Grant US Grant ethics?

[DanSBHawk]

Lee being also a competent commander, with actual exceptional past performances, would been waiting for a misstep. Why he had defeated larger armies with exceptional victories.

Which again no one has suggested Grant was incompetent, with a marked advantage in troops he pushed, then wore Lee down. Certainly a competent performance, I would have no issue at all saying a good performance. But not seeing exceptional to suggest great.

If you suddenly think numbers do matter, how exactly was Lee a threat to suggest anything out of ordinary in the outcome? As he had half the forces Grant had.

Again simply not being as incompetent as Pope, Burnside, ect, doesn't indicate any other then actual competentcy......

Grant did not always have a 2:1 superiority against Lee. There was not a huge disparity in late summer '64, iirc. And yet still, Lee the Great did not venture forth and massively defeat Grant.

You seem to be judging Lee by one or two cherry-picked victories. Yet Lee failed as a strategist. His offensives into the north failed. A couple impressive battlefield victories don't mean anything if they don't contribute to a winning strategy.

 

[archieclement]

Disagree, you seem to judge Grant by simply not being incompetent. You certainly have either a far poorer view of the Union Army, or a far inflated view of the Confederate Army then I.

Because if armies qualities are comparable, manpower, number of cannon, number of supplies certainly do matter.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Disagree, you seem to judge Grant by simply not being incompetent. You certainly have either a far poorer view of the Union Army, or a far inflated view of the Confederate Army then I.

I don't know where you get that. Another strawman, it seems.

I judge Grant by the whole package: battles, logistics, operations, strategy, multiple theatres, and working with the civilian government. Lee was a piker in comparison.

 

[archieclement]

I don't know where you get that. Another strawman, it seems.

I judge Grant by the whole package: battles, logistics, operations, strategy, multiple theatres, and working with the civilian government. Lee was a piker in comparison.

I do too, and as I see nothing exceptional or remarkable by Grant he remains competent or good.

Lee on other hand certainly turned in exceptional performance defying the numbers to qualify as great.

Its odd your argument seems to center on trying to slur Lee or Grants predecessors, rather then point to exceptional or extraordinary performances by Grant that was in not in line with what simply the numbers and advantages would have suggested. Certainly the strategy of Vicksburg or Richmond as goals was Lincoln. Indeed the only bearing Lee would have to the discussion is if he is great, in that you would then weight that Grant fighting a great opponent. Which I've noted, the Grant is great narrative rather required some exceptional foil......as saying beating an average opponent that was outnumbered, and at disadvantage in every category doesn't elicit visions of exceptional. The north elevated Lee as much as anyone consequently.

 

[uaskme]

I don't know where you get that. Another strawman, it seems.

I judge Grant by the whole package: battles, logistics, operations, strategy, multiple theatres, and working with the civilian government. Lee was a piker in comparison.

Operations, strategy and operations because the North had more resources and manpower. If you have studied the CW and have missed these advantages of the Federals, you haven't learned much.

Lincoln said at one time he had plenty of Generals, what he needed were mules. If Sherman had seen the ghost again or Grant had of perished in one of his drinking episodes, Lincoln could of gone, got him another hapless misfit and carried on. By 64 Confederacy had expended its manpower and resources which couldn't be replaced. North had build a Military Industrial Complex which would produce more assets than Sherman, Grant or anyone else couldn't **** away. Lincoln was looking for forward movements which would give him control of the news cycle to stave off war weariness in the North. His biggest threat politically. Didn't care how many died because of it.

Weak narrative that Grant was the only one who could do this is just that, Narrative. Lincoln was Commander in Chief. Trying to give credit to Grant that Lincoln did.

 

[Belfoured]

So wait now it's a numbers game? But only when it suits you?....

Having a 2-1 advantage is an advantage regardless of attacking or defending.

Again absurd, if Grant had provided an opportunity Lee likely would. Again no one has suggested Grant wasn't competent.

Great would suggest exceptional, such as Lee at Chancellorsville, or Napoleon at Austerlitz, overcoming superior armies. Not seeing that in Grant, perhaps you have more an overly inflated view of the Confederate army then I do.

"Great would suggest exceptional, such as Lee at Chancellorsville, or Napoleon at Austerlitz, overcoming superior armies."

Too simplistic. Credit to Lee but the opposition had something to do with it. Jackson's slowly-executed flank march was discovered early on but Sickles misread it and then Howard and Devens stupidly refused to credit repeated reports from XI Corps units. Despite never having used I Corps, Hooker pulled in his horns on May 4. And on May 4 Lee had to be talked out of the very bad notion of a frontal assault on Hooker's line.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I do too, and as I see nothing exceptional or remarkable by Grant he remains competent or good.

Lee on other hand certainly turned in exceptional performance defying the numbers to qualify as great.

Its odd your argument seems to center on trying to slur Lee or Grants predecessors, rather then point to exceptional or extraordinary performances by Grant that was in not in line with what simply the numbers and advantages would have suggested. Certainly the strategy of Vicksburg or Richmond as goals was Lincoln. Indeed the only bearing Lee would have to the discussion is if he is great, in that you would then weight that Grant fighting a great opponent. Which I've noted, the Grant is great narrative rather required some exceptional foil......as saying beating an average opponent that was outnumbered, and at disadvantage in every category doesn't elicit visions of exceptional. The north elevated Lee as much as anyone consequently.

"Center on trying to slur Lee or Grants predecessors." More strawmen. It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who's having a completely different conversation in their head.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Operations, strategy and operations because the North had more resources and manpower. If you have studied the CW and have missed these advantages of the Federals, you haven't learned much.

Likewise, if you've studied any war and missed the advantage of having a great commander, you haven't learned much.

 

[Belfoured]

Operations, strategy and operations because the North had more resources and manpower. If you have studied the CW and have missed these advantages of the Federals, you haven't learned much.

Lincoln said at one time he had plenty of Generals, what he needed were mules. If Sherman had seen the ghost again or Grant had of perished in one of his drinking episodes, Lincoln could of gone, got him another hapless misfit and carried on. By 64 Confederacy had expended its manpower and resources which couldn't be replaced. North had build a Military Industrial Complex which would produce more assets than Sherman, Grant or anyone else couldn't **** away. Lincoln was looking for forward movements which would give him control of the news cycle to stave off war weariness in the North. His biggest threat politically. Didn't care how many died because of it.

Weak narrative that Grant was the only one who could do this is just that, Narrative. Lincoln was Commander in Chief. Trying to give credit to Grant that Lincoln did.

Of course, Lincoln wrote the following to Grant on July 13, 1863:

"When you got below [Vicksburg], and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong."

Yet more proof that simple conclusions about complicated events are reliably wrong.

 

[archieclement]

"Center on trying to slur Lee or Grants predecessors." More strawmen. It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who's having a completely different conversation in their head.

Agree, as you never provide any examples of Grant having done anything exceptional.......

You've rambled everywhere but providing anything remarkable. Certainly nothing comparable to a Chancellorsville performance.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Agree, as you never provide any examples of Grant having done anything exceptional.......

You've rambled everywhere but providing anything remarkable

His entire Civil War career was remarkable. Going from colonel to General-in-Chief involved jumping over how many senior officers? Capturing 3 enemy armies is something Lee never did. The Vicksburg campaign was probably the most remarkable campaign of the war. Everywhere Grant went, he made things happen, and his strategy of going after enemy armies (targeting the enemy's strength as Clausewitz would say) with aggression and a relentless tempo, wrapping up the war in one year after 3 years of inconclusive results.

Winning a battle means very little if you lose the war.

 

[archieclement]

His entire Civil War career was remarkable. Going from colonel to General-in-Chief involved jumping over how many senior officers? Capturing 3 enemy armies is something Lee never did. The Vicksburg campaign was probably the most remarkable campaign of the war. Everywhere Grant went, he made things happen, and his strategy of going after enemy armies (targeting the enemy's strength as Clausewitz would say) with aggression and a relentless tempo, wrapping up the war in one year after 3 years of inconclusive results.

Winning a battle means very little if you lose the war.

However in reality neither winning a battle or war is remarkable. An exceptional performance that defies the odds is. Why they have always been studied as great.

 

[Lost Cause]

it is not so easy to get out of the wars as it is to get into them.

A primary caution Scott was hesitant to enter the Civil War as the Radical Republicans were pushing Lincoln towards it.

 

[DanSBHawk]

A primary caution Scott was hesitant to enter the Civil War as the Radical Republicans were pushing Lincoln towards it.

Neither the Radical Republicans nor Lincoln started the shooting.

 

[unionblue]

Just an observation...Lee DID surrender to Grant, right?

 

[Jantzen64]

Just an observation...Lee DID surrender to Grant, right?

I'm trying to figure out if Grant was "unethical" because he lost or because he won . . .

 

[archieclement]

I'm trying to figure out if Grant was "unethical" because he lost or because he won . . .

Try to figure out how its related to the Mexican War, which the OP is about and Grants comments on on it and his lack of personal fortitude in the Mexican War in relation to his personal views............

Evidently some think Lee surrendered to Grant in the Mexican War............

 

[A. Roy]

I'm trying to figure out if Grant was "unethical" because he lost or because he won . . .

Heh, this discussion did kind of stray from its focus proposed in the original post. The question was whether Grant should have resigned from the army during the Mexican war if he was opposed to it, as he later claimed, and whether this should be considered an ethical failure on his part.

Grant admitted to not following his conscience in an 1879 interview and in his 1885 memoirs. You can see quotes from both of these sources at:

Post #8, quoting a book by journalist John Russell Long.

Post #17, quoting Grant's memoirs.

Grant reportedly told Young:

"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."

ARB

 

[Belfoured]

Heh, this discussion did kind of stray from its focus proposed in the original post. The question was whether Grant should have resigned from the army during the Mexican war if he was opposed to it, as he later claimed, and whether this should be considered an ethical failure on his part.

Grant admitted to not following his conscience in an 1879 interview and in his 1885 memoirs. You can see quotes from both of these sources at:

Post #8, quoting a book by journalist John Russell Long.

Post #17, quoting Grant's memoirs.

Grant reportedly told Young:

"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."

ARB

Outrageous that a recent West Point grad would do what he saw as his duty despite misgivings and then later be honest enough to admit to a mistake. That's not what we want, apparently. We want marble men who actually lack sufficient "moral courage"/"personal fortitude" to admit to a mistake.

 

[archieclement]

Indeed, because merely mentioning what he said himself he saw moral failure, launches huge distractions from he himself said......Some are desperate to preserve some marble man image apparently.

Instead of realizing everyone faces moral dilemmas in life, that they don't necessarily think they made the right choices themselves, he apparently didn't in hindsight, and implies he didn't at the time.

Certainly Grant isn't a marble man to today's values, he also had association's with slavery and manifest destiny. But when I had read this I found it surprising in two regards. One being anti Mexican war in the army wouldn't have seemed a majority position. Two unlike slavery and manifest destiny, he states he recognized what he was doing was wrong, when he was doing it. Which certainly becomes an ethical question then. One if the Young interview is correct, one that he saw himself failing in regard to ethics.