Grant US Grant ethics?

[archieclement]

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

It is true, as the internal politics of Mexico was not our concern in reality.

I doubt we would view some nation intervening in one of our territories or land grabs as acceptable..........either then or today.

Its ironic Grant was willing to serve in what could be considered Imperialist land grab by us as well manifest destiny in the west.........but then think others shouldnt.

 

[Jantzen64]

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.

I don't understand your fascination with virtue signalling, or its relevance to the discussion, but if it makes you happy . . .

As to Lincoln's connection to Grant, they did spend "some time" together during the war.

The view that the calamity of the war was some sort of Divine Retribution for national sins was fairly common. See, e.g., http://npshistory.com/series/symposia/rally_high_ground/chap7.htm.

With regard to the letter to Washburne, you need to look at the entirety of the quote: I never was an abolitionist, not even what could be called anti-slavery, but I try to judge fairly and honestly and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled.

So, contrary to your characterization, Grant is unequivocally saying - in August 1863, while the war is still raging, and after the EP has been announced - that slavery had to go. He was honest enough to admit that that position is not where he started (opposite of virtue signalling, btw), but that he came to it due to his war experiences. That position is fairly typical/common of those from the North who saw the war firsthand. Pretty frank and honest.

As a former officer in the Mexican War, general in the ACW and president of the US, Grant certainly had an interest in commenting upon the history vis a vis Mexico. His Memoirs - reflecting those comments - were certainly successful.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It is true, as the internal politics of Mexico was not our concern in reality.

I doubt we would view some nation intervening in one of our territories or land grabs as acceptable..........either then or today.

Its ironic Grant was willing to serve in what could be considered Imperialist land grab by us as well manifest destiny in the west.........but then think others shouldnt.

No, you made it sound like Grant wanted a 'strong against weak' war against Mexico. In fact, Grant's issue was with France, and he wanted France out of Mexico, to let Mexico be independent.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

What's interesting is that in March 1964 - while Staubach was at USNA - the statute was amended so that the agreement to service commitment went from 3 years to 5 years. So far as I know, a middie (or cadet) has always needed "permission" to resign before the service commitment is up (in which case they have to accept a commission in the Reserve until the required service period is completed). The statute also contains a minimum two-year service threshold before the middie can request release from the rest of the commitment for "athletic" employment.

 

[archieclement]

No, you made it sound like Grant wanted a 'strong against weak' war against Mexico. In fact, Grant's issue was with France, and he wanted France out of Mexico, to let Mexico be independent.

Mexico was still a weak nation, and Maximillion was indeed the head of state of Mexico......a nation. So I made it sound as it actually would have been.

Again whether you like the nation, or the head of state, doesn't change it.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Mexico was still a weak nation, and Maximillion was indeed the head of state of Mexico......a nation. So I made it sound as it actually would have been.

Again whether you like the nation, or the head of state, doesn't change it.

Noted, that you never mention France. It's a misrepresentation of Grant's views and of the situation.

 

[CavRTO]

What's interesting is that in March 1964 - while Staubach was at USNA - the statute was amended so that the agreement to service commitment went from 3 years to 5 years. So far as I know, a middie (or cadet) has always needed "permission" to resign before the service commitment is up (in which case they have to accept a commission in the Reserve until the required service period is completed). The statute also contains a minimum two-year service threshold before the middie can request release from the rest of the commitment for "athletic" employment.

After VN when the services were downsizing I would imagine a lot of academy grads found themselves finishing up their obligations in the reserves sooner than expected.

 

[archieclement]

Noted, that you never mention France. It's a misrepresentation of Grant's views and of the situation.

Because it was Mexico, not France............and not a misrepresention, as previously stated Mexico was acually a nation, and Maximillion actually its head of state at the time.

 

[RobertP]

After VN when the services were downsizing I would imagine a lot of academy grads found themselves finishing up their obligations in the reserves sooner than expected.

No doubt. I got my commission through ROTC in December '71. During my last semester probably 90% of the cadets, at least 100, were put into a newly formed group called ADT - active duty for training. It called for 3 months active duty and 8 years in the reserves as opposed to the original commitment of 2 years active and 4 reserve. The Army had way more 2nd Lts. than they knew what to do with and I don't remember anyone complaining.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Because it was Mexico, not France............and not a misrepresention, as previously stated Mexico was acually a nation, and Maximillion actually its head of state at the time.

Nope. Maximiliian was an Austrian duke, and a puppet of France. The actual head of state for Mexico, as legally recognized by the US, was Benito Juarez.

 

[RobertP]

No doubt. I got my commission through ROTC in December '71. During my last semester probably 90% of the cadets, at least 100, were put into a newly formed group called ADT - active duty for training. It called for 3 months active duty and 8 years in the reserves as opposed to the original commitment of 2 years active and 4 reserve. The Army had way more 2nd Lts. than they knew what to do with and I don't remember anyone complaining.

An interesting thing about that ADT group at LSU was that there were about 10 football players off a very good Top Ten squad in it. That was the same team that lost (barely) 3-0 to a #2 Notre Dame team in South Bend featuring Joe Theismann and Walt Patulski and ended up in the Orange Bowl vs #1 Nebraska. I don't think you would ever see that today.

 

[archieclement]

Nope. Maximiliian was an Austrian duke, and a puppet of France. The actual head of state for Mexico, as legally recognized by the US, was Benito Juarez.

And Maximillion by most the world as Mexico's head of state. As intervention had occured because Mexico refused to pay its International debts.

Intervening for the Juaristas would been little different then a nation intervening for the Confederacy. US should have pressured the Juaristas to agree to pay their debts if we were concerned......

Of course Grant helping to seize Mexican lands from Mexico probably neither helped Mexicos debts or their ability to pay them........

 

[EHParks]

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.

There is a very real distinction between the States under the Articles of Confederation and the Republic under the Constitution. If there isn't, then the war was for nothing.

All of these arguments were put forth and rejected in one form or another by court, by legislation, and eventually by violence. In every state in the South there was opposition to secession and support for the Union and those people helped rebuild the nation as did many of those who rebelled.

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.

I believe he spent the rest of his life founding counties all over the U.S.

 

[Belfoured]

An interesting thing about that ADT group at LSU was that there were about 10 football players off a very good Top Ten squad in it. That was the same team that lost (barely) 3-0 to a #2 Notre Dame team in South Bend featuring Joe Theismann and Walt Patulski and ended up in the Orange Bowl vs #1 Nebraska. I don't think you would ever see that today.

Very interesting - I didn't know the ADT piece. I was at that game in the home student section - decided by a FG in the 4th. IIRC LSU was no. 5 or 6 at the time. (The next week we went out to LA and got clocked by SC 38-28 in a driving rainstorm with 8 TO's). Minor issue - the bowl game that year was the Cotton against No. 1 Texas, which ND won 24-11. The Orange Bowl against Nebraska was two years later and was a 6-40 debacle.

 

[121st PA Vols]

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.

Balderdash! It raises no questions about his morality. Read GwilymT's thoughts again.

 

[CavRTO]

No doubt. I got my commission through ROTC in December '71. During my last semester probably 90% of the cadets, at least 100, were put into a newly formed group called ADT - active duty for training. It called for 3 months active duty and 8 years in the reserves as opposed to the original commitment of 2 years active and 4 reserve. The Army had way more 2nd Lts. than they knew what to do with and I don't remember anyone complaining.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

Grant's professed distaste for the war against Mexico came after the fact. He didn't seem to express that opinion at the time and, in fact, wrote things that were rather the opposite.

 

[archieclement]

Balderdash! It raises no questions about his morality. Read GwilymT's thoughts again.

His morality was clear, he thought it the most unjust war ever. "Most unjust" is certainly a moral judgement. Its ethics if he acted on his morality or not............

 

[JeffFromSyracuse]

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

I don't know of the exact rule - I don't study 20th/21st Century military history. But my statement can be surmised from the pre-war class rolls, as pulled the service record in Cullum's Register (see link below.)

Louis Hebert of Wilson's Creek and Pea Ridge fame resigned soon after graduation in 1845. Thomas Johns resigned 3 years after graduating in 1848. Norman Etling resigned graduated in 1843 and had resigned within 3 years to farm.

Polk resigned soon after graduation because he could, not because the government endorsed his decision to pursue religion.

West Point: Class of 1843 • Cullum's Register

Part of a large site on West Point. Parent site on American history includes 6200 webpages, 92 books, 38,000 pages of print.

penelope.uchicago.edu

 

[NedBaldwin]

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.

Mostly nonsense and rubbish invented after the fact to make what Lee did sound better. He had made an oath of loyalty to the country of the USA; he had made no such oath to Virginia. There was no higher loyalty. He had a choice just as others had choices including several in a similar situation (George Thomas). Lee got offered a better position in Richmond and took it.