Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

In a message dated 4/28/2008 1:55:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
DSanner106 AT aol.com writes:


> >Grant was given William Jones by his father in law to help farm, and  when 
> broke, Grant's father in law
> told him to sell him for the money. Grant instead freed jones and took  no 
> money. This is part of the reason his father in law didin't give Grant 
> money 
>  or 
> slaves thereafter. He didn't think much of Grants morals or business sense 
> if 
> he would free a perfectly good slave. 
> 

Most references will list William Jones as coming from Grant's father-in-law, 
but that is conjecture based on the facts that his father-in-law had a number 
of slaves and Grant never had two nickels to rub together.

Grant was in debt and destitute with all his property being attached by 
creditors.  Had he sold Jones, he would not have seen a bit of the proceeds 
himself.  Had he done nothing, the creditors would have taken possession of 
him 
anyway.  The writ of manumission was a way of thwarting his creditors, much 
as 
people trash a house before they are foreclosed upon.

None the less, one cannot issue a Writ of Manumission unless one is the owner 
of the slave.  Hence, Grant was a slave owner.   </HTML>