View single post by pamc153PA
 Posted: Wed Dec 10th, 2008 12:40 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407

  back to top

Hi folks. I've recently read an article in this month's Civil War Times about Lee and his feelings about slavery, written by Elizabeth Brown Pryor. In it, she not only tries to nail down how Lee truly felt about slavery, based on his writings and his treatment of his own slaves, but she seems bent on trying to prove that Lee was not the South's version of "The Great Emancipator." I thought it was a compelling article, but I was a little confused that it had to be proven that Lee was pro-slavery, if you will.

I am not a Lee scholar, true, but I always considered that Lee was a product of his times and of his social and economic status--and his geography. I'll admit I am fascinated by Lee, and hold some admiration for him, for his religion, his adherence to his principles, and that. In this respect, I'll admit to wanting to place perhaps Northern anti-slavery ideals on him--"how could such an intelligent, moral, religious man feel that slavery was morally right?"--even knowing that they are MY views, and in the end, Lee is STILL a product of his time period.

Still, I think that even this makes Lee more fascinating to me. Have I missed the basic thought in CW circles that Lee was NOT for slavery? I don't want to debate the right and wrong of slavery here, but is my premise that Lee almost HAD to be pro-slavery based on who he was, and his actions and words to that effect should not be a surprise wrong?

Thoughts, please!


Last edited on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 12:40 am by pamc153PA

 Close Window