Political soldier John M. Schofield and the politics of generalship

Although relatively uncelebrated, John McAllister Schofield (1831--1906) was an important Civil War commander and crucial figure in the professionalization of the late nineteenth-century army. In addition to serving as a departmental, corps, and army commander in the Civil War and a military governor during Reconstruction, he occupied every senior position in the post war army, including Secretary of War.;In examining Schofield's Civil War experience, this study places special emphasis on the role of politics in the formulation and execution of military policy. Political disputes about slavery or the use of African-American soldiers had enormous military implications, just as the actions by soldiers to suppress guerrillas, seize or destroy enemy property, seek battle or resort to maneuver had enormous political implications.;In learning to balance his military duties amid contending political pressures, Schofield ultimately rejected the idea that the path to military professionalism lay through a complete separation of military from political affairs. Rather than assert his independent authority and feud with the Secretary of War, Schofield forthrightly subordinated himself to the Secretary. Schofield's accommodation to the primacy of politics in military affairs was the last remaining element in the professionalization of the United States Army.;In examining John Schofield's career, this study affirms the primacy of politics, whether ideological, partisan, institutional, or personal, in the formulation of military policy. Too many writers treat the civil and the military as relatively distinct and monolithic entities. They presume that the military and the political spheres can be readily delineated and focus primarily on the relationship between the President and the senior military chiefs. Often overlooked are the roles of the Congress, the states, and the public as well as disparate elements and interests within the military.;The history of American civil-military relations has seldom involved the military versus civil authority. Most civil-military conflicts have involved struggles between one group of civilians and their military allies versus another coalition of civilian and military interests. In American history, the central question has never been whether to have civilian control, but which civilians have a say in the formulation and execution of policy.