 |
| Before and After |
I was pretty cool with Grant until I wasn't.
I found the story of his SF statue on the website Public Art and Architecture from Around the World. The June tear down was not the first time this statue has fallen.
In 1885 just weeks after President Grant died, a committee was formed to erect a memorial to him. Grant spent 1853 and 1854 in Fort Humboldt which stood on the south side of Eureka, California. Grant was not happy there, drank to excess and appeared drunk at an official Army function. Rather than face court-martial, Grant resigned his commission.
Then Captain disappears from history until 1861 when a number of Southern states secede from the United States, thereby triggering the Civil War. 750,000 combatants died in battle or from disease between 1861-1865. The Union or The North needed trained military personnel and Captain Grant was given a series of commands finally becoming a Lieutenant General in 1864 and commander of all Union forces.
Here is General Grant accepting General Robert E. Lee's surrender of what is still the bloodiest and deadliest conflict in US History.
In 1868, Grant was elected President and served two terms. His record on civil rights as President was pretty good.
- In 1869, he signed a law which granted equal right for black people to serve on juries and hold political office,
- In 1870, he signed the Naturalization Act that gave foreign blacks citizenship.
- He advocated for the 15th Amendment that said that states could not disenfranchise black people.
- In 1870, he created the Justice Department to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan.
Back to the statue.
The committee planned to dedicate the statue on Memorial Day, 1896. To save money granite portions of the statue had been cut and decorated by inmates of Folsom Prison. Members of the stone cutters union were outraged at the use of prison labor and tore down the statue. The statue was rededicated either in 1894 or 1896 or 1904. And there it stood for around 120 years.
My Initial Response...
Ulysses S. Grant really? Although a child of abolitionists, Grant did marry into a slave holding family. In 1858, Grant's slave holding father-in-law "gave" William Jones, a 35 year old black man, to Grant. While not an abolitionist, Grant was disgusted with the concept and freed Mr. Jones without compensation.
Did the individuals who tore down the Grant statue on Juneteenth, the celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation know that President Lincoln was able to put forward the document because of Grant's success in capturing Vicksburg, effectively dividing the Confederacy and leading to its ultimate defeat? Did they know about his sheltering slaves who escaped their bondage while Grant's army slugged their way down the Mississippi river? Did they weigh those accomplishments against the one year that he reluctantly was a slave holder?
My guess is not so much.
But it did lead me to start reading, Grant by Ron Chernow. And as I read on, I grew more and more pro-Grant. While certainly a man of his times and certainly not 'woke', he struck me a fair and open minded. And he led a bloody and horrific war to preserve the Union which had the effect of ending slavery.
Not bad.
Until General Order No. 11 (1862)
As the war continued, the need for Southern cotton increased for the Army, Northern commerce and foreign trade. The Union issued licenses for cotton traders to accompany the Army as it advanced southward. This created a lucrative market for cotton which was exploited by soldiers, officers and unlicensed traders. In Grant's analysis, much of the corruption was the fault of Jewish traders. Thus he signed this order.
I.. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade
established by the Treasury Department, and also Department
orders, are hereby expelled from the Department.
II.. Within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order
by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people
be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one re-
turning after such notification will be arrested and held in con-
finement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as pris-
oners, unless furnished with permit from Head Quarters.
III.. No permits will be given these people to visit Head
Quarters for the purpose of making personal application for
trade permits.
My first thought upon reading this...FUCK that anti-semite bastard.
Conclusion:
Draw your own.
The committee planned to dedicate the statue on Memorial Day, 1896. To save money granite portions of the statue had been cut and decorated by inmates of Folsom Prison. Members of the stone cutters union were outraged at the use of prison labor and tore down the statue. The statue was rededicated either in 1894 or 1896 or 1904. And there it stood for around 120 years.
My Initial Response...
Ulysses S. Grant really? Although a child of abolitionists, Grant did marry into a slave holding family. In 1858, Grant's slave holding father-in-law "gave" William Jones, a 35 year old black man, to Grant. While not an abolitionist, Grant was disgusted with the concept and freed Mr. Jones without compensation.
Did the individuals who tore down the Grant statue on Juneteenth, the celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation know that President Lincoln was able to put forward the document because of Grant's success in capturing Vicksburg, effectively dividing the Confederacy and leading to its ultimate defeat? Did they know about his sheltering slaves who escaped their bondage while Grant's army slugged their way down the Mississippi river? Did they weigh those accomplishments against the one year that he reluctantly was a slave holder?
My guess is not so much.
But it did lead me to start reading, Grant by Ron Chernow. And as I read on, I grew more and more pro-Grant. While certainly a man of his times and certainly not 'woke', he struck me a fair and open minded. And he led a bloody and horrific war to preserve the Union which had the effect of ending slavery.
Not bad.
Until General Order No. 11 (1862)
As the war continued, the need for Southern cotton increased for the Army, Northern commerce and foreign trade. The Union issued licenses for cotton traders to accompany the Army as it advanced southward. This created a lucrative market for cotton which was exploited by soldiers, officers and unlicensed traders. In Grant's analysis, much of the corruption was the fault of Jewish traders. Thus he signed this order.
I.. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade
established by the Treasury Department, and also Department
orders, are hereby expelled from the Department.
II.. Within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order
by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people
be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one re-
turning after such notification will be arrested and held in con-
finement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as pris-
oners, unless furnished with permit from Head Quarters.
III.. No permits will be given these people to visit Head
Quarters for the purpose of making personal application for
trade permits.
My first thought upon reading this...FUCK that anti-semite bastard.
Conclusion:
Draw your own.
Thank you for that Grant sharing. As for tearing down the statue, not much to see here. It's vandalism, destruction of public property, in violation of surely several criminal laws. SFPD has a job to do, and the DA's office needs to prosecute and make an example of them. We have, of course, no idea (at this point) what the ideology or motivation was of the criminals. I don't much care. House them in San Quentin for five years, or ten, whether they are false flag QAnon nutjobs, or woke young idealists ..... No deals. I think that goes for all those statues of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, general Beauregard, et al. put up as monuments to fight reconstruction. Whether we should, alas, "remove and replace" some of these, that's another matter. Go talk to your legislators, write a blog, go protest peacefully. But vandalism is not the way. I hope they restore the statue on its pedestal pronto.
ReplyDelete