Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I have seen and liked that letter, but I think we should shade it at least a little towards "political correctness" when we read it. At the point in time it was written, Lee desperately needed troops, and was part of the effort to get the Negro soldier bill through the Confederate Congress. This letter is part of the effort, and I think Lee was maneuvering a little for votes. A man like Lee would not flat lie to do that, but he might present his own opinion in a way that the recipient would like a bit better.
Your letter is in 1865. Here's a letter to his wife Lee wrote December 27, 1856. I present it only to further develop Lee's position on the condition of slavery. The italics were added by me to show the start of what I think gives a greater depth to what Lee refers to in 1865:
=====
The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?
=====
Regards,
Tim
Slavery wasn't so much of an evil that he abstained from being a practitioner. Rather than the Hunter letter being an example of Lee shading his views to the audience, consider the 1856 letter in that light. His wife was a member of the Colonization Society, so Lee would know to tread carefully with her regarding slavery. So he would acknowledge her belief of slavery as a "moral and political evil" while at the same time showing his white supremacist side. It's not evil because of its evil effects on blacks, but rather because of what it did to whites. Somehow, being a slaveowner put one in a worse position than being a slave in this formulation. How that is, we are left to ponder. I suppose all that money one makes in stealing the labor of other people makes a person sad?
And notice he says that slavery is necessary for blacks. "I know that castor oil tastes terrible, but it's good for you." Yeah.
And abolitionists better take care not to create "angry feelings in the Master," because then the Master will beat the slaves and it will be the abolitionists' fault.
And note finally that it is the abolitionists, not the slave masters, who are pursuing an "evil course" according to Lee.
No, to the extent Lee was antislavery, and I doubt he was all that antislavery, it wasn't because he thought slavery to be morally wrong or that he really thought it was a moral evil.
Slavery wasn't so much of an evil that he abstained from being a practitioner. ...
Well, yes, like many a Southerner he was beset by the difficulties of living with slaves.
IIRR, Lee did own a few slaves himself , but I think the slaves you are talking about were part of his father-in-law's will. Is that them? If so, by the terms of that will, they were to be freed after his estate's debts were settled, but no more than 5 years after Mr. Custis' death.
Mr. Custis had left a mess behind: a $10,000 debt, no cash, grants in the will that had not been funded, and a non-productive estate with 196 slaves (60-odd at Arlington). Lee was supposed to be 1 of 4 executors, but the other three could not serve/did not qualify when the time came, so Robert E. ended up saddled with the whole mess. It also developed Mr. Custis hadn't told the slaves about the 5 year waiting period, so they expected to be freed immediately --and were really ticked when they discovered they were not.
Mr. Custis died in October of 1857. Lee granted manumission to the remaining Custis slaves in late 1862 (papers filed December 29). I don't know the fate of the slaves he had owned in his own name over the years.
Writing of the 1856 letter to his wife posted earlier, Lee's biographer Freeman said this: "This [letter] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionist or the effect of their agitation."
Freeman is obviously sympathetic to Lee, but he also knew a tremendous amount about the man and the times.
From his own letter, Lee admits that military expediency is the controlling factor in freeing the slaves, not morality or, even, legality. The Nat'l. Gov't reaching into the individual states and conscripting slaves may (or may not; there was still debate in the states) have been Constitutional, but freeing them, but the central gov't freeing them would seem to have been Unconstitututional.
Davis and Lee (whatever their private feelings) may have convinced themselves that the confederacy (or Va.) was worth the sacrifice of slavery, but the Va. Legislature And the Confederate Congress remained unconvinced by them.
Well, yes, like many a Southerner he was beset by the difficulties of living with slaves.
IIRR, Lee did own a few slaves himself , but I think the slaves you are talking about were part of his father-in-law's will. Is that them?
No, I'm talking about the approximately half-dozen slaves he owned in his own right and rented out to others, pocketing the pay for their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Mr. Custis died in October of 1857. Lee granted manumission to the remaining Custis slaves in late 1862 (papers filed December 29).
Some actually had to wait until 1863, but I give Lee the benefit of the doubt on that one. He was a bit busy at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I don't know the fate of the slaves he had owned in his own name over the years.
Nobody does, since they weren't important enough to Lee to keep track of. We do know he rented them out, but we don't know their eventual fates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Writing of the 1856 letter to his wife posted earlier, Lee's biographer Freeman said this: "This [letter] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionist or the effect of their agitation."
Freeman is obviously sympathetic to Lee, but he also knew a tremendous amount about the man and the times.
Regards,
Tim
I've read all four volumes of Freeman's biography of Lee. He was more than sympathetic. He was on the verge of worshipful. The biography is hagiography. Freeman whitewashes Lee's experience with slavery to some extent.
From his own letter, Lee admits that military expediency is the controlling factor in freeing the slaves, not morality or, even, legality. The Nat'l. Gov't reaching into the individual states and conscripting slaves may (or may not; there was still debate in the states) have been Constitutional, but freeing them, but the central gov't freeing them would seem to have been Unconstitututional.
Davis and Lee (whatever their private feelings) may have convinced themselves that the confederacy (or Va.) was worth the sacrifice of slavery, but the Va. Legislature And the Confederate Congress remained unconvinced by them.
The plan was to sacrifice a part of slavery by freeing some slaves in order to retain the rest of it by keeping others in bondage. I don't read Lee as sacrificing slavery, though he does say that it is a possible outcome and that in that event it would be the white southerners who would control the conditions and would be able to maintain control over the blacks.
Yes, because it is an expedient (not an action from conviction) freeing the slaves would necessarily be restricted and closely confined. You only sacrifice the bare minimum to accomplish the goal. But, to give Lee his due, I believe he had decided that (for good or Ill) complete emancipation would be required in the end. It would be necessity that drives him to it, thought, not belief or conviction and if necessity did not drive the south (or in Lee's case Va.) to full emancipation, then you would, indeed, hear no arguments from Lee.
P.S. Real Conviction, was to be found in both the Va. Legislature and the Confederate Congress, when both passed legislation allowing slaves to be enrolled in Confederate Armies, without mentioning emancipation.
In Michael Fellman's bio of Lee "The Making of Robert E. Lee"
He deals a little with Lee's feelings about slavery. By the middle of the war, Lee gives the impression of being sick and tired of the business of slaveowning and willing to see the back of the bondspeople he was responsible for(Custis slaves).
Without a doubt Lee was a white supremacist,and a conservative in the sense he wanted little or gradual social change(slavery included). He didn't delude himself into thinking slavery was wonderful for blacks, but (prewar) was not the type of man who could advocate the kind of social reform restricting or abolishing slavery would entail. It would be a wrenching away from the fabric of his society that was literally unthinkable.
But he was too rational not to understand that Confederate emancipation would both be necessary to continue the war, and that it would serious social consequences. He was willing to take that risk for victory, unsurprising when you understand he was passionate aobut winning, not passionate about slaveowning.
By the way, was it here that someone posted that the actual antislavery person in Lee's family was his wife?
Another thing to consider about Lee's letters is who they are directed to. Lee was diplomatic and sought to sugarcoat the bitter pill of emancipation by agreeing with his correspondent's prejudices and desires. Think about how he handled Davis all those years. I don't know that Lee's letters always reflect his own feelings about issues.
By the way, was it here that someone posted that the actual antislavery person in Lee's family was his wife?
It wasn't really me, but the Custis women were very much against slavery. They weren't Abolitionists or members of the Underground Railroad, but they were part of the effort to free slaves and send them back to Africa. One of the freed Custis slaves actually took that option.
There's a recent book of Lee's letters, which I haven't read. Time, time time.
I have it and have quoted from it in this thread.
It's time people put away the manufactured facade of Lee the antislaveryite and recognized him for who he really was.
"There are two women belonging to the Estate of G. W. P. Ustis, now in Washington, where they have been since 1 Jany last. One, black, about 35 years old, named Caroline Bingham with a child about 6 mos. old, has been seen frequently in the centre market, going & returning by N.7th st. The other, mulatto, about 23 years old, named Catherine Burke, with a nearly white child about 2½ years old, has also been seen in the centre market. Last Saturday evening she was seen in Mr. Bryans Grocers store near 7th St. with Austin Syphax, a freedman from this place. They report themselves at service with my consent--I have offered $10 for the apprehension of each of these women, upon their delivery in the Jail at Alexa & the expenses of transporting them there." [Robert E. Lee to Mr. A. E. L. Keese, 24 Apr 1858]
Is that an antislavery man?
In his letter to his wife he called slavery "necessary" for blacks. Is that an antislavery man? And apparently it was "necessary" for a 2½-year-old child who was "nearly white." Is that an antislavery man?
"Some historians have proposed that he [Lee] was silent on the subject of slavery, at times boiling down his entire thinking to one long political paragraph he penned in 1856. Actually Lee's letters are peppered with comments about race, servitude, and abolition. Some make statements that by today's standards would be branded elitist, if not straightforwardly racist. Others discuss the day-to-day arrangements of slavery, which Lee never failed to find irritating. There are numerous letters that give clues to his moral and political thinking on the subject. Taken together, they provide abundant detail about Lee's thirty-five-year involvement with the peculiar institution.
"The tradition that Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery has become part of the mythology that surrounds him." [Elizabeth Brown Pryor, _Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters,_ p. 144]
What Lee didn't like about slavery wasn't the moral question. It was what he saw as its inefficiency [because he saw blacks as lazy troublemakers], the responsibility it placed on him, and the fact that he had to deal with the slaves on a personal level.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
