Secretary Stanton referred the President"s letter to General Grant with instructions "to take such measures as in his judgment are proper and within his power to carry into operation the within directions of the President."
Under this order six or eight companies in New York and on the way to join regiments in the South were detained at Fort McHenry, and a regiment in Washington was under orders to be ready to move upon notice.
On the second day of November the President qualified his demands in a letter to Secretary Stanton and limited the expression of anxiety to the city of Baltimore. It is certain that General Grant and Secretary Stanton did not share the President"s apprehensions and the day of election pa.s.sed without serious disturbance.
In the Philadelphia _Ledger_ of October 12, 1866, there appeared a series of questions which were accompanied by the statement or the suggestion that the President had submitted them to the Attorney- General for an official opinion. The questions related to the const.i.tutional validity of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and upon the ground that all the States were not represented although hostilities had ceased.
From the testimony of Henry M. Flint, a newspaper correspondent, it appears that the President had no knowledge of the questions until after the publications in the _Ledger_. Flint"s account of the affair may be thus summarized. For himself and without conference with the President, he reached the conclusion that the Thirty-ninth Congress was an illegal body and he had reached the conclusion also that the President entertained the same opinion. Thereupon he a.s.sumed that the President would take the opinion of the Attorney-General. Having advanced thus far, he next proceeded to write the questions that he imagined the President would prepare and submit to the Attorney-General.
These questions he transmitted to a brother correspondent in New York --Mr. F. A. Abbott--under cover of a letter which was not produced.
Flint gave the substance of his letter to Abbott in these words:
"These questions are supposed or believed to have submitted by the President to the Attorney-General." Speaking of Abbott, Flint said: "I knew he was connected with several newspapers and I had no doubt when I sent these questions that they would appear in some paper in some shape. . . . The object I had in view in writing these questions and in sending them to Mr. Abbott was that they might appear before the public, and that the public mind might be directed to that point, and that the newspapers particularly might be led to express their sentiments upon the questions involved in it."
When the publication "had given rise to considerable discussion" in the language of Flint, "I thought," he says, "I ought to go the President and tell him what part of the despatch was mine and what connection I had had with the publication of it."
Of his interview with the President, he gives this report: "He showed me an article, which I think, appeared the day after the questions were published, in the _Daily News_ of Philadelphia, which took pretty nearly the same ground my questions would indicate. . . . He spoke of it rather approvingly."
Flint adds: "I had remarked to him: "Mr. Johnson, it seemed to me that it would be by no means remarkable that you should prepare such questions as bear upon a subject which I know must have occupied your mind as it has the public mind." I forget what reply he made; it was a sort of affirmative response or a.s.sent."
Whatever may have been the origin of Flint"s questions, their appearance in the manner indicated is an instance of volunteer service not often paralleled in the rough contests of life. Without any effort on his own part the President gained knowledge of a public sentiment upon the question of the legality of the Thirty-ninth Congress--a question in which he had much interest in the autumn of 1866.
The project to increase the army around Washington and the project to proclaim the Thirty-ninth Congress an illegal body may have had an intimate connection with the project to send General Grant on a mission to Mexico and to place General Sherman in command at Washington, a project of which I have spoken in another place.
GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE
General Robert E. Lee was examined by the Committee on Reconstruction the 17th day of February, 1866.
The inquiries related to the state of public sentiment in the South, and especially in Virginia with regard to secession, to the treatment of the negroes, to the public debts of the United States, and of the Confederacy, and to the treatment of Northern soldiers in Southern prisons.
General Lee was then in good health and in personal appearance he commended himself without delay. He was large in frame, compactly built, and he was furnished with all the flesh and muscle that could be useful to a man who was pa.s.sing the middle period of life. The elasticity of spirits, the vigor of mind and body that are the wealth of a successful man at sixty were wanting in General Lee. His appearance commanded respect and it excited the sympathy even of those who had condemned his abandonment of the Union in 1861.
The examination gave evidence of integrity and of entire freedom from duplicity. Freedom from duplicity was a controlling feature in General Grant"s character and in that attribute of greatness Grant and Lee may have been equals.
General Lee was free to disclose his own opinions, but he was cautious in his statements when questioned as to the opinions and purposes of the men and States that had been in the Rebellion. He was careful to say at the beginning of the examination that he had no communication with politicians and that he did not read the papers. What he said of the South a.s.sumed that the people were in poverty and were so dejected that they had no plans for the future, nor any hopes of restoration to wealth, happiness and power in the affairs of the country. His testimony as a whole might justify the opinion that there would be no serious resistance to any form of government that might be set up. He favored the governments which President Johnson had organized and he expressed the opinion that they were acceptable to the people generally. A comprehensive statement was this:
"I do not know of a single person who either feels or contemplates any resistance to the government of the United States, or, indeed any opposition to it." He gave this a.s.surance to the committee: "The people entirely acquiesce in the government of the United States and are for co-operating with President Johnson in his policy."
The payment of the public debt had not been a topic of discussion in his presence, but the people were disposed to pay such taxes as were imposed and they were struggling to get money for that purpose.
He was of the opinion that the people made no distinction between the Confederate debt and the debt of the United States--that they were disposed to pay both debts, and would pay both if they had the power.
For himself, however, he had no expectation that the indebtedness of the Confederacy would ever be paid.
General Lee manifested a kindly spirit for the freedmen, but he was unwilling to accept them as citizens endowed with the right of suffrage. Of the feeling in Virginia, General Lee said: "Every one with whom I a.s.sociate expresses kind feelings toward the freedmen.
They wish to see them get on in the world, and especially to take up some occupation for a living."
He rejected the suggestion that there was anywhere within the State any combinations having in view, "the disturbance of the peace, or any improper or unlawful acts." He characterized the negroes as "an amiable, social race, who look more to the present than to their future condition."
In answer to the question whether the South would support the government in case of a war with France or England, General Lee was distinctly reserved: "I cannot speak with any certainty on that point. I do not know how far they might be actuated by their feelings.
I have nothing whatever to base an opinion upon. So far as I know they contemplate nothing of the kind now. What may happen in the future I cannot say." He then added this remark: "Those people in Virginia with whom I a.s.sociate express a hope that the country may not be led into war."
As to an alliance during the war he said that he knew nothing of the policy of the Confederate government: "I had no hand or part of it,"
was his remark. It was his opinion during the war that an alliance with a foreign country was desirable, and he had a.s.sumed that the authorities were of the same opinion. His ideas were those of General Grant, and he avoided responsibility for the measures of the government on the civil side.
With kind feelings for the colored people of Virginia General Lee favored the subst.i.tution of a white cla.s.s of laborers, if an exchange could be made, of which however, he had neither plan nor hope. Nor could he give any a.s.surance that Northern men would be received upon terms of equality and friendship, if they avowed the opinions that then prevailed generally in the North: "The manner in which they would be received would depend entirely upon the individuals themselves --they might make themselves obnoxious, as you can understand," was the statement of General Lee. His testimony as a whole indicated an opinion that it was more important to secure capital for business, than it was to rid the State of the negro laborer. In his opinion, most of the blacks were willing to work for their former masters, but they were unwilling to make engagements for a year, a form of engagement which the farmers and planters preferred, that they might be sure of help when it would be most needed. The negroes may have been influenced by one or both of two reasons. Their unthrifty habits--the outcome of slavery--or an apprehension that a formal engagement for a year was a kind of bondage that might lead to a renewal of the old system.
When General Lee was pressed by Senator Howard as to the feeling in the South in regard to the National Government, he said: "I believe that they will perform all the duties that they are required to perform. I think that is the general feeling. . . . I do not know that there is any deep-seated dislike. I think it is probable that there may be some animosity still existing among some of the people of the South.
. . . They were disappointed at the result of the war."
General Lee was of the opinion that a Southern jury would not find an accused guilty of treason for partic.i.p.ation in the war. Indeed his doctrine of State Rights excused the citizen and placed the sole responsibility on the State. Of the common sentiment in the South he said: "So far as I know, they will look upon the action of the State, in withdrawing itself from the government of the United States, as carrying the individuals of the State along with it; that the State was responsible for the act, not the individual." This was the framework of his own defence. Speaking of the advocates of secession, he said: "The ordinance of secession, or those acts of a State which recognized a condition of war between the State and the General Government, stood as their justification for their bearing arms against the Government of the United States. They considered the act of the State as legitimate. That they were merely using the reserved right, which they had a right to do."
From these views General Lee was led to a specific statement of his own position:
Question: "State, if you please, what your own personal views on that question were?"
Answer: "That was my view; that the act of Virginia in withdrawing herself from the United States carried me along as a citizen of Virginia, and that her laws and her acts were binding on me."
Question: "And that you felt to be your justification in taking the course you did?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
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 a.s.sumed 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 Const.i.tution 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.
GENERAL GEORGE H. THOMAS
Of the soldiers of the Northern army in the war of the Rebellion, General George H. Thomas takes rank next after the first three--Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. When Grant became President and Sherman was general of the army the President was unwilling to appear to neglect either Sheridan or Thomas. With high appreciation of Thomas as a soldier, the President gave higher rank to Sheridan. He said to me that he placed Sheridan above every other officer of the war. He gave Sheridan credit for two supreme qualities--great care in his plans and great vigor in execution.
Yet, although the President acted upon a sound basis of opinion, the choice left a painful impression upon his memory.
General Thomas and General Lee were alike in personal appearance, and they resembled each other in their mental characteristics. In one important particular they differed--General Thomas had no respect for State-Rights doctrines. He was a native of Virginia, but there was no indication in his testimony, nor were there rumors, that he had ever hesitated in his course when the rebellion opened.
General Thomas was examined by the Committee on Reconstruction January 29, and February 2, 1866. He was then in command of the Military Division of the Tennessee which included the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. It was the main object of the committee to obtain information as to the public sentiment touching the treatment of the negroes and the re-establishment of civil government in the States that had been in rebellion. The Union sentiment was stronger in Tennessee than in any other State of the Confederacy. The inhabitants of the mountainous districts of eastern and middle Tennessee had been loyal from the opening of the contest in 1860 and 1860. Yet in 1866 General Thomas advised the committee that it would "not be safe to remove the national troops from Tennessee, or to withdraw martial law; or to restore the writ of habeas corpus to its full extent." At that time the peace of eastern Tennessee was disturbed by family feuds and personal quarrels, the outcome of political differences. In west Tennessee and in portions of middle Tennessee there was a deep seated hostility to Union men, and especially to Southern men who had served in the Union army.
General Thomas said of them: "They are more unfriendly to Union men natives of the State of Tennessee or of the South, who have been in the Union army, than they are to men of Northern birth."