Democratic generals

[JerryD]

Was just reading an essay on Democratic generals and the author made some questionable comments, at least to my way of thinking. For one, did Lincoln appoint Democratic politicians in order to take them out of DC and avoid political rivals? And two, were any Democratic generals undermined for political reasons?

One the first question it seems that the logic is exactly backwards, and is kind of in conflict with the second point. The best way to avoid Democratic political rivals is to avoid any of them becoming war heroes, so the last thing you would want to do is appoint any of them as generals. My understanding is that Lincoln appointed Democratic politicians as generals like Butler and Banks in order to bolster support for the war among Dems.

The second point is a little bit more complex, though. I do think party affiliation did play a role in some appointments, but I don't think any Dem general, once they were in their position, were undermined for fear they would become a war hero and thus a threat to Lincoln's re-election. I know this is a favorite theme of some Little Mac fan boys, and McClellan himself seemed to believe this in the aftermath of the Seven Days. To the extent McClellan did not get things his way I attribute more to Lincoln's inexperience as CiC and fear for the safety of Washington. But to me at least, its ludicrous to think Lincoln would undermine the war effort and seek defeat for the US forces just out of fear of losing an election that was still years away. For much the same reasons I do not think Rosecrans or Buell were undermined for political reasons. I think proof of is the fact that both Halleck and Grant, McClellan's successors as General in Chief, were both Democrats before war. And certainly other Democratic generals such as Butler, Banks, McClernand, Hancock, Sickles and Logan were supported by the Lincoln Administration. So IMO Democratic generals who failed often resorted to the political argument to cover their own shortcomings and failures.

Anyone disagree with this?

 

[Luke Freet]

And certainly other Democratic generals such as Grant, Butler, Banks, Halleck, McClernand, Hancock, Sickles and Logan were supported by the Lincoln Administration

Grant, Butler, Banks, Sickles and Logan all converted to the Republican Party. Grant had the political backing of Republican representative Elihu Washburne and Governer Richard Yates. Logan and Butler converted from moderate democrats to Radical Republicans by the end of the war. Banks was the first Republican governor elected to office.
Men like McClernand and Hancock remained stalwart Democrats for the rest of their lives in and out of the army. McClernand had brushed shoulders with Lincoln as a Lawyer back in Illinois before the war, working on cases together and against one another; McClernand was encouraged to write to Lincoln regarding matters out west, which obviously rankled feathers with the other officers in Grant's army.
Rosecrans was a moderate war Democrat, not too thrilled with emancipation but supported it as a military measure, and made it clear publicly he had no presidential aspirations.
Buell was one of the most conservative Democrats you can find in the Union army. He was virulently against emancipation, owned slaves before the war, and generally was not receptive to the Lincoln administration. And somehow he didn't get along with Andrew Johnson either.
It should be noted: West Point cadets were appointed on the recommendations of their congressmen, who more often than not were Democrats or the old Whigs. The Republican party was too young to have a strong input on the makeup of the military officers in the service, at least the most promising senior officers. This meant that the majority of professional officers were conservative Democrats, or at least were not Republican. This is why you have guys like McClellan, Meade, Buell, Sherman, J. C. Davis, a lot of conservative officers in senior command positions, especially in the first half of the conflict, and even late in the war. This obviously created a massive disconnect between the Republican administration and the army. And it's the Army of the Potomac became so heavily politicized, why Charles Stone was throne in the slammer for Ball's Bluff (even though the battle was the fault of a Republican senator taking initiative). It's why Fitz John Porter got court martialed over John Pope's own failures at Second Manassas.

 

[JerryD]

Grant, Butler, Banks, Sickles and Logan all converted to the Republican Party. Grant had the political backing of Republican representative Elihu Washburne and Governer Richard Yates. Logan and Butler converted from moderate democrats to Radical Republicans by the end of the war. Banks was the first Republican governor elected to office.
Men like McClernand and Hancock remained stalwart Democrats for the rest of their lives in and out of the army. McClernand had brushed shoulders with Lincoln as a Lawyer back in Illinois before the war, working on cases together and against one another; McClernand was encouraged to write to Lincoln regarding matters out west, which obviously rankled feathers with the other officers in Grant's army.
Rosecrans was a moderate war Democrat, not too thrilled with emancipation but supported it as a military measure, and made it clear publicly he had no presidential aspirations.
Buell was one of the most conservative Democrats you can find in the Union army. He was virulently against emancipation, owned slaves before the war, and generally was not receptive to the Lincoln administration. And somehow he didn't get along with Andrew Johnson either.
It should be noted: West Point cadets were appointed on the recommendations of their congressmen, who more often than not were Democrats or the old Whigs. The Republican party was too young to have a strong input on the makeup of the military officers in the service, at least the most promising senior officers. This meant that the majority of professional officers were conservative Democrats, or at least were not Republican. This is why you have guys like McClellan, Meade, Buell, Sherman, J. C. Davis, a lot of conservative officers in senior command positions, especially in the first half of the conflict, and even late in the war. This obviously created a massive disconnect between the Republican administration and the army. And it's the Army of the Potomac became so heavily politicized, why Charles Stone was throne in the slammer for Ball's Bluff (even though the battle was the fault of a Republican senator taking initiative). It's why Fitz John Porter got court martialed over John Pope's own failures at Second Manassas.

I'm aware some of the generals I mentioned eventually became Republicans, but for the purpose of my question I believe they were Dems or at least Dem leaning when they got their stars.

You mention Sherman as a Dem, which surprised me a bit. I know his brother was a Repub.

The point I was trying to make, though, that at least from Lincoln's perspective I don't think he was paying that much attention to party affiliation, other than looking to appoint a fair share of Dem generals in order to bolster popular support for the war.

 

[Luke Freet]

I'm aware some of the generals I mentioned eventually became Republicans, but for the purpose of my question I believe they were Dems or at least Dem leaning when they got their stars.

You mention Sherman as a Dem, which surprised me a bit. I know his brother was a Repub.

The point I was trying to make, though, that at least from Lincoln's perspective I don't think he was paying that much attention to party affiliation, other than looking to appoint a fair share of Dem generals in order to bolster popular support for the war.

Sherman didn't have a particular political affiliation, but leaned conservative. Reading his biography, when his brother John was elected, Sherman was sending letters cautioning him from making any statements about slavery and other Republican talking points.
Sherman had the political backing of Halleck, Grant, John Sherman and the Ewing family who had adopted him.
I'll say your last note in regards to Lincoln not caring about party affiliations when it came to promotions, I just have to point to the fact most of the major political generals of the war were either Republicans (Banks), Republican converts, or Democrats whom Lincoln had some connection with like McClernand. Francis P. Blair Jr. wasn't going to rise above corps command, for instance.
Hell, Nathaniel P. Banks is the most egregious example; he's one of the senior-most Major Generals of the entire war, and he's kept in command and given important assignments like Louisiana because he's a moderate Republican aligned with Lincoln's views.
I would like to ask you the following question: can you name a single Democrat politician with no West Point or US army experience who remained a Democrat for the whole conflict, who received command of a Union army? I am desperately wracking my head on this, but I cannot think of a single one, where as there are clear and apparent examples for Republican politicians.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Grant, Butler, Banks, Sickles and Logan all converted to the Republican Party. Grant had the political backing of Republican representative Elihu Washburne and Governer Richard Yates. Logan and Butler converted from moderate democrats to Radical Republicans by the end of the war. Banks was the first Republican governor elected to office.
Men like McClernand and Hancock remained stalwart Democrats for the rest of their lives in and out of the army. McClernand had brushed shoulders with Lincoln as a Lawyer back in Illinois before the war, working on cases together and against one another; McClernand was encouraged to write to Lincoln regarding matters out west, which obviously rankled feathers with the other officers in Grant's army.
Rosecrans was a moderate war Democrat, not too thrilled with emancipation but supported it as a military measure, and made it clear publicly he had no presidential aspirations.
Buell was one of the most conservative Democrats you can find in the Union army. He was virulently against emancipation, owned slaves before the war, and generally was not receptive to the Lincoln administration. And somehow he didn't get along with Andrew Johnson either.
It should be noted: West Point cadets were appointed on the recommendations of their congressmen, who more often than not were Democrats or the old Whigs. The Republican party was too young to have a strong input on the makeup of the military officers in the service, at least the most promising senior officers. This meant that the majority of professional officers were conservative Democrats, or at least were not Republican. This is why you have guys like McClellan, Meade, Buell, Sherman, J. C. Davis, a lot of conservative officers in senior command positions, especially in the first half of the conflict, and even late in the war. This obviously created a massive disconnect between the Republican administration and the army. And it's the Army of the Potomac became so heavily politicized, why Charles Stone was throne in the slammer for Ball's Bluff (even though the battle was the fault of a Republican senator taking initiative). It's why Fitz John Porter got court martialed over John Pope's own failures at Second Manassas.

Because of your post, @Luke Freet, I just learned some interesting facts about the generals you wrote about. Good post by you!

 

[rpkennedy]

I would like to ask you the following question: can you name a single Democrat politician with no West Point or US army experience who remained a Democrat for the whole conflict, who received command of a Union army?

To be fair, the list of non-West Point officers to command Union armies is extremely short. The ones that come to mind are:

John C. Fremont
Nathaniel Banks
Benjamin Butler
Franz Sigel

Can anyone think of any more?

Ryan

 

[JerryD]

Sherman didn't have a particular political affiliation, but leaned conservative. Reading his biography, when his brother John was elected, Sherman was sending letters cautioning him from making any statements about slavery and other Republican talking points.
Sherman had the political backing of Halleck, Grant, John Sherman and the Ewing family who had adopted him.
I'll say your last note in regards to Lincoln not caring about party affiliations when it came to promotions, I just have to point to the fact most of the major political generals of the war were either Republicans (Banks), Republican converts, or Democrats whom Lincoln had some connection with like McClernand. Francis P. Blair Jr. wasn't going to rise above corps command, for instance.
Hell, Nathaniel P. Banks is the most egregious example; he's one of the senior-most Major Generals of the entire war, and he's kept in command and given important assignments like Louisiana because he's a moderate Republican aligned with Lincoln's views.
I would like to ask you the following question: can you name a single Democrat politician with no West Point or US army experience who remained a Democrat for the whole conflict, who received command of a Union army? I am desperately wracking my head on this, but I cannot think of a single one, where as there are clear and apparent examples for Republican politicians.

Butler comes to mind.

 

[Belfoured]

Butler comes to mind.

IIRC, Ben joined the GOP and left the Democratic Party in 1863 after becoming popular with the Radical Republicans.

 

[JerryD]

IIRC, Ben joined the GOP and left the Democratic Party in 1863 after becoming popular with the Radical Republicans.

Are you sure? I seem to remember him campaigning for the Democratic nomination against Cleveland.

 

[uaskme]

Rosecrans, Buel, McClelland, Hooker, Meade, more were Democrats.

 

[Belfoured]

Are you sure? I seem to remember him campaigning for the Democratic nomination against Cleveland.

I believe he was elected to Congress right after the war as a Republican. My recollection is that in the 1870's he had a falling out with the Massachusetts GOP when he tried to run for Governor and ended up back with the Democrats, getting himself elected in the 1880's. Ben was, shall we say, an opportunist. So his supporting Cleveland would make sense.

One thing I recall is that - literally while he was on campaign and planning in early June 1864 to attack Petersburg - he had an "operative" keeping tabs on the balloting at the mainstream Lincoln GOP/Union convention in Baltimore, lest there be "interest" in a Butler bandwagon of some sort.

 

[archieclement]

Blair would been rather moderate Republican, certainly not radical as broke postwar to Democrat.