Nor did President Lincoln, General Grant, and practically the entire Union Army. So, his point is? The first and for many years only place where this occurred in the United States was in the states of the former Confederacy during Reconstruction. General Lee would have had black members of government representing him in government.
I am so sick of modern “intellectuals” judging historical figures by our modern standards rather than by the standards of the societies in which they lived. By the standards of antebellum America, Lee comes off as very progressive and non-racist. Obviously he would not have advocated seeing blacks hold government positions, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would have advocated for that. Even the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction really only advocated electing blacks to Senate and House seats because they saw blacks as a poorly educated voting block beholden to the party who they could likely control and use to win elections.
Lee, however, did oppose the spread of slavery and likely would not have completely opposed gradual abolition. Further, he really was not one of the “fire-eaters” who were dying for secession. He fought the war only reluctantly. Another point about antebellum society: most people considered themselves first and foremost a citizen of the state in which they lived, and only secondarily American citizens. The truth about Lee’s participation in the war is that he fought only after Virginia seceeded and then only because of his loyalty to his state.
Sure, by the race-baiters’ standards, Lee was a flaming racist who fought to keep blacks in chains forever. The truth, however, is much different and more nuanced, something these race-baiting idiots of today cannot comprehend.