I guess you don't consider Maryland a Northern State, or Ky, or WVA for that matter. True, all were south of the mason Dixon line, but they were under Union control and slavery was legal in all three the day the war ended and continued to be legal until the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified, which was a considerable time after the war ended.
You are right about one thing. Lincoln did not claim to be fighting the war to end slavery. Although you would never know it going to public schools.
And as far as your denying that Grant owned slaves, you might want to pick up a history book. Of course, he pulled a Kerry and claimed that they belonged to his wife and he was powerless to free them.
Grant signed a document freeing one slave "William Jones" in 1959. However, during the war, Grant made to effort to free any of the slaves his father-in-law had given to his wife.
Remember, you are entitled to your own opinion; however, you are not entitled to your own facts.
the conclusion is UNavoidable = Grant was a slave-owner. he was FAR from the only union officer, who owned slaves.
free dixie,sw
Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were considered Border States.
WVA didn't exist when the war broke out. They were not considered Northern but were Loyal. You are correct that it took some time before Freedom was legalized there.
Funny but I learned exactly that in the public schools.
Grant's slave owning "history" has been widely discussed on other threads and there is no evidence he ever purchased a slave. His wife's estate does not change that.
That would be the 13th Amendment, not the 14th. And Maryland ended slavery in late 1864.
You are right about one thing. Lincoln did not claim to be fighting the war to end slavery. Although you would never know it going to public schools.
And the South launched their rebellion to defend slavery, though you wouldn't know that by listening to the southron supporters around here.
And as far as your denying that Grant owned slaves, you might want to pick up a history book. Of course, he pulled a Kerry and claimed that they belonged to his wife and he was powerless to free them.
And here you are pulling a stand watie and mistating the facts. Fact: Grant owned one slave for a brief period of time in 1858-59 and freed him when he moved to Illinois. Now, had Grant had ownership of other slaves why wouldn't he free them at the same time? Why free some and not others? The reason is that the slaves his wife had use of were, in fact, the property of her father. Grant did not own them. Those slaves were, in fact, freed by the Mr. Dent early in 1863 as Missouri records show.
Remember, you are entitled to your own opinion; however, you are not entitled to your own facts.
As, sir, are you.