Grant US Grant ethics?

[Jantzen64]

Safe to dismiss most of it as far as I'm concerned.

Can you tell me more about Grant's Virtue Signaling? Was Grant referring that the Confederacy was being punished by the Federal Government who propagated the war against Mexico. Or did Grant think the whole country was being punished? Was God doing the punishing?

Well, if we dismiss it all, then there is no reason to be using the interview with Young to question Grant's ethics.

Not sure what more you want to know about what you are labeling virtue signalling, but happy to oblige to the extent I can, if you specify. Lincoln in his Second Inaugural referred to the war as God's punishment to the country - both North and South - for allowing slavery to continue. He used similar phraseology in his proclamation announcing a national day of fasting. Disagree with that characterization all you want based on your modern day views, but it certainly was a view espoused publicly while the war was still raging.

 

[archieclement]

Wait a minute someone who calls himself Archie Clement questions military ethics?

Archie Clement was born in Moniteau County, Missouri, on January 1, 1846. He joined the Confederate guerrillas under Captain William "Bloody Bill" Anderson in 1861 and, by the time he was 17, had already become a lieutenant. A very small man, weighing just about 130 pounds and standing just over five feet tall, he made up with it with his fearlessness and as an expert pistol shot. He quickly took a prominent role in Anderson's military operations, including the raid on Lawrence, Kansas, where some 150 men were killed and the town was burned. He also participated in the Centralia, Missouri massacre, where 23 Union soldiers were robbed and shot.

And where have I said I thought Clement either ethical or not criminal?

As I have related before the name goes back to to over 15 years ago and another chat room. It was from Major Montgomery who lead the ambush that killed Archie, who said he'd never met a man on the face of the earth with more grit. I had certainly grew up watching movies such as true grit.

If your point is there was many ethical questions in ACW, and people who fell short, I certainly agree. Or was this merely the classic misdirect from the actual subject of the OP?

 

[archieclement]

Well, if we dismiss it all, then there is no reason to be using the interview with Young to question Grant's ethics.

Not sure what more you want to know about what you are labeling virtue signalling, but happy to oblige to the extent I can, if you specify. Lincoln in his Second Inaugural referred to the war as God's punishment to the country - both North and South - for allowing slavery to continue. He used similar phraseology in his proclamation announcing a national day of fasting. Disagree with that characterization all you want based on your modern day views, but it certainly was a view espoused publicly while the war was still raging.

Is there some connection between Lincolns view to Grant? Though I'm also not sure as to virtue signaling after the fact by Grant.

Here on Mexican War he is noting his own lack of courage to act on his convictions.

In 1863, with slavery on its last legs, instead of claiming he was against it or had reservations, he instead states he hadnt been an abolishionist, or could even been considered anti slavery.

Would think both would been rather frank and open admissions, and not particularly self serving in regards to virtue signaling. The honesty to me seems the opposite. Was there significant anti Mexican War sentiment as late as the 1870's to even signal to? Would have thought considering the territorial gains to the US, (3rd largest in our history) 30 years later it would have subsided. A. Roy said the Young interview dated 1879, or least book did.

 

[GwilymT]

General Lee considered Virginia to be his country. Not the United States, which was and technically still is a federation of Independent states. Therefore his loyalty to Virginia superseded his oath to the United States and its Constitution which he believed marginalised and was attempting to and had subjugated his country to the Federation by making laws which, without consultation subverted and claimed precedence over the laws of Virginia. So when Virginia seceded he had no other choice but to resign his commission with the Union Army and join the army of his country or be considered a traitor. It must be remembered that Virginia while a member of the Confederate States of America and housed the Capitol of the Confederacy was an independent Country within the Confederacy as were all the other states that constituted the Confederacy.
Interestingly it was for that exact reason one of his ancestors Richard Henry Lee proposed independence from Great Britain and Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee were both signatories to the final document.

That's what some folks say, quite incorrect but some apologists do believe it.

 

[A. Roy]

Indeed historical figures mistakes or ethical failures, to me just demonstrate they were like everyone else in not being infalliable, so were not "marble men".

To me great men should be commerated not because they were comic book stereotypes, but because they were great despite imperfections everyone has.

To me this is the important lesson here. I find things to admire about Grant. In fact, I find him more appealing due to his admitting to a failure. It helps to emphasize that these larger-than-life characters we study were after all imperfect human beings who were subject to making mistakes.
ARB

 

[archieclement]

To me this is the important lesson here. I find things to admire about Grant. In fact, I find him more appealing due to his admitting to a failure. It helps to emphasize that these larger-than-life characters we study were after all imperfect human beings who were subject to making mistakes.
ARB

Indeed, I admire Lincoln who was somewhat also a juxtaposition of ethical dilemmas in that he often subordinates his personal views. Though personally I think he's a better example of personal sense of duty over personal opinions.

 

[1SGDan]

If your point is there was many ethical questions in ACW, and people who fell short, I certainly agree.

My point is that war, any war, brings out the best and worst of the participants.

 

[JeffFromSyracuse]

Grant had an active duty responsibility to serve as part of his contract to get a free education at West Point. He didn't have a say except, "yes sir, yes sir, two bags full".

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.

 

[RobertP]

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.

Exactly.

 

[1SGDan]

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.

Didn't Grant leave the army for a time and then return when the war started?

 

[JeffFromSyracuse]

Didn't Grant leave the army for a time and then return when the war started?

Nope. Served for 10 years after graduating.

Edit: He was out of the army before the Civil War, but not before the Mexican War.

 

[EHParks]

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.

You say "nation" I say "rebellion"...let's call the whole thing off...(apologies to Noel Coward).

 

[CavRTO]

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.

Could you please cite the reference of your response? I can find nothing to substantiate your claim. Thanx.

 

[A. Roy]

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.

I know some of our colleagues here have read Grant's memoirs in their entirety. They're on my reading list, but I can't speak yet to his overall narrative. Reading this section having to do with the genesis of the Mexican War, though, I do wonder whether it is part of a larger argument he's trying to make about the annexation of Texas and the war on Mexico. He goes on to suggest that the real motivation was to expand slaveholding territory (if I read him correctly).
ARB

 

[RobertP]

Could you please cite the reference of your response? I can find nothing to substantiate your claim. Thanx.

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.

 

[DanSBHawk]

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.

This is not true. Grant supported Mexican independence and an end to French involvement in Mexico.

 

[CavRTO]

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.

Polk's resignation may have accepted because of his desire to be of greater service to God. Which at that time would have carried great weight with Army commanders. However, it still doesn't answer whether or not you could just up and resign your commission after the government spent a lot of money for your education. Right now graduates have an 8 year obligation to serve. Nothing I've read said there was ever a time when you were under no obligation or when the requirement for an obligation started.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

That's why I drew a distinction between peace time service and resigning in the context of a war. Fundamentally different considerations. The oath that these officers took before 1861 specified "I, [ ], do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to
bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever ..." Common sense.

 

[RobertP]

Polk's resignation may have accepted because of his desire to be of greater service to God. Which at that time would have carried great weight with Army commanders. However, it still doesn't answer whether or not you could just up and resign your commission after the government spent a lot of money for your education. Right now graduates have an 8 year obligation to serve. Nothing I've read said there was ever a time when you were under no obligation or when the requirement for an obligation started.

Then they must have increased the service obligation time. Roger Staubach, Annapolis grad, had a five year obligation in the 1960's. I think he served 4 before going to the Dallas Cowboys.

My grandfather was in the West Point class of 1906. I don't know how many years he served but for sure know that by 1910 he was teaching math at Mississippi State.

 

[CavRTO]

Then they must have increased the service obligation time. Roger Staubach, Annapolis grad, had a five year obligation in the 1960's. I think he served 4 before going to the Dallas Cowboys.

My grandfather was in the West Point class of 1906. I don't know how many years he served but for sure know that by 1910 he was teaching math at Mississippi State.

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.