So I'm sitting here reading through some background on some Hamilton tracks and I see some annotations regarding a line referring to a new man- that this reflects the Roman concept of Novus Homo, the first of a family to enter public life. It made me wonder about the connection between military service and a career in American politics. I've grown up hearing a lot about how prior military service was essential to being a political leader; my question is why this had such a strong connection in our national discussion? I'm familiar with some of the arguments- e.g. a commander-in-chief needs to be intimately familiar with the personal costs of sending troops into harms way; combat is an excellent test to show how someone acts under pressure. But I feel like I am missing something. And is this concept becoming less important? This past election cycle, neither of our major candidates have served in the military. And further, is there some kind of connection to how military service was essential for advancement in the Roman system as well?
Thank you for any light y'all can shed on this topic.
So one thing to note is that really until the turn of the 20th century and in some ways still today, senior uniformed leadership, in the US, WAS a political position. In the context of Hamilton, Washington absolutely cultivated a group of loyal officers to fend off any challenge to his position as Commander-in-Chief, and protect his image in Congress without having to get his hands too dirty playing politics, the most notable challenger being Horatio Gates after his victory at Saratoga which led to the sordid Conway conspiracy. Not exactly your answer but I wanted to illustrate that there isn't exactly a wide gulf between the skillsets beyond vague appeals to "knowing the cost of war" and proven leadership.
In the days prior to the formation and regulation of the National Guard the states themselves were responsible for organizing the vast majority of the field force up through the Spanish American War and really angling for commissions or choice positing's never really went away. So that a local notary could pull a few strings and secure a post as Colonel of a new regiment of volunteers, and then parlay that to advance his political career after his service was up. Not the least because he commanded men who more often than not would be his future constituents, which absolutely often colored how discipline matters were handled. He could also advance to high command quickly(through talent, attrition, or expansion of the army), so that after wars like the Revolution and the Civil War you would have surge of men who had been Generals, Colonels, and lower ranks in service that could speak up that experience to try to make themselves stand out.
As for its relative importance in American political culture it has certainly waxed and waned, and has been a value proposition more than anything. And more particularly Americans like to support successful flag officers, over just looking for that experience. Certainly there weren't too many officers being championed for high office after Vietnam. While Jackson, Grant, Ike, both Harrison's, and Washington used success on the battlefield to secure their positions as politicians with other notable candidates like Winfield Scott Hancock in that same mold.