Grant: On Slavery

[william42]

I've spent probably 40 minutes trying to find info on the web concerning slave-ownership by the Grants. I have found several articles that state US Grant purchased one slave from his father-in-law, when he and Julia left for Illinois in 1859. Prior to that he had worked his father-in-laws land in Missouri alongside slaves.

He emancipated his slave, William Jones, and his wife, Julia, hired out the four slaves she owned out to other farmers.

I have not been able to find any account of Julia bringing slaves with her when she visited Gen. Grant, during his career in the army. That doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, but only that I have not been able to find it documented.

"Interpreting slavery at sites not necessarily associated with African American history requires the same rigid adherence to truthfulness. Even a cursory examination of the racial attitudes of some of the most prominent leaders of the Union war effort reveals ambiguity and tepid support for emancipation. Abraham Lincoln's evolving attitudes are well documented. William Tecumseh Sherman's racism was as breathtaking as it was raw. The case of Ulysses S. Grant, however, offers intriguing possibilities. White Haven, the U. S. Grant National Historic Site near St. Louis, was the home of Grant's wife, Julia Dent. The daughter of a Missouri slaveholder, Julia Dent herself was also a slave owner. Grant farmed the land for his father-in-law from 1854 to 1859. He worked alongside the bondsmen to cultivate the land and to cut wood for his house and for sale in St. Louis, 12 miles distant. When Grant and his wife moved to Illinois in 1859, he bought one William Jones from his father-in-law but then emancipated him. Julia Dent Grant, on the other hand, hired out the four slaves that she owned.


Writing in 1863 in the midst of the Civil War, General Grant stated, 'I never was an Abolitionist, [n]ot even what could be called anti slavery, but I try to judge farely & honestly and it became patent to my mind early in the rebellion that the North & South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without Slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace reestablished, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until this question is forever settled.'"

http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1998/9803/9803PUB.CFM

Terry

[cash]

Actually, there's no documentary evidence that Julia ever had ownership of those four slaves, even though in her memoirs she says she did. Grant had let it be known previously that if he ever got control of those slaves he would set them free, and it's possible Col Dent retained ownership of them but allowed Julia the use of them. In 1862, one of the slaves, also named Julia, was almost captured by the rebels when she accompanied Julia Grant to Holly Springs. By 1863, the Dent slaves had all freed themselves. Grant visited White Haven and noted that all the slaves had gone. The Grants later hired the former slave Julia as a paid nurse in 1864. When Fred Grant was ill with typhoid, the nurse Julia refused to go back to Missouri with the Grants for fear that she would be reenslaved. This can be found in Julia's Memoirs also.

Grant did own William Jones for about a year, and manumitted him in 1859, at a time when he needed money and could have gotten $1,000 by selling Jones. There is some murkiness about how Grant acquired Jones also. Since Grant was in poor shape for money, it's possible he was given William Jones as a present by either Col Dent or his brother-in-law, Fred Dent. The manumission papers he signed have a standard statement that Jones had been purchased by Grant, but there is again no other documentation to show a purchase.

Regards,
Cash

[hawglips]

Whether General Grant's wife legally "owned" her slaves or whether her father did, in any event, she (and by extension, her husband) certainly "used" them.

And yes, she brought a slave with her each time she visited her hubby at field command up until at least 1863. And I'm sure she left one or two at home to watch her little ones while she was away.

We once had a nice discussion about this over on the Grant board. Don't take my word for it, take the word of Grant worshippers, I mean experts, over there. I'm sure they wouldn't make up such things.

Hal

[samgrant]

What's the 'Grant board'?

[william42]

Thanks Cash. Sorry Hal, you were correct sir.

[hawglips]

This is from the information section of the old Grant board:

"Incredibly, Julia brought along one of her slaves on all of her visits to Grant's headquarters during the civil war. When Julia was with Grant, their youngest son, Jesse, was in the charge of "black Julia," the slave that Julia had used since her girlhood."

It is interesting that Lee, the man that was supposedly fighting to protect slavery, freed the slaves from his household, Grant, the man that was supposedly fighting to rid the continent of slavery, kept them in good use in his own household.

Another interesting tidbit from the Grant board is,

"It is claimed in the footnotes of [Julia's] Memoirs that they were not freed until December, 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth amendment, but this doesn't concur with other primary sources of the period and Missouri's slaves were freed in January, 1865.

Hal

[william42]

Hal, the impression I got from my reading was that Grant did purchase a slave, William Jones, from his father in law, when he moved with Julia to Illinois, whereupon Grant freed him. I'm not convinced that he "kept them in good use in his own household".

Julias case may be different in that supposedly she did own her slaves for a time after the move to Illinois.

I'm not familiar with the old Grant board. Was it (Is it) a web-site similar to this one, or was it a thread on this site?

Terry

[ole]

Terry:

Grant didn't personally care for the idea of owning a person. Grant supporters will say that the slave that Grant briefly owned was a gift from Julia's father, and that contention has some logic behind it in that Grant didn't have that kind of money. But that's begging the question -- he owned a slave and turned the slave loose after about a year.

The apologists will also say that Julia's slaves were not hers, but her father's, and they were on loan to her because Julia's father knew Grant would turn them loose if they were hers. Doesn't much matter. She had the use of them and she used them as household help and help with the children. When she visited Grant in the field, she had at least one with her until late '63 or early '64. Somewhere in there, "Black Julia" became a paid servant.

It isn't recorded how that domestic arrangement came to be, but I'll guess that Ulysses didn't stamp his feet and insist on anything when Julia was present. (We know how well that works, don't we?")

From this involvement arises the myth that Grant was a slaveowner and Lee was not. I hope that one goes away soon.

Ole

[william42]

Thanks Ole. Your summarization pretty closely follows what I've been reading about the Grants and their slaves, although I could not find any articles where the author would commit to the length of time that Grant owned his slave. Evidently it was about a year or so?

So, depending on your point of view, Grant owned a slave and made good use of him, or he owned a slave and sought to release him as soon as he was able to. And he was basically unable to persuade Julia to free her slaves, since they were technically her fathers, on loan to her because of her fathers belief that Grant would release them as well, had they been Julias property.

I suppose both sides could choose the information however they wished to support their own conclusions and POV.

Terry

[ole]

Terry:
I wished only to convey that I've seen the stories from several angles. As the question has been resolved to the point where belief becomes the deciding factor, I've concluded that any of the conclusions either way don't much matter anyway.

Ole