Thoughts on Fremont?

[JerryD]

Just finished reading (with a large dose of salt) Fremont's account of his actions taken while in command in Missouri. In sum he paints a picture of inheriting chaos, with Missouri on the brink of going to the rebels, his troops being outnumbered and many of them with enlistments about to expire, and lacking in the basic necessities for forming an army. He also presents that Lincoln told him he had to use his initiative to do what he could to alleviate the situation, and that when he requested arms and reinforcements found that McClellan was sucking all he could get his hands on so that little to none were available for his Department. He claims that when he asked for instructions from Scott, he was told to do what he thought best with what resources he could find.

So in his words, he did what he had to do, letting contract out to get what he needed, and appealing directly to western governors to send regiments to him, and eventually raised an army of 40,000 with little to no help from DC. He glosses over his emancipation declaration but admits Lincoln's right and authority to overrule him, claiming he thought he was just acting within the carte blanche granted him by Lincoln.

Finally he claims that his contracts were let in good faith and that subsequent investigations affirmed this (which is contrary to my understanding, but I do not profess to be an expert in this area).

So just wondering what thoughts people have on Fremont. Did he just brush the Blairs the wrong way? Was he too big for his breeches? Was he as corrupt as some have claimed? Or was he doing the best he could in a difficult situation and sacrificed by Lincoln for political expediency? Or all of the above? And was he even qualified for the position he held?

I honestly don't have strong opinions on him but have always felt he was just another political general who ended up being corrupt and had to be let go. Is that an accurate assessment?

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Just finished reading (with a large dose of salt) Fremont's account of his actions taken while in command in Missouri. In sum he paints a picture of inheriting chaos, with Missouri on the brink of going to the rebels, his troops being outnumbered and many of them with enlistments about to expire, and lacking in the basic necessities for forming an army. He also presents that Lincoln told him he had to use his initiative to do what he could to alleviate the situation, and that when he requested arms and reinforcements found that McClellan was sucking all he could get his hands on so that little to none were available for his Department. He claims that when he asked for instructions from Scott, he was told to do what he thought best with what resources he could find.

So in his words, he did what he had to do, letting contract out to get what he needed, and appealing directly to western governors to send regiments to him, and eventually raised an army of 40,000 with little to no help from DC. He glosses over his emancipation declaration but admits Lincoln's right and authority to overrule him, claiming he thought he was just acting within the carte blanche granted him by Lincoln.

Finally he claims that his contracts were let in good faith and that subsequent investigations affirmed this (which is contrary to my understanding, but I do not profess to be an expert in this area).

So just wondering what thoughts people have on Fremont. Did he just brush the Blairs the wrong way? Was he too big for his breeches? Was he as corrupt as some have claimed? Or was he doing the best he could in a difficult situation and sacrificed by Lincoln for political expediency? Or all of the above? And was he even qualified for the position he held?

I honestly don't have strong opinions on him but have always felt he was just another political general who ended up being corrupt and had to be let go. Is that an accurate assessment?

I think your last paragraph sums it up succinctly and accurately enough. Frankly, Fremont always struck me as a bit of a poseur with not much in the way of substance to him. I would add his behaviour in California during the Mexican War (which led to a well-deserved court-martial) should have completely disqualified him from high command, but that is just me.

 

[Booner]

Just finished reading (with a large dose of salt) Fremont's account of his actions taken while in command in Missouri.......

.......So just wondering what thoughts people have on Fremont. Did he just brush the Blairs the wrong way? Was he too big for his breeches? .........

IMO, if you want to understand the chaotic events that occurred during the outbreak of the CW in Missouri, you have to understand Francis Blair Jr.s' contributions. His father, Francis Blair Sr. was a founding member of the Republican party, and his brother, Montgomery, was a member of Lincoln's cabinet at the Postmaster General. And just prior to the outbreak of the war, Francis Jr., had just been elected as a Republican Congressman. In other words, the Bair family was trusted by the Lincoln administration, and in the chaos of Washington as the war broke out, trust was of primary importance to the administration, as events happened very quickly. Blair Jr. was given the power to keep Missouri in the Union, and to do what he saw fit to make sure that that happened. Historian credit Lyons with keeping Missouri in the Union, but in my opinion, it was Blair; Lyons was his tool.

After the First Battle of Boonville, Blair has to go to Washington to take his seat in Congress, and Lyons is left to conduct the war in Missouri. I imagine that Lyons, being very headstrong, was hard for Blair to control when he was with Lyons. With Blair in Washington, Lyons is now "off the leash" and the Blairs bring Fremont to Missouri to take control. On the surface, bringing in Fremont to take control would appear to be a good move. Fremont has military and political experience and is personally known to the Blair family through Fremont's wife, Jesse, who was the daughter of Thomas Heart Benton, a Missouri Senator. But whether it was poor management or being too slow to counter the movements of the Southern army within the state, or unauthorized political moves (emancipation of slaves), Fremont lost the favor of the Blairs, which meant he no longer had the support of the Lincoln administration and was removed.

 

[JerryD]

IMO, if you want to understand the chaotic events that occurred during the outbreak of the CW in Missouri, you have to understand Francis Blair Jr.s' contributions. His father, Francis Blair Sr. was a founding member of the Republican party, and his brother, Montgomery, was a member of Lincoln's cabinet at the Postmaster General. And just prior to the outbreak of the war, Francis Jr., had just been elected as a Republican Congressman. In other words, the Bair family was trusted by the Lincoln administration, and in the chaos of Washington as the war broke out, trust was of primary importance to the administration, as events happened very quickly. Blair Jr. was given the power to keep Missouri in the Union, and to do what he saw fit to make sure that that happened. Historian credit Lyons with keeping Missouri in the Union, but in my opinion, it was Blair; Lyons was his tool.

After the First Battle of Boonville, Blair has to go to Washington to take his seat in Congress, and Lyons is left to conduct the war in Missouri. I imagine that Lyons, being very headstrong, was hard for Blair to control when he was with Lyons. With Blair in Washington, Lyons is now "off the leash" and the Blairs bring Fremont to Missouri to take control. On the surface, bringing in Fremont to take control would appear to be a good move. Fremont has military and political experience and is personally known to the Blair family through Fremont's wife, Jesse, who was the daughter of Thomas Heart Benton, a Missouri Senator. But whether it was poor management or being too slow to counter the movements of the Southern army within the state, or unauthorized political moves (emancipation of slaves), Fremont lost the favor of the Blairs, which meant he no longer had the support of the Lincoln administration and was removed.

Thanks for all the background. My admittedly thin understanding is that the Blairs took a disliking towards Fremont, and that spelled his end as Lincoln was relying on the Blairs to keep Missouri loyal, or at least neutral. I know the Blairs accused him of corruption, but knowing they were slaveholders I always wondered if they didn't like Fremont's emancipation effort.

 

[Library Lady]

If you have a general interest in Fremont, then you might want to take a look at this book.

I have not read it, but I did read Mr. Inskeep's book on Lincoln (Differ We Must: How Lincoln Succeeded in a Divided America) and enjoyed his writing, so it might have promise.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I can't really fault Lincoln with putting Fremont in charge in Missouri. He had both military and political experience, and his headstrong wife was the daughter of the state's most famous politician. Like McClellan after Second Bull Run, under the circumstances he seemed like the best option available, even though there were serious question marks.

Missouri was a mess in 1861, though probably not as precarious as Fremont claimed. The Confederates were in a precarious situation themselves.

Unfortunately, Fremont was a glory hound too willing to go rogue, as he'd shown in California. His behavior in Missouri isn't surprising given his track record.

I don't think he was anything better than mediocre as a military officer.

Fremont should have never gotten another chance in West Virginia, but Lincoln was no doubt under political pressure.

I can't offer an opinion either way on Fremont possibly being corrupt.

 

[jackt62]

He should have stayed in his well deserved explorer lane.

 

[archieclement]

Much of Fremont says is partially true.
He did inherit a dept in chaos, he rather like McCellan does create and organize rather sizable force that goes on to good service the rest of war. Unlike McCellan he refuses to be urged into premature action and risk disaster. But by the time of his replacement he had largely secured Missouri to the Union for the war.

As far as Blairs the problem was Francis Preston Blair Jr.....he wanted the position himself...

Blairs lobbied against Harney, but instead got Lyon.....
Blairs then lobby against Lyon but instead got Fremont....
Blairs then lobby against Fremont but instead got David Hunter......

 

[JerryD]

Much of Fremont says is partially true.
He did inherit a dept in chaos, he rather like McCellan does create and organize rather sizable force that goes on to good service the rest of war. Unlike McCellan he refuses to be urged into premature action and risk disaster. But by the time of his replacement he had largely secured Missouri to the Union for the war.

As far as Blairs the problem was Francis Preston Blair Jr.....he wanted the position himself...

Blairs lobbied against Harney, but instead got Lyon.....
Blairs then lobby against Lyon but instead got Fremont....
Blairs then lobby against Fremont but instead got David Hunter......

Do you have an opinion on whether Fremont was corrupt? And was his emancipation policy his death knell?

 

[archieclement]

Do you have an opinion on whether Fremont was corrupt? And was his emancipation policy his death knell?

I don't really have an opinion on corrupt, there was corruption in dept and by suppliers. But if he was personally involved and aware, it's strange he was never charged.

The emancipation policy on top of being slow and deliberate, as well Blair hostility was likely death knell.

 

[J. Stanley]

On Fremont's possible corruption, there was plenty of blame to go around.

When the war started, he was in Europe, where he facilitated significant arms purchases for Federal troops. Given the general rush and competing buyers, along with trans-Atlantic miscommunication, Fremont's financial dealings were often, perhaps unavoidably, conducted in irregular fashion.

In Missouri, haphazard procurement procedures again led to accusations of waste and fraud. As far as can be seen in various works, most accusations were directed toward Justus McKinstry, who was Fremont's chief quartermaster. The question is then on how responsible Fremont was.

Given the administrative disorder on Fremont's Department along with the likelihood that unofficial shortcuts, sketchy or not, were taken to address the crisis in supplies and arms, I think Fremont at least had some knowledge or turned a blind eye to it. Whether or not he was personally corrupt is hard to say.

As to his firing, the Blairs certainly did not help things, but Fremont absolutely deserved to be removed on his emancipation order. As a soldier, he had no right to make such a weighty political decision without consultation with his civilian superiors. It was impolitic and incredibly stupid of Fremont to refuse revising his proclamation, forcing Lincoln to do it himself.

 

[archieclement]

Ive often wondered if Union had stuck with McCellan and Fremont, and a similar commander in west, and Lincoln left them alone if the war wouldn't been considerably shorter.

Use norths greater resources and manpower, to organize considerably superior force, apply it slowly and methodically....advance would been slower, but if didn't risk and lose major battles that would set union back quite awhile.....would it would been faster in end?

 

[JerryD]

Ive often wondered if Union had stuck with McCellan and Fremont, and a similar commander in west, and Lincoln left them alone if the war wouldn't been considerably shorter.

Use norths greater resources and manpower, to organize considerably superior force, apply it slowly and methodically....advance would been slower, but if didn't risk and lose major battles that would set union back quite awhile.....would it would been faster in end?

I sincerely doubt it. While I have high regard for McClellan as a commander and think he often gets a bum rap, I just don't see him being willing to conduct a war of conquest and attrition that it was going to take to subdue the south. Southerners were still Americans, and we can be quite obstinate. Losing a few battles was not going to do it. It was going to require breaking the will of the people to support a war that they see as becoming hopeless. Was Mac prepared to fight that kind of war? I don't think so.

 

[JerryD]

On Fremont's possible corruption, there was plenty of blame to go around.

When the war started, he was in Europe, where he facilitated significant arms purchases for Federal troops. Given the general rush and competing buyers, along with trans-Atlantic miscommunication, Fremont's financial dealings were often, perhaps unavoidably, conducted in irregular fashion.

In Missouri, haphazard procurement procedures again led to accusations of waste and fraud. As far as can be seen in various works, most accusations were directed toward Justus McKinstry, who was Fremont's chief quartermaster. The question is then on how responsible Fremont was.

Given the administrative disorder on Fremont's Department along with the likelihood that unofficial shortcuts, sketchy or not, were taken to address the crisis in supplies and arms, I think Fremont at least had some knowledge or turned a blind eye to it. Whether or not he was personally corrupt is hard to say.

As to his firing, the Blairs certainly did not help things, but Fremont absolutely deserved to be removed on his emancipation order. As a soldier, he had no right to make such a weighty political decision without consultation with his civilian superiors. It was impolitic and incredibly stupid of Fremont to refuse revising his proclamation, forcing Lincoln to do it himself.

I think this is kind of along the lines of where I am ending up with Fremont. Did best he could in a very difficult situation. Charges of corruption probably overblown. But not a team player and a bit of a prima donna, so he had to go. Lincoln needed generals who all wanted to row the boat in the same direction, and Fremont did not fit that profile.