I follow discussions at other blogs and on online civil war forums and again and again I have seen debate about the choices Lincoln made in picking generals. I believe that the usual view of why some so-called ‘political’ generals were chosen is incomplete or misguided. While there was a political element to all the selections, there was also a level of military consideration in the selection of some civilians to be generals.
Lincoln’s initial action to suppress the rebellion was to call for the States to furnish 75,000 militia. But it was apparent that this would be insufficient. The service of the militia would be short lived — 90 days — and they owed their organization and leadership to the state governors. Lincoln needed a longer-lived federal force to continue the fight. His military advisors — Secretary of War Simon Cameron and head of the army General Winfield Scott — provided him with a plan to expand the regular army and create a volunteer army. In order to command these forces, Lincoln had to pick some generals.
One challenge was a shortage of commanders who had led large formations of men. With the exception of Scott or Wool, the officers of the regular army had commanded no more than a regiment and often no more than a company. Lincoln needed generals to command much larger forces. In addition, the Volunteer Army would be composed of civilians serving for a term before returning to civilian life, a subtle but significant difference from commanding men enlisted in the regular army. Who would Lincoln know of that was available and had recent experience managing and directing a force of civilian soldiers several thousand strong?
In addition to pondering this question, I have also recently been browsing civil war era newspapers and magazines. In a time when photography was in its infancy, the illustrator had an important role in publishing. Famous illustrators such as Thomas Nast and Winslow Homer got their start before the war working for magazines like Harpers Weekly, which was the most widely read periodical in the United States. Below is an example of Homer’s work that appeared in the September 24, 1859 Harper’s Weekly titled ‘The Grand Review at Camp Massachusetts, Near Concord, September 9, 1859′. Two of Lincoln’s first choices for volunteer generals are in that image (as is one of his senior regular army generals).
Source: Boston Public Library
***
Check out the Siege of Petersburg Online for daily posts on battle accounts in newspaper articles, diary entries, letters and more!What are your Top 10 Gettysburg Books? See what a panel of bloggers said recently.
Want to read some interesting Civil War content from amateurs and pros alike? Check out the Top 10 Civil War Blogs and Top 10 Civil War Blogs: 11-20.
@CivilWarBlog
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Military historians have traditionally been down on the “political generals” of the Union army. Admittedly, there were some incompetents among the ranks of the political generals; but the same could also be said of the regular army commanders as well. I blogged recently about two of the better political appointees: generals William Wallace and Lew Wallace; and there were others of equal leadership ability. Bear in mind, a Civil War is by its very nature political and political considerations are inseparable from purely military ones–something Lincoln was only too aware of.
I presume you have read the two most recent reviews of this issue, Tom Goss’s “The War Within the Union High Command” and David Work, “Lincoln’s Political Generals.” They make many of the same points.
I am currently working on a biography of one of the best “citizen-generals” (as I prefer to call them), Jacob D. Cox, to be published by Ohio University Press. I welcome any comments.
Gene,
I have read Work’s book and I once flipped through Goss’ book at a bookstore but never read the whole thing. I only agree partially that they are making some of the same points as I am trying to make here. They do points out the limitations of the regular army in supplying the leadership Lincoln was looking for. But I also feel they fall into some of the same patterns that I am reacting against. Specifically Goss and Work tend to emphasize that Lincoln picked the so-called political generals “primarily on the basis of their political influence” (Work page 2). I think that these authors have misrepresented Lincoln’s thinking in some cases.
As a specific example of a problem I have with their books, both of them use a quote from Banks that he was “not acquainted with details of military matters” to suggest that Banks was known to be ignorant of military affairs thereby advancing an argument that Lincoln set aside military considerations in favor of political ones in his selections. The problem is that the quote comes from 1853 (and Goss wrongly claimed Banks said it in Congress) so it really is not indicative of Lincoln’s view of Banks in 1861, 8 years later.
Anyway, thank you for the comment.
When I was writing my bio of Ambrose Bierce’s war career last year, I consulted General Cox’s entry in the “Campaigns of the Civil War” series on Franklin and Nashville. Although Schofield was in charge of the army, Cox was in fact commanded the rear guard which fought Hood at Franklin and inflicted the terrible carnage on the Confederates. He certainly deserves more recognition than he has hitherto received. Bierce was on the other side of the river and had a bird’s eye view of he battle, although his perspective of the fight was as a distant observer not participant. I believe there is a pamphlet published by one of the Carter family members describing their brief encounter with Cox the morning of he battle.
{ 1 trackback }