Historians and the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, 1861-65

Historians and the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, 1861-65 Brian Holden Reíd the joint committee on the Conduct of the War, created in December 1861 amid the outrage following the Union defeat at the Battle of Ball's Bluff, was one of the most controversial and feared bodies ever to operate in Washington, D.C. Following this humiliating engagement the previous October, which witnessed the death of Colonel Edward D. Baker, a serving senator and friend of the president, Congressman Roscoe Conkling introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling on the War Department to provide all the necessary information needed to explain the defeat. On December 5 Senator Zachariah Chandler proposed the formation of a committee to investigate the causes of the defeats at First Bull Run and Ball's Bluff. James W. Grimes followed this with a call for a joint committee "to inquire into the causes of the disasters that have attended the public arms." This proposal was enthusiastically supported. In the ensuing discussion Senator John Sherman widened the scope of the proposed inquiry. "To confine this inquiry," he claimed, "to the disasters of the war would be to cripple and limit the proposed committee in all directions. In my judgment, this ought to be the committee of inquiry into the general conduct of the war." The great merit of such a proposal, argued Senator Henry Wilson, was that it "should teach men in civil and in military authority that the people expect that they will not make mistakes, and that we shall not be easy with their errors." Fools should be rooted out and the war won at a lesser cost. Grimes amended his original amendment, and it was The idea for this essay was suggested to me by the late Professor Marcus Cunliffe, whose knowledge and counsel is missed the more the longer I am deprived of it. Earlier versions have been greatly improved by Professors Peter J. Parish and Roger Spiller. Civil War History, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 4, » 1992 by The Kent State University Press 320CIVIL WAR HISTORY passed with a substantial majority. The committee, drawing a membership from the Senate and House of Representatives, was chaired by Republican Senator Benjamin F. Wade from Ohio.1 Unpopular and feared, especially in conservative circles during the Civil War, the committee's historical reputation has veered between extremes . Much of the writing about it has reflected either the rhetoric of contemporary political debate or the prejudices of the various groupings that maneuvered for influence around the Lincoln administration. A neat, clear dividing line was drawn between civilian politicians (the investigators ) and soldiers (those being investigated). It was assumed also that men in uniform were political innocents. The first writers to treat of the committee were determined to consider soldiers and civilians as people who lacked common ground—even as separate species. Such writers shared the tendency of professional soldiers to brand politicians as opportunistic self-seekers and ne'er-do-wells who served the cause of their own ambitions and parties. Soldiers served their country. This attitude was best expressed by General William T. Sherman, who, after a visit to the White House in June 1861, confided to his brother that "I do think that the Administration is committing a fatal mistake in giving the cold shoulder to all national men as compared to politicians." Former regular officers like Sherman considered the commissioning of political cronies into the army—despised "political generals" like Nathaniel P. Banks and Benjamin F. Butler supported by their political friends on Capitol Hill—a disaster. These men displayed neither military knowledge nor skill, but an overwhelming self-centeredness and thirst for advancement. In the opinion of G. S. Hillard, who wrote material on behalf of the Democrats in the 1864 presidential election, "civilian generals, grossly and notoriously incompetent, were allowed to play at the game of war, for political stakes, with the lives of our bravest and best for their counters. . . . [the] historian will find . . . fresh illustration of political hatred, the ferocity of partisan zeal and the rank growth of low passion in high places." This view was clearly an expression of a deeply held...