by him and
practised so faithfully throughout his life, the following, written to a
gentleman in Baltimore, is given:
“Lexington, Virginia, April 13, 1866.
“My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 5th inst., inclosing a slip from the
Baltimore “American,” has been received. The same statement has been
published at the North for several years. The statement is not true; but
I have not thought proper to publish a contradiction, being unwilling to
be drawn into a newspaper discussion, believing that those who know me
would not credit it and those who do not would care nothing about it. I
cannot now depart from the rule I have followed. It is so easy to make
accusations against the people at the South upon similar testimony,
that those so disposed, should one be refuted, will immediately create
another; and thus you would be led into endless controversy. I think
it better to leave their correction to the return of reason and good
feeling.
“Thanking you for your interest in my behalf, and begging you to
consider my letter as intended only for yourself, I am,
“Most respectfully your obedient servant,
“R. E. Lee.”
In this connection I give the following letter thanking Mr. Burr for a
copy of the “Old Guard” which he had sent him, and showing also what,
in his opinion, the South had fought for, and of what true republicanism
consists:
“Lexington, Virginia, January 5, 1866.
“Mr. C. Chauncey Burr.
“My Dear Sir: I am very much obliged to you for your letter of the 27th
ult., and for the number of the ‘Old Guard’ which you kindly sent me. I
am glad to know that the intelligent and respectable people at the North
are true and conservative in their opinions, for I believe by no other
course can the right interests of the country be maintained. All that
the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our
forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government as originally
organised should be administered in purity and truth. If such is
the desire of the North, there can be no contention between the two
sections, and all true patriots will unite in advocating that policy
which will soonest restore the country to tranquility and order, and
serve to perpetuate true republicanism. Please accept my thanks for your
advocacy of right and liberty and the kind sentiments which you express
toward myself, and believe me to be, with great respect,
“Your obedient servant,
“R. E. Lee.”
An interesting view of my father’s desire to keep himself from public
attention is shown by his correspondence with an English gentleman,
Mr. Herbert C. Saunders. The connected interview states his opinions on
several points which are valuable. The copy of these papers was kindly
furnished me by Mr. John Lyle Campbell, the Proctor of Washington and
Lee University:
“Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, January 19, 1900.
“Capt. Robert E. Lee, West Point, Virginia.
“Dear Capt. Lee: I inclose the copy promised you of the papers found in
General Lee’s desk. The paper seems to have had his careful revision, as
there are a good many passages stricken out and a good many insertions
in what seems to me undoubtedly to be his handwriting; and I was
very much interested in the changes that he made, as they were most
characteristic of him--toning everything down, striking out adjectives,
turning phrases from a personal to a general character, and always
adding simplicity and force to the original. It seems to me most likely
that he was a first disposed to allow the publication, but declined at
last, on August 22d, the full limit of time indicated in Mr. Saunders’s
letter. I am Yours truly,
“(Dict.) Jno. L. Campbell.”
The papers of which the following are copies were found in General
Robert E. Lee’s desk in the President’s office at Washington and
Lee University. On the envelope in which they were inclosed was the
following indorsement in General Lee’s handwriting:
“London, July 31, 1866.
“Herbert C. Sanders asks permission to publish his conversation with me.
August 22d--Refused.”
“3 Bolton Gardens, South Kensington, London, July 31, 1866.
“My Dear General Lee: Presuming on the acquaintance with you which I
had the honour and pleasure of making last November at Lexington,
while travelling in Virginia, I venture now to write to you under these
circumstances. You may remember that, at the time I presented to you my
letter of introduction, I told you that two other Englishmen, friends of
mine, who had come with me to America, were then making a tour through
Georgia, the Carolinas, and some other Southern States. One of them, Mr.
Kennaway, was so much interested with all he saw, and the people at
home have appreciated his letters descriptive of it so well, that he is
intending to publish a short account of his visit. Not having, however,
had an introduction to yourself, he is anxious to avail himself of the
somewhat full accounts I wrote home at the time, descriptive of my most
interesting interview with you, and, with this view, he has asked me
to put into the shape of a letter all those more prominent points which
occur to me as gathered from my letters and my recollection, and which
are likely to interest and instruct the English public. I have, after
some hesitation, acceded to the request--a hesitation caused mainly by
the fact that at the time I saw you I neither prepared my notes with a
view to publication nor did I inform you that there was any chance of
what you told me being repeated. I may add that I never until a month or
two ago had the slightest thought of publishing anything, and, in fact,
have constantly resisted the many applications by my friends that I
should let my letters see the light. My object in now writing to you
is to know whether you have any objection to my giving my friend the
inclosed short account of our interview, as it would, I am convinced,
add greatly to the interest of the narrative. If you have no objection
to this, perhaps you would kindly correct any statements put into your
mouth which are not quite accurate, or expunge anything which might
prejudice you with the public either of the North or the South, if
unluckily anything of this nature should have crept in. My letters,
were written a day or two after the conversation, but you had so much of
interest and new to tell me that I do not feel sure that I may not have
confused names of battles, etc., in some instances. It will be necessary
for me to deliver my part of the performance early in September to the
publishers, and, therefore, I should feel much obliged by your sending
me an answer at your earliest convenience. There will be a mail due here
about the first of that month, leaving the United States on Wednesday,
the 22d, and I shall, therefore, wait till its arrival before sending
my letter to Mr. Kennaway; but should I not hear from you then I shall
consider you have no objections to make or alterations to suggest, and
act accordingly. If you have any new facts which you think it desirable
should be known by the public, it will give me much pleasure to be the
medium of their communication.
“I am sure I need scarcely tell you with what keen interest I have read
all the accounts from your continent of the proceedings in Congress
and elsewhere in connection with the reconstruction of the South. I do
sincerely trust it may be eventually effected in a way satisfactory to
the South, and I most deeply deplore the steps taken by the Radical
side of the House to set the two (North and South) by the ears again.
President Johnson’s policy seems to me to be that which, if pursued,
would be most likely to contribute to the consolidation of the country;
but I am both surprised and pained to find how little power the
Executive has against so strong a faction as the Radicals, who, while
they claim to represent the North, do, in fact, but misrepresent the
country. I am sure you will believe that I say with sincerity that I
always take great interest in anything I hears said or that I read of
yourself, and I am happy to say that, even with all the rancour of the
Northern Radicals against the South, it is little they find of ill to
say of you.
“Hoping you will not think I am doing wrong in the course I propose
to take, and that your answer may be satisfactory, I remain, my dear
General Lee,
“Yours very sincerely, Herbert C. Saunders.
“General Robert E. Lee.”
“Lexington, Virginia, August 22, 1866.
“Mr. Herbert C. Saunders,
“3 Bolton Gardens, South Kensington, London, England.
“My Dear Mr. Saunders: I received to-day your letter of the 31st ult.
What I stated to you in conversation, during the visit which you did
me the honour to pay me in November last, was entirely for your own
information, and was in no way intended for publication. My only object
was to gratify the interest which you apparently evinced on the several
topics which were introduced, and to point to facts which you might
investigate, if you so desired, in your own way. I have an objection to
the publication of my private conversations, which are never intended
but for those to whom they are addressed. I cannot, therefore, without
an entire disregard of the rule which I have followed in other cases,
and in violation of my own sense of propriety, assent to what you
propose. I hope, therefore, you will excuse me. What you may think
proper to publish I hope will be the result of your own observations and
convictions, and not on my authority. In the hasty perusal which I have
been obliged to give the manuscript inclosed to me, I perceive many
inaccuracies, resulting as much, from my imperfect narrative as from
misapprehension on your part. Though fully appreciating your kind wish
to correct certain erroneous statements as regards myself, I prefer
remaining silent to doing anything that might excite angry discussion at
this time, when strong efforts are being made by conservative men, North
and South, to sustain President Johnson in his policy, which, I think,
offers the only means of healing the lamentable divisions of the
country, and which the result of the late convention at Philadelphia
gives great promise of doing. Thanking you for the opportunity afforded
me of expressing my opinion before executing your purpose, I am, etc.,
“R. E. Lee.”
The following is Mr. Saunders’ account of the interview:
“On only one subject would he take at any length about his own conduct,
and that was with reference to the treatment of the Federal prisoners
who had fallen into his hands. He seemed to feel deeply the backhanded
stigma cast upon him by his having been included by name in the first
indictment framed against Wirz, though he was afterward omitted from
the new charges. He explained to me the circumstances under which he had
arranged with McClellan for the exchange of prisoners; how he had, after
the battles of Manassas, Fredericksburg, and (I think) Chancellorsville,
sent all the wounded over to the enemy on the engagement of their
generals to parole them. He also told me that on several occasions his
commissary generals had come to him after a battle and represented
that he had not rations enough both for prisoners and the army when the
former had to be sent several days’ march to their place of confinement,
and he had always given orders that the wants of the prisoners should be
first attended to, as from their position they could not save themselves
from starvation by foraging or otherwise, as the army could when in
straits for provisions. The General also explained how every effort had
always been made by the Confederates to do away with the necessity of
retaining prisoners by offering every facility for exchange, till at
last, when all exchange was refused, they found themselves with 30,000
prisoners for whom they were quite unable to do as much as they wished
in the way of food. He stated, furthermore, that many of their hardships
arose from the necessity of constantly changing the prisons to prevent
recapture. With the management of the prisons he assured me he had no
more to do than I had, and did not even know that Wirz was in charge of
Andersonville prison (at least, I think he asserted this) till after the
war was over. I could quite sympathise with him in his feeling of pain
under which his generous nature evidently suffered that the
authorities at Washington should have included him and others similarly
circumstanced in this charge of cruelty at the time that letters written
by himself (General Lee), taken in Richmond when captured, complaining
that the troops in his army had actually been for days together on
several occasions without an ounce of meat, were in possession of the
military authorities.
“When discussing the state of feeling in England with regard to the war,
he assured me that it had all along given him the greatest pleasure to
feel that the Southern cause had the sympathies of so many in the ‘old
country,’ to which he looked as a second home; but, in answer to
my questions, he replied that he had never expected us to give them
material aid, and added that he thought all governments were right in
studying only the interests of their own people and in not going to war
for an ‘idea’ when they had no distinct cause of quarrel.
“On the subject of slavery, he assured me that he had always been in
favour of the emancipation of the negroes, and that in Virginia the
feeling had been strongly inclining in the same direction, till the
ill-judged enthusiasm (accounting to rancour) of the abolitionists
in the North had turned the southern tide of feeling in the other
direction. In Virginia, about thirty years ago, an ordinance for the
emancipation of the slaves had been rejected by only a small majority,
and every one fully expected at the next convention it would have been
carried, but for the above cause. He went on to say that there was
scarcely a Virginian new who was not glad that the subject had been
definitely settled, though nearly all regretted that they had not been
wise enough to do it themselves the first year of the war. Allusion was
made by him to a conversation he had with a distinguished countryman of
mine. He had been visiting a large slave plantation (Shirley) on the
James River. The Englishman had told him that the working population
were better cared for there than in any country he had ever visited, but
that he must never expect an approval of the institution of slavery
by England, or aid from her in any cause in which that question was
involved. Taking these facts and the well-known antipathy of the mass
of the English to the institution in consideration, he said he had never
expected help from England. The people ‘at the South’ (as the expression
is), in the main, though scarcely unanimously, seem to hold much the
same language as General Lee with reference to our neutrality, and to be
much less bitter than Northerners generally--who, I must confess, in my
own opinion, have much less cause to complain of our interpretation of
the laws of neutrality than the South. I may mention here, by way of
parenthesis, that I was, on two separate occasions (one in Washington
and once in Lexington), told that there were many people in the country
who wished that General Washington had never lived and that they were
still subjects of Queen Victoria; but I should certainly say as a rule
the Americans are much too well satisfied with themselves for this
feeling to be at all common. General Lee, in the course of this to me
most interesting evening’s seance, gave me many details of the war too
long to put on paper, but, with reference to the small result of their
numerous victories, accounted for it in this way: the force which the
Confederates brought to bear was so often inferior in numbers to that
of the Yankees that the more they followed up the victory against one
portion of the enemy’s line the more did they lay themselves open to
being surrounded by the remainder of the enemy. He likened the operation
to a man breasting a wave of the sea, who, as rapidly as he clears a way
before him, is enveloped by the very water he has displaced. He spoke of
the final surrender as inevitable owing to the superiority in numbers
of the enemy. His own army had, during the last few weeks, suffered
materially from defection in its ranks, and, discouraged by failures and
worn out by hardships, had at the time of the surrender only 7,892
men under arms, and this little army was almost surrounded by one of
100,000. They might, the General said with an air piteous to behold,
have cut their way out as they had done before, but, looking upon
the struggle as hopeless, I was not surprised to hear him say that
he thought it cruel to prolong it. In two other battles he named
(Sharpsburg and Chancellorsville, I think he said), the Confederates
were to the Federals in point of numbers as 35,000 to 120,000 and 45,000
to 155,000 respectively, so that the mere disparity of numbers was not
sufficient to convince him of the necessity of surrender; but feeling
that his own army was persuaded of the ultimate hopelessness of
the contest as evidenced by their defection, he took the course of
surrendering his army in lieu of reserving it for utter annihilation.
“Turning to the political bearing of the important question at issue,
the great Southern general gave me, at some length, his feelings with
regard to the abstract right of secession. This right, he told me, was
held as a constitutional maxim at the South. As to its exercise at the
time on the part of the South, he was distinctly opposed, and it was not
until Lincoln issued a proclamation for 75,000 men to invade the South,
which was deemed clearly unconstitutional, that Virginia withdrew from
the United States.
“We discussed a variety of other topics, and, at eleven o’clock when I
rose to go, he begged me to stay on, as he found the nights full long.
His son, General Custis Lee, who had distinguished himself much during
the war, but whom I had not the good fortune of meeting, is the only one
of his family at present with him at Lexington, where he occupies the
position of a professor in the Military Institute of Virginia. This
college had 250 cadets in it when the war broke out, General ‘Stonewall’
Jackson being one of the professors. At one moment in the war, when the
Federal were advancing steadily up the Shenandoah Valley, these youths
(from 16 to 22 years of age) were marched to join the Confederate Army,
and did good service. In one battle at Newmarket, of which I shall have
occasion to speak later in my letters, they distinguished themselves in
a conspicuous way under the leadership of Colonel Shipp, who is still
their commandant. By a brilliant charge, they contributed, in a great
measure, to turn the tide of affairs, losing nine of their number killed
and more than forty wounded. General Hunter, on a subsequent occasion,
when occupying Lexington with a body of Federal troops, quartered his
men in the Military Institute for several days, and, on leaving, had the
building--a very handsome and extensive one--fired in numerous places,
completely destroying all but the external walls, which now stand. The
professors’ houses stood in detached positions, and these, too, with the
house of Mr. Letcher, a former governor of the State, he also burnt to
the ground. The Washington college, the presidency of which General Lee
now holds, they also ransacked, destroying everything it contained, and
were preparing it for the flames, to which they were with difficulty
restrained from devoting it by earnest representations of its strictly
educational nature.”