True, early in the war. But the Dent family slaves were all freed in January or February of 1863 and the trips Julia Grant made to army headquarters at Petersburgh were accompanied by a hired girl.
By contrast, in 1858, Robert E. Lee wrote, "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
Lee's letter was written in 1856, not 1858, and was in praise of message by President Pierce against those in the North who would interfere with 'domestic institutions of the South', i.e. slavery. Taken as a whole it is not any sort of ringing denunciation of slavery, on the contrary Lee saw it as a benefit. " The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially," Lee wrote, "The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.
Nine years later, Lee's views on slavery hadn't changed much at all:
"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." -- Robert Lee, January 1865.
U.S. Grant, fought to save the Union and tolerated slavery in his own family and had one of the four family slaves in his own Union Headquarters. Robert E. Lee, fought to defend his native State from attack and personally detested slavery.
Both, as you say, tolerated slavery in their family - Lee freed the slaves of his father-in-law's estate in December 1862, only weeks before the Dent family did. Yet Lee fought for four years for a government that was founded on the belief that slavery was worth a war, and Grant fought for four years for a government that eventually dedicated its effort in part to the end of slavery. Go figure.
Condemn Mrs. Grant if you like, but her offense was the same as that of hundreds of thousands of slaveowners.....x
If you will notice, my role in this and other Civil War threads has never been to condemn one individual or sanctify another. I have always argued that the Civil War, as all wars, was fought by men of their time and that it is unjust to judge 19th Century men by 21st Century moral standards.
I am old enough to remember that the Civil War Centennial was celebrated without hatred. Now, the forces of Political Correctness are on a Crusade to equate the Confederate battle flag with the Nazi swastika and to equate the Army of Northern Virginia with the Waffen SS.
The flip side of that coin is the Politically Correct historical revisionism that Johnny Reb fought solely to maintain slavery and that Billy Yank fought solely to end slavery and bring about an era of racial equality and “Kum-Ba-Yah” racial harmony.
While it may be true that many New England regiments in general and the white officers of regiments such as the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Infantry in particular may have fought for such 21st Century values, the historical truth is that most of the Union army in general and the Irish Brigade in particular were not risking their lives in battle for those values.
I have no axes to grind in the American Civil War. During the 1860's, my family was back in Cuba providing Generals and Founding Fathers to the Cuban Republic and the Cuban wars of independence from Spain. My great-great-grandfather was a signatory to the first Cuban Emancipation Declaration but that same ancestor had owned slaves. That same ancestor was a poet and he published a poem honoring Abraham Lincoln and I have a copy of.
Was my great-great-grandfather truly concerned in 1868 with freeing slaves in Cuba or was he mostly concerned about gaining a tactical advantage against the Spaniards? Did he really admire Lincoln or did he think that writing a poem about Lincoln would curry favor in the United States for Cuban independence?
The self-righteous answer is, "Yes. My ancestor was a saint."
The truthful answer is, "I don't know."
What I do know is that, if a man feels strongly enough about the evils of slavery to send his men to get slaughtered before the entrenchments of Cold Harbor to end slavery, he would also have the cojones to order his wife not to bring his wife’s slave , “black Julia”, to his Headquarters as we all agree Julia Grant did prior to 1963.
What I do know is that McClellan wrote to Abraham Lincoln right after Malvern Hill that, “neither confiscation of property …or forcible abolition of slavery should be contemplated for a moment”.
What I do know is that, knowing the history of the Haiti slave revolt, men such as Lee would be wary of freeing slaves before they were educated and ready to succeed on their own after emancipation.
I do not see Julia Grant, U.S. Grant and R.E. Lee as flawed individuals. I see them all as good 19th Century men and women of their time who are now unfairly retroactively judged by 21st Century standards.
Now, why do I give a d@mn if the history of the American Civil War is revised to conform with Political Correctness? My ancestors did not have a dog in that fight unless you count making money in blockade-running.
I care because I see Cuban history being repeated in American history.
I have seen the flag that my great-great-grandfather died under in the 1868-1878 Ten Years War turned into a Communist symbol. I have seen my own family’s ancestors turned into Communist heroes in Cuba although we, their progeny who have inherited their values, have voted with our feet and become Americans by choice. I have heard Democrat Black Congressmembers dismiss Cuban Americans concerns about the Communist dictatorship in Cuba by simply saying that Cuban Americans “are members of the planter class”.
Nothing in the 19th Century was morally obvious. The freed black slaves that were sent from America to Liberia used their Western expertise to enslave the local blacks and slavery of native Liberians by Amero-Liberians existed until the League of Nations stepped in to abolish the practice in the 20th Century.
Yes, it may be safe to demonize the Confederacy and Robert E. Lee now because their historical record is not totally Politically Correct vis a vis slavery. Well, take it from me. Once you allow that demonization, it will not be long before you find out that none of America’s history is totally Politically Correct. And, yes, that history will be demonized.