Silly me, I read Julia Grant's memoirs and didn't realize it was just a commissioned unpublished fiction novel.
Remember this? :) 
Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
The will provided for all of Custis' slaves to be emancipated, "the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."
So, they were promised their freedom, but Custis gave his executors up to five years to see it done.
Ah, the cheap shot designed to cause me to feel shame. Right on time too.
I mean really now, if this was about ending slavery, why tolerate slavery in four northern states?
Because they didn't rebel. If the south hadn't rebelled, they could have kept their slaves, too.
And spare me Missouri "ending slavery on it's own."
So you're arguing that Missouri didn't end slavery on its own before the 13th amendment was passed?
Mind you, not one of their congressional delegates signed anything to end slavery until the end of the Civil War.
What do congressional delegates have to do with ending slavery within a state? Maryland enacted a new state constitution in November, 1864 which ended slavery there.
I think the lack of honesty is on your part and your accusation that others are dodging. The strongest evidence to support it is the fact that the slaves Julia Grant had use of were freed at the same time as the Dent family slaves, February 1863. And the fact that Grant freed the one slave he is known to have owned outright before moving to Illinois. And as a resident of Illinois he could not have owned slaves in the state before, during, or after the rebellion so where were they? Make whatever assumptions you wish.
Letters helped to ease the pain of separation, and Julia frequently traveled to her husband’s encampments, both alone and with the children. It is ironic to note that her slave, Jule, usually assisted with the children’s care on such trips.
Except that there is no evidence of the slaves after 1862. When Mrs. Grant visited her husband at Petersburg in 1864 she brought a hired German girl to look after the children. Why would she do that if she had a slave handy?
Stonewall...just shows how little you know about him. He was good in business. He owned a farm, part interest in a saw mill, part interest in a bank. And yes, he owned slaves. Cause most of them came with the wife from North Carolina. And some times, slaves would ask him to because they wanted to work for their freedom and he did it. He had two slaves doing just that.
So southron myth would have us believe. But there is no evidence at all of Jackson freeing any of his slaves. Virginia records don't show it, his wife's biography doesn't mention it, and Jackson doesn't mention emancipating anyone in any of his letters. So I guess they didn't work long enough or hard enough, huh? Jackson did sell two of the slaves he owned to purchase property shortly after his second marriage, and he also purchased outright a 5 year old slave who he gave to his wife with the intention of having her train the child as a ladies maid. He was a man who certainly had no problems with slavery as an institution.
Again, your last argument is disallowed. Again, not shocked or shamed at the word chattel.
You seem to dismiss a lot of things you choose not to accept.
You are suppositioning all over the place, and the argument is lost. Maybe the rest didn't want to go to Liberia? That is about as factual as your claim and made from the same straw.
Maybe they didn't, I have no idea. What I am saying is that since Lee had no problems subsidizing colonization for the Burke's, and since they are not the only slaves he freed during his life time, then it's possible that there were others he helped emigrate to Africa. I freely admit that I don't know for sure one way or the other.
Do you recall your first question? "What's the connection to today?"
I was pointing out that the connection to today is that the attitudes by the New England elites hasn't changed a bit, and I used today's congress as an example. If you can't see the connection, then in the future I'll use simpler examples in trying to discuss issues with you.
Look, the entire issue was about tariffs and the 3/5ths clause that allowed the south to have representation in Congress weighted on slave ownership. I know you're think that the North was run by some human rights abolitionists who wanted to free the slaves out of pure humanity, but that's simply not the case. The South has sway in Congress because of the 3/5ths clause of the Constitution which counted the slave population in terms of voting.
The Republicans wanted to destroy this Congressional voting power by repealing slavery in order to weight Congress in the North's favor and pursue its industrialization by fleecing the south (and Europe) with wickedly high tariffs.
And Lincoln was their man. Folks, just follow the money, ok? I mean, we had New Yorkers burning down black orphanages in protest of the war. Editors of every major newspaper were either locked up or suppressed for speaking out against it.
This was a power grab at the federal level by the Republicans, nothing else. It had nothing to do with abolitionists.
A couple of problems with Julia Grant's memoirs. In the first place they were ghost written. Also they were not published until the 1970's, over 70 years after her death. Then there is the fact that Missouri amended its state constitution to ban slavery in January 1865. So that would mean that the Grant's weren't living anywhere that slave ownership was legal at the time the 13th Amendment was ratified.
She also reported that she was very upset when her favorite slave ran away in 1864, apparently the slave did not realize that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to her.
There is no evidence of any of the Dent family slaves still being around after February 1863.
That's not what I think, and it's not what I have posted on this thread.
Jeez.
Grant's memoirs were also "ghost written"
Hey, you're the one who said that the five years was for training them in business so that they could support themselves.
Ah, the cheap shot designed to cause me to feel shame
Why would you feel shame over something Robert E. Lee did almost 150 years ago?
I haven't had this much fun on a Civil War thread since I used to post on alt.war.civil.usa, back in the day.
Uh, the problem with your latest crackpot theory is that, once they weren't slaves, the southern blacks would count as a full person. Southern representation would INCREASE.
Traded in what? The South exported cotton, tobacco, and the like. What were they importing in such massive quantities?
2) Lincoln wanted to empower the federal govt and force his Henry Clay ideas (the American System) on everyone in the country by initiating massive publics works projects in the North.
Having read the 1860 Republican platform, and a good number of Lincoln's writings, I'm not sure just what massive public works projects you could be talking about. The transcontinental railroad? I would point out that both the Douglas Democratic Platform AND the Breckenridge Democratic platform both called for the transcontinental railroad as well. Maybe they were all for 'massive public works projects' too?
3) Lincoln had to put massive tariffs on the South in order to fund his American system.
The tariffs hit everyone who imported goods, not just southerners. Why would a tariff hit them disproportionately?
4) The South seceded because of the tariff, not because of some imaginary nonsense that Lincoln was going to war to free slaves in America. The Confederate Constitution is clear on this.
Can't be that clear. I see where the confederate constitution protects slavery. I see where it protects slave imports. I see where it guarantees that slavery would exist throughout the south and in any territories it acquired. I don't see where the confederate constitution is all that big on tariffs.
Oh, and let me ask you one other thing. If the tariff was such a big bone of contention then why was one of the first acts of the confederate congress the passage of, you guessed it, a tariff? Using the same rates as they were before the rebellion? And enacting the same protectionist measures as were enacted before the rebellion? I thought that the confederate constitution explicitly forbids protectionist tariffs but there it is, a 25% tariff on tobacco products. High tariffs on molasses and sugar. My, my. What possible explanation can there be for ignoring their own constitution so blatantly?
5) Lincoln stated he would collect the tariff revenue by force but was assured the war would only last a couple months.
He also said he'd deliver the mail. Maybe that was more threatening?
You're mistaken on that. Grant's memoirs were entirely his own work, completed during a race against the cancer that killed him shortly after he completed them. As a trivia note, Mark Twain published them and made quite a bit of money for Mrs. Grant in doing so. He later lost his shirt publishing Sherman's memoirs. I'll let the southron contingent make what they want out of that.
Julia Grant in her memoirs reports that her family slaves remained her property until they were freed by the 13th amendment. She also reported that she was very upset when her favorite slave ran away in 1864, apparently the slave did not realize that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to her.
This little disagreement started when you said that Mary Custis' slaves belonged to Robert E. Lee because the wife's property belong to the husband. Catch-22. If you are going to say this, then it applies to Grant. Julia says they were hers. By your own post..they were his.
Wow the whole Stonewall thing is a huge smokescreen that has nothing to do with the fact that I agreed with you that Stonewall Jackson had slaves.
So I guess they didn't work long enough or hard enough, huh?
Yeah, they probably hadn't paid their debt back yet.
You seem to dismiss a lot of things you choose not to accept.
What did I dismiss? That I wasn't shocked by the use of the word chattel.
Maybe they didn't, I have no idea.
Thank you. Now, that wasn't so hard was it.
And as I pointed out in an earlier thread, Julia Grant did not write her memoirs, they were ghost written. They were not published until, I believe, 1975 when Mrs. Grant had been dead for over 70 years. And since Missouri ended slavery in January 1865 the Grant's did not live anywhere that slavery was legal as late as December 1865. How do you explain all that?
And Lee did.
Silly me, I read Julia Grant's memoirs and didn't realize it was just a commissioned unpublished fiction novel.
Remember this? :)
They were the best memoirs ever written. He wrote them while combating cancer and courageously continued to write even in severe pain. At the end, he could only dictate a few hours a day, in a voice barely above a whisper.
He showed his quality and they are a great.
Focus. Why do you want to have a conversation with me?
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.