Lincoln or Davis - who was the better wartime president?

[rj1]

This question was even asked? Geez, I'm a Southerner, but hands down Lincoln. Lincoln was dealt a far better hand than Davis was and had greater advantages from the outset, but even with his bad hand Davis didn't play it well.

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?

Put me, a person with no formal training, in charge of the American military and put Norman Schwartzkopf in charge of the Iraqis circa 1990, and I'm pretty certain I can win against him. Even for all its inherent advantages at the beginning of the war, it still took the Union four years to get a decisive victory against a numerically and economically inferior opponent. Not to mention you're overestimating the worth of politicians over generals in this conflict. Lincoln can free slaves in territories he has no power over all he wants, doesn't mean jacksh*t if the Union armies lose at Gettysburg or any other battles.

[Albany Rifles]

Shek,

Good read from Brooks Simpson.

I would read an ingedients list if he wrote...even if he is a damn Yankees fan!

To his thesis....


No doubt about the failures and faults of the gentlemen in question as generals. And I am sure their ineptitude also caused some problems. But they were kept on board because of their political value. McClernand's political machine recruited those 5 divisions which Grant used so well. Siegel along with the other Forty Eighters kept the Germans enlisting and strong in the war effort. While they would never have fought for the Confederacy they certainly could have emigrated or sat out the war. Instead they enlisted in droves. Butler was a disaster in some reas but he was a powerful War Democrat who kept his support behind the president. And while Bermuda Hundred was not a brilliant success he did establish the base at City Point as ordered. And was his failure to cooperate with the AOP...was that the result of not pushing north or the failure of the AOP to push south?

That Lincoln could be blind to the shortfalls of soem of his subordinates, I think on the balance he did a pretty good job overall.

PS: Have you check out Simpson's new Crossroads blog? Good stuff. Crossroads | Where history, scholarship, the academic life, and other stuff meet.

[Shek]

Put me, a person with no formal training, in charge of the American military and put Norman Schwartzkopf in charge of the Iraqis circa 1990, and I'm pretty certain I can win against him. Even for all its inherent advantages at the beginning of the war, it still took the Union four years to get a decisive victory against a numerically and economically inferior opponent. Not to mention you're overestimating the worth of politicians over generals in this conflict. Lincoln can free slaves in territories he has no power over all he wants, doesn't mean jacksh*t if the Union armies lose at Gettysburg or any other battles.

Your analogy reveals a lack of understanding about what the odds really were. Unlike Iraq-US 1990, there was no technological difference. There was parity. Unlike Iraq-US 1990, there wasn't one side with lots of incompetent generals and one side with few incompetent generals. There was parity, or if anything, because of a need to cobble together a coalition of the willing, the Union had more incompetents due to the patronage doled out for raising units.

The reality is that the numerical superiority didn't reveal itself until 1864, and that was also because of the seizure of Southern territory before than that precluded the raising of further Southern regiments. It was also something that wasn't a factor until late 1864 after the Army of Tennessee had attritted itself thanks to Hood and after the ANV had been attritted by Grant, who had pulled out all the heavies and unnecessary garrisons to create a force that doctrinally wasn't strong enough to enjoy offensive success (not a 3:1 ratio) once the supporting lines of effort collapsed during the Overland Campaign.

This view is also biased through the hindsight that the Union won the war. Most outside observers didn't even give the Union a chance in hell in conquering the Confederacy. For example, the Brits never thought the Union could defeat the Confederacy until sometime in 1864. Other foreign governments felt the same.

Lastly, the Confederacy was the 4th largest manufacturer in the world. While it did lag behind the Union in capacity, the only place that this revealed itself was through its inability to maintain its railroad infrastructure, which contributed in the late years to an inability to distribute the ample food stuffs that it had. However, it didn't affect anything of note in the early years.

[Shek]

Shek,

Good read from Brooks Simpson.

I would read an ingedients list if he wrote...even if he is a damn Yankees fan!

Really?

To his thesis....


No doubt about the failures and faults of the gentlemen in question as generals. And I am sure their ineptitude also caused some problems. But they were kept on board because of their political value. McClernand's political machine recruited those 5 divisions which Grant used so well. Siegel along with the other Forty Eighters kept the Germans enlisting and strong in the war effort. While they would never have fought for the Confederacy they certainly could have emigrated or sat out the war. Instead they enlisted in droves. Butler was a disaster in some reas but he was a powerful War Democrat who kept his support behind the president. And while Bermuda Hundred was not a brilliant success he did establish the base at City Point as ordered. And was his failure to cooperate with the AOP...was that the result of not pushing north or the failure of the AOP to push south?

I know that there's a recent book out that is revisionist WRT the political generals. It would be interesting to get my hands on it and see what argument that author uses.

PS: Have you check out Simpson's new Crossroads blog? Good stuff. Crossroads | Where history, scholarship, the academic life, and other stuff meet.

It's a good read. Thanks.

[Albany Rifles]

[QUOTE=Shek;790982]Really? QUOTE]

No one likes smart ass majors, Shek!