Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Savoring the Enemy’s Losses
“Grant had captured an army of at least 13,000 men, a record of the North American continent. He showed mercy toward the conquered force, giving them food and letting them keep their side arms. Avoiding any show of celebration, he refused to shame soldiers and vetoed any ceremony in which they marched. ‘Why should we go through with vain forms and mortify and injure the spirit of brave men, who, after all, are our own countrymen,’ he asked.” — from Grant, by Ron Chernow
“If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from him.” —Proverbs, 24: 17-18
For all his overindulgence with alcohol, Ulysses S. Grant was a brilliant general. Although he had some embarrassing losses, he was relentless, strategic and smart. Yet he agonized over those left dead on the battlefield, whether they were his own men or the men of the Confederate army. He was not only determined to lessen their misery, but tried to treat the wounded and dead on both sides, with dignity and compassion.
If you are a Christian or Jew, you are also called by G-d not to indulge in schadenfreude or gloating over another’s loss. I can guess at the reasons (not being a religious expert): G-d, for one, wants us to remember that the enemy was also created in His image. We are also supposed to love our enemies, because when we savor their defeat, we lose a piece of our own humanity.
Keep in mind that wins and losses don’t just apply to battles. What about politics? What about court trials?
Beyond those explanations, what is your understanding of this divine instruction? If you’re not religious, do you have a different perspective? If you are religious, do you try to follow this rule? Do you disagree with it?
Published in Culture
War is an act by and for countries or states, not men. To punish the individual soldier, who acts under orders and may have been drafted, is completely at odds with common sense. Akin to shooting the messenger. It is the statesmen and leaders who should be punished if punishment is required. The simple soldier is a hero no matter which side he was on.
And if the orders are unlawful?
I think there is a difference between waging war ferociously and treating the vanquished ferociously.
Apologies for any disruption to an otherwise worthwhile conversation, but… but… <<FACEPALM>>
(I promise not to sully this thread any more than I already have. Another time, another place. Maybe.)
I think that I was about to write the same sort of thing, @philo. For all the talk about what a drinker Grant was, there never seemed to be much in the way of evidence for it.
It seems that Grant very rarely drank when there was a battle to be done (at least during the Civil War). His aide, Rawlins, kept an eagle eye on him to make sure he avoided drink (and surprisingly, Grant appreciated it). At those times when a battle wasn’t up, and especially if he was without his wife and family, he sometimes gave in due to depression and despair. I’m not excusing him, but due to his early years of drinking, people would make up stories about him. Especially those generals who were jealous of him. So it was hard to know sometimes whether he’d been on a binge or not.
At some point I would like to address this specific issue in full but it all really needs to be examined in the bigger picture of “the history of the history of U.S. Grant.” There have been a few very good Powerline posts that address the petty personal politics of it but I think the analysis can be extended to the intentional and necessary take-down of one of the top three or four Americans ever by the early twentieth century progressive movement. (Note: It worked.) Once they proved they can take down the great General Grant, all others along the way have been rather easy.
To be fair to Madam Quinn, I have not read Mr. Chernow’s book so I do not know what she has been reading about this issue. It sits on the shelf as I work my way through the new, fully annotated Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant that just happed to be released at about the exact same time as the Chernow take. If it (Chernow) is anything like the embarrassingly shallow, intellectually lazy, deceptively presented episode of some Brian Kilmeade vehicle that aired this last Sunday evening on the Fox News Channel then the appearance of the line in her post that I took such exception to would make sense. (I recorded it on a whim when I saw the subject. It was my first stop by that channel in a long time…and will be the last for an even longer time.)
Chernow is better than Kilmeade, but he is fully on-board with Grant as an episodic drinker. Maybe he was, but most of the reports of it are second- or third-hand anecdotes. I think he might have tied one on in Julia’s absence when nothing much was happening, but that would have been fairly infrequent.
That is a fair-er assessment. I will add by deferring to Bruce Catton in Grant Moves South:
continued…
…continued
I realize that I am being rather petty and I’m sorry. (I also broke my promise above.) But all too often I see references like this that seem to be based on lazy, erroneous, Cliffs Notes-like versions of our history. I hope you see the difference it perception the uneducated on this topic could take away from your lengthier explanation as opposed to the original “all his overindulgence with alcohol” (Recently, there has been a rash of similarly poor and very embarrassing historical references here and elsewhere regarding the Clinton impeachment.) At some point, those who know better on any particular topic need to at least try to set the record straight. Poor form or not, sometimes I just cannot hold my tongue, so to speak.
And no doubt, there were some episodes. But this may be the most overplayed card in re-written American history…and, unfortunately, played to great success. Maybe I should just leave this alone…if we ever got past this they would move on to other lazy and/or just plain crap history, like he was an anti-Semite, he was a corrupt president, or he was <GASP!> a pipe/cigar smoker.
Well put. Catton’s take:
My dear @philo, I am so sorry to have caused you such distress. I am rightly and properly castigated! Seriously, I should have written that sentence differently–it was sloppy on my part. I could have said something like, “For all the focus on his use of alcohol (accounts which were likely greatly exaggerated) . . .” Chernow represented Grant’s history fairly (I believe), since he stated the many times when reports were probably lies or exaggerations. Quite frankly, I could have deleted the first part of my sentence, since it clearly detracted from my point. It’s a good reminder for me that our words and statements should be chosen thoughtfully and carefully. Also remember that I am still reading about the Civil War, and I look forward to learning about Grant’s many other accomplishments. Are we okay?
Of course not, but that’s not the issue.
To whatever extent a “we” exists and that one of your stature in these parts even acknowledges my existence, we are absolutely okay. My petty diatribe was less directed at you, specifically, than at the state of our collective knowledge of history. You just hit on a nit for me to pick. I apologize again for dragging things off-topic.
Your apology is not necessary! I appreciate people who are passionate, especially against injustice (and I think Grant was a victim of that). Your “petty diatribe” didn’t feel personal to me. And please don’t talk about my stature–at 5’2″ and shrinking, there ain’t much there!