Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lincoln or Davis - who was the better wartime president?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lincoln or Davis - who was the better wartime president?

    Lincoln had been a member of the militia, was self-taught, and had served for only two years a member of the House of Representatives.

    Davis had graduated from West Point, eventually commanded a regiment of volunteers as a colonel in the Mexican-American War, served as the Secretary of War, and as a Senator for nearly four years prior to becoming the President of the Confederacy.

    Yet, in the end, the North had defeated the South. Was Lincoln a better wartime president, or had Davis simply found bad luck?
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    Lincoln had been a member of the militia, was self-taught, and had served for only two years a member of the House of Representatives.

    Davis had graduated from West Point, eventually commanded a regiment of volunteers as a colonel in the Mexican-American War, served as the Secretary of War, and as a Senator for nearly four years prior to becoming the President of the Confederacy.

    Yet, in the end, the North had defeated the South. Was Lincoln a better wartime president, or had Davis simply found bad luck?
    I've never been particularly impressed by the South's wartime leadership.

    I may be totally off the mark, but to me, the Confederacy was severely hamstrung by cronyism, nepotism etc, but most of all by it's Constitution, which emphasized "state's rights"

    This of course was it's very raison d'ętre...which again, to me, hobbled the CSA because what is needed in wartime is a strong central government with a single clear chain of command. Not a collection (or confederacy, if you will) of idiots wanting to things their own way.

    And yes, I could be way off the mark.
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
      I've never been particularly impressed by the South's wartime leadership.

      I may be totally off the mark, but to me, the Confederacy was severely hamstrung by cronyism, nepotism etc, but most of all by it's Constitution, which emphasized "state's rights"

      This of course was it's very raison d'ętre...which again, to me, hobbled the CSA because what is needed in wartime is a strong central government with a single clear chain of command. Not a collection (or confederacy, if you will) of idiots wanting to things their own way.

      And yes, I could be way off the mark.
      The South both suffered from a lack of a true national identity, but ironically, implemented more strong central government decisions than did the North, so this cut both ways. For example, the first side to implement conscription (and had a larger portion of its forces serve as non-volunteers) was the South.
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Shek View Post
        The South both suffered from a lack of a true national identity, but ironically, implemented more strong central government decisions than did the North, so this cut both ways. For example, the first side to implement conscription (and had a larger portion of its forces serve as non-volunteers) was the South.
        Hm, impressive. And of course there was no shortage of political hacks wearing a general's rank and a blue suit.
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Hands down Lincoln, not only was he the first US president to utilize a navy effectively but also he kept the value of the Unions money up where as Davis and the CSA printed bills that were not worth much at all even during the Civil War.
          The North also learned to utilize ballons in order to spot enemy lines far off in the distance instead of just stumbling upon them and getting shot up for their troubles.

          Last point is...Pretty doubtfull that Jefferson Davis would have freed the slaves after the civil war and Lincoln did it in 1863 with almost two years of war still to go even though many thought it an unpopular decision he held true to the values he believed caused the Civil War.
          Last edited by Dreadnought; 09 Dec 09,, 18:02.
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #6
            Joe,
            Here's an expansion of what I spoke about earlier (with the irony that Southern rhetoric to justify secession was then trampled on in spades in practice during the war).

            Amazon.com: Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation (Civil War America) (9780807832516): John Majewski: Books

            Although southerners rebelled against growing centralization of the federal government, they had no qualms about establishing a strong national state of their own. Scholars have classified the Confederate central government as a form of "war socialism." The Confederacy owned key industries, regulated prices and wages, and instituted the most far-reaching draft in North American history. The Confederacy employed some 70,000 civilians in a massive (if poorly coordinated) bureaucracy that included thousands of tax assessors, tax collectors, and conscription agents. The police power of the Confederate state was sometimes staggering. To ride a train, for example, every passenger needed a special government pass...Political scientist Richard Franklin Bensel writes that "a central state as well organized and powerful as the Confederacy did not emerge until the New Deal and subsequent mobilization for World War II.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Shek View Post
              Joe,
              Here's an expansion of what I spoke about earlier (with the irony that Southern rhetoric to justify secession was then trampled on in spades in practice during the war).
              Hm, fascinating!

              Totally blows away my preconceptions of the wartime South's national vs state status.

              So...they wrote up a constitution to conform to their ideas of "state's rights"...and then essentially wadded it up and threw it away?

              Can't really blame them if they did, given that there was a war for national survival at stake.
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • #8
                joe,

                what is interesting is the consequences of this if they had won. most likely, while most of the wartime controls/centralization would be relaxed to some extent, others would be kept. ie blacks would almost certainly be forced to keep a national pass to travel.

                it is quite easy to see this pass transform into something akin to the jewish star some time later, just for ID purposes. due to racial intermixing (owner rape), it had by the 1860s became much harder for slavecatchers to find escaped slaves-- many posters of the time described slaves as having "blue eyes" or "trying to pass for a white man". had slavery lasted another hundred years this would have become much more prevalent.

                also controlled industry-- given northern advantages, the south would soon find itself badly behind. with a distinct lack of southern enthusiasm for industrialization, the state would probably have to force things along.

                the south would NOT have been a very pleasant place to live twenty years down the line, especially given this and their vindication of supposed southern manhood over the northern clerks.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  Hm, fascinating!

                  Totally blows away my preconceptions of the wartime South's national vs state status.

                  So...they wrote up a constitution to conform to their ideas of "state's rights"...and then essentially wadded it up and threw it away?

                  Can't really blame them if they did, given that there was a war for national survival at stake.
                  The book's thesis traces how the war, while increasing the intensity of the centralization, didn't suddenly create a school in support of centralization. Instead, it tapped into a body of writing and school of thought that already existed - secede from the North, tax and tariff, and use these revenues to industrialize the South.

                  I haven't read the entire book, just scanned it using Google Books, Modernizing a Slave Economy: The ... - Google Books, so I can't comment on how strong and well supported his thesis is, but in the context of state's rights, it's not a new one. Essentially, state's rights was overplayed after the rebellion to draw attention away from slavery as a cause, and so it has distorted the interpretation of the Confederacy and Civil War since.

                  That isn't to say that state's rights wasn't part of equation - while Davis and the CSA exercised more tyranny than "Lincoln the Tyrant", Davis did face real problems because of the assertion of state's rights. Governors wouldn't sacrifice any portion of their state's territory and so inhibited potentially more effective orders of battle/troop deployment and kept militia forces strictly within their own borders (which was a problem for the north as well, although it was more an issue of volunteers volunteering strictly for the good of their state). These constraints prevented Davis from concentrating forces more effectively, although with the string of victories in the West by federal forces, the issue of defending too much territory was "solved" in large part for Davis.
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It’s easy to point out Jefferson Davis’ mistakes and weaknesses, as we could for Abraham Lincoln. So let’s give him some credit. He started with no country, no army, and no government. Also after eights months the capital was moved to Richmond.

                    The Confederate government raised, equipped, and fed an army of 860,000 men - a huge number for the time. Although the lack of supplies to the Confederate army is well known, no battle was ever lost by the lack of rifles or bullets. The Confederate army gave the Union Army all it could handle for four years even though the northern population was four times that of the south.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Julie View Post
                      It’s easy to point out Jefferson Davis’ mistakes and weaknesses, as we could for Abraham Lincoln. So let’s give him some credit. He started with no country, no army, and no government. Also after eights months the capital was moved to Richmond.
                      They copied the Constitution almost word for word, used existing state governments, and had a corps of politicians that were veterans of the legislative and executive branches of the United States. It took some months to set it up, but this was complete prior to the South starting the Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter.

                      As to the federal army, in 1860 it consisted of 16K troops who were either nation building, protecting/exploring the frontier, or manning and building coastal fortifications to defend the homeland. The North had the exact same challenge of raising a huge army. In fact, it had an even greater challenge since it had to raise a much bigger army (and supply it) since to suppress the rebellion, they had to not only fight Southern forces, but also occupy territory as they captured it, meaning that the numerical advantage wasn't nearly as great as it appears. Also, recent in the past decades has consistently determined that Northern numbers at battles have tended to be overestimated while Southern numbers have tended to be underestimated, closing the gap a little bit. Additionally, slaves that worked as teamsters, helped to dig breastworks and entrenchments, etc., are not included in the numbers, and so the gap closes just a bit more.

                      As far as moving the capital, that's a self-inflicted wound. I'm not aware of it causing any detrimental effects on Confederate decision-making, but if so, you've got only the very same Confederate government (headed by Davis) to blame.

                      Where the South did have a handicap was with armaments manufacturing and shipbuilding, and it did work wonders, but at the same time, the North made some poor decisions in what to arm its army (choosing a lower tech rifled musket to standardize ammunition with a slow-rate fire weapon) and so it failed to take full advantage of its advantage, and while the North held an advantage with its Navy, it had to build its brown water fleet and was in a race to develop the ironside technology.

                      Originally posted by Julie
                      The Confederate government raised, equipped, and fed an army of 860,000 men - a huge number for the time. Although the lack of supplies to the Confederate army is well known, no battle was ever lost by the lack of rifles or bullets. The Confederate army gave the Union Army all it could handle for four years even though the northern population was four times that of the south.
                      This brings us back to the heart of the question, which is how did a backcountry woods boy defeat a Mexican War hero who had also been the Secretary of War? It was because Lincoln was a far superior strategist than Davis, understanding the center of gravity of the South and working his way through generals until he found one in Grant that shared the same strategic and operational acumen. In fact, Lincoln had it even more difficult because he had to contend with a Presidential election in the middle of the rebellion. Davis, on the other hand, had a six-year term. One can find fault with Lincoln's and Stanton's micromanagement in 1862, but he learned from it and balanced the need to maintain a shaky war coalition (the GOP and War Democrats) with optimizing his choice for generals.

                      On the other hand, Davis was seduced frequently by Lee's plans, which ran counter to his defensive strategy. He didn't exercise control over his military, never coordinating actions across the theater of war and waiting until it was too late in 1865 to finally appoint a commander to do just this. Davis, despite his experience, proved to be inferior to Lincoln.
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Shek View Post
                        This brings us back to the heart of the question, which is how did a backcountry woods boy defeat a Mexican War hero who had also been the Secretary of War? It was because Lincoln was a far superior strategist than Davis, understanding the center of gravity of the South and working his way through generals until he found one in Grant that shared the same strategic and operational acumen.
                        If he "understood the gravity of the South", Lincoln would not have anticipated a short conflict, initially calling for 75,000 volunteers to serve for three months. Despite enormous pressures, loss of life, battlefield setbacks, bickering among his Cabinet members, generals who weren't ready to fight, assassination threats, etc., Lincoln stuck with this pro-Union policy for four long years of Civil War.

                        FOUR LONG YEARS.....that was anticipated to take 3 months. Lots of lives lost in all that "gravity."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Julie View Post
                          If he "understood the gravity of the South", Lincoln would not have anticipated a short conflict, initially calling for 75,000 volunteers to serve for three months. Despite enormous pressures, loss of life, battlefield setbacks, bickering among his Cabinet members, generals who weren't ready to fight, assassination threats, etc., Lincoln stuck with this pro-Union policy for four long years of Civil War.

                          FOUR LONG YEARS.....that was anticipated to take 3 months. Lots of lives lost in all that "gravity."
                          Actually, the Militia Act of 1792 only allowed a call up of militia for 3 months. Thus, it's not correct to rely on that to show that Lincoln thought it would take less than 3 months - by law, he couldn't call them up for longer than that.

                          However, it was correct that he thought it would be on the shorter side. In fact, both sides thought it would be on the shorter side. Pre-war expectations didn't match the reality of the war for either side. Yet, he was able to conduct a proper reassessment and determine that limited means and ways weren't going to get the job done. Thus, he pushed through Congress the Confiscation Acts and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.

                          He brought on Halleck as the Commander-in-Chief to attempt to synchronize the theaters of operation throughout the theater of war. When Halleck wasn't getting the job done, while he kept him on to continue to administer the Army writ large, he continued to search for someone who would get the job done and hired on Grant as the General-in-Chief once he had proven himself in the West.

                          Next, it's not "gravity," but "center of gravity." Lincoln recognize pretty early on that to defeat the South was to destroy the armies of the South, and specifically, the ANV and AOT. However, he moved through generals for the AOP until he found Meade, who was both competent and willing to take the fight to Lee (although to draw him out into a defensive fight for the AOP). With Grant, he found one that was not only willing to fight, but one that not only would follow Lincoln's call to concentrate on the ANV and AOT, but fully recommended it and did so in a synchronized way to ensure that the AOP and Sherman would be able to do so relentlessly.

                          Davis, on the other hand, waffled in his strategy and didn't exercise control over his generals when it was required. He had the easier task - to fight a defensive war until the North was exhausted or until diplomatic recognition would force the North to come to terms. Yet, he couldn't accomplish this.

                          Lastly, while it's really unrelated to the question of the thread - who's the better wartime president, I don't really understand why you want to pin deaths at Lincoln's doorstep. The shots that started the war were fired under Davis' order. The war outcome was never in question for the last five months of the war, and yet, tens upon tens of thousands died because of Davis' decision to fight until it was physically impossible to continue fighting. Had he surrendered when it was clear that the AOT and ANV could not defeat their adversary armies, Sherman's march would have stopped halfway to Savannah. The raids elsewhere in the South wouldn't have taken place in 1865. In fact, Davis was hated in the South after April 1865. It was only after the mistreatment of him by Johnson and Radical Republicans that his image was resurrected.
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A great passage from Sears' Chancellorsville (pg. 14) that strikes at the strategic acumen of Lincoln and is hauntingly prescient about the casualties endured during the 40 days and nights of fighting of the Overland Campaign.

                            Mr. Lincoln possessed a clear and stark view of what he called the "awful arithmetic" required of the general who commanded the Army of the Potomac. He observed to his secretary, William Stoddard, that at Fredericksburg the Potomac army had lost 50 percent more men than the enemy army, yet if the two should refight that battle, with the same result, every day "through a week of days," the enemy army would be wiped out and the Potomac army would still be a "mighty host." As Stoddard recorded it, the president said that "No general yet found can face the arithmetic, but the end of the war will be at hand when he shall be discovered."
                            On a separate but related note, this book looks promising on the topic: Amazon.com: The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War (9780195373059): Donald Stoker: Books
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Shek,

                              Rather fitting you are studying the war from the strategic level, considering how you earn your pay these days!
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X