|
The debate has raged for decades. Was it George
H. Thomas, Ulysses Grant, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, Thomas
"Stonewall" Jackson? Each of us has his or her favorite. There are
good arguments for those mentioned above and maybe a few others. In the end,
perhaps there is no one right answer to the question who was the best general
of the war. But ask who was the most effective general of the war and
different names arise, names that would never be mentioned in response to the
earlier question, names, mostly, of political generals. Benjamin Butler,
Nathaniel Banks, John McClernand, while clearly not the best, were all
effective generals. While the current notion is that all political generals
were incompetent fools, while military generals won the war, that is not
entirely true. Political generals acted in ways the military generals did not,
often attaining goals military generals were simply incapable of. When
examined in this manner, the most effective general was none other than John
A. "Black Jack" Logan.
When determining who was the most effective
general, one must look beyond battles or campaigns won or lost. Butler,
victorious early in the war, eventually proved to be incompetent as a
commanding general. Banks was ineffective the entire war. McClernand and Logan
never commanded more than a corps. We must, though, look beyond purely
military endeavors to answer this question. After all, this was a civil war,
the army was woefully unprepared, as was the country and the government,
northerners were sympathetic to the south, southerners were sympathetic to the
north. The nation was rent at the seams and no one knew what would become of
it. The nation needed generals and leaders.
Prior to the Civil War, the United States had
a long tradition of amateur military commanders dating back to the colonial
militia. George Washington had very little military experience when he was
made head of the Continental Army. Before the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson's
experience was limited to Indian wars. Given this background, it is little
wonder that Lincoln relied so heavily on political generals. Some failed, some
succeeded. Their success, though, must be measured on a different scale.
Benjamin Butler was one of the first
political generals. An early hero of the war and a Democrat, he donated his
popularity to the Union cause with every newspaper account containing his name
and every speech proclaiming his political support for the administration's
policies. He organized troops throughout New England and arranged a loan to
pay to deploy the Massachusetts militia. In the fall of 1861, he recruited six
(6) new infantry regiments and an artillery battery, troops that were used in
1862 to capture New Orleans and much of Louisiana. Butler's early stand
against returning runaway slaves, which he first labeled "contrabands of
war," removed a source of labor from the Confederacy and perhaps moved
Lincoln towards the Emancipation Proclamation. When calm was need in the
streets of New York following the draft riots, Lincoln turned to Butler.
As a military commander, Nathaniel Banks was
a failure. However, he was not made a general to produce decisive battlefield
victories. Like Butler, he used his prominence to garner support for the war
effort and Lincoln's policies. As a moderate Republican, he rallied support
from moderates, ex-Democrats, and Know-Nothings. He stumped for Lincoln's
reelection in 1864. Perhaps Banks's greatest contribution came as commander of
the Department of the Gulf. As military commander, he seized Baton Rouge,
helped Grant clear the Mississippi by besieging Port Hudson, and established a
Union presence in Texas. Employing his political experience as military
governor of Louisiana, he almost single handedly reconstructed the state. He
established a new labor system to replace slavery in cotton production, cut
down on illegal trade with the Confederacy, re-created a political structure
for the city of New Orleans, and began the rewriting of Louisiana's
constitution. Lincoln had sufficient faith in Banks's political skills that
the department became the testing ground for the administration's policies on
reconstruction. It is difficult to imagine Grant, Sherman, Lee, or even Thomas
having the political skills necessary to accomplish these tasks.
John McClernand was another of Lincoln's
politically appointed generals. His military experience consisted of being a
private during the Black Hawk War (Lincoln was a captain). But it was not his
military experience that was needed. A Democrat from southern Illinois,
Lincoln needed friends in a region of questionable loyalty to the Union.
McClernand began his military career by raising a brigade from southern
Illinois and rallying support for the Union cause. He succeeded beyond
expectations. In the fall of 1862, McClernand was charged with the task of
raising troops from Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa for a campaign to open the
Mississippi. In just two (2) months, he recruited forty thousand (40,000) new
troops, almost an entire army. No military general could say the same. These
troops were vital in the capture of Vicksburg. Additionally, many of these
were Democrats who opposed Lincoln's election and would likely not have
enlisted but for McClernand's influence. As a military leader, McClernand was
adequate. However, he was unable to get along with Grant, his commanding
officer. He incurred Grant's ire by constantly inflating his role while
criticizing others. Eventually, he was relieved of command.
The most effective general of the war was
John A. "Black Jack" Logan. A southern Illinois Democrat, like
McClernand, he was an able political and military general. He had almost no
military experience. He served in the Mexican War, but saw no combat. When the
Civil War broke out, Logan at first did not reveal his allegiance. After
serving as an unattached volunteer with the 2nd Michigan at First Bull Run, he
made his decision. Resigning from Congress, Logan returned to home, announced
his support for the Union, and raised the 31st Illinois in the heart of
divided southern Illinois. Lincoln gave him a commission for one reason - he
was seen as a political leader who could rally Democrats to the cause. And
rally them he did. With McClernand, Logan stumped all over Illinois and the
old Northwest. His speeches were so effective that Lincoln often asked that
Logan be granted leave to return to Illinois and rally its citizens to the
Union cause. His efforts, along with those of Banks and others, during the
election of 1864 should not be underestimated. Without them, Lincoln's
re-election may not have occurred.
In addition to his political efforts, Logan
contributed militarily. He developed into one of the finest combat leaders of
the war, became an effective field officer, and rose to become one of
Sherman's most experienced corps commanders. He had inherent leadership skills
and natural bravery. In some ways, his tactical record was unsurpassed, even
among West Pointers, as he never tasted defeat or was tainted with charges of
incompetence. In his first action at Belmont, Logan led the 31st Illinois into
the enemy camp and kept it together while other units collapsed after the
arrival of Confederate reinforcements. He was wounded at Fort Donelson while
halting a Confederate attack, for which he was promoted to brigadier general.
He commanded a brigade and then a division under Grant during the Vicksburg
campaign. Eventually, he commanded a corps under Sherman during the Atlanta
campaign. Taking over upon the death of James McPherson, Logan shattered
Hood's attack and drove the Confederates back with great loss. Sherman
credited him with winning the day. Indeed, Logan was repeatedly credited by
Grant and Sherman for his military capabilities.
Perhaps one reason Logan performed well as a
tactical commander was that he had the opportunity to learn. Unlike Banks and
Butler, he was not made a commanding general immediately. Serving as
regimental, brigade, division, and, finally, corps commander, he was given the
chance to learn to handle smaller units, see the battle from the front, and
observe professionals such as Grant and Sherman perform. As an amateur
soldier, though, Logan was never given the opportunity to command an army,
save for a brief period during the battle of Atlanta, when he temporarily took
over for McPherson before being replaced by Oliver O. Howard. Whether it were
his standing as a non-West Pointer, or Grant's and Sherman's distaste after
dealing with McClernand, Logan ended the war as perhaps Sherman's best corps
commander.
Returning to our topic, the same names are
tossed about when debating the best general of the war. Those names are
typically West Pointers. History has left us with the notion that the
professional generals were the only effective military leaders. This is not
the case. Clearly, John A. Logan was an effective military leader, amateur
though he was. Several other names can be added to the list, such as Jacob
Cox, Lew Wallace, Alpheus Williams, while a number of West Pointers proved
incompetent, namely, Ambrose Burnside and Braxton Bragg. Political generals
brought other skills to the table, skills not in the repertoire of the
professional soldier. They were extremely effective in recruiting troops and
rallying support to the cause. They saw the war in terms of a political
struggle, while military generals saw it as a military contest only. There is
little doubt that a politician was much more adept at handling the
reconstruction of Louisiana than a West Pointer would have been. These men
kept the Union together and raised the troops that the military generals led
to victory. Since we tend to view the "best" general as the one with
the greatest influence on the battlefield, let us bypass that question and ask
who was the most effective general. Because of his contributions in the
political arena as well as the battlefield, that can be none other than John
A. "Black Jack" Logan.
|
|
 |
| Benjamin
Butler |
|
 |
| Nathaniel
Banks |
|
 |
| John
McClernand |
|
 |
| John
A. "Black Jack" Logan |
|
|
|
