Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn

flstf · 01-10-2005, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I would like some sources stating that slavery was well and alive in the north after the war..
Also cite for me Grant owning slaves after the war ended.

Quote:

Slavery was not an exclusively Southern institution. Almost 400,000 slaves lived in Northern states at the start of the war. Many of those slaves were not freed until the 13th Amendment was passed. In fact, it is commonly accepted that the last slaves freed were in Delaware, a staunchly Union state. The 13th Amendment, passed after the war ended, was approved by Southern states who had already seen their capital assets stripped away without compensation and who were considered occupied enemy territory by the Northern States at that time.

The north had slavery at least until 1866, due to some holdouts like Union General Ulysses S. Grant who refused to give up his slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment. The slave’s name was William Jones. In 1858, while attempting to make a go in civilian life as a farmer near St. Louis, Missouri, Ulysses S. Grant bought the slave, William Jones, from his brother-in-law. Grant's also became the owner of record of his wife’s inheritance of four slaves, but as was the case at the time, women could not actually own slaves, so they were under the control of Grant. There is no record of these slaves having been freed prior to emancipation in Missouri in 1865. In 1862, U.S. General Ulysses S. Grant's army had become encumbered by runaway slaves. Grant decided to go into the cotton business, using the runaway slaves to pick cotton in the Mississippi fields. Gen. Grant did pay them a small wage which was just enough to cover the cost of their food that was provided (sold) to them. The cotton was shipped back to factories in the North, with Grant collecting the profit. Grant did not own the land or the crops! General Grant owned slaves that were not freed until the passage of the 13th Amendment. It is interesting to note some of the thoughts of General Grant. Grant informed his family that his only desire was, "…to put down the rebellion. I have no hobby of my own with regard to the Negro, either to effect his freedom or continue his bondage. I am using them as teamsters, hospital attendants, company cooks and so forth thus saving soldiers to carry the musket. . . . it weakens the enemy to take them from them."
http://www.scv674.org/SH-3.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

to the end of what you said flstf: We can honor the soldier, but that is done at their gravesite. Explain why these soldiers deserve buildings named after the political substance (a the current flying of their war banner) that they once fought for while the many German soldiers who died for the Nazi regime do not.

We will disagree till the cows come home as to why I feel they should be remembered with memorials, etc.. and you may not. My main feelings on the subject are in some of the previous posts. While I respect much of what you write in these forums I see no reason to fully address your Nazi comparison. One was a regime planning for world conquest and the other just wanted self rule.