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.
Actually, Robert E. Lee's religious position on slavery looks about average for an Upper South Protestant, particularly an Episcopalian, in the 2 decades or so before the Civil War. Those people tended to feel that slavery should not really be confronted and discussed within their religion/church, but rather in civil life.
And Lee preferred not to confront it at all, though he still participated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Down in the Deep South, members of the same denominations were more than willing to discuss slavery within the framework of their religion (on average) and saw deep evangelical purpose in it (further supporting the "white man's burden" position). Not too surprising when you note the proportions of slaves to whites in those states and the importance of slavery to the local economy.
I don't agree with or like those positions. I do note that Robert E. Lee shows every sign of acting just like a great many other Southerners who professed the same belief and attitude. I have not seen any reason to feel he was insincere in what he said.
And Lee preferred not to confront it at all, though he still participated.
In short, he was like most people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
His actions and what he wrote in other letters.
Which seem completely in sync with the attitude he and others expressed in the days running up to the Civil War, and entirely sincere.
As I have pointed out numerous times, I disagree strongly with the position Lee took. I see no reason at all to doubt he was sincere in his belief, because that is, in general, how Southerners described their feeling about slavery. I see no conflict between the letters you have pointed out and Lee's actions -- if you look at them the way an 1860 Southerner would have looked at them. I think you are judging his sincerity by a standard he would not have applied to himself, nor would his fellow Southerners have applied it. The more adamant Abolitionists and Radical Republicans would have seen it (did see it) as you do.
Like most southerners of his class. He wasn't antislavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Which seem completely in sync with the attitude he and others expressed in the days running up to the Civil War, and entirely sincere.
But not in synch with the claim that he was antislavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
As I have pointed out numerous times, I disagree strongly with the position Lee took.
I believe you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I see no reason at all to doubt he was sincere in his belief, because that is, in general, how Southerners described their feeling about slavery.
Which belief, though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I see no conflict between the letters you have pointed out and Lee's actions -- if you look at them the way an 1860 Southerner would have looked at them. I think you are judging his sincerity by a standard he would not have applied to himself, nor would his fellow Southerners have applied it. The more adamant Abolitionists and Radical Republicans would have seen it (did see it) as you do.
Regards,
Tim
There is no conflict between the letters I've quoted and his actions. There is, however, a conflict between his postwar claim that he had always been in favor of emancipation and his actions. There is a conflict between his 1856 claim that slavery was a "moral and political evil" and his actions. I do not believe he was sincere in those two claims.
Thank you for the excellent discourse on Lee and his feelings about slavery pre and post war.
If you can, please continue. If not, thanks for the lesson.
It is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I see no reason at all to doubt he was sincere in his belief, because that is, in general, how Southerners described their feeling about slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Which belief, though?
This one, from the 1856 letter you say he did not mean:
"... 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?"
This is perfectly consistent with men like Lee in the Upper South in the 1850s. You say he was insincere; I think he was sincere.
This one, from the 1856 letter you say he did not mean:
"... 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?"
This is perfectly consistent with men like Lee in the Upper South in the 1850s. You say he was insincere; I think he was sincere.
Regards,
Tim
I think he was sincere for most of the letter. I don't think he was sincere when he called slavery a "moral and political evil," and this view wasn't common in the south in 1856. By that time "slavery as a positive good" was the predominant view. Lee's actions and his other letters contradict the statement in question.
Doesn't Lee's attitude hark back to the attitude of the founders, a group Lee admired and modelled himself after. Slavery wasn't a positive good, but rather a necessary evil. Lee almost sounds like Jefferson when he writes that slavery is a great wrong with bad effects on blacks, but especially on whites.
Jefferson never resolved the conflict between slavery and liberty in his own mind, although he grew more conservative as he grew older. Slavery is holding a wolf by the ears, how do you let go?(wrote Jefferson.)
Lee reconciles the benefits of slavery(to whites) with its brutality by expressing the pious hope that God and Christian influence would somehow dissolve slavery relatively painlessly in the unspecified future. Except for the overt religiousity, this too recalls the hopes of many of the framers that somehow slavery was on the way out.
In the meantime, Jefferson exploited his slaves, and wrote the prose that would undermine the institution. Lee acted out his social role as aristocrat and slaveowner, too intelligent to believe in it like a Yancy or a Hammond did, but ready to defend it with terrifying skill.
Doesn't Lee's attitude hark back to the attitude of the founders, a group Lee admired and modelled himself after. Slavery wasn't a positive good, but rather a necessary evil. Lee almost sounds like Jefferson when he writes that slavery is a great wrong with bad effects on blacks, but especially on whites.
Jefferson never resolved the conflict between slavery and liberty in his own mind, although he grew more conservative as he grew older. Slavery is holding a wolf by the ears, how do you let go?(wrote Jefferson.)
Lee reconciles the benefits of slavery(to whites) with its brutality by expressing the pious hope that God and Christian influence would somehow dissolve slavery relatively painlessly in the unspecified future. Except for the overt religiousity, this too recalls the hopes of many of the framers that somehow slavery was on the way out.
In the meantime, Jefferson exploited his slaves, and wrote the prose that would undermine the institution. Lee acted out his social role as aristocrat and slaveowner, too intelligent to believe in it like a Yancy or a Hammond did, but ready to defend it with terrifying skill.
I think I agree with that. Men like Lee and Jefferson demonstrate how even the great among us struggle with the t***** details of tough problems.
It does seem that Lee assumes that God will arrange emancipation in a thousand years..... or so.
Like most 'moderate' slave owners Lee, seems to prefer it to outlast his generation, as did most 'moderates' of all the previous generations.
The churches were preaching that slavery was necessary to society - that without it, Christians could not practice biblical principles found in the old and new testaments.
This convoluted idea was pervasive throughout the Southern communities and had great influence. Churches split over this even before secession.
Slavery was a religious issue in the South.
So when Southerners, like Lee, were bold enough to express that slavery was immoral and unchristianlike before the war, it was unpopular.
To my way of thinking, he certailnly didn't agree with the majority.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
