[
443]
Fellow Soldiers,—In performing the duty assigned to me by your committee, it may perhaps be expected that I should direct attention to something directly or remotely connected with
Morgan's command, but about these matters I prefer to talk to you in the camp rather than to write about them.
I feel the more strongly justified in what I am about to state by a belief that in any meeting of Confederate soldiers incidents not hitherto made public in the life of that great leader of armies,
General Lee, will be found of interest; and quite recently I have received information from two different and independent sources of certain facts in the life of
General Lee which I believe have not been made public, and yet which reflect such honor upon his life and character that I have thought well, in this humble way, to preserve them.
One of the distinguished gentlemen from whom my information is derived has agreed to verify my statement over his own signature for the purpose of laying it before you. To obtain that statement in writing from him, and to give it an historic form by thus laying it before you, has principally determined the form of this address.
The two gentlemen to whom I allude are
Colonel Thomas Ludwell Alexander, recently deceased, and
Hon. Charles Anderson, exGov-ernor of
Ohio, now living near
Princeton, Kentucky.
A few weeks ago, sitting in the office of
General John Echols, in
Louisville,
Governor Anderson came in.
General Echols held in hand the closing portions of the address by
John W. Daniel at the unveiling of the
Lee monument at
Lexington, Virginia.
While
General Echols was reading and commenting upon portions of this splendid address,
Governor Anderson interrupted him with the remark that no Confederate soldier or officer could entertain a higher or more reverent regard for the character of
General Robert E. Lee than he did; that from the days of
Miltiades to the present time he believed no character in history had proved so exalted devotion to duty as
General Lee had done, at the sacrifice of personal ambition and personal inclinations; which statement he said he could verify by reference to one incident in the life of
Lee, which he had in part witnessed and in part received from an unquestionable authority.
I asked him to relate the incident to which he referred, which he
[
444]
did in glowing and earnest terms, which I cannot repeat except in their substance.
This, however, was impressed indelibly upon my mind, and I believe I can state it with exactness.
To those of you who are not personally acquainted with
Governor Anderson, I will state that he is a son of
Colonel Richard C. Anderson, Sr., an old Revolutionary soldier of abilities and reputation, one of the early pioneers of the
State of Kentucky, and who settled in
Jefferson county in the year 1783.
Charles Anderson was also a brother of
General Robert Anderson, the hero of
Fort Sumter.
Long before
Robert Anderson's views were known or his position taken on behalf of the
Union cause,
Charles Anderson, then a resident of
Texas, had proclaimed himself an uncompromising Union man, and suffered imprisonment at the hands of the
Confederate authorities in
Texas for some time and until his escape by flight into and through
Mexico.
He took up his residence in
Ohio, was elected
Lieutenant Governor, and became Governor of
Ohio by the death of
Governor Brough.
Now to my story.
Prior to 1860
Governor Anderson had been upon intimate terms both with
General Scott and with General (then
Colonel)
Robert E. Lee.
He was a delegate at large from the
State of Ohio in the convention which nominated
General Scott for the Presidency, and largely contributed to that nomination.
In the fall of 1860
General Scott, the commander of the army of the United States, was at
Washington city.
Colonel Lee, in command of his regiment, was stationed in
Texas—
Governor Anderson living at
San Antonio, Texas.
General Twiggs was in command of the military department of Texas.
On November 20th, 1860,
Governor Anderson had made a speech at a secession meeting at the
Alamo, opposing secession, and announcing his own purpose of adherence to the
Union cause to the end. Shortly after that time,
General Scott, having learned his position on national affairs, prepared and sent to him a paper, partly military and partly political.
1
[
445]
These papers
General Scott enclosed to
Governor Anderson, and, in a private note, requested
Governor Anderson to exhibit the paper to
General Twiggs and
Colonel Lee especially, and to such other officers of the army as he might deem advisable.
The paper was left with
Twiggs and with
Lee, each retaining it for several days.
Some time after
General Lee had read and returned these papers to
Governor Anderson, the arrangement had been made by which the army of the United States in
Texas was surrendered to the
Committee of Vigilance, consisting of
Messrs. Maverick,
Divine and
Luckett, all of which, being a part of the
general history of the times, is not necessary to be detailed here.
After this surrender,
General Lee, with the other army officers, being out of service, were leaving the Department of Texas.
This committee applied to him to resign his position in the army of the United States and to take command of the
Confederate troops in
Texas.
This he had declined to do, expressing his determination to await the action of
Virginia as his sole guide of duty in this tremendous emergency.
He was thereupon informed by the committee that he could not make use of the wagons and mules under his command for transportation to the sea coast.
At this time
Governor Anderson again met
Colonel Lee.
Colonel Lee informed him of what had occurred, and expressed deep indignation at the treatment he had received, regarding it as a most insulting indignity; but no indignities nor the anger or the grief produced by them, whether received from friends or others, seemed capable of moving the firmness of his conscientious purpose.
In that interview he stated to
Governor Anderson that it was his purpose to go to
Washington, and that he should there await the action of his native
State of Virginia, saying that his action would be governed solely by hers.
If
Virginia should stand by the
Union and the old flag, he would stand with her. If
Virginia should secede, he would go with her, for weal or woe.
Leaving all his chattle property in charge of
Governor Anderson, to be forwarded to him in
Washington, they parted—not to meet again.
The war moved on with that rapidity that astonished even those who participated in it.
Governor Anderson was subsequently confined in prison in
Texas.
The paper of
General Scott was taken
[
446]
from him and forwarded to
Richmond.
Governor Anderson reached
Washington in December, 1861, or January, 1862.
Upon his arrival,
General Scott sent for him, wishing to talk with him about the
National condition and prospects, as well as about other matters and people in that department.
After extended and various conversation, in which
General Scott seemed with his usual delicacy to have avoided reference to any military comment or criticism of our campaigns or movements,
Governor Anderson said to him:
‘
General Scott, what about
Colonel Lee?’
General Scott replied, ‘
Sir, Robert E. Lee is, of his grade, the first soldier in Christendom.’
Governor Anderson then said, ‘
General Scott, is it your habit at a distance of six or eight or ten years apart, in expressing the same thought, to use identically the same language?’
General Scott—‘If the same language should best express the same idea, why should I not?
But what do you mean?’
Governor Anderson—‘I will swear, that when in 1854 I asked you about the qualifications of
Major Robert E. Lee for
Superintendent of
West Point you used identically the same words that you have now used—viz., that of his grade,
Lee was the first soldier in Christendom.’
‘Well,’ said
General Scott, ‘I believed it then as I do now, and think it very likely that I did use the same language.’
He then proceeded to say that in the march from
Vera Cruz to the city of
Mexico there was not an encampment nor a battle-field which had not been previously selected by
Lee, then a Captain, and chief of engineers on the staff of
General Scott; that not a battle in that campaign, had been fought, the day and place of which had not been previously announced by despatches to the
Government at
Washington, and that in every instance the announcement had been justified by the result in their due order; and this he attributed chiefly to the fact of having such a captain of Engineers.
General Scott then proceeded to detail an interview between
Colonel Lee and himself, held a short time before the secession of
Virginia, while the
Convention of that State was in session.
Colonel Lee, having called upon
General Scott, opened the interview by saying:
‘
General Scott, I have called upon you to say, what I deem it my duty to say to you as my superior officer and as my best friend’——
At this point,
General Scott divining his purpose, and not wishing him to commit himself, said:
[
447]
‘
Colonel Lee, before you proceed, I have something to say to you. Permit me to speak first.
I am authorized by the
President of the
United States to say to you that, if you remain by the old flag and the
Union, you will be placed in supreme command of the armies of the
United States, subject only to a nominal command in myself; which command, you know, at my age must be nominal only.’
Colonel Lee paused for a moment, and but for a moment, and replied, ‘
General Scott, I will conclude what I came to say. I am awaiting the action of the
State of Virginia.
If
Virginia stands by the old flag and the
Union, I shall stand by them with my sword and my life.
If
Virginia shall secede, I shall go with her. I hold my loyalty as due to
Virginia.’
Governor Anderson then proceeded to say that this fact rested not only upon the statement of
General Scott, but that he has since seen in the report of a Congressional committee that
Francis P. Blair, Sr., had made the statement; that on the next day—
General Scott meanwhile having reported to
Mr. Lincoln this interview with
Colonel Lee—
Mr. Blair went from
Mr. Lincoln to
Colonel Lee, and repeated in the same words the same offer, and received the same answer.
2
[
448]
I said to
Governor Anderson that I was gratified to be able to confirm his statement by that of another gentleman of the highest character, who had made to me substantially the same statement a short time before his death—
Colonel Thomas L. Alexander.
Colonel Alexander was a native of
Virginia—an officer of the old army of the United States, who had seen many years of service.
By reason of age and ill-health he was retired from active service in the army in the year 18—. He was with
General Scott on the march to the city of
Mexico, and took much pleasure in his declining years in relating the incidents of that campaign.
He told me that a day or two after the occupation of the city of
Mexico the officers of the United States army gave to
General Scott a grand banquet.
In the course of the banquet and at its close,
General Scott, who was sitting at the head of the table, arose.
As he lifted his magnificent form to its full height, the action attracted the attention of all. He rapped lightly upon the table and asked attention, which was given amidst profound silence.
There were present the
Generals,
Colonels,
Majors—all the officers of the army.
General Scott said, ‘Gentlemen, before we part, I desire that you shall fill your glasses, and, standing, drink with me a toast which I have to propose.’
You can imagine that that toast was looked for with interest and expectation.
While all were standing with their glasses filled,
General Scott, raising his own, said, ‘I ask you, gentlemen, to pledge me in the health of
Captain Robert E. Lee, without whose aid we should not now be here.’
To
Colonel Alexander, who admired and loved
General Lee, this incident seemed to give peculiar pleasure.
In the same conversation in which
Colonel Alexander made to me this statement, he gave me also this one, which I regard as in one sense even of greater value than that of
Governor Anderson, because of the immediate proximity of the information given by
General Scott to the event related.
Colonel Alexander, by reason of old association, was intimate with
General Scott, and loved and admired him. He was then in command of the
Soldier's Home, near
Washington.
He told me that he called upon
General Scott in his office at
Washington a short time before the secession of the
State of Virginia.
I believe he was not able to fix the precise day; if he did, it has escaped me. When he met
General Scott, he observed that he was in a state of unusual excitement—laboring under some very deep feeling.
General Scott
[
449]
told him that he had just concluded a protracted and painful interview with
Colonel Lee; that he had said to
Colonel Lee that he was authorized by the
President of the
United States to tender to him the supreme command of the armies of the
United States, and that he received from
Colonel Lee the reply, that his first duty was to the
State of Virginia.
If
Virginia remained by the
Union, he should stand with her. If
Virginia should secede, he would go with her. In relating the interview
General Scott's feelings overcame him, and he sobbed aloud.
I do not remember in
Colonel Alexander's statement that the qualification of the nominal superiority in command of
General Scott was mentioned; that, however, I supposed to be implied.
My conversation with
Colonel Alexander was several years ago, and I would not undertake to repeat its details with the same accuracy that I do that of
Governor Anderson; but as to the substance of
Colonel Alexander's statement there can be no doubt.
I have believed, my comrades, that these incidents would be of interest to you, as they were to me. I have especially desired to preserve, in some permanent historical form, the statement of
Governor Anderson, who is still living, and who will verify the correctness of my statements so far as they refer to him.
If in any one thing more than another injustice has been done by the
Northern people to the
South, it is in the intimation, sometimes uttered in the highest places—uttered even in the Senate of the
United States—that the
Southern leaders were actuated by a false and unholy ambition.
If the fact here stated shall be accepted historically as true, it refutes the charge at once and forever as it relates to the great leader of the
Southern armies.
I have read what you propose to say at the meeting of
Morgan's command, about to take place in
Lexington, Ky., concerning the statements of
Colonel Thomas L. Alexander, as to the interview between
General Scott and the then
Colonel Robert E. Lee.
Colonel Alexander was one of my most intimate friends, and as reliable a man as I ever knew.
In 1862—the exact time I do not remember, but it was before the advance of
McClellan's army from
Washington
[
450]
towards
Richmond by the way of
Yorktown—
Colonel Alexander made statements to me substantially the same as those which you represent him as having made to you at a subsequent time.
During the same conversation, or about that time,
Colonel Alexander gave me an account of the toast offered by
General Scott to the then
Captain Lee, at the banquet in the city of
Mexico, of which I believe you have given an exactly correct statement.
my Dear Sir,—I have carefully read your notes of my gush about
General Lee's place in history, and I must say that in so far as my statements of my reminiscences of the incident about
General Lee's feelings and course in the great rebellion is concerned, your memory of it proves itself to be singularly accurate.
In several minor and associated incidents (especially as to the order of time in the swift moving events) I see a few errors, which I have ventured to suggest to you by pencil-marks on the margins.
But in the
essential matter of
General Lee's singular persistence in his duty (as
he thought and felt, not as
I did, be it remembered), under most extraordinary, wonderful (?) provocations toward the contrary at
San Antonio, and equally extraordinary and
unprecedented seductions and temptations at
Washington, your report is perfect.
Now,
my construction of our constitutional duty in that stupendous emergency is not at all in question.
Nevertheless, my dissent,
toto coelo, from that of
General Lee (for I was and am only an old-fashioned disciple of
Washington's ‘
Farewell Address’ and
Jackson's ‘Proclamation’) does seem to me to affect the value of my testimony in his behalf.
Don't you think so?
I sometimes fear that others may suspect my encomiums of
General Lee as the outflow of merely personal friendship and its admirations, or else of that zeal, or affected zeal, of an exaggerated advocacy, which is so fashionable in
America, and which seems to be a tendency in all forms of ‘hero worship.’
But I assure you neither is true.
For I have or had several personal friends on each side of that wretched war whom I admired and loved just as much as
Robert E. Lee—notably
A. Sidney Johnston,
George H. Thomas,
[
451]
W. T. Sherman, and
General McDowell and others.
But my naked, solid judgment is this: that 1 can neither find, within my own observation and experience, nor yet in modern nor ancient history, one single case of any hero or patriot or philosopher of them all who turned his back upon a more than ‘imperial crown,’ and his face and steps
towards doubts and fears, uncertainties, failures and
subjugation, save one alone—
Robert E. Lee! These, my friend, are my
‘reasons’ for having said that I was below no enthusiast-rebel of you all in my estimate of your
General Lee.
And they are my justifications for placing him,
in these regards, above all historic characters known to me. Observe, I do not name him as the greatest man or
General of our country.
I do not forget
George Washington or
Winfield Scott.
Indeed without knowing or affecting to know very much of such matters or characters, I strongly suspect that each service in this great war had several generals quite the equals of
General Lee.
But did either of them choose his side in the dread conflict under mere duress of duty, after having deliberately twice pushed aside higher powers and honors than he could by possibility have expected in his chosen side, and then quietly, modestly and cheerfully walked into an office of engineer, whose faded laurels he had gathered and worn in and out of
Mexico a score of years before?
I find no such record nor the least probability of the existence in these cases of
this bottom fact for that record—an ever present sense of conscientious duty consciously prevailing over the highest and brightest temptations, and guiding him into a path as uncertain and dark as it was strange and new to all his experiences and characteristics.
But I will not bore you by my possibly undue admiration of this rare specimen of a greatly pure public character.
I am, very sincerely, your friend,
my Dear Sir,—You request me to repeat what I said to you a few days ago in a conversation in regard to the exalted character of our great chieftain,
Robert E. Lee.
I believe it is particularly what I saw and heard from
General Lee at the commencement of the late war, in the city of
Richmond, as illustrating his
[
452]
moderation and elevation of sentiment under the most trying circumstances.
As soon as it was made public that
Virginia had passed the ordinance of secession, of course there was the greatest excitement in the public mind in
Virginia.
The Virginia Convention was still in session when
General Lee came from
Washington, and it was announced to him that he had been elected
Commander-in-Chief of the
Virginia troops, which were then being called into service as rapidly as possible.
Of course, among people who knew nothing from actual experience of what war was, many extreme ideas prevailed, and many extreme measures were proposed.
The military committee of the convention held daily sessions.
General Lee was frequently invited to appear before that committee for advice and counsel, as to what was best to be done in regard to the various measures suggested.
He always seemed from the first to have a thorough appreciation of the gravity, and even solemnity of the situation, and I remember upon one occasion especially, when it was proposed to seize the coasting vessels which were in
Virginia waters as being the property of aliens and enemies, he was consulted, and I never shall forget the earnest and solemn manner with which he warned those around him that they were just on the threshold of a long and bloody war, and advised them if they had any idea that the contest in which they were about to engage was to be a slight one, to dismiss all such thoughts from their minds, saying that he knew the
Northern people well, and knew that they never would yield in that contest except at the conclusion of a long and desperate struggle.
He urged the committee that it was of the last importance that the
South should so conduct herself in the struggle as to attract to herself the respect and sympathy of the civilized nations of the earth.
Going on to apply the same thought to the matter then in hand, he said that there was no amount of mere individual suffering which could be inflicted that could add to the public good; that if we should seize these coasting vessels without warning, it would be a matter of doubtful propriety, and inflict ruin upon the owners, without adding strength to our own cause or making friends with the outside world.
His whole influence throughout all the eventful scenes of the war was in the direction of moderation and humanity, and highest principles of modern civilized warfare.
I saw him again upon another occasion, which will be of lifelong interest to me, when his purity and singular unselfishness of character were strikingly exhibited.
In the winter of 1863-4, if my
[
453]
memory serves me, when
General Lee's headquarters were near Orange Courthouse, Virginia, I was directed by
President Davis to go to the
General and to urge upon him to recommend his distinguished son,
General Custis Lee, to an important command, for which
President Davis thought him admirably fitted, but to which he could not assign him without the recommendation of his father, who was in chief command of the army.
I went to him and spent several hours in his tent at night talking over the importance of the command to which it was desired that
General Custis Lee should be assigned, and delivered to him messages which had been sent by
President Davis upon the subject, and urged him by every consideration which I could think of to comply with the
President's wishes as to the recommendation.
General Custis Lee was recognized as one of the most distinguished graduates sent out from
West Point, and a man of high attainments, great ability, and with a character very much resembling that of his distinguished father.
But I could make no impression upon the
General, and the only answer which I could get from him, and which he reiterated at different times in the conversation, when I would urge the
President's wishes, was ‘
General Custis Lee is my son, and whilst I think very well of his abilities, yet, in my opinion, he has not been sufficiently tried in the field, and because he is my son, and because of his want of sufficient experience in the field, I cannot and I will not recommend him for the place.
You may return and say to the
President that I recognize the importance of the position to which he refers, and that I am willing to send to that command any other officer here with my army whom he may designate, however valuable that officer is, or may be, to to me in my present position.’
Of course I may not, after this lapse of time, give you his exact language, but I think that I have very nearly done so, for I remember how deep an impression the interview made upon me. So it was throughout his whole career, with a purity of life, elevation of sentiment, and dignity of manner which seemed to raise him high above the plain of common humanity.
Of his great abilities as a chieftain, of course, it is the province of history to speak.
You only ask me to give you my personal reminiscences of the man upon the two occasions to which I have referred.
It was my singular good fortune to have seen much of him during the war, and afterwards, when he devoted his great talents to the training of Southern youth as a president of Washington College.
When looking back now at him, as I knew him, after the lapse of all these years, I say
[
454]
that he was the greatest and the purest and the most elevated man, in all that goes to make up true humanity, whom I have ever seen or ever expect to see.
(Signed)
