Grant US Grant ethics?

[DanSBHawk]

Outrageous that a recent West Point grad would do what he saw as his duty despite misgivings and then later be honest enough to admit to a mistake. That's not what we want, apparently. We want marble men who actually lack sufficient "moral courage"/"personal fortitude" to admit to a mistake.

I think some are trying to imply that because Grant had a critical moral opinion of himself, it somehow reflects badly on his overall moral character.

If anything, I think his self-examination takes "moral courage" and reflects well on his actual moral character. There are bad people who never judge themselves harshly, and there are good people who often judge themselves too harshly.

I would respect former confederates more if they looked back and questioned their own actions and loyalties. I would respect former slaveholders more if they looked back and admitted slavery was immoral. But as you say, some people can never look back and examine themselves in a critical way. Those are the ones with a suspect moral character.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed, because merely mentioning what he said himself he saw moral failure, launches huge distractions from he himself said......Some are desperate to preserve some marble man image apparently.

Instead of realizing everyone faces moral dilemmas in life, that they don't necessarily think they made the right choices themselves, he apparently didn't in hindsight, and implies he didn't at the time.

Certainly Grant isn't a marble man to today's values, he also had association's with slavery and manifest destiny. But when I had read this I found it surprising in two regards. One being anti Mexican war in the army wouldn't have seemed a majority position. Two unlike slavery and manifest destiny, he states he recognized what he was doing was wrong, when he was doing it. Which certainly becomes an ethical question then. One if the Young interview is correct, one that he saw himself failing in regard to ethics.

"Some are desperate to preserve some marble man image apparently."

You can say that again. The definition of "some" is the open question. And then there clearly are some others who can salute a historical figure who could admit to an "ethical failure"/"lack of moral courage", as opposed to those who never did and apparently were incapable of that.

 

[archieclement]

"Some are desperate to preserve some marble man image apparently."

You can say that again. The definition of "some" is the open question. And then there clearly are some others who can salute a historical figure who could admit to an "ethical failure"/"lack of moral courage", as opposed to those who never did and apparently were incapable of that.

Which Grant would seem to straddle on both sides of the line, if one thinks there is somehow some distinction to never did and were incapable. As Grant was rather all over the board on moral issues, and this thread demonstrates, or even acting when he did view something as immoral.

 

[Belfoured]

Which Grant would seem to straddle on both sides of the line, if one thinks there is somehow some distinction to never did and were incapable. As Grant was rather all over the board on moral issues, and this thread demonstrates, or even acting when he did view something as immoral.

You're trying too hard. At least on one issue he had the "equipment" to man up and admit to not doing what in hindsight he should have. It would be nice to see a list of other ACW figures who had the "equipment" to do that. I'm not coming up with many offhand. Of course, that's almost certainly because they never, ever were wrong and had nothing to admit to in the first place.

It's remarkable the effect that the "Grant" word can have ....

 

[archieclement]

You're trying too hard. At least on one issue he had the "equipment" to man up and admit to not doing what in hindsight he should have. It would be nice to see a list of other ACW figures who had the "equipment" to do that. I'm not coming up with many offhand. Of course, that's almost certainly because they never, ever were wrong and had nothing to admit to in the first place.

It's remarkable the effect that the "Grant" word can have ....

Indeed as ethics is if one acts or not as to what they see wrong......

There is little reason for one to act differently, if one didn't recognise their actions at the time as wrong. Which is why the Mexican war has a different context, he did, and didn't act. Indeed its a remarkable effect, if being unethical is then considered admirable, because of who it was.

The relevant opinion to ethics is the individual. Recognizing ones own failure to act as being unethical isn't admirable. Having had the courage to act actually is, especially if it went against the "accepted" train of action.

For example, I don't see the Mexican War particularly wrong. It resulted in the third largest acquisition of territory in our history. I view its positive effects far out weighing any negative to our country.......so I would not view serving in the Mexican War as a ethical question........but my moral view of the war is irrelevant as to his........he acts or not on his own personal view, so he also judges if his actions were a failure of courage to his moral view of the war.

 

[BarryR]

I'm trying to figure out if Grant was "unethical" because he lost or because he won . . .

You mean like "When did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[uaskme]

Indeed as ethics is if one acts or not as to what they see wrong......

There is little reason for one to act differently, if one didn't recognise their actions at the time as wrong. Which is why the Mexican war has a different context, he did, and didn't act. Indeed its a remarkable effect, if being unethical is then considered admirable, because of who it was.

The relevant opinion to ethics is the individual. Recognizing ones own failure to act as being unethical isn't admirable. Having had the courage to act actually is, especially if it went against the "accepted" train of action.

For example, I don't see the Mexican War particularly wrong. It resulted in the third largest acquisition of territory in our history. I view its positive effects far out weighing any negative to our country.......so I would not view serving in the Mexican War as a ethical question........but my moral view of the war is irrelevant as to his........he acts or not on his own personal view, so he also judges if his actions were a failure of courage to his moral view of the war.

Some thoughts. He actively participated in the Mexican War. Charged forward even as a quartermaster. He loved fighting. Then after time, Grant has this revelation and denies his being a Democrat and assumes the moral advantage of being a Republican. Add all of this up, Virtue Signalling. Writing is from McFreely

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed as ethics is if one acts or not as to what they see wrong......

There is little reason for one to act differently, if one didn't recognise their actions at the time as wrong. Which is why the Mexican war has a different context, he did, and didn't act. Indeed its a remarkable effect, if being unethical is then considered admirable, because of who it was.

The relevant opinion to ethics is the individual. Recognizing ones own failure to act as being unethical isn't admirable. Having had the courage to act actually is, especially if it went against the "accepted" train of action.

For example, I don't see the Mexican War particularly wrong. It resulted in the third largest acquisition of territory in our history. I view its positive effects far out weighing any negative to our country.......so I would not view serving in the Mexican War as a ethical question........but my moral view of the war is irrelevant as to his........he acts or not on his own personal view, so he also judges if his actions were a failure of courage to his moral view of the war.

That's an awful lot of verbiage without naming anybody else who manned up and admitted a mistake.

"Recognizing ones own failure to act as being unethical isn't admirable."

This says it all regarding the perceived infallibility of certain ACW figures - who either never made a bad judgment or, if they did, demonstrated some sort of fake "courage" by never 'fessing up.

 

[RobertP]

Of course the most famous admission of a mistake was by Lee at Gettysburg. And he offered his resignation to Davis a month after the battle because of it. Does that count?

 

[archieclement]

That's an awful lot of verbiage without naming anybody else who manned up and admitted a mistake.

"Recognizing ones own failure to act as being unethical isn't admirable."

This says it all regarding the perceived infallibility of certain ACW figures - who either never made a bad judgment or, if they did, demonstrated some sort of fake "courage" by never 'fessing up.

Again one wouldn't "fess" up if they didn't do anything wrong.

The problem with morality is it isn't any standard at all. It varies by society, religion, eras, and even individuals within a era. Why any moral failure as far as ethics goes to the indvidual, Grant says he failed in he lacked moral courage.

Again I don't personally see the Mexican War particularly "wrong" or would have been serving in it. Grant says he did, and failed to act.........Grant is the only one who could determine his actions ethically, as it was his morals and actions in light of his morals. Grant is the one saying it was a failure, see little reason he would lie in how he saw his actions.

Regardless how I view an action, it would be absurd to expect others to "fess up" if they didn't or don't view the action the same as I. To do so wouldn't be admirable at all, if they didn't think they had done wrong. It would be empty lip service or false virtue signalling, hardly admirable.

 

[archieclement]

Some thoughts. He actively participated in the Mexican War. Charged forward even as a quartermaster. He loved fighting. Then after time, Grant has this revelation and denies his being a Democrat and assumes the moral advantage of being a Republican. Add all of this up, Virtue Signalling. Writing is from McFreely

View attachment 461003

View attachment 461004

The problem with me seeing it as virtue signalling is two fold.
One he does seem somewhat critical of war at time in letters.

And second, in the late 1870's who would he be virtue signalling to? I haven't read or wouldn't think there was significant anti Mexican war sentiment 25 years after the war.........especially considering the significant territorial gains that were being exploited then from the war.

 

[uaskme]

The problem with me seeing it as virtue signalling is two fold.
One he does seem somewhat critical of war at time in letters.

And second, in the late 1870's who would he be virtue signalling to? I haven't read or wouldn't think there was significant anti Mexican war sentiment 25 years after the war.........especially considering the significant territorial gains that were being exploited then.

Read McFreely, Grant denied his past History of being a Democrat. Denied Politics being a major factor during the Civil War. Mexican War was led by the Democrat Party. Grant says Democrats fought The War to protect Slavery. Grant was against how the War started. U S tried to get the Mexicans to fire the first shot. That didn't happen. U S was in a offensive position. However he glorified himself in battle. In his memoirs/fables, Now says he was a Whig during the Mexican War. The Whigs also got credit for their Military achievements. Taylor becomes President as a Whig. He was a late come to the party, another story. Scott was a Whig. Whigs, became the largest element of the Republican Party. Memoirs says he was a Whig/Republican pre and during CW. He was not, He was a Democrat.

So, Grant absolves himself as a Democrat, responsible for the Mexican War. Protector of Slavery. And says he was a Whig/Republican. Against the Mexican War. Anti/Slavery. Puts himself in a morally more acceptable position. This is late in life. After serving in battle and President. He does it to enhance himself. This is The main objective of his memoirs. Discredited Politician who is dying and has lost his personal wealth and dignity.

 

[Belfoured]

Again one wouldn't "fess" up if they didn't do anything wrong.

The problem with morality is it isn't any standard at all. It varies by society, religion, eras, and even individuals within a era. Why any moral failure as far as ethics goes to the indvidual, Grant says he failed in he lacked moral courage.

Again I don't personally see the Mexican War particularly "wrong" or would have been serving in it. Grant says he did, and failed to act.........Grant is the only one who could determine his actions ethically, as it was his morals and actions in light of his morals. Grant is the one saying it was a failure, see little reason he would lie in how he saw his actions.

Regardless how I view an action, it would be absurd to expect others to "fess up" if they didn't or don't view the action the same as I. To do so wouldn't be admirable at all, if they didn't think they had done wrong. It would be empty lip service or false virtue signalling, hardly admirable.

All I'm saying is that if an individual does something they had misgivings about and later admits that they should have done differently, I respect the sort of guts it takes to do that publicly.

I'm also saying that I find it hard - impossible, in fact - to believe that nobody else in the ACW had misgivings about what decisions they made. It ain't a perfect world and people make bad decisions all the time. Anybody who thinks otherwise is living in a bubble. Whether those folks had enough guts to come forward and admit it is the question.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Read McFreely, Grant denied his past History of being a Democrat. Denied Politics being a major factor during the Civil War. Mexican War was led by the Democrat Party. Grant says Democrats fought The War to protect Slavery. Grant was against how the War started. U S tried to get the Mexicans to fire the first shot. That didn't happen. U S was in a offensive position. However he glorified himself in battle. In his memoirs/fables, Now says he was a Whig during the Mexican War. The Whigs also got credit for their Military achievements. Taylor becomes President as a Whig. He was a late come to the party, another story. Scott was a Whig. Whigs, became the largest element of the Republican Party. Memoirs says he was a Whig/Republican pre and during CW. He was not, He was a Democrat.

So, Grant absolves himself as a Democrat, responsible for the Mexican War. Protector of Slavery. And says he was a Whig/Republican. Against the Mexican War. Anti/Slavery. Puts himself in a morally more acceptable position. This is late in life. After serving in battle and President. He does it to enhance himself. This is The main objective of his memoirs. Discredited Politician who is dying and has lost his personal wealth and dignity.

Grant was not a democrat pre-war. He did vote for Buchanan in '56 but more as a vote against the other candidates, Fremont and Fillmore.

Your psycho-analysis of Grant's motivations is not very convincing. Considering the public reaction to his sickness and death, I don't think there was any reason that he would have believed he needed to "enhance himself."

 

[Jantzen64]

You mean like "When did you stop beating your wife?"

I think the real issue is that the discussion of Grant's accomplishments as a general really have little to do with the OP; I think the OP raises an interesting issue for discussion about military ethics, though I strongly disagree with what I think is the OP's agenda in suggesting that Grant's ethics were compromised because he participated in the Mexican War. Ultimately, the digression into whether Grant was a great general revealed to me that the intent of the OP was simply to try to bash him, on any terms.

I for one, prefer leaders who can evolve and admit their failings, rather than insist that everything they do is "right" and "the best", etc. Accordingly, I see Grant's admission about the Mexican War as a testament to his core character and intelligence, even if he failed to act on his misgivings at that point in time.

 

[Belfoured]

I think the real issue is that the discussion of Grant's accomplishments as a general really have little to do with the OP; I think the OP raises an interesting issue for discussion about military ethics, though I strongly disagree with what I think is the OP's agenda in suggesting that Grant's ethics were compromised because he participated in the Mexican War. Ultimately, the digression into whether Grant was a great general revealed to me that the intent of the OP was simply to try to bash him, on any terms.

I for one, prefer leaders who can evolve and admit their failings, rather than insist that everything they do is "right" and "the best", etc. Accordingly, I see Grant's admission about the Mexican War as a testament to his core character and intelligence, even if he failed to act on his misgivings at that point in time.

Since we live in a real world of mortals and not some fictional planet with a bunch of infallible icons running around, all of these guys made some bad decisions/did or failed to do things they had cause to regret later, etc. I find bizarre the notion that a guy should be criticized for having the guts and honesty to admit that.

 

[Belfoured]

Grant was not a democrat pre-war. He did vote for Buchanan in '56 but more as a vote against the other candidates, Fremont and Fillmore.

Your psycho-analysis of Grant's motivations is not very convincing. Considering the public reaction to his sickness and death, I don't think there was any reason that he would have believed he needed to "enhance himself."

It's Grant. For some reason that tosses common sense and objectivity out the window.

 

[Library Lady]

Somewhere along the line - maybe in my lifetime? - it has become a bad thing for a person to grow and learn from their mistakes and to acknowledge those mistakes. There apparently is no longer value in considering "if I'd only knew then what I know now" about anything in one's past. A person who reflects and would make different choices now than they did then, often when they were "young and stupid", is now considered a "flip-flopper" which is apparently a fate worse than death.

 

[Cycom]

I wouldn't hold it against Grant that he participated in the Mexican/American war while having ethical misgivings.

Humans are in general complex and even good men don't always demonstrate a 100% consistent application of personal morals. Grant was many things, but a hypocrite I don't believe he was.

 

[Cycom]

It's Grant. For some reason that tosses common sense and objectivity out the window.

I completely agree, but would add that the very same applies to discussion of many of the CW "bad guys."

How many times have we read here about Lee being a traitor? About Forrest being an evil Klansman and a murderer?

Of course on the flip side we got Lincoln being a tyrant and all that nonsense. Sorry folks, these are just weak hot takes and serve no purpose IMHO.