The Private Thoughts of Robert E. Lee

Lee's real feelings about the Confederacy and slavery

June 24, 2007 RSS Feed Print

Can there possibly be any secrets left to discover about the life of Confederate icon Robert E. Lee? Yes—and the source is the general himself.

For her newly published biography, Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor draws on a cache of previously unknown Lee family papers, discovered in 2002 in two sturdy wooden trunks that Lee's daughter stored in a Virginia bank about a century ago. Quoting from these and other overlooked letters, Pryor presents a multifaceted man, more accessible and at the same time more puzzling than ever. He was an irrepressible flirt, and, contrary to popular belief, Lee not only believed in slavery; he was capable of treating his own slaves cruelly.

How does the Lee of textbooks differ from the Lee you discovered?

I was struck by the discrepancy between the formidable stone icon and this warm, witty, lusty, vulnerable human being filled with foibles and bafflements.

He was quite a ladies' man, right?

A lot of those letters are very foxy. He's obviously attracted to women and likes to write naughty notes to them. But as far as I can tell, he was not unfaithful, and his wife [Mary Anna Randolph Custis] accepted his flirtatiousness with great humor. For instance, he will write these saucy letters, and she will add a friendly note at the end. She'll write, we're going to a reception, and I hope Robert doesn't pass himself off as a young widower!

His letters about his children are tender.

He writes about holding his children, swimming with his son on his back. It's endearing that this dashing soldier read parenting manuals when he was stationed away from home when they were little.

But you found troubling aspects, as well.

When I was reading these letters, I had to keep questioning my own assumptions about Lee: Was he really against slavery and secession as has been claimed for many years? Was his decision to fight for the Confederacy as inevitable as many maintain? How do we assess these huge questions of patriotism and loyalty that he had to address?

What were his views on slavery?

These papers are filled with information about slavery. This is not something you have to read between the lines; Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

It is shocking how he treated his father-in-law's slaves.

Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.

What happened after that?

Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

In another departure from the conventional portrait of Lee, you show him agonizing over joining the Confederacy.

Lee's decision to go with Virginia was not inevitable at all. It was very wrenching, and we trivialize it if we say, as some biographers have, that it's a no-brainer, that it was the choice he was born to make. To put it in some context, Gen. Winfield Scott remained with the Union, and he was from Virginia, and so did two fifths of all West Pointers from Virginia. Lee himself said he held on to his letter resigning from the U.S. Army for a whole day before he sent it because it was so painful. The description of Lee at home pacing and weeping and praying, trying to decide what to do is almost a Shakespearean moment.

Yet two days later, Lee accepted the offer to lead Virginia's forces.

Lee's explanation was, "I could not raise my hand against my home and my family." The irony is that many of his friends and family members sided with the North, including his sister, whom he never saw again. Her son and two of his closest cousins fought for the North. So either way, Lee would fight against members of his family, and that's why it was an impossible decision.

After the war, how did he feel about his decisions?

Lee was devastated. He was never able to give a candid assessment of his own role in the war—where he was wrong or could have done things differently—because it was too overwhelming. Outwardly, Lee conducted himself with great dignity and was a model of how to endure the unendurable and to stay in Virginia—even though his wife has lost her home, he has lost a huge number of relatives, and he has not a penny to his name. But beneath the facade, we see some explosive feelings inside. I found scraps of paper, unfinished essays, letters to cousins in Europe with quite a lot of bitterness and anger, which is not the way he has been perceived. He's a disappointed, heartsick man in old age. And it's tragic because he is an appealing figure in so many ways.

Tags:
history,
Civil War

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

At least you got it that Lee was cruel to his slaves, but did you notice the DETAILS? He was obsessed to get one girl back, kept meticulous notes about her, give drastically higher bounties to get her back, and personally directed her capture. Then he had her tortured and sold her baby.

Did you see the white looking slave baby girl in the picture? Do you realize he SOLD that baby girl? Do you know where white looking slave girls ended up? I bet you don't. Whore houses. That's why they so were valuable.

Pryor is very clever, she admits Lee sold white looking slave girl babies -- only by cryptically saying that as of a certain date, only old slaves, and young boy slaves, remained. Artful dodge. In other words, the FEMALES were gone. Where?

Lee's account ledgers were extensive -- Pryor had them! She knows where they went. If they had died, Lee would have recorded that. She dances all around it, she can't be candid, because she adores Lee.

Pryor deserves are lot of credit to expose as much as she did, but she exposes it AS she is working very hard to excuse or minimize it. She actually blames the slaves for the torture, saying they "tested Lee". How did the slave girls "test" him? They ran away. Why did they run away? Because he was selling their babies.

Pryor also says Lee's torture (discipline) was a result of his "poor cross cultural communication". How Orwellian can you get? He tortured them because he was a poor communicator??? Reminds me of that movie where Paul Newman was whipped, and the warden said it was "a failure to communicate"

You read the same book I did, and all this is in there. The torture, the white looking slave girl, his bounties, etc. But you didn't really "get it" because of how Pryor "revealed" the amazing facts. She is working MUCH harder to sanitize and minimize and gloss over the horrors.

Lee DEFENDED slavery as God's wish, and defended the TORTURE of slaves, saying that God intended slavery be to painful, as a way to teach blacks. Typical of the insanity of Lee devotion, this very letter is often used by some to prove Lee was AGAINST slavery. It is actually a very smooth, -- aka sociopathic -- way to JUSTIFY slavery. He does say slavery should end, but in 2000 years, and only GOD can end it. It's evil for men to even try! And the pain he inflicted on slaves was justified -- in his mind.

Imagine if Lincoln had young girls tortured, gave very large bounties, personally directed the search, and then had the girl tortured, and sold her baby. Do you think that would be covered up the way Pryor has covered this up?

Again, she deserves a lot of credit for admitting the underlying facts, but she soft peddled them as much as humanly possible.

Mark of IL 5:31PM January 01, 2012

This lady is a total liar, this is totaly not true ., Lee had five years to put things right, you just couldn't free slaves on the spot and he finishised the paperwork in 1862 not 1863 in the meantime he had to get the plantation to pay for itself again as his father in law let it go to pot... his father inlaw spent beyond his means and was in debt at the time of his death.... seems to me she is just going on that letter that was proven to be a fake mmmm,. remember when thay said George Washington whipped his slaves now there trying to protray Lee in the same light I wish this sight would check the stories out first before letting and idiot write a bunch of lies

georgia49th of TX 11:54PM October 29, 2011

very interesting....seems to be very different from the Lee taught about in schools

Joe of VA 3:27PM September 12, 2011

advertisement

Latest Video