Grant Ulysses S. Grant touted as 'one of the great civil rights presidents'

Grant was not a true a Civil Rights president. Grant may have signed these Bills into laws but Grant was not the push behind these laws. Grant happens to be President in the early 1870's and his party wanted the freedmen vote.

Samuel Shellabarger (R-OH) on March 28, 1871
The Enforcement Act of 1870, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1870 or First Ku Klux Klan Act, or Force Act was a United States federal law written to empower the President with the legal authority to enforce the first section of the Fifteenth Amendment throughout the United States.

John Bingham (R-OH) on February 21, 1870
The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Force Act of 1871, Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, or Third Ku Klux Klan Act, is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and ...

Sen. Charles Sumner (R-MA) on May 13, 1870[1]
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335–337), sometimes called Enforcement Act or Force Act, was a United States federal law enacted during the Reconstruction Era in response to civil rights violations to African Americans, "to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights", giving them equal treatment in ...


I like to point out later in life, he believed suffrage for the freedmen was a mistake... or given to quickly... He was proud that his army's victory brought an end to slavery but nothing more. I want to point out he wanted to buy part of an island to ship the freedmen there...

The Civil Rights Acts of 1870 and 1871 were to enforce the amendments to the constitution and fight the Klan...

The Civil Rights Act 1875 was groundbreaking and was later used as a guide to the Civil rights act of 1964

Edited by moderator.


"I want to point out he wanted to buy part of an island to ship the freedmen there..."

I've seen this assertion made in numerous places, and also heard Grant fans deny it.

What is your take?
 
I have never quite heard it put this particular way, but it was no secret that Grant wanted to acquire the island of Santo Domingo (modern Dominican Republic)

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/grant-and-dominican-annexation/

Yes, it is well documented that Grant favored acquiring Dominican Republic.

But why? Was it merely an opportunistic expansion of US territory into the Caribbean (a long-standing goal of many, many American politicians), or was there a specific desire to establish a Black state (or territory) where former slaves could be relocated?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is well documented that Grant favored acquiring Santo Domingo.

But why? Was it merely an opportunistic expansion of US territory into the Caribbean (a long-standing goal of many, many American politicians), or was there a specific desire to establish a Black state (or territory) where former slaves could be relocated?

Check what's behind Door #3.
 
Yes, it is well documented that Grant favored acquiring Santo Domingo.

But why? Was it merely an opportunistic expansion of US territory into the Caribbean (a long-standing goal of many, many American politicians), or was there a specific desire to establish a Black state (or territory) where former slaves could be relocated?

As explained in the link I provided:

By acquiring the Dominican Republic, Grant reasoned, the United States could offer blacks a different sort of economic leverage. They could move to the Dominican Republic while remaining United States citizens (this is a critical distinction between Lincoln’s colonization plans and Grant’s desire for annexation). This way they could escape white repression and violence. Should southern whites understand that their hostile actions against blacks might well deprive the South of a labor force, Grant reasoned, they might change their behavior and make other concessions in an effort to persuade blacks to remain.​
 
Mostly because of a personal tif with Charles Sumner, but that gets into a huge data base that I am holding to write a distant article on the topic...

I would quibble with your characterization "personal tiff."

Sumner's objections were principled policy positions. Sumner was one of the most remarkable Union men of the War era and he did not engage in personal battles with the President under the guise of policy disagreements.
 
As explained in the link I provided:

By acquiring the Dominican Republic, Grant reasoned, the United States could offer blacks a different sort of economic leverage. They could move to the Dominican Republic while remaining United States citizens (this is a critical distinction between Lincoln’s colonization plans and Grant’s desire for annexation). This way they could escape white repression and violence. Should southern whites understand that their hostile actions against blacks might well deprive the South of a labor force, Grant reasoned, they might change their behavior and make other concessions in an effort to persuade blacks to remain.​

So the purpose was to provide an offshore location for ex-slaves. Would Dominican Republic be a state with Congressional representation (with Black Senators and Representatives), or some kind of territory?
 
Last edited:
Do tell. What's your take?

The South needed labor badly.

What if they lost that labor?

Would the possibility of losing that labor cause them to change their behavior toward their black citizens?

If Santo Domingo is annexed and is part of the United States, black folks mistreated in the South [or elsewhere] could move there and escape mistreatment.
 
I would quibble with your characterization "personal tiff."

Sumner's objections were principled policy positions. Sumner was one of the most remarkable Union men of the War era and he did not engage in personal battles under the guise of policy disagreements.

The first salvo dropped when Grant began negotiations for the acquisition of Santo Domingo apart from Sumner. This began the rancor before the actual content of the negotiations were revealed. It began when Grant visited Sumner whilst dining and Sumner was clearly clueless as to what was taking place, and thus began the long painful decay into enmity of Sumner and Grant.

Summarized from Alan Nevins, Hamilton Fish, (p311)
 
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to reading more about the Sumner/Grant fight over the Dominican Republic.

Any suggested readings?
 
I'm looking forward to reading more about the Sumner/Grant fight over the Dominican Republic.

Any suggested readings?

My current source is based on Sumner's diary. Alan Nevins, Hamilton Fish.

It is only one source, and clearly from the perspective of Sumner. Another source would be Charles Calhoun, The Presidency of Ulysses S Grant
 
I'm looking forward to reading more about the Sumner/Grant fight over the Dominican Republic.

Any suggested readings?

Until Brooks Simpson's next volume in his Grant biography comes out, one might consider one of the Grant biographies covering his presidency, such as Jean Edward Smith's Grant, Ronald C. White's American Ulysses, or Ron Chernow's Grant.

Edit to add. Thanks to @Bee for reminding me of Calhoun's The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant.
 
Until Brooks Simpson's next volume in his Grant biography comes out, one might consider one of the Grant biographies covering his presidency, such as Jean Edward Smith's Grant, Ronald C. White's American Ulysses, or Ron Chernow's Grant.

Edit to add. Thanks to @Bee for reminding me of Calhoun's The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant.
Chernow's book goes into it fairly well.
 
Charles Sumner? You mean the guy that did everything he could to provoke a civil war and then went to the Senate to the same tactics on President Grant? That guy? And his protege Henry Adams? Sumner, the guy that thought Britain should cede Canada to the US and pay $2.5B because they screwed up and a couple of commerce raiders escape Liverpool?
Frankly a guy that makes bombastic inflammatory speeches and the criticizes the people who have clean up the mess he made is not worth your adoration.
 
Back
Top