frankj1 wrote:see the question in #19.
It was pretty much an either or, not a request for history much of which is widely known, school marm.
Freed, or owned?
don't bother. no one would choose owned.
Your question in #19 ("would you rather be freed by the efforts of people like Sherman who did not respect you, or be owned by people like Jefferson who wrote nice things about being free?") is a logical fallacy, based on false premises.
Sherman's dislike for the "inferior" blacks, and his disregard for their fate was undeniable. Not only did he destroy their homes and food sources, left them with nothing and then ordered them to be sent back where they came from when they started tailing his army, there was the Ebenezer Creek incident where the pontoon bridge over creek was pulled up after his army crossed, stranding 600 slaves on the other side, where many drowned trying to swim across the creek. You consider that as Sherman's concern for them being "freed"?
Jefferson did more, going against the political tide proposing a plan for gradual emancipation of slavery then Sherman, the founding father of terrorism ever did, which was nothing.
Jefferson stopped the Atlantic slave trade under his presidency, and as far as those slaves that he "owned", inherited from his father-in-law, he was legally and morally responsible for their safety until such time that their freedom and security could be
legally secured. Not an easy proposition to achieve at the time.
See
Jefferson's Attitudes Toward Slaveryhttps://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/