Grant US Grant ethics?

[DanSBHawk]

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........

You know, you could just admit that your post about Grant and Mexico after the Civil War was wrong.

 

[Library Lady]

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

Here is another gent who graduated from West Point but didn't have a military career. After 2 years' service teaching engineering at West Point (he'd graduated first in the class of 1829), he eventually made his way to Iowa where he had a judicial career of some note. He also served for a time as US Commissioner of Patents and took the then almost unheard of step of hiring women as clerks, including Clara Barton.

The Only Man to Beat Robert E. Lee in an Even Fight – The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable

www.clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com

 

[archieclement]

You know, you could just admit that your post about Grant and Mexico after the Civil War was wrong.

It was wrong in I misspoke and said presidency, it was just postwar.

It was hardly wrong in Mexico was a nation. And Maximillion was indeed the recognized leader to most established nations. Our or Grant's opinion doesn't change the actual international recognition and legitimacy that goes with International recognition. Nor in that intervention had occured because of Mexicos own failures to the international community, so its rather murky to claim it was illegitimate or unfair. Defaulting on ones debt is also, one that had consequences.

 

[Library Lady]

It's been awhile since I read anything about Maximilian and Carlota so I went looking for something to refresh my memory.

This is from the Office of the Historian of the US State Department.

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

This is from Phil Leigh by way of the New York Times (is this our @Philip Leigh ?).

Maximilian in Mexico

The French took advantage of the Civil War to install an Austrian archduke as emperor of Mexico.

archive.nytimes.com

And just because we like vintage things, a paper on the subject from the Columbia Historical Society cerca 1910-1911.

Maximilian and His Mexican Empire on JSTOR

John W. Foster, Maximilian and His Mexican Empire, Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., Vol. 14 (1911), pp. 184-204

www.jstor.org

 

[CavRTO]

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

Thanx. Learned something new.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

Shocking, of course, that you would work in the label "professed". I have two cousins who served faithfully as USMC officers in Viet Nam. At the time one of them commented to family about offensive treatment of local civilians by US personnel, just as Grant wrote about to Julia in July 1847. Following the war both came to see it as "wrong" for the US to have intervened on the side of a corrupt regime in what was essentially a civil war. One of them became involved in developing close ties with descendants of those he fought against. Anybody who questions the sincerity of their second takes is writing fiction based on ignorance. Not all of the facts about how the Mexican War actually started were known at the time. In 1846-47 Grant was doing his duty pursuant to his oath.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It's clear from Grant's letters home from Mexico that he had some misgivings. While most of his writing pertains to loving and missing Julia and planning for their future, there are several comments about the war that reflect empathy for the Mexicans.

August 1846:
"For my part I believe we are bound to beat the Mexicans whenever and where ever we meet them, no matter how large their numbers. But then wherever there are battles a great many must suffer, and for the sake of the little glory gained I do not care to see it."

September 1846:
"I am getting very tired of this war, and particularly impatient of being separated from one I love so much..."

October 1846:
"I dont believe that we will ever advance beyond this place, for it is generally believed that Mexico has -rec'd our Minister and a few months more will restore us to amity. I hope it may be so for fighting is no longer a pleasure."

February 1847:
"I have long since been tired enough of this country but I suppose I will have to see the war out."

April 1847:
"It is a great pity that people compose the Mexican soldiery should be made the tools for some proud and ambitious General to work out his advancement with."

May 1847:
"Although we are now within a few days march of the capital of the Mexican Republic I do not see that the chances for peace brighten in the least. The people are proud and subject to the will of a few and they have no government to act for them"

August 1847:
"Too much blood has been shed. Is it ended, or will hostilities be resumed?"

September 1847:
"At present Gen. Scott will let no officer leave who is able for duty not even if he tenders his resignation. So you see it is not so easy to get out of the wars as it is to get into them."

January 1848:
"I pity poor Mexico. With a soil and climate scarsely equaled in the world she has more poor and starving subjects who are willing and able to work than any country in the world. The rich keep down the poor with a hardness of heart that is incredible."

I would say that, for a 25 year old, Grant had an admirable sense of morals and ethics.

 

[GwilymT]

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

Correct.

 

[GwilymT]

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.

Only Rob Lee can get a free education and have no obligation to serve, LOL.

 

[GwilymT]

It's clear from Grant's letters home from Mexico that he had some misgivings. While most of his writing pertains to loving and missing Julia and planning for their future, there are several comments about the war that reflect empathy for the Mexicans.

August 1846:
"For my part I believe we are bound to beat the Mexicans whenever and where ever we meet them, no matter how large their numbers. But then wherever there are battles a great many must suffer, and for the sake of the little glory gained I do not care to see it."

September 1846:
"I am getting very tired of this war, and particularly impatient of being separated from one I love so much..."

October 1846:
"I dont believe that we will ever advance beyond this place, for it is generally believed that Mexico has -rec'd our Minister and a few months more will restore us to amity. I hope it may be so for fighting is no longer a pleasure."

February 1847:
"I have long since been tired enough of this country but I suppose I will have to see the war out."

April 1847:
"It is a great pity that people compose the Mexican soldiery should be made the tools for some proud and ambitious General to work out his advancement with."

May 1847:
"Although we are now within a few days march of the capital of the Mexican Republic I do not see that the chances for peace brighten in the least. The people are proud and subject to the will of a few and they have no government to act for them"

August 1847:
"Too much blood has been shed. Is it ended, or will hostilities be resumed?"

September 1847:
"At present Gen. Scott will let no officer leave who is able for duty not even if he tenders his resignation. So you see it is not so easy to get out of the wars as it is to get into them."

January 1848:
"I pity poor Mexico. With a soil and climate scarsely equaled in the world she has more poor and starving subjects who are willing and able to work than any country in the world. The rich keep down the poor with a hardness of heart that is incredible."

I would say that, for a 25 year old, Grant had an admirable sense of morals and ethics.

Great post. Prepare for the moving of the goalpost.

 

[archieclement]

Only Rob Lee can get a free education and have no obligation to serve, LOL.

?????? How many confederate officers resigned? About 25% of the prewar officer corps.

Would think if US Army would accept resignations based on your state had seceded and you were likely to take up arms against the US............what is left they would deny a resignation for?

 

[Cavalier]

@GwilymT I believe Robert E. Lee was in the army for 31+ years before he resigned, (1829 to 1861). I would think the government got their money's worth as far as his free education at West Point is concerned.

John

 

[121st PA Vols]

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............

I'm disagreeing to your opinion that it "certainly raises ethical questions to HIS morality." His morality. What would those ethical questions be about General Grant's morality?

 

[archieclement]

I'm disagreeing to your opinion that it "certainly raises ethical questions to HIS morality." His morality. What would those ethical questions be about General Grant's morality?

Again morality is how you view something..... Most injust in this case.

Ethics is whether you act on your morality or ignore it. Acting would been resigning, he didnt. Instead he went along to participate in what he himself thought was unjust. Not act on his moral view.

Many people don't act on things they feel are wrong, it remains an ethical question that they elected to not act on.

 

[DanSBHawk]

The issue of whether to resign or not, was answered on the first page in A.Roy's post with the Grant quote:

With a soldier the flag is paramount... I know the struggle with my conscience during the Mexican War. I have never altogether forgiven myself for going into that. I had very strong opinions on the subject. I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign. I had taken an oath to serve eight years, unless sooner discharged, and I considered my supreme duty was to my flag.

So Grant was torn between his obligation to the country and misgivings about a war he considered wrong. He made the choice to see it out. Considering the amount of bad and immoral choices made during this era - slavery, treason,etc. - I think it's a case of pointing out a mote in Grant's eye, while much of the population was walking around with beams in theirs.

 

[A. Roy]

I know the struggle with my conscience during the Mexican War. I have never altogether forgiven myself for going into that. I had very strong opinions on the subject. I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign.

I do think this is a fascinating case of a soldier admitting to a moral (or ethical?) fault. However, as I said in a previous post, I wonder whether Grant introduces this dilemma with a rhetorical purpose in mind. His memoirs were written 20 years after the end of the Civil War, so he had time to think about the narrative he might want to create.

I think he might be starting up his discussion of the Mexican War so as to connect it with the Civil War and the slavery issue. If you read the context in pages 32-34, you might see what I'm talking about. Here are some excerpts:

"Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico—another Mexican state at that time—on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. Soon they set up an independent government of their own, and war existed, between Texas and Mexico, in name from that time until 1836, when active hostilities very nearly ceased upon the capture of Santa Anna, the Mexican President. Before long, however, the same people—who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so—offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845 their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union...

"It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. 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."

("Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant." NY: C.L. Webster & Co., 1885-86. Pages 32-34)

I'm not saying there was anything nefarious in the way Grant structured his narrative, but I do wonder whether his admission to a lack of moral courage in Mexico was in part meant as a way to draw the reader in to his larger argument about slaveholders' efforts to enlarge their territory.

As I said before, I'm sure some of our colleagues here have read Grant's memoirs in their entirety, whereas I haven't. Somebody else might have more enlightening comments than my poor effort!

ARB

 

[damYankee]

The ACW, as well as Grant's peacetime career certainly demonstrate officers of the era could, and did resign, Grant ultimately does resign not over "most unjust war ever" but his excessive drinking.

Prove your conclusion please.
You stated that Grant resigned over his drinking. Prove it

 

[damYankee]

?????? How many confederate officers resigned? About 25% of the prewar officer corps.

Would think if US Army would accept resignations based on your state had seceded and you were likely to take up arms against the US............what is left they would deny a resignation for?

Just what is your point. Don't mince words, You obviously have an axe to grind. Stop dancing and lay it out for us.

 

[Belfoured]

I do think this is a fascinating case of a soldier admitting to a moral (or ethical?) fault. However, as I said in a previous post, I wonder whether Grant introduces this dilemma with a rhetorical purpose in mind. His memoirs were written 20 years after the end of the Civil War, so he had time to think about the narrative he might want to create.

I think he might be starting up his discussion of the Mexican War so as to connect it with the Civil War and the slavery issue. If you read the context in pages 32-34, you might see what I'm talking about. Here are some excerpts:

"Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico—another Mexican state at that time—on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. Soon they set up an independent government of their own, and war existed, between Texas and Mexico, in name from that time until 1836, when active hostilities very nearly ceased upon the capture of Santa Anna, the Mexican President. Before long, however, the same people—who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so—offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845 their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union...

"It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. 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."

("Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant." NY: C.L. Webster & Co., 1885-86. Pages 32-34)

I'm not saying there was anything nefarious in the way Grant structured his narrative, but I do wonder whether his admission to a lack of moral courage in Mexico was in part meant as a way to draw the reader in to his larger argument about slaveholders' efforts to enlarge their territory.

As I said before, I'm sure some of our colleagues here have read Grant's memoirs in their entirety, whereas I haven't. Somebody else might have more enlightening comments than my poor effort!

ARB

We all like the simple, "all or nothing" explanations for things, but most of the time it's a lot more complicated. Suppose Grant honestly changed his view over time, coupled with learning things he did not/could not know at the time about how the war started, etc. It happens. In fact, we all (or at least most of us) do that. I also note that after he was President Grant became actively and directly involved with the Mexican Southern Railroad project and also worked out a commercial treaty between the US and Mexico with President Arthur's support (that was ultimately rejected by Congress).

 

[archieclement]

Just what is your point. Don't mince words, You obviously have an axe to grind. Stop dancing and lay it out for us.

That Lee was hardly the only one to resign.

The obvious context was the post I had responded to, and the only one with some axe to grind seems you. Which was an absurd post "Only Rob Lee can get a free education and have no obligation to serve, LOL."

Again Lee was hardly the only US officer to resign, Grant and Polk did so prewar for two........nor was he hardly the only officer to resign because of the ACW.

No mincing, no dancing, just stated the rather obvious, in response to a post.

As well as others pointed out, Lee had filled an obligation to his education if one feels there is one, longer then Grant had upon resigning. 1829-1861 compared to 1843-1854...........if comparing "free" educations.