Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: machman
"Martha Dandridge Curtis"

Its Custis, not Curtis.

2 posted on 02/16/2004 4:24:37 AM PST by skip2myloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: skip2myloo
Its Custis, not Curtis.

Not only that, but the writer and editors are under the same delusion that many others are regarding George and Martha Washington. Because of the laws at that time, the General really did not have access to her fortune from her first husband; it was ear-marked for her surviving children, and actually her grandchildren (since she outlived all of her children). The slaves and landholdings that she brought into the marriage were considered Custis property, and were handed down through that line.

Washington, however, was very wealthy in terms of Southerners of his time, based on land holdings, business ventures, etc.; and his slaveholdings, while large, were not extraoridarily so.

13 posted on 02/16/2004 6:54:49 AM PST by HenryLeeII (John Kerry's votes have killed more people than my guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson