Now that aside, did Lee have his own slaves? Both Fitzhugh Lee and General Long (both biographer of Lee) seem indicate that he did.
As for the Liberia claim - I have not heard that, but if he did, he did it as the executor of his father-in-law's will.
Lee never owned Arlington or the White House Plantation. At his father-in-law's death, Arlington went to his oldest son Custis and the White House Plantation to Rooney Lee. That is why Custis sued the government for the return of Arlington and the Washington memorabilia that disappeared during Arlington and the White House's occupation.
Washington Parke Custis allowed 5 years for the training of his "former" slaves in business so they could support themselves. In 1863, Lee took time from the war to sign the emancipation papers.
George Washington Parke Custis was dead. His daughter was his heir. Property of the wife belonged to the husband. Lee signed the papers that emancipated them.
Now that aside, did Lee have his own slaves? Both Fitzhugh Lee and General Long (both biographer of Lee) seem indicate that he did.
As do Douglas Southall Freeman and the Library of Congress.
As for the Liberia claim - I have not heard that, but if he did, he did it as the executor of his father-in-law's will.
No, it was done much earlier for some of his own slaves and while his father-in-law was still alive. At least one pair, William and Rosebella Burke, made the trip with their family in 1853. In Liberia, William Burke attended a Presbyterian seiminary and became an ordained minister. For those who condemn Lincoln for his support of colonization let me remind them that that was something William Burke could never have done had he remained in the South. We know about the Burke's because they corresponded with the Lee family up until the rebellion. But if Lee paid passager for the Burke's then there is no reason to believe he didn't do it for others as well.
Washington Parke Custis allowed 5 years for the training of his "former" slaves in business so they could support themselves. In 1863, Lee took time from the war to sign the emancipation papers.
Actually Lee worked the slaves, hiring them out to help pay off some of his father-in-law's debts. And Lee freed the slaves in December 1862, a day or two before the Emancipation Proclamation became effective, and about 5 months after the 5 year time limit that his father-in-law's will required. But since Lee was busy fighting the rebellion then one cannot criticize him for being just a little bit tardy.
Oh, and according to Virginia law those slaves that Lee freed had 12 months in which to leave Virginia or else they could be sold back into slavery. Nice guys, huh?
But what Lee did was keep them doing the same plantation work at Arlington and to try to lease them out so that he could pay off some debts. In the end he kept them for two months past the five years that his father in law had stipulated. The slaves, who had been promised their freedom when George Custis died, were not happy to learn they weren't to be free for five more years and three of them tried to escape. They were quickly recaptured and, according to one of them, Wesley Norris, Lee had them all flogged--50 lashes for the two men and 20 for the woman.
Maybe that's the training you're talking about.