Mr. Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator." The credit he received for doing what he did for black people was received as a consequence of political expediency.

Robert E. Lee freed 196 slaves which had belonged to his father-in-law after having educated them so that they would not be set free without some skill to employ.

He defied Virginia state law by educating his slaves and was allowed to do so because they were educated at Lee's expense and by his wife and daughters at Arlington and the state could not at that time interfere in the affairs of a private home.

Lee signed the last manumition papers on the eve of the Battle of Fredericksburg on December 11, 1862.

One man freed slaves, or tried to, for ploitical considerations.

One man freed slaves due to personal conviction.

Nice post, Rick. Thank you. It's also a good example that those who try to paint the Southerners with their 21 st. century views shouldn't use so broad a brush.

I'm sure that there will be some on this forum who will say that I cannot provide documentation for the following story, and they are right. I can only say that I heard it first from family members and then from a Yankee professor at college:

Shortly after his surrender and return to his family, Gen. Lee attended Sunday morning services. When it came time for communion, an elderly black gentleman rose and walked slowly to the altar rail and knelt down. No other person in the church got out of their seats, even though the priest waited for others to follow. Shortly, Robert E. Lee left his pew and walked to the rail and knelt beside the newly freed man. They received communion side by side from the same chalice.

As Bill Richter says, "If it didn't happen that way, it should have!" Parable or truth, we can all learn from it.

Laurie,

I can provide you with documentation for your story; Confederate Veteran Magazine, August 1905, from an article written by former Confederate Colonel T. L. Broun, who was in Richmond on business in June of 1865 and attended services at St. Paul's Episcopal Church on the morning that General Lee took communion with a black man.

Here it is:

"NEGRO COMMUNED AT ST. PAUL'S CHURCH," CONFEDERATE VETERAN, 13 (AUGUST 1905): 360. Col. T. L. Broun, of Charleston, W. Va., writes of having been present at St. Paul's Church, Richmond, Va., just after the war when a negro marched to the communion table ahead of the congregation. His account of the event is as follows:

Two months after the evacuation of Richmond business called me to Richmond for a few days, and on a Sunday morning in June, 1865, I attended St. Paul's Church. Dr. Minnegerode [sic] preached. It was communion day; and when the minister was ready to administer the holy communion, a negro in the church arose and advanced to the communion table. He was tall, well-dressed, and black. This was a great surprise and shock to the communicants and others present. Its effect upon the communicants was startling, and for several moments they retained their seats in solemn silence and did not move, being deeply chagrined at this attempt to inaugurate the "new regime" to offend and humiliate them during their most devoted Church services. Dr. Minnegerode [sic] was evidently embarrassed.

General Robert E. Lee was present, and, ignoring the action and presence of the negro, arose in his usual dignified and self-possessed manner, walked up the aisle to the chancel rail, and reverently knelt down to partake of the communion, and not far from the negro. This lofty conception of duty by Gen. Lee under such provoking and irritating circumstances had a magic effect upon the other communicants (including the writer), who went forward to the communion table.

By this action of Gen. Lee the services were conducted as if the negro had not been present. It was a grand exhibition of superiority shown by a true Christian and great soldier under the most trying and offensive circumstances."

Thank you, Rick. I have waited for over fifty years for proof that the event occurred.

Laurie,

You are most welcome. Here is another example of a Southerner and his attitude toward black people and slaves; of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson and the Sunday School he founded in Lexington before the War in which he not only taught the Gospel to his students, but in defiance of Virginia State Law, taught them to read.

"Soon after one of the great battles, a large crowd gathered one day at the post office in Lexington, anxiously awaiting the opening of the mail, that they might get the particulars concerning the great battle which they had heard had been fought. The venerable pastor of the Presbyterian Church (Rev. Dr. W.S. White, from whom I received the incident) was of the company, and soon had handed him a letter which he recognized as directed in Jackson's well known handwriting. ‘Now,’ said he, ‘we will have the news! Here is a letter from General Jackson himself.’ The crowd eagerly gathered around, but heard to their very great disappointment a letter which made not the most remote allusion to the battle or the war, but which enclosed a check for fifty dollars with which to buy books for his colored Sunday school, and was filled with inquiries after the interests of the school and the church. He had no time for inclination to write of the great victory and the imperishable laurels he was winning; but he found time to remember his noble work among God's poor, and to contribute further to the good of the Negro children whose true friend and benefactor he had always been. And he was accustomed to say that one of the very greatest privations to him which the war brought, was that he was taken away from his loved work in the colored Sunday school." ~ William Jones {Confederate Chaplain from Georgia and known as "The Fighting Parson."}

Herb,

My compliments to you & Dr. Castel.

Rick

(06-05-2013 06:59 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Laurie,

I can provide you with documentation for your story; Confederate Veteran Magazine, August 1905, from an article written by former Confederate Colonel T. L. Broun, who was in Richmond on business in June of 1865 and attended services at St. Paul's Episcopal Church on the morning that General Lee took communion with a black man.

Here it is:

"NEGRO COMMUNED AT ST. PAUL'S CHURCH," CONFEDERATE VETERAN, 13 (AUGUST 1905): 360. Col. T. L. Broun, of Charleston, W. Va., writes of having been present at St. Paul's Church, Richmond, Va., just after the war when a negro marched to the communion table ahead of the congregation. His account of the event is as follows:

Two months after the evacuation of Richmond business called me to Richmond for a few days, and on a Sunday morning in June, 1865, I attended St. Paul's Church. Dr. Minnegerode [sic] preached. It was communion day; and when the minister was ready to administer the holy communion, a negro in the church arose and advanced to the communion table. He was tall, well-dressed, and black. This was a great surprise and shock to the communicants and others present. Its effect upon the communicants was startling, and for several moments they retained their seats in solemn silence and did not move, being deeply chagrined at this attempt to inaugurate the "new regime" to offend and humiliate them during their most devoted Church services. Dr. Minnegerode [sic] was evidently embarrassed.

General Robert E. Lee was present, and, ignoring the action and presence of the negro, arose in his usual dignified and self-possessed manner, walked up the aisle to the chancel rail, and reverently knelt down to partake of the communion, and not far from the negro. This lofty conception of duty by Gen. Lee under such provoking and irritating circumstances had a magic effect upon the other communicants (including the writer), who went forward to the communion table.

By this action of Gen. Lee the services were conducted as if the negro had not been present. It was a grand exhibition of superiority shown by a true Christian and great soldier under the most trying and offensive circumstances."

Isn't it interesting the different context that can be placed on the same event. Some of us choose to believe that Gen'l Lee was taking communion with a black man. Col. Broun sees Lee taking communion in spite of an offensive negro.

Or that Lee was demonstrating that life goes on despite the color of one's skin. He further demonstrated that the war was over, the way of life had changed for the people of Richmond, and that he was acknowledging the change. That's what dignified and intelligent people do - acknowledge change and move on.

The whole idea of segregation and Jim Crow and a class society seems so bizarre. What was most people's (North or South, doesn't matter) greatest fear or reason for not wanting to be integrated with certain people? Did they think some people were not fully human? Did they think some people had something that was "catching" (socially or otherwise)? Was it mainly due to a difference in physical characteristics? Was it mainly due to cultural characteristics? If so, why wasn't more attempt made to bridge the gap in cultures?

I can fully understand not wanting to associate with certain "types" of people, such as loudmouths, physically aggressive people, etc., but that is a completely different thing. And I can understand how stereotypes develop, and that there is usually at least a grain of truth underlying them. But for one race of people to wholesale write off another race of people (and probably vice versa)...what is that all about?

(06-04-2013 08:45 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Mr. Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator." The credit he received for doing what he did for black people was received as a consequence of political expediency.

Robert E. Lee freed 196 slaves which had belonged to his father-in-law after having educated them so that they would not be set free without some skill to employ.

He defied Virginia state law by educating his slaves and was allowed to do so because they were educated at Lee's expense and by his wife and daughters at Arlington and the state could not at that time interfere in the affairs of a private home.

Lee signed the last manumition papers on the eve of the Battle of Fredericksburg on December 11, 1862.

One man freed slaves, or tried to, for ploitical considerations.

One man freed slaves due to personal conviction.

I was under the impression that the Custis will stipulated the emancipation of his slaves. Is that not correct?

(06-06-2013 07:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Or that Lee was demonstrating that life goes on despite the color of one's skin. He further demonstrated that the war was over, the way of life had changed for the people of Richmond, and that he was acknowledging the change. That's what dignified and intelligent people do - acknowledge change and move on.

Laurie's comments are very much to the point here.

I believe that it is impossible for us to place ourselves into the context of those times and to understand them fully, but it is important to try, even though we are hampered by the burden of being expected to view every issue through the lens of political and social correctness.

General Lee was responding in the way he did not to promote racial equality, but to diffuse a potentially explosive situation. He was also realistic enough to understand that for better or worse, a significant change had taken place in the world in which he lived.

Examined carefully, with an understanding of General Lee's faith, he was responding to the situation, not perfectly perhaps, but as Christian gentleman.

---

(06-07-2013 07:19 AM)tblunk Wrote:  

(06-04-2013 08:45 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Mr. Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator." The credit he received for doing what he did for black people was received as a consequence of political expediency.

Robert E. Lee freed 196 slaves which had belonged to his father-in-law after having educated them so that they would not be set free without some skill to employ.

He defied Virginia state law by educating his slaves and was allowed to do so because they were educated at Lee's expense and by his wife and daughters at Arlington and the state could not at that time interfere in the affairs of a private home.

Lee signed the last manumition papers on the eve of the Battle of Fredericksburg on December 11, 1862.

One man freed slaves, or tried to, for ploitical considerations.

One man freed slaves due to personal conviction.

I was under the impression that the Custis will stipulated the emancipation of his slaves. Is that not correct?

That is correct, but Lee would have agreed whether stipulated or not. Lee considered slavery to be a great moral evil {his words} and that it tended to degrade both master and slave and gave each the view that labor was a thing to be avoided.

(06-07-2013 07:19 AM)tblunk Wrote:  

(06-04-2013 08:45 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Mr. Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator." The credit he received for doing what he did for black people was received as a consequence of political expediency.

One man freed slaves, or tried to, for ploitical considerations.

One man freed slaves due to personal conviction.

I was under the impression that the Custis will stipulated the emancipation of his slaves. Is that not correct?

That is correct, but Lee would have agreed whether stipulated or not. Lee considered slavery to be a great moral evil {his words} and that it tended to degrade both master and slave and gave each the view that labor was a thing to be avoided.
[/quote]

It seems that the names Lincoln and Lee could be interchangeable in this discussion. Except that one owned slaves and one did not.

In analyzing the Lee incident at the altar rail, I have come to think that the priest was the one who created a potential problem. Lee was an Episcopalian, as am I. When the black gentleman knelt at the altar, the priest was obligated to give him communion (unless the man had crossed his arms over his chest to indicate that he had not been confirmed and, therefore, needed a blessing only). When the priest realized (within about ten seconds) that no one else was rising from their pew, I think he should have administered the wafer and wine to the gentleman and not just stood there waiting to see what was going to happen.

To my mind, Lee's actions diffused a bad situation. He could have remained in his pew and done nothing. For us, whose Christian views are so different from those of our forefathers, to surmise that Lee was making an arrogant gesture instead is unsubstantiated and fairly typical of modern culture that tends to put negative spins on everything.

Sorry, I spent 26 years on the organ stool at my church, starting at age 12. And, I spent most of those years under the "old" Episcopal liturgy and beliefs. I am far from being a modern, liberal Episcopalian; I still prefer the dignity of the original Anglican faith, so you will have to pardon my piety.

General Lee did own slaves for a period of time, but during that time he began educating his slaves so that when their freedom was secured, they would not be sent into the world without some means at least to help them move forward.

Lee's decision to educate his slaves made the emancipation process more lengthy and it was about four years later that Lee signed the last manumission papers in December of 1862.

When asked by Alexander Stephens what would happen to former slaves now set free into the world, Mr. Lincoln replied, "It is a case of root hog or die."