Posted on 09/16/2002 10:32:41 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
During his life, Lee owned as many as ten slaves on his own. Arlington, his home, had sixty-three slaves. These slaves, strictly speaking, belong to his wife and were covered in the will of his father in law.
Lee was responsible for executing the will of his father-in-law. The slaves covered by that will were freed in papers dated 29 December, 1862, although the papers were not filed until January 3, 1863.
Grant owned one slave for a brief time in the late 1850s. His name was William Jones and Grant freed him on 3/29/59.
Grant's wife had the use through her father of four slaves. I'd be very glad to say that these were also U.S. Grant's slaves. I have no problem with that. Since Grant's father in law was a resident of Missouri, these slaves were freed by the act of the Missouri legislature in January, 1865.
You were wrong. Ignorance, I suppose, is bliss.
Walt
Tennessee was also entirely exempted because it was mostly under federal control. The Emancipation Proclamation only held sway in areas outside federal control. That is because President Lincoln saw the war power of the president only extending to the insurgent areas. Slavery was a state institution, protected in the COnstitution. The slave power was maladroit enough to bring under the war power.
You should consider, since you obviously have little idea of these events, that President Lincoln was urged and strongly urged to abolish slavery by executive order as soon as the rebelion began. He refused, citing the fact that he had no power, also that "three more states would rise, and half the officers would throw down their arms."
Using the war power against the slavers was temporary. President Lincoln knew that. That is why he was a strong proponent of the 13th amendment passed in 1865.
Walt
Again, your grasp of the history is badly flawed.
President Lincoln, in his last public speech, adocated voting rights for black soldiers.
That is why Booth shot him.
Lincoln's feelings on blacks in this country ran through quite a spectrum. He did say early on that the best course of action would be for blacks to leave. He -never- suggested that anyone be forced to leave. I would challenge you to find in President Lincoln's writings any mention of colonzation after black soldiers were enlisted under Old Glory, say from the beginning of 1863.
Mr.Lincoln can speak for himself:
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood"...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any."
When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted."Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
...For the newly freed and the newly enlisted black men who served in the Union army--in the end more than 179,000 of them---perhaps the greatest moment was when they they too, shared the experience of paying their respects, of marching past their presidents in their new uniforms, looking as smart and martial as any. On April 23, 1864, and again two days later, newly mustered black regiments in a division attached to the IX corps passed through Washington on their way to the Virginia front. They marched proudly down Pennsylvania Avenue, past Willard's Hotel, where Lincoln and their commander, Burnside stood on a balcony watching. When the six black regiments came in sight of the president they went wild, singing, cheering, dancing in the street while marching. As each unit passed they saluted, and he took off his hat in return, the same modest yet meaningful acknowledgement he gave his white soldiers. He looked old and worn to the men in the street, but they could not see the cheer in his breast as he witnessed the culmination of their long journey from slavery, and pondered, perhaps, what it had cost him to be part of it. Even when rain began to fall and Burnside suggested they step inside while the parade continued, Lincoln decided to stay outdoors. "If they can stand it," he said, "I guess I can."
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
And:
"You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept.... Peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
8/23/63
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
April 11, 1865
That is why Booth shot him.
Those who insist on professions of ignorance -- like yours-- hinder us now.
Walt
Gee, Lee paid passage for some of his slaves back to Africa. Lee and Lincoln both supported colonization. Paid of damned racists, right?
General US Grant, wanted them freed slowly. Sherman wanted them trained, then freed slowly to ease the transition.
. Actually, Sherman didn't give a damn what happened to blacks, free or otherwise. Grant didn't believe the Civil War was a war to end slavery, but came to accept that as one of the goals as well as preserving the Union.
I bet you are wondering which state was first to outlaw slavery, why that would be the Great State of Virginia, home of , you guessed it, Robert E. Lee.
When did this happen and did anyone tell the thousands of slaves who were living there when the Civil War broke out?
How was slavery abolished in the North?
Actually, it depended on the state. But regardless, graduated emancipation might have worked down south. Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all, that such a plan would have been accepted or supported down south?
It wasn't necessary. The whole war was unnecessary. Shooting at guys from Maine? Or Pennsylvania? It was nuts.
Walt
.....one of the things about the Emancipation Proclaimation that's often overlooked is that it not only freed the slave from his master...and..it also freed the master from his slave...so the newly freed slave had a real problem of survival on his hands....when Lincoln was asked what to do about it he said: .."root hog or die!"...in other words the ex-slave would have to fend for himself.....some slaves were high-skilled (carpenters, wheel wrights, foundry men, blacksmiths ect.) and so they had better prospects...others weren't so fortunate ..in my family's case, the field hands all took off when the cavalry came but later drifted back to the only home they'd ever know....everybody was broke and the only hope was to get the land back into production as fast as possible....and that's how sharecropping began...a terrible system for the ex-master and ex-slave alike....both were locked into a form of peonage: the sharecropper to the land owner and the store keeper, and the land owner to Northern financiers who were only too eager to supply capital at ruinous interest rates...when the army worm infestation hit, that was the last straw for my g.grandfather....he sold out to a carpetbagger from Massachesuetts...
...I'd be interested in hearing other people's first-hand family experiances of the post Civil War era if you care to share them...the link-hurling contests don't seem to get us any where...
Good luck to everybody!! Stonewalls
I'll agree to that. Lincoln was nuts for sending them down here for an unnecessary battle in the first place.
Many Americans thought it -was- necessary.
The slave holders rebelled against the lawful government in order to protect slavery. There is no doubt of that. Loyal union men came forward to fight for the best government yet devised. You may not like it, but there is no rational reason for so many northerners to leave their homes and rally to the flag. They sincerely thought that if the so-called seceded states could depart at will or pleasure, then that would go far towards proving that people were incapable of governing themselves by institutions they controlled. That is, men could be governed only by kings and dictators. That idea had to be shown wrong.
President Lincoln gave voice to these fears:
"And this issue embraces more than the fact of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy--a government of the people, by the same people--can or cannot, maintain its territorial integtrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, accroding to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of neccessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existance?"
A. Lincoln, 7/4/61
There is no doubt whatsoever that a great many Americans in 1861 thought that our free institutions were worth fighting for.
Walt
But you just said it was an unnecessary war, Walt. Which is it, or are you again trying to have it both ways?
Davis didn't move until Lincoln sent his fleet. Therefore the blame is with Lincoln.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.