You seem to think that I will be shocked that Lee had slaves. I'm not.
Nice guys, huh?
I am fully aware of the slave situation in Virginia and in the South. I am not shocked nor dismayed by it. You cannot surprise me with these little tidbits. So, you could save yourself some time, (only if you want) and leave those off your post.
Now, I would like to know how a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army could afford all those slaves?
But if Lee paid passager for the Burke's then there is no reason to believe he didn't do it for others as well. Disallowed. Projected generality with no foundation but your opinion, which you now substitute as fact.
If they were Julia Grant's property then I believe that yes, they would be considered Ulysses Grant's property. However, most evidence indicates that Julia Grant had use of the slaves but that title remained with her father. The slaves remained at the Dent plantation when the Grant's were out of state, it's hard to believe that Grant would free the one slave we know for a fact he owned and not the others, and Missouri records indicate that the slaves Julia Grant had use of were freed early in 1863 when the rest of the Dent family slaves were emancipated.
Now, I would like to know how a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army could afford all those slaves?
How could Thomas Jackson, a poorly paid college instructor, own as many as 9 or 10 slaves at a single time? Slave owneship was very much a middle-class institution. As for Lee, he married well, to begin with. And an army officer's pay provided a solidly middle-class livestyle.
Disallowed. Projected generality with no foundation but your opinion, which you now substitute as fact.
Then why would Lee pay passage for the Burke's and none of his other emancipated chattel? Did he have it in for them or something?