Intellect vs Genius in the American Civil War Debate

Article Review

A part of learning history is understanding who is making what argument or claim about a subject. What is the strength of the argument and how does the author support the argument with evidence.

In the article review, you will identify the thesis or primary argument made by the author. You will identify the main arguments stated in the first or second paragraph and found in the body of the article with evidence.

Thesis: America has always been conflicted between whether it should go with leaders or managers, professionals or amateurs, genius or intellect. Yet for the most part in antebellum America, the idea that military genius was better than military intellect (i.e., military education) prevailed. Ultimately, when the Civil War began in 1861, the debate about who should lead included factors of genius, intellect, and character.

Main Arguments by Author:

· The North turned to genius (Scott), then to intellect (McClellan) and finally to character (Grant) for leadership in the war.

· However, losses mounted, and “the erosion of public confidence in Stone, Scott, and especially McClellan spawned a distrust of professional soldiers as a class and restored the popular faith in innate military genius.”[footnoteRef:1] [1: Reardon, Carol. With a sword in one hand and Jomini in the other: The problem of military thought in the Civil War north (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2012) 65.]

· Grant represented something new in military leadership for America: “From the start, however, Grant seemed difficult to categorize.”[footnoteRef:2] However, it was clear from his victories that he had the necessary coolness and demeanor of character to succeed in the heat of battle.[footnoteRef:3] [2: Reardon, Carol. With a sword in one hand and Jomini in the other: The problem of military thought in the Civil War north (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2012) 82.] [3: Reardon, Carol. With a sword in one hand and Jomini in the other: The problem of military thought in the Civil War north (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2012) 83.]

Who is the author? Academic/work background? Other writings?

Carol Reardon is an accomplished historian and former professor at Penn State University (now at Gettysburg College). She specializes in military history and has written several books on the subject, including Soldiers and Scholars: The US Army and the Uses of Military History, 1865-1920[footnoteRef:4] and "With a Sword in One Hand and Jomini in the Other: The Problem of Military Thought in the Civil War North” as well as articles like “William T. Sherman in Postwar Georgia's Collective Memory, 1886-1914"[footnoteRef:5] published in the Wars within Wars collection. She is also the director of the George and Ann Richards Civil War Era Center at Penn State. She has won numerous awards for her writing and teaching. [4: Reardon, Carol. Soldiers and Scholars: The US Army and the Uses of Military History, 1865-1920. University Press of Kansas, 1990.] [5: Reardon, Carol. "William T. Sherman in Postwar Georgia’s Collective Memory, 1864–1914." Wars within a War: Controversy and Conflict over the American Civil War (2009): 223-248.]

General reflection about the article. How does it relate to your understanding of the role of the U.S. Military? Did the author make a clear argument and provide adequate evidence. Would you recommend this article? Why or why not?

This is a great article as it really touched on the reality of the situation back in the day: people just did not know what they wanted and they were grappling with their own cognitive biases. They thought they wanted this (someone like Scott) but that didn’t work out, so they turned to another ideal (intellect—i.e., the West Point graduate McClellan) but that didn’t work out either. Really, they needed someone practical who could take charge and charge and hold the line in the face of danger, and that turned out to be Grant. He was something much different—a real warrior on the battlefield, not just on paper or in the imagination. This article makes that abundantly clear and clears up a lot of myths about the war. The author’s overall aim might have been made a little clearer, however, because it did not really start out with a statement of purpose or an indication of what the main point of the essay would be. Overall, however, I would definitely recommend this article for anyone interested in the Civil War, as it does a good job of discussing the finer points of the issues. The evidence is sufficiently provided with lots of references to primary and secondary sources.