[DoodleDawg]

Mr. Grant's wife had numerous slaves - it was Mr. Grant that was said to own just one slave.

Mrs. Grant owned no slaves. Her father owned them and she had use of them.

And the only reason Mr. Grant married into the slave business at all was because he determined it was in his best self-interest.

That is about the dumbest claim I've ever heard.

But what will happen if potential customers find out the father of the Republican party was an ardent champion of white supremacy?

If you wish to measure people of the 19th century by 21st century standards then so be it. But it's idiotic.

[jeffersondem]

“Mrs. Grant owned no slaves. Her father owned them and she had use of them.”

The Wikipedia entry about Mrs. Grant reads: “According to Julia, “Eliza, Dan, Jule, and John belonged to me up to the time of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.”"

But Mrs. Grant's claims of ownership are disputed by “some historians” who figure that in light of post-post-modern sensibilities it would be better if she didn't own slaves for the sake of her, and General Grant's, reputations.

Otherwise, down come their monuments.

[jeffersondem]

“If you wish to measure people of the 19th century by 21st century standards then so be it. But it’s idiotic.”

Right. And that is what D’Souza does: measure people of the 19th century by 21st century standards.

You may have missed it but I have cautioned people about this very thing in my posts, especially ham-fisted attempts to play the race card.