The article is interesting, but I've made my point and must get back to work. BTW, the War on Terror and the need to retain GOP control of Congress are much more important than this subject. Cheers,
I would, if you have no objection. Let's start with...oh, with this item here:
"It was not just Southern generals who owned slaves but northern generals owned them as well. General Ulysses Grant's slaves had to await the Thirteenth Amendment for freedom. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, General Grant said, "Good help is so hard to come by these days.""
I'd like to know how this was possible. Grant was living in Illinois prior to the rebellion and slavery wasn't allowed there. His wife and in-laws were from Missouri, a slave state, but slavery was ended there by amendment to the state constitution in January 1865. How could Grant have owned any slaves in December 1865 when neither he nor his wife were living anywhere where he legally could?