Grant, Slavery and Cyber Pitfalls

tulip

Cadet
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
I’ve noticed that when it comes to slavery, the question of General Grant’s attitude on the issue frequently comes up and several accusations are made with little regard to accuracy.

For instance there is a quote that flies around the net alleging that Grant promised that if slavery became the object of war he would: " . . . resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side." The quote is completely bogus. First appearing in the mid-90s when CW discussion on the internet took off, it is nothing more than an unscrupulous attempt to add “historical” weight to the concept that Yankees were racist and <u>against</u> slavery becoming a war issue.

When you read enough Grant in his own words – letters, dispatches and the Memoirs – it is immediately apparent that this doesn’t come close to his writing style. He was much more direct and always avoided alliteration and metaphor in his language. It is also laughable that Grant would use a sword as a symbol since he hated wearing one and had no use for the antique weapon.

Then there is the timing. Supposedly Grant made this remark in early 1861 to a journalist when he was still a colonel with the 21st Illinois. According to the bogus report, it was reported in a Chicago paper although no one is able to identify the paper or produce the issue or even he date of publication.

At the beginning of the war, Grant was an obscure has-been and eager to move up in the army. Stirring the skew pot in the press was not something he ever did and certainly wouldn't have done it when he was still under a dark cloud; in fact, Grant always avoided political discussions and was cautious in his speech. Besides why would the Chicago press be interested in him when they had the flamboyant Fremont to chase around the western theater for good color copy?

Anyone who knows Grant is aware that he was notoriously and irritatingly taciturn in his conversations and never given to either/or pontifications or hyperbole. This kind of rash declaration was completely out of character. Grant always said what he meant and never did so without great forethought. With the exception of his notorious General Orders No. 11 evicting Jews from his theater, he handled the press with a velvet glove and very successfully. At this early date, Grant was uncertain and very careful. Grant was not Sherman, foaming at the mouth and making outrageous threats and statements.

Most importantly in addressing this fabrication, Grant's character and view point must be considered in the light of <u>proven</u>, Grant statements. Grant was a determined Unionist and his statements are unambiguous in this regard. “There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party,” he wrote his avid abolitionist father in April 1861 at the time the secession crisis was heating up. In the same month he wrote his father-in-law Frederick Dent a committed slave owner and Confederate sympathizer. "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." This sentiment doesn’t come close to a man willing to trade sides for any reason.

After the battle of Belmont and a newly minted Brigadier, Grant again wrote his father on Nov. 27: "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 to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go." Grant was known for both his personal honesty and undivided loyalty, could he have possibly have threatened resignation between April and November even in a snit over slavery? He was not a knee-jerk man even in the heat of battle making the bogus quote ridiculous.

It is a shame that the internet is a nurturing environment for growing new millennium fallacies and passing them off as history. I suppose it is just another reminder that harvesting info from cyberspace must be an exercise driven by caution and a healthy dose of skepticism.


(Message edited by tulip on October 13, 2002)
 
Back
Top