Did General Ulysses S. Grant ever own slaves? I heard that Bill Cosby’s wife made a comment about that when discussing racism.
Apparently so! A quick search using Google! came up with the following:
site: http://saints.css.edu/mkelsey/facts.html
Pretty magnanimous of him. So yes, U.S. Grant did own a slave, but it doesn’t look like he owned him for long, nor did he make use of the privileges of ownership either. What exactly was the comment Mrs. Cosby made?
Cave Diem! Carpe Canem!
His wife did. Grant himself actually owned one for a while between 1858-9. Here’s an interesting link regarding Grant and slavery: http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page160.html
“I wept because I had no shoes, then I met a man with no feet. So I took his shoes” - Dave Barry
In Guns of the South (which is, yes, a science fiction book, but the author is a history professor), there’s a reference to Lee freeing his slaves before Grant. It’s all made up in that Lee is alive to do so at a point in the book at which he was already dead in real life, but I understood the reference to Grant’s slaves to be true, in light of the author’s background. It’s not something I learned in US History in high school.
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny
Rowan, I don’t know if I understand your post correctly. I realize that Guns of the South is a sci-fi novel, however I can’t resist the urge to point out what happened in “real life.” Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery and in fact had freed his slaves long before the Civil War began. I don’t know the exact year, but it’s quite possible that Lee freed his slaves before Grant freed his. However, Lee was a slaveowner for a longer period of time than Grant was.
On a side note, Lee was also opposed to secession, but couldn’t bring himself to fight against his home state of VA. Truly, he had some moral dilemas.
Maybe Lee freed his own slaves, but he didn’t have any problems enslaving free blacks when his army invaded Pennsylvania. I don’t have the written source, but it was mentioned in Ken Burns’ The Civil War documentary.
“I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way…”
–Jessica Rabbit,Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Quote from Strainger >>
Rowan, I don’t know if I understand your post correctly. I realize that Guns of the South is a sci-fi novel, however I can’t resist the
urge to point out what happened in “real life.” Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery and in fact had freed his slaves long before the
Civil War began. I don’t know the exact year, but it’s quite possible that Lee freed his slaves before Grant freed his. However, Lee
was a slaveowner for a longer period of time than Grant was.
On a side note, Lee was also opposed to secession, but couldn't bring himself to fight against his home state of VA. Truly, he had
some moral dilemas.<<
My only point, admittedly not well-made, was that there was a reference in the book to the fact that Grant had slaves, and I doubted that Turtledove (finally remembered the author’s name) would have included this detail had it not been historically accurate.
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny
Olentzero:
This was some time ago, when the murder of the Cosby son was in the newspapers. She was indirectly quoted about racism being prevalent in the US, and the story said she mentioned US Grant was a slave owner.
Actually, Harry Turtledove went to great lengths to make his book as historically accurate as possible up to the point where he split off into alternate history. For example, all of the Confederate characters, not just the famous ones like Lee and Forrest, were actual historical people.
‘Guns of the South’ is one of my favorite books. I can’t recall the point at which Lee claims this, though.
If he does, however, I believe Turtledove got it wrong. Lee didn’t free all of his slaves (inherited through his father-in-law) until sometime around the end of the war. He was dictated to by the man’s will inside a certain time limit, though as he was busy fighting the Union, he got to it a little late.
Grant freed the one he had before the war started.
Lee’s past history with slavery, is, IMO, much more interesting than Grant’s. It’s very contradicting - he wasn’t a simple man by any means, and probably a bit less moralistically towering than Turtledove portrays him.