Washington Correspondence

WASHINGTON, May 9, 1862

It has been the subject of much fear that the national arms might fall in consequence of so large a proportion of incapables having been put in the lead.  Compared with the character of our men under arms, the generals are, as a mass, scarcely equal – perhaps not equal – to the average of the men in the ranks, and are totally unworthy to lead such an army to the field.  This could hardly be otherwise, in the manner that our army was, something like of necessity, made up.  Certainly it was to have been expected.  The appointment of officers was a strife and scramble, when they had to be made so rapidly that proper scrutiny was hardly possible, in good part they were appointed because they could offer regiments and brigades, when regiments and brigades were immediately needed and greedily taken on any terms while the balance were made chiefly on the recommendation of politicians who had friends to pay off, to conciliate or to secure.  One gentleman on the War Committee, who in no degree partakes of the sensation character, who is unlikely to be either depressed or elated without sufficient reason, who is not prone to speak without consideration, and who, in his position, having had nearly every officer of distinction in this quarter and very many from other quarters of the country before him for examination, told me that he utterly despaired of the country, its fortunes having been placed in the hands of a body of men so weak in character and capacity.  Not having seen it he said no evidence would have made him believe none could have made him realize the incapacity of the body of men whom the lives of our army and the fortunes of the country were turned over.  I think anyone who has seen much of our leading commanders, has measurably received the same impression.  And yet we succeed.  One thing our croakers and our thoughtfully despairing men have overlooked. – We of the loyal side had, as a class quite as good material to select from as the rebels, and were not at all less likely to select with discretion than they for the circumstances with them necessarily rendered the clutch for office quite as confused as impudent and selfish as with us.  If we have fools, there was quite as great reason why they should have them and they actually have eclipsed us in this respect.  Hence, on that score there never was anything to fear, as events have demonstrated.  Yet, if incapacity has not seriously periled our cause it has needlessly and deplorably sacrificed thousands of our brave and patriotic soldiers – has carried desolation and despair to thousands of homes that yet should be bright with joy.  Another gentleman upon the same committee, a man of as much penetration and talent as anyone on it, tells me that of all the leading men of the army who have been before it, Gen. McClellan is the weakest.  He said he could not realize that he was the head of the army.  He was the lightest, the most effeminate, the least competent of all.  In his examination he seemed lost, uncertain, unsteady – a man for home the term effeminate was the fittest that could be used.  And this is the man who was to turn Congress out of doors, the “man on horseback” whom Dr. Russell was dreaming about, the young Napoleon who was to lead the American army like an avalanche against the rebels!  But, said my friend, on the other hand, no man has appeared before the committee of whose talents and military capacity I have formed so high an opinion as of General Stone.  That gentleman he considers the most qualified to command of any in the army, and greatly regretted his disgrace he individually having do doubt as to his actual treason. – Gen. Stone was a schoolboy companion of my own.  I knew him well in days long past, and I do not think this judgment of his talents and military attainments is far out of the way.

The disposition made of the case of Mr. Vandever you will have seen.  Had it been brought to a vote, I have no doubt but that the result would have been as I think I indicated in my last – a decision against the power to hold a commission in the army and a seat in the House at the same time.  But there was a disinclination to decide the question against members who are patriotically serving in the field and a hope was indulged that the difficulty might be got over by the close of the war before December – at least there was a ready willingness that they might be continued in the possession of all honor and influence as long as possible.  In all there are eleven members who hold commissions in the army, that I can count up.  There may be still more.

IOWA.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, May 17, 1862 p. 1