Sweetie, we’ve had this conversation on other threads already. I am at a loss why you seem to think General Grant’s or his wife’s supposed ownership of slaves has anything to do with anything.
Grant was known to be and open about his personal lack of interest in the subject of slavery. Whether his wife ever held legal title to slaves is not known. Her father was a wealthy MO slaveowner and either gave or loaned some of them to Mrs. Grant. All his slaves, and any that may have been legally owned by Mrs. Grant were freed by MO state action in January 65.
What we do know about Grant himself and slavery is that he only ever personally owned one slave, a certain William Jones. Grant freed Jones a couple of years before the war, at a time when his family was desperately in need of money, even though Jones could have been sold for the equivalent of tens of thousands in today’s dollars. The manumission paper is still on file at the St. Louis County courthouse.
I’ll stack that single fact up against any number of attempts to blacken the name of a great American soldier.
Grant also thought states had a a right to secede.
“What we do know about Grant himself and slavery is that he only ever personally owned one slave, a certain William Jones”
Oh Okay how about a statue of Grant and his one slave? I guess it was OK to own just one slave. Yeh thats the ticket! :-)
You've heard the phrase "like Grant took Richmond" ? Not exactly referring to his "great" behavior, is it.