Old Fuss and Feathers
America loves to elect military men to political office. Since General Washington earned the votes for the Presidency numerous other military heroes – some generals and some common soldiers – have parlayed their military prowess into political gold. Presidents Jackson, Wm. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, James Garfield, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower are the best examples of this tradition.
But American politics is also littered with military heroes who failed on the political front. Grant was elected President, but was a terrible President. Winfield Scott Hancock, Bob Dole, George McGovern and John Fremont were military heroes of one sort another, only to face defeat at the polls. In recent years Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush failed to convert their military experience into second terms of office.
But one example that stands out to me the most this year is Winfield Scott (for whom Winfield Scott Hancock was named). Scott was a hero of the War of 1812 and for much of the early 19th century was the most prominent military official in the country. The Whig Party, formed in the 1830s in opposition to Andrew Jackson’s Democrats, found that they could only win popular office by running military men with broad appeal. In 1840 they struck gold with “Old Tippecanoe” William Henry Harrison, who promptly died 33 days after taking office. After genuine ideological Whig Henry Clay lost in a nail-biter in 1844, the Whigs went back to the military well again and picked Mexican War hero Zachary Taylor. Sadly, once again the winning Whig died in office, leaving an ineffectual Millard Fillmore to finish out the term.
So in 1852, the Whig tried again with Winfield Scott. As the sectional crisis between North and South grew more intense, the Whigs thought they could nominate a pro-slavery Virginian in Scott, and could once again unite for victory. Scott was demolished by New Hampshire Democrat Franklin Pierce, mostly because the South did not trust the Whigs anymore, and the North split its votes among various anti-slavery parties.
But Scott faced a sort of cultural assault that no military leader in America had ever faced. His insistence upon military honor and his love of military dress earned him the nickname “Old Fuss and Feathers.” Americans of all political stripes cherished and respected Scott for his dedicated service in the War of 1812 and his leadership in the intervening decades. But he seemed truly out of touch by 1852, unable to grasp the complex nature of the post-Mexican War political scene.
The now-cascading blow-up over McCain’s inability to recall his number of houses reminds me of the sorts of problems that Winfield Scott faced. The political environment for the Whigs in 1852 was deadly; and the party would effectively collapse afterward, leaving a rump of ex-Whigs in Kentucky and Tennessee to carry the old banner, with Northern Whigs forming the new Republican Party in 1854. Scott’s greatest strength was his military service and his sense of honor. Like McCain, he knew that nobody would question his service to country. But, in spite of Americans’ love affair for military heroes, Scott effectively painted himself as out of touch on the issues that mattered to Americans in 1852.
I’ve long thought that McCain’s weakness on the economy would come back to bite him. But as long as he didn’t provide the Democrats with the sort of imagery that paints the “old maverick” as a spoiled military aristocrat who married his wealth, then he could avoid the sort of cultural onslaught that tore Winfield Scott down in 1852. Americans love their military heroes. But they hate military aristocrats.
Old Fuss and Feathers would continue to serve the nation as the first General of the Union army during the Civil War in 1861. He developed the “anaconda strategy” that ultimately starved the Confederacy. But, he was ousted by General George McClellan, who would finally built a new modern army tasked with carrying out the anaconda plan (even if he didn’t know how to use it). Once again, Winfield Scott’s time had passed him by.
22 Responses to “Old Fuss and Feathers”
[...] Original post by ELROD [...]
It's not a “cascading blowup” except among those who exaggerate this kind of thing. Among ordinary people it's good for puzzled looks and laughs, at McCain's expense, little if anything more.
McCain the WAR HERO! [tm] [insert trumpet fanfare] can't exploit the GOP's better reputation on national security to any great extent, any more than his reputation as a WAR HERO! [tm], as the 2006 election results show.
On the topic of the Whigs, you may be interested to learn that the Whig Party currently has a modest 10,000 members. Interestingly enough, 6,500 are affiliated with the military. This includes Vietnam veterans and many Iraq/Afghanistan veterans. The “Modern Whig Party” is a legitimate, mainstream and non-fringe organization that caters to those who find themselves cherry-picking between traditionally GOP ideals and traditionally Democratic ideals.
The Modern Whig Party is based out of Washington, DC and so far has 12 state affiliates as well as some college chapters.
http://www.modernwhig.org
Elrod,
This was an absolutely wonderful article. Although I had heard of Winfield Scott, it was in the blandest of historical terms – just a name and a date. You brought a great deal of color to this character.
On the political side, I think mentioning McCain took away from the point you were making. The TMV crowd would have picked up immediately on the “Old Fuss and Feathers” reference and the nuance would have had a better effect.
No need to club them over the head.
Someone with the Whig party has a Google Alert set.
Someone with the Whig party has a Google Alert set.
Thanks jwest. I was obviously thinking of the comparison but didn't know if I could be specific.
Rollingmills,
That's amazing. The Whig Party always conjures up “past politics, ” as in “going the way of the Whig Party.”
Interestingly, the Whig Party died because of the 1850s politics. But so did the Democrats. They split in 1860 and never really recovered as a national force until the 1873 Depression.
Thanks jwest. I was obviously thinking of the comparison but didn't know if I could be specific.
Rollingmills,
That's amazing. The Whig Party always conjures up “past politics, ” as in “going the way of the Whig Party.”
Interestingly, the Whig Party died because of the 1850s politics. But so did the Democrats. They split in 1860 and never really recovered as a national force until the 1873 Depression.
Excellent post!
Though I'd like to add that some think Grant was a good President.
Excellent post!
Though I'd like to add that some think Grant was a good President.
It is an excellent post! Winfield Scott is one of the seminal figures in American history that for some reason is overlooked. Perhaps it is because he never succeeded in winning the presidency.
It is an excellent post! Winfield Scott is one of the seminal figures in American history that for some reason is overlooked. Perhaps it is because he never succeeded in winning the presidency.
Though I'd like to add that some think Grant was a good President.
And I'd like to add that some aren't sure who's buried in Grant's tomb (and far less are aware of the ways in which it's a bit of a trick question).
Though I'd like to add that some think Grant was a good President.
And I'd like to add that some aren't sure who's buried in Grant's tomb (and far less are aware of the ways in which it's a bit of a trick question).
To be honest, I think Grant gets a bit of a bad rap too. His signing of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was one of the most important acts of Reconstruction.
The problem with Grant was that he pissed away the moral claims of Radical Reconstruction through patronage networks as unseemly that built up the Jackson machine. Remember, the 1872 opponent, Horace Greeley, was a former Radical who joined the Liberal Republicans in protest against Grant's corruption. The fusion ticket of Liberals and Democrats failed to excite enough conservatives to win though (yes, Liberals and Democrats in 1872 were the conservatives and the Republicans were the left; it makes your head spin if you look at it from today!)
To be honest, I think Grant gets a bit of a bad rap too. His signing of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was one of the most important acts of Reconstruction.
The problem with Grant was that he pissed away the moral claims of Radical Reconstruction through patronage networks as unseemly that built up the Jackson machine. Remember, the 1872 opponent, Horace Greeley, was a former Radical who joined the Liberal Republicans in protest against Grant's corruption. The fusion ticket of Liberals and Democrats failed to excite enough conservatives to win though (yes, Liberals and Democrats in 1872 were the conservatives and the Republicans were the left; it makes your head spin if you look at it from today!)
While I don't want to give Grant a pass, he wasn't the only offender on patronage, nor the worst. Patronage corruption was a systemic, endemic problem. Like many of the chronic problems we face today, the need for a solution was as obvious as it was elusive. In large part because electoral winners benefited so much, they had no motivation to clean out the corruption. Chester Arthur, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the patronage system, began the slow process of actual reform when he became president after James Garfield (another beneficiary of corruption) was assassinated. As a result, Arthur's party refused to nominate him for another term. Arthur is, in my opinion, another underrated president.
I think Grant's poor reputation is an artifact of the very, very slow evolution of the Democrats from the party that opposed Reconstruction to the party in favor of Civil Rights. The generations of Democrats who despised Grant for his role in the Civil War were succeeded by Democrats all too willing to accept the negative conventional wisdom about a Republican like Grant.
While I don't want to give Grant a pass, he wasn't the only offender on patronage, nor the worst. Patronage corruption was a systemic, endemic problem. Like many of the chronic problems we face today, the need for a solution was as obvious as it was elusive. In large part because electoral winners benefited so much, they had no motivation to clean out the corruption. Chester Arthur, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the patronage system, began the slow process of actual reform when he became president after James Garfield (another beneficiary of corruption) was assassinated. As a result, Arthur's party refused to nominate him for another term. Arthur is, in my opinion, another underrated president.
I think Grant's poor reputation is an artifact of the very, very slow evolution of the Democrats from the party that opposed Reconstruction to the party in favor of Civil Rights. The generations of Democrats who despised Grant for his role in the Civil War were succeeded by Democrats all too willing to accept the negative conventional wisdom about a Republican like Grant.
I'm not sure that I would draw an analogy between McCain's inability to identify the number of homes he and his wife have and Scott's fussy military decorum.
But this was an enjoyable post.
One other thing about Scott: His Democratic opponent in the race, the eventual winner, Franklin Pierce, served under Scott in the Mexican War. While Pierce was welcomed back to New Hampshire as a war hero, he really never saw battle in that dishonorable, ill-advised conflict. In fact, his service was, unbeknownst to most of New Hampshire and certainly to the country when Pierce was the dark horse nominee of his party in 1852, curtailed by the fact that he suffered a major groin injury while riding on his horse. It knocked him out of action and he went home without fighting.
Scott, aware of Pierce's hapless misadventures in the war, mocked his opponent's reputation as a war hero. Though Scott may have felt justified in doing so, once a reputation is established, such as “Franklin Pierce, War Hero,” it's hard to undo it. Scott seemed nasty and brutish for denying Pierce his status as hero, another factor contributing to his loss in the election.
Some bloggers and others who have questioned John McCain's status as hero, one earned in the most horrific of circumstances, might incur the same negative reaction heaped on Scott.
By the way, there's no way of telling whether Scott would have made a better president than Pierce, of course. But Pierce was a disaster. Like his Democratic successor, James Buchanan, he undoubtedly hastened the coming of the Civil War.
Mark Daniels
I'm not sure that I would draw an analogy between McCain's inability to identify the number of homes he and his wife have and Scott's fussy military decorum.
But this was an enjoyable post.
One other thing about Scott: His Democratic opponent in the race, the eventual winner, Franklin Pierce, served under Scott in the Mexican War. While Pierce was welcomed back to New Hampshire as a war hero, he really never saw battle in that dishonorable, ill-advised conflict. In fact, his service was, unbeknownst to most of New Hampshire and certainly to the country when Pierce was the dark horse nominee of his party in 1852, curtailed by the fact that he suffered a major groin injury while riding on his horse. It knocked him out of action and he went home without fighting.
Scott, aware of Pierce's hapless misadventures in the war, mocked his opponent's reputation as a war hero. Though Scott may have felt justified in doing so, once a reputation is established, such as “Franklin Pierce, War Hero,” it's hard to undo it. Scott seemed nasty and brutish for denying Pierce his status as hero, another factor contributing to his loss in the election.
Some bloggers and others who have questioned John McCain's status as hero, one earned in the most horrific of circumstances, might incur the same negative reaction heaped on Scott.
By the way, there's no way of telling whether Scott would have made a better president than Pierce, of course. But Pierce was a disaster. Like his Democratic successor, James Buchanan, he undoubtedly hastened the coming of the Civil War.
Mark Daniels
I don't think anyone serious questions McCain's status as a war hero. (I'm not saying nobody does it. There are a few–including some on the right.)
But McCain is eager to deflect any legitimate criticism by invoking his heroism in cases where it makes no logical sense. I don't think people who point this out are being nasty and brutish, or denying McCain's status as hero. Though it is certainly in the interest of McCain supporters to claim otherwise.
We've had eight years of Republican leadership.
It has been a disaster for our country.
McCain has very little going for him beyond his heroism as a POW.
That's why he's out there attacking Obama as an arugula-eating moral equivalent of Paris Hilton.
That's why someone's middle name has become an issue.
That's why members of the Republican establishment are (successfully!) pushing a poorly sourced book calling Obama a secret Muslim.
I don't think anyone serious questions McCain's status as a war hero. (I'm not saying nobody does it. There are a few–including some on the right.)
But McCain is eager to deflect any legitimate criticism by invoking his heroism in cases where it makes no logical sense. I don't think people who point this out are being nasty and brutish, or denying McCain's status as hero. Though it is certainly in the interest of McCain supporters to claim otherwise.
We've had eight years of Republican leadership.
It has been a disaster for our country.
McCain has very little going for him beyond his heroism as a POW.
That's why he's out there attacking Obama as an arugula-eating moral equivalent of Paris Hilton.
That's why someone's middle name has become an issue.
That's why members of the Republican establishment are (successfully!) pushing a poorly sourced book calling Obama a secret Muslim.