Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
Did what? Trained them in business? You'll need to show some support for that. What I can find says that he just kept working them even past the date George Custis gave as the outer limit on their emancipation.
For the record, here's the entire relevant passage from Custis's will:
And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease.
2) By your own words the property of the wife is the property of the husband.
3) Now, you are saying that Julia Dent Grant's memoirs are a work of fiction. And words attributed to in the volume aren't hers.
4)If you disregard everything that is unfavorable to your argument then there can be no common ground on which to discuss anything.
That's how I explain that.
I'd like to see you back up the idea that today's congressmen from the norhteast are anti-Semitic.
What a perfect, dead-on analogy.
Well, how about the other information I pointed out? Illinois was a free state. Missouri ended slavery effective in January 1865. The 13th Amendment was ratified almost 12 months later, December 1865. All that is verifiable, documented fact. So how was it possible for Mrs. Grant to still own slaves in December 1865 when she didn't live anywhere that slave ownership was legal? If you can answer that one then it might lend more credence to Mrs. Grant's memoirs.
As for the delay...it was between the Battle of Sharpsburg and Fredericksburg...so I am willing to give him a little leeway.
The memoirs speak of the slave running away in 1864, so it fits in the time frame.
So you say.
2) By your own words the property of the wife is the property of the husband.
To the best of my knowledge that was the law in all the states during the mid-19th century.
3) Now, you are saying that Julia Dent Grant's memoirs are a work of fiction. And words attributed to in the volume aren't hers.
Not a work of fiction. But when the claim made in the memoirs contradict known facts of the time - that the Grants did not live anywhere that slavery was legal at the time of the ratification of the 13th Amendment, that none of the Dent family slaves were seen with Mrs. Grant or anyone else after February 1863 - then one has to wonder if that particular passage in the book is accurate. Given that it was published so long after the fact and long after Mrs. Grant was dead, it's not hard to conclude that an error or two might have crept in.
4)If you disregard everything that is unfavorable to your argument then there can be no common ground on which to discuss anything.
No that seems to be your area.
Har!!(shooting lemonade out of my nose) You & I are going to get along just fine.
If my boy Toby were here, he would laugh too.
Look Non, I was in the process of long, point-by-point refutation of your last post but frankly, I can't put it any better than this gentleman. So please, as a matter of your own edification:
http://www.mises.org/story/952
But, among other things, does not support the claim that Mrs. Grant still owned slaves as late as December 1865.
I'm laughing so hard I can barely type.
Mrs. Grant was dead, it's not hard to conclude that an error or two might have crept in.
Wouldn't that be convenient?
No that seems to be your area.
Oh, stop it... you're killing me! ROTFLOL!
I knew we would get along just fine too...
Since 1864 is a whole year before 1865, than Mrs. Grant could have freed her slaves before December 1865.
Ah Tommy and his tariff. I'' tell you, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than Tommy DiLusional. Let's start by asking this question. Tommy places great importance on the party platform, and says "the protectionist tariff was a key plank." Actually it was number 12 of 17, hardly a key plank, but regardless of that if the tariff was such a burning issue in the South then why does neither Democratic platform even mention it? Neither the Douglas faction OR the Breckenridge faction ran on a platform that mentions tariffs at all. Both platforms call for conquering Cuba and a transcontinental railroad. Both support slavery in the territories. But neither mentions tariffs, much less condemns them. Why is that, do you suppose? If tariffs were such a burden?
Why, if tariffs were such an anathema, did the confederate congress pass a protectionist tariff right off the bat, in May of 1861?
So if tariffs explain Lincoln's motivations then what explains the southern actions?
Interesting.
Who's dodging now? That's not what the memoirs say, and what you have been supporting. The memoirs say that she owned slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment. So we're back to the question if the memoirs are accurate than how was that possible?
Don't die yet, you're painting yourself into a corner.
Completed before her death...not published until 1975, but she had a hand in the writing. So, if she says that she owned the slaves and her favorite slave ran away in 1864, then I think we're going to have to believe her.
Alouette, this was FYI only.
Don't worry there's a door behind me. It says "the truth" on it. I'll just slip out it.
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.