Why didn't General Pershing ever go into Politics?

[Dinner]

Successful Generals taking elective office seems to be an American tradition. Washington (Revolutionary War), Jackson (War of 1812), Grant (Civil War), Teddy Roosevelt (Spanish-American War; technically only a Colonel), Eisenhower (WW2) all became President after winning wars yet General John Pershing (U.S. Commander in WW1) didn't. Any ideas why?

[Verto]

I would've liked to see Patton in the White House

[Dinner]

Patton pissed off to many people.

[Wiglaf]

Maybe he didn't want to.

[Verto]

Yes, but he'd have been a lot of fun. (edit: Patton)

From the wiki article on Pershing:

There was a movement to make Pershing President of the United States in 1920, but he refused to actively campaign. In a newspaper article, he said that he "wouldn't decline to serve" if the people wanted him and this made front page headlines. Though Pershing was a Republican, many of his party's leaders considered him too closely tied to the policies of the Democratic Party's President Wilson. The Republican nomination went to Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio, who won the 1920 presidential election.

[MarkG]

i smell a trap, which war did he won?

[Whoha]

he didn't want to would be my guess. Also we didn't really come out of WW1 with anything all that valuable, and we didn't even ratify the treaty ending that war.

[SpencerH]

Washington and Jackson dont really count since they were not professional soldiers. Neither was Roosevelt of course, but more importantly he was a politician prior to Cuba. That really only leaves Grant and Eisenhower, only two out of how many. As for why Pershing didnt run, based on my reading of Roosevelt's presidency, I'd guess that the political establishment would have been very difficult to break into since it was much more "inbred" than today. More importantly, I'd guess that Pershing wasnt interested. Certainly, politics are important in the military but that doesnt make succesful generals good politicians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That really only leaves Grant and Eisenhower, only two out of how many.

And not only that, but quite possibly the two most famous professional soldiers in American history (let us not count Robert E. Lee in that, as his fame was accomplished in leading the other side).

[Patroklos]

Eh, Washington and Jackson were professional soldiers as much as anyone could be at that time. Especially Washington, who had a career in the British army.

And let us not forget Harrison

[Imran Siddiqui]

While I may agree with Washington (and that doesn't change my point), Jackson is a bit of a different case, no? He was a Senator from Tennessee for many years, and fought in the militia during 1812 and the Seminole Wars. Now, granted, in those days, such was militia service, but it seems that Jackson considered himself more of a politician than a military man.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Whoha
he didn't want to would be my guess. Also we didn't really come out of WW1 with anything all that valuable, and we didn't even ratify the treaty ending that war.

Aprt from owning vast amounts of the assetts of the British Empire.

Other than that nothing

[Ben Kenobi]

You're forgetting some. Harrison and Taylor were also military men.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Aprt from owning vast amounts of the assetts of the British Empire.

Other than that nothing

yea yea, the crippling debt, but we've always been large creditors(well until quite recently), so again, nothing all that special.

[Dauphin]

Given the intertwine of military and politics in the US why don't they have a militaristic trait in any of the civ games?