Hi Ned,
While I certainly can't speak for
@MikeyB a reasonable definition would be simply anointing a politician who has no military experience in exchange for their political support and or their ability to recruit men in their respective political districts.
Where it gets a bit more complicated is in the case of someone like Samuel Curtis who is an elected congressmen but did graduate West Point and did command two regiments in the Mexican-American War.
One could argue can that Curtis regardless of his occupation would be qualified to at least be a Colonel in the ACW some there was a severe shortage of graduates of recognized military academies.
Leftyhunter
Ok , lets break it down...
"anointing a politician"
Actively in office? Formerly in office? Someone who had sought office?
(Hooker ran for state office in California but lost; Schurz also ran for state office and failed; I don't think Sigel ever tried )
"who has no military experience"
How do we define military experience? What kind of experience counts?
Many of the men we are talking about (McClernand, Banks, Butler) had been in their State Militia .
Lincoln appointed Butler as a general in the USV in May 1861, at which time he was a Brigadier General of the Massachusetts militia, commanding the force occupying Baltimore Maryland. Schurz and Sigel had both served in Germany during the revolution; Fremont had been in the US Army in the 40s.
"in exchange for their political support and or their ability to recruit men in their respective political districts."
- Who was that true of ? Maybe the Illinois Dems like McClernand and Logan. But were Banks or Butler needed for their political support or to recruit men from Massachusetts? Is there really any indication that was the motivation for their appointments?