Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
'Rioters in California Tear Down Statue of Ulysses S Grant...)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eight Foot Manchild" data-source="post: 75158754" data-attributes="member: 268751"><p>He said in 1863, <strong>during</strong> the war, that he was not an abolitionist, nor anti-slavery, but that he was willing to give up the institution if it meant reuniting the country. So, it seems more likely that the freeing of his own slave was more of an act of political expedience. We don't know for sure, though, because he never wrote about it specifically. This is a good accounting of his relationship with slavery - <a href="https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/" target="_blank">https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/</a></p><p></p><p>His feelings did apparently evolve over time. But that doesn't mean he needs to be the subject of this particular kind of veneration. That does nothing to diminish his historical significance, or demean his good deeds. They're still there in the record, for anyone to study and admire.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>He was a slave owner, so no. That would be hypocritical.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eight Foot Manchild, post: 75158754, member: 268751"] He said in 1863, [B]during[/B] the war, that he was not an abolitionist, nor anti-slavery, but that he was willing to give up the institution if it meant reuniting the country. So, it seems more likely that the freeing of his own slave was more of an act of political expedience. We don't know for sure, though, because he never wrote about it specifically. This is a good accounting of his relationship with slavery - [URL]https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/[/URL] His feelings did apparently evolve over time. But that doesn't mean he needs to be the subject of this particular kind of veneration. That does nothing to diminish his historical significance, or demean his good deeds. They're still there in the record, for anyone to study and admire. He was a slave owner, so no. That would be hypocritical. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
'Rioters in California Tear Down Statue of Ulysses S Grant...)
Top
Bottom