Grant Grant frees his slave

[archieclement]

Actually, according to the NPS website, while Dent owned around 30 slaves, the number at Whitehaven was 18.

Slavery at White Haven - Ulysses S Grant National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

Again note it says it may have increased during labor season, totally in line with what I have discussed at Whitehaven of Grant managing upwards of 30 slaves........no surprise. Also besides owning slaves, there was leasing of slaves as well which we know Grant did, quite possibly Fredrick as well, though I hadn't asked, I will if I remember next trip.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Again note it says it may have increased during labor season, totally in line with what I have discussed at Whitehaven of Grant managing upwards of 30 slaves........no surprise.

You wrote that Whitehaven "had 30" slaves. In reality, the number that lived and worked at the farm was 18. What it "may" have been during peak growing season is not an established fact.

 

[archieclement]

You wrote that Whitehaven "had 30" slaves. In reality, the number that lived and worked at the farm was 18. What it "may" have been during peak growing season is not an established fact.

Yes as I had been told at Whitehaven Grant managed upwards of 30 slaves, that would be what he managed........not sure your point now.......again owned doesn't necessarily represent total slaves again..... Grant personally had either 3 or 4, he only owned one.......doesn't change he had four under his personal control

Grant owned Jones......leased two others, and in a letter to his sister mentions having personal use of one of Dents. Which may have been or not, Jones that he could have bought later.......

 

[DanSBHawk]

Also besides owning slaves, there was leasing of slaves as well which we know Grant did, quite possibly Fredrick as well, though I hadn't asked, I will if I remember next trip.

How do we "know" Grant leased slaves? The letter to his sister where he wrote that he "hired" two black men for the year? How do we know these weren't free black men?

 

[archieclement]

How do we "know" Grant leased slaves? The letter to his sister where he wrote that he "hired" two black men for the year? How do we know these weren't free black men?

Because they were leased slaves, proven recently by Sacco and estate records that showed the slave lease to Grant for $100 a year.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Because they were leased slaves, proven recently by Sacco and estate records that showed the slave lease to Grant for $100 a year.

Is that evidence online?

 

[archieclement]

Is that evidence online?

Not sure, I was told by Sacco in person, cant get much better source in my opinion.

Like Bearss, I like his books, but value the limited personal discussions I was fortunate to have more on a guided trip.

Personally I dont often look for 2nd hand accounts when I have the first hand one from a prominent authority. Would seem rather silly as I already know what he said.

First hand accounts are better anyway as you can ask for clarification and elaboration, I love interacting with historians personally, wish i had more opportunities.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Not sure, I was told by Sacco in person, cant get much better source in my opinion.

Like Bearss, I like his books, but value the limited personal discussions I was fortunate to have more on a guided trip.

Didn't find it on Saccos blog. Perhaps in his latest article. It may or may not be true but since it is being referred to here as established fact, it would be nice to see the evidence.

 

[archieclement]

Didn't find it on Saccos blog. Perhaps in his latest article. It may or may not be true but since it is being referred to here as established fact, it would be nice to see the evidence.

All I can do is relate my discussions in good faith......if one would rather believe in tin foil conspiracy's then an honest discussion, its their loss as far as I am concerned. I shared what I was presented in good faith, and personally have found Sacco as very credible.

 

[lelliott19]

Because they were leased slaves, proven recently by Sacco and estate records that showed the slave lease to Grant for $100 a year.

Do you happen to recall if Mr. Sacco mentioned the name of the family/estate he leased the slaves from? It's pretty easy to find estate records at family search .org if you know the name. I've found the NC estate records for my own family (back to the late 1700's) These records include names of enslaved individuals and, in instances where enslaved were hired out to individuals for the year, the name of the person leasing the slave and the amount paid are included.

 

[archieclement]

Do you happen to recall if Mr. Sacco mentioned the name of the family/estate he leased the slaves from? It's pretty easy to find estate records at family search .org if you know the name. I've found the NC estate records for my own family (back to the late 1700's) These records include names of enslaved individuals and, in instances where enslaved were hired out to individuals for the year, the name of the person leasing the slave and the amount paid are included.

No, he said they recently had found estate records in STL that showed the lease of a slave to Grant for $100 a year. He said they had long suspected it as farmhands weren't commonly salaried by the year in the 1850's but slaves were leased by the year, this the first they could actually confirm it was the case.

Sacco and his staff take time to personally discuss Grant with visitors. I dont know him personally so talk to him 10-20 minutes a time with questions when available, I dont know him personally to sit around all nite visiting with him. Think I visited with him about Grant 4 times this year, one trip to specifically ask questions raised in a thread here, as i was going to in STL for doc appts anyway

 

[DanSBHawk]

All I can do is relate my discussions in good faith......if one would rather believe in tin foil conspiracy's then an honest discussion, its their loss as far as I am concerned. I shared what I was presented in good faith, and personally have found Sacco as very credible.

I would merely like to see the evidence, and considering the posts earlier in this thread criticizing the credibility of the neighbor evidence, I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[archieclement]

I would merely like to see the evidence, and considering the posts earlier in this thread criticizing the credibility of the neighbor evidence, I don't think that's unreasonable.

I can see your point, its still laughable to me, as I know what Sacco has related to me as fact.......again your free to believe what you wish, your loss as far as I'm concerned.

As most of what i have refuted here, I have personally asked Sacco and the assertions such as he freed Jones at some huge loss is simply unknown and unprovable.......we neither know Jones worth, purchase price, or even if Jones had in fact worked off his debt and had purchased his freedom......we dont know....... what is simply known is Grant owned and had bought Jones, and later manumitted him for diverse and valuable considerations, and that he personally leased and used two others, and one of Dents........besides for a period also managing Dents slaves at Whitehaven as well.

He also showed no inclination of getting rid of Jones or discontinuing leasing slaves until he also decided or was aware he had to discontinue farming.....what a remarkable coincidence......

 

[DanSBHawk]

.....again your free to believe what you wish, your loss as far as I'm concerned

Yep, I am. And I've learned to always look at the evidence rather than the hearsay.

 

[archieclement]

Yep, I am. And I've learned to always look at the evidence rather than the hearsay.

Which is exactly what i do, and why I relate the evidence I've been presented with.....especially when its a rather prominent source whose credibility I dont question.

BTW your also free to visit Whitehaven and ask the same questions I have, have little doubt you'll get the same answers as well. Its not a closed source, they are available to anyone

The one thing Sacco stresses, and I thought I have related as well, is far more is unknown then known when it comes to Grant and slavery...

 

[Cavalry Charger]

This thread has taken off again in my absence as has speculation around Grant's ownership/management of slaves.

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

This quote comes from the article in the OP, and I think any clarifier around that would have to come from the author, Sean Kane
Interpretation & Programs Specialist, at the American Civil War Museum, who also links an article by Nick Sacco at the end of his piece. I'll have to go and take a look at that if it is available.

Some of what is being discussed here is Grant's character, and only recently another talk I watched comparing Grant and Lee in terms of their Generalship mentioned the mild mannered nature of both men. Of course, my focus is on Grant, but he was known never to raise his voice in terms of his leadership. It seems to me a lot can be taken just from a general sense of his character in terms of how he may have managed any slaves under his oversight.

As in many things, it is necessary to look at Grant in several contexts to determine the truth of the matter. Of this one, I have no doubt. Grant's heart was not in 'slave driving' and it wasn't in his nature either. Let's not forget he came from a strictly abolitionist family. This had to have an influence on his perspective on slavery, even though he chose to marry into a slaveholding family. He paid a price with his family refusing to attend his wedding. Yet, when we think about the ultimate outcome of the CW, would it have been as likely without Julia's steadying influence and her sense of loyalty both to Grant and the Union?

So, it is possible to 'judge' the issue of slave ownership without factoring in the myriad influences in relation to that.

 

[archieclement]

This thread has taken off again in my absence as has speculation around Grant's ownership/management of slaves.

This quote comes from the article in the OP, and I think any clarifier around that would have to come from the author, Sean Kane
Interpretation & Programs Specialist, at the American Civil War Museum, who also links an article by Nick Sacco at the end of his piece. I'll have to go and take a look at that if it is available.

Some of what is being discussed here is Grant's character, and only recently another talk I watched comparing Grant and Lee in terms of their Generalship mentioned the mild mannered nature of both men. Of course, my focus is on Grant, but he was known never to raise his voice in terms of his leadership. It seems to me a lot can be taken just from a general sense of his character in terms of how he may have managed any slaves under his oversight.

As in many things, it is necessary to look at Grant in several contexts to determine the truth of the matter. Of this one, I have no doubt. Grant's heart was not in 'slave driving' and it wasn't in his nature either. Let's not forget he came from a strictly abolitionist family. This had to have an influence on his perspective on slavery, even though he chose to marry into a slaveholding family. He paid a price with his family refusing to attend his wedding. Yet, when we think about the ultimate outcome of the CW, would it have been as likely without Julia's steadying influence and her sense of loyalty both to Grant and the Union?

So, it is possible to 'judge' the issue of slave ownership without factoring in the myriad influences in relation to that.

I wouldnt say Grant was any form of a pro slavery advocate at all, however when it came to his personal life he was rather ambiguous...which as i have related I've talked to Sacco about several times...

What I do find somewhat bizarre and strange, is how one concludes when one personally decided to buy a slave, then personally decides to lease two others, and also accepts the use of a father in laws slaves and his wifes......then even accepts a position managing someone elses slaves......all the while showing no reluctance or signs of curbing his use of all these slaves......until he personally isnt in a position to benefit from the slaves any longer........as somehow a sign of a strong or consistent anti slavery position.......seems rather laughable.

BTW I dont feel I've judged Grants ownership and use of slaves one way or the other, it was a legal means available to him, and he certainly utilized it in many forms. However one cant simply pretend he didnt.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

"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…"

Grant may have been initially ambivalent to the institution of slavery but his wartime experiences showed him that it was morally and practically indefensible and that African Americans would not only make strong allies in defeating the Confederates, but respected citizens in the reunited nation to follow. As the 18th President of the reunited nation, he was an advocate and defender of the freedmen's newly acquired rights, earning the admiration of Frederick Douglas, who believed, "To Grant more than any other man the Negro owes his enfranchisement."

Novelist Hamlin Garland, an early biographer who spoke with Grant's Missouri neighbors, wrote,

"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.'"

There is no dispute over an element of ambivalence here which goes to the "pervasiveness of the institution in antebellum America."

And an evolving of attitudes, including Grant's.

 

[archieclement]

"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…"

Grant may have been initially ambivalent to the institution of slavery but his wartime experiences showed him that it was morally and practically indefensible and that African Americans would not only make strong allies in defeating the Confederates, but respected citizens in the reunited nation to follow. As the 18th President of the reunited nation, he was an advocate and defender of the freedmen's newly acquired rights, earning the admiration of Frederick Douglas, who believed, "To Grant more than any other man the Negro owes his enfranchisement."

Novelist Hamlin Garland, an early biographer who spoke with Grant's Missouri neighbors, wrote,

"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.'"

There is no dispute over an element of ambivalence here which goes to the "pervasiveness of the institution in antebellum America."

And an evolving of attitudes, including Grant's.

I agree he like many others views evolved over time.....

Yet theres little doubt Grant willingly choose to surround himself with slavery for a period of his life......and it remains a period he thought he could profit from it. Which was the point of slaves all along.....as Grant wrote his sister "which, with my own help, I think, will enable me to do my farming pretty well." Profit and success from the slaves was his goal, as any other slaveowners.....that he ultimately failed doesnt change he was trying to profit from it.

 

[lelliott19]

I think its interesting that today we think there is some urgency around condemning people who utilized enslaved labor. We know today and likely can all agree that it's inexcusable, but I don't think there's any value in condemning Grant's use of enslaved labor OR trying to excuse it. It was just something that was commonly done at the time - same as Southerners who utilized slave labor. Until it was raised as one, use of enslaved labor was not a moral question for most Americans in the early 1800s. It was still some time before public opinion changed. If Grant was embarrassed by his utilization of enslaved labor, it likely means that the tide of public opinion had sufficiently turned by then to expose slavery as an immoral and reprehensible practice, at least where he lived.