Alabama Governor's Slavery Blunder

CBS News ^ | 4/5/05

[Sonny M]

which is what got this particular Grant spat going.

Some bit, but in the link you posted, 8th paragraph, the arguements both get contradictory, with her memoirs saying they weren't freed till the 13th amendment, and that being disputed.

I.E. her words versus other folks, as I said, its hard to settle with records saying both.

[Sloth]

If you read the secession documents of the Confederate states, they generally acknowledge that slavery is one of the principal issues.

[PFC]

Slavery was a cause for the southern states to succeed. The most telling evidence of that fact are the declarations of secession made by the state legislatures when they seceded. There are several at this link. Check them out.

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States

[Colt .45]

The issue that the South seceeded over was a State's right to run its own internal affairs. After much interference and being vilified by Yankee States over the slavery issue, plus the Northern merchants propensity to try to sway Congress to enact trade agreements that favored the New England States, plus the constant meddling by Abolitionists trying to incite Slave uprisings, the South finally had had enough. It was thought at the time by Southern leaders "If the North hates us so much, then we will dissassociate ourselves from them." However when you look at what the war was boiled down to, it was over the right of a State to secede as was laid out under articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Before you start harping on "it doesn't say that" read the articles very closely.

In the victory of Yankee troops in 1865, the cornerstone of American Ideology (as laid out in the Declaration of Independence) was nullified and a large intrusive government became the by product of the Southern States loss. Ergo much of what the Yankees thought they won, they really lost - in a word "Liberty".

[BlueNgold]

I don't particularly care either way. Slavery was common in the era, especially in the border territories and states. I never once contended that Grant was hypocritical in any way. My issue is the spin.

Whether his wife 'held title' to the slaves is basically irrelevant. They traveled with her, and she considered them her own servants. She even took at least one with her when she was staying with the Grant family during the war.

Attempts to portray Grant or his family as abolitionists does not meet with history, his father in fact denied the moniker outright. I have no issue with any of Grant's pre-war, mid-war, or post-war activities. What I am against is historians trying to paint him in some sort of saint-like hue.

Personal rant: I hate it when I see any sort of otherwise rational and informative discussion speckled with accusations of hypocrisy ... you even threw it my way. The claim of hypocrisy is, IMLTHO, a weak argument that serves little purpose in forwarding an argument. It's a fall back position.
- In this case I can liken Grant to a sinner who comes to the altar. Having been previously wrong does not make him a hypocrite to now see the light and proclaim it loudly. I find that this is often the case when the hypocrisy argument is unveiled. [/rant]

[smug]

"I don't own an SUV,....my family owns it". John Kerry

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't think that Ditto or anyone else is denying that Grant once owned a slave or that his wife had use of, if not outright ownership, of several more. What is in dispute is the claim that this ownership extended to the ratification of the 13th Amendment. It did not. The Dent/Grant family slaves were freed very early in 1863.

[Non-Sequitur]

...though his record on slavery is clear, his wife inherited them, and he immediatley freed them, he never even had possession...

Not correct at all. Lee's father-in-law died in 1857 and his slaves were not freed until December 1862, slightly over the 5 year time period mandated by the will.

[Non-Sequitur]

Some bit, but in the link you posted, 8th paragraph, the arguements both get contradictory, with her memoirs saying they weren't freed till the 13th amendment, and that being disputed.

But you have to remember that Julia Grant's memoirs were ghost written and not published until the 1970's, almost 100 years after her death. The accuracy of some details can be questioned. Especially since after January 1865, as I've stated before, the Grants did not live in any state where slavery was legal.

[Ditto]

What I am against is historians trying to paint him in some sort of saint-like hue.

I haven't seen any historians doing that. Even Grant's own autobiography didn't do that.

[brownsfan]

Secede
Secession
Secessionism
Secessionist

Nothing like overkill. A little insight into your character I'd wager.

[brownsfan]

"If you read the secession documents of the Confederate states, they generally acknowledge that slavery is one of the principal issues."

There have been many helpful posts, and my faulty education and or memory is being corrected. I thank those who are helpful, versus those with the snide remarks, (flying Elvis). I guess there are nice folks, and not so nice folks even among conservatives.

[PeaRidge]

Actually it was not clear that Lincoln would abolish slavery. Just at the time of his inauguration, he supported a new amendment to the Constitution that would have legalized slavery throughout the entire nation and territories. He mentioned it in his first inaugural speech.
So, Lincoln's position in 1861 was that he supported slavery.

[PeaRidge]

Apparently you either have not studied or choose to ignore the Morrill Tariffs that were passed by the House in 1860 and the Senate in 1861 that would more than triple some of the tariff rates that were in existence.
There were real tariff reasons for the South to be angry with the Northern controlled government, and that this was one major reason for secession.
But the real question is why Lincoln started the war by sending the warships to Charleston harbor.

[PeaRidge]

It is interesting that you choose commentary from an unofficial document to make your point, while excluding information that is more official than yours.

During early 1861, the seceded states published their official Ordinances of Secession.

With each state’s voting on the massive question of secession from the Union, their legislatures determined that a document should be published, outlining the reasoning and causes of their disunion. None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned either the tariffs or slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.

However, four states published their reasoning in individual state decrees.

From these documents, it can be concluded that many different reasons brought these seven states to the same conclusion and action.

Although slavery was mentioned in all four documents as one cause, the following are excerpts from some of these secession documents, and show the diversity of motivations.

Georgia Secession Decree (January, 1861):

“(The Northern States) have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and refused to comply with their constitutional obligations to us in reference to our property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

“The people of Georgia, after a full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with firmness that (the Northern States) shall not rule over them.”


Mississippi Secession Decree (January, 1861):

“(The North) has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

“Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity (to secede).”


Texas Secession Document (February, 1861)

“The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.”


Louisiana Secession Document (January, 1861):

“The people of Louisiana are unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities (in the North).”

Mississippi Secession Document (January, 1861):

"That they have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy in reference to their respective systems of labor and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, thus declaring to the civilized world that the powers of this government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy."

South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession:

"We affirm that these ends for which this government was instituted have been defeated, and the government itself has been destructive of them by the action of the (North).”

Georgia’s document further stated:

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all.

“In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.

"The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.

“Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects.

“Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

“The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.

“Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence.

“These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country."

[pepsionice]

I've read over 30 books in the past 10 years...and about half-way through, I realized I needed to back myself up from the 1776 period...all the way to the point when Columnbus and the Spaniards arrived. There is a huge amount of information that my high school history teacher simply left out...and even a vast amount of information that my university history professor left out as well. I now realize that most Americans barely have 20 percent of the entire story of how we got to 1860 with slavery and the bitterness between the North and South.

I also understand the vast amount of Puritan "foreplay" involved in the entire dilemma. There is no doubt that the media of the time (Newspapers and cheap publishing companies)...helped to stir the pot an awful lot from 1800 to 1860. And it is absolutely true that business economics do play into this entire story...but there are wide echo's on what the North perceived as business and extremely poor agricultural practices by the South during this entire period.

And the election period of 1860...was simply a lucky moment of stupidity by both Lincoln, and a unlucky ploy by Stephen Douglas (the man who was absolutely guaranteed the White House)...southerners with no understanding of national politics...twisted the Democratic party into shambles.

I'd like to see a national educational program really educate Americans...and bring this whole discussion to a closing point. Its silly to sit here 140 years after the war, and debate the wrongs committed...if we don't understand the wrongs in the first place.

[HostileTerritory]

Thank you for those citations! The Southerners were very concerned about the North destroying their "property" and undermining their "institutions." Exactly my point. Perhaps you know that slavery was referred to euphemistically as the South's "peculiar institution" before the war?

[BlueNgold]

No need to get personal...

[melbell]

You were taught correctly.

[Non-Sequitur]

But the real question is why Lincoln started the war by sending the warships to Charleston harbor.

Because the Davis regime was trying to starve them into surrender. Duh.