Grant US Grant ethics?

[archieclement]

And no not on slavery, as he himself said "I was never an abolishionist, not even what could be anti slavery" as late as 1863, so there is no personal moral dilemma there.

But in the Mexican War. Here he wrote "For myself," Grant wrote later about the United States war against Mexico, "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.". If he felt that way, wouldn't the moral thing to do been to resign? Then in this following article, in the editors note is it saying Grant himself recognised he didn't have the moral courage to do what he thought right?

Grant in Mexico:

www.army.mil

 

[GwilymT]

Good question... do you quit a job you need because you may disagree with a superior? Do you only resign when the outcome of the question may affect you economically like Lee did or do you honor your oath like Lee didn't? Not sure. So Grant wrote that he was against the Mexican War on moral grounds but at the time he was a young officer caught up in service to his country.

And he served.

Grant was called, and he went.

He was called to service in Mexico, and despite misgivings he went to fulfill his duty as a US Citizen and a soldier. A young man doing his duty.

He was called again when rebels tried to break the blessed country apart. He served and won that particular war. A man doing his duty.

He was called again to service as President of the United States and did more for Civil Rights for people who aren't white than anyone previously. A diplomat and figurehead doing his duty.

Thank you for your service Mr. Grant.

 

[archieclement]

Good question... do you quit a job you need because you may disagree with a superior? Do you only resign when the outcome of the question may affect you economically like Lee did or do you honor your oath like Lee didn't? Not sure. So Grant wrote that he was against the Mexican War on moral grounds but at the time he was a young officer caught up in service to his country.

And he served.

Grant was called, and he went.

He was called to service in Mexico, and despite misgivings he went to fulfill his duty as a US Citizen and a soldier. A young man doing his duty.

He was called again when rebels tried to break the blessed country apart. He served and won that particular war. A man doing his duty.

He was called again to service as President of the United States and did more for Civil Rights for people who aren't white than anyone previously. A diplomat and figurehead doing his duty.

Thank you for your service Mr. Grant.

However being a willing participant in what he felt was "the most unjust war ever" certainly raises ethical questions to his morality. Unlike enlisted men, officers certainly had the option to resign. "Most unjust" certainly would seem a personal moral view, that he choose to ignore.

What is ironic about his presidency, some think he was rather hawkish for a second war of a war of stronger against a weaker nation with Mexico.

 

[GwilymT]

I think that there were a lot of folks in south east asia that questioned why they were there, but like Grant, they were called and they went. Tell them they were acting immorally.

 

[archieclement]

I think that there were a lot of folks in south east asia that questioned why they were there, but like Grant, they were called and they went.

Indeed, most were enlisted, and couldn't resign though.

Officers have a choice of their sense of morality first, or personal gain in career first. Certainly war, unjust or not, usually offers faster track to promotion, certainly with brevets in that era.

 

[GwilymT]

.

 

[archieclement]

S

Ok. Isn't there a thread somewhere that needs someone to defend slavery?

Not sure why, I haven't ever defended slavery, nor defend racism for most of the country as others do...........Perhaps you meant Grant, as he stated he was not anti slavery for decades.

Though this thread was about something Grant said he felt or knew was wrong in pretty strong terms, yet went along with it......that does seem to go to ethics.
Grants participating in something he states he wasn't against, doesnt really.

 

[A. Roy]

That's an interesting admission by Gen Grant. This doesn't seem to match exactly the quote in the OP, but expresses similar thoughts. It's from an 1879 book by journalist John Russell Young, "Around the World With General Grant." On pages 447-448 Russell quotes Grant:

"With a soldier the flag is paramount... I know the struggle with my conscience during the Mexican War. I have never altogether forgiven myself for going into that. I had very strong opinions on the subject. I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign. I had taken an oath to serve eight years, unless sooner discharged, and I considered my supreme duty was to my flag. I had a horror of the Mexican War, and I have always believed that it was on our part most unjust. The wickedness was not in the way our soldiers conducted it, but in the conduct of our government in declaring war. The troops behaved well in Mexico, and the government acted handsomely about the peace. We had no claim on Mexico. Texas had no claim beyond the Nueces River, and yet we pushed on to the Rio Grande and crossed it. I am always ashamed of my country when I think of that invasion."

ARB

 

[archieclement]

Thanks, that must be where the editors note came from. Hadn't seen it before.

 

[RobertP]

Not sure why, I haven't ever defended slavery, nor defend racism for most of the country as others do...........Perhaps you meant Grant, as he stated he was not anti slavery for decades.

Though this thread was about something Grant said he felt or knew was wrong in pretty strong terms, yet went along with it......that does seem to go to ethics.
Grants participating in something he states he wasn't against, doesnt really.

Isn't there a slavery board available for those who want to discuss it?

Grant had ethics but they were situational IMO. It was always after the fact that he wanted to absolve himself, not in the present.

As for Vietnam, it was a draftee war. Though only 25% of the total force were drafted, 90% of Army infantrymen were. Many if not most of the volunteers did so for the option of selecting a less dangerous MOS. Don't confuse it with a war of altruism. And btw there was no option for officers to resign.

 

[Belfoured]

Isn't there a slavery board available for those who want to discuss it?

Grant had ethics but they were situational IMO. It was always after the fact that he wanted to absolve himself, not in the present.

As for Vietnam, it was a draftee war. Though only 25% of the total force were drafted, 90% of Army infantrymen were. Many if not most of the volunteers did so for the option of selecting a less dangerous MOS. Don't confuse it with a war of altruism. And btw there was no option for officers to resign.

Regarding "no option for officers to resign" and "situational" ethics, we can apply those concepts to several figures in our history.




Like Quote Reply
Report

 

[RobertP]

Regarding "no option for officers to resign" and "situational" ethics, we can apply those concepts to several figures in our history.




Like Quote Reply
Report

Go ahead

 

[wausaubob]

And yet it seemed to have worked out for Mexicans. Their nation not only received an indemnity for the mostly vacant territory that they lost, but also the General in Chief of the US after the US Civil War, Grant, was a strong advocate of Mexican independence. After some delay General John Schofield was delegated to go to Paris and explain to Napoleon III that it wasn't realistic to expect the US to tolerate French support of Maximillian for long. Mexico did regain its independence and Maximillian can be described as having over stayed his time in Mexico.

 

[wausaubob]

And as for Napoleon III, when he found himself at war with Prussia/Germany a few years later, he discovered he was devoid of allies.

 

[damYankee]

And no not on slavery, as he himself said "I was never an abolishionist, not even what could be anti slavery" as late as 1863, so there is no personal moral dilemma there.

But in the Mexican War. Here he wrote "For myself," Grant wrote later about the United States war against Mexico, "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.". If he felt that way, wouldn't the moral thing to do been to resign? Then in this following article, in the editors note is it saying Grant himself recognised he didn't have the moral courage to do what he thought right?

Grant in Mexico:

www.army.mil

Abe Lincoln felt the same way towards the Mexican War. It's not unheard of for military officers to hold their noses and carry out their assignment.
Ours is not to question why, ours is to do or die.

 

[archieclement]

Abe Lincoln felt the same way towards the Mexican War. It's not unheard of for military officers to hold their noses and carry out their assignment.
Ours is not to question why, ours is to do or die.

Not aware Lincoln volunteered or served in the Mexican War.

I agree its not unusual for those opposed to a war to not serve in it. Grant did against what he says he thought was morally right, that is more unusual. That is an ethical question. Thinking something is wrong......but doing it anyway.

If the above provided piece is accurate, which not sure it is or if its someone paraphrasing his other remark. He himself would have noted his lack of moral courage. Then shouldn't we?

I don't disparage him for it, it simply shows he's not a comic book figure. Would say the majority in many things find it easier to just go along, then buck the system on personal stands. Regardless of era.

 

[A. Roy]

The excerpt I quoted in post #8 is from a book by journalist John Russell Young (I found it at archive.org). Young says Grant admitted to him that "I had not moral courage enough to resign" during the Mexican war.

I've figured out that the partial quote in the original post comes from Grant's 1885-86 memoirs (easily available on Project Gutenberg or through HathiTrust). On pages 32-34 he discusses the context of the Mexican War, which is pretty interesting, as he comments on the motivations for the annexation of Texas and the push into Mexico. But the section where he admits his opposition to the war is on page 32:

"There was no intimation given that the removal of the 3d and 4th regiments of infantry to the western border of Louisiana was occasioned in any way by the prospective annexation of Texas, but it was generally understood that such was the case. Ostensibly we were intended to prevent filibustering into Texas, but really as a menace to Mexico in case she appeared to contemplate war. Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

ARB

 

[Belfoured]

Go ahead

I'll wager that if you give it some serious thought you can come up with some examples.

 

[Jantzen64]

Assuming that the quote from Young is accurate, it's refreshing to see a leader admit to being wrong or less than perfect as they struggle with the issues of the day. And to learning and growing based on those experiences. Perhaps what made Grant such a determined general in the ACW was his conviction that the ACW was God's "punishment" for the Mexican War. Without the moral dilemma he experienced as a result of the Mexican War, he may not have risen to the occasion in ACW.

 

[uaskme]

Assuming that the quote from Young is accurate, it's refreshing to see a leader admit to being wrong or less than perfect as they struggle with the issues of the day. And to learning and growing based on those experiences. Perhaps what made Grant such a determined general in the ACW was his conviction that the ACW was God's "punishment" for the Mexican War. Without the moral dilemma he experienced as a result of the Mexican War, he may not have risen to the occasion in ACW.

Do you have a quote where Grant came to the conclusion Grant thought that the CW was punishment for the Mexican War?