In the course of the examination General Lee expressed the opinion that
the "trouble was brought about by the politicians of the country."
General Lee disclaimed all responsibility for the care and treatment of
prisoners of war. He had always favored a free exchange of prisoners,
knowing that the proper means for the care and comfort of prisoners
could not be furnished in the Confederacy. He thought that the
hardships and neglects had been exaggerated. As to himself, he had
never had any control over prisoners, except as they were captured on
the field of battle. He sent his prisoners to Richmond where they came
under the command of the provost-marshal-general. His orders to
surgeons on the field were to treat all the wounded alike.
In the examinations that were made by the committee I read a large
number of reports of surgeons connected with the prisons and hospitals
and I may say that in all cases they exhibited humanity and in many
cases specific means of relief for the sufferings of the soldiers were
recommended. Their reports were forwarded from officer to officer, but
in a large majority of cases the reports were neglected.
In a letter written by General Lee to his sister a few days before he
abandoned the service of the United States, he expressed the opinion
that there was no sufficient cause for the rebellion. This opinion, in
connection with his opinion that the rebellion was the work of
politicians demonstrates the power which the doctrine of State Rights
had obtained over a man of experience and of admitted ability. Upon
his own admission, he subordinated his conduct to the action of his
State, and in disregard of his personal obligation through his oath of
office. If he had followed his own judgment as to what was wise and
proper he would have remained in his place as an officer in the army of
the United States.
If in 1861 an officer of the army had entertained the opinion that the
North was in the wrong and that the South was in the right, it could be
claimed, fairly, that that officer might forswear his obligations to
the old Government and accept service in the Confederacy.
Moral obliquity is not to be assumed in the case of General Lee. His
pecuniary and professional interests must have invited him to remain
in the army. General Scott, a Virginian, was at the head of the army,
and General Scott was his friend. His promotion was certain, and
important commands were probable. His large estates in the vicinity of
the city of Washington were exposed to the ravages of war if not to
confiscation. These sacrifices, some certain, and others probable were
present when he left Washington and entered into the service of the
Confederacy under the superior authority of the State of Virginia in
disregard of his own opinion, and in disregard, not to say violation,
of his oath as a soldier who had sworn to support the Constitution of
the United States. General Lee was unable to say whether he had
taken an oath to support the Confederate States. He could not recall
the fact of taking the oath, but he said he should have taken the oath
if it had been tendered to him.
The full report of the testimony of General Lee should appear in any
complete biography of the man. It reveals his character, explains the
leading influences to which he was subjected, and it sheds light upon
the state of public opinion in the South at the end of the contest in
arms.
General Scott and General George H. Thomas were Virginians, but they
acted in defiance of the State-Rights doctrines of the South. In
April, 1861, General Scott gave me an account of the efforts that had
been made to induce him to follow the fortunes of Virginia, and he
spoke with a voice of emotion of his veneration for the flag, and of
his attachment to the Union.