[bluecollarman]

That's BS, Grant himself asserted that his wife was frail and just needed help. It was not for a noble cause he kept slaves. Of course the weakest possible reason was that freeing them would have cost him money, as you suggested. That was very shameful conduct for the great Northern General don't ya think?

[Non-Sequitur]

Here is a link to a website that provides evidence that you are wrong about Grant and slavery. That Grant, in fact, owned a slave only once in his life. That he freed that slave before the war. And that any slaves owned by his inlaws which Mrs. Grant had use of were freed long before the end of the war. I would challenge you to provide any evidence at all that the information on this site is incorrect and that Grant did own slaves after the war ended. Any evidence at all.

[Elihu Burritt]

That's BS, Grant himself asserted that his wife was frail and just needed help. It was not for a noble cause he kept slaves. Of course the weakest possible reason was that freeing them would have cost him money, as you suggested. That was very shameful conduct for the great Northern General don't ya think?

Grant was known as a softy when it came to scarring, abusing, or disfiguring slaves. He also didn't make all that much money, even as a general.

If you thought was bad, you must southern slave owners were truly garbage. Good for you. Married to a southern woman, Grant was much more southern than many think.