Julia Grant and slavery in general

Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Location
on a volcano
Mark Twain said that the slaves were past masters of fooling their owners. Plautuis has nothing on Mark Twain.

Julia Grant she had a great deal more enjoyment down on her father's plantation when she was with her fathers slaves. But in the north there was no fun, just work work work.

She tells, for example of the women who did the sewing work. they would come 1/2 day per week, silently, and get the job done, expensively, that would require four slaves to do over the course of a week with Julia sitting in and participating in the chat circle.

Grant himself liked plantation life where work was done in a slowly and not very well. Grant didn't like working for his father's store, and he wasn't a great employee.
 
Are we to conclude from this that the slaves were lucky to have such an easy life? That they didn't know how well off they were? That they only showed their ignorance and ingratitude by running away towards the hard work and uncertainty of "freedom"?

Why, given half a chance, any white person would be a fool not to sell himself and his entire family into the easy life of perpetual servitude! "Massa" would look after them, give them free food, housing, medical care, and relieve them from the worry of ever having to make make a decision about anything. They could laze about having fun using their wits to outsmart the Overseers, and avoid working at all.

We've heard all that stuff before.
 
No way on earth. Being someone's property is no joy. I am pointing out this was Julia's attitude, not the slaves.

They were't getting paid for this, so they would be inclined to do as little for the master as they could get away with.

When doing sewing for themselves rather than for their owners they were like the woman who came to work for Julia in Illinois, and got all that was required in a week in half a day, thank you very much
 
No way on earth.
I am very glad to hear that, because, repulsive as it may be, we have had just such ideas expressed hereabouts in the past.

Many enslaved people did become quite adept at "managing" their masters, and not only to shirk work, but mostly as a very practical survival strategy. A smiling, dancing, apparently happy slave was content and non-threatening, and therefore less likely to be watched so closely or disciplined harshly. This fed into the planters' self-justifying myth of the loyal slave, content in his master's paternal care ("sleek, fat and lazy" is how the owners frequently described them).

Post-war, many freedmen sought similar protection from persecution by behaving foolishly in public (keep them laughing and they're less likely to lynch you). By always speaking humbly and subserviently, never looking a white man in the eye (sometimes simple survival depended on that). From this grow all the "N-word" stereotypes: lazy, foolish, cowardly, stupid, incompetent -- and all the rest.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't just american slaves who behaved this way. This was common in roman times , and was common with russians (with the state being the stupid master) as well.

I haven't read Chinese literature, but I am sure the trope of the witty slave and the slow master was common there too.
 
I just wish someone would start a "SlaveryTalk.com" website so that everyone who is totally fixated on discussing how, like, really bad and stuff slavery was could start thread after thread about it all.

BTW: stuff like "Grant didn't like working at his father's store" isn't exactly a news flash. Slaves did Julia Grant's sewing. Wowie wow. Mark Twain said something clever about slaves.

I don't get this at all.
 
I just wish someone would start a "SlaveryTalk.com" website so that everyone who is totally fixated on discussing how, like, really bad and stuff slavery was could start thread after thread about it all.

BTW: stuff like "Grant didn't like working at his father's store" isn't exactly a news flash. Slaves did Julia Grant's sewing. Wowie wow. Mark Twain said something clever about slaves.

I don't get this at all.

Maybe you will, someday.
 
I just wish someone would start a "SlaveryTalk.com" website so that everyone who is totally fixated on discussing how, like, really bad and stuff slavery was could start thread after thread about it all.

BTW: stuff like "Grant didn't like working at his father's store" isn't exactly a news flash. Slaves did Julia Grant's sewing. Wowie wow. Mark Twain said something clever about slaves.

I don't get this at all.

I'm unsure why you would not expect a forum called CivilWarTalk would involve slavery. You do realize nearly 40% of the Confederacy were slaves. That this was the lifestyle and heritage of those slaves and their descendants as well as the reverse side of anyone who interacted with slaves or had a lifestyle based on slaves (including those outside of the Confederacy).

I mean it's like me suggesting I wish someone would start a forum called "SubsistenceFarmer.com" since people talk a lot about the lifestyle of a subsistence farmer when talking about the Civil War era. I mean slaves weren't all that far from the Confederate woman population as a share, about 10 points difference, so maybe we should move all women talk to a new forum, then of course all men. I guess we can't talk about anything now.

You also might be surprised that none of this is a news flash, this did indeed happen over 150 years ago. So your expectations for news flashes might be misplaced.
 
My impression of Julia Dent Grant is that she could be extremely naive in some respects, particularly with regard to the issue of slavery. I don't believe this was intentional, as much as it was an accepted perspective for her to have in that day and age as the daughter of a slave owner. I don't know that she perceived any 'treachery' on the part of those enslaved, as she was probably devoid of such treachery herself, having no need of it. She was a beloved and spoiled daughter, and my impression is that Ulysses S. Grant in many ways continued to indulge her.

So, I do not believe she intended harm, as much as she was incapable of seeing the harm of slavery at the time.

We can continue to judge people based on the standards of today, or we can accept they had a long way to go in terms of their understanding in the mid 19th Century.

As to Grant, I don't know why we're judging his work ethic here. I can't recall seeing anything to indicate that he lacked one, or took advantage of others in order to shirk the need to work in order to get by. He certainly didn't attempt to take advantage of the opportunity of owning slaves, and clearly turned his back on the possibility by manumitting his own slave.

I think other threads here have also made it clear that Julia never owned her slaves, but they were 'gifted' to her by her father.

Hopefully this post is in line with the OP.
 
I think Grant was a bear for the right kinds of work. He really didn't belong at White Haven.

Building Hardscrabble took a tremendous amount of work. What he did for money was selling cordwood. He was competing with slaves for the business.

The OP was the contrast between the slave labor and the free labor. Free Labor was a whole lot more remunerative, and Julia seemed not to understand that.
 
The OP was the contrast between the slave labor and the free labor. Free Labor was a whole lot more remunerative, and Julia seemed not to understand that.
I wasn't sure what to take out of the OP, so thanks for clarifying. I'm not surprised Julia did not understand this on a certain level as she had not been exposed to a 'free labor' market (as opposed to a 'slave labor' market). If we take as a bottom line that we can only go by our own lived experience, I'm assuming Julia's early life experiences did not lend her to understanding this easily. That's not to say the understanding didn't come.
 
Last edited:
I think that plantation agriculture was more remunerative because it could take advantage of the division of labor. A single farmer had to do everything by himself, whereas the plantation owner could have specialists. Many hands make like work, even if any one set of hands was a loss.

Slave labor was cheap compared to free labor. It cost the owner 15¢ a day on an annualized basis, whereas free labor cost 75¢ a day for the cheapest. Of course, the slave labor cost the owner a great deal in terms of hidden costs, but he generally didn't recognize it.
 
Mark Twain said that the slaves were past masters of fooling their owners. Plautuis has nothing on Mark Twain.

Julia Grant she had a great deal more enjoyment down on her father's plantation when she was with her fathers slaves. But in the north there was no fun, just work work work.

She tells, for example of the women who did the sewing work. they would come 1/2 day per week, silently, and get the job done, expensively, that would require four slaves to do over the course of a week with Julia sitting in and participating in the chat circle.

Grant himself liked plantation life where work was done in a slowly and not very well. Grant didn't like working for his father's store, and he wasn't a great employee.

When leaving for Galena in 1860 Julia states her father advised her not to take the four "servants" he had "given" to her. He said this, according to Julia, because he thought she may not like the north and may return home fairly quickly and of course her "servants" would become free and stated that he did not think she could do without "servants".

In Galena the Grant's had one maid/cook "Jennie" who according to Julia "did all of our [house]work." Despite her adjustment to paid labor Julia claimed she was pleased "at the ease with which my housekeeping moved on."

Grant would write to his wife on the outbreak of the war in 1861 that Missouri would be better off as a free state...

"Missouri will be a great state ultimately but she is set back now for years. It will end in more rapid advancement however for she will be left a free state. Negroes are stampeding…and those who do not will be carried…South so that the destiny of the state, in that respect, may now be considered settled by fate and not political parties."
–USG to Julia Grant 5/1/61

He said the end of slavery would be a natural consequence of the rebellion because...

“…negroes will depreciate so rapidly in value that no body will want to own them…"
-USG to his father Jesse Grant 5/6/61

Julia Grant writes in her memoirs that by early 1864 "Our colored people [in St. Louis] had all left, but their places were readily filled by German and French men and women, who were most excellent substitutes." Although she would state that the absence of their old family servants was missed when they were entertaining many guests in the summer of 1864.

The subject of Grant's aptitude for different occupations, including the Galena leathergoods store, is one of contradictory source accounts and debate. One thing is sure, he fancied himself a farmer and never fully gave up the hope of farming and working with horses. After the Civil War he tried to secure a farm property near Washington DC, but it ended up falling through. He felt much more at ease with his hands in the dirt and taking care of horses than he ever did in the political world of the city. This is a testament to his willingness to put his own desires aside to put himself in uncomfortable positions for the sake of his country.

I wasn't sure what to take out of the OP, so thanks for clarifying. I'm not surprised Julia did not understand this on a certain level as she had not been exposed to a 'free labor' market (as opposed to a 'slave labor' market). If we take as a bottom line that we can only go by our own lived experience, I'm assuming Julia's early life experiences did not lend her to understanding this easily. That's not to say the understanding didn't come.

I think it's important to note that Julia would have been well aware that her husband was employing free blacks on the farm. Missouri was a mixed free/slave labor market.

In 1880 a Canadian-born abolitionist, Dr. Alexander M. Ross who had worked to free slaves in the south before the war, wrote of his experiences and sent the book to the Grant's. Grant wrote back that he had not read the book but that Julia read it and apparently the authors description of slavery had a powerful effect on her. Grant stated in the letter...

"...although she [Julia] had been raised in a slave state, and always owned slaves – as her father did – while slavery existed in our country, she said she could not see how it was possible that any body ever justified such an institution."
-USG to Dr. Ross 9/11/1880

Despite this admission Julia still relates her childhood experiences with slavery through rose colored glasses in her memoirs, though that was her tendency to put a positive spin on negative or controversial subjects.

Both Grant and Julia's views on slavery and racial equality certainly evolved throughout their lives as it did for many Americans of the era.
 
Julia was a very entertaining writer. Some things you miss because the art is so good you sort of forget what exactly she is telling you.

If Julia could have noticed the productive capacity of free black workers vs slave black workers she would have. I don't believe she would have seen any free workers until her marriage. Old man Dent wouldn't have any on his farm I suppose.

Grant's note of May 1st 1861 shows he had seen the effects of slave labor on the free labor market. And the fact that all the slaves left the Dent farm the moment they could get away from it shows just what kind of employer he was
 
Last edited:
When leaving for Galena in 1860 Julia states her father advised her not to take the four "servants" he had "given" to her. He said this, according to Julia, because he thought she may not like the north and may return home fairly quickly and of course her "servants" would become free and stated that he did not think she could do without "servants".

In Galena the Grant's had one maid/cook "Jennie" who according to Julia "did all of our [house]work." Despite her adjustment to paid labor Julia claimed she was pleased "at the ease with which my housekeeping moved on."

Grant would write to his wife on the outbreak of the war in 1861 that Missouri would be better off as a free state...

"Missouri will be a great state ultimately but she is set back now for years. It will end in more rapid advancement however for she will be left a free state. Negroes are stampeding…and those who do not will be carried…South so that the destiny of the state, in that respect, may now be considered settled by fate and not political parties."
–USG to Julia Grant 5/1/61

He said the end of slavery would be a natural consequence of the rebellion because...

“…negroes will depreciate so rapidly in value that no body will want to own them…"
-USG to his father Jesse Grant 5/6/61

Julia Grant writes in her memoirs that by early 1864 "Our colored people [in St. Louis] had all left, but their places were readily filled by German and French men and women, who were most excellent substitutes." Although she would state that the absence of their old family servants was missed when they were entertaining many guests in the summer of 1864.

The subject of Grant's aptitude for different occupations, including the Galena leathergoods store, is one of contradictory source accounts and debate. One thing is sure, he fancied himself a farmer and never fully gave up the hope of farming and working with horses. After the Civil War he tried to secure a farm property near Washington DC, but it ended up falling through. He felt much more at ease with his hands in the dirt and taking care of horses than he ever did in the political world of the city. This is a testament to his willingness to put his own desires aside to put himself in uncomfortable positions for the sake of his country.



I think it's important to note that Julia would have been well aware that her husband was employing free blacks on the farm. Missouri was a mixed free/slave labor market.

In 1880 a Canadian-born abolitionist, Dr. Alexander M. Ross who had worked to free slaves in the south before the war, wrote of his experiences and sent the book to the Grant's. Grant wrote back that he had not read the book but that Julia read it and apparently the authors description of slavery had a powerful effect on her. Grant stated in the letter...

"...although she [Julia] had been raised in a slave state, and always owned slaves – as her father did – while slavery existed in our country, she said she could not see how it was possible that any body ever justified such an institution."
-USG to Dr. Ross 9/11/1880

Despite this admission Julia still relates her childhood experiences with slavery through rose colored glasses in her memoirs, though that was her tendency to put a positive spin on negative or controversial subjects.

Both Grant and Julia's views on slavery and racial equality certainly evolved throughout their lives as it did for many Americans of the era.

Very well explained and well researched, as always @GrantCottage1885
 
Julia was a very entertaining writer. Some things you miss because the art is so good you sort of forget what exactly she is telling you.

If Julia could have noticed the productive capacity of free black workers vs slave black workers she would have. I don't believe she would have seen any free workers until her marriage. Old man Dent wouldn't have any on his farm I suppose.

Grant's note of May 1st 1861 shows he had seen the effects of slave labor on the free labor market. And the fact that all the slaves left the Dent farm the moment they could get away from it shows just what kind of employer he was

I have found no evidence either way whether Col. Dent ever had free blacks work on his plantation. That being said it was not an uncommon occurrence among his neighbors so I doubt Julia would have had no exposure to it at some point. She would have at least had some exposure to free blacks, living for months in St. Louis city while attending school. She was indoctrinated into her fathers political views and beliefs but was not as sheltered as one might imagine. She was educated and was an avid reader.

The reason Grant had to hire free blacks to work the farm is most likely due to most of his father-in-laws slaves being domestic house servants and not field hands. Essentially it is posited that Col. Dent didn't have the field hands to spare Grant. Grant was known to pay the free blacks he employed a higher wage than was typical. According to former slaves from White Haven Grant treated everyone (slave or free) kindly.

Your final comment confuses me, I'm not sure if your talking about Col. Dent or Grant in relation to being an "employer" of slaves. If it's Col. Dent, he had moved into the city after his wife's death and distanced himself from operating the plantation. As far as Grant, he did not own those slaves, so they were not "employed" by him. The only slave Grant is ever known to have owned he emancipated before the Civil War began. His wife had a body servant named Julia who traveled with her to the warfront from White Haven earlier in the war, but left when the opportunity for freedom presented itself.
 
From what I have read Dent was a bit of a jerk, and his slaves would run off at the first opportunity.

Grant was given William, and he paid a sum of about 8 months wages to manimute him. Shipping him back to Dent was not thought of, apparently. I can't imagine Grant seeking to purchase a slave if he had the funds, which it seems he never did. He would have hired them as that is what he believed in.
 
The rehabilitation of the Grants? His attitudes changed. Understandable for someone who wished to move from the Planter Class to the post War Political Class.
 
My impression of Julia Dent Grant is that she could be extremely naive in some respects, particularly with regard to the issue of slavery. I don't believe this was intentional, as much as it was an accepted perspective for her to have in that day and age as the daughter of a slave owner. I don't know that she perceived any 'treachery' on the part of those enslaved, as she was probably devoid of such treachery herself, having no need of it. She was a beloved and spoiled daughter, and my impression is that Ulysses S. Grant in many ways continued to indulge her.

So, I do not believe she intended harm, as much as she was incapable of seeing the harm of slavery at the time.

We can continue to judge people based on the standards of today, or we can accept they had a long way to go in terms of their understanding in the mid 19th Century.

As to Grant, I don't know why we're judging his work ethic here. I can't recall seeing anything to indicate that he lacked one, or took advantage of others in order to shirk the need to work in order to get by. He certainly didn't attempt to take advantage of the opportunity of owning slaves, and clearly turned his back on the possibility by manumitting his own slave.

I think other threads here have also made it clear that Julia never owned her slaves, but they were 'gifted' to her by her father.

Hopefully this post is in line with the OP.

Two things I never quite follow in these discussions......that she didn't own the slaves, they were gifts...….a gift conveys ownership, if she or Ulysses ever went to sell one of the slaves, Frederick could contest whether he had actually ever gifted them, but if there was family and friends aware of them being gifted he wouldn't have a leg to stand on as to ownership...…...

And related to that, that Julia somehow owned the slaves not Ulysses.......By Missouri law at the time if Julia owned them, Ulysses owned them, virtually all property rights of a woman were conveyed to the husband at the time.
 
Two things I never quite follow in these discussions......that she didn't own the slaves, they were gifts...….a gift conveys ownership, if she or Ulysses ever went to sell one of the slaves, Frederick could contest whether he had actually ever gifted them, but if there was family and friends aware of them being gifted he wouldn't have a leg to stand on as to ownership...…...

And related that Julia somehow owned the slaves not Ulysses.......By Missouri law at the time if Julia owned them, Ulysses owned them, virtually all property rights of a woman were conveyed to the husband at the time.
Peope do this all the time with general Lee's slave ownership. Lee didn't own them, his wife did is a bit of foolishness that wont work in any honest context.

Julia's slaves are more Dent's slaves than Julia's. But still, if they belong to the wife they belong to the husband in equal measure. I think they are more dent's than Julia's in that she didn't, or couldn't take them where and when she wanted
 
Back
Top