Grant US Grant ethics?

[Belfoured]

No, I call multiple rabbit holes from the actual OP distractions.

As this OP was actually rather simple in morality and ethics.

It only involved one persons morality, which he stated his opinion of the war.
And it only involved one persons sense of ethics, in their judgement of if they followed their own morality.....

As it was logical and obvious to Grant, why he thought he had lacked moral courage. Indeed find it odd anyone would finds Grants reflection on his ethics as "living in a bubble". As if he was somehow unqualified to judge his own morality and if he followed it.

As the judgement of Grants ethics in this thread, was his own.

Try harder. "Living in a bubble" refers to Monday Morning Quarterbacks who think that any soldier who serves in a war that he/she may have ethical concerns about is "unethical" or lacks "moral courage". Maybe I should have used "rabbit hole" instead of "bubble".

 

[archieclement]

Try harder. "Living in a bubble" refers to Monday Morning Quarterbacks who think that any soldier who serves in a war that he/she may have ethical concerns about is "unethical" or lacks "moral courage". Maybe I should have used "rabbit hole" instead of "bubble".

Indeed try harder as there are none, the thread noted US Grants own view of his morality, and his ethics in regards to them.......Noting a historical figures personal views or statements hardly qualifies for Monday Morning Quarterbacking as the view was his.

I personally dont find the Mexican War immoral, or soldiers serving in any US war unethical, as I dont view any US war immoral. However can certainly note Grant disagreed, and his view would be rather relevant to his morality/ethics.

Your certainly free to disagree with Grant, as its his view and statements the thread concerns.

I certainly disagree with his view of the war, cant really disagree with his view of his ethics though, as its based on his moral view of the war, no one elses, including mine.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I personally dont find the Mexican War immoral...

With your proclivities, of course you wouldn't. Others may have had a different point of view.

 

[archieclement]

With your proclivities, of course you wouldn't. Others may have had a different point of view.

Indeed, why I noted Grants view of the war and of his conduct.

Certainly my proclivities tend to be pro American, so events leading to our growth I view as rather positive. As I noted in the thread 3rd largest territorial acquisition in our history. Certainly, contributed to our growth as a nation.

 

[Scott1967]

I personally dont find the Mexican War immoral, or soldiers serving in any US war unethical, as I dont view any US war immoral. However can certainly note Grant disagreed, and his view would be rather relevant to his morality/ethics.

I am confused by your statement.

First off any history teacher worth their salt will tell you the US has been involved in some very dubious wars.

Second, Grant is a soldier , His views are just that his views I'm sure many US servicemen felt the same way but fought for their country regardless.

Third , Warfare in the 19th C may have been about defending your country or serving your country but it was also about advancement and climbing the ladder of success it was the greatest opportunity any officer could have to advance his status or reputation.

Don't get me wrong Grant wasn't perfect but in every good book I read about him he always struck me as a man with a conscience a man who readily admitted to wrong doings or mistakes which in the 19th C was unusual because reputation meant everything.

Quite frankly I could have a beer with Grant in a local pub that's the sort of bloke he is unlike many cold fish of his rank in the ACW imho.

 

[archieclement]

I am confused by your statement.

First off any history teacher worth their salt will tell you the US has been involved in some very dubious wars.

Second, Grant is a soldier , His views are just that his views I'm sure many US servicemen felt the same way but fought for their country regardless.

Third , Warfare in the 19th C may have been about defending your country or serving your country but it was also about advancement and climbing the ladder of success it was the greatest opportunity any officer could have to advance his status or reputation.

Don't get me wrong Grant wasn't perfect but in every good book I read about him he always struck me as a man with a conscience a man who readily admitted to wrong doings or mistakes which in the 19th C was unusual because reputation meant everything.

Quite frankly I could have a beer with Grant in a local pub that's the sort of bloke he is unlike many cold fish of his rank in the ACW imho.

Dubious is an opinion, I don't share it. Certainly I look at the majority of our wars with the benefit of hindsight so can more accurately judge the lasting benefits then those at the time to get involved.

I have no illusion that nation building (not just ours, but any nation) involves breaking some eggs to make the omelet, certainly does not make the omelet immoral or any less enjoyable to me. I have no issue with sometimes the ends certainly do justify the means. Certainly if the majority concurred with the means, as that is how legally we determine policy and if its "right" to do. So I do not view ARW negatively from being an act of treason(it was) or Indian wars being manifest destiny (they were), or Mexican war the same. As ends certainly justified the means, leading to a more right outcome then if we hadn't in my opinion. Which is nature of morality, its based on individual opinion. I don't agree with Grants view of the war, but baring some way to prove it was insincere, I accept it was his personal view. Instead of apologizing for the founders or those pursuing relevant nation building policies to the eras, I would thank them, as the majority of our history the American people have.


And certainly the judgement to ethics if he acted according to what he thought moral in this thread has been Grants. So if have any issue with it, your issue would really be with Grant, as its his view. Both what he thought "right or wrong" and if he acted accordingly were his opinion.

Would be curious which wars you find dubious.......even Viet Nam had 65% support compared to 21% opposition in 1965 when we got involved. The consensus would been it was the "right" thing to do. Perhaps us withdrawing instead of staying the course, made it "dubious". Curious if Atlanta hadn't fell, peace democrats won in 64, and didn't pursue the war to a successful outcome militarily, how today's historians would judged that..........

 

[Belfoured]

I am confused by your statement.

First off any history teacher worth their salt will tell you the US has been involved in some very dubious wars.

Second, Grant is a soldier , His views are just that his views I'm sure many US servicemen felt the same way but fought for their country regardless.

Third , Warfare in the 19th C may have been about defending your country or serving your country but it was also about advancement and climbing the ladder of success it was the greatest opportunity any officer could have to advance his status or reputation.

Don't get me wrong Grant wasn't perfect but in every good book I read about him he always struck me as a man with a conscience a man who readily admitted to wrong doings or mistakes which in the 19th C was unusual because reputation meant everything.

Quite frankly I could have a beer with Grant in a local pub that's the sort of bloke he is unlike many cold fish of his rank in the ACW imho.

In particular it's nice to know that there are folks who have no problem with the fact that the alleged "attack" that enabled Polk to seek a declaration of war was on lawfully disputed turf. Why would anybody have doubts about the ethics/morality of the war? After all, the US ended up acquiring a lot of territory. Well, Lincoln did, for one. Interesting that those who don't think the US has been involved in some dubious conflicts - like the "Banana Wars", for example - bash Grant, Sherman, et al for the conflicts with Native Americans in the 1870's, which ended up in land grabs as well. "Ends justify the means" essentially tosses morality/ethics out the window.

As usual, it depends on who we're talking about. Here, it's Bogeyman Grant so that frames the result.

 

[archieclement]

In particular it's nice to know that there are folks who have no problem with the fact that the alleged "attack" that enabled Polk to seek a declaration of war was on lawfully disputed turf. Why would anybody have doubts about the ethics/morality of the war? After all, the US ended up acquiring a lot of territory. Well, Lincoln did, for one. Interesting that those who don't think the US has been involved in some dubious conflicts - like the "Banana Wars", for example - bash Grant, Sherman, et al for the conflicts with Native Americans in the 1870's, which ended up in land grabs as well. "Ends justify the means" essentially tosses morality/ethics out the window.

As usual, it depends on who we're talking about. Here, it's Bogeyman Grant so that frames the result.

Would seem more its influenced by it being marble man Grant, then any bogeyman Grant. As some seem not willing to accept Grants own view of his actions. And that Is whose view it concerns.......just as some will bend over backwards to defend his long association with slavery, that would be quick to attack anyone else for that level of involvement........

I respect and accept his opinion of both his morals and his ethics of how he acted or didn't act on those views, as certaintly being his opinion. Just as I do when he says for a rather long period he wasn't abolitionist or anti slavery, have no reason to take it he was being insincere, nor do I have any need for him to been squeaky clean for sainthood..........perhaps some do preferring some distorted marble man image.

His having a harsher view of Mexican war then I do, certainly doesn't make him any bogeyman to me. Neither does his being in slave household, or helping preserve the Union, or having been President.

And the United States doesn't exist without taking an ends justify the means act in treason to Britain, just as it wouldn't have expanded afterwards.........I have no issue with the end, nor consider it immoral. And the end is certainly the sum of events that got us here.

 

[Belfoured]

Would seem more its influenced by it being marble man Grant, then any bogeyman Grant. As some seem not willing to accept Grants own view of his actions. And that Is whose view it concerns.......just as some will bend over backwards to defend his long association with slavery, that would be quick to attack anyone else for that level of involvement........

I respect and accept his opinion of both his morals and his ethics of how he acted or didn't act on those views, as certaintly being his opinion. Just as I do when he says for a rather long period he wasn't abolitionist or anti slavery, have no reason to take it he was being insincere, nor do I have any need for him to been squeaky clean for sainthood..........perhaps some do preferring some distorted marble man image.

His having a harsher view of Mexican war then I do, certainly doesn't make him any bogeyman to me. Neither does his being in slave household, or helping preserve the Union, or having been President.

And the United States doesn't exist without taking an ends justify the means act in treason to Britain, just as it wouldn't have expanded afterwards.........I have no issue with the end, nor consider it immoral. And the end is certainly the sum of events that got us here.

Grant has never been a "marble man". For a long period after the Civil War he was actually stereotyped as a as a mindless butcher with no tactical acumen and a drinking problem to boot. His "rehabilitation" began with Fuller c. 1930, who pointed out that the stereotype was flawed from a military standpoint. Even today - after many more historians have examined what he did and come to similar conclusions to Fuller's - nobody disputes his flaws. Show me the qualified historian who says today that Grant wasn't surprised on April 6, 1862 or that the command arrangement he put in place with Burnside was a good idea or that the assaults on June 3, 1864 or July 30, 1864 were good ideas. Show me the consensus that he didn't have one type or another of a problem with alcohol. Show me the consensus that his eight years as President were an unqualified success. And the fact that Grant could at least admit some failings further dissipates the "marble man" image. If he admitted all his failings and mistake that might actually earn some sort of "marble man" status. Even admitting some separates him from most ACW figures. There are some figures in history that have been given - and by many continue to be given - "marble man" status. Show me the Grant biographer who has routinely paused in reverence when passing a statue of Grant.

Nobody's making Grant a "marble man" simply because they give him credit for criticizing himself. Thinking that they are by doing that is just bizarre.

As for "the ends justify the means", that's the rationale of every dictator who has ever tried to grab land. The reason the United States is different is that we are actually capable of introspection. It's why we try to follow the laws of war, prosecute our own troops who don't, etc etc. Always and perfectly? Not hardly. But far more than the places that live by "the ends justify the means".

 

[archieclement]

Grant has never been a "marble man". For a long period after the Civil War he was actually stereotyped as a as a mindless butcher with no tactical acumen and a drinking problem to boot. His "rehabilitation" began with Fuller c. 1930, who pointed out that the stereotype was flawed from a military standpoint. Even today - after many more historians have examined what he did and come to similar conclusions to Fuller's - nobody disputes his flaws. Show me the qualified historian who says today that Grant wasn't surprised on April 6, 1862 or that the command arrangement he put in place with Burnside was a good idea or that the assaults on June 3, 1864 or July 30, 1864 were good ideas. Show me the consensus that he didn't have one type or another of a problem with alcohol. Show me the consensus that his eight years as President were an unqualified success. And the fact that Grant could at least admit some failings further dissipates the "marble man" image. If he admitted all his failings and mistake that might actually earn some sort of "marble man" status. Even admitting some separates him from most ACW figures. There are some figures in history that have been given - and by many continue to be given - "marble man" status. Show me the Grant biographer who has routinely paused in reverence when passing a statue of Grant.

Nobody's making Grant a "marble man" simply because they give him credit for criticizing himself. Thinking that they are by doing that is just bizarre.

As for "the ends justify the means", that's the rationale of every dictator who has ever tried to grab land. The reason the United States is different is that we are actually capable of introspection. It's why we try to follow the laws of war, prosecute our own troops who don't, etc etc. Always and perfectly? Not hardly. But far more than the places that live by "the ends justify the means".

Indeed, I have gave him credit for criticizing himself, as had the thread, your the one who suggested his views made him " bogeyman Grant".

And again we are a sum of our actions, regardless of if you personally like the actions. And indeed the United States is different in the actions reflect the peoples morality.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed, I have gave him credit for criticizing himself, as had the thread, your the one who suggested his views made him " bogeyman Grant".

And again we are a sum of our actions, regardless of if you personally like the actions. And indeed the United States is different in the actions reflect the peoples morality.

You've given him "credit" so that you can present him as "unethical" or "lacking moral courage". It's a game - in my opinion, of course. I suggest that you and I are perfectly clear about each other's position. Your putting up post # 332 and my coming back with post #333 is unlikely to move the ball one inch. In an effort to forestall that, I will assume your disagreement with my first two sentences.

 

[GwilymT]

You've given him "credit" so that you can present him as "unethical" or "lacking moral courage". It's a game - in my opinion, of course. I suggest that you and I are perfectly clear about each other's position. Your putting up post # 332 and my coming back with post #333 is unlikely to move the ball one inch. In an effort to forestall that, I will assume your disagreement with my first two sentences.

It's the typical Boy Scout expedition to poke holes in others so that some can attempt to clothe the rebellion in some sort of decency. This entire thread is "whataboutism".

 

[Scott1967]

It's the typical Boy Scout expedition to poke holes in others so that some can attempt to clothe the rebellion in some sort of decency. This entire thread is "whataboutism".

I agree don't get me wrong their was some pretty nasty Union officers in the war with similar views on slavery to the South however Grant was not one of them in fact he was one of the best.

Grant was a murderer of Native Americans according to some , To which I answer no he wasn't he in fact his Indian policies probably saved the Plains Nations from extinction their were plenty of people who wanted them eradicated.

Grant was a butcher according to some , Again no he virtually won the war singled handed being on the offensive the vast majority of the time and his overland campaign although expensive in lives shortened the war and probably saved more lives than lost.

Grant was corrupt , No because show me a US president that wasn't i can think of maybe 2-3 that were squeaky clean.

Grant was a Slave owner , Yes he was for a whole year and then he set him free out of his own pocket people just need to stop trying justifying what the South did by using Grant as some harsh overseer of slaves it just isn't true like when he was on Hardscrabble Farm and couldn't manage his rented slaves because he was to kind.

When Grant went on his world tour and stopped in Britain he basically paid lip service to Liverpool , London , Birmingham those towns that provided money , arms and shipbuilding to the South but in Manchester he was worshipped he opened the new Town Hall and he made a two hour speech to the people of Manchester thanking them for their support of the Union in the war , This is the same Manchester where the industrial revolution was born the same Manchester where Karl Marx wrote his theories and where they split the atom and built the first computer and Emmeline Pankhurst started the Suffragette movement , You see Manchester is very left leaning city and they pick and chose their heroes very carefully and Grant and Lincoln are Heroes in Manchester one opened our town hall the other has a statue bang in the centre of town.

 

[EHParks]

I agree don't get me wrong their was some pretty nasty Union officers in the war with similar views on slavery to the South however Grant was not one of them in fact he was one of the best.

Grant was a murderer of Native Americans according to some , To which I answer no he wasn't he in fact his Indian policies probably saved the Plains Nations from extinction their were plenty of people who wanted them eradicated.

Grant was a butcher according to some , Again no he virtually won the war singled handed being on the offensive the vast majority of the time and his overland campaign although expensive in lives shortened the war and probably saved more lives than lost.

Grant was corrupt , No because show me a US president that wasn't i can think of maybe 2-3 that were squeaky clean.

Grant was a Slave owner , Yes he was for a whole year and then he set him free out of his own pocket people just need to stop trying justifying what the South did by using Grant as some harsh overseer of slaves it just isn't true like when he was on Hardscrabble Farm and couldn't manage his rented slaves because he was to kind.

When Grant went on his world tour and stopped in Britain he basically paid lip service to Liverpool , London , Birmingham those towns that provided money , arms and shipbuilding to the South but in Manchester he was worshipped he opened the new Town Hall and he made a two hour speech to the people of Manchester thanking them for their support of the Union in the war , This is the same Manchester where the industrial revolution was born the same Manchester where Karl Marx wrote his theories and where they split the atom and built the first computer and Emmeline Pankhurst started the Suffragette movement , You see Manchester is very left leaning city and they pick and chose their heroes very carefully and Grant and Lincoln are Heroes in Manchester one opened our town hall the other has a statue bang in the centre of town.

The working men and women of Britain, Manchester in particular, directly influenced Parliament and public debate against supporting the slavery of the South, despite the very real hardships the economic disruption the loss of American cotton had on the country before other sources were developed. Many did so because of their Christian faith communities and the western abolitionist movement they engendered.

 

[uaskme]

The working men and women of Britain, Manchester in particular, directly influenced Parliament and public debate against supporting the slavery of the South, despite the very real hardships the economic disruption the loss of American cotton had on the country before other sources were developed. Many did so because of their Christian faith communities and the western abolitionist movement they engendered.

On the other hand. Mill owners used this time to close unproductive mills and retool others. They prospered during the war. Other facets of the British economy erased the affects of the lower cotton production. Some of these Textile workers were exploited. Comparisons have been made between them and slavery.

Also England's Industrial development was based on Slavery. As well as the Norths. Here is a good article explaining some of it.

Slavery, coerced labour, and the development of industrial capitalism in Britain

In 1860, decades after the abolition of slavery in Britain, the British economy was more reliant on slave labour than ever before. Mark Harvey explores the links between coerced labour and the production of three crucial commodities: guns,…

www.historyworkshop.org.uk

 

[CavRTO]

On the other hand. Mill owners used this time to close unproductive mills and retool others. They prospered during the war. Other facets of the British economy erased the affects of the lower cotton production. Some of these Textile workers were exploited. Comparisons have been made between them and slavery.

Also England's Industrial development was based on Slavery. As well as the Norths. Here is a good article explaining some of it.

Slavery, coerced labour, and the development of industrial capitalism in Britain

In 1860, decades after the abolition of slavery in Britain, the British economy was more reliant on slave labour than ever before. Mark Harvey explores the links between coerced labour and the production of three crucial commodities: guns,…

www.historyworkshop.org.uk

Since there were no labor laws you might say that it was capitalism at its purest. Workers received a paycheck and that's all. Every employee was an "at will" employee. It was more like servitude.

 

[GwilymT]

On the other hand. Mill owners used this time to close unproductive mills and retool others. They prospered during the war. Other facets of the British economy erased the affects of the lower cotton production. Some of these Textile workers were exploited. Comparisons have been made between them and slavery.

Also England's Industrial development was based on Slavery. As well as the Norths. Here is a good article explaining some of it.

Slavery, coerced labour, and the development of industrial capitalism in Britain

In 1860, decades after the abolition of slavery in Britain, the British economy was more reliant on slave labour than ever before. Mark Harvey explores the links between coerced labour and the production of three crucial commodities: guns,…

www.historyworkshop.org.uk

This shows that the whole rebel idea of "king cotton" bringing the international community to its knees was quite fanciful. What a bad bet on the part of rebel leadership.

 

[uaskme]

This shows that the whole rebel idea of "king cotton" bringing the international community to its knees was quite fanciful. What a bad bet on the part of rebel leadership.

To me it shows how Naive you would have to believe that the Brits and North were these beacons of Liberty. North did the same thing to poor immigrants that England did to these textile workers and worse to the Irish. North also treated Asians or anyone else who threatened Free White Labor as Enemies.

Someone This Naive would believe all of this Revisionist Self-aggrandizement of Grant. Believe Grant only participated in Slavery for a Year. Believe he saved Native Americans. Believe he supported Black rights for anything but what benefit him Politically. Believe only those who were in his Government were Corrupt but not Him. Guess he was too stupid to be Corrupt?

 

[RobertP]

… When Grant went on his world tour and stopped in Britain he basically paid lip service to Liverpool , London , Birmingham those towns that provided money , arms and shipbuilding to the South but in Manchester he was worshipped he opened the new Town Hall and he made a two hour speech to the people of Manchester thanking them for their support of the Union in the war , This is the same Manchester where the industrial revolution was born the same Manchester where Karl Marx wrote his theories and where they split the atom and built the first computer and Emmeline Pankhurst started the Suffragette movement , You see Manchester is very left leaning city and they pick and chose their heroes very carefully and Grant and Lincoln are Heroes in Manchester one opened our town hall the other has a statue bang in the centre of town.

That nails it. Any place that reveres Marx and Engels, as well as Grant, has my vote!

 

[EHParks]

On the other hand. Mill owners used this time to close unproductive mills and retool others. They prospered during the war. Other facets of the British economy erased the affects of the lower cotton production. Some of these Textile workers were exploited. Comparisons have been made between them and slavery.

Also England's Industrial development was based on Slavery. As well as the Norths. Here is a good article explaining some of it.

Slavery, coerced labour, and the development of industrial capitalism in Britain

In 1860, decades after the abolition of slavery in Britain, the British economy was more reliant on slave labour than ever before. Mark Harvey explores the links between coerced labour and the production of three crucial commodities: guns,…

www.historyworkshop.org.uk

I'm not here to refight long ago class wars.