Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY

Riveroaks · Sep 13, 2015

The following is a quote of former President/General Ulysses S. Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War, taken from his last chapter in his Memoirs published in 1885:

THE CAUSE of the great War Of The Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery.

For some years before the war began, it was a trite saying among some politicians that "a state half slave and half free cannot exist" ... that all must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the War is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.

Slavery was an institution that required unusual guarantees for its security wherever it existed. And in a country like ours where a larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and well to do population, the People would have but little sympathy with demands upon them for its protection.

Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution. They were enabled to maintain this control for long after the States where slavery existed had ceased to have the controlling power, through the assistance they received from old men here and there throughout the Northern states. They saw their power waning, and this led them to encroach upon the prerogatives and independence of the Northern states by enacting such laws as The Fugitive Slave Law. By this law every Northern man was obliged when properly summoned to turn out and help apprehend the runaway slave of a Southern man. Northern marshals became slave catchers, and Northern courts had to contribute to the support and protection of the institution.

This was a degradation which the North would not permit any longer than they could get the power to expunge such laws from the statute books. Prior to the time of these encroachments, the great majority of the people of the North had no particular quarrel with slavery so long as they were not forced to have it themselves. But they were not willing to play the role of police for the South in the protection of this particular institution.

In the early days of this country, before we had railroads, telegraphs, and steamboats -- in a word rapid transit of any sort -- the States were each almost a separate nationality. At that time the subject of slavery caused but little or no disturbance to the public mind. But the country grew, rapid transit was established, and trade and commerce between the States got to be so much greater than before, that the power of the National Government became more felt and recognized and therefore had to be enlisted in the cause of this institution.

It is probably well that we had this War when we did. We are better off now than we would have been without it and have made more rapid progress than we otherwise would have made.

joG · Sep 13, 2015

Riveroaks said:
The following is a quote of former President/General Ulysses S. Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War, taken from his last chapter in his Memoirs published in 1885:

THE CAUSE of the great War Of The Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery.

For some years before the war began, it was a trite saying among some politicians that "a state half slave and half free cannot exist" ... that all must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the War is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.

Slavery was an institution that required unusual guarantees for its security wherever it existed. And in a country like ours where a larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and well to do population, the People would have but little sympathy with demands upon them for its protection.

Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution. They were enabled to maintain this control for long after the States where slavery existed had ceased to have the controlling power, through the assistance they received from old men here and there throughout the Northern states. They saw their power waning, and this led them to encroach upon the prerogatives and independence of the Northern states by enacting such laws as The Fugitive Slave Law. By this law every Northern man was obliged when properly summoned to turn out and help apprehend the runaway slave of a Southern man. Northern marshals became slave catchers, and Northern courts had to contribute to the support and protection of the institution.

This was a degradation which the North would not permit any longer than they could get the power to expunge such laws from the statute books. Prior to the time of these encroachments, the great majority of the people of the North had no particular quarrel with slavery so long as they were not forced to have it themselves. But they were not willing to play the role of police for the South in the protection of this particular institution.

In the early days of this country, before we had railroads, telegraphs, and steamboats -- in a word rapid transit of any sort -- the States were each almost a separate nationality. At that time the subject of slavery caused but little or no disturbance to the public mind. But the country grew, rapid transit was established, and trade and commerce between the States got to be so much greater than before, that the power of the National Government became more felt and recognized and therefore had to be enlisted in the cause of this institution.

It is probably well that we had this War when we did. We are better off now than we would have been without it and have made more rapid progress than we otherwise would have made.

Be it as it may, we really made a mess of integration afterwards.

Riveroaks · Sep 13, 2015

joG said:
Be it as it may, we really made a mess of integration afterwards.

Further on, in the appendix, Grant talks about the opportunity they had then to purchase the precursor of Dominican Republic (when it was still called Santo Domingo) and relocate all the freed slaves to there, so they could form their own government and govern themselves there -- sort of like Puerto Rico much later.

Grant also discusses that he and the others in government foresaw that integration would be almost impossible and that relocating all the freed slaves offshore was the most practical solution for everybody.

I guess with but a few exceptions he was mostly right.

Funny, trying to put the genie back into the bottle.

joG · Sep 13, 2015

Riveroaks said:
Further on, in the appendix, Grant talks about the opportunity they had then to purchase the precursor of Dominican Republic (when it was still called Santo Domingo) and relocate all the freed slaves to there, so they could form their own government and govern themselves there -- sort of like Puerto Rico much later.

Grant also discusses that he and the others in government foresaw that integration would be almost impossible and that relocating all the freed slaves offshore was the most practical solution for everybody.

I guess with but a few exceptions he was mostly right.

Funny, trying to put the genie back into the bottle.

Yes. I had not realized how foresightful he had been.

Riveroaks · Sep 13, 2015

joG said:
Yes. I had not realized how foresightful he had been.

He was brilliant. You should read the rest of his final chapter, written in 1885 and published shortly thereafter.

He predicts racial riots and wars resulting from the current state of affairs of 1885.

Thoreau72 · Sep 13, 2015

Riveroaks said:
Further on, in the appendix, Grant talks about the opportunity they had then to purchase the precursor of Dominican Republic (when it was still called Santo Domingo) and relocate all the freed slaves to there, so they could form their own government and govern themselves there -- sort of like Puerto Rico much later.

Grant also discusses that he and the others in government foresaw that integration would be almost impossible and that relocating all the freed slaves offshore was the most practical solution for everybody.

I guess with but a few exceptions he was mostly right.

Funny, trying to put the genie back into the bottle.

I wonder if that sentiment about DR was what ultimately led to Liberia in Africa?

QuadpolarNutjob · Sep 13, 2015

actually it was tariffs, and the south's, apparently well founded, fear of a bloated federal government.

Riveroaks · Sep 13, 2015

Henry David said:
I wonder if that sentiment about DR was what ultimately led to Liberia in Africa?

Liberia was a similar experiment and later in time.

It would have been a lot harder to transport 5 million freed slaves all the way across the Atlantic compared with just a few miles south of Florida.

Riveroaks · Sep 13, 2015

QuadpolarNutjob said:
actually it was tariffs, and the south's, apparently well founded, fear of a bloated federal government.

So you disagree with Grant on this then?

Let us consider your qualifications compared with Grant's.

Grant was POTUS after being the #1 Civil War general at the time.

Grant grew up in Illinois at the time and had both military and civilian careers.

And you?

What are your qualifications?

I know this is technically an ad hominem refutation.

But since you offered no evidence at all supporting your opinion, whereas I have offered Grant as a qualified timely authority directly in the field of the topic, in a formal debate this would boil down to qualifications of the sources.

Grant is the source for Grant's opinion which I cited, and he gave proper evidence for his opinion.

You are the source of your opinion and you gave no evidence.

Ad hominem. But in this case I believe the ad hominem is relevant.

In a court trial at law the ad hominem would also be relevant.

In a formal forensic debate the judge would evaluate whether you yourself can carry the argument for your own qualifications to make a valid opinion.

So far I would judge that you are a false authority.

Q.E.D.

Sherman123 · Sep 14, 2015

joG said:
Be it as it may, we really made a mess of integration afterwards.

Because Reconstruction was not as harsh or as comprehensive as it needed to be. I think if Johnson had been impeached and Ben Wade had become President it is possible things would have been different.

TurtleDude · Sep 14, 2015

Grant, who was born not all that far from where I grew up, was an interesting figure. His administration was corrupt but IIRC he refused a 50K offer from an insurance company to use his name saying he wouldn't accept payment for no work. He lost his fortune when a business partner swindled the company he was part of, but dying of throat cancer, he worked hard to write his memoirs which sold hundreds of thousands of copies and restored his family's wealth after he died. and yes I recall his comments about the slaves.

I also recall some politician proposed sending all the slaves back to Africa and another senator noted the proposal had listed funds only sufficient to send half the slaves back and the proponent noted there was enough moneys to send all of them "half way back". So many what ifs when it comes to the legacy of slavery

Beaudreaux · Sep 14, 2015

Riveroaks said:
Further on, in the appendix, Grant talks about the opportunity they had then to purchase the precursor of Dominican Republic (when it was still called Santo Domingo) and relocate all the freed slaves to there, so they could form their own government and govern themselves there -- sort of like Puerto Rico much later.

Grant also discusses that he and the others in government foresaw that integration would be almost impossible and that relocating all the freed slaves offshore was the most practical solution for everybody.

I guess with but a few exceptions he was mostly right.

Funny, trying to put the genie back into the bottle.

From my memory of studying the post-Civil War era, one of the reasons that the "buy an island and ship the former slaves there" plan was shelved was more due to fear that the former slaves may achieve a level where they could stand up an army and then invade the south which was weakened and would remain weak for decades to come. It was felt that assimilation into our society was better (and safer) for both the former slaves and the non-former slaves of both the south and north. In fact, if memory serves, it was Grant that proposed a similar effort to be taken here within the US where former slaves would be given land and the means to create and maintain a town-like government and societal structure in different locations around the country. I believe it was while he was at City Point, VA near the end of the war, that he began to put some of these ideas to paper.

Riveroaks · Sep 14, 2015

Beaudreaux said:
From my memory of studying the post-Civil War era, one of the reasons that the "buy an island and ship the former slaves there" plan was shelved was more due to fear that the former slaves may achieve a level where they could stand up an army and then invade the south which was weakened and would remain weak for decades to come. It was felt that assimilation into our society was better (and safer) for both the former slaves and the non-former slaves of both the south and north. In fact, if memory serves, it was Grant that proposed a similar effort to be taken here within the US where former slaves would be given land and the means to create and maintain a town-like government and societal structure in different locations around the country. I believe it was while he was at City Point, VA near the end of the war, that he began to put some of these ideas to paper.

Sounds like you are only guessing and then quoting from some public school brainwashing memories. Hard to say without better data from you on this.

Maybe do some reading and then report back with some original sources later.

Beaudreaux · Sep 14, 2015

Riveroaks said:
Sounds like you are only guessing and then quoting from some public school brainwashing memories. Hard to say without better data from you on this.

Maybe do some reading and then report back with some original sources later.

I'm recalling from time I spent working for the National Parks Capital District after Hurricane Isabel hit Virginia, Maryland and the DC area (where I was given access to documents not normally available to the public), as well as courses I took at the US War College while I was active duty.

I will try to get some links for you though, in addition to the one I've already provided.

Riveroaks · Sep 14, 2015

Beaudreaux said:
I'm recalling from time I spent working for the National Parks Capital District after Hurricane Isabel hit Virginia, Maryland and the DC area (where I was given access to documents not normally available to the public), as well as courses I took at the US War College while I was active duty.

I will try to get some links for you though, in addition to the one I've already provided.

I think you should seriously research the issue and see if there are any primary sources on point.

I always though the freed slave issue was simply one of neglect.

It was surprising for me to read Grant's thoughts on it in his Memoirs and to find that he really did want to ship them back -- or at least somewhere -- and that he accurately predicted riots and possibly wars if they did not.

I'm not trying to raise the bar on you.

It's just that you did not give any credible sources and that was from 150 years ago -- which is a long time.

Beaudreaux · Sep 14, 2015

Riveroaks said:
I think you should seriously research the issue and see if there are any primary sources on point.

I always though the freed slave issue was simply one of neglect.

It was surprising for me to read Grant's thoughts on it in his Memoirs and to find that he really did want to ship them back -- or at least somewhere -- and that he accurately predicted riots and possibly wars if they did not.

I'm not trying to raise the bar on you.

It's just that you did not give any credible sources and that was from 150 years ago -- which is a long time.

Don't worry, I have no problem with your reasonable requests.

The establishment of Liberia in Africa by former US slaves, Haiti (which had already seen a bloody insurrection in the late 1790's), and the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and Cuba were all options. Lincoln had, early in his first term, discussed openly the possibility of relocating former slaves to Central America rather than to Africa or islands in the Caribbean, since overland transportation would be easier, cheaper and safer for all involved. Once Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, the plan to relocate former slaves anywhere was pretty much off the table, for Lincoln anyway.

Grant wanted to do what he could for the former slaves. One of the first all former-slave towns established by Grant was right outside Yorktown, Virginia near what is the Yorktown National Cemetery and was done by Grant as the CinC of the Army of Potomac before he left service. Lincoln never agreed to leave it be due to the politics of it but the graves from the town and AME church are still there, just outside the wall of the cemetery (look to the right of the cemetery on the linked map): https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2247064,-76.5036735,298m/data=!3m1!1e3 Union Road on the map is what was the main road through the new town.

Beaudreaux · Sep 14, 2015

Riveroaks said:
I think you should seriously research the issue and see if there are any primary sources on point.

I always though the freed slave issue was simply one of neglect.

It was surprising for me to read Grant's thoughts on it in his Memoirs and to find that he really did want to ship them back -- or at least somewhere -- and that he accurately predicted riots and possibly wars if they did not.

I'm not trying to raise the bar on you.

It's just that you did not give any credible sources and that was from 150 years ago -- which is a long time.

Here's some links to info I found already for the Yorktown town - it was called Slabtown:

Slabtown; A Community that Gave Its Existence for the United States | Abandoned Country
Yorktown church provides anchor for historic black community - tribunedigital-dailypress
https://bxpnyc.wordpress.com/tag/slabtown/

These three stories give some slightly different views, but are all about the same town, and don't mention (that I could see by my cursory look) Grant and his making it an official town during his stay at City Point and Yorktown at the end of the war.

CrabCake · Sep 16, 2015

Riveroaks said:
THE CAUSE of the great War Of The Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery.

It's not just Grant who held this view. It was also the states that seceded themselves who held this view. They said as much in their various declarations of secession. Here are snippets from a few of them with emphasis added in some places:

Georgia said:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi said:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

South Carolina said:
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Texas said:
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law

Virginia said:
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

That the civil war was about slavery is without question.

Here's a short clip from Col. Ty Seidule, professor at the military academy at West Point dealing with this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

That anyone still believes it was about anything besides slavery in an age when we have access to so much information is hard to believe.

Eric7216 · Sep 16, 2015

Riveroaks said:
So you disagree with Grant on this then?

Let us consider your qualifications compared with Grant's.

Grant was POTUS after being the #1 Civil War general at the time.

Grant grew up in Illinois at the time and had both military and civilian careers.

And you?

What are your qualifications?

I know this is technically an ad hominem refutation.

But since you offered no evidence at all supporting your opinion, whereas I have offered Grant as a qualified timely authority directly in the field of the topic, in a formal debate this would boil down to qualifications of the sources.

Grant is the source for Grant's opinion which I cited, and he gave proper evidence for his opinion.

You are the source of your opinion and you gave no evidence.

Ad hominem. But in this case I believe the ad hominem is relevant.

In a court trial at law the ad hominem would also be relevant.

In a formal forensic debate the judge would evaluate whether you yourself can carry the argument for your own qualifications to make a valid opinion.

So far I would judge that you are a false authority.

Q.E.D.

Rather hard to have a discussion when you have that response.
However, I found this:

Perhaps Lincoln had an opinion as well.
And I would think that implies that the war was fought to save the union. The South seceded, ergo, Civil War. Now if you want to know why the South seceded.......

CrabCake · Sep 16, 2015

Eric7216 said:
Now if you want to know why the South seceded.......

...Just read their declarations of secession. i've posted a snippet of a few above.

Here's the full text:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

If we take Lincoln's purported words at face value, then it would seem that he felt keeping the union together was his highest priority but that this was impossible due to the rift between slave-holding states and non-slave holding states. That still supports the view that dissolution of the union was about slavery.

Riveroaks · Sep 16, 2015

CrabCake said:
...Just read their declarations of secession. i've posted a snippet of a few above.

Here's the full text:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

If we take Lincoln's purported words at face value, then it would seem that he felt keeping the union together was his highest priority but that this was impossible due to the rift between slave-holding states and non-slave holding states. That still supports the view that dissolution of the union was about slavery.

Thanks CC.

Sherman123 · Sep 16, 2015

Eric7216 said:
Rather hard to have a discussion when you have that response.
However, I found this:
View attachment 67190138

Perhaps Lincoln had an opinion as well.
And I would think that implies that the war was fought to save the union. The South seceded, ergo, Civil War. Now if you want to know why the South seceded.......

As he said that he had already prepared a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. This was said in a private meeting with religious and newspaper representatives and at a time when the administration had received a drubbing in elections, and when recent campaign failures risked (he and his administration believed) sapping the country of support. Lincoln was a noble liar, always willing to advance a lie or break a promise as needed to advance the interests of the country and protect the Constitution. Nevertheless once the opportunity presented itself he never wavered from his commitment to emancipation in some form, and his entire political career is a testament to his opposition to slavery.

Nor would Lincoln have ever disagreed that the root of the war itself was about slavery! Certainly his Confederate peers would have agreed.

NotreDame · Sep 16, 2015

Eric7216 said:
Rather hard to have a discussion when you have that response.
However, I found this:
View attachment 67190138

Perhaps Lincoln had an opinion as well.
And I would think that implies that the war was fought to save the union. The South seceded, ergo, Civil War. Now if you want to know why the South seceded.......

This assumes a singular cause for the Civil War. There were several causes for the Civil War and one of those causes was Lincoln's purpose to preserve the Union rather than permit the States to secede. Another cause was secession by Southern States and a reason/cause for secession was slavery.

Eric7216 · Sep 16, 2015

NotreDame said:
This assumes a singular cause for the Civil War. There were several causes for the Civil War and one of those causes was Lincoln's purpose to preserve the Union rather than permit the States to secede. Another cause was secession by Southern States and a reason/cause for secession was slavery.

I don't have a problem with that. I was simply responding to this thread that started with Grant's view that slavery was the cause. That is overly simplistic. There were trade issues, state's rights issues, keeping the union together issues, slavery issues, and some others.

Eric7216 · Sep 16, 2015

Sherman123 said:
As he said that he had already prepared a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. This was said in a private meeting with religious and newspaper representatives and at a time when the administration had received a drubbing in elections, and when recent campaign failures risked (he and his administration believed) sapping the country of support. Lincoln was a noble liar, always willing to advance a lie or break a promise as needed to advance the interests of the country and protect the Constitution. Nevertheless once the opportunity presented itself he never wavered from his commitment to emancipation in some form, and his entire political career is a testament to his opposition to slavery.

Nor would Lincoln have ever disagreed that the root of the war itself was about slavery! Certainly his Confederate peers would have agreed.

"Lincoln was a noble liar." Ahh, yes. Lincoln didn't speak publicly much initially about slavery and the war and when he did it was usually in the "Midwest" (Wisconsin, Ohio and such) which had people more supportive on that issue. And Lincoln never talked about slavery in New York and other places which had different views on slavery.

But that is a predicament. If the Northern public support the war primarily because of the need to save the union and the Southern public support the war because of state's rights and Article 10 of the Bill of Rights then how can one ignore that? Would there have been a war without public support and if the public support was not due to the slavery issue then why claim that Lincoln's private thoughts were the reason.

Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY

Riveroaks

joG

Riveroaks

joG

Riveroaks

Thoreau72

QuadpolarNutjob

Riveroaks

Riveroaks

Sherman123

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

Riveroaks

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

Riveroaks

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

CrabCake

Eric7216

CrabCake

Riveroaks

Sherman123

NotreDame

Eric7216

Eric7216