“Get real. The north had slaves too. They just freed them 3 years before the south did.”
General Grant freed his personal slave of four years ONE year before the war. Had to. He was moving to IL and couldn’t bring him with him. Sad day for him to, he loved renting the slave out for three dollars a day. Kept him in whiskey. He didn’t really need him though; there were 30 at his disposal on his wife’s plantation where he lived.
A lot of the others out of the 30 they kept at White Haven, the family plantation he oversaw, walked off, but were not set free until years after Robert E. Lee freed his:
Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement:
“There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
Lee also knew that the use of slaves was coming to an end. Cyrus McCormick’s 1831 invention of the mule-drawn mechanical reaper sounded the death knell for the use of slave labor. Before the Civil War began, 250,000 slaves had already been freed.
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but Union generals did.
When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed.
Kind of ironic. Lee freed his family’s slaves before old General Grant’s family got around to letting his go.
Vigorously? Make me laugh. Here's what he had to say a couple of lines later:
The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.So, Lee's idea of vigorous opposition was to consider that slavery was the best thing for blacks, that there was no sense in anyone trying to do anything about it, and that God would get around to it in a thousand years or so.
When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed.
Again, a laughable interpretation of the facts. Lee was made the executor of his father-in-law's estate. Included was a stipulation that he free the family slaves within five years. He didn't make it, blowing the deadline by several months. His final emancipation of the slaves took place a whole 3 days before the Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, by that time all the slaves affected had already freed themselves by walking away.
But, hey, nice job cutting and pasting most of your post from this site
Then why did Grant free the man rather than sell him? If Grant was so greedy and needed likker money so badly, why didn't he sell his chattel rather than let several hundred dollars just walk away?
A lot of the others out of the 30 they kept at White Haven, the family plantation he oversaw, walked off, but were not set free until years after Robert E. Lee freed his...
Actually no. The Dent family slaves were freed in early 1863, a few months after Lee freed his and without any legal requirement that they do so.
Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery
Complete and utter bullsh*t.
Cyrus McCormick’s 1831 invention of the mule-drawn mechanical reaper sounded the death knell for the use of slave labor.
Really? Did they grow a lot of wheat down there on the plantation?
Before the Civil War began, 250,000 slaves had already been freed.
Nonsense.
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but Union generals did.
What Union generals owned slaves?
When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves.
No he did not. He rented out the slaves for income and used the money for his own benefit.
By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed.
By a day or two. The Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863. Lee freed his slaves December 29, 1862. That was actually a few months after the 5 year deadline mandated by his father-in-laws will, but since Lee was busy rebelling then I suppose it's only fair to cut him some slack.
Kind of ironic. Lee freed his family’s slaves before old General Grant’s family got around to letting his go.
Not ironic at all when you consider that Lee had no choice in the matter while the Dent's were not required to do so.
Grant purchased his slave for one reason, and one reason alone - to manumit him. He never rented that slave out. It was a different slave that he engaged elsewhere on a more casual basis and is reputed to have rented out.
You are conflating the slaves that he was overseer to for his FIl to a later time.
REL did own slaves in the same way that Grant did - by virtue of a family association. At least Grant didn’t have *his* slaves flogged to make an example of them.