Talk:Political general

message: I don't normally like to plaster warning signs in articles until discussion can take place. This article is in strong need of a References section and citations. See WP:CITE. Finding secondary sources that characterize these men as political would go a long way. It also should probably be renamed Political generals of the American Civil War unless someone has evidence that this concept has never occurred in other wars, worldwide, which I doubt. It would be interesting to add the claim that there were no "political admirals" if you can find a scholarly source for it. I also toned down a number of unencyclopedic statements. Hal Jespersen 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs?

message: I was wondering about the listing of Barksdale as a "political general". While I don't know the specifics of his appointment, Ezra Warner's Generals in Gray indicates that he had served as an enlisted man, then becoming an officer, in the Mexican War. Does previous military experience play any part in determining if the appointment is political? Also, he was appointed as a colonel, initially, of the 13th Mississippi, and did not see promotion until Aug. 12, 1862. If someone could provide more details about his appointment which confirm or deny its political nature, I think that that would really help this article. 204.52.215.69 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Barksdale? 

message: Franz Sigel was undoubtedly far from competent at his nominal job, but he was a military academy graduate and former army officer in Germany, and had experience losing battles in important commands dating back to 1848.  Aside from the fact that he was an experienced officer, he's an almost perfect example of a political general by the intro's definition.  If we're to include Sigel, we'd probably be compelled to include US Grant as well.  He ended his Army career as a captain years before the Civil War began and was, as hostilities were getting under way, appointed a colonel of militia by the Governor of Illinois. He then got his appointment to brigadier general a couple months later from Lincoln, thanks largely to the lobbying of an Illinois congressman.  
General Wheeler's inclusion is also dicey, because, though brought back into the fold for largely political reasons, he had already served with distinction in a similar level of command as that to which he was appointed in 1898. 
In other news, I've removed John C. Frémont from the list because he had had a fairly impressive military career until his ego-battle with Stephen Kearny got him court-martialed in 1847.  I also removed Zachary Taylor from the Mexican War list because his inclusion on the list made no sense whatsoever.  --Dynaflow babble 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigel? 

message: : after translating his WP en article into WP french , am considering if he might not be added to the list (ACW, Confederate) ? T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Henry A. Wise]] ? 

message: The article states that "The first three volunteer generals Lincoln appointed, (John Adams Dix, Nathaniel Prentice Banks and Benjamin F. Butler) were all Democrats". However this overlooks the fact that both Butler and Banks had left the Democrats in the 1850s and Banks had even tried to get on the Republican ticket in 1860 and his own article describes him as a 'leading Republican' when he was appointed as a general. Dunarc (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable statement 

message: - Seems a bit questionable to imply that this was the main reason Price held command, when he'd been a general in the Mexican War.  Seems a little ridiculous to call Price a political general when he was one of the more experienced soldiers in Missouri in 1861. Hog Farm  Talk 05:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As there has been no response, removing Price from the ACW discussion due to his significant Mexican War service generally disqualifying him from this list. Hog Farm  Talk 17:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to quibble overmuch, but Price was a two-war political general, something akin to Edward D. Baker (although Baker refused his ACW major general commission because he would have been forced to resign his Senate seat). Both raised state regiments for both wars; that's a true feat of politics, not military expertise IMHO. That said, Price likely had more command and actual battlefield experience than did most West Pointers who graduated after 1846. BusterD (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that Price's unsuccessful 1864 expedition demonstrated organizational and leadership skills far in excess of anything Baker might have accomplished if he hadn't got himself killed at Ball's Bluff. Price, certainly more than Polk, learned how to command well by actually commanding. All this is my original synthesis. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see a case for possibly classifying Price as a Mexican War political general, but given for the ACW he got his start in the CSA from his Missouri State Guard command, which seems to have at least partially been given due to his prior military experience.  I'm not against it being reinstated, although it probably should be noted if added back in that he did have prior military experience as of '61. Hog Farm  Talk 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with every word you've written here. I appreciate your engaging on this subject, and I respect the extraordinary (and quite sensitive) work you are doing in Missouri ACW articles of all kinds. IMHO, a political general is one who obtained his command primarily because of the respect given him as a political leader, not as a professional soldier. This, I believe, was especially important in the Confederacy (and even more so in states like MO and KY) because the real battles, at least early on, were for mustering the political will of the populace for recruiting purposes. No big objection from me if Price comes out. You have made a good case. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah.  It's an especially difficult decision to make with those who were actively involved in war and politics at the same time.  Both Price's 1864 Missouri raid and the 1862 invasion of Kentucky under Bragg and Smith sought to appoint political leaders, and were planned with politics in mind to some extent.  It makes it very hard to classify such things. Hog Farm  Talk 23:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: William Mahone is not usually referred to as a political general but he was, despite his VMI training and years of engineering successes. In my experience the title of this article is usually a term used to disparage non-Regular Army types (with the benefit of hindsight). A reasonable case could be made that even McClellan was brought to early command because he had political influence. I agree that it's not a yes or no, instead a 1 to 10 continuum. Happy editing. BusterD (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, the most effective field commander on either side, N.B. Forrest was a political general but you've never heard him described in that fashion. The term is a pejorative, not a classification. BusterD (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sterling Price?