Grant US Grant ethics?

[archieclement]

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.

Indeed if think one who admits he was wrong and weak, is admirable for it. Not alot of point in criticizing anyone for being wrong or weak.......But it remains the one actually being critical was Grant.

And personally as far admirable, I find those who do what they thought right in the first place more so, then there is no need to apologize.

 

[archieclement]

Somewhere along the line - maybe in my lifetime? - it has become a bad thing for a person to grow and learn from their mistakes I yand 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.

Because trying to psycho-analyze other people's thoughts and hence their motives seems rather fruitless to me.

Which is why I found what started the thread interesting. This isnt some historian implying or "interpeting" what Grant thought of the Mexican War, it's morality, or his ethics in it........it is Grant himself stating it.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed if think one who admits he was wrong and weak, is admirable for it. Not alot of point in criticizing anyone for being wrong or weak.......But it remains the one actually being critical was Grant.

And personally as far admirable, I find those who do what they thought right in the first place more so, then there is no need to apologize.

As far as admirable is concerned, I find "more so" those who actually look back several years later on what they did when they thought it was right and are capable of taking into account the different perspective that time and intervening events provide. I've done plenty of things that I thought were "right" at the time and later had a different take. Apparently you haven't, and you favor guys who never look back even if the passage of time and later developments might give them a different perspective. I don't.

 

[archieclement]

As far as admirable is concerned, I find "more so" those who actually look back several years later on what they did when they thought it was right and are capable of taking into account the different perspective that time and intervening events provide. I've done plenty of things that I thought were "right" at the time and later had a different take. Apparently you haven't, and you favor guys who never look back even if the passage of time and later developments might give them a different perspective. I don't.

Because it's fruitless, if I had it to do over again, I would still do what I thought was right. So no apology needed. All one can do ethically, is what they believe right......otherwise it's as Grant states a lack of courage to do what they thought right. That is the moral failure. He apparently had regrets......not because he did what he thought right, but because he didnt......that goes to ethics.

 

[Belfoured]

"Because it's fruitless, if I had it to do over again, I would still do what I thought was right."

Deciding you'd do the same thing even if time and later events cause you to see that it wasn't "right"????? Respectfully, that makes no sense. And it's never "fruitless" to take a look back at decisions/judgments you made in the past. Not doing that is exactly how bad decisions/judgments get made again.

I don't see continuing this sub-thread as very productive. I think we understand each other's position.

 

[archieclement]

"Because it's fruitless, if I had it to do over again, I would still do what I thought was right."

Deciding you'd do the same thing even if time and later events cause you to see that it wasn't "right"????? Respectfully, that makes no sense. And it's never "fruitless" to take a look back at decisions/judgments you made in the past. Not doing that is exactly how bad decisions/judgments get made again.

I don't see continuing this sub-thread as very productive. I think we understand each other's position.

No, to think one is going to time travel is the view that makes no sense.

One would still have to make the decision on what they actually knew or believed at the time. That wouldn't change. So if one did what they thought ethical, they certainly would do it again. Indeed, what most would expect of anyone is to do is what they believe right. According to Grant's remarks he didn't. That is an ethical failure, and don't see it somehow particularly admirable.

It's not even a case of later seeing it wrong......he says he thought it immoral at the time, and didn't have the courage to act on his morals.

The judgement is Grant's, as I dont see serving in the Mexican War as somehow wrong. But if he or anyone says they see something wrong, but don't act on what they see wrong, don't see how it's then admirable to have done what they thought was wrong. As far as ethics, he knows what he felt, and if he was true to his feelings, and he found himself lacking.

 

[unionblue]

Soldiers serve because that is what they signed up fpr and swore an oath to. But there is one secret hope every soldier has when he enlists in the service of his country.

That he is not used badly by the leaders of his country in a bad cause.

Grant's concerns and feelings about his service and his country's actions against Mexico remind me of other sentiments by soldiers who served in far more recent conflicts our nation has been involved in, which did not end in victory or seemed to serve the nation's interest.

I cannot bring myself to fault them now for serving yet having conflicting feelings on those conflicts, any more than I can fault Grant for his during his service in Mexico.

Soldiers are often at the tip of the spear of their government and country, usually at a very short notice and without much of an explanation. It is up to the leaders and the citizens of the nation they serve to ensure such service is needed and just.

Unionblue

 

[DanSBHawk]

Considering all the immoral acts of the era - atrocities, massacres, slave whippings and rapes, treason, etc - I'd say Grant's regret of serving in the Mexican war is relatively innocuous. It's a case of a good man being overly hard on himself.

On the other hand, the moralizing in this thread is definitely not something I would consider "admirable."

 

[Nathan Stuart]

As a broad comment on 'morality', as distinct from 'ethics'.

History is riddled with political (and religious) leaders who pursued their own versions of 'what is right'. (Guessing that might include commanding Generals too). The moral basis for these views often reflected the cultural values of the times, but not always. Was Grant perhaps one of those exceptions?

It does raise a general issue to consider, though, of whether morality is innate or learned (acquired).

 

[archieclement]

Considering all the immoral acts of the era - atrocities, massacres, slave whippings and rapes, treason, etc - I'd say Grant's regret of serving in the Mexican war is relatively innocuous. It's a case of a good man being overly hard on himself.

On the other hand, the moralizing in this thread is definitely not something I would consider "admirable."

Indeed the man stated his own opinions, don't see why some try to deny them to spin some yarn.

Though in this case he didn't see himself good, as he failed to live up to his morals. The only actual moralizing in the thread was Grants. His ethics would actually center on his morals, and how he viewed the war.

Unless your suggesting Grant had his hand in some the other immoral acts of the era, he certainly did. But the thread was actually Grants own view of his ethics in the Mexican War. Not his involvement with slavery or Dakota Wars. I certainly would find Mexican War involvement not wrong or a moral issue, why I found it surprising and interesting he did.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Indeed the man stated his own opinions, don't see why some try to deny them to spin some yarn.

Though in this case he didn't see himself good, as he failed to live up to his morals. The only actual moralizing in the thread was Grants. His ethics would actually center on his morals, and how he viewed the war.

Unless your suggesting Grant had his hand in some the other immoral acts of the era, he certainly did. But the thread was actually Grants own view of his ethics in the Mexican War. Not his involvement with slavery or Dakota Wars. I certainly would find Mexican War involvement not wrong or a moral issue, why I found it surprising and interesting he did.

No one has tried to deny Grant's opinion. Although some have tried to exaggerate the meaning of his opinion. It's too bad the defenders of slavery didn't reflect on the morality of their actions.

 

[archieclement]

No one has tried to deny Grant's opinion. Although some have tried to exaggerate the meaning of his opinion. It's too bad the defenders of slavery didn't reflect on the morality of their actions.

Again Grant was there as well with slavery, didn't even consider himself anti slavery............

Don't know how anyone had or can exaggerate his opinion. To call it a lack of moral courage indicates he thought of it in rather strong terms.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Again Grant was there as well with slavery, didn't even consider himself anti slavery............

Don't know how anyone had or can exaggerate his opinion. To call it a lack of moral courage indicates he thought of it in rather strong terms.

Perhaps he possessed a sense of morality that was uncommon in that era, if other Americans generally had no problem with the Mexican War. The fact remains that there were no shortage of immoral acts during that era. Mexican War veterans with misgivings about the war were not even close to being the worst Americans in a moral sense.

 

[uaskme]

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."

According to Douglas family tradition, Grant was ready to fight for the Confederates until argued out of doing so by Senator Douglas himself. According to another account, he was undecided about Secession until swayed by the pro-Union exhortations of Douglas elector John A Rawlings, at a Union rally in Galena. Lincoln and the War Democrats by Dell. Rawlings bio was written by White who was another high ranking staff member of Grant.

 

[Belfoured]

No, to think one is going to time travel is the view that makes no sense.

One would still have to make the decision on what they actually knew or believed at the time. That wouldn't change. So if one did what they thought ethical, they certainly would do it again. Indeed, what most would expect of anyone is to do is what they believe right. According to Grant's remarks he didn't. That is an ethical failure, and don't see it somehow particularly admirable.

It's not even a case of later seeing it wrong......he says he thought it immoral at the time, and didn't have the courage to act on his morals.

The judgement is Grant's, as I dont see serving in the Mexican War as somehow wrong. But if he or anyone says they see something wrong, but don't act on what they see wrong, don't see how it's then admirable to have done what they thought was wrong. As far as ethics, he knows what he felt, and if he was true to his feelings, and he found himself lacking.

"No, to think one is going to time travel is the view that makes no sense."

It's not "time travel". Enough said.

 

[RobertP]

Perhaps he possessed a sense of morality that was uncommon in that era, if other Americans generally had no problem with the Mexican War. The fact remains that there were no shortage of immoral acts during that era. Mexican War veterans with misgivings about the war were not even close to being the worst Americans in a moral sense.

The mantle of the Marble Man has now been given over to US Grant. LOL and Merry Christmas!

 

[DanSBHawk]

The mantle of the Marble Man has now been given over to US Grant. LOL and Merry Christmas!

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.

 

[DanSBHawk]

According to Douglas family tradition, Grant was ready to fight for the Confederates until argued out of doing so by Senator Douglas himself. According to another account, he was undecided about Secession until swayed by the pro-Union exhortations of Douglas elector John A Rawlings, at a Union rally in Galena. Lincoln and the War Democrats by Dell. Rawlings bio was written by White who was another high ranking staff member of Grant.

There is no evidence that Grant ever sympathized with confederacy or offered to fight for it. A Missouri confederate, Frost, claimed that he had a letter from Grant offering his service. But Frost never produced the letter, and all of Grant's actual letters show a disgust with the secessionists and support for the US.

This is from a April 19, 1861 letter to his slaveholding democratic Father-in-law at the beginning of the war:

"I have but very little time to write but as in these exciting times we are very anxious to hear from you, and know of no other way but but by writing first to you, I must make time.- We get but little news, by telegraph, from St. Louis but from most all other points of the Country we are hearing all the time. The times are indeed startling but now is the time, particularly in the border Slave states, for men to prove their love of country. I know it is hard for men to apparently work with the Republican party but now all party distinctions should be lost sight of and every true patriot be for maintaining the integrity of the glorious old Stars & Stripes, the Constitution and the Union. The North is responding to the Presidents call in such a manner that the rebels may truly quaik. I tell you there is no mistaking the feelings of the people. The Government can call into the field not only 7 5000 troops but ten or twenty times 7 5000 if it should be necessary and find the means of maintaining them too. It is all a mistake about the Northern pocket being so sensative. In times like the present no people are more ready to give their own time or of their abundant mea[ns.] No impartial man can conceal from himself the fact that in all these troubles the South have been the aggressors and the Administration has stood purely on the defensive, more on the defensive than she would dared to have done but for her consiousness of strength and the certainty of right prevailing in the end. The news to-day is that Virginia has gone out of the Union. But for the influence she will have on the other border slave states this is not much to be regreted. Her position, or rather that of Eastern Virginia, has been more reprehensible from the begining than that of South Carolina. She should be made to bear a heavy portion of the burthen of the War for her guilt. - In all this I can but see the .doom of Slavery. The North do not want, nor will they want, to interfere with the institution. But they will refuse for all time to give it protection unless the South shall return soon to their allegiance, and then too this disturbance will give such an impetus to the production of their staple, cotton, in other parts of the world that they can never recover the control of the market again for that commodity. This will reduce the value of negroes so much that they will never be worth fighting over again.-! have just rec'd a letter from Fred.' He breathes forth the most patriotic sentiments. He is for the old Flag as long as there is a Union of two states fighting under its banner and when they dissolve he will go it alone. This is not his language but it is the idea not so well expressed as he expresses it."

 

[DanSBHawk]

Here's another account of Grant's feelings towards the secessionists, this one before the shooting had started. From Brooks Simpson Let Us Have Peace:

 

[uaskme]

There is no evidence that Grant ever sympathized with confederacy or offered to fight for it. A Missouri confederate, Frost, claimed that he had a letter from Grant offering his service. But Frost never produced the letter, and all of Grant's actual letters show a disgust with the secessionists and support for the US.

This is from a April 19, 1861 letter to his slaveholding democratic Father-in-law at the beginning of the war:

"I have but very little time to write but as in these exciting times we are very anxious to hear from you, and know of no other way but but by writing first to you, I must make time.- We get but little news, by telegraph, from St. Louis but from most all other points of the Country we are hearing all the time. The times are indeed startling but now is the time, particularly in the border Slave states, for men to prove their love of country. I know it is hard for men to apparently work with the Republican party but now all party distinctions should be lost sight of and every true patriot be for maintaining the integrity of the glorious old Stars & Stripes, the Constitution and the Union. The North is responding to the Presidents call in such a manner that the rebels may truly quaik. I tell you there is no mistaking the feelings of the people. The Government can call into the field not only 7 5000 troops but ten or twenty times 7 5000 if it should be necessary and find the means of maintaining them too. It is all a mistake about the Northern pocket being so sensative. In times like the present no people are more ready to give their own time or of their abundant mea[ns.] No impartial man can conceal from himself the fact that in all these troubles the South have been the aggressors and the Administration has stood purely on the defensive, more on the defensive than she would dared to have done but for her consiousness of strength and the certainty of right prevailing in the end. The news to-day is that Virginia has gone out of the Union. But for the influence she will have on the other border slave states this is not much to be regreted. Her position, or rather that of Eastern Virginia, has been more reprehensible from the begining than that of South Carolina. She should be made to bear a heavy portion of the burthen of the War for her guilt. - In all this I can but see the .doom of Slavery. The North do not want, nor will they want, to interfere with the institution. But they will refuse for all time to give it protection unless the South shall return soon to their allegiance, and then too this disturbance will give such an impetus to the production of their staple, cotton, in other parts of the world that they can never recover the control of the market again for that commodity. This will reduce the value of negroes so much that they will never be worth fighting over again.-! have just rec'd a letter from Fred.' He breathes forth the most patriotic sentiments. He is for the old Flag as long as there is a Union of two states fighting under its banner and when they dissolve he will go it alone. This is not his language but it is the idea not so well expressed as he expresses it."

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!