Grant, Slavery and Cyber Pitfalls

tulip · #1 10-12-2002, 03:10 PM

I’ve noticed that when it comes to slavery, the question of General Grant’s attitude on the issue frequently comes up and several accusations are made with little regard to accuracy.

For instance there is a quote that flies around the net alleging that Grant promised that if slavery became the object of war he would: " . . . resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side." The quote is completely bogus. First appearing in the mid-90s when CW discussion on the internet took off, it is nothing more than an unscrupulous attempt to add “historical” weight to the concept that Yankees were racist and against slavery becoming a war issue.

When you read enough Grant in his own words – letters, dispatches and the Memoirs – it is immediately apparent that this doesn’t come close to his writing style. He was much more direct and always avoided alliteration and metaphor in his language. It is also laughable that Grant would use a sword as a symbol since he hated wearing one and had no use for the antique weapon.

Then there is the timing. Supposedly Grant made this remark in early 1861 to a journalist when he was still a colonel with the 21st Illinois. According to the bogus report, it was reported in a Chicago paper although no one is able to identify the paper or produce the issue or even he date of publication.

At the beginning of the war, Grant was an obscure has-been and eager to move up in the army. Stirring the skew pot in the press was not something he ever did and certainly wouldn't have done it when he was still under a dark cloud; in fact, Grant always avoided political discussions and was cautious in his speech. Besides why would the Chicago press be interested in him when they had the flamboyant Fremont to chase around the western theater for good color copy?

Anyone who knows Grant is aware that he was notoriously and irritatingly taciturn in his conversations and never given to either/or pontifications or hyperbole. This kind of rash declaration was completely out of character. Grant always said what he meant and never did so without great forethought. With the exception of his notorious General Orders No. 11 evicting Jews from his theater, he handled the press with a velvet glove and very successfully. At this early date, Grant was uncertain and very careful. Grant was not Sherman, foaming at the mouth and making outrageous threats and statements.

Most importantly in addressing this fabrication, Grant's character and view point must be considered in the light of proven, Grant statements. Grant was a determined Unionist and his statements are unambiguous in this regard. “There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party,” he wrote his avid abolitionist father in April 1861 at the time the secession crisis was heating up. In the same month he wrote his father-in-law Frederick Dent a committed slave owner and Confederate sympathizer. "In all this I can see but the doom of slavery. The North do not want, nor will they want, to interfere with the institution. But they will refuse for all time to give it protection unless the South shall return soon to their allegiance." This sentiment doesn’t come close to a man willing to trade sides for any reason.

After the battle of Belmont and a newly minted Brigadier, Grant again wrote his father on Nov. 27: "My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all Constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go." Grant was known for both his personal honesty and undivided loyalty, could he have possibly have threatened resignation between April and November even in a snit over slavery? He was not a knee-jerk man even in the heat of battle making the bogus quote ridiculous.

It is a shame that the internet is a nurturing environment for growing new millennium fallacies and passing them off as history. I suppose it is just another reminder that harvesting info from cyberspace must be an exercise driven by caution and a healthy dose of skepticism.

(Message edited by tulip on October 13, 2002)

tulip · #2 10-12-2002, 07:31 PM

Update on the bogus quote attributed to Grant. Here is the history of its breech birth. It is referenced in two obscure and out of print books.

George Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South (1904) and Mildred Lewis Rutherford, The Truths of History (1925). Both authors attribute the quote to Matthew Carey, Jr. as it appears in the Democratic Speaker's Handbook (1868)

Mrs. Rutherford, the niece of Thomas Read Rootes Cobb, a voracious fireeater and leader of Georgia's secession movement made it her life's mission to convince the world that the South did not fight over slavery, but rather states rights. As a source she could hardly be considered unbiased and was known for not letting a fact get in the way of her mission to rewrite antebellum history.

As to George Edmunds "rare" book, I think the book's introduction speaks volumes: "To the People of the South . . .This little work is offered. It does not aspire to the dignity of History. It is mostly a collection of facts under one cover, which I trust will prove of use to the future historians of the South.” In addition, this "rare" book devotes the first 15 chapters to condemning Lincoln with such brilliant statements as, "Think of it, men of America! 'Jesuitical ability' to trick, to deceive, to rob the people of their right to the ballot is . . . " Not sure that as a Catholic, I want to know what Jesuitical ability meant to Mr. Edmunds. I am sure it was not attractive since he applies it to Abe Lincoln.

However, here is the real kicker. According to the Library of Congress Matthew Carey, Jr. was a pseudonym. Plus no one has ever been able to come up with a copy of Democratic Speaker's Handbook.

Here is another pseudonym. George Edmunds according the Library of Congress was actually Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, a Tennessee sufergette and fiction writer who like Miss Rutherford was on a mission to "set the record" straight. As Meriwether stated in her introduction, she was uninterested in the "dignity" of history or accuracy. Her purpose was merely to whitewash and gild the antebellum lily.

(Message edited by tulip on October 13, 2002)

unionblue · #3 10-19-2002, 03:34 AM

Connie, how do you answer the question about Julia's slaves and why she kept them throughout the war in spite of General Grant's feelings on the subject? Or is this fact just 'blown up' out of all proportion?

Unionblue

tulip · #4 10-19-2002, 04:35 AM

There is one fact about Grant that no one ever disputes, he adored Julia. He could never refuse her anything and if she wanted Black Julia tending the children, he would do nothing to stop it. After all Black Julia and the children residing in a separate tent, gave the Grant's privacy in their tent during the children's visit at headquarters.

Julia, like most slave owners had a special relationship with the slaves she lived with and had known since childhood. The intimate circumstances of their lifestyle demanded a certain respect , but it was was one-sided. She was probably "kind" because it was her nature, but I am certain that her attitude was patronizing. I have no doubt that Julia believed slavery was "the natural condition" for relations between blacks and whites.

Grant's attitude at this time is unknown. I think that he was quietly neutral despite his upbringing. Mary Robinson, the White Haven cook, claimed in the 1880s that Grant always said he would free them if it was in his power. "Grant was a very kind man to those who worked for him, and he always said that he wanted to give his wife's slaves their freedom as soon as he was able." But her words have to be weighed against the reality of her situation. She had a powerful friend in Washington and was not about to upset any apple cart, so compliments were in her best personal interest. More than likely he said them, but did nothing to make it happen.

My personal opinion is that Grant was uncomfortable with slavery as demonstrated by his emancipation of William Jones as well as paying the slaves who worked at Hardscrabble. Nonetheless Grant was not a militant and wasn't about to disturb his family serenity by railing against slavery.

However, he changed drastically when he saw the fighting spirit and capability of blacks in his army. After that Grant was always in their corner both as a General and as President. Like Lincoln, he grew and once he changed he his view, there was no going back or reacting in half measures. And he didn't. His presidency was the last time, any president bothered with black America or fair treatment of all citizen's until Lyndon Johnson. Unfortunately, it took 100 years.

tulip · #5 10-19-2002, 04:01 PM

Neil:

As I said, Grant said little about his feelings on slavery during the antebellum era. Yet both he and Julia were sensitive to the growing discontent in the North. In order to avoid any controversy after their 1848 wedding and assignment to Detroit and Sacketts Harbor, Julia did not bring her "servants" with her. Instead she made due with a hired girl. It is a matter of speculation as to why she did not adhere to this self-imposed philosophy during the war itself.

In 1859, Grant wrote his father: "Julia and the children are well. They will not make a visit to Ky. now. I was anxious to have them go before I rented but with four children she could not go without a servant and she was afraid that landing so often as she would have to do in free states she might have some trouble." [Papers of Ulysses S. Grant Vol 1, page 346]

In a footnote on page 347 John Simon states: "The Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott case, March 6, 1857 upheld the right to travel with slaves. Adverse Northern reaction to the decision, however, made some slaveholders apprehensive about exercising their rights."

Apparently neither Grant nor Julia were prepared to court a confrontation while on her travels North. In addition, Jesse Grant was a rabid abolitionist and his home was close to Ripley OH a notorious underground railroad stop where Harriet Beecher Stowe had received her inspiration for Uncle Tom's Cabin . It was probably a matter of common sense and politeness during this time for Julia not to flaunt her participation in slavery. However, it is somewhat telling that Grant wrote the letter to his father on March 12th and seventeen days later on March 29, he filed emancipation papers for William Jones. It would appear that he was undergoing some personal soul-searching on the question of slavery long before the war started or before he knew he would be judged by history.

It is possible to follow the progress of Grant's attitude towards black Americans from that point onward. In 1863 while at Vicksburg he was ordered to integrate black units into his army as much as possible and to train them. According to his biographer Brooks Simpson, Grant enthusiastically implemented a black training policy. "To bolster strength, Grant turned with new energy to recruiting black regiments. His recent triumph had left him with new areas to garrison and he believed that the black recruits were ideal for the task."

Of course given the racism of the day both N&S, there were problems. "At the same time Grant acknowledged that some of his own white soldiers had provoked clashes with the blacks, and he defended Col. Isaac Shepard, in charge of the black recruits, for punishing the miscreants when their own commanders failed to exercise discipline. By the end of July he could report: 'The negro troops are easier to preserve discipline among than our white troops and doubt not will prove equally good for garrison duty. All that have been tried have fought bravely." [Ulysses S. Grant, Triumph over Adversity, Brooks Simpson pg 217]

While recuperating from his riding accident in New Orleans, "Grant smoked meditatively and talked of this and that with his visitors, telling one caller that although he first opposed the enlistment of Negro soldiers he now favored it highly and thought that a bright young officer could do much worse than take a commission in a Negro regiment." [Grant Takes Command, Catton pg 25]

Once returned to civilian life and during the ensuing years, Grant continued his support of the black struggle. At some point, he appears to have assumed a responsibility for their condition as well, both the good and the bad. During his last years and illness, Grant had a nurse/body servant named Harrison. While the family hated this man for some reason, Grant always defended him. His close friend Mark Twain explained in a letter to Henry Ward Beecher: "I mentioned Grant's loyalty - remember Harrison, his colored body servant? The whole family hated him, but that did not make any difference, the General always stood at his back, wouldn't allow him to be scolded; always excused his failures and deficiencies with the one unvarying formula, 'We are responsible for these things in his race. It is not fair to visit our fault upon them, let him alone." ... he was the most lovable great child of the world." [Mark Twain Himself by Meltzer pg 194, 1885]

(Message edited by tulip on October 19, 2002)