So while it is not often mentioned it was that 9 year old, Paul Morphy, that gave rise to the Republican party and modern politics.

I know that Wikipedia maintains (though without a supporting reference) of 1852 Whig Presidential candidate General Winfield Scott that "Another example of Scott's vanity was his reaction to losing at chess to a young New Orleans lad named Paul Morphy in 1846. Scott did not take his defeat by the eight-year-old chess prodigy gracefully...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfie...

<SBC> provides us with a reference:

http://batgirl.atspace.com/morphybi...

=== begin quoted text ===

In 1846, before the age of nine... The Evening Post relates this story:

Gen.Winfield Scott (famous hero of the Mexican War and first Commander-in-chief of the Union forces during the American Civil War) had many acquaintances there (at a chess club on Royal St. see note), some of them quite intimate, and knowing the habits of the members he repaired to their very comfortable rooms within a few hours after reaching the city. It may be said to have been one of his vanities as well. He was in the front rank of amateurs in his day....he turn to Chief Justice Eustis and asked whether he could play a game of chess in the evening...."I want to be put to my mettle!" "Very well," said Justice Eustis, "We'll arrange it. At eight o'clock tonight, if that will suit you."

At eight o'clock, dinner having been disposed of, the room was full. Gen. Scott, a towering giant, was asked to meet his competitor, a small boy of about 10 (actually, he was eight and a half) and not by any means a prepossessing boy, dressed in velvet knickerbockers, with a lace shirt and a big spreading collar of the same material.

At first Gen. Scott imagined it was a sorry jest, and his tremendous dignity arose in protest. It seemed to him that his friends had committed an incredible and unpardonable impertinence. Then Justice Eustis assured him that his wish had been scrupulously consulted; that this boy was....quite worthy of his notice, So the game began with Gen. Scott still angry and by no means satisfied. Paul won the move and advanced his Queen's rook's pawn. In response to the General's play he advanced other pawns, Next he had two knights on the field; then another pawn opened the line for the Queen, and at the tenth move he had the General checkmated before he had even begun to develop his defense. There was only one more game. Paul Morphy, after the sixth move, marked the spot and announced the movement for the debacle - which occurred according to schedule - and the General arose trembling with amazement and indignation. Paul was taken home, silent as usual, and the incident reached the end.

The few survivors of that era still talk of Paul Morphy's first appearance in public, but only by hearsay. Gen. Scott lived to wonder that should have ever played with the first chess genius of the century, or for that matter, of any other century.

=== end quoted text ===

One would, of course, hope for better sportsmanship from so celebrated a national hero and later Presidential candidate -- but in some defense of General Scott I might point out that (to my knowledge) Paul Morphy was the first Chess prodigy of such a young age of whom we have any knowledge. The General might have thought that a strong adult player was somehow sending signals to this child to give him the moves to make?? (I might have suspected the same thing!) And this might have appeared to be an effort to embarrass him. (Though if Morphy did indeed announce forced mate after six moves, it would be hard to attribute that to an hidden adult signal-sender!)

Then again, perhaps I'm being too accommodating to General Scott. I suspect that military Generals (especially of this era) were a bit more combative than the broader population, and maybe General Scott was not accustomed to losing. And the thought of losing to a child might have been intolerable to him!

<ckr>'s note about the effect on the election is not at all unthinkable! In 1852, I doubt that the nation knew who Paul Morphy was -- and a credible report that this famous General had been drubbed over the Chessboard twice by a child certainly wouldn't have helped him at the polls! But given the lopsided outcome of the election of 1852, I suspect there were other contributing causes to the General's defeat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...

A very interesting historical aside! Thank you for introducing it, <ckr>!

Consulting http://www.ElectoralMaps.org/ we see that the first U.S. Presidential candidate from the Republican Party was NOT (former Whig) Abraham Lincoln (as is widely believed), but rather John C. Fremont of California:

http://tinyurl.com/yq6kst

How's this for an image of rugged individualism?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...

Indeed, General Scott's loss in the Presidential election (as <ckr> pointed out) was, as far as Presidential elections are concerned, the end of the road for the Whig Party -- the party that had produced Presidents Zachary Taylor and William Henry Harrison. (Millard Fillmore was also a Whig during his time as President, though he later became a "Know Nothing" alongside his Whig membership):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millar...

In addition to Abraham Lincoln: Daniel Webster, President John Tyler, and (after his Presidency) President John Quincy Adams all had ties to the Whig Party.

More on the U.S. Whig Party here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_P...(United_States)

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

By the way, it may be that the phrase "Great Scott" was inspired by General Winfield Scott (please see the end of this article by Michael Quinion if you are interested):

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa...

Also, if Gen. Scott had been a bit irritable upon his loss to the lad Paul Morphy, it would not be the only time he had been irritable at the Chessboard! If interested, please see pages 55-56 of "Fifty Years' Observation of Men and Events, Civil and Military" (1884) by Bvt. Brigadier-General Erasmus Darwin Keyes:

http://tinyurl.com/5q259s

(In my experience, if one is irritable toward one victorious opponent, one will tend to be irritable to many or all victorious opponents! Not universally true, but true often enough!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ma...

=== begin quoted text ===

"The Man That Was Used Up," sometimes subtitled "A Tale of the Late Bugaboo and Kickapoo Campaign," is a short story and satire by Edgar Allan Poe. It was first published in 1839 in Burton's Gentleman's Magazine.

The story follows an unnamed narrator who seeks out the famous war hero John A. B. C. Smith. He becomes suspicious that Smith has some deep secret when others refuse to describe him, instead remarking only on the latest advancements in technology. When he finally meets Smith, the man must first be assembled piece by piece. It is likely that in this satire Poe is actually referring to General Winfield Scott, veteran of the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the American Civil War. Additionally, Poe is questioning the strong male identity as well as questioning where humanity falls as machines become more advanced....

=== end quoted text ===

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

I ... err ... may have overlooked one or two other remote possibilities. :-(

As You pointed out there have been other sources hinting at the same conclusion.

But, I wonder. After the Mexican war Gen.Scott didn't really do much in terms of soldiering. During the Civil War, other than sitting in Lincoln's cabinet's meeting, he did very little, if anything. Old Fuss and Feathers, at the time, was not particularly popular with the troops either.

General George MacLelland (spelling?), although not much of a "fighting" general, was enormously popular in the Army, especially with the "ordinary" soldiers, even with the Southern military brass. Was he not of a Scottish descent?

If you don’t want to use the army I should like to borrow it for a while.

Yours respectfully,

A. Lincoln

(He will plant the banner of Castille upon the walls of Madrid to the cry of victorious city, and the little King will go away looking very sheepish)."

This is on of the most beautiful lines I've ever read, so much so that it has inspired me to create one myself:

He will clear a path through the mindfield and upon reaching the fallen flag shall lead the charge, they will follow him, and storm the castle and then the flag shall be planted!

He was relieved for not pursuing the tattered Southern forces with the many divisions he had held in reserve throughout the battle. The war could have ended there. The rebel forces had one working cannon at the end of the battle and it's fire was being directed by Longstreet...heh. That's how beat up they were.