Editor’s note: In 1868, former Union General William Rosecrans approached Robert E. Lee about making a statement in support of the Democratic ticket for the 1868 presidential election. The Republicans stirred fear among the Northern electorate that a Democratic victory would destroy race relations and subject black Southerners to harsh treatment at the hands of their former masters. This was the height of the “bloody shirt”, a successful propaganda effort by the Republican Party to cast Democrats as “traitors” to the Union. Voting Democrat meant rejection of Union victory. Rosecrans supported the Democrats and hoped that Lee might be able to persuade Northern voters that the South supported reunification and would treat former slaves with justice. Lee declined to make a personal statement, but he agreed to set up a meeting at White Sulphur Springs in “West” Virginia (they signed it from “Virginia”) with several leading members of the former Confederacy and Rosecrans so that they could find common ground. The following is an account of that meeting with a corresponding statement from the Southerners in attendance published in the Staunton Spectator on September 8, 1868. Lee read the letter carefully and made only one recommendation during editing. It originally stated that, “we believe that but for the malign influences…” in the fourth paragraph. Lee disliked the word malign and had it removed, but the substance of the letter fully reflected Lee’s views on reconstruction, race relations, and reconciliation.
The conference of Gen. Rosecrans with Gen. R. E. Lee and other distinguished Southern men at the White Sulphur Springs has excited interest in all parts of the country, and the public have manifested a feverish anxiety to learn the character of the correspondence which took place between the parties. The letter of Gen. Rosecrans is long, and we have not the space to publish it in this issue, but we give below the reply of Gen. Lee and others which will enable the reader to learn the substance of it. The whole people of the South, with possibly the exception of mangy scallawags diseased with the leprosy of Radicalism, will heartily endorse the able and patriotic letter of Gen. Lee and the other distinguished men whose signatures are attached thereto. The National Intelligencer denominates it a “masterly letter,” and says “it is a calm, judicious, pacific, earnest and eminently paper.” Here it is:
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS
WEST VA., August 26, 1868.
GENERAL — I have had the honor to receive your letter of this date, and in accordance with your suggestions I have conferred with a number of gentlemen from the South in whose judgment I have confided, and who are well acquainted with the public sentiment of their respective States. They have kindly consented to unite with me in replying to your communication, and their names will be found with my own appended to this answer. With this explanation, we proceed to give you a candid statement of what we believe to be the sentiment of the Southern people in regard to the subject to which you refer.
Whatever opinions may have prevailed in the past in regard to African slavery, or the right of a State to secede from the Union, we believe we express the almost unanimous judgment of the Southern people when we declare that they consider that those questions were decided by the war, and that it is their intention in good faith to abide by that decision. At the close of the war, the Southern people laid down their arms and sought to resume their former relations with the United States Government.– Through their State Conventions they abolished slavery and annulled their ordinances of secession, and they returned to their peaceful pursuits with a sincere purpose to fulfill all their duties under the Constitution of the United States, which they had sworn to protect. If their action in these particulars had been met in a spirit of frankness and cordiality, we believe that ere this old irritations would have passed away, and the wounds inflicted by the war would have been in a great measure healed. As far as we are advised, the people of the South entertain no unfriendly feeling towards the government of the United States, but they complain that their rights under the Constitution are withheld from them in the administration thereof.
The idea that the Southern people are hostile to the negroes, and would oppress them if it were in their power to do so, is entirely unfounded. They have grown up in our midst, and we have been accustomed from childhood to look upon them with kindness. The change in the relations of the two races has brought no change in our feeling towards them. They still constitute the important part of our laboring population. Without their labor, the lands of the South would be comparatively unproductive. Without the employment which Southern agriculture provides they would be destitute of the means of subsistence, and become paupers, dependent on public bounty. Self-interest, even if there were no higher motive, would therefore prompt the whites of the South to extend to the negroes care and protection.
The important fact that the two races are, under existing circumstances, necessary to each other is gradually becoming apparent to both, and we believe that but for the influences exerted to stir up the passions of the negroes that the two races would soon adjust themselves on a basis of mutual kindness and advantage.
It is true that the people of the South, together with the people of the North and West, are, for obvious reasons, opposed to any system of laws which will place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race. But this opposition springs from no feelings of enmity, but from a deep seated conviction that at present the negroes have neither the intelligence nor other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power. They would inevitably become the victims of demagogues, who for selfish purposes would mislead them, to the serious injury of the public.
The great want of the South is peace. The people earnestly desire tranquility and the restoration of the Union. They deprecate disorder and excitement as the most serious obstacle to their prosperity. They ask a restoration of their rights under the Constitution. They desire relief from oppressive misrule. Above all, they would appeal to their countrymen for the re-establishment in the Southern States of that which has justly been the right of every American — the right of self-government. Establish these on a firm basis, and we can safely promise on behalf of the Southern people that they will faithfully obey the Constitution and laws of the United States, treat the negro with kindness and humanity, and fulfill every duty incumbent on peaceful citizens loyal to the Constitution of the country.
We believe the above contains a succinct reply to the general topics embraced in your letter, and we venture to say on behalf of the Southern people and of the officers and soldiers of the late Confederate army, that they will concur in all the sentiments which we have expressed.
Appreciating the patriotic motives which have prompted your letter, and reciprocating your expressions of kind regard, we have the honor to be,
Very respectfully and truly,
R. E. Lee, of Va.,
W. J. Green, N.C.,
G. T. Beauregard, La.,
Lewis E. Harvie, Va.
Alex. H. Stephens, Ga.,
P. V. Daniel Jr., Va.
C. M. Conrad, La.,
W.T. Sutherlin, Va.
Linton Stephens, Ga.,
A. B. James, La.,
A. T. Caperton, W. Va.,
T. Beauregard, Texas,
John Echols, Va.,
M. O. H. Norton, La.,
F. S. Stockdale, Texas,
T. P. Branch, Ga.,
Jos. R. Anderson, Va.,
Jeremiah Morton, Va.,
W. T. Turner, W. Va.,
John B. Baldwin, Va.,
C. H. Suber, S. C.,
Geo. W. Bolling, Va.,
E. Fontaine, Va.,
Theo. Flourney, Va.,
John Letcher, Va.,
James Lyons, Va.,
B. C. Adams, Miss.
To Gen. W. S. Rosecrans, Minister to Mexico.
White Springs, Va.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily the views of the Abbeville Institute.
I am pleased that RE Lee declined to address the People of the North, just as he refused US Grant’s request that he meet in conference with Lincoln after his surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, instead leaving it to civil authority.
We could have benefited from his counsel, as if there was any chance it would be heeded. His warning of demagogues, of many offered variously in letters in his few years following the War, was one that seems as obvious, now, as it must have been to him, then.
Most of you don’t realize it was the yankees who changed their military officers’ oath of office in 1862…this is what happens when a nation loses a war and must swear NEW ALLEGIANCE…the oath previously required officers to defend the united States and protect THEM from THEIR enemies…the current oath from 1862 until today requires officers to swear to defend “the Constitution”.
I wish there was a way to make this more plain to see…LOSERS change their oaths…not WINNERS.
The united States lost that last day at Gettysburg…fedgov came out on top.
“Lee declined to make a personal statement, but he agreed to set up a meeting at White Sulphur Springs in “West” Virginia (they signed it from “Virginia”) with several leading members of the former Confederacy and Rosecrans so that they could find common ground.”
Perhaps this is noteworthy: Pollard included White Sulphur in his Virginia Tourism book; it wasn’t called a “West Virginia” tourist guide.
“Above all, they would appeal to their countrymen for the re-establishment in the Southern States of that which has justly been the right of every American — the right of self-government.”
This boggles my mind. I know Lee and the other signatories were sincere in making this appeal, but did they really think it had a snowball’s chance in Hades of succeeding? They had just lost a war which had been waged to DENY the Southern States the right of self-government. The Union can no more be held together by force than a marriage can – the moment the divorcee is forced to remain at gunpoint, the nature of the union has irreparably changed. A unitary nation-state was born at Appomattox. How could the men who lived through this fail to see it?
“Above all, they would appeal to their countrymen for the re-establishment in the Southern States of that which has justly been the right of every American — the right of self-government.”
“This boggles my mind.”
I agree. I noticed that statement too, and couldn’t believe it. That’s why the Southern States seceded in the first place.
I have great affection and respect for R.E. Lee, so perhaps something is being misconstrued in that statement.
It’s the reason RE Lee declined to make a statement in the first place. It’s the reason, contrary to legend, Lee had no difficulty in deciding to remain with Virginia upon her secession, nor with refusing to join an invasion of the Southern states. He wasn’t concerned with consensus or prevailing winds, only with what he considered his duty. Lee had no interest in building, in his ever more famous words, “one vast empire, aggressive abroad and despotic at home”. Lee mostly desired to live out his life close to home with his family, leaving the rest to “Divine Providence”.
I’m considering the question only from Lee’s perspective, not from that of any other signatories.
“It is true that the people of the South, together with the people of the North and West, are, for obvious reasons, opposed to any system of laws which will place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race. But this opposition springs from no feelings of enmity, but from a deep seated conviction that at present the negroes have neither the intelligence nor other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power.”
Astonishing. How big a problem was unwittingly created when the Africans were brought to this continent.
“Slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears. You don’t like it, but are afraid to let go.” “The Civil War” said that Thomas Jefferson had said that.
a kind of thorny portion…..”and they returned to their peaceful pursuits with a sincere purpose to fulfill all their duties under the Constitution of the United States, which they had sworn to protect.” did a few decades earlier some northern states chose to not send troops due to Jeffersons lack of quality, called a Negro president, swore something, at least swore while still under the aegis of union..?