Historical trivia that is meaningless. The Republican party as is known today was formed in 1854. The Democrat Party is much older and therefore has a much larger number of potential slave holders for that reason. It is just as specious an argument to say “General Grant owned slaves” (and he did, by virtue of marriage— ie. his wife’s family slaves) as it is to claim General Lee owned slaves (he did— they were Mary Custis Lee’s inherited slaves from her father George Washington Parke Custis. Many republicans to this day have slave ownership in family history, as well as being descended from indentured servants for life... so this is sophistry to try and state such an absolute.
The Democrats are so desperate to hide facts of history—such as the fact that no Republicans owned slaves—that they send out all kinds of helpers to try and obscure the fact. Careful.
Slavery is completely a crime of the Democrat party.
Republicans never owned slaves. They shed blood to free the slaves from the Democrats.
General Grant owned slaves” (and he did, by virtue of marriage— ie. his wife’s family slaves) as it is to claim General Lee owned slaves (he did— they were Mary Custis Lee’s inherited slaves from her father George Washington Parke Custis.
Not the case. Grant personally owned a slave given to him by Fredrick Dent, his father in law. Grant freed the man after about a year.
Mary Custis did not inherit the slaves her father owned. In the Custis will, the slaves remained the property of the estate. The will required the slaves to be freed once the debts and legacies of the estate were paid, but not longer than 5 years after Custis death. Lee was one of four executors to the Custis will.
There is some evidence, sketchy at best, that Lee may have owned some slaves inherited from his mother’s estate in 1822. Lee’s son said his father freed the last of them in 1838.