Grant US Grant ethics?

[DanSBHawk]

He hung out with the Democrats. Other authors accounts place him in the Douglas camp. Proves Grant being a Liar about being a Whig pre War. Of course most of us already knew he was a Liar. Cozzens details about Grants illegal War against the Souix, evidence he lied. Story about his Battle Plan at Chattanooga being his vision originally, has been debunked by several Knowledgeable Historians. His battle pan was altered by the circumstances of battle. Even to suggest otheir wise, is a serious Character fault.

Suspect Steven Douglas's family and White writing About Rawlings are pretty good witnesses.

But not good enough for a Marble Polisher!

You simply go out of your way to believe the worst about Grant. Here are two pre-war Grant quotes regarding politics:

"I don't know anything of party politics, and I don't want to."

"I don't quite like the position of either party."

 

[RobertP]

He hung out with the Democrats. Other authors accounts place him in the Douglas camp. Proves Grant being a Liar about being a Whig pre War. Of course most of us already knew he was a Liar. Cozzens details about Grants illegal War against the Souix, evidence he lied. Story about his Battle Plan at Chattanooga being his vision originally, has been debunked by several Knowledgeable Historians. His battle pan was altered by the circumstances of battle. Even to suggest otheir wise, is a serious Character fault. instance about the Mexican War discussed here and his ramblings, just another.

Suspect Steven Douglas's family and White writing About Rawlings are pretty good witnesses.

But not good enough for a Marble Polisher!

Has anyone ever corroborated his story about his Mexican War heroism? Serious question.

 

[archieclement]

Yes, I've heard pro-confederate partisans mockingly say that before. The difference of course is that no one claims that Grant had no faults. All of his biographers, including Brooks Simpson, include criticisms of Grant. So the 'marble man' accusation seems to be motivated more by envy or resentment from watching their own marble man fall from his high pedestal.

I would think the marble man accusation stems from any thread involving the faults you suggest, instantly spawn defenders trying to minimize the faults......even against what Grant himself states. It would suggest these defenses are to preserve some false marble man image, or they would simply acknowledge the faults as you suggest.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I would think the marble man accusation stems from any thread involving the faults you suggest, instantly spawn defenders trying to minimize the faults......even against what Grant himself states. It would suggest these defenses are to preserve some false marble man image, or they would simply acknowledge the faults as you suggest.

Or perhaps it only seems that way because others are trying to maximize the faults.

Grant was not a marble man. Nobody has claimed that he was perfect.

 

[uaskme]

Has anyone ever corroborated his story about his Mexican War heroism? Serious question.

Joe Rose covers Grant and Mexico. Grant Under Fire, a critical analysis. Excellent work. Mr. Rose said earlier in this thread that Grant was saying the opposite of what is portrayed in the OP. Grant was writing Julia. Mr. Rose details that correspondence. Grant was a Quartermaster thru most of it. Little impact really. Grant deserves credit for being there etc. McFreely gives a more McFriendly account of Grants involvement. Especially at Monterrey. Even McFreely details Grants revisionist self aggrandizements in his memoirs.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Joe Rose covers Grant and Mexico. Grant Under Fire, a critical analysis. Excellent work. Mr. Rose said earlier in this thread that Grant was saying the opposite of what is portrayed in the OP. Grant was writing Julia. Mr. Rose details that correspondence. Grant was a Quartermaster thru most of it. Little impact really. Grant deserves credit for being there etc. McFreely gives a more McFriendly account of Grants involvement. Especially at Monterrey. Even McFreely details Grants revisionist self aggrandizements in his memoirs.

I have the Rose book and I'd say it does a poor job of detailing Grant's correspondence to Julia during the Mexican war. He simply doesn't include the parts where Grant expresses misgivings. But that's what Rose does: He portrays Grant in the worst possible light by selective use of sources. McFeely wrote an impressive biography of Grant and it won a Pulitzer but there are many problems with it as well. Too much psycho-analyzing and unsupported claims. Brooks Simpson wrote an article on some of McFeely's questionable claims.

There are much better biographies of Grant - such as Jean Edward Smith, Brooks Simpson, and Ron White.

 

[uaskme]

I have the Rose book and I'd say it does a poor job of detailing Grant's correspondence to Julia during the Mexican war. He simply doesn't include the parts where Grant expresses misgivings. But that's what Rose does: He portrays Grant in the worst possible light by selective use of sources. McFeely wrote an impressive biography of Grant and it won a Pulitzer but there are many problems with it as well. Too much psycho-analyzing and unsupported claims. Brooks Simpson wrote an article on some of McFeely's questionable claims.

There are much better biographies of Grant - such as Jean Edward Smith, Brooks Simpson, and Ron White.

Maybe you can enlighten us during this period of the Mexican War. Give us a few sources where Grant is saving what a terrible thing the US is doing fighting Mexico. Grant must of had heartaches maneuvering all of those potatoes and fodder around. Helping to facilitate this injustice on the Weaker Mexico. I'm not talking about what he said 35 years latter.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Maybe you can enlighten us during this period of the Mexican War. Give us a few sources where Grant is saving what a terrible thing the US is doing fighting Mexico. Grant must of had heartaches maneuvering all of those potatoes and fodder around. Helping to facilitate this injustice on the Weaker Mexico. I'm not talking about what he said 35 years latter.

I already did. I provided excerpts from several of Grant's letters in post #87. In fact, I provided far more examples of Grant's correspondence to Julia than Rose did, and yet you claim that Rose "detailed" Grant's correspondence.

The Grant-bashing is so automatic and repetitive that earlier posts are forgotten or ignored. It does no good to provide information to closed minds.

 

[archieclement]

Or perhaps it only seems that way because others are trying to maximize the faults.

Grant was not a marble man. Nobody has claimed that he was perfect.

Then there should be nothing wrong with admitting his faults. That one considers any discussion of them "maximizing" suggests they think he was somehow marble. As discussing reality isn't maximizing anything.

This thread was on Grant's opinion of a war, and of himself in that war.

Yet somehow spin doctors have suggested instead of one doing what they believed right.......doing what they thought was wrong, and then regretting it as they knew it was wrong at the time, is somehow admirable........prisons would then be full of admirable people for doing what they knew wrong, then regretting it. I certainly didn't take Grant referring to a lack of moral courage, as suggesting he thought it admirable.

But it seems whatever the topic, to some it has to end in "admirable" to preserve the marble image.......

 

[DanSBHawk]

As discussing reality isn't maximizing anything.

Likewise, discussing reality is not minimizing anything.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume that your subjective take on things is "reality."

 

[archieclement]

Likewise, discussing reality is not minimizing anything.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume that your subjective take on things is "reality."

My take has been what Grant himself said in regards to how he viewed the Mexican War, and his participation, which according to him was from a lack of moral courage.

Think his stated view stands by itself. He is only one who can judge his ethics, as he is the only one that really knew his moral views. It needs neither minimizing or maximizing.

 

[DanSBHawk]

My take has been what Grant himself said in regards to how he viewed the Mexican War, and his participation, which according to him was from a lack of moral courage.

Think his stated view stands by itself. He is only one who can judge his ethics, as he is the only one that really knew his moral views.

And has already been stated, good people sometimes judge themselves harshly.

That's not a bad thing.

 

[uaskme]

I already did. I provided excerpts from several of Grant's letters in post #87. In fact, I provided far more examples of Grant's correspondence to Julia than Rose did, and yet you claim that Rose "detailed" Grant's correspondence.

The Grant-bashing is so automatic and repetitive that earlier posts are forgotten or ignored. It does no good to provide information to closed minds.

Here are a few you might of missed:

Before the invasion, he concluded that the army's advance to the Rio Grande would quickly resolve the "boundary question, either but treaty or the sword," while the poorer Mexicans "would be willing to see us push our claims beyond the Rio Grande if we promise not to molest them." Military force, he believed, should "bring Mexico to speedy terms." Conclusively, Grant wanted Julia to tell her brothers that "they must whip the Mexicans badly at their end of Mexico, we have whiped them so often here that we are getting tired." pp14 Grant Under Fire.

So, this account does not substantiate Grants remorse of the War with Mexico. He is actually advocating force. Like ever other Officer, Grant wanted advancement. Only way to get it was by battlefield success. What he wanted. If not that to manufacture some to get his name in the papers. Traits that stayed with him thru the Civil War.

Late in the Civil War the Confederates were advocating joining with the Federals to advance on Mexico. A Union Builder. Post war Grant sent weapons to Mexico and suggested an invasion. True the French were there. However there were no Humanitarian missions during this period.

Americans, and all other whites look at the Mexicans Just like they did Blacks and Natives. Mexicans were cast as mongrel Catholics.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Here are a few you might of missed:

Before the invasion, he concluded that the army's advance to the Rio Grande would quickly resolve the "boundary question, either but treaty or the sword," while the poorer Mexicans "would be willing to see us push our claims beyond the Rio Grande if we promise not to molest them." Military force, he believed, should "bring Mexico to speedy terms." Conclusively, Grant wanted Julia to tell her brothers that "they must whip the Mexicans badly at their end of Mexico, we have whiped them so often here that we are getting tired." pp14 Grant Under Fire.

So, this account does not substantiate Grants remorse of the War with Mexico. He is actually advocating force. Like ever other Officer, Grant wanted advancement. Only way to get it was by battlefield success. What he wanted. If not that to manufacture some to get his name in the papers. Traits that stayed with him thru the Civil War.

Late in the Civil War the Confederates were advocating joining with the Federals to advance on Mexico. A Union Builder. Post war Grant sent weapons to Mexico and suggested an invasion. True the French were there. However there were no Humanitarian missions during this period.

Americans, and all other whites look at the Mexicans Just like they did Blacks and Natives. Mexicans were cast as mongrel Catholics.

And like Rose, you simply ignore the quotes of Grant expressing his misgivings. If you only read slanted hatchet-jobs, you'll never understand history.

 

[BarryR]

I keep reminding myself of "Unionblues" excellent comment...

"Just an observation...Lee DID surrender to Grant, right?"

Everything else in this echo chamber is just plain BS.....Move on already...! Merry Christmas....

 

[uaskme]

And like Rose, you simply ignore the quotes of Grant expressing his misgivings. If you only read slanted hatchet-jobs, you'll never understand history.

LOL

 

[Grant's Tomb]

There was no minimum service length back then. One could easily resign soon after graduation - the smaller military meant that there often weren't enough billets to go around anyway.

Of the 1,058 cadets who had graduated from West Point between its inception in 1802 and 1839, the year Grant entered the academy, only 395 remained on active duty. George Meade and Jubal Early resigned from the army after completing their one-year obligated tour. Leonidas Polk quit after five months and Lloyd Tilghman left after two. Henry Clay's son who graduated second in the class of 1831, resigned after four months.

 

[Grant's Tomb]

Leonidas Polk graduated 8th out of 38 from West Point in July 1827. In December of 1827 he resigned his commission to enter the Virginia Theological Seminary.

Then he became Episcopal bishop of Louisiana

 

[Grant's Tomb]

Yes, they did extend the service time. I'm not sure but I believe the WP officers I was familiar with in 68-69 had a 4 year commitment then it was extended to 6 years.

Today graduates of West Point must serve at least five years of active duty in the army and three years in a Reserve Component for a total of eight years.

 

[A. Roy]

This thread has prompted me to read through Grant's letters to Julia Dent during the Mexican War period. I've been using "My Dearest Julia: The Wartime Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Wife," Library of America, 2018. If I understand correctly, the letters in this book are a selection published with permission from the Ulysses S. Grant Association. That being the case, it could well be that there are other letters or papers that speak to Grant's feelings about the war while it was going on. I don't read anything in these particular letters saying that he was explicitly against the war at the time.

In post #35, @Belfoured does quote one letter in which Grant expresses abhorrence at some atrocities committed.

I do wonder whether an officer at the time could have felt free to express explicit opposition to a war he was participating in, even in private letters to his fiancé. One question I'm toying with is how strong his opposition to the war truly was during the 1840s. Was this just a privately-held opinion that might not be discoverable in contemporary primary sources? Or is it possible that he exaggerated his opposition in order to make a rhetorical point in his later memoirs?

ARB