Opinions on Welles?

[JerryD]

Reading Gideon Welles' diary and nearly done with the Civil War years, and have to admit my opinion of him has changed quite a bit. Still think he did a pretty good of running the Navy Department, but man was he a sourpuss. He rarely has a good thing to say about anyone, other than Lincoln, Foote, Farragut and D. Porter. And even Lincoln he gives faint praise. Was surprised he was so negative on Seward and Stanton (not so surprised he was so negative on Chase). Maybe I shouldn't be too surprised as I know he was a strong supporter of Andrew Johnson, so should not surprise me he is not a great judge of character. He is also very jealous of Seward and Stanton and does not like how Lincoln meets with them privately so much. Welles is always whining about his perceived slights and not being included in more decisions, and about how Lincoln, though well meaning, is often led astray by Seward and Stanton.

Its getting pretty tiresome reading about him whining about just about everyone and everything. He strikes me as someone with no sense of humor with very entrenched ideas of how things should be done. Oddly enough, just read how he wished Lincoln had replaced Halleck with McClellan, and commenting that Meade and Grant were over their heads and not up the jobs they have. He seems to have an especially harsh view of Halleck (fair enough), but to have a soft spot for generals like McClellan and Rosecrans, while dismissing Grant and Meade.

Just wondering if we have any fans of Welles out there and if so, what am I missing? To his credit, he seems to be scrupulously honest, and I do give him high marks for his operating the Navy Department. He deserves respect for that. But man, he seems like a miserable human being.

 

[jackt62]

I read Welles' diary some years ago and agree he had strong opinions about many of his contemporaries. Still, as you point out, he did a good job of running the Navy Department, a none too small job given the vast areas and responsibilities the Navy was assigned. Overall, I would give him high marks for his overseeing the expansion of both blue and brown water naval forces, introducing new technology and armaments, maintaining the blockade, and crucial cooperation and coordination with army operations on many fronts.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I'd call myself a fan of Welles -- with some reservations. True he disliked Seward and some of the other cabinet members, but then again they were not a very likable bunch. Welles was wrong in opposing the blockade at the beginning of the war, but he accepted his political defeat on this point and worked hard to try and make the blockade work. He was right that the Anaconda Plan was not going to work according to its original conception, but worked steadily and efficiently for the necessary expansion of the Navy.

Welles had a political life outside of the Civil War. Originally a Jacksonian Democrat, he became disillusioned with the pro-slavery extremists in the party and drifted into the Republican camp by 1860. After the death of Lincoln, he tried to work with Johnson on a Reconstruction policy that would be generous to the South. He was a Connecticut politician originally and was influential in state affairs throughout his adult life.

 

[JerryD]

I read Welles' diary some years ago and agree he had strong opinions about many of his contemporaries. Still, as you point out, he did a good job of running the Navy Department, a none too small job given the vast areas and responsibilities the Navy was assigned. Overall, I would give him high marks for his overseeing the expansion of both blue and brown water naval forces, introducing new technology and armaments, maintaining the blockade, and crucial cooperation and coordination with army operations on many fronts.

Pretty much agree. I guess I am more responding to him as a person and not so much in terms of his service. He was instrumental in winning the war and did an admirable job running his department. But not the kind of guy I'd want to have a beer with. It seems he is constantly whining about something in his diary. But perhaps that is the nature of a diary; an outlet to vent your spleen in private.

 

[JerryD]

I'd call myself a fan of Welles -- with some reservations. True he disliked Seward and some of the other cabinet members, but then again they were not a very likable bunch. Welles was wrong in opposing the blockade at the beginning of the war, but he accepted his political defeat on this point and worked hard to try and make the blockade work. He was right that the Anaconda Plan was not going to work according to its original conception, but worked steadily and efficiently for the necessary expansion of the Navy.

Welles had a political life outside of the Civil War. Originally a Jacksonian Democrat, he became disillusioned with the pro-slavery extremists in the party and drifted into the Republican camp by 1860. After the death of Lincoln, he tried to work with Johnson on a Reconstruction policy that would be generous to the South. He was a Connecticut politician originally and was influential in state affairs throughout his adult life.

I am aware that post war he seemed to backslide a bit to being more of a Democrat and came to hate both Grant and the Radicals, but you can see the seeds of it during the war. He keeps making the point that the rebelling states should be able to put down their arms and resume their place as if nothing had happened, and says Lincoln and the US has no right to require abolition of slavery as a condition to resuming their rightful place among the states. That this would be a violation of states rights. Which, IMO, is not only legally wrong, but flies in the face of what was possible after a long bloody war supposedly over these very same states rights. He appears to be blind to this practical reality, and it really makes him look quite inflexible and impractical.

 

[CWdiaryPA]

"It was an era of intensest feeling. Men said and thought bitter things. During his term of service the Secretary of the Navy was subject to a succession of attacks, some malignant, others mistaken, all unfair. It is not extraordinary that this journal, written in the hurly-burly of events, should contain some severe and biting strictures; but it is remarkable that so outspoken a record should be so free from selfish or unworthy views; and the clear-cut outlines of his characterizations have, with few exceptions, received the durable impress of history.— THE EDITORS.]" Editors of The Atlantic, about this piece, from 1909, archived 4 months ago:

https://archive.ph/2026.03.19-002400/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1909/02/the-diary-of-gideon-welles-i/638523/

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

To his credit, he seems to be scrupulously honest,

This was my main takeaway from reading his diary and an honest politician is a wonderful thing IMO. He did complain a lot in his diary, but in Washington that was likely the safest place for him to vent.

 

[J. Stanley]

Welles is definitely a bit hard to like - you can definitely appreciate and respect his dutifulness, being a competent administrator and knowing when to defer to experts - but he's definitely has a stick up him.

His worst moment was definitely the Charleston Campaign. He ignored the experts as to why the attack could not succeed, was badly surprised and embarrassed when it failed and then painted Admiral Du Pont as a quarrelsome fellow who couldn't accept his responsibility for the failure. Du Pont was portrayed as a naval McClellan, even prior to the attack. Moreover, since Fox had expended so much political capital on ironclads, Welles suppressed Du Pont's official report, which included reports from Du Pont's captains on the technical defects of their ships.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Pretty much agree. I guess I am more responding to him as a person and not so much in terms of his service. He was instrumental in winning the war and did an admirable job running his department. But not the kind of guy I'd want to have a beer with. It seems he is constantly whining about something in his diary. But perhaps that is the nature of a diary; an outlet to vent your spleen in private.

Sometimes, I think of Welles as the Alanbrooke of his times.

 

[JerryD]

Sometimes, I think of Welles as the Alanbrooke of his times.

Ok, that prompted a Wiki search. But, yeah, I see the parallels.

 

[tony_gunter]

I have a soft spot for Welles. He viewed Lincoln and his cabinet as a gaggle of mean girls, and tried to keep his nose out of the drama and just do his job.

He correctly viewed D D Porter as a self-aggrandizing gasbag, but recognized that his youth, energy, and recklessness was necessary on the river.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I read Welles' diary some years ago and agree he had strong opinions about many of his contemporaries. Still, as you point out, he did a good job of running the Navy Department, a none too small job given the vast areas and responsibilities the Navy was assigned. Overall, I would give him high marks for his overseeing the expansion of both blue and brown water naval forces, introducing new technology and armaments, maintaining the blockade, and crucial cooperation and coordination with army operations on many fronts.

I found the diary a frustrating read. Part of the backstory is that Welles and his son spent years editing and re-writing the original manuscript (Welles died in 1878: the Diary was first published in 1911). It seems clear it was edited to reinforce the deification of Lincoln and to downplay Welles' mistakes. So its authenticity is tainted.

 

[JerryD]

I found the diary a frustrating read. Part of the backstory is that Welles and his son spent years editing and re-writing the original manuscript (Welles died in 1878: the Diary was first published in 1911). It seems clear it was edited to reinforce the deification of Lincoln and to downplay Welles' mistakes. So its authenticity is tainted.

Is that true? The intro says a few deletions were made that were of a personal nature, but that otherwise its verbatim what Welles wrote. It says they considered trying to tone down some of his criticisms of some of the men they mention, but they decided to publish it in its true form, but for the personal deletions. Can I ask your source for the extensive re-writing? That would be very disappointing and tend to make the diary worthless as a resource.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Is that true? The intro says a few deletions were made that were of a personal nature, but that otherwise its verbatim what Welles wrote. It says they considered trying to tone down some of his criticisms of some of the men they mention, but they decided to publish it in its true form, but for the personal deletions. Can I ask your source for the extensive re-writing? That would be very disappointing and tend to make the diary worthless as a resource.

No, it isn't "true" -- it is merely my opinion. You have to make your own judgement. It is ridiculous to assume it was published in its "true form" (i.e. original manuscript).

But definitely not worthless, even if tainted. There is a lot of detail that is pretty much priceless. And his critical analysis of men like Seward and Stanton are a useful antidote to some of the puffery that has been promulgated about them post-war.

I would compare the Diary to Grant's Memoirs. An important historical account, yes, but not without its own problems and not the last word by any means.

 

[Intrafinesse]

My impression of many Civil War politicians and generals can be summed up as "what a d!ck"

Either society is still like this, and because I'm not a politician or general I don't see it OR society has changed and acting like a child is usually detrimental to ones career.
(I do think many of todays politicians are meat sacks )

 

[civil_war_study]

I found the diary a frustrating read. Part of the backstory is that Welles and his son spent years editing and re-writing the original manuscript (Welles died in 1878: the Diary was first published in 1911). It seems clear it was edited to reinforce the deification of Lincoln and to downplay Welles' mistakes. So its authenticity is tainted.

A newer edition exists now. The diary has been reviewed and edited to assume its (mostly) original format before Welles or his son performed edits. This is the edition: "The Civil War Diary of Gideon Welles, Lincoln's Secretary of the Navy: The Original Manuscript Edition". It's not cheap, but it is the most authentic version we have today.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Was surprised he was so negative on Seward and Stanton (not so surprised he was so negative on Chase).

Seward and Stanton both strike me as people whose personalities could really rub someone the wrong way.

Maybe I shouldn't be too surprised as I know he was a strong supporter of Andrew Johnson, so should not surprise me he is not a great judge of character.

Welles was from the Free Soil Democrat wing of the Republicans. He had been a enthusiastic Jacksonian Democrat and his father had been avid Jeffersonian Democrat. Once the crisis was past a split with the Republicans was inevitable, especially with the Radical Republicans having strong postwar influence.

 

[JerryD]

Seward and Stanton both strike me as people whose personalities could really rub someone the wrong way.

Welles didn't like them because he thought they were both a little too slick and secretive. They were both making decisions that impacted the Navy without consulting him, and he was always very jealous of his having his input considered.

I tend to agree with re: Stanton, but from what I understand Seward was pretty sociable. Welles commented that Lincoln liked Seward, and valued Stanton like a useful tool. That sounds about right to me. Lincoln hung out with Seward and they were buddies, and while he was not buddies with Stanton, he did respect his competence and hard work.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I tend to agree with re: Stanton, but from what I understand Seward was pretty sociable.

Seward was certainly more likeable than Staunton, but his famous Higher Law speech and his initial belief he would be the de factor president due to Lincoln's limited political experience hint to me potential friction with others.

Also, the contrast in Seward's and Welles' political beliefs would have been another reason for interpersonal conflict.