Posted on 05/14/2015 12:24:55 AM PDT by Dallas59
Wrong. You say “had only one slave” - you should have said “owned one slave” - U.S. Grant’s wife owned slaves, which he most certainly “had.”
From the National Park site for Haven (Grant’s farm):
“In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned. During the Civil War, some slaves at White Haven simply walked off, as they did on many plantations in both Union and Confederate states. Missouri’s constitutional convention abolished slavery in the state in January 1865, freeing any slaves still living at White Haven.”
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and obama own many slaves.
The vast majority of the “black slaveholders” were actually mixed-race creoles in Louisiana. The French influence made slaveowners much more likely to acknowledge their children by their slaves, free them and allow them to inherit. They may have generations away from slavery and full-blooded blackness—quadroons, octaroons, etc.—but under the law they were still considered black. So you could quite easily have a “black slaveowner” who was only 1/16th black.
Wrong. Ownership of the slave William Jones was clear - the rest were decidedly not. Grant only had one slave.
No, Grant's wife's father owned slaves, one or two of whom were, for a time, sent to work for her. But the actual ownership title was with her father.
You are arguing with the National Parks we page. Grant had slaves freed by Missouri’s change in State Constitution, not freed by Grant.
Here's the important part:
None of the foregoing, of course, would prove that Julia did not hold legal title to her four “servants.” But, there is no known record that Col. Dent ever legally transferred ownership to Julia. In addition there is a letter sent from Ulysses to Julia from a camp near Corinth, Mississippi, dated May 16, 1862, in which he wrote:“Your father sent Emma [Julia’s other younger sister] a bill of sale for the negroes he gave her. To avoid a possibility of any of them being sold he ought to do the same with all the balance. I would not give anything for you to have any of them as it is not probable we will ever live in a slave state again but would not like to see them sold under the hammer.”[9]
By 1862, Col. Dent’s fortunes had seriously declined, and Grant was likely worried that the Dent slaves might be taken and sold to pay debt or taxes. Here is primary evidence that Julia was not the legal owner of the enslaved people she claimed were hers prior to 1862, and there is no evidence that her father ever complied with Grant’s request. It is also a window into Ulysses Grant’s character; that with all he was dealing with in the spring of 1862, he would still concern himself with the welfare of the enslaved people at White Haven.
ping
So what town will burn for this thread......? Call NBC lol, not
That is because the wee Scots, probably shoved a claymore broadsword up an English backside.....lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.