I've been asked to give a few thoughts on the #GRANT documentary. I'm going to limit my comments to the interpretation of Grant's life in St. Louis, which is my primary research interest.

To be sure, I expected a relatively short amount of time focusing on this part of Grant's life & that's what we got. Making a film documentary is tough & I don't want to come off as a grumpy historian. I do feel that the interpretation missed a few crucial points, however. #GRANT

Overall, the documentary's interpretation gave the impression that Grant was a reluctant participant in the institution of slavery while in St. Louis. I believe Grant's relationship with slavery was closer than what was portrayed last night. #GRANT

A few cases in point:

While living at White Haven, a neighbor named Richard Wells died on May 22, 1855. Grant was appointed w two other men to serve as an appraiser for the Wells estate, including the appraisal of three enslaved people & placing a monetary value on their bodies

Grant & co. valued Bill, 26, & Augustin, 19 at $825 and Amanda, 13, at $600. Amanda was awarded to Wells' widow, but Bill & Augustin were soon sold at auction at the St. Louis Courthouse.

It was surprising that no mention was made of Grant's vote for James Buchanan in 1856. In sum, both at the time & in his Memoirs Grant argued that he felt Buchanan was the only nationally appealing candidate who had the political base to stave off disunion & possible Civil War.

Grant also wrote a letter criticizing the Republican Party in 1860 & admitted in his Memoirs that had he been eligible to vote in that year's election (he hadn't lived in IL long enough to meet the residency requirement), his "pledges" would have been for Stephen Douglas.

Brooks Simpson has previously described Grant as a "nominal Democrat" during this time, & I agree. Whatever Grant felt about slavery, he feared the rise of the sectional Republican Party & at the very least thought slavery was a constitutionally-protected institution.

It was also surprising to not see a mention of the Dred Scott case, which began 12 miles away from White Haven. While Grant did not comment on the case at the time, he did know the Blow family that had previously owned Scott & later purchased his freedom after the 1857 SC case.

These omissions of nationally relevant political moments w Grant connections is all the more surprising given that the documentary spent more time focusing on national conflicts over slavery rather than Grant's own attitudes & relationship with slavery in the documentary.

Grant also hired out enslaved laborers from other properties while living at White Haven, & enslaved laborers helped Grant built his Hardscrabble log cabin. The hiring out system highlights one way white laborers benefited from slavery even if they did not legally own slaves.

(Also, Andy Hahn of the Robert Campbell House Museum discovered a few years ago that Grant hired out George, 21, from the prominent Sublette family [fur traders] for one year of labor at White Haven in 1858).

In the case of William Jones it is true that Grant acquired ownership of him from his father-in-law (when he did is unknown) & that he freed him at the St. Louis Courthouse on March 29, 1859. Depending on your interpretation, this could be seen as courageous. But there's more.

Julia Dent Grant was "gifted" four enslaved laborers from her father when Ulysses & Julia married in 1848. She did not legally own them, but Dan, Eliza, John, & Julia were tasked w serving all of Julia's needs & played crucial roles in helping to raise the Grants' four children.

By early 1859, Grant had given up farming at White Haven & had moved to downtown St. Louis. Julia, the kids, & the four enslaved laborers accompanied then, according to Julia Grant's memoirs.

What almost every Grant biographer has missed about the Jones manumission is that the Grant family STILL BENEFITED FROM ENSLAVED LABOR after Jones was freed. According to Julia, when the Grants moved to Galena, IL the next year, her four slaves were hired out to other ppl in STL.

Thus we can see that Ron Chernow went too far by asserting that Grant's freeing of William Jones was reflective of his "reservations" about the institution of slavery. There is nothing from Grant's hand to substantiate that claim & I'm skeptical of it.

I also thought Chernow did little to clarify matters by saying Grant wasn't an abolitionist. Well sure, most people weren't at the time! But that point does little to help clarify where Grant may have fallen on the pro- and anti-slavery political spectrum.

I concede that Grant's pre-Civil War life is difficult to interpret because there are very few existing letters by him from this time period, but in the absence of words we do have some actions that can help us better understand Grant's relationship with slavery in St. Louis.

To summarize, Grant:

- appraised the value of 3 slaves
- hired out enslaved laborers
- managed the White Haven plantation after 1857
- voted for James Buchanan
- benefited from slave labor owned by the Dents
- owned William Jones but later freed him in 1859

To learn more, you can read a journal article I wrote on Grant's relationship with slavery that was published by @JCWE1 this past September: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/732275 

You can also read a short essay on my attempts to learn about William Jones & what might have happened to him after he received his freedom in 1859: https://www.journalofthecivilwarera.org/2018/12/the-mystery-of-william-jones-an-enslaved-man-owned-by-ulysses-s-grant/

Finally, I was impressed with the variety of talking heads in the documentary and was really happy to see Ben Kemp get a lot of attention. Ben and I have gotten to know each other virtually over the past year & I love what he's doing for @GrantCottage in NY.

Oh, and P.S.

The Battle of Belmont took place in MISSOURI, not Kentucky.

Thanks for reading!