Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I asked BlackIrish about his opinions on Lincoln vs. Davis as far as leadership ability goes. I was considering it as my little litmus test, just to see his response.
I'd also be curious to see what the rest of you think....
Lincoln and Davis were the political and military leaders of their respective sides during this conflict so I would like to divide this discussion into these two areas for comparison purposes.
As a military leader Lincoln had very little training or experience. He had served a short stint as a volunteer in the Black Hawk Indian wars. He made light of this service himself and well understood his shortcomings as a military expert. When the war actually started he made an effort to educate himself on military strategy by reading manuals and books on the subject but he could hardly qualify as an expert by any stretch of the imagination.
Davis, on the other hand, was educated at West Point and had served with distinction in the Mexican War. He was Secretary of War under Franklin Pearce from 1852-1856 and was intimately acquainted with most of the generals that served during the war on both sides of the conflict. He had studied the latest scientific military strategy in some detail during this term and had even helped write some of the manuals that Lincoln read in an effort to educate himself.
Politically, Lincoln had served in the State Legislature of Illinois and a term in the House of Representatives. He was one of the leaders of the minority Whig party in Illinois and had only very recently come into any sort of national prominence when he was nominated to head the Republican Presidential ticket. He had failed in his efforts to unseat the incumbent Stephen Douglas in the 1856 race for the senate. It was through this hotly contested election that he had received the national attention that propelled him to the Republican ticket. In a series of debates between Douglas and himself, which were widely publicized in newspapers all over the country, he had made his “house divided” speech whereby he called attention to his belief that the nation would not long remain divided over the slavery question. His statements that the country would either have to become completely slave or completely free were widely construed later during the 1860 presidential election to mean that slavery as in institution in the south would not be safe under his administration. The rhetoric in these debates with Douglas had included charges of intentions for slaves and race relations from both sides that both candidates knew to be false that later came back to haunt both he and Douglas. His one other nationally noted moment had come during his term in the House of Representatives when he had sardonically asked for President Polk to point out the “spot” on United States soil where American troops had been fired upon.
Davis, on the other hand, had served a long career that included terms in both houses of Congress and one four-year stint in President Pearce’s cabinet as Secretary of War. He had run for Governor of Mississippi and was considered one of the rising young stars of the Democratic Party nationally. It was widely believed that he was on the inner track to become the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in a short time.
On the face of their relative experience in both the political arena and military matters it would seem that Lincoln was hopelessly outclassed in both instances. Due to some basic personality differences just the opposite turned out to be true.
Davis, while highly intelligent and passionately devoted to his cause, was personally ill suited for leadership. He tended to judge people by their agreement with his own views. People who didn’t agree with him he suspected of ulterior motives or a lack of dedication to the cause of the Confederacy. His opinions of people and their abilities once formed were not open to change. He was loyal to a fault to his friends and just as adamant in his opposition to those he saw as his enemies. His course, once set upon, was seldom open to a change, whether it be a military objective or a political one.
Lincoln, on the other hand, often considered the only proper action was reaction. He plainly stated that he did not believe he was in control of the circumstances he found himself in; but rather was guided by them. Many within his own political group saw his policy of reaction as a sign of terrible indecisiveness and incompetence. He surrounded himself with people of the highest ability that he could find regardless of their personal agreement with himself or his policies. He somehow managed to successfully run an administration composed of a cabinet who agreed on very little accept their own individual personal superiority over himself. His policies were endlessly fluid and open to adaptability to circumstances that presented themselves throughout the war.
From Fort Sumter on through the end of the war Lincoln bested Davis politically at every turn. With inferior generals but superior manpower and material capabilities he managed to militarily best Davis as well.
Lincoln preferred to guide military policy from the background and seldom overruled or defined military objectives for his generals. He had a long-term general policy that he thought was the key to success, which involved attacking on all fronts simultaneously to best use the North’s material superiority, which he pushed from the start; but that is as far as he would go.
Davis, on the other hand, often personally set military objectives for his generals. Some of his promotions and removal of individual leaders had direct and dire consequences for the Confederate cause. His inability to deal with individual state leaders also led to supply and reinforcement problems which hurt the south. Some of these problems can be ascribed to the fear of a strong central government in the Confederacy but much of it can also be attributed to Davis’ own intractable personality.
Overall, I think the evidence plainly supports the statement that Lincoln was Davis’ superior as both a military and a political leader. In spite of the fact that if one were to look at their respective backgrounds prior to the war they would have to conclude the opposite was the likeliest possibility.
I'm kind of new here, so I don't really know if this is normal or not. I would think this subject would be of some interest to others as well. Anyone out there?
blackirish
It's normal Rick, at least for the moment. I've been having trouble getting people to visit and post on the History Chat board, I'm not sure why either. I'm hoping it picks up this winter.
That was a fairly good evaluation, quite a detailed one too. I like the statement you made about Lincoln, that he had no control over the circumstances he was in, and that he was simply guided by them. I'm not sure yet, I'm still studying the man, but I still haven't figured out if Lincoln's policies work out due to pure genius or pure luck.
Lincoln has always been one of my favorites. I was raised in an area where he is remembered with much hatred. In order to understand why he was thus remembered I began to read as much about him as I could find. There is much in the way of mythmaking about him in many of the biographies that I have read but even without these efforts he was an extraordinary man. Self educated and somewhat of a loner, the "real" Lincoln complete with his faults is even more interesting than the mythical one. One story that I stumbled upon recently is one that Lincoln himself seemed to find humorous in later years although at the time it was a source of great embarrassment to him.
He was a leader within the Whig party in Illinois at the time which was the minority party. This was during the bank crisis years in the late 1830's. He was serving in the state legislature and was a strong supporter of the state bank in Illinois. During the economic depression at the time the state legislature had been trying to keep the bank afloat by legally postponing it's obligation to pay notes that it had outstanding, notes that the bank did not have the capital to cover. The democrats, who were tired of the bank and what they saw as it's mismanagement had worked out a compromise with the Whigs whereby the bank would not be forced to cover itself until the legislature adjourned. As the day for adjournment approached it became obvious that the bank needed more time or it was going to have to default. Lincoln and his Whig counterparts hit upon a plan to stay away from the statehouse so that the legislature could not officially adjourn. One of the bylaws of the legislature called for a quorum to be present for an adjournment to be official. Lincoln and two of his Whig counterparts agreed to stay and keep an eye on things and contact the missing members if something came up to foil their plan. The plan worked for a week. Repeated attempts to muster a quorum failed and the Democrats were getting desperate and irritated at their failure to overcome this tactic. Unbeknownst to Lincoln and his two cohorts the Democrats secretly arranged to have 3 members who were sick to be carried into the statehouse and thereby attain the numbers present for a legal quorum.
Lincoln and his 2 cohorts were deep in a storytelling session in the back of the statehouse when they looked up to see the 3 members being carried in. They tried to run out the front door but the Democrats had quickly shut and locked the door trapping Lincoln and his 2 Whig partners inside.
In desperation they ran to a window in the back of the building and jumped out. The legislature hall was on the second story of the building and one of the jumpers sprained an ankle badly in the jump. Lincoln himself was ok, if somewhat embarassed to be caught with his guard down. The Democrats counted the jumping legislature members present but abstaining from voting and passed the official adjournment anyway. The bank folded soon thereafter and Lincoln was known a "jumping Lincoln" for some time afterwards. He would later smile and refer to the incident as his "jumping incident" but he knew that he had been outdone.
I agree that Lincoln was naturally a better political and military leader than Davis, in spite of Davis' considerable military and political experience. Davis was a Representative and Senator, as well as Pierce's Secretary of War (1853-1857). He had been a hero as a regimental commander in the Mexican War.
Still, Lincoln was far superior. I do have an opinion about whether he was "pure genius" or just lucky. I think if you look at Lincoln's record during the war, no one would call him lucky. His success was part genius and part perseverance.
I am very much a Lincoln fan. We are still following precedents he set as to emergency executive powers. We have always seemed to come up with the leader we need at crucial times in our history, and Lincoln is that leader at that crucial time. Still, by experience, he would not have been an obvious choice. An interesting note is that President Bush (while no Lincoln) was also a candidate with little political experience who seems to have handled a crisis well.
John S. Cooper
Editor, Presidents & First Ladies
Suite101.com
I also am of the opinion that Lincoln far outweighed Davis in his leadership role during the Civil War. Davis seems to have placed generals in leadership roles who were ill-suited to them- Bragg for example- and continued to support whomever he favored regardless of the consequences on the rest of the army. Especially in the Western theater of war, Confederate generals were constantly bickering so much so that at one point during the war Davis had to make a trip out West.
Lincoln on the other hand placed people in key positions for the good of the cause even though many wanted his position as President. (Stanton, Chase, Seward). Lincoln, I believe, was very open-minded to new ideas, etc (because he had no real military experience), whereas Davis seemed to have his mind set and that was it- no budging. I really believe that attributed to the Confederacy's downfall on some level.
Well OKay, I'm new here so, please don't shoot me immediately. First of all I have a love hate relationship with Lincoln. I am pleased as punch that the North won and that we remained one country. However, in my opinion, Lincoln was a man who had no principles save what it took to accomplish the means.
An example of course would be his stand on secession. He opposed it in 1860. Why then was he in favor of it in 1845? The reason is simple. In the 1845 scenario, it was to the US benefit because he was referring to Texas seceding from Mexico. But the same principle was noxious to him in 1860 because the wrong states were seceding from the wrong country.
Then of course we have his trampling on personal freedoms, habeas corpus, etc. then my favorite where he freed the slaves in the south but not the north. Again showing as man of no principles only convictions.
Like I said, I'm glad the south lost and we remained one. That Lincoln was a part of that I recognize. But he was a politician. Politicians will say whatever they have to get what they want, principles be ****ed.
Regarding Davis, I share most of your thoughts. But i have this to add. Who in the south could have done better? And another thing was look what Davis had to deal with! He had to keep a conglomaration of states together that believed in state's rights when what he needed was a strong central government to win the war. A case in point would be North Carolina's unbelievable stock in uniforms, yet the governor of NC, would not distribute the uniforms to other needy states.
In addition, Georgia became so unruly at one point that she threatened to secede from the Confederacy.
I think all things considered, Davis did a masterful job of keeping the country together. His problem in addition to what has already been described here was also the fact that he kept too much into the military aspect of the war. He should have let his generals fight. However, he could not resist to meddle on occasion. He wanted to be a general not a president. He only accepted the office because he felt duty bound to do so.
First off, I have to take exception with your first premise. Lincoln never said he was in favor of secession. What he said was:
" Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world-- Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it-- Any portion of the such people of an existing government that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit-- More than this, a majority of any portion of the such people of an existing government, -- may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement."
This is part of a speech he made on the floor of the House when he was referring to Texas and her independence from Mexico. He also referred to the American Revolution and the founding father's struggle to throw of the English Government in favor of the one we have now.
The moral right of a people to revolutionize and throw off a government in favor of another that suits them better is a far cry from the legal right of a state in the United States to secede from the union under our constitution.
Revolution implies an act that is implicitly illegal under any government and is the definition of treason with all of it's requisite dangers. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew they were guilty of treason against the government of England at that point and were risking everything in the effort. The states that seceeded from the union in 1860 held that they had the LEGAL right to do so under the Constitution. They did not consider themselves to be guilty violating the Constitution but rather felt that they were in fact defending the spirit of the Constitution by asserting their rights. Lincoln disagreed. He felt that there were only 2 options available to the states to change their form of government. The first was to legally amend the constitution to suit their needs or to allow them to secede. The second was to effect a Revolution and overthrow the government. The first was Legal, the second illegal. Since Lincoln was sworn to uphold the Constitution he had know choice but to do so.
Lincoln himself said that his main object was to preserve the union and that if he could do so by freeing all the slaves he would, if he could do so by freeing part and leaving others slaves he would, if he could do so by freeing none he would. The emancipation proclamation was a furtherance of this policy which he stated early in the war.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
