Grant US Grant ethics?

[uaskme]

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

Here are some of the benefits of the Manchester Textile Workers.

Working conditions in factories - Industry — textile factories and coal mines - National 5 History Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about and revise industry and working conditions in Britain 1760 to 1900 with BBC Bitesize National 5 History.

www.bbc.co.uk

Do doubt these workers hoped that ending Slavery would help their pitiful position, God Help Them. However, about every bale of Cotton that came from the US was produced by Slave Labor or Worse. Yankees did lease Plantations and produced cotton, Often times Blacks were not paid and treated worse by the Yankee. Lincoln traded and stole every pound of Cotton he could. Shipped to England all that he could. He didn't have a problem with Slave produced Cotton. He did have a problem with the South direct trading with England. Reason he floated a boat of sacrifice to Ft Sumpter.

England tried to produce cotton in Egypt and India. In 20 years it was of poor quality and unproductive.

Appreciate your participation.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Having a crappy job and being a slave are not the same thing.

 

[Dead Parrott]

And nowhere near the topic of the thread, either.

 

[Belfoured]

Having a crappy job and being a slave are not the same thing.

Having a crappy job doesn't entitle the employer to legally sell the wife and kids, just for example.

 

[Lost Cause]

Having a crappy job doesn't entitle the employer to legally sell the wife and kids, just for example.

We might include hiring out those servants to help recover from financial hardships as justification. I'm sure Julia would get a pass due to her financial hardship with Hiram and struggle for her own "domestic independence." Of course, by today's standards, we cannot associate her questionable profitability with his own reputation as they ventured into Illinois, regardless if they shared finances.

 

[GwilymT]

We might include hiring out those servants to help recover from financial hardships as justification. I'm sure Julia would get a pass due to her financial hardship with Hiram and struggle for her own "domestic independence." Of course, by today's standards, we cannot associate her questionable profitability with his own reputation as they ventured into Illinois, regardless if they shared finances.

Better than not having two pennies to rub together and having your only economic and social standing dependent upon your wife and her inheritance of slaves, which you refuse to free per the terms of the inheritance.

Talk about a freeloader. At least Grant kept trying different things, put his back into it, until it worked. What's more American than that? Patrician Virginia Slaveocracy? LOL.

As an American, I'll take hardscrabble Grant over riding name recognition and wife coattails Lee any day.

 

[Belfoured]

Better than not having two pennies to rub together and having your only economic and social standing dependent upon your wife and her inheritance of slaves, which you refuse to free per the terms of the inheritance.

Talk about a freeloader. At least Grant kept trying different things, put his back into it, until it worked. What's more American than that? Patrician Virginia Slaveocracy? LOL.

"The will made me do it. That's why I asked the court to extend it."

 

[John Hartwell]

Having a crappy job and being a slave are not the same thing.

At the very least, if you decide to quit that crappy job, they won't be tracking you down with bloodhounds to drag you back.

 

[archieclement]

And nowhere near the topic of the thread, either.

Indeed the Op was Grants view of the Mexican war and his view of his actions or inaction based on those views.

 

[uaskme]

At the very least, if you decide to quit that crappy job, they won't be tracking you down with bloodhounds to drag you back.

Sounds about like what the egalitarian Republican Federal Government did to the Native Americans. For all the right Moral Reasons no less. Grant SAVED them. LOL

 

[breckod]

Sounds about like what the egalitarian Republican Federal Government did to the Native Americans. For all the right Moral Reasons no less. Grant SAVED them. LOL

Complete and utter non-sequitur.

 

[John Hartwell]

Sounds about like what the egalitarian Republican Federal Government did to the Native Americans. For all the right Moral Reasons no less. Grant SAVED them. LOL

Thank you for reminding us that we should all be WOKE to the fact that the USA (whatever the currently dominant party) has had a lot to answer for as far as racism and social justice are concerned. Great progress has been made -- Constitutional Amendments, federal legislation -- generally pushed through by a few good men and women, often in spite of their own personal prejudices -- so that the legal framework for equality is there. But, our efforts at putting that egalitarian 'framework' into actual operation has been slow, intermittent, and sometimes fallen short. The "hearts and the minds" of our people have proven harder to reform than our political/legal system.

Sorry to be off-topic. Now can we get back to the current U. S. Grant hatchet-job err thread?

 

[A. Roy]

I've responded to this thread a couple of times, but with the caveat that I had not read Grant's memoirs. However, I'm reading them now and am in the section about the Mexican war. Grant does say that he was at the time opposed to the annexation of Texas and thought the war was unjust.

I mentioned in a previous post that I wondered whether Grant was, in his memoirs, trying to make the case that the Mexican War and the American Civil War were closely connected and were both tied to the issue of slavery. I do think now that that's what he was trying to do, although in his memoir he doesn't seem to say that he was opposed to slavery at that time in his career (1840s). He was writing in 1885, and was evaluating the Mexican war in retrospect.

The key passage to me is this one on page 34:

"The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

He sees the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War as part of the longer-term effort to expand slaveholding territory, an effort which later led to the southern secession.

ARB

 

[archieclement]

I've responded to this thread a couple of times, but with the caveat that I had not read Grant's memoirs. However, I'm reading them now and am in the section about the Mexican war. Grant does say that he was at the time opposed to the annexation of Texas and thought the war was unjust.

I mentioned in a previous post that I wondered whether Grant was, in his memoirs, trying to make the case that the Mexican War and the American Civil War were closely connected and were both tied to the issue of slavery. I do think now that that's what he was trying to do, although in his memoir he doesn't seem to say that he was opposed to slavery at that time in his career (1840s). He was writing in 1885, and was evaluating the Mexican war in retrospect.

The key passage to me is this one on page 34:

"The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

He sees the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War as part of the longer-term effort to expand slaveholding territory, an effort which later led to the southern secession.

ARB

But that's a bit confusing, as the period he says he wasn't abolishionist or anti slavery is during his association with the slave owning Dent family, so it would make little sense his objection of Mexican war was connected to slavery. He was already engaged (1844) and benefiting from Dent slaves before the Mexican War. He likely was around and benefiting from slaves at Jefferson Barracks as well.

 

[A. Roy]

But that's a bit confusing, as the period he says he wasn't abolishionist or anti slavery is during his association with the slave owning Dent family, so it would make little sense his objection of Mexican war was connected to slavery. He was already engaged (1844) and benefiting from Dent slaves before the Mexican War. He likely was around and benefiting from slaves at Jefferson Barracks as well.

That's partly what I'm trying to get at here. He says we was opposed to the Mexican war, but because it was unfair to Mexico. He does connect the Mexican and Civil War together around the slavery issue, but any antislavery opinions seem to be retrospective -- the 1885 Grant rather than the 1846 Grant.
ARB

 

[DanSBHawk]

That's partly what I'm trying to get at here. He says we was opposed to the Mexican war, but because it was unfair to Mexico. He does connect the Mexican and Civil War together around the slavery issue, but any antislavery opinions seem to be retrospective -- the 1885 Grant rather than the 1846 Grant.
ARB

I didn't get the impression that the 1846 Grant was thinking about the big picture. The misgivings in his letters were about the bloodshed and the people who were suffering for the actions of the wealthy and powerful.

The 1885 Grant was benefiting from hindsight and a more mature viewpoint.

 

[Belfoured]

Thank you for reminding us that we should all be WOKE to the fact that the USA (whatever the currently dominant party) has had a lot to answer for as far as racism and social justice are concerned. Great progress has been made -- amendments, federal legislation, generally pushed through by a few good men and women, often in spite of their own personal prejudices -- so that the legal framework for equality is there. But, our efforts at putting that egalitarian 'framework' into actual operation has been slow, intermittent, and sometimes fallen short. The "hearts and the minds" of our people have proven harder to reform than our political/legal system.

Sorry to be off-topic. Now can we get back to the current U. S. Grant hatchet-job err thread?

Just one brief "off-topic" follow up to your well thought-out "off-topic" post. One thing going under the radar - as is true of most things involving Native Americans - is the ongoing addressing of the results from the well-intentioned (at the time) but fundamentally wrong process in the late 19th-20th century of forcibly pulling kids from their cultures and families and sticking them in "Indian schools" to make them "white". Both here and in Canada we are at least doing something - late as it is - to recognize this as well as the land grabs that a lot of our institutions benefited from. Things like exhuming remains at these "Indian Schools" and bringing them back to their homelands are part of that.

 

[121st PA Vols]

That he himself stated he didn't have the moral courage to resign.

The judgement was his, I assume he's better able to judge his ethics then anyone, as he's the only one that knows for sure his moral view..

Why I usually try to refrain from calling someone unethical or immoral, as I cannot know their morality at the time of the actions, ethics goes to their morality not mine. As well i recognize morality certainly varied to eras. Here's an instance of the individual himself acknowledging an ethical failure however.

I could state I view something immoral of a different era, but it offers nothing as to if they did, which their ethics would involve what they believed, not mine 150 yrs later.

Thank you.