Grant and Lincoln's invitation

[L Verge]

(10-14-2014 02:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Why was it so important for Lincoln that Gen. Grant would accompany him to Ford’s Theatre? I know that Grant was a very important man, in fact Lincoln (as Commander-in-Chief) and Grant (as General-in-Chief) were in 1865 the two mightiest men in the Union. President Theodore Roosevelt called in a speech delivered at Galena, Ill. on April 27, 1900 that Washington, Lincoln, and Grant were the three “mightiest among the mighty” (of the US). I have some problems to understand this in reference to Grant.

How was the high command of the Union in the CW? As in modern times the President of the United States (Lincoln) was of course Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces. But (certainly at the outbreak of the CW) the Army was under the direct control of the Secretary of War (Stanton, since January 15, 1862) and of a General-in-Chief (in 1861 Gen. Winfield Scott in the official rank as Brevet Lieutenant General). The General-in-Chief however had in my opinion no direct military power, because he was subjected to the orders of the President and the Secretary of War. He also was assisted by a General Staff, and this General Staff consisted of various bureaus, which were part of the Department of War. The General-in-Chief had no control over these bureaus. This means that he was handicapped and could only function as an (military) advisor to (civilian) superiors (Stanton and Lincoln). In my eyes this is no “real power”, because he had “no real command of the Union Army’s” and had “no real field command”.

When Scott was succeeded in the fall of 1861 by Major General George B. McClellan this situation was as far as I know unchanged. And when McClellan was succeeded in July 1862 by Major General Henry Halleck, again (according to me) no real change. Can we say that the only task of the General-in-Chief was to communicate the wishes of Lincoln and Stanton (civilians) to the Generals in the field? Or was the high command of the Union changed with the assignment of Gen. Grant in Feb. 1864? What was his exact position? He got the rank of “Lieutenant General", a rank originally created for George Washington (and nobody else since then). Had Grant (or did he get) more power than his predecessors? Could he take responsibility for his own strategic decisions, without first communicating this with Lincoln and/or Stanton? If so than he was indeed a very powerful man! And in that case I understand that Lincoln was eager to visit with Grant the Ford Theatre.

Another thing. Lincoln was a familiar figure at Ford’s, Grant was almost a stranger. Were the Washingtonians anxious for a glimpse of Grant or were they in the first place hoping to see the President? It was also the first time that the State Box was decorated with flags, it was (correct me if I’m wrong) never done for Lincoln earlier when he visited Ford’s. The theater was crowded (sold out ?), so many persons had purchased tickets. To see Grant, or .... ???

It must have been a kind of “blow” for Lincoln that Grant rejected his invitation. And could Grant “disobey” so easily the wishes of his superior (Lincoln), or was Lincoln no longer his superior? And if the Washingtonians came in the first place for Grant, how could he so easily disappoint them by not coming (while it was advertised).

In short my (new) questions in reference with Lincoln’s invitation:

- What was the exact position of Grant?
- Came the public in the first place for him to Ford’s, or for Lincoln? (or for both?)
- Could Grant so easily reject the invitation from the President?
- Could he (seen from a moral standpoint) disappoint the public?

I will appreciate the opinion(s) you may have on these questions. Thanks!

I am not able to answer the military hierarchy question as to the powers of Gen. Grant except to say that I think he was the military strategist who planned the troop movements and battles under the supervision of Lincoln and Stanton. But I think Stanton's War Department was more involved in the administration of the Union armies than in the raw execution of plans.

I think the public would have been delighted to see both Lincoln and Grant together at one point and in a "confined" space where viewing was easy. However, I suspect that the General would have been the big draw for the night since Lee's surrender had been less that a week previous.

I suspect that the "political protocol" was not what it is today and that it was easier for Grant, the hero of the hour, to explain his case to Mr. Lincoln without stepping on toes. I also think that Lincoln was much less worried about protocol than some current politicians I can think of.

I'm not sure that Grant's disappointing the masses would be considered a breach of ethics in 1865. Perhaps the average person would understand that the General had other obligations - and maybe they didn't know the reason for his departure from the city. There were still battles to be fought and Confederate forces to conquer. I have a jaded opinion of ceremonial visits and mingling with the masses today, so that might taint my views of 1865. However, I think many of these "appearances" then and now were/are more for the media than the masses. One does not want to get on the bad side of the press (in any form) today. Maybe Lincoln and Grant didn't care that much about pleasing everyone?