Did you miss the part where I said I was not sure that those numbers were correct? I think you did. However please keep in mind that 70-80% of southern soldiers were not slave owners. The Northern hero Grant owned slaves while Lee did not.
Yes, I read Chuck's article. So then whose slaves did Lee free in 1862 if not his own? And where is the evidence that Grant owned a single slave past 1859?
However please keep in mind that 70-80% of southern soldiers were not slave owners. The Northern hero Grant owned slaves while Lee did not.
The fact that 70 – 80% of Southern soldiers were not slave holders in immaterial. Individuals did not secede from the Union, the States did. The states were very (crystal) clear that their reason for seceding was slavery. You don’t have to believe me – just read the Articles of Secession that the states wrote to justify their secession> Individual soldiers had many reasons for fighting, but the reason there was a Confederate Army to join was because they seceded to protect slavery.
As far as the statement that Grant owned slaves, if you look at the data, from 1854 to 1859 Grant lived on, and managed, his father-in-law’s farm at White Haven, Missouri. While the majority of slaves on the farm were owned by his father-in-law, Grant did own one slave, William Jones, that he freed in 1859. As far as whether Lee owned slaves, the data is a little less clear. As the executor, of his father-in-laws will, Lee had control over 63 slaves, who worked on his plantation. As a condition of the will, he was required to manumit them within 5 years, which he did. Note that he could have manumitted them earlier than that, but he chose to keep them as long as possible and personally benefit from their labor