Why were lawyers and politicians such good generals?

infomanpa

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Pennsylvania
How is it that so many lawyers and politicians were commissioned as generals and officers? How does practicing law translate into military skills? I find it amazing that these men were entrusted to make sound military decisions without any expertise in the area. What did they know of tactics and strategy? Why was this considered okay? Why bother going to West Point if anyone who speaks eloquently can be an officer?
 
if you stop and think about it for a moment isn't it Congress that recommends the war Powers act and they're all lawyers so I guess it's not that much of a stretch. and then again try to look on the bright side is someone has to be killed why not a lawyer or politician..
 
How is it that so many lawyers and politicians were commissioned as generals and officers? How does practicing law translate into military skills? I find it amazing that these men were entrusted to make sound military decisions without any expertise in the area. What did they know of tactics and strategy? Why was this considered okay? Why bother going to West Point if anyone who speaks eloquently can be an officer?
Can you give examples of whom you have in mind?
 
How is it that so many lawyers and politicians were commissioned as generals and officers? How does practicing law translate into military skills? I find it amazing that these men were entrusted to make sound military decisions without any expertise in the area. What did they know of tactics and strategy? Why was this considered okay? Why bother going to West Point if anyone who speaks eloquently can be an officer?

Some thoughts:
- A significant amount of being a General is leadership and organizational management; politicians often had those skills from their experience leading and organizing civilians
- Lawyers were generally some of the most well read/educated members of society; to learn about stragtey or tactics people (even those who went to West Point) would read Halleck, Jomini, Clausewitz, etc. which could be read just as well by a lawyer.
- For technical military matters, the selection of chiefs of staff or chief engineer could be more important than General
- West Point was founded as a school of engineering, not for producing generals.
- I would bet that many of those you think of as the lawyer/politician generals had some expertise in military decision making
 
How is it that so many lawyers and politicians were commissioned as generals and officers? How does practicing law translate into military skills? I find it amazing that these men were entrusted to make sound military decisions without any expertise in the area. What did they know of tactics and strategy? Why was this considered okay? Why bother going to West Point if anyone who speaks eloquently can be an officer?
A good reason why is the ability of popular politicans to recruit men into regiments. General "Pap" Price a recent former governor of Missouri would be one good example. Senator Jim Lane of Kansas would be another and if course " that guy" Nathan Bedford Forrest was a city councilman from Memphis. For sure Forrest never was enlisted in prior U.S. military service nor did he go to a service academy. Quite possibly the same for the other two.
Also the antebellum army only was authorized sixteen thousand men and a typical West Point graduating class was in the 40 to 50 range so not a whole lot of prior service graduates to go around. There were a few foreign military officers that fought on both sides but not nearly enough to make up for the shortage of qualified officers. Politicians and lawyers are about has good an officer material both sides had.
Keep in mind the Union Army had to go from under 16 thousand actual enlisted men to having about half a million men enlisted at one time. Someone needs to take up the slack. The Union Army did have a formal Officer Candidate School for the United States Coloured Troops and privates did on occasion rise to ar least the rank of colonel (Elisha Hunt Colonel Commanding 2nd Rhode Island) or general such has former British Army Sergeant turned lawyer turned Confederate General Patrick Clebourne.
Leftyhunter
 
In those days, colleges principally turned out either: 1) preachers, 2) doctors or 3) lawyers. In fact, many colleges were affiliated with one of the prevailing Christian denominations. Emphasis was placed on classical Greek and Latin studies. Evidently not many ministers of the gospel found army life appealing. Doctors often became army surgeons. That leaves lawyers to fill the remaining officer ranks, especially at the senior levels, of a greatly expanded army of citizen-soldiers that did not have enough military graduates to meet the demand.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that many lawyers and politicians did not turn into good generals (and "Pap" Sterling Price is certainly one of them, though he was better than others such as John Floyd and Gideon Pillow.)

A key thing to remember is that outside of a handful of experienced generals (like Winfield Scott), high command in the Civil War was an even playing field. West Point did not prepare or train a young officer in much more than commanding a company or small level assignments. Only a handful of officers in the Antebellum army held a command higher than a regiment. So Lawyers & politicians (experienced in leadership) and West Point/VMI/Citadel graduates were often learning on the job, especially in the early war.

Attorneys were expected to be well read and to have libraries (for legal reference and research). It is not a stretch that many, especially those with experience in the militia (and such educated men usually found themselves the officers of such organizations), would read and buy military texts. For example, the Attorney General of Iowa, Samuel Rice, was commissioned colonel of the 33rd Iowa. When he was appointed brigade commander in the garrison of Helena, Arkansas, he actually ordered forty-two copies of Casey's Manual of tactics, and drilled his brigade vigorously in it so that it became one of the better performing infantry units in the Trans-Mississippi.

Some attorneys and politicians, such as Price, had experience in command from the Mexican War. A lot of generals in the Trans-Mississippi had this sort of background and experience.
 
They weren't the BEST Gens as stated above. General Nathan Bedford Forrest could barley read.
 
Bear in mind that many lawyers and politicians did not turn into good generals (and "Pap" Sterling Price is certainly one of them, though he was better than others such as John Floyd and Gideon Pillow.)

Not to forget my man, Dirty Dan :smile: Quite possibly, his exercise of independent decision (putting is politely) comes from the fact that he, indeed, did not have formal military training, and was driven by the ego/self-centeredness more suited for politics.
 
How is it that so many lawyers and politicians were commissioned as generals and officers? How does practicing law translate into military skills? I find it amazing that these men were entrusted to make sound military decisions without any expertise in the area. What did they know of tactics and strategy? Why was this considered okay? Why bother going to West Point if anyone who speaks eloquently can be an officer?
Because there were not enough West Pointers to fill the positions, there was no OCS.
 
Not to forget my man, Dirty Dan :smile: Quite possibly, his exercise of independent decision (putting is politely) comes from the fact that he, indeed, did not have formal military training, and was driven by the ego/self-centeredness more suited for politics.

Very similarly, John McClernand who grated Grant and Sherman with his politicking in the west, despite being a competent combat commander.
 
Reading these responses might lead one to think that understanding military strategy, tactics and managing thousands of soldiers, wasn't that big of a deal, as long as you were a smart guy! Hmm....
 
Reading these responses might lead one to think that understanding military strategy, tactics and managing thousands of soldiers, wasn't that big of a deal, as long as you were a smart guy! Hmm....

Not always. Thomas C. Hindman, an orator, lawyer, and politician in Arkansas, found himself in command of the field army of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department (designated the First Corps) in late 1862. His army was organized into three divisions, who were all lead by West Pointers (John S. Marmaduke, Daniel M. Frost, and Francis Shoup). Hindman in particular was very close to Shoup and relied on him in organization and administration matters. When the army saw action in its' first major battle at Prairie Grove, Hindman exerted very little command and control and let the battle be almost totally fought by his division commanders. Some historians have theorized that Hindman felt little confidence in himself and preferred the military expertise of his division commanders.

However, in this case, it backfired. Hindman's plan of battle was to attack one wing of the Federal Army of the Frontier and destroy it before it could join the other. However, Shoup adopted a defensive posture when he encountered the Federal advance guard (which Marmaduke and Frost conformed to), which gave the Federals the initiative and allowed them to reunite, which derailed Hindman's plans.

Hindman seems to have had a similiar attitude later as a division commander in the Army of Tennessee, preferring a hands-0ff approach for his experienced subordinate commanders (which had disastrous results such as at McLemore's Cove and Kolb's Farm).
 
Last edited:
Also a lot of attorneys and politicians who raised their own company at the outset of the war, were elected into command and worked their way up from there. They were the wealthiest and most educated men in their community, and often prominent community leaders, so they naturally became officers. Many brigade and division commanders who had little to no military education or experience climbed the ranks that way. Political generals tend to get a bad name due to a number of bad apples, however there were a few who made decent to excellent brigade and division commanders, along with many capable field and company grade officers. As for those few above brigade command besides Forrest: Richard Taylor, John B. Gordon, Pat Cleburne and John Logan all come to mind (Cleburne and Logan had only limited military experience).
 
Last edited:
Reading these responses might lead one to think that understanding military strategy, tactics and managing thousands of soldiers, wasn't that big of a deal, as long as you were a smart guy! Hmm....
Oh it was a big deal. To make selections, those deciding had to look for indicators that the candidate understood these things and had the capability to manage thousands. Consider some of the names mentioned so far:

Price: businessman, governor = capable of managing men and supplies; politician = capable of leading; General in Mexican war; commander of state militia = military experience. Seems like a solid resume for making him a general.

Lane: Senator, leader of Jayhawkers = leadership; Colonel in Mexican War = military experience.

Hindman: service in Mexican War, political leader, Colonel of Arkansas regiment in beginning of civil war.
 
Because there were not enough West Pointers to fill the positions, there was no OCS.
The Union Army did not have a course of instruction named OCS but they did in fact have something very similar.
In order to become a USCT officer one had to be well recommended to become an officer and pass a Board of Examination . In addition to be appointed to become a Lt one had to pass " School of the soldier and Company". To be appointed a Capt or
Major one had to pass"School of the Battalion. To be appointed a Lt. Col or full Col one had to pass "School of the Brigade.
Sounds a whole lot like OCS or in Vietnam it was known as"shake and bake".
Source a PHd thesis that one can google"Selection and training of USCT Officers by Major DV Van Every or try this link
oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=htm&identer..
see p.3 and 49
Leftyhunter
 
How is it that so many lawyers and politicians were commissioned as generals and officers? How does practicing law translate into military skills? I find it amazing that these men were entrusted to make sound military decisions without any expertise in the area. What did they know of tactics and strategy? Why was this considered okay? Why bother going to West Point if anyone who speaks eloquently can be an officer?
They had a cut throat instinct.
 
Back
Top