John Wool

[MikeyB]

Tried to find an old thread that would answer this question but didn't see anything - was he unfairly forced into retirement?

While he was old, he seemed to handle the draft riots well. Also seemed to have performed capably regarding Fort Monroe and securing Norfolk. Lincoln seems appreciative promoting to him Major General, USA.

So what gives? Was this just ageism? There certainly must have been some command, if not in the field than as a Department Head where he could continue to serve. Sounds like the guy deserved it and he didn't let it go until his death, so clearly he wanted to continue to serve.

 

[Belfoured]

Tried to find an old thread that would answer this question but didn't see anything - was he unfairly forced into retirement?

While he was old, he seemed to handle the draft riots well. Also seemed to have performed capably regarding Fort Monroe and securing Norfolk. Lincoln seems appreciative promoting to him Major General, USA.

So what gives? Was this just ageism? There certainly must have been some command, if not in the field than as a Department Head where he could continue to serve. Sounds like the guy deserved it and he didn't let it go until his death, so clearly he wanted to continue to serve.

There's a plausible basis for suggesting that he was unfairly forced into retirement based solely on age and not his capacity. He was actually older than Scott but much more fit for duty, and without Scott's long history as a politician. Wool was not living off his achievements in the War of 1812 or the War with Mexico, and had important accomplishments in the 1850's while in charge of the Department of the Pacific. In May 1862 he played an important role in the attack on Norfolk that was orchestrated personally by Lincoln and, as you note, shut down the 1863 NYC draft riots. Nonethless, he was forced into retirement over his objection. So it clearly appears that the sole factor was his age, whereas Scott had become virtually useless by 1861. Whether Wool would have done better than Halleck obviously is wholly speculative. An excellent biography was published in 2020 - Courage Above All Things, by Hinton and Thompson.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Was Wool ever considered as Scott's successor as head of the army?

 

[MikeyB]

There's a plausible basis for suggesting that he was unfairly forced into retirement based solely on age and not his capacity. He was actually older than Scott but much more fit for duty, and without Scott's long history as a politician. Wool was not living off his achievements in the War of 1812 or the War with Mexico, and had important accomplishments in the 1850's while in charge of the Department of the Pacific. In May 1862 he played an important role in the attack on Norfolk that was orchestrated personally by Lincoln and, as you note, shut down the 1863 NYC draft riots. Nonethless, he was forced into retirement over his objection. So it clearly appears that the sole factor was his age, whereas Scott had become virtually useless by 1861. Whether Wool would have done better than Halleck obviously is wholly speculative. An excellent biography was published in 2020 - Courage Above All Things, by Hinton and Thompson.

wow and he lived for 4 more years post war! Robert E. Lee outlived him by only about a year.

 

[trice]

Tried to find an old thread that would answer this question but didn't see anything - was he unfairly forced into retirement?

While he was old, he seemed to handle the draft riots well. Also seemed to have performed capably regarding Fort Monroe and securing Norfolk. Lincoln seems appreciative promoting to him Major General, USA.

So what gives? Was this just ageism? There certainly must have been some command, if not in the field than as a Department Head where he could continue to serve. Sounds like the guy deserved it and he didn't let it go until his death, so clearly he wanted to continue to serve.

He was the oldest Major General to serve in the war -- on either side -- IIRR.