Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: James Ewell Brown Stuart
These slaves that Freepers kept referring to were not Lee's slaves. They were his father-in-laws slaves. By freeing them, he was obeying the terms of his father-in-law's will.

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?

337 posted on 11/22/2006 10:14:08 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
If property of the wife belonged to the husband, then did Julia Dent's slaves belong to her husband U.S. Grant?

You seem to think that I will be shocked that Lee had slaves. I'm not.

Nice guys, huh?

I am fully aware of the slave situation in Virginia and in the South. I am not shocked nor dismayed by it. You cannot surprise me with these little tidbits. So, you could save yourself some time, (only if you want) and leave those off your post.

Now, I would like to know how a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army could afford all those slaves?

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. Disallowed. Projected generality with no foundation but your opinion, which you now substitute as fact.

341 posted on 11/22/2006 10:28:30 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (If you want to have a good time, jine the cavalry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson