Winfield Scott: First Commanding General of the Union Army
Who was early 19th century America’s greatest general? Some may say the generals who eventually became presidents like William Henry Harrison or Zachary Taylor, but both men have their issues: Harrison died a month into his presidency while Taylor was part of President James K. Polk’s plan to “possibly” spark a war with Mexico. In the early 19th century, America’s greatest general was central to many major conflicts; it was this experience that made him the first commanding general of Union forces. However, he only held the job for six months, ultimately leaving the post due to his age. If we’re to understand how one man—Winfield Scott—became so influential, we must examine his life.
Winfield Scott was born on June 13th, 1786, in southeast Virginia. Scott’s father died when he was six years old, and his mother never remarried. Scott’s mother instilled in him a strong education and sense of honor before she died in 1803. In 1805, he entered the College of William of Mary, only to leave the following year to study law under a lawyer in Petersburg. Scott’s life changed in June 1807 when he saw the HMS Leopard attack the USS Chesapeake; the Leopard suspected the Chesapeake was harboring Royal Navy deserters. The naval battle inspired him to become an army officer. The army Scott joined was so tiny and underfunded that he was expected to acquire everything his unit needed; it did not help that Scott faced massive resistance from his superiors. By early 1812, Scott was thinking about leaving the army to return to his legal track (Peskin, 2013, 1-15). He never got the chance to do that because what stopped him was the War of 1812.
Scott was assigned to an artillery regiment following the outbreak of war in June 1812. He spent months training his unit for the invasion of Canada through New York that October. Scott clashed with his superiors to the point that they held back reinforcements from Scott during battle; still, he heroically led his unit until he had no option but to surrender to the British. Scott’s leadership, his stubborn superiors notwithstanding promoted him to colonel upon returning from his stint as a prisoner of war. His next move was to help plan and lead a successful attack on a British fort, which ended up only a partial success since his superiors prevented him from pursuing the fleeing British forces. Scott then joined the disastrous attack on Montreal and was so disgusted by the campaign’s failures that he went to Washington D.C. to complain to the Secretary of War John Armstrong; Armstrong was so impressed with Scott’s actions that he made Scott a brigadier general. Assuming his new rank, Scott spent his time training his units and enforcing strict discipline so that he could defeat the British the next time he fought them. Unfortunately, his battlefield command was abruptly ended when a musket ball hit his shoulder (American Battlefield Trust, 2020). The heights he reached during the war and his untimely departure from the field ultimately gave way to stagnation.
Scott’s career stalled in the decades following the War of 1812. One reason was that the army shrank after the war. The early American army wasn’t a large standing force; it was a small force that would rapidly expand and then contract in response to war. The end of hostilities removed the need for, and any opportunities for advancement within, a large force. Another reason Scott’s career flatlined was his bitter rivalry with fellow general Edmund Gaines over who had superiority over the other; both men were promoted at the same time during the War of 1812. Scott and Gaines’ feud was so toxic that when President John Quincy Adams appointed a new major general in early 1828, he skipped both men for another general. Scott was so angered by Adams’ decision that he considered resigning, but never followed through. That is not to say that Scott was completely inactive during this time; he traveled Europe in late 1815 to study the lessons of the Napoleonic Wars. Things picked up for Scott during the 1830’s. He spent the duration of Jackson’s presidency on Native American affairs; Jackson’s successor, Martin Van Buren, called on Scott in 1839 to settle a border dispute with Canada. Scott even ran to be the Whigs’ 1840 presidential candidate, but the party chose William Henry Harrison. In early 1841, Congress put Scott in charge of the Army. The promotion looked good on paper, but in reality, it was a weak position. Scott spent the next five years trying to expand his position, facing opposition and resistance at every turn from John Tyler and James K Polk (Eisenhower, 1999, 104-140, 146-161, 184-211). The three decades of peace would soon give way to war and what would become Scott’s finest hour.
America had sought to annex Texas since it became independent from Mexico in 1836. However, Mexico threatened that it would go to war with the U.S. if they annexed Texas. When the U.S. finally annexed Texas in early 1845, Scott began preparing for war with Mexico; he sent an army under General Zachary Taylor to occupy disputed territory near the Rio Grande River. In April 1846, Mexican forces ambushed Taylor’s forces, kicking off the Mexican-American War. Polk reluctantly put Scott in overall command because he was the only competent general and Scott threw himself into the war, focusing on the big picture while leaving the implementation to his subordinates. In early March 1847, Scott launched an amphibious invasion of the city of Veracruz with no casualties; the city fell after only a short siege. Scott’s staff was composed of future American Civil War generals like Robert E Lee and George McClellan. He then chased Mexican forces towards Mexico City, culminating in the city’s capture in mid-September. He spent the rest of the war governing the city as Mexico and the U.S. negotiated a peace treaty. Polk removed Scott from command following the treaty’s ratification because Scott had investigated a Polk ally for insubordination. In doing this, Polk convinced the Whigs to nominate Taylor as their 1848 presidential candidate (Peskin, 133-193; Johnson, 2007, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-19). Scott ran as the Whig presidential candidate in 1852 but was crushed by Franklin Pierce. In 1855, Congress promoted Scott to lieutenant general. In 1859, he settled another border dispute with Canada, this time over the San Juan Islands near Washington state (Eisenhower, 321-342). The next year would bring the most important task of Scott’s life: preparing the army, he served all his life to fight against the South.
Scott knew that Secession was wrong; he understood the sympathy of Southern elites but felt they had no right to leave the Union. He urged Buchanan to reinforce Southern federal forts, but Buchanan ignored his advice. Lincoln’s team then asked Scott for help securing the new president’s inauguration. Scott accepted, and he told Lincoln he would stick with the Union. In April 1861, Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter, kicking off the Civil War. He was horrified that many of his former subordinates joined the Confederacy; he was also horrified that Union leaders assumed the war would be short. The Confederate victory at the First Battle of Bull Run in June shattered that idea. Lincoln quickly realized the 75-year-old Scott couldn’t see the war through, so he began turning to the much younger McClellan; McClellan also made it known he wanted Scott’s job and attempted to undercut his boss’ authority as much as possible. Scott, knowing his time was up, retired from military service on November 1st, 1861. He wanted General Henry Halleck to replace him, but Lincoln chose McClellan. However, McClellan’s failures throughout 1862 convinced Lincoln to bring in Halleck as commanding general, remove the position from battlefield command, and ultimately fire McClellan. Scott’s final government assignment had him go to France to defuse a diplomatic incident with Britain; that December, Scott became a private citizen. Scott spent his last years living in New York as a recluse. He died on May 26th, 1866. President Andrew Johnson and the Union army gave him a military funeral (Peskin, 130, 233-267). So why is Winfield Scott so unknown if he was important to early 19th-century America?
Winfield Scott is unknown for three reasons. The first is he was a successful general who never had a successful political career; every time Scott tried, it blew up in his face. Another reason is the army was a much different institution than it is today. The army was meant to be small unless it needed to temporarily expand for war; it was only in the 20th century that Americans became comfortable with a large standing army. Finally, Scott’s legacy is overshadowed by events in the run-up to the Civil War, like the Mexican-American War. However, Scott was the most important non-political influence in the early 19th century army; it was his leadership, for example, that allowed the U.S. to win the Mexican-American War. It was
Winfield Scott is a reminder that just because you are not a political figure does not mean you lack influence.
Works Cited
American Battlefield Trust. Winfield Scott in the War of 1812. (2020). American Battlefield Trust. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/winfield-scott-war-1812
Eisenhower, J S.D. (1999). Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott. University of Oklahoma Press.
Johnson, T. D. (2007). “A Most Anomalous Affair: Gideon Pillow and Winfield Scott in the Mexico City Campaign.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 66(1), 2–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42627996
Peskin, A. (2013). Winfield Scott and the Profession of Arms. The Kent State University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3120037
