tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post2781595520450572398..comments2024-02-23T11:23:45.971-05:00Comments on Lost Motorcyclist: Who Owned More Slaves, Grant or Lee?Lost Motorcyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-3251408780018899842015-07-23T13:01:12.413-04:002015-07-23T13:01:12.413-04:00I have read that Grant (or Sherman) didn't fre...I have read that Grant (or Sherman) didn't free his/their slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment, whereas Lee freed his (inherited) slaves in 1862, long before it was mandated and while the Confederacy was doing well defending itself from Lincoln's 'War Against the States', also known as 'The War of Northern Aggression'. Lee also wrote that if he could avert the coming war, by freeing all of the slaves with the stroke of a pen, that he would gladly do so, but that it wouldn't avert the coming conflict.<br /><br />Yes there were slaves in the South, owned by wealthy men, but there were also slaves in the North, owned by well to do people, as slavery was Legal all through out the Union and it's Territories, until after Lincoln's 'War to Enslave the States' ended and the 13th Amendment freed them all. (btw; all of the Democrats voted Against the 13th Amendment and most of them voted Against the 14th, as well).<br /><br />Lincoln's penning of the 'Emancipation Proclamation' was a ploy to keep the European Nations from siding with the South, as they had already outlawed slavery long before. It Only freed the slaves in the, so called, 'Rebellious States' (they were within their Constitutional Rights to peacefully secede from a Union which they had voluntarily joined), leaving those still enslaved in the Northern States as well as in the Territories, until the 13th was passed.<br /><br />Lincoln, far from being the 'Great man' that Revisionist History portrays him to be, was an admitted racist and bigot who would have been appalled at the passage of the 13 and 14th Amendments. He wrote that he would neither strive to save slavery, as an institution, nor to end it, but was willing to accept half measures. His only desire was that the Union not break apart on his watch. (Legacy anyone?) He had plans to ship all of the newly freed blacks down to the jungles of Central America, that only ended with his assassination. His first Secretary of the Interior wanted to put them on Reservations similar to the Native Americans.<br /><br />The truth can be stranger than fiction and our mostly revisionist history of our past doesn't allow for honest conversations about it.<br /><br />"Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it." ~ George Santayana Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-7458897452960765622013-04-12T08:51:15.356-04:002013-04-12T08:51:15.356-04:00It's especially problematic looking at these i...It's especially problematic looking at these issues from the perspective of the 21st Century. The social situation in the 18th and 19th centuries was completely different, and one must make some allowances for that, too.<br /><br />Arguing from simplified premises such as, '<i>The Civil War was fought over slavery</i>' is also problematic. The causes of that war were complex and included a range of economic, political and cultural factors leading to Secession.<br /><br />But slavery itself was a contentious issue right from the formation of the U.S. ... compromises had to be made, and Article V of the Constitution was a major concession to the Southern planters. 'Founding fathers' as supposedly enlightened as Thomas Jefferson owned many slaves (and had their own offspring by them).<br /><br />But, 'bottom line' ... on any issue as contentious and controversial as this, you're right ... there will be tendency to 'spin' the 'facts' to one's own purpose. 'Truth' can be an elusive thing.<br /><br /><br /><br />Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.com