Posted on 12/06/2018 5:00:57 AM PST by Bull Snipe
Amendment XIII to the Constitution of the United States is ratified.
Fascinating history. I just finished reading the new Grant biography. While the author never explicitly says so it is pretty apparent that the abolitionists were just the old form of SJWs. They thought it reprehensible that one human might own another but they NEVER considered the “unintended consequences” of this moralistic proposition. That they would also have to accept living with blacks and blacks voting. It is pretty obvious that this only occurred to Lincoln and Grant until halfway through the war. In fact, as the war was starting a good number of Union Officers thought their role in the impending crisis would be to go to the South to protect plantations from slave uprisings. It is also pretty obvious that Lincoln and Grant also understood there was no “mandate” beyond Emancipation so they played down the propositions embodied in the 14th and 15th Amendments which were MUCH harder to pass. Significant historical facts that really get downplayed. This inability to even talk about serious issues has been festering for 150 years and we still can’t address it. This inability to debate crisis matters is going to be the end of the US and we still see it today played out in this immigration issue.
100% Republican support
23% Democrat support
There is lot’s of good stuff to learn from all that. Ferinstance it is pretty clear that Grant was the only Union General that realized you couldn’t win the War by just not losing it. A lesson for every General that we seem to have forgotten.
Also remember, the Union Democrats were “Copperheads” who voted 77% AGAINST Abolition. It just amazes me that we could fight a war that cost so much in blood and treasure when most of the people who wanted abolition had never even CONSIDERED what in the world they were going to do with 4 million former slaves. We really haven’t learned a thing. Climate “Change”, Immigration, no one wants to even consider what passing their latest “feel good” Laws might actually mean. They just want the warm glow of their superior moral position.
I read that book as well...pretty good book. His memoirs were also a good read, too.
I know a lot of people seem to hate Grant, and he did have flaws, but I like and identify with him.
He seemed very human. When one reads about the surrender at Appomattox, his compassion for the soldiery of the South was evident.
Grant is a great example of what we are seeing today. “Harassment of a President by investigating his family’s businesses for the purpose of preventing him from performing his Presidential prerogatives.” Right out of a 150 year old playbook.
And why did Grant want Santo Domingo so badly? And what would have the subsequent world looked like had he been able to acquire it AND all of Canada (in exchange for the damage done by the Alabama)? Think of it. The book doesn’t say so but it is kind of clear Grant wanted a place for blacks to be able to go (Hispaniola) and if a million or so had fled to DOmingo that would have made the remaining blacks valuable as scarce labor, which is why the Democrats opposed annexation so vehemently. They needed the cheap labor. Things really never change.
But think of the impact of a US that spread from the Equator to the North Pole might have had on subsequent events like WWI and WWII. Had Grant been able to raise the value of black lives in the US he may have even been able to “civilize” the Indians and avoided the whole “genocide” issue we have to deal with yet today. Grant really gets no credit for his “vision” whatsoever. He saw far into the future and tried but was defeated by Democrats who have always been the enemies of AMerica.
What is the name of the new bio on Grant, will have to read it.
“Grant”. LOL. The Chernow one. I read the McFeely one 20 years ago. The new one takes advantage of some 50,000 original Grant documents that hadn’t been complied 20 years ago.
A very interesting aspect of “Grant” is that while he was personally opposed to slavery he was NOT an abolitionist. Sort of like today’s politicians who are “personally opposed to abortion” but ProChoice. Grant himself had close friends who were not White (Eli Parker) and black employees he treated very well. IIRC Harvard’s first black was the son of Grant’s butler. Col. Dent (his FIL) was a Southern slaveholder who gave Grant 4 slaves he pretty promptly set free long before the war started. It is clear Grant had a vision of the US that would have been far superior to the history we have suffered as his vision was blocked by Democrats.
Lt. Col. Ely S. Parker was a Seneca Indian. To my knowledge Grant was given ownership of one slave (William Jones)in 1858 by Fredrick Dent, his father in law. Grant worked with Jones for about a year, then gave Jones his freedom in March, 1859. Dent also lent four slaves to Julia Grant for some years, but they were never her or her husband’s property.
Of course, you are correct. The 4 were not his to give away. He did release Jones who continued to work for him for a while. My bad.
What is your opinion of the unspecified motives which I have attributed to Grant? Like Hispaniola as a release valve for freed blacks? Here I am accusing modern people of attributing motives to historical people they probably didn’t have? Such as claiming their abolitionist stance implied they supported citizenship and voting equality? I see nothing in anything I have read that abolitionists had even considered what they might do with 4 million freed slaves. To fight a war that cost so much in treasure and blood without even a thought to what this might entail seems criminal to me.
I see the same thing in the Immigration issue. Folks want to display their virtue by sharing America with everyone who wants to sneak in but they don’t want them in THEIR gated community. There are just so many rich, deep parallels with Grant’s time and ours because we still haven’t learned how to debate the “unpleasant” aspects of “doing something” without allowing even a discussion about what their proposals would inevitably lead to.
Another great example is the bathroom issue. Your average SJW thinks it is entirely proper for a transgender to use the female bathroom without ever giving a single thought to this would lead to putting admitted perverts into the same bathroom as their 6 year old daughter. They do it all the time. Nothing ever changes.
Many people don’t realize it that slavery was still legal up until this date, and five slave states did not join the South but remained in the Union. Delaware was the last pro-Union Slave State. It finally gave up slavery on this date.
The War had been over eight Months and Lincoln dead the same amount of time.
I think Delaware had maybe 100 slaves at the time of the war.
His freeing Jones shows the character of Grant. At the time, Grant had a lot of money problems, and farming was not going to solve them. He gave Jones his freedom rather than selling him to someone else. Jones, on a slave market, could have brought $700-$800. This would have been money that Grant really needed. But Grant could not bring himself to sell Jones.
I’m laughing. It sounds like you already read the book. You asked me what the name of the book was. Was that just a newer version of “Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb?”
As far as Hispaniola is concerned, will have to plead ignorance. I am unfamiliar with that aspect of Grant’s thinking. The concept of relocating ex slaves to another country surfaced may times in our history. President Monroe helped to create the country of Liberia specifically for that purpose. Lincoln gave the idea some considerate. That Grant may have felt that it was a possible solution, is not our of the ordinary.
Abolitionist for the most part did not view the slave/ex-slave/black man, to be the equal of the white man. Lincoln and I would guess that a vast majority of white people in this country at the time thought the same way.
“To fight a war that cost so much in treasure and blood without even a thought to what this might entail seems criminal to me.” Only is your assumption is that North entered the Civil War with the aim of ending slavery. This was not the goal in 1861. The aim was to return the seceded states back into the Union. Ending slavery became an issue later on in the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.