Lee Post-war interview with Robert E. Lee, Part 1 & 2

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.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
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
 
The complete interview was too long in character count for one thread per this site, so I divided the interview into 2 parts. This is Part 2.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````
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 of Lee's responses, his article is a paraphrase of the interview.

Part 2 of the interview discusses:
-Lee's view that slavery never did enter the question of the war
-The best men of the South struggled with what to do with freed people and decided to keep slavery going until a solution could be found.
-If arbitrary, vindictive or revengeful policies are included in the peace agreement, then the war is not over as of yet.
-Undeveloped resources and unavailable resources of the South could be brought forward and used to protract the struggle for an indefinite period
-Assassination of President Lincoln
-The South should not be judged harshly for fighting for what it believes is right
-Expatriation of former Confederate soldiers to foreign countries.
-Jefferson Davis unfairly being given harsher treatment than the military, because he is a politician.
-How and when Lee freed the Custis slaves
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
General Lee​

The question of slavery did not lie in the way at all. The best men of the
South have long been anxious to do away with this institution, and were quite
willing today to see it abolished. They consider slavery for ever dead. But
with them, in relation to this subject, the question has ever been, "What will
you do with the freed people?" That is the serious question today, and one
that cannot be winked at. It must be met practically and treated intelligently.
The negros must be disposed of, and if their disposition can be marked out
the matter of freeing them is at once settled. But unless some humane course
is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles, you do a gross wrong
and injustice to the whole negro race in setting them free. And it is only
this concideration that has led the wisdom, intellegence and Christianity
of the SOuth to support and defend the institution up to this time.

The conversation then turned into other channels, and finally touched
upon the prospects of peace. And here a very noticable form of expression
was used by the General. In speaking of the probable course of the
Administration towards the South, the General remarked that "if we do" so
and so. I immediately directly called his attention to the expression, and
sought an explanation of it the sense in which he used the pronoun "we", but
obtained none other than a marked repetition of it.

It was noticable throughout the entire interview that in no single instance
did he speak of the Southern Confederacy, nor of the Yankees, nor the Rebels.
He frequently alluded to the country, and epxressed most earnestly his
solicitude for its restoration to peace and tranquility, cautiously avoiding
any expression that would imply the possibility of its disintegration.

Throughout all the conversation he manifested an earnest desire that such
counsels should prevail and such policies be pursued as would conduce to an
immediate peace, implying in his remarks that peace was now at our option.
He was particular to say that should arbitrary or vindictive or revengeful
policies be adopted, the end was not yet.

There yet remained a great deal of vitality and strength in the South. There
were undeveloped resources and hitherto unavailable sources of strength which
harsh measure on our part would call into action; and that the South could
protract the struggle for an indefinite period. We might, it was true,
destroy all that remained of the country east of the Mississippi river by a
lavish expenditure of men and means; but then we would be required to fight
on the other side of the river, and, after subduing them there, we would be
compelled to follow them into Mexico, and thus the struggle would be prolonged
until the whole country would be impoverished and ruined; and this we would
be compelled to do if extermination, contiscation and general annihilation
and destruction are to be our policy. For if a people are to be destroyed
they will sell their lives as dearly as possible.

The assassination of the President was then spoken of. The General considered
this event in itself one of the most deplorable that could have occured. As
a crime, it was unexampled and beyond execration. It was a crime that no
good man could approve from any concievable motive. Undoubtedly the effort
would be made to fasten the responsibility of it upon the South; but, from
his intimate acquaintance with the leading men of the South, he was confident
there was not one of them who would sanction or approve it. The scheme was
wholly unknown in the South before its execution, and would never have
recieved the slightest encouragement had it been known, but, on the contrary,
the most severe execration.

I called the General's attention, at this point, to a notice that had been
printed in the Northern papers, purporting to have been taken from a paper
published in the interior of the South, proposing for the sum of 1,000,000
dollars to undertake the assassination of the President and his Cabinet. The
General affirmed that he had never seen nor heard of such a proposition, nor
did he believe that it had ever been printed in the South, though if it had,
it had been permitted merely as the whim of some crazy person that could
possibly amount to nothing. Such a crime was an anomaly in the history of
our country, and we had yet before its perpetration to learn that it was
possible of either earnest conception or actual execution.

It was a most singular and remarkable expression to escape the lips of such
a man as General Lee that, "the South was never more than half in earnest in
this war." I cannot attempt to translate this remark or elucidate it. Its
utterance conveyed to me the impression that the South was most heartily
sick of the war, and anxious to get back into the Union and to peace. The
General added that they went off after political leaders in a moment of
passion and under the excitement of fancied wrongs, honestly believing that
they were entering a struggle for an inalienable right and a fundamental
principle of their political creed.

A man should not be judged harshly for contending for that which he honestly
believes to be right. Such was the position of the vast majority of the
Southern people now. And now that they are defeated, they consider that
they have lost everything that is worth contending for in the Government.
They have sacrificed home, friends, property, health, all on this issue.
Men do not make such sacrifices for nothing. They have made the sacrifice
from honest convictions, and now that they have lost in the issue, they feel
they have no interest left in this country.

It is the opinion of General Lee that unless moderation and liberality be
exercised towards them, the country will lose its best people. Already, he
says, they are seeking to expatriate themselves, and by numerous schemes are
started to go to Mexico, to Brazil, to Canada, to France, or elsewhere. He
is called upon frequently to discountenance and suppress such undertakings.
The country needs these young men. They are its bone and sinew, its
intelligence and enterprise, its hope for the future; and wisdom demands
that no effort be spared to keep them in the country and pacify them.

It was a most noticable feature of the conversation that General Lee, strange
as it may appear, talked throughout as a citizen of the United States. He
seemed to plant himself on the national platform, and take his observations
from that standpoint. He talked calmly, deliberately, earnestly, but with
no show of interest other or different from what might be expected from an
honest believer in his peculiar opinions.

The conversation, which had been greatly protracted so much so that I became
uneasy for fear of trespassing on time that I had no right to claim,
terminated with some allusions to the terms of peace. Here, there was perhaps
mutually and properly, more reticence than on any other topic. But it was
plain from what transpired that the only question in the way of immediate
peace was the treatment to be accorded the vanquished. Everything else, by
implication, seems to be surrendered.

Slavery, States rights, the doctrine of secession, and whatever else of
political policy may be involved in the strife is abandoned, the only barrier
to an immediate and universal suspension of hositilities and return to the
Union being the treatment the national authorities may promise those who have
been resisting its power and paramount authority. It is proper to say that
this was not so stated by General Lee, but in simply an inference from the
conversation that took place on that topic. On the contrary, the General
seemed very cautious in regard to terms.

In order to get at his views, if posible, I suggested the conservative
sentiment of the North, which proposed a general amnesty to all soldiers and
military officers, but that the political leaders of the South be held to a
strict accountability. "Would that be just?" he asked. "What has Mr. Davis
done more than any other Southerner that he should be punished? It is true
that he has occupied a prominent position as the agent of a whole people,
but that has made him no less a rebel than the rest.

"His acts were the acts of the whole people, and the act of the whole people
were his acts. He was not accountable for the commencement of the struggle.
On the contrary, he was one of the last to give his adherence to the secession
movement, having strenuously opposed it from the outset and portrayed its
ruinous consequences in his speeches and by his writings. Why, therefore, should he
suffer more than others?" Of course, it was not my province to discuss those questions, and as this illustration disclosed the bent of the General's mind it was all that I desired to know.

In taking leave of the General, I took occasion to say that he was greatly
respected by a very large body of good men at the North, and that as a soldier
he was universally admired, and that it was earnestly hoped that he would yet
lead an army of the United States' troops in the enforcement of the Monroe
doctrine.

He thanked me for the expression of Northern sentiment toward himself, but
as for more fighting, he felt that he was getting too old, his only desire
now being to be permmited to retire to private life and end his days in
seclusion. It was, I thought, an evidence of painful sadness at heart that
promted the added expression that he would have been pleased had his life
been taken in any of the numerous battle fields on which he had fought during
this war.

While talking on the subject of abolition of slavery, I remarked that it had
lately been charged in some of the newspapers of the North that the Custis
slaves, some 200 in number, who had been left in General Lee's custody for
emancipation, had not been emancipated. The General said this was a mistake.
As executor of the will, he was required to emancipate these slaves at a
certain time. That time had not arrived when the war broke out. It did
arrive one or two years afterwards.

At that time, he could not get to the courts of the county in which Arlington is located to take out the emancipation papers as prescribed by law. But he did take out papers from the Supreme Court of the State in this city, liberating them all, and they
are so recorded in the records of the court. He sent word of their freedom
to the negroes of Arlington, and the necessary papers were sent to those at
the White House, and to all others that could be reached, and they were all
thus liberated, together wih a number who were either the General's or Mrs.
Lee's private property.

``````````````````````````````````````
Source: Interview with General Robert E. Lee..NLA Newspaper Tags

newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/tag?allTags

--BBF
 
-Peace was possible in 1863 except for the exasperated efforts of the North to completely destroy the Confederate armies.

Peace was never possible. It always would have been a fight to the end with one side winning or the other.
 
Wow. Very interesting. I never knew about this interview. Thanks for sharing it!
 
Hello BBF, I'm curious as to which parts suprized you as this was pretty much what I would have expected from such a man in his circumstances.
 
I'm surprised that he agreed with my thoughts that there was still fight left in the southerners had vindictive measures been sought. He hints of guerrilla warfare.
 
I'm surprised that he agreed with my thoughts that there was still fight left in the southerners had vindictive measures been sought. He hints of guerrilla warfare.

I also was surprised to see him say that, but I've always been inclined to believe it too. There were several things he said that surprised me. Some I agree with, like:

It was a most singular and remarkable expression to escape the lips of such
a man as General Lee that, "the South was never more than half in earnest in
this war."... The General added that they went off after political leaders in a moment of
passion and under the excitement of fancied wrongs, honestly believing that
they were entering a struggle for an inalienable right and a fundamental
principle of their political creed.
But some of the statements really have me thinking that Lee must have been seriously detached politically, assuming that the reporter even heard him right:

With reference to the war in the abstract, the General declared it as his
honest belief that peace was practicable two years ago
The question of slavery did not lie in the way at all. The best men of the
South have long been anxious to do away with this institution, and were quite
willing today to see it abolished... But unless some humane course
is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles, you do a gross wrong
and injustice to the whole negro race in setting them free. And it is only
this concideration
that has led the wisdom, intellegence and Christianity
of the SOuth to support and defend the institution up to this time.
 
It was a most singular and remarkable expression to escape the lips of such
a man as General Lee that, "the South was never more than half in earnest in
this war."...

Lee often complained that the south didn't mobilize for the war as it should. He even complained that his daughters weren't more involved.
 
Lee often complained that the south didn't mobilize for the war as it should. He even complained that his daughters weren't more involved.

Several letters and diaries from various soldiers say the same type of things.
 
Wishful thinking at best. If the South could not win a war with an organized effort they sure as heck were not going to win one by a bunch of soldiers turned outlaws.
 
-Peace was possible in 1863 except for the exasperated efforts of the North to completely destroy the Confederate armies.

Peace was never possible. It always would have been a fight to the end with one side winning or the other.
Only possible if the Southern leaders would have accepted emancipation. They would not. The whole issue, going back decades, in some way or another had it's root in slavery.
 
Wishful thinking at best. If the South could not win a war with an organized effort they sure as heck were not going to win one by a bunch of soldiers turned outlaws.

Outlaws such as those who would toss women and children out of their homes, steal everything but the kitchen sink, burn the houses over their heads and leave them helpless and defenseless. Is that the sort of outlaws you mean?
 
Outlaws such as those who would toss women and children out of their homes, steal everything but the kitchen sink, burn the houses over their heads and leave them helpless and defenseless. Is that the sort of outlaws you mean?

Nah, I think he's calling anyone that would defend against such actions an "outlaw".
 
How much credibility can we place in this interview? If someone (like me) challenges this as nothing more than "He said, that HE said" can you respond in a way to convince folk this is legit?

Like the "Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." quote no one can prove he said it

I have spent years on another BB, that was almost totally PRO Confederate, and NO ONE ever brought up this interview, the first time I have seen it mentioned was here.
Respectfully:

Kevin Dally
 
How much credibility can we place in this interview? If someone (like me) challenges this as nothing more than "He said, that HE said" can you respond in a way to convince folk this is legit?

Like the "Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." quote no one can prove he said it

I have spent years on another BB, that was almost totally PRO Confederate, and NO ONE ever brought up this interview, the first time I have seen it mentioned was here.
Respectfully:

Kevin Dally

I mentioned in a prior post that I had never heard of this interview before, but as it turns out I was having a senior moment. Actually Elizabeth Browning Pryor mentions it in her book, Reading the Man. Even though she's a Lee skeptic, she seems quite convinced that the interview is genuine, and goes on to chronicle Northern outrage over parts of it.

You can see the actual news clipping here:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13116651

P.S. Now, does that mean that the interviewer recounted everything accurately? No way of knowing that.
 
"The best men of the South have long been anxious to do away with this institution, and were quite willing today to see it abolished...But unless some humane course is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles, you do a gross wrong and injustice to the whole negro race in setting them free. "

Revisionist nonsense. Slavery had existed in the South for almost 250 years when the rebellion broke out, and it was no closer to ending in 1860 than it was in 1760 or 1660. And after 250 years, Lee believed that they were still not prepared as a race for freedom? Were they slow learners or something?

The fact of the matter is that nothing had been done to prepare them for freedom, and nothing was planned. And Lee didn't have a problem with that...until he lost the war.
 
"The best men of the South have long been anxious to do away with this institution, and were quite willing today to see it abolished..."

The fact of the matter is that nothing had been done to prepare them for freedom, and nothing was planned. And Lee didn't have a problem with that...until he lost the war.

A valid point! I would like to know who he's supposedly talking about, because folk in Texas were quite busy hanging and murdering abolitionist's in 1860-61 during the "Texas troubles". I see no organized movement in the South to stop the slave institution?

Even though she's a Lee skeptic, she seems quite convinced that the interview is genuine, and goes on to chronicle Northern outrage over parts of it.

You can see the actual news clipping here:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13116651

P.S. Now, does that mean that the interviewer recounted everything accurately? No way of knowing that.

Also a good point, anyone else care to add to the topic?
Respectfully:

Kevin Dally
 
Back
Top