Grant US Grant ethics?

[DanSBHawk]

Just Folly that everyone who fought during the Civil War did it for or against Slavery. Beyond Silly.

Directly or indirectly, everyone who fought in the Civil War did fight for or against slavery.

'Silly' is the over-the-top bashing of Grant. Reasonable criticism is one thing, but Grant always seems to bring out the hyperbole for whatever reason. Resentment that he whipped the confederacy, or jealousy that he rose above other generals... some people just have a problem with Grant.

 

[uaskme]

Directly or indirectly, everyone who fought in the Civil War did fight for or against slavery.

'Silly' is the over-the-top bashing of Grant. Reasonable criticism is one thing, but Grant always seems to bring out the hyperbole for whatever reason. Resentment that he whipped the confederacy, or jealousy that he rose above other generals... some people just have a problem with Grant.

No, I think it is Grant Worshiping, that's the problem. Some can't grasp his shortcoming. Slobber over a narrative that absolves the North, true or not.

Moral and Ethical, I haven't see these properties exposed in studying the Civi War. Self preservation I've seen. Reason why the North embraces Emancipation. War aim to take away labor from the South. Obstacle for Foreign Recognition to the Confederacy. Black Troops cheaper than poor immigrants in the latter stages of the Civil War. Even Black voting post war allowed the Republican's to hold onto power until they could murder enough Natives to push thru enough States to control the Senate. Then, under the Bus they went. Grant says, if I save MS I will lose OH. Where was the morality and ethics? All political power.

Republican's position to restrict Blacks in the Territories and the North is what caused the War. Republicans's stoked the Fear of the Northern Blackphobics that Slavery would become National, ie Blacks would come North. Too much for the Northern ****.

Entertaining to engage the Worshipers. Surly it Grant had proclaimed his disdain for the Mexican war, you could Come up with a source other than his Memoirs/ Parables?

 

[CavRTO]

@CavRTO What would be the other signs of PTSD displayed by Grant? He seems to have been pretty stable to me, regardless of my opinions of him as a General.

John

Two things pop out to me. First, Grants obsession with training new troops to be fully prepared shortly after re-entering the Army during the war. It may sound counter intuitive but the obsession of needing to get back into the fray and the obsession with imparting your knowledge on troops to try to help them survive strikes home for me. Second, Grant's son mentioned about his father talking in his sleep giving orders to subordinates and other thing's related to the war.

 

[CavRTO]

No, I think it is Grant Worshiping, that's the problem. Some can't grasp his shortcoming. Slobber over a narrative that absolves the North, true or not.

Moral and Ethical, I haven't see these properties exposed in studying the Civi War. Self preservation I've seen. Reason why the North embraces Emancipation. War aim to take away labor from the South. Obstacle for Foreign Recognition to the Confederacy. Black Troops cheaper than poor immigrants in the latter stages of the Civil War. Even Black voting post war allowed the Republican's to hold onto power until they could murder enough Natives to push thru enough States to control the Senate. Then, under the Bus they went. Grant says, if I save MS I will lose OH. Where was the morality and ethics? All political power.

Republican's position to restrict Blacks in the Territories and the North is what caused the War. Republicans's stoked the Fear of the Northern Blackphobics that Slavery would become National, ie Blacks would come North. Too much for the Northern ****.

Entertaining to engage the Worshipers. Surly it Grant had proclaimed his disdain for the Mexican war, you could Come up with a source other than his Memoirs/ Parables?

Are you aware that there is congressional legislation pending to posthumously award Grant a fifth star as in General of the Army? You sound obsessed with denigrating the man and those who disagree with your opinion of Grant.

 

[Cavalier]

@CavRTO No expert on PTSD here, but all that seems pretty normal to me. But in any case thanks for answering, I was just wondering.

John

 

[CavRTO]

@CavRTO No expert on PTSD here, but all that seems pretty normal to me. But in any case thanks for answering, I was just wondering.

John

Seems normal to you?

 

[Cavalier]

@CavRTO Training new troops to be fully prepared for going to war seems to me like the responsible thing for an officer to do. And as far as the talking in his sleep thing about his work, I did that the entire time I was working, so to me that seems pretty normal. Maybe talking in your sleep isn't really normal, I don't know about that, although I know others who say they did.

John

 

[CavRTO]

@CavRTO Training new troops to be fully prepared for going to war seems to me like the responsible thing for an officer to do. And as far as the talking in his sleep thing about his work, I did that the entire time I was working, so to me that seems pretty normal. Maybe talking in your sleep isn't really normal, I don't know about that, although I know others who say they did.

John

Maybe you overlooked the word "obsession"? I may be wrong but Grant's son expressions of his fathers talking in his sleep wasn't in a normal tone. Sorry if I didn't articulate that better. Being burdened by past experience and decisions and to be still consumed by them is not normal and requires professional help.

 

[Cavalier]

This guy has been dead for 150 years give or take. Are we to think then that we can analyze his obsessions based on a few remarks made by his son? Some in my family felt that I was "obsessed" by my profession, even if I was that doesn't mean I had PTSD.

John

 

[RobertP]

Indeed in many of wars, our leading figures held most or all of the cards.

I liked Gen. Schwarzkopf his famous "left hook" against the Iraqi defense was straight out of the Lee and Jackson's Chancellorsville playbook. Of course he had the advantage of weeks of carpet bombing to pave the way.

 

[archieclement]

Personally I categorize "great generals" those who win battles when odds suggest they shouldnt, defy the numbers or odds, "good generals" always win when they should.

As we seldom have fought without the material advantage, its hard for me personally to elevate many to great.

For example desert storm, regardless of strategy chosen don't think many expected an upset

That's not to demean Storm'in Norman, but how do you really compare to when there was far more parity between combatants?

 

[CavRTO]

This guy has been dead for 150 years give or take. Are we to think then that we can analyze his obsessions based on a few remarks made by his son? Some in my family felt that I was "obsessed" by my profession, even if I was that doesn't mean I had PTSD.

John

John
There's no sense in prolonging this back and forth. Obviously we have had different experiences in life and I'll leave it at that.

 

[RobertP]

Personally I categorize "great generals" those who win battles when odds suggest they shouldnt, defy the numbers or odds, "good generals" always win when they should.

As we seldom have fought without the material advantage, its hard for me personally to elevate many to great.

For example desert storm, regardless of strategy chosen don't think many expected an upset

That's not to demean Storm'in Norman, but how do you really compare to when there was far more parity between combatants?

Precisely. And that is why for 130 years or so Lee was considered the greatest Civil War general. Only in the last couple of decades has politics seeped into the discussion and tried to change the narrative.

 

[damYankee]

Without going on a tangent, Chernow has been criticized by other historians by his handling of Grant's drinking. His claims are based on very limited evidence and are mostly accounts from years after Grant's death. There's no reliable evidence that Grant resigned because of drinking. Here's a source who dissects some of Chernow's claims:

Was Ulysses S. Grant An Alcoholic? An Analysis of Claims Made by Ron Chernow

Ulysses S. Grant has often been portrayed in textbooks and popular histories as an alcoholic, a drunkard, or at the very least someone who enjoyed a good drink from time to time. It may be safe to …

pastexplore.wordpress.com

"This entire passage is a hot mess of secondhand recollections. It is far from "overwhelming," as Chernow suggests. There are no official Army records confirming a possible court martial for Grant. Haller, Poore, and Anderson cannot be relied up since they were not there to see what actually happened and were commenting fifty years later on what they heard secondhand. Moreover, where's any commentary from Buchanan? It is also noteworthy that not everyone present at Fort Humboldt at the time agreed that Grant had a drinking issue."

Always consider the source and never forget journalist are usually frustrated writers looking for fame. What better way than taking down someone of substance?

 

[DanSBHawk]

Personally I categorize "great generals" those who win battles when odds suggest they shouldnt, defy the numbers or odds, "good generals" always win when they should.

As we seldom have fought without the material advantage, its hard for me personally to elevate many to great.

People can use whatever arbitrary standards they like in determining what makes a great general. And so it just comes down to personal bias.

On the other hand those who study war, like Clausewitz, would say that a great general is not the one who wins an occasional battle. It's the one who wins the war. The great general takes all the military and political circumstances into consideration, and implements the strategy that is needed to make the 'whole' effort successful.

Grant was the only great general of the Civil War on either side. The only one that can say under his command, the war was won.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Precisely. And that is why for 130 years or so Lee was considered the greatest Civil War general. Only in the last couple of decades has politics seeped into the discussion and tried to change the narrative.

Lee was mythologized and many people bought into the myth. Now, the myths are being discarded and as a result, Lee is viewed more realistically.

 

[Cavalier]

@CavRTO I hope I didn't offend you! If I did I apologize. I was once told I had it. But we can just agree to disagree, like you said. In any case, I enjoyed reading what you had to say even if I didn't agree with it. Thats what makes discussions like this fun.

John

 

[CavRTO]

@CavRTO I hope I didn't offend you! If I did I apologize. I was once told I had it. But we can just agree to disagree, like you said. In any case, I enjoyed reading what you had to say even if I didn't agree with it. Thats what makes discussions like this fun.

John

John
I'm not offended. It's just like I said, we've had different life experiences.

 

[archieclement]

People can use whatever arbitrary standards they like in determining what makes a great general. And so it just comes down to personal bias.

On the other hand those who study war, like Clausewitz, would say that a great general is not the one who wins an occasional battle. It's the one who wins the war. The great general takes all the military and political circumstances into consideration, and implements the strategy that is needed to make the 'whole' effort successful.

Grant was the only great general of the Civil War on either side. The only one that can say under his command, the war was won.

History is full of great military leaders who fought on losing sides. Would think its folly to not recognize that.

Certainly mediocre generals can also win when they hold all the cards, its not a sign of any greatness. Winning or losing a war is more reflective of the respective sides strength, performance in specific battles is reflective of military leadership in the battles.

 

[GwilymT]

People can use whatever arbitrary standards they like in determining what makes a great general. And so it just comes down to personal bias.

On the other hand those who study war, like Clausewitz, would say that a great general is not the one who wins an occasional battle. It's the one who wins the war. The great general takes all the military and political circumstances into consideration, and implements the strategy that is needed to make the 'whole' effort successful.

Grant was the only great general of the Civil War on either side. The only one that can say under his command, the war was won.

Winner!