Grant Grant frees his slave

[Cavalry Charger]

"We do know that in March 1859 Grant filed the following manumission document.

"I Ulysses S Grant of the City and County of St. Louis in the State of Missouri, for diverse good and valuable considerations me hereunto moving, do hereby emancipate and set free from Slavery my negro man William, sometimes called William Jones(Jones)of Mullatto complexion, aged about thirty-five years, and about five feet seven inches in height and being the same slave purchased by me of Frederick Dent-And I do hereby manumit, emancipate & set free said William from slavery forever."

It is notable that Grant did not sell or work out a plan with Jones to purchase his freedom, but simply freed him.

Right after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, Grant wrote to his father-in-law, "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."

To his father he wrote, "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 that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go.""

Myths & Misunderstandings | Grant as a slaveholder | American Civil War Museum

By Sean Kane Interpretation & Programs Specialist Did Ulysses S. Grant own slaves during the Civil War? No, but it will come as a surprise to many people, that Grant did in fact own a man named William Jones for about a year on the eve of the Civil War. In 1859, Grant either bought or was...

acwm.org

 

[archieclement]

"We do know that in March 1859 Grant filed the following manumission document.

"I Ulysses S Grant of the City and County of St. Louis in the State of Missouri, for diverse good and valuable considerations me hereunto moving, do hereby emancipate and set free from Slavery my negro man William, sometimes called William Jones(Jones)of Mullatto complexion, aged about thirty-five years, and about five feet seven inches in height and being the same slave purchased by me of Frederick Dent-And I do hereby manumit, emancipate & set free said William from slavery forever."

It is notable that Grant did not sell or work out a plan with Jones to purchase his freedom, but simply freed him.

Right after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, Grant wrote to his father-in-law, "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."

To his father he wrote, "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 that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go.""

Myths & Misunderstandings | Grant as a slaveholder | American Civil War Museum

By Sean Kane Interpretation & Programs Specialist Did Ulysses S. Grant own slaves during the Civil War? No, but it will come as a surprise to many people, that Grant did in fact own a man named William Jones for about a year on the eve of the Civil War. In 1859, Grant either bought or was...

acwm.org

Whats also notable was he bought and used Jones as a personal slave.

Which always seemed somewhat curious to me, as he was living at Whitehaven at the time and given the management of the farm. So he had use of all the slaves there as manager of the farm. Its rather hard to see the motivation as he had no need to purchase anyone. Its never seemed the motivation behind the purchase is very clear.

It doesnt appear to have been simply to free him, because he remains a working slave as long as Grant is running the farm. Was it an investment, then he had a change of heart? Was it some attempt to demonstrate to neighbors he was "sound on the goose" and not an abolitionist?

 

[Carronade]

Do we know when or how Grant acquired Jones? How much he paid, where he got the money? It wouldn't seem like he had a lot of cash at that time.

 

[archieclement]

Do we know when or how Grant acquired Jones? How much he paid, where he got the money? It wouldn't seem like he had a lot of cash at that time.

Most accounts say he was purchased, as does his manumission, never have heard a specific price mentioned. Why I wonder if it was an investment when he did, as he had no need to purchase him as he already his use. Perhaps at the time he was considering a move off the Dent farm that would require the use of a slave......but seems rather unlikely as he wasnt in much a financial state to do so.

Another possibility I would think, that everyone seems to dismiss, is in the manumission he says " for diverse good and valuable considerations me" not seeing how that William could have bought or worked of his freedom in a agreement between them is dismissed.

Besides working the farm I believe Whitehaven was leasing some slaves and doing woodcutting to sell also

In STL for some tests, if weather is good may stop by Whitehaven to ask, but think details from this period are rather scarce.

 

[archieclement]

Do we know when or how Grant acquired Jones? How much he paid, where he got the money? It wouldn't seem like he had a lot of cash at that time.

Swung by whitehaven. Unfortunately alot is unknown.

Price for Jones is unknown as is who he was bought from, likely his father in law, but his brother in law Frederick Dent also owned slaves at times.

Motive is unknown, as is apparently how long he was owned, as is if Jones could have worked it off.

He wrote a letter during this time saying he had bought a slave and had two others he had use of. Recently records were found where he was leasing a slave for a little over a $100 a year from outside the family. Its assumed the 2nd he personally leased at well.

His cash or lack of.....He had money to buy a slave and lease 2 others, as well as 80 acres his father in law gave him as wedding gift, he leased out the 80 acres at times, but at least one winter he sells a family heirloom gold watch to be able to buy Christmas presents.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Was it some attempt to demonstrate to neighbors he was "sound on the goose" and not an abolitionist?

I think this might represent an answer to your question, but there is no way of telling what was specifically on Grant's mind at the time.

Taken from the article linked:

"The use of slaves on the farm…was a source of irritation and shame to Grant. Jefferson Sapington told me that he and Grant used to work in the fields with the blacks. He said with glee, 'Grant was helpless when it came to making slaves work,' and Mrs. Boggs corroborated this. 'He was no hand to manage negroes,'she said. 'He couldn't force them to do anything. He wouldn't whip them. He was too gentle and good tempered and besides he was not a slavery man.'"

Whether or not Grant wasn't a "slavery man" by inclination, we know he briefly owned William Jones. He does not mention Jones in his memoirs or other writings, so the exact nature of their relationship remains a mystery. We do know that in March 1859 Grant filed the following manumission document."

Then there's this:

"Grant did in fact own a man named William Jones for about a year on the eve of the Civil War. In 1859, Grant either bought or was given the 35-year-old Jones, who was in Grant's service until he freed him before the start of the War."

So we know he owned him for about a year. And it appears to be at the very tail end of his time working on the farm for his father-in-law.

I have no idea what the influence was on Grant at the time. As you say, he had oversight of the slaves on the farm in Missouri so there would seem to be no reason to 'buy' a slave. It is a mystery that will remain in that sense.

Edited as the idea of William being 'gifted' to Grant appears to be put to rest in the manumission papers filed.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Price for Jones is unknown as is who he was bought from, likely his father in law, but his brother in law Frederick Dent also owned slaves at times.

I think we've got our answer here from the article:

"being the same slave purchased by me of Frederick Dent"

So, it may have been his father-in-law or brother-in-law who influenced him to buy William Jones, but once again we will never know the story behind it.

how long he was owned

And I think the article notes Grant owned him for about a year, at the tail end of his farming venture.

He wrote a letter during this time saying he had bought a slave and had two others he had use of. Recently records were found where he was leasing a slave for a little over a $100 a year from outside the family. Its assumed the 2nd he personally leased at well.

It would be interesting to see this documentation, too.

His cash or lack of.....

And this is the confusing part. The article mentions him requesting a loan from his father also, who refuses as long as Grant is living amongst a 'tribe of slave owners'.

Swung by whitehaven.

I had no idea you lived so close, but really appreciate you doing so and filling us in.

 

[archieclement]

I think this might represent an answer to your question, but there is no way of telling what was specifically on Grant's mind at the time.

Taken from the article linked:

"The use of slaves on the farm…was a source of irritation and shame to Grant. Jefferson Sapington told me that he and Grant used to work in the fields with the blacks. He said with glee, 'Grant was helpless when it came to making slaves work,' and Mrs. Boggs corroborated this. 'He was no hand to manage negroes,'she said. 'He couldn't force them to do anything. He wouldn't whip them. He was too gentle and good tempered and besides he was not a slavery man.'"

Whether or not Grant wasn't a "slavery man" by inclination, we know he briefly owned William Jones. He does not mention Jones in his memoirs or other writings, so the exact nature of their relationship remains a mystery. We do know that in March 1859 Grant filed the following manumission document."

Then there's this:

"Grant did in fact own a man named William Jones for about a year on the eve of the Civil War. In 1859, Grant either bought or was given the 35-year-old Jones, who was in Grant's service until he freed him before the start of the War."

So we know he owned him for about a year. And it appears to be at the very tail end of his time working on the farm for his father-in-law.

I have no idea what the influence was on Grant at the time. As you say, he had oversight of the slaves on the farm in Missouri so there would seem to be no reason to 'buy' a slave. It is a mystery that will remain in that sense.

Edited as the idea of William being 'gifted' to Grant appears to be put to rest in the manumission papers filed.

This was the odd part, there was school tours going on, so most of my questions were to two rangers in the main building, and not Nick Sacco who was conducting the school tours of the house.

But I asked that specifically as I believe i have read accounts Grant owned Jones 1-2 years, they stayed with they do know the length of ownership. Perhaps the letter mentioning buying the slave and acquiring 2 others was at least a yr from manumission?

I live about 130 miles away, you just happened to post while I'm in a STL a couple days Weds-Fri for med tests and doc appt.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I live about 130 miles away, you just happened to post while I'm in a STL a couple days Weds-Fri for med tests and doc appt.

Well, it was meant to be, and I hope your check up goes well.

I do appreciate you asking while you had an opportunity, and the article gives the timeline as 'about a year', so that leaves the length of ownership a little open ended. I'm guessing no one knows for sure, so better to err on the side of caution.

 

[Bruce Vail]

It's interesting that with the vast literature on Grant's life out there that there is so little known about his experience as a slaveholder. Was it merely another episode in his long list of failures as a businessman and financial manager, or does it tell us something new about his political or moral beliefs? It's a bit murky and mysterious.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

It's interesting that with the vast literature on Grant's life out there that there is so little known about his experience as a slaveholder. Was it merely another episode in his long list of failures as a businessman and financial manager, or does it tell us something new about his political or moral beliefs? It's a bit murky and mysterious.

It's definitely a bit mysterious, but I think a couple of things from the article indicate he didn't have the 'stomach' for slaveholding and it does appear his beliefs evolved in relation to this issue according to the article in the OP.

" While Grant's views on slavery evolved over time, his relationship with slavery was complicated and demonstrates the pervasiveness of the institution in antebellum America. Grant's father, Jesse, was an abolitionist who wrote for the Castigator, a newspaper in Ohio. However, his son's attitudes toward slavery were more ambivalent, at least from what we can discern of his opinions before and during the Civil War. "I never was an abolitionist, Grant wrote to his friend and patron, Elihu Washburne, in 1863, "not even what could be called anti-slavery…" "

We have him marrying into a slaveholding family, against his family wishes in the sense they refused to attend his wedding to Julia based on their abolitionist beliefs, which was another reason his father refused him a loan during those difficult years.

The article also refers to his views evolving alongside those of Lincoln:

"In these letters Grant expressed a similar opinion to the early stated war aims of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wrote in 1862, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

By 1863 Grant's and Lincoln's opinions had evolved. The letter where Grant denied being "what could be called antislavery" continued, "I try to judge fairly and honestly, and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and 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 established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled."

When the Emancipation Proclamation allowed for the raising of black troops, Grant wrote President Lincoln, "by arming the negro we have added a powerful ally. They will make good soldiers and taking them from the enemy weaken him in the same proportion they strengthen us."

With that added strength and Grant in command of the Union Army the Civil War became a war of liberation for enslaved people."

 

[Bruce Vail]

It's definitely a bit mysterious, but I think a couple of things from the article indicate he didn't have the 'stomach' for slaveholding and it does appear his beliefs evolved in relation to this issue according to the article in the OP.

" While Grant's views on slavery evolved over time, his relationship with slavery was complicated and demonstrates the pervasiveness of the institution in antebellum America. Grant's father, Jesse, was an abolitionist who wrote for the Castigator, a newspaper in Ohio. However, his son's attitudes toward slavery were more ambivalent, at least from what we can discern of his opinions before and during the Civil War. "I never was an abolitionist, Grant wrote to his friend and patron, Elihu Washburne, in 1863, "not even what could be called anti-slavery…" "

We have him marrying into a slaveholding family, against his family wishes in the sense they refused to attend his wedding to Julia based on their abolitionist beliefs, which was another reason his father refused him a loan during those difficult years.

The article also refers to his views evolving alongside those of Lincoln:

"In these letters Grant expressed a similar opinion to the early stated war aims of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wrote in 1862, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

By 1863 Grant's and Lincoln's opinions had evolved. The letter where Grant denied being "what could be called antislavery" continued, "I try to judge fairly and honestly, and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and 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 established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled."

When the Emancipation Proclamation allowed for the raising of black troops, Grant wrote President Lincoln, "by arming the negro we have added a powerful ally. They will make good soldiers and taking them from the enemy weaken him in the same proportion they strengthen us."

With that added strength and Grant in command of the Union Army the Civil War became a war of liberation for enslaved people."

The article by Sean Kane seems to be an example of special pleading by a Grant admirer. There isn't a lot of evidence that Grant "evolved" on the issue of slavery other than the fact that he accepted Lincoln's shifting attitudes without public criticism.

 

[archieclement]

Well, it was meant to be, and I hope your check up goes well.

I do appreciate you asking while you had an opportunity, and the article gives the timeline as 'about a year', so that leaves the length of ownership a little open ended. I'm guessing no one knows for sure, so better to err on the side of caution.

As far as motive theres several things that seem to be going on.......His father in law is basically providing for them, and going bankrupt while doing so, not that providing for them is the cause. Grant seems to enjoy farming and wants to be successful at it, and hes seeing farms prospering with slavery around him.

So i would think in part hes wanting to show he can make it on his own, by being successful on his own
In part he's wanting to save his father in law by making his farm successful

And think the level of success they wanted would only be possible with slavery. Doubt Grant and certainly not Julia wanted to go to a one room cabin trying to eck out a living as a poor pioneer farmer......

However Grant makes the mistake any business owner, especially in regards to his fathers in laws farm, can't make in not seperating personal views from business.. His fathers in law farm could not support thirty slaves. To save the farm he needed to sell off slaves to make it profitable. Fredrick had far too much capital tied up in slaves that werent returning a profit.

His father in law is somewhat interesting, had made a small to moderate fortune in STL commerce, upon retiring Whitehaven is to recreate the farm he grew up on Maryland, even the name comes from that farm. Hes rich, its a play farm, he never seemed concerned if it was actually profitable, not even as his fortune dwindled.

 

[GrantCottage1885]

I think Grant's views on slavery were similar of many in the US at the time. He was a moderate, not an ardent slave-holder and not an abolitionist. He viewed John Browns' actions as those of a dangerous extremist and did not align himself with abolitionists. It's important to make the distinction that people in Grant's era were not simply slave owners or abolitionists, there were many moderates who were largely ambivalent or desired to see a gradual, bloodless end to the peculiar institution in America. Due to later statements I get the impression that something did bother Grant about slavery throughout his life at a fundamental level. Grant wrote that he did not believe people should be judged by race or sect but by their merit. He supported the 13th-15th Amendments and showed himself to be a protector of Civil Rights and liberties regardless of race. In all this there is still glimpses of the world he was a part of, of preconceptions and stereotypes. It seems Grant had a reluctant acknowledgment of the reality that their would be a painfully slow rate of progress caused by an American public reluctant to accept measures towards equality.

US Grant NHS Ranger Nick Sacco tackled this subject in a recent article titled: "I Was Never an Abolitionist': Ulysses S. Grant and Slavery, 1854–1863" published in The Journal of the Civil War Era.

Available for a fee here:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/732272

This note from later in Grant's life seems to shine some light on the issue of the way he and his wife came to regard slavery:

Ulysses S. Grant States that the Grants Consider the Institution of Slavery Unjustifiable, In a Letter to a Young Boy | The Raab Collection

. With an emotion of regret, he writes that while his wife owned slaves she "could not see how it was possible that any body ever justified such an institution". Col.

www.raabcollection.com

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I think Grant's views on slavery were similar of many in the US at the time. He was a moderate, not an ardent slave-holder and not an abolitionist. He viewed John Browns' actions as those of a dangerous extremist and did not align himself with abolitionists. It's important to make the distinction that people in Grant's era were not simply slave owners or abolitionists, there were many moderates who were largely ambivalent or desired to see a gradual, bloodless end to the peculiar institution in America. Due to later statements I get the impression that something did bother Grant about slavery throughout his life at a fundamental level. Grant wrote that he did not believe people should be judged by race or sect but by their merit. He supported the 13th-15th Amendments and showed himself to be a protector of Civil Rights and liberties regardless of race. In all this there is still glimpses of the world he was a part of, of preconceptions and stereotypes. It seems Grant had a reluctant acknowledgment of the reality that their would be a painfully slow rate of progress caused by an American public reluctant to accept measures towards equality.

US Grant NHS Ranger Nick Sacco tackled this subject in a recent article titled: "I Was Never an Abolitionist': Ulysses S. Grant and Slavery, 1854–1863" published in The Journal of the Civil War Era.

Available for a fee here:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/732272

This note from later in Grant's life seems to shine some light on the issue of the way he and his wife came to regard slavery:

Ulysses S. Grant States that the Grants Consider the Institution of Slavery Unjustifiable, In a Letter to a Young Boy | The Raab Collection

. With an emotion of regret, he writes that while his wife owned slaves she "could not see how it was possible that any body ever justified such an institution". Col.

www.raabcollection.com

Another amazing addition in terms of the letter that was sent and what it reads. Thank you so much for sharing.

 

[archieclement]

Another amazing add toition in terms of the letter that was sent and what it reads. Thank you so much for sharing.

Some sources always point out all the slaves ran away during the war. At Whitehaven they have a film suggesting they ran away because of Fred Dents dire economic straits at the time.

After watching it I was able to ask Nick about it, and if Whitehaven had been in better economic conditions if he thought they would have ran away. His response was that's a really good question. We can never know.

Another funny part was while asking questions in the visiter center I refered to Grant as manager/overseer, one of the rangers said we don't refer to him as overseer.......So I asked you mean while Grant was manager, he had an overseer under him? He's like no while Grant was manager he would have fulfilled the overseers role as well......then he quickly added it's a matter of semantics.......I had to keep from laughing, as if he was acting overseer why avoid calling him overseer....

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I had to keep from laughing, as if he was acting overseer why avoid calling him overseer....

Would a man working alongside the slaves be considered an overseer?

 

[archieclement]

Would a man working alongside the slaves be considered an overseer?

That's one role, keeping a eye on them, as is enforcing the rules for the owner, which while at Whitehaven both Grant and Fredrick are presented somewhat as "good, kindly" owners which some would claim don't exist. I don't really have an issue with that, as all owners wouldn't be the same, some would be harsher or stricter then others, it doesn't change they were owners or controlled by rules, threats and punishments.

There would still be rules that a overseer/manager/owner would have and enforce. When Grant is manager, Fredrick wasn't staying at Whitehaven, it would have fell to Grant as manager, unless he had a overseer under him to, which he didnt, which the ranger acknowledged despite semantics, Grant was.

It is presented at Whitehaven, despite being treated somewhat (a rather relative term) well. They were indeed slaves, Fred and Grant took steps to control their movements and behavior through rules and they certainly weren't free to leave.

With most slaveowners we don't the specific methods and punishments they used.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

it doesn't change they were owners or controlled by rules, threats and punishments.

There would still be rules that a overseer/manager/owner would have and enforce.

"He said with glee, 'Grant was helpless when it came to making slaves work,' and Mrs. Boggs corroborated this. 'He was no hand to manage negroes,'she said. 'He couldn't force them to do anything. He wouldn't whip them. He was too gentle and good tempered"

 

[archieclement]

"He said with glee, 'Grant was helpless when it came to making slaves work,' and Mrs. Boggs corroborated this. 'He was no hand to manage negroes,'she said. 'He couldn't force them to do anything. He wouldn't whip them. He was too gentle and good tempered"

That is proslavery person berating Grant personally IMO as the with glee implys, it would be a rather biased attempt to run Grant down.

Obviously there is no records of runaways, it would seem they were well aware they were not free to leave.

Honestly I've always been surprised how often that is cited, as people always seem to say have to be careful with first hand accounts being biased. "With glee" would seem to imply bias......but I guess it's a case where if it's what they want to hear, it doesn't matter. But if your noting someone's failure with glee....would seem bias.