Robert E. Lee and Slavery (Article 37)
Robert Edward Lee cemented his place in American history for the difficult decision he made to resign from the U.S. Army as Civil War seemed eminent, and then for his military decisions which led to numerous successes on the battlefield against superior forces. However, as decisive as he was in those matters, he was always ambivalent toward slavery. Even the pillars of morality which his deeply held religious beliefs otherwise provided, could not rectify his personal conflicts about slavery. These uncertainties were evident years before the Civil War and he never reconciled these ambiguities until the end of War and after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery.
Finally, with slavery declared illegal and unconstitutional, Robert E. Lee, with his life-long reverence for law, no longer equivocated on the matter.
As an “officer and a gentleman” Robert E. Lee was highly regarded by political and military leaders in both the North and the South for his competence as an administrator and as a military tactician. He had distinguished himself during the Mexican War in 1846 and was called upon to lead the U.S. forces to end abolitionist John Brown’s occupation of the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry in 1859. In between he had served admirably throughout the country as a military administrator of major engineering projects, many of which were really federal public works programs such as building roads, bridges, canals, and ports.
On a personal level, most of Robert E. Lee’s acquaintances, North and South, considered him highly principled, likable, and empathetic, and their admiration is well documented. While from our vantage point 150 years later, Lee’s tolerance for slavery seems unconscionable; most historians recognize that his views were prevalent in his day, even throughout much of the North, and were actually somewhat enlightened for a Southern aristocrat.
As discontent spread across the south after the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, Lee had some hope that his native state of Virginia would not secede from the United States. He wrote, “If Virginia stands by the Old Union, so will I. But if she secedes, I will follow. Though I do not believe in secession as a Constitutional right, nor that there is cause for revolution.” However, he had decided that, even if Virginia chose to remain in the Union, he should resign his commission as a Colonel in the U.S. Army rather than be called upon to lead a military force against other Southern states. On April 20, 1861, he wrote, “I have resigned my commission and, save in defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.” He said he wished to simply retire to his home in Virginia and not be sought out by either side in the coming conflict. However, whatever his original intent, powerful and persuasive friends convinced him to at least meet with leaders of the Confederate government and on April 23rd he agreed to join the Virginia Militia, and on May 14th, he accepted a Confederate commission.
His decisions to resign from the U.S. Army and to later join the Confederate Army had nothing whatsoever to do with his views on slavery, but rather it was his heritage as a Virginian which proved to be a stronger bond than the Union; and it hung over him like a cloak.
Over the next four years his reputation as a military strategist became legendary. He was confident in his military orders and quick to respond to changing situations. But, as decisive as he was on these matters, he was never so clear about the issue of slavery.
Lee had often expressed his disapproval of slavery and hoped that it could eventually be abolished; however, he never articulated any reasonable time-table. And, in 1858, when he had the opportunity to free slaves owned by his father-in-law, George Washington Custis, he delayed any action for five years.
Lee’s complex and conflicted thoughts about slavery were evident when he wrote that, “Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country” but he accepted its current reality and added, “How long their subjugation may be necessary is only known and ordered by a wise and Merciful Providence.” However, he decried efforts by the Northern politicians to interfere with “the domestic institutions of the South” (i.e. slavery) saying “Their object is both unlawful and foreign (against) this institution for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable.”
It is interesting to note that Robert E. Lee was deeply religious and his beliefs and practices, and those of many other Southerners, accommodated slavery. For 200 years their religious leaders had proclaimed, among other justifications, that the Negro race was outcast from other biblical tribes (Old Testament), and that Jesus recognized the relationship of master-to-slave and never condemned slave-holding (New Testament). These doctrines led to Lee’s assertion that “Merciful Providence” would determine how much longer the slaves “subjugation” would be necessary. He once said “The Blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically and socially… and their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity…which I hope will prepare and lead them to better things.”
Despite these ambiguities, Lee certainly benefited from the services of slaves, but not through direct participation in the slave trade or even personal management of slaves. His aunt sent a slave to accompany Robert for his first military assignment after he received his commission from West Point in 1829. When Robert’s mother Mary Lee died, she left several slaves to each of her sons. While the four female slaves Robert inherited never served in his household, he did permit his brother to manage and “let” those slaves for which Robert probably received a portion of the proceeds. On the other hand, researchers have found no record of any slave being purchased by Robert or on his behalf, and in 1846 he transferred (not sold) the last of the slaves he had inherited to his father-in-law George Custis; perhaps as compensation for permitting Lee’s family to reside in Custis homes. After that, he probably never owned another slave; although, his wife’s family did own slaves at various Custis plantations; including Arlington which, at one time, had over 250 slaves. None, however, were owned by Robert E. Lee.
Some modern writers have declared that he freed the last of his slaves in 1862, but they misunderstood Lee’s role in that case. Lee was acting as the executor of his father-in-law’s estate which contained the provision that all slaves owned by Mr. Custis upon his death were to be freed in an orderly fashion at such time the estate was in solid financial condition, but in any case freed within five years of his death. After Mr. Custis died in 1857, Lee, acting as the executor, determined that earlier mismanagement and neglect of the plantations by George Custis and other Custis relatives had caused a drastic decline in crop production in the few prior years; therefore, the estate was not in “solid financial condition” as stipulated in the will. Lee intended, as executor, to utilize the “five-year” window to improve the status of the estate, and to accomplish that, he did not readily free the affected slaves. The Civil War had not yet started when Lee assumed the role as executor and for two years between 1858-1860, his plans were on track to revitalize the plantations and the value of the Custis estates steadily increased. Some critics of Lee suggest that he did not release the Custis slaves earlier because he would have financially benefited. Most respected Lee biographers, however, believe Lee was less interested in personal gain than in expressly following his fiduciary responsibilities as executor.
On December 29, 1862, Lee completed his assignment as executor and officially released the last of the Custis slaves on the five-year time-line; ironically, two days before the Emancipation Proclamation became effective. However, during the Civil War, the various Custis properties were ravaged and most of the property at Arlington, which was the crown jewel of the plantations, was confiscated by the Union Army and became Arlington National Cemetery.
So, in the end, Robert E. Lee’s efforts to revive the Custis holdings were in vain. As it was, the slaves had lost five years of potential freedom and the Custis family never regained their wealth.
After the Civil War ended there were those in the north who wanted Lee tried for crimes against the Federal government and they invented rumors about his mistreatment of slaves to press their point; unfortunately, some of those fabrications still surface today. However, the military and congressional inquiries at the time found no credible evidence that would impugn Lee’s character (other than involvement with slavery) and the new President, Andrew Johnson, refused to support any charges against Lee.
Robert E. Lee became the President of Washington College (later renamed Washington and Lee) for a nominal income; however, since he and his wife had lost all of their wealth in the War, including her interest in her family’s estate at Arlington, their financial situation was bleak for the rest of their lives. A few of the former Custis slaves continued to live near the Lees and served the General’s family, primarily to help care for Mrs. Lee who suffered from severe and crippling arthritis. But, by then, these freed people were there by choice.
In 1856, five years before the Civil War began, Lee’s ambiguity was evidenced by his words in a letter to a friend, in which he lamented the south’s dependence on slavery, and concluded with this profound statement, which also proved tragically prophetic; “This institution can only be changed by them (Northerners) through the agency of a Civil and Servile War.”
And, he was right!
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com