Bonny Blue Flag
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Location
- Grand Prairie, Texas
The complete interview was too long in character count for one thread per this site, so I divided the interview into two parts. This is Part 1.
```````````````````````````````````````````
On 4.21.1865, General Lee had his only formal interview after the war.
The correspondent was Thomas Cook of the New York Herald. He did not write down a word-for-word transcript, rather his article is a paraphrase of the interview.
Part 1 of the interview discusses:
-Lee's view on secession.
-His experiences from resigning from the U.S. army to becoming the General of the AoV.
-The effects of his surrender of the AoNV - a triumph of Federal power and the annihilation of State sovereignty.
-Peace was possible in 1863 except for the exasperated efforts of the North to completely destroy the Confederate armies.
-The South had been ready and is anxious for peace, it waits for a promise or conciliation from the North on which to base a return to the Union.
-The South is not ready to come and beg for terms.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
A correspondent of the New York Herald, writing from Richmond, gives the
following account of an interview with General Lee: -
-Richmond, Virginia, April 21, 1865
"In order if possible to get some clear light for the solution of the new
complications growing out the murder of President Lincoln, I yesterday sought
and obtained an interview with that distinguished soldier and leader of the
rebel armies, General Robert E. Lee, and was permitted to draw out his views
on the very important questions suggested.
It is proper to say that my reception was everything that could be expected
from a gentleman who has always been considered a type of the once famous
chivalry, and, I had almost said, nobility of Virginia.
Pen and Ink sketches of General lee have been so mumerously made of late by
newspaper writers that any attempt at this time by me in that direction would
be a work of superergation. I may simply say that the firm step, the clear
voice, the bright, beaming conutenance, the quick intelligence, the upright
form, and the active manner of the General very strongly belie the portaitures
of him which are so common.
All the vigour and animation and ability of ripe manhood are prominently
conspicuous in his bearing. His venerable white hair and beard simply inspire
respect for the mature ideas and deliberate epxpressions that came from this
conspicuous rebel leader, but in nowise convey an impression of decay or old
age.
It was certainly embarrassing to me, on introducing the object of my visit,
to say that I intended to lay his political views before the public, as his
military career had already been. His reply, "I am a paroled prisoner" at
once appealed to my sympathy.
A frank, generous man, how far may I properly question him without touching
upon his views of honour in reference to his parole; But he added, "I have
never been a politician, and know but little of political leaders; I am a
soldier."
I felt easier. I assured him that I had no desire to offend his sensibility
or tempt him to violate any presumable obligation under his parole; but that,
being prominently identified with the rebellion, his views on the questions
arising out of that rebellion would be of great interest at the present
moment, and doubtless of great importance and influence in the settlement
of the troubles agitating the country, and with this view only I called upon
him. He replied that the promenence he held was unsought by himself and
distasteful to him. That he preferred retirement and seclusion. But was
ready to make any sacrifice or perform any honourable act that would tend
to the restoration of peace and tranquility to the country.
It will not be possible to relate the extended conversation that ensued with
any approach to exactness, no notes having been taken, and it will not,
therefore, be attempted; but I will confine myself to a record of the views
expressed by General Lee on several prominent topics, as I understood him
to express himself.
The General's attention was directed to his written and spoken determination
to draw his sword in defence only of his native State, and the inquiry was
raised as to what he considered the defence of Virginia, and what degree of
deliberation he had given to that expression. He stated that, as a firm
and honest believer in the doctrine of States rights, he had considered his
allegience due primarly to the State in which he was born and where he had
always resided. And although he was not an advocate of secession at the
outset, when Virginia seceded he honestly believed it his duty to abide her
fortune.
He opposed secession to the last, foreseeing the ruin it was sure to entail.
But when the State withdrew from the Union he had no resource, in his view
of honour and patriotism, but to abide her fortunes. He went with her,
intending to remain a private citizen.
When he resigned his commission in the United States' army he had no intention
of taking up arms in any other service, and least of all in the service
antagnostic to the United States. His State, however, called for him, and
entertaining the fixed principles he did of State sovereignty, he had no
alternative but to accept the service to which he was called.
When he made use of the declarations that have been so extensively quoted of
late, he had accepted only a commission from Virginia. Subsequently, when
Virginia attached herself to the Southern Confederacy, the same political
impressions impelled him to follow her, and when he accepted service under
the Rebel Government, he did so on the principle that he was defending his
native State.
And yet, by the act of accepting such service, he was bound in honour to
serve in any part of the Confederacy where he might be called, without
reference to State lines; and the reconciliation with his former avowal,
if any were necessary, was found in the fact that Virginia, standing
or falling with the other Southern States, in defending them all, he was
defending the one to which he considered his allegiance primarily due.
As to the effect of his surrender, he was free to say it was a severe blow
to the South, but not a crushing blow. It was of military, not political,
significance. I asked, "Was not that surrender a virtual surrender of the
doctrine of States rights?" "By no means," the General replied. "When the
South shall be wholly subdued, there will then undeniably be a surrender of
that doctrine. But the surrender of a single army is simply a military
necessity. The army of Northern Virginia was surrendered because further
resistance on its part would only entail a useless sacrifice of life. But
that army was merely a part of the force of the South. When the South shall
be forced to surrender all of its forces, and returns to the Union, it
indesputably, by that act, surrenders its favourite doctrine of secession.
That principle will be settled by military power."
On this question of State sovereignty, the General contends that there exsists
a legitimate casus belli. In the convention that formed the organic law of
the land, the question of defining the relative powers of the States and
their relation to the general Government was raised, but after much discussion
was dropped and left unsettled. It has remained so unsettled until the present
time. The war is destined to set it at rest.
It is unfortunate that it was not settled at the outset; but, as it was not
settled then, and had to be settled at sometime, then the war raised on this
issue cannot be considered treason. If the South is forced to submission in
this contest, it of course can only be looked upon as the triumph of Federal
power over State rights, and the forced annihilation of the latter.
With reference to the war in the abstract, the General declared it as his
honest belief that peace was practicable two years ago, and has been
practicable from that time to the present day whenever the general Government
should see fit to seek it, giving any resonable chance for the country to
escape the consequences which the exasperated North seemed determined to
impose.
The South has, during all this time, been ready and anxious for peace. They
have been looking for some word or expression of compromise or conciliation
from the North upon which they might base a return to the Union. They were
not prepared, nor are they yet, to come and beg for terms, their own
political views being considered.
``````````````````````````````````````````
Source: Interview with General Robert E. Lee..NLA Newspaper Tags
newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/tag?allTags
````````````````````````````````````
--BBF
```````````````````````````````````````````
On 4.21.1865, General Lee had his only formal interview after the war.
The correspondent was Thomas Cook of the New York Herald. He did not write down a word-for-word transcript, rather his article is a paraphrase of the interview.
Part 1 of the interview discusses:
-Lee's view on secession.
-His experiences from resigning from the U.S. army to becoming the General of the AoV.
-The effects of his surrender of the AoNV - a triumph of Federal power and the annihilation of State sovereignty.
-Peace was possible in 1863 except for the exasperated efforts of the North to completely destroy the Confederate armies.
-The South had been ready and is anxious for peace, it waits for a promise or conciliation from the North on which to base a return to the Union.
-The South is not ready to come and beg for terms.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
General Lee
A correspondent of the New York Herald, writing from Richmond, gives the
following account of an interview with General Lee: -
-Richmond, Virginia, April 21, 1865
"In order if possible to get some clear light for the solution of the new
complications growing out the murder of President Lincoln, I yesterday sought
and obtained an interview with that distinguished soldier and leader of the
rebel armies, General Robert E. Lee, and was permitted to draw out his views
on the very important questions suggested.
It is proper to say that my reception was everything that could be expected
from a gentleman who has always been considered a type of the once famous
chivalry, and, I had almost said, nobility of Virginia.
Pen and Ink sketches of General lee have been so mumerously made of late by
newspaper writers that any attempt at this time by me in that direction would
be a work of superergation. I may simply say that the firm step, the clear
voice, the bright, beaming conutenance, the quick intelligence, the upright
form, and the active manner of the General very strongly belie the portaitures
of him which are so common.
All the vigour and animation and ability of ripe manhood are prominently
conspicuous in his bearing. His venerable white hair and beard simply inspire
respect for the mature ideas and deliberate epxpressions that came from this
conspicuous rebel leader, but in nowise convey an impression of decay or old
age.
It was certainly embarrassing to me, on introducing the object of my visit,
to say that I intended to lay his political views before the public, as his
military career had already been. His reply, "I am a paroled prisoner" at
once appealed to my sympathy.
A frank, generous man, how far may I properly question him without touching
upon his views of honour in reference to his parole; But he added, "I have
never been a politician, and know but little of political leaders; I am a
soldier."
I felt easier. I assured him that I had no desire to offend his sensibility
or tempt him to violate any presumable obligation under his parole; but that,
being prominently identified with the rebellion, his views on the questions
arising out of that rebellion would be of great interest at the present
moment, and doubtless of great importance and influence in the settlement
of the troubles agitating the country, and with this view only I called upon
him. He replied that the promenence he held was unsought by himself and
distasteful to him. That he preferred retirement and seclusion. But was
ready to make any sacrifice or perform any honourable act that would tend
to the restoration of peace and tranquility to the country.
It will not be possible to relate the extended conversation that ensued with
any approach to exactness, no notes having been taken, and it will not,
therefore, be attempted; but I will confine myself to a record of the views
expressed by General Lee on several prominent topics, as I understood him
to express himself.
The General's attention was directed to his written and spoken determination
to draw his sword in defence only of his native State, and the inquiry was
raised as to what he considered the defence of Virginia, and what degree of
deliberation he had given to that expression. He stated that, as a firm
and honest believer in the doctrine of States rights, he had considered his
allegience due primarly to the State in which he was born and where he had
always resided. And although he was not an advocate of secession at the
outset, when Virginia seceded he honestly believed it his duty to abide her
fortune.
He opposed secession to the last, foreseeing the ruin it was sure to entail.
But when the State withdrew from the Union he had no resource, in his view
of honour and patriotism, but to abide her fortunes. He went with her,
intending to remain a private citizen.
When he resigned his commission in the United States' army he had no intention
of taking up arms in any other service, and least of all in the service
antagnostic to the United States. His State, however, called for him, and
entertaining the fixed principles he did of State sovereignty, he had no
alternative but to accept the service to which he was called.
When he made use of the declarations that have been so extensively quoted of
late, he had accepted only a commission from Virginia. Subsequently, when
Virginia attached herself to the Southern Confederacy, the same political
impressions impelled him to follow her, and when he accepted service under
the Rebel Government, he did so on the principle that he was defending his
native State.
And yet, by the act of accepting such service, he was bound in honour to
serve in any part of the Confederacy where he might be called, without
reference to State lines; and the reconciliation with his former avowal,
if any were necessary, was found in the fact that Virginia, standing
or falling with the other Southern States, in defending them all, he was
defending the one to which he considered his allegiance primarily due.
As to the effect of his surrender, he was free to say it was a severe blow
to the South, but not a crushing blow. It was of military, not political,
significance. I asked, "Was not that surrender a virtual surrender of the
doctrine of States rights?" "By no means," the General replied. "When the
South shall be wholly subdued, there will then undeniably be a surrender of
that doctrine. But the surrender of a single army is simply a military
necessity. The army of Northern Virginia was surrendered because further
resistance on its part would only entail a useless sacrifice of life. But
that army was merely a part of the force of the South. When the South shall
be forced to surrender all of its forces, and returns to the Union, it
indesputably, by that act, surrenders its favourite doctrine of secession.
That principle will be settled by military power."
On this question of State sovereignty, the General contends that there exsists
a legitimate casus belli. In the convention that formed the organic law of
the land, the question of defining the relative powers of the States and
their relation to the general Government was raised, but after much discussion
was dropped and left unsettled. It has remained so unsettled until the present
time. The war is destined to set it at rest.
It is unfortunate that it was not settled at the outset; but, as it was not
settled then, and had to be settled at sometime, then the war raised on this
issue cannot be considered treason. If the South is forced to submission in
this contest, it of course can only be looked upon as the triumph of Federal
power over State rights, and the forced annihilation of the latter.
With reference to the war in the abstract, the General declared it as his
honest belief that peace was practicable two years ago, and has been
practicable from that time to the present day whenever the general Government
should see fit to seek it, giving any resonable chance for the country to
escape the consequences which the exasperated North seemed determined to
impose.
The South has, during all this time, been ready and anxious for peace. They
have been looking for some word or expression of compromise or conciliation
from the North upon which they might base a return to the Union. They were
not prepared, nor are they yet, to come and beg for terms, their own
political views being considered.
``````````````````````````````````````````
Source: Interview with General Robert E. Lee..NLA Newspaper Tags
newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/tag?allTags
````````````````````````````````````
--BBF