Best of Lincoln's Political Generals?

Best of Lincoln's Political Generals?

  • Benjamin F. Butler

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • Nathaniel P. Banks

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • John A. McClernand

    Votes: 15 55.6%
  • Franz Sigel

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • John C. Fremont

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Total voters
    27

Henry Hunt

Private
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Best of Lincoln's Political Generals?

Recently read the article, "Lincoln and His Political Generals" by Brooks D. Simpson. He gives an overview of the five most prominent Union political generals of the war: Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel P. Banks, John A. McClernand, Franz Sigel and John C. Fremont. How would you rate the generalship of these five men? Who do you think was the best of Lincoln's political generals?
 
Best of Lincoln's Political Generals?

Recently read the article, "Lincoln and His Political Generals" by Brooks D. Simpson. He gives an overview of the five most prominent Union political generals of the war: Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel P. Banks, John A. McClernand, Franz Sigel and John C. Fremont. How would you rate the generalship of these five men? Who do you think was the best of Lincoln's political generals?

Can we select "None of the above?" :unsure:
 
Yeah... of those, I would select McClernand, with a degree of reluctance.

Incidentally, whether to call Butler a political general or not is something of a quandary. He was already a general of militia in Massachusetts and he was also on West Point's Board of Visitors... selected by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis.
 
Banks, while not quite as incompetent as sometimes portrayed, was mediocre at best in Louisiana, after having been outmaneuvered in the Valley by Stonewall... he probably would have looked a little less incompetent in the Valley if it had been someone other than Stonewall on the opposing side, methinks. Mediocre is really only sufficient if you're up against a similar level of mediocrity. 😄
 
I don't care for any of them. If forced, I'd pick Banks I think.

If possible I'd vote for John Logan.

My real choice would be Alpheus Williams, who was technically a political general -- but not of the type listed above.

Williams was one of the best non-military officers that the war produced. It's a shame that he never was promoted to permanent corps command. Plus, he had a wicked moustache and a horse named Plug Ugly. What's not to like?

Ryan
 
I would say Butler was a great administrator. Even though he is controversial in regards to his occupation of New Orleans, most of the negativity comes from the Confederate press as well as rivals.

Banks was, although not a great field commander, did lead the capture of Port Hudson and his performance at Cedar Mountain was fair. Militarily he was not the best, but I think he also gets a lot of criticism against Jackson in the Valley - the two of them are on two different levels. Politically, Banks contributed a lot to the war effort - in fact when he was in Maryland in 1861, he recognized the importance of the state. When the state held elections, Banks released many of his Maryland troops under his command to go home to vote for a pro Union legislature.
 
I'm inclined to vote for Butler, but not because he was a better military leader than the others. His prompt and forceful action to seize Baltimore was a valuable strategic contribution in the early stages of the war, and his innovative employment of the legal concept of "contraband" helped the Union to patch together its military policy toward slavery. He was an able, if aggressive, administrator of occupied New Orleans. These were real positive contributions to the Union war effort and balance off some of his later military misadventures at Bermuda Hundred and Fort Fisher.
 
No love for the Pathfinder, John C. Fremont?

Most of the others have certain aspects that save them from total worthlessness, as noted above, and even Fremont might score points as the man who put U.S. Grant in charge at Cairo, Illinois. I was surprised to find in his book on Gettysburg and Vicksburg that Ed Bearss gave McClernand credit as Grant's most aggressive corps commander (the other two being Sherman and McPherson) and the only one who believed along with him in Grant's plan of campaign.
 
I'm inclined to vote for Butler, but not because he was a better military leader than the others. His prompt and forceful action to seize Baltimore was a valuable strategic contribution in the early stages of the war, and his innovative employment of the legal concept of "contraband" helped the Union to patch together its military policy toward slavery. He was an able, if aggressive, administrator of occupied New Orleans. These were real positive contributions to the Union war effort and balance off some of his later military misadventures at Bermuda Hundred and Fort Fisher.

Interesting viewpoint. I cannot vote for Butler because I find his errors too grave in their consequences (though he is more competent than Sigel). Good points about Baltimore and contraband, although I remember reading he was somewhat ham-fisted in how he handled those as well. Still, interesting to find a Butler 'supporter' (tongue firmly in cheek when I say that!). I think his failure at Bermuda 100 is monumental - but I may be biased toward the immense positive possibilities of Grant's 1864 three-pronged attack plan, if he'd had two competent assistants on the other prongs. I honestly think it had a very strong change of ending the war that year. Good points.
 
Back
Top