Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DoodleDawg

The difference is the Lee family had no interest in owning slaves and freed all the ones they inherited once the debts were paid off. The Grants, however, had no such scruples and didn’t free theirs until they were forced to by the 13th amendment, or else their slaves ran away before that as you say they might have done.


193 posted on 07/12/2015 8:11:09 AM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

That is simply a lie.


194 posted on 07/12/2015 8:16:07 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
The Grants, however, had no such scruples and didn’t free theirs until they were forced to by the 13th amendment, or else their slaves ran away before that as you say they might have done.

The Grants didn't live anywhere that slavery was legal after January 1865 so how could they have owned slaves until December 1865?

195 posted on 07/12/2015 8:32:22 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson