I hate to contradict you but as much as I respect and admire Lee, the last thing he could EVER be defined as was an abolitionist. What you are referring to is his reluctant concurrence in the waning days of the war to solicit slaves of fighting age to fight under the Confederate flag; in return at the successful conclusion of the war they would be manumitted. Not they and their wives, or they and their children...or brothers/sisters...parents....just themselves. That policy may be many things but it was not abolition.
That is a good description of the bill that barely passed, but Lee did ask for something different then they ended up with. Immediate freedom for the soldiers themselves for service and after the war freedom to their extended families for the honorable discharge of duties. One can also read into his comments a level of support for their families being given (at least a limited form of) citizenship with his comment about them being given the privilege of southern residency.
Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service.
We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.