Grant Did Grant say this?

[major bill]

Did Grant ever say this. "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." And if so did me mean it?

 

[JOHN42768]

Attributed to him. Supposedly that the Civil War was not about slavery

 

[Copperhead-mi]

No. This allegedly was a quote made to the Chicago Tribune in 1862 by Grant. As far as I know, no-one has ever been able to find this quote in that newspaper. I've seen references in past years that the quote was taken from a reprint of Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-65, by George Edmonds, and from a reprint of Truths of History, by Mildred Lewis Rutherford.

 

[Bee]

From History Myths Debunked:

Many Southron love to post this statement attributed General Grant: "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." They argue that this proves the war was not over slavery. While I personally agree, this is not proof as indeed, it is political lie. We managed to track it down to a comment made by a political opponent running against Grant for President. Here is the reference to the original newspaper and documentation. The quotation is but another myth. (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20813F7355C1A7493C2AA1783D85F468784F9)


https://historymyths.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/myths-about-generals-lee-and-grant/

 

[major bill]

So him saying this is more of a myth or at the very least unproven?

 

[cash]

It's a falsehood created to smear Grant and lie about the war.

 

[Tin cup]

Typical "He said that HE said"...like Lee's supposed quote: "Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand"
Lee to former Texas governor Fletcher S. Stockdale, August 1870.

Can never bring myself to EVER believe Lee said THAT, either!

They have pretty well proved N. B. Forrest's famous confrontation with Gen. Bragg never happened either, you know when he said in part:
"I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to. You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it. You may as well not issue any more orders to me, for I will not obey them, and as I say to you that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life."

Good reading, sounds great, but never happened!

Kevin Dally

 

[Bee]

The same article can be viewed here:
(http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20813F7355C1A7493C2AA1783D85F468784F9)

The Forum no longer accepts PNG, so I had to photograph my monitor

 

[cash]

Thomas Woods had that quotation in the first edition of his book, the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, which I prefer to think of as "The Factually Incorrect Guide to American History." In that same book he claimed Grant was a slaveholder until the 13th Amendment.

In April of 2005 I showed him how both statements were incorrect. See the comments section here:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/11168

You have to scroll down to the very bottom and read the comments from bottom to top to read them in chronological order.

 

[chucksr]

A newspaper editor lying???? Who ever heard of such a thing???

 

[diane]

Typical "He said that HE said"...like Lee's supposed quote: "Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand"
Lee to former Texas governor Fletcher S. Stockdale, August 1870.

Can never bring myself to EVER believe Lee said THAT, either!

They have pretty well proved N. B. Forrest's famous confrontation with Gen. Bragg never happened either, you know when he said in part:
"I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to. You have played the part of a ****ed scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it. You may as well not issue any more orders to me, for I will not obey them, and as I say to you that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life."

Good reading, sounds great, but never happened!

Kevin Dally

No, Lee sure didn't say that! And, Grant didn't say that, either. Their mouths were stuffed!

However, the Bragg-Forrest confrontation has not been disproved. There would be a number of reasons for Forrest to leave it out of the Jordan-Pryor book, not the least of which was Bragg was still alive. The time frame does seem to be a problem, but not when one considers Forrest's temperament. He did not like being stabbed in the back and was perfectly capable of making extraordinary good time - he could have made it to Bragg's tent and back in the time frame required. Now, it may not have been the exact words that Cowan remembered but there was definitely a strong difference of opinions between the two and Forrest did offer his resignation. Davis promoted him instead. Why didn't Bragg say something of it, being the strong and nit-picky disciplinarian he was? Because Forrest had created a situation where both he and Bragg would get what they wanted most - away from each other. Yes, the older bios have a tendency to follow the leader but more recent scholars and biographers give this incident enough credit to quote it and discuss it - Gary Gallagher, Brian Steel Wills, Jack Hurst, James McPherson for a few.

 

[E_just_E]

This is what Grant wrote on the subject in his memoirs:

"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true."

 

[Tin cup]

No, Lee sure didn't say that! And, Grant didn't say that, either. Their mouths were stuffed!

However, the Bragg-Forrest confrontation has not been disproved. There would be a number of reasons for Forrest to leave it out of the Jordan-Pryor book, not the least of which was Bragg was still alive. The time frame does seem to be a problem, but not when one considers Forrest's temperament. He did not like being stabbed in the back and was perfectly capable of making extraordinary good time - he could have made it to Bragg's tent and back in the time frame required. Now, it may not have been the exact words that Cowan remembered but there was definitely a strong difference of opinions between the two and Forrest did offer his resignation. Davis promoted him instead. Why didn't Bragg say something of it, being the strong and nit-picky disciplinarian he was? Because Forrest had created a situation where both he and Bragg would get what they wanted most - away from each other. Yes, the older bios have a tendency to follow the leader but more recent scholars and biographers give this incident enough credit to quote it and discuss it - Gary Gallagher, Brian Steel Wills, Jack Hurst, James McPherson for a few.

You need to read that chapter about the Forrest/Bragg "confrontation" in :https://www.amazon.com/dp/1932714871/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
That supposed "confrontation" is a myth, Forrest was elsewhere.

Kevin Dally

 

[Bruce Vail]

Sort of off topic -- I have seen it reported hundreds of times that Grant was a Democrat before the war. Did he actually tell people that, or is that hearsay?

 

[cash]

Sort of off topic -- I have seen it reported hundreds of times that Grant was a Democrat before the war. Did he actually tell people that, or is that hearsay?

Grant was reluctantly a Democrat. He had been a Whig, and with the dissolution of the Whig Party he was briefly with the No-Nothings, leaving them due to their ethnic hatreds, before landing with the Democrats because he feared Fremont's election would lead to a civil war. He voted for Buchanan in 1856. Because he didn't meet residency requirements to vote in Galena, he didn't vote in 1860.

 

[diane]

You need to read that chapter about the Forrest/Bragg "confrontation" in :https://www.amazon.com/dp/1932714871/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
That supposed "confrontation" is a myth, Forrest was elsewhere.

Kevin Dally

Yes, here is the discussion about that in that book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t...mauga forrest 10 day leave to georgia&f=false

Forrest received orders to turn over his command to Wheeler while he was in east Tennessee, close enough to return and chat with Bragg as Cowan recounted. He then requested leave to visit his wife in Georgia and was in La Grange when he received orders that his command was permanently given to Wheeler, which is what prompted him to write his resignation and send it to Davis. Davis met with him in Montgomery and the matter was resolved to everybody's satisfaction.

It appears the only real problem with the telling of this story is that it comes solely from Dr Cowan, and he would be considered biased as he was a cousin of Forrest's wife and the story was told many years later. That's why Clift asked Forrest himself if it was true. Forrest replied it was about as it was related and elaborated no more. Again, Gen Bragg was still alive and it would not reflect well on him. Forrest wasn't one to disparage fellow officers. Dr Cowan has been used as a reliable source in other matters, so I don't see how he could be considered reliable on everything but this. In fact, it doesn't reflect well on Forrest. The only thing I would doubt about it is that Bragg had nothing to say at all and took it - he was not afraid of any man, including Forrest. But - he did complain obliquely to Davis, which is why Forrest sent letters to Davis. Davis had these missives and the round-robin letter by Bragg's staff along with some other items indicating he'd better get himself over there. It was a shrewd hand for Forrest to play - he must have known about the letter everybody was signing but stayed away from it as from the plague, but he could take advantage of the situation. Bragg, in this case, didn't mind!

Since Forrest himself was asked about it and said it happened, the only thing Dr Cowan could be guilty of is perhaps embellishment.

 

[Galvanized Yankee]

Happy Holidays Friends,

Hate to spoil the fun on this one but it seems Grant did indeed say this.

 

[Galvanized Yankee]

Happy Holidays Friends,

Hate to spoil the fun on this one but it seems Grant did indeed say this.

View attachment 339433

 

[Galvanized Yankee]

Apparently by the previous posts he may also have said this more than once. However, I am sure his stance soften as the war lingered on.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Happy Holidays Friends,

Hate to spoil the fun on this one but it seems Grant did indeed say this.

View attachment 339433

It's not Grant writing that, and that is also not an account written by an objective observer. He was a confederate.

So no, it's not really apparent that Grant said that.