Grant v Lee Slave slug fest was New Orleans Is Wrong

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
Again, the Liberty Place monument is not a CW monument.

If anyone has a problem with "venerating the masters of slavery" then Grant's monument needs to come down. How about Washington's monument or his image? Maybe, have his image removed completely, but why stop there? Anyone with a surname of a slave owner will need to have it changed, it is now offensive.

The monument commemorates actions by confederate veterans.

Grant freed the only slave he ever owned, so he stands as an example for what all slave owners should have done.
 
Lee never bought any, he freed more than Grant. I say Grant needs to go also.
Lets take a look at the facts.
Grant had one that he voluntarily freed in 1859.
Lee was the executor an estate with several hundred slaves and was forced to free them as a condition of the will.

Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and (from 1865) the general-in-chief of Confederate forces, neither owned slaves nor inherited any, thus it is not correct to assert that he “freed his slaves” (in 1862 or at any other time).
As in the case of Ulysses S. Grant, the slaves that Lee supposedly owned actually belonged to his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, and lived and worked on the three estates owned by Custis (Arlington, White House, and Romancoke). Upon Custis’ death in 1857, Lee did not “inherit” those slaves; rather, he carried out the directions expressed in Custis’ will regarding those slaves (and other property) according to his position as executor of Custis’ estate.
Custis’ will stipulated that all of his slaves were to be freed within five years: “… upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executor in such manner as he deems expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease.” So while Lee did technically free those slaves at the end of 1862, it was not his choice to do so; he was required to emancipate them by the conditions of his father-in-law’s will
The only evidence that Union general (and later United States President) Ulysses S. Grant ever owned any slaves is a document he signed in 1859 that emancipated “my Negro man William” (i.e, William Jones), whom Grant stated in the document he had purchased from Frederick Dent (his father-in-law). Little is known about William Jones; as even Grant’s biographers note, “exactly when and how Grant acquired ownership of a slave remain something of a mystery.” There is no other evidence showing that Grant ever owned more than this one slave, much less “several.”
 
Lets take a look at the facts.
Grant had one that he voluntarily freed in 1859.
Lee was the executor an estate with several hundred slaves and was forced to free them as a condition of the will.

What part of my statement is untrue?
 
And as the document reads "for diverse good and valuable considerations." Sounds like someone had to purchase his freedom.
There is no contract without consideration so when a contract is formed where it is essentially a gift, the phase "for diverse good and valuable considerations" in lieu of financial considerations.
 

A few years back I did some research in the Shirley Plantation Papers and came across the receipts from R. E. Lee to his cousin, Hill Carter, who owned Shirley Plantation, for rent of Lee's slave, Billy Gardner. Gardner had been owned by Lee's mother. We have receipts showing that, and after Anne Carter Lee's death, we have receipts showing the money for rental going to Lee.

Douglas Southall Freeman found a will of Lee's filed in Rockbridge County in 1846 showing he owned a woman named Nancy and her children and directing they be freed after his death.

The Shirley Plantation papers have a receipt dated 20 Mar 1827 from Charles Carter Lee "for Ann H. Lee to Hill Carter for hire of a slave named Gardner for 1826." The "H." appears to be a typo in the papers.

There's another receipt dated 1 Jan 1830 [after the death of Lee's mother] for hire of "Gardener" for the years 1829 and 1830, signed by Williams Carter, the executor of Mrs. Lee's will.

Another receipt is there dated 5 Jan 1831 for a check from Hill Carter to Williams Carter, "executor for Anne C. Lee," "for the hire of Gardener."

After that the receipts are from R. E. Lee. There's a receipt dated 10 Feb 1836 from Robert E. Lee to Hill Carter for hire of Gardener for the years 1833-1835.

There are additional receipts in other years from Robert E. Lee to Hill Carter for the hire of Gardener.

Also in the papers is a letter from R. E. Lee to Hill Carter dated 25 Jan 1840 in which Lee writes, "if you have collected any wages for Gardeners of sufficient importance send them to me before I start if convenient, or deposit them to my credit in the Bk. of Va."

There is another letter in the papers from R. E. Lee to Hill Carter dated 1 Feb 1845 in which Lee writes, "My Dear Cousin Hill[,] I have just re'ce your letter of the 30 ulto: forw'g a check in my favour on the Bank of Virg'a for $30, for the hire of Gardener for the year 1844, for which I am much obliged. The amt. is perfectly satisfactory to me if it is to you & G &
you know you have full authority to fix his hire at what you please. Hereafter, if it will be more convenient to you, you can deposit the amount of his hire to my credit in the Bank of Va: & at your leisure notify me of the amt. I can always include it in a draft I make upon them about the beginning of the year on a/c of dividends. The check you have sent me I can no doubt dispose of very conveniently. We are very glad to hear that you are all well at Shirley. Cousin Eliza Turner left us last Wednesday for Middleburg. Wms. Carter has come down from Baltimore to spend a few days. Chas: Henry brought over his eldest daughter Eugenia to see us since his return from Richm'd. She has grown very tall. Dr. Mason has returned from the West & they were all well at the V.Y. [Vine Yard] whence last heard. I saw Warrington as I passed through.
Rec'd, Arlington 1 Feb 1845, from Hill Carter Esq. of Shirley, thirty dollars in payment of the hire of my man Gardener for the year 1844 in full to 1845.
$30.00 R. E. Lee"
 
A few years back I did some research in the Shirley Plantation Papers and came across the receipts from R. E. Lee to his cousin, Hill Carter, who owned Shirley Plantation, for rent of Lee's slave, Billy Gardner. Gardner had been owned by Lee's mother. We have receipts showing that, and after Anne Carter Lee's death, we have receipts showing the money for rental going to Lee.

Douglas Southall Freeman found a will of Lee's filed in Rockbridge County in 1846 showing he owned a woman named Nancy and her children and directing they be freed after his death.

The Shirley Plantation papers have a receipt dated 20 Mar 1827 from Charles Carter Lee "for Ann H. Lee to Hill Carter for hire of a slave named Gardner for 1826." The "H." appears to be a typo in the papers.

There's another receipt dated 1 Jan 1830 [after the death of Lee's mother] for hire of "Gardener" for the years 1829 and 1830, signed by Williams Carter, the executor of Mrs. Lee's will.

Another receipt is there dated 5 Jan 1831 for a check from Hill Carter to Williams Carter, "executor for Anne C. Lee," "for the hire of Gardener."

After that the receipts are from R. E. Lee. There's a receipt dated 10 Feb 1836 from Robert E. Lee to Hill Carter for hire of Gardener for the years 1833-1835.

There are additional receipts in other years from Robert E. Lee to Hill Carter for the hire of Gardener.

Also in the papers is a letter from R. E. Lee to Hill Carter dated 25 Jan 1840 in which Lee writes, "if you have collected any wages for Gardeners of sufficient importance send them to me before I start if convenient, or deposit them to my credit in the Bk. of Va."

There is another letter in the papers from R. E. Lee to Hill Carter dated 1 Feb 1845 in which Lee writes, "My Dear Cousin Hill[,] I have just re'ce your letter of the 30 ulto: forw'g a check in my favour on the Bank of Virg'a for $30, for the hire of Gardener for the year 1844, for which I am much obliged. The amt. is perfectly satisfactory to me if it is to you & G &
you know you have full authority to fix his hire at what you please. Hereafter, if it will be more convenient to you, you can deposit the amount of his hire to my credit in the Bank of Va: & at your leisure notify me of the amt. I can always include it in a draft I make upon them about the beginning of the year on a/c of dividends. The check you have sent me I can no doubt dispose of very conveniently. We are very glad to hear that you are all well at Shirley. Cousin Eliza Turner left us last Wednesday for Middleburg. Wms. Carter has come down from Baltimore to spend a few days. Chas: Henry brought over his eldest daughter Eugenia to see us since his return from Richm'd. She has grown very tall. Dr. Mason has returned from the West & they were all well at the V.Y. [Vine Yard] whence last heard. I saw Warrington as I passed through.
Rec'd, Arlington 1 Feb 1845, from Hill Carter Esq. of Shirley, thirty dollars in payment of the hire of my man Gardener for the year 1844 in full to 1845.
$30.00 R. E. Lee"

So Lee was a caretaker of family business not a slave owner. Grant was just a slave owner.
 
So you think Grant's slave ownership is justified.
I think that the point is that Grant's ownership of one slave that he then freed of his own free will to his own economic detriment is not comparable to Lee's operation for several years of hundreds of slaves on a plantation that he was mandated to free by someone else's will.
 
I think that the point is that Grant's ownership of one slave that he then freed is not comparable to Lee's operation for several years of hundreds of slaves on a plantation that he was mandated to free by someone else's will.
The Lee family had a great number of slaves unemancipated by the Lee Family at Arlington. Mary Anna Custis Lee inherited the plantation. So Lee had control of slaves though the Lee estate, his personal property and slaves though his wife's inheritance.
 
The Lee family had a great number of slaves unemancipated by the Lee Family at Arlington. Mary Anna Custis Lee inherited the plantation. So Lee had control of slaves though the Lee estate, his personal property and slaves though his wife's inheritance.
I was not aware of that. Could you provide a link to somewhere where I can find additional information?
 
Back
Top