Controversy in the Union

John M. Schofield, General of the Federal Army, between 1860 and 1865. (Source: Library of Congress)

It is easy to overlook the fact that primary sources are written by real humans, which it is easy to consider their words to be the absolute truth. However, this is not the case - these generals had ulterior motives, jealousies, grudges, and all the follies of humanity. This led to arguments and controversy, albeit shrouded in professionalism. A survey of war reports and correspondences reveals those controversies in the union.

No example of this is better than that of Union Brigadier-General John McAllister Schofield. Schofield's superior is Samuel R. Curtis, whose superior is Henry W. Halleck. Three days after Prairie Grove, Curtis reported in a letter to Halleck that Prairie Grove was “a complete victory.”¹ However, two weeks later, Schofield sent a letter to Curtis wherein he mentioned, in passing, Herron’s and Blunt’s disastrous performances at Prairie Grove, their embarrassing victory that was just nearly a defeat.² These two letters are clearly discrepant, but whose narrative is more truthful? Whose interests are skewing the narrative, if not both? 

In a letter to Curtis soon after the battle, Schofield proposed an organization of Colonel Phillips’ Indian Brigade. In doing so, though, he mentioned Blunt’s anger with the decisions made above him, implying that Blunt was angry with Curtis. This is the second time Schofield has talked badly of Blunt. Either he is being “blunt”, or he is being disingenuous, with an ulterior motive³. In reading Blunt’s reports, though, it does not appear that he has any reservations. He does not mention Schofield at all and always talks as though the union had grand victories. Blunt clearly has lots of respect for Herron, about whom Schofield also talked badly⁴. 

Schofield wrote snarky, sarcastic reports to Curtis regarding the battle of Prairie Grove. “While regretting my unfortunate absence," he wrote, "it affords me great satisfaction to know that my noble little army has, under the gallant Blunt and Herron, added another greater proof of its high qualities in the hard-fought battle and brilliant victory.” Schofield soon desired to change positions, and called Curtis the “cause of all my troubles”⁵.

"The Missouri Troubles: President Lincoln's reply to the Missouri delegation Gen. Schofield sustained." New York Times, October 24, 1863.

With respect to the original disagreement between Curtis and Schofield, it is clear now that Schofield is the problem. Indeed, Schofield soon became a controversial figure, getting repositioned for his disagreements with Curtis, and being accused of “imbecility” and endangering Union soldiers⁶. To what can we attribute Schofield’s inciteful, problematic behavior? It is possible Schofield was envious of Curtis’ position, because Schofield was promoted to Major General in November 1862, but that appointment did not materialize until May. This meant he was beholden to Curtis the whole time, through much of the Arkansas campaign in late 1862 to early 1863⁷. This would make him want to damage Blunt's reputation because that would make Schofield's promotion more likely. 

Cases such as Schofield’s are great examples of bickering and jealousy that occur within ranks of power. But even the common soldier thought the battle controversial. Though Blunt and Herron were lauded and popular commanders, there was controversy over their decisions in battle. Soldiers believed their decisions were “not well-planned” and that the “superior generalship” was less important to the success of the battle. The deciding factor, instead, was a mix of luck and industrial advantage⁸. After the battle, brigades were reorganized frequently, with generals lightly arguing about where brigades should go, and who makes which decisions. 

An interesting piece of bias to note is that in the midst of these clear disagreements, power struggles, most commanders praised each other, like Blunt and Herron. It is also clear from the timestamps of correspondences that the knee-jerk instinct of a commander in reporting to his superior is to claim grandiose, supreme victory, regardless of that being the total truth. Of course, this is a predictable result of pride. This is at times a hubris that must be considered.