Grant Grant frees his slave

[Cavalry Charger]

it would be a rather biased attempt to run Grant down.

It may also be an honest assessment of Grant's 'inability' as an overseer, compared to the rest. If he was an overseer, he wasn't much of one it seems. How many overseers worked in the fields with the slaves? I'd be interested to know the answer to that question. He equated his labor with that of the slaves by working with them. Here is the humble Grant in action again.

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

I don't think anyone is claiming they weren't slaves, so I'm not sure what your point is here

 

[archieclement]

It may also be an honest assessment of Grant's 'inability' as an overseer, compared to the rest. If he was an overseer, he wasn't much of one it seems. How many overseers worked in the fields with the slaves? I'd be interested to know the answer to that question. He equated his labor with that of the slaves by working with them. Here is the humble Grant in action again.


I don't think anyone is claiming they weren't slaves, so I'm not sure what your point is here

Virtually all small scale owners worked in the field side by side with their slaves. The only thing here is 30 slaves is really not considered small scale. If one doesn't have a specific overseer it would be the manager.

The curious thing is if people are noting he wasn't successful in the position.........he was in the position..........

 

[archieclement]

Virtually all small scale owners worked in the field side by side with their slaves. The only thing here is 30 slaves is really not considered small scale. If one doesn't have a specific overseer it would be the manager.

The curious thing is if people are noting he wasn't successful in the position.........he was in the position..........

If no one is claiming they weren't slaves, there were indeed rules for the slaves to live by, and some type of enforcement ......when the owner is away, which Fred was. That would be an overseer or manager. That would have been Grant. It's a rather simple point, as it's how it worked at any plantation.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

The only thing here is 30 slaves is really not considered small scale.

It appears we have a conundrum then. Not a small scale operation, and yet there was no overseer (as you have admitted), so Grant as the Manager chose to get in the fields with the slaves and work alongside them, even though there were plenty of slaves to do what needed to be done. We always seem to come to an impasse when it comes to Grant. He just keeps getting higher in my estimation.

 

[archieclement]

It appears we have a conundrum then. Not a small scale operation, and yet there was no overseer (as you have admitted), so Grant as the Manager chose to get in the fields with the slaves and work alongside them, even though there were plenty of slaves to do what needed to be done. We always seem to come to an impasse when it comes to Grant. He just keeps getting higher in my estimation.

When one visits Whitehaven today, one doesn't really get a plantation feel, it feels more a small farm. But none of the slave cabins survive either.

But in most slavery discussions today, anything over 20-25 slaves is generally considered plantation, which Whitehaven had 30.

My opinion of Grant after this visit to Whitehaven is he was slightly more pro slavery then I thought before. Without knowing the price for Jones, one could think perhaps he was virtually gifted for say a $1.....but his personally leasing two others, one at least a $100 a yr doesn't seem anything but a conscious decision regarding his use of slaves personally. Seems a bit harder to write off as not a conscious decision to utilize slaves personally to me

 

[matthew mckeon]

It may also be an honest assessment of Grant's 'inability' as an overseer, compared to the rest. If he was an overseer, he wasn't much of one it seems. How many overseers worked in the fields with the slaves? I'd be interested to know the answer to that question. He equated his labor with that of the slaves by working with them. Here is the humble Grant in action again.


I don't think anyone is claiming they weren't slaves, so I'm not sure what your point is here

Grant won the war, defeated Lee, accepted his surrender. So Grant has to be torn down. That's the point.

 

[archieclement]

Grant won the war, defeated Lee, accepted his surrender. So Grant has to be torn down. That's the point.

Personally would think noting what someone did isnt "tearing them down at all". Not noting what they did would be putting them on an artificial pedastel and treating them as a comic book hero, rather as an actual person.

Grants prewar career as both a slave owner and as a slave manager doesn't have anything to with, or detract from from him winning the war, defeating Lee, or accepting the surrender, the two phases of his life aren't really that connected.

 

[Dead Parrott]

Personally would think noting what someone did isnt "tearing them down at all". Not noting what they did would be putting them on an artificial pedastel and treating them as a comic book hero, rather as an actual person.

Grants prewar career as both a slave owner and as a slave manager doesn't have anything to with, or detract from from him winning the war, defeating Lee, or accepting the surrender, the two phases of his life aren't really that connected.

Agreed, but I think it goes generally to the question of 'character'.
Nothing will change the factual accomplishments\failures, as you point out.
And mythologizing our heroes through anecdotal mis-renderings is a long standing American tradition (RE Lee, anyone?).

But (like with Lee), many of those stories about character are built on a factual basis that, if we can parse it, does gives us insight into the 'character' of the person (in the context of that point in his life, and that time in history).

It is to me noteworthy, from what we factually know, that Grant worked beside and freed a slave when he could have (and needed to ) financially benefitted from doing otherwise.

Whatever else we attach or derive from the surrounding details and (typical) embellishments, this says something about Grant's character, not definitive in itself, but coupled with other known examples and incidents, help us understand something about him.

Few men match the marble of their statues. Some, in their flawed humanity, surpass it.

 

[archieclement]

Agreed, but I think it goes generally to the question of 'character'.
Nothing will change the factual accomplishments\failures, as you point out.
And mythologizing our heroes through anecdotal mis-renderings is a long standing American tradition (RE Lee, anyone?).

But (like with Lee), many of those stories about character are built on a factual basis that, if we can parse it, does gives us insight into the 'character' of the person (in the context of that point in his life, and that time in history).

It is to me noteworthy, from what we factually know, that Grant worked beside and freed a slave when he could have (and needed to ) financially benefitted from doing otherwise.

Whatever else we attach or derive from the surrounding details and (typical) embellishments, this says something about Grant's character, not definitive in itself, but coupled with other known examples and incidents, help us understand something about him.

Few men match the marble of their statues. Some, in their flawed humanity, surpass it.

My GGGF owned slaves, worked beside them, and took care of some them postwar, not sure he freed any, but then he never had to sell or free any because he was moving to another state.............never realized he would be a saint to some. Ive always just considered him a man though.

I'd even wager like Grant he never considered himself an abolishionist or even anti slavery.

 

[Dead Parrott]

I'd even wager like Grant he never considered himself an abolishionist or even anti slavery.

Early on, from what I've read he probably didn't.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Grant won the war, defeated Lee, accepted his surrender. So Grant has to be torn down. That's the point.

Well, we're not going to let that happen.

 

[Canadian]

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.

Frustratingly little is known about Jones, how Grant acquired him, why he manumitted him when he did or what happened to him afterwards. Nick Sacco, who has an excellent blog called Exploring the Past has tried to research this and the trail disappears very quickly.

 

[archieclement]

Frustratingly little is known about Jones, how Grant acquired him, why he manumitted him when he did or what happened to him afterwards. Nick Sacco, who has an excellent blog called Exploring the Past has tried to research this and the trail disappears very quickly.

Just as until recently it couldn't be proven Grant made a conscious decision to lease other slaves besides Jones, but thanks to Nick Sacco and others doing research at Whitehaven, we now know he definitely did from estate records found in St Louis.

Though honestly Grant had made the admission himself, it just hadn't been collaborated until now.

I certainly agree with Sacco when he says "By going back to the limited documentation we have from the 1850s and continuing into the first year of the Civil War, we can see how Grant wasn't necessarily the strong, lifelong anti-slavery advocate he is often portrayed to be in popular scholarship."

 

[uaskme]

Grants wife and father n law had several Slaves. Who do you think was washing his shirts, Julia?

 

[matthew mckeon]

Grant, without a nickel to his name, gives away a thousand dollars of enslaved human being away. Couldn't drive slaves or flog anyone. What a moral giant he seems, compared to those who could.

 

[uaskme]

Grant, without a nickel to his name, gives away a thousand dollars of enslaved human being away. Couldn't drive slaves or flog anyone. What a moral giant he seems, compared to those who could.

He may have been all of those things. However, he married a Planters Daughter which had Benefit. He failed at farming. Why all the trouble to white wash him. Same Rail on the Southerner. Narrative that all Southerners were lazy, sat on their butts and became wealth. Grant couldn't do it. Must of not been so easy!

 

[archieclement]

Grant, without a nickel to his name, gives away a thousand dollars of enslaved human being away. Couldn't drive slaves or flog anyone. What a moral giant he seems, compared to those who could.

Wow the speculation train presented as fact is going full bore off the rails.................

A According to Nick Sacco theres no more evidence that Jones was worth a $1000 then there is that he was cripple not worth $20.....

B Again according to Sacco theres no evidence that he gave away anything free at all......According to the manumission it was gave for diverse and valuable considerations, again no evidence that Jones didnt have to buy his freedom. Which wouldnt be giving away anything for free.....

C. No evidence Grant didnt whip or have someone else whip anyone either

Try to keep your hero worship a little more in check and in line with the realities we actually know.....or dont know......Little ia actually known about Jones.....that doesnt mean fill in the blanks with whatever nonsense you wish, and then present it as factual.......

Also as it known Grant was personally leasing two other slaves by the year, one confirmed at a $100 a year, evidently he had a few nickels to his name as well................

 

[unionblue]

He may have been all of those things. However, he married a Planters Daughter which had Benefit. He failed at farming. Why all the trouble to white wash him. Same Rail on the Southerner. Narrative that all Southerners were lazy, sat on their butts and became wealth. Grant couldn't do it. Must of not been so easy!

That's where the overseers come in.

 

[matthew mckeon]

He may have been all of those things. However, he married a Planters Daughter which had Benefit. He failed at farming. Why all the trouble to white wash him. Same Rail on the Southerner. Narrative that all Southerners were lazy, sat on their butts and became wealth. Grant couldn't do it. Must of not been so easy!

Nothing in your reply actually replies to what I posted.

 

[Rebforever]

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.

Maybe won a pot of cards? Maybe a bet on horse racing? Maybe a present from the Dents? Who knows.