- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Location
- Indiana
The following article reflects the author's opinions and does not necessarily reflect those of the poster...but it might...then again it might not...then again...
Measuring the Presidents: Modern leadership theory provides a framework for comparing the presidential skills of Lincoln and Davis
by Gordon Leidner
Historians have written hundreds of interesting biographies of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Generally, however, they have shied away from any serious comparison of the rival American presidents' leadership skills, limiting any such comparison to just a few pages in otherwise extensive works. Of the few in-depth comparisons available, virtually all lack the methodology offered by the relatively new discipline of leadership theory. (1)
Modern leadership theory provides a scientific approach to the study of human abilities and accomplishments. Practitioners of this discipline define and analyze various forms of leadership--charismatic, transactional, situational, transformational-and use them to measure the effectiveness of leadership in given situations, or as practiced by specific leaders.
Surprisingly, leadership theorists have largely ignored Lincoln and Davis. Theorists have occasionally brought up Lincoln and Davis as examplars of one leadership quality or another, but have done little in the way of serious analysis or direct comparison.(2) Nevertheless, the comparison is a natural one, and lends itself readily to scientific examination.
Before we enter into our comparison of Lincoln and Davis, we must choose which leadership theory to use as our yardstick. To make this choice, we need to take into account the objectives the two men were trying to accomplish. Davis was trying to establish a separate republic; to do this, he had both to defeat the invading armies of the North and to establish the Confederacy's legitimacy in the world and among his own people. Lincoln, on the other hand, was trying to preserve the Union. Like Davis, he had two primary challenges: first, to invade and militarily overwhelm the South; and second, to maintain a Union "worthy of saving."(3) (Clearly, Lincoln did not consider a Union that allowed human slavery to be fully "worthy," but he was willing to settle for such a Union at the war's outset.)
Both men's objectives, embodied in the Civil War, involved motivating entire national populations to bring about substantial changes in the face of powerful opposition.
Consequently, it would seem that the best leadership theory for the purpose of our comparison is that of "transformational leadership." According to Bernard M. Bass, a leading authority on the subject, "transformational" leaders transform or move followers to "go beyond their own self-interests" for the good of their group.(4) The transformational leader motivates followers by making them aware of the importance of accomplishing certain tasks, and by activating their "higher order" needs-moral values such as liberty, justice, and equality-as opposed to baser needs such as fear, greed, jealousy, and hatred.(5)
Although there are variations of transformational leadership theory, most theorists accept Bass's position on what a successful transformational leader does. The extent the leader is considered transformational is measured primarily in terms of his or her effect on followers. Followers usually feel trust, loyalty, and respect toward the leader. They are motivated to do more than they originally expected to, and they continue to make sacrifices in spite of difficulties or severe hardship.(6)
An advantage in analyzing Lincoln and Davis through modern leadership theory is that it is no longer necessary to use the success or failure of the war effort as the sole measure of effective leadership. The South lost the war, but this does not necessarily mean Davis was a failure as a transformational leader; the North's victory does not necessarily mean Lincoln was a successful one.
To compare Lincoln and Davis' transformational leadership skills, we will need to review at least three kinds of accomplishments: first, the effectiveness of each man's appeal to followers' moral values in order to inspire them to "higher morality" and willing sacrifice; second, each man's ability to inspire followers to keep making sacrifices in spite of hardships; and third, the degree to which each man acquired the trust, loyalty, and respect of followers
.
APPEAL TO MORAL VALUES
Making an effective appeal to the followers' moral principles is essential to the transformational leader. So, it is important to identify the primary moral issue of the Civil War and measure how effectively Lincoln and Davis used it to motivate their followers. Regardless of how important slavery was as a cause of the war compared to state rights, there can be little doubt that human was the primary moral issue of the day.(7)
Davis's Vice President, Alexander Stephens, said: "Our new government is founded upon....the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."(8) Lincoln summed up the controversy over slavery in a letter to Stephens: "…You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub."(9)
Interestingly enough, though Davis was leader of a nation founded upon the great "moral truth" that the black man was not the equal of the white man, he never publicly acknowledged this. Davis owned slaves, had spent his Senate career defending the rights of slaveholders, and agreed to secession when the Lincoln administration, which was opposed to allowing slavery in the new territories, took office. But Davis would not allow himself to believe slavery was more than a peripheral issue.
William C. Davis, in his recent biography of the Confederate president, writes that Davis believed the Northern states had abolished slavery chiefly because its economic benefits had dwindled. Besides, the small number of black people in the North ensured that emancipation would have only minimal effects on society. The South's situation was different, said President Davis; "I think there is no foundation for the presumption of moral change."(10) Jefferson Davis took the stand that maintaining Southern slavery was in the best interest of black people, and was the only moral option.
The Confederate president, a magnanimous slaveholder who allowed his own slaves freedoms unheard of, could neither see the abolitionists' position nor admit to their sincerity of purpose. He believed black people truly were inferior and had to be taken care of by the "superior" race. It was a moral duty for white people to do so.
Regardless of how disingenuous this sounds today, the argument that slavery was a moral good had been propagated in the South for decades. Various historians have found that Southern ministers of the Gospel argued that slavery was not only acceptable (after all, Jesus had "accepted" the institution), it was actually beneficial to the African race. The white race had taken black people out of a "heathen" continent and brought them to the New World where they could be educated on the Gospel of Christ.(11) In addition, Southerners argued they were providing a kind of cradle to grave care for slaves, seeing to their physical and spiritual needs. According to one historian, "(T)he overwhelming majority of Southern clergymen had for a generation given the church's blessing to the institution of slavery and its right to spread into the territories."(12)
It was confusion about the morality of slavery that caused such enmity between slaveholders and abolitionists. Slaveholders frequently perceived their slaves to be well taken care of, happy, and contented. They recognized the difficulties slaves would have if suddenly turned loose into the world to make a living on their own. Abolitionists could see the slave only in light of the words of the Declaration of Independence: "...All men are created equal." They thought of the terrible beatings and the degrading slave auctions where children and their mothers were separated.
The Southern economy was based upon slavery and cotton, and the Confederacy's constitution guaranteed slavery.(13) Although only about one in four Southern households owned slaves, the majority of the Southern people supported the existence of the "peculiar institution."(14) Southern political leaders maintained the support of the majority by convincing non-slaveholders that in threatening slavery, the North was actually threatening the entire South, its way of life, and its livelihood. The only logical solution was for the South to secede from the Union and establish a country founded on slavery, guaranteeing the Southern way of life.(15)
In spite of politicians' efforts to justify slavery from a socio-economic basis and religious leaders' efforts to justify it morally, many Southerners remained unconvinced of the moral soundness of founding a nation upon the principle of human .(16) As religious people, many Southerners saw success or failure on the battlefield as indication of whether God approved of their cause. When they were winning, God was heaping favor on His chosen people. But when they were losing, God was either chastising them or showing disfavor.(17)
It was up to Davis, as a transformational leader, to continue to convince the Southern people that, despite military setbacks, God truly supported their cause, and that founding the Confederacy upon slavery was morally sound. If he could not win the war or support this position, his people would have to accept the idea that either a separate nation was not justified or the new nation should be founded without slavery as an absolute. Nevertheless, eliminating slavery in the Confederacy-even only partially-would require a significant transformation of the Southern people's attitudes.
As tools to convince his people of slavery's morality, Davis had his own leadership skills and the aid of the Southern religious leaders. Although no adequate study of how well Davis used ministers to motivate civilians exists, Gardiner Shattuck writes that Davis failed to place sufficient emphasis on religious guidance of his troops. Davis and Secretary of War James A. Seddon, Shattuck writes, "thought that ministers would be more useful to the country as soldiers than as preachers"(18) and did little to aid in the establishment and maintenance of religious leadership for soldiers.
Without executive leadership, Southern ministers were left to their own devices and interpretation when it came to maintaining morale. According to James W. Silver, "when war weariness caused the people to hesitate and falter, the men of God boldly attempted to sustain and strengthen civilian tenacity by resort to the use of atrocity stories and fear techniques."(19) In light of Silver's findings that "there is overwhelming evidence that preachers as a whole retained a higher degree of morale than they were able to instill in their parishioners," and the fact that Southern ministers had effectively supported slavery for decades prior to the war, Davis' inaction on the part of religious leadership may have been a serious blunder.(20)
Lincoln's use of religious leaders to reinforce his policies during the war stands in sharp contrast to Davis's refusal to do so. Early in the war, Lincoln insisted that every regiment have a chaplain of "a Christian denomination" and did what he could to assist civilian organizations such as the U. S. Christian Commission in evangelizing and ministering to the troops.(21) Christian Commission clergy were generally in favor of emancipation, and the ministers' presence in the army had a significant impact on the attitudes of soldiers.
Historians have maligned Davis' personality and leadership skills. Although the Confederate president was perceived by many as a cold, indifferent man, the opposite was true. He displayed a generous spirit with many people, especially with acknowledged subordinates and close friends. With his slaves he was paternal in nature, happily passing out gifts to the slave children when he returned from a long journey. With friends he was the most devoted of men--doing all within his power to overlook their faults and provide means for their benefit. (When it came to the selection and placement of generals, this latter quality would eventually work to the detriment of the Confederacy.)
Davis was much less capable of dealing effectively with his peers. As a product of the planter class, he was used to being lord over all he surveyed. When forced to deal with people that were not his subordinates, he displayed a lack of ability in the normal give and take of politics. He frequently had neither the patience nor the inclination to reconcile differences with political foes. His wife, Varina, knowing her husband's strengths and weaknesses, had hoped that he would be appointed commanding general of the Confederacy rather than its president. She summed up his political skills when she said "he did not know the arts of the politician and would not practice them if understood." She also said, "As a party manger, he would not succeed."(22)
So Davis was handicapped on the morality issue by his lack of natural abilities as a politician. Could he make up for these shortcomings by effective use of his oratory skills? While he was a U. S. senator, word that Davis was to speak had often packed the galleries. When he resigned his seat prior to joining the Confederacy, people thronged to the Senate Chamber to hear his farewell address. But the oratory skills he displayed in the Senate seemed to elude him as president of the Confederacy. Davis was unable to articulate effectively the moral justification for a separate nation. According to one historian, Davis "never said anything people could remember."(23) When military reverses came, he attempted to motivate followers by warning them of what terrible things would happen if the North won, rather than encouraging them with words about the righteousness of their cause.
The story of Davis' encounter with Richmond housewives rioting for bread serves as an example of his poor communications skills during the war. First he made a short speech and promised future distribution of food. He then threw his pocket money at them, demanded they go home, and told them that they had five minutes to leave. The soldiers with him prepared their weapons to fire upon the crowd. The people left unsatisfied, to say the least.
Typical of Davis' cumbersome speech is his second inaugural address.(24) In one its introductory paragraphs, he tried to explain the reasons for the formation of the Confederacy. As usual, he chose to berate the United States government instead of painting an inspiring picture of the noble causes the Confederate States:
"When a long course of class legislation, directed not to the general welfare, but to the aggrandizement of the Northern section of the Union, culminated in a warfare on the domestic institutions of the Southern States -when the dogmas of a sectional party, substituted for the provisions of the constitutional compact, threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established."(25)
continued on next post
Measuring the Presidents: Modern leadership theory provides a framework for comparing the presidential skills of Lincoln and Davis
by Gordon Leidner
Historians have written hundreds of interesting biographies of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Generally, however, they have shied away from any serious comparison of the rival American presidents' leadership skills, limiting any such comparison to just a few pages in otherwise extensive works. Of the few in-depth comparisons available, virtually all lack the methodology offered by the relatively new discipline of leadership theory. (1)
Modern leadership theory provides a scientific approach to the study of human abilities and accomplishments. Practitioners of this discipline define and analyze various forms of leadership--charismatic, transactional, situational, transformational-and use them to measure the effectiveness of leadership in given situations, or as practiced by specific leaders.
Surprisingly, leadership theorists have largely ignored Lincoln and Davis. Theorists have occasionally brought up Lincoln and Davis as examplars of one leadership quality or another, but have done little in the way of serious analysis or direct comparison.(2) Nevertheless, the comparison is a natural one, and lends itself readily to scientific examination.
Before we enter into our comparison of Lincoln and Davis, we must choose which leadership theory to use as our yardstick. To make this choice, we need to take into account the objectives the two men were trying to accomplish. Davis was trying to establish a separate republic; to do this, he had both to defeat the invading armies of the North and to establish the Confederacy's legitimacy in the world and among his own people. Lincoln, on the other hand, was trying to preserve the Union. Like Davis, he had two primary challenges: first, to invade and militarily overwhelm the South; and second, to maintain a Union "worthy of saving."(3) (Clearly, Lincoln did not consider a Union that allowed human slavery to be fully "worthy," but he was willing to settle for such a Union at the war's outset.)
Both men's objectives, embodied in the Civil War, involved motivating entire national populations to bring about substantial changes in the face of powerful opposition.
Consequently, it would seem that the best leadership theory for the purpose of our comparison is that of "transformational leadership." According to Bernard M. Bass, a leading authority on the subject, "transformational" leaders transform or move followers to "go beyond their own self-interests" for the good of their group.(4) The transformational leader motivates followers by making them aware of the importance of accomplishing certain tasks, and by activating their "higher order" needs-moral values such as liberty, justice, and equality-as opposed to baser needs such as fear, greed, jealousy, and hatred.(5)
Although there are variations of transformational leadership theory, most theorists accept Bass's position on what a successful transformational leader does. The extent the leader is considered transformational is measured primarily in terms of his or her effect on followers. Followers usually feel trust, loyalty, and respect toward the leader. They are motivated to do more than they originally expected to, and they continue to make sacrifices in spite of difficulties or severe hardship.(6)
An advantage in analyzing Lincoln and Davis through modern leadership theory is that it is no longer necessary to use the success or failure of the war effort as the sole measure of effective leadership. The South lost the war, but this does not necessarily mean Davis was a failure as a transformational leader; the North's victory does not necessarily mean Lincoln was a successful one.
To compare Lincoln and Davis' transformational leadership skills, we will need to review at least three kinds of accomplishments: first, the effectiveness of each man's appeal to followers' moral values in order to inspire them to "higher morality" and willing sacrifice; second, each man's ability to inspire followers to keep making sacrifices in spite of hardships; and third, the degree to which each man acquired the trust, loyalty, and respect of followers
.
APPEAL TO MORAL VALUES
Making an effective appeal to the followers' moral principles is essential to the transformational leader. So, it is important to identify the primary moral issue of the Civil War and measure how effectively Lincoln and Davis used it to motivate their followers. Regardless of how important slavery was as a cause of the war compared to state rights, there can be little doubt that human was the primary moral issue of the day.(7)
Davis's Vice President, Alexander Stephens, said: "Our new government is founded upon....the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."(8) Lincoln summed up the controversy over slavery in a letter to Stephens: "…You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub."(9)
Interestingly enough, though Davis was leader of a nation founded upon the great "moral truth" that the black man was not the equal of the white man, he never publicly acknowledged this. Davis owned slaves, had spent his Senate career defending the rights of slaveholders, and agreed to secession when the Lincoln administration, which was opposed to allowing slavery in the new territories, took office. But Davis would not allow himself to believe slavery was more than a peripheral issue.
William C. Davis, in his recent biography of the Confederate president, writes that Davis believed the Northern states had abolished slavery chiefly because its economic benefits had dwindled. Besides, the small number of black people in the North ensured that emancipation would have only minimal effects on society. The South's situation was different, said President Davis; "I think there is no foundation for the presumption of moral change."(10) Jefferson Davis took the stand that maintaining Southern slavery was in the best interest of black people, and was the only moral option.
The Confederate president, a magnanimous slaveholder who allowed his own slaves freedoms unheard of, could neither see the abolitionists' position nor admit to their sincerity of purpose. He believed black people truly were inferior and had to be taken care of by the "superior" race. It was a moral duty for white people to do so.
Regardless of how disingenuous this sounds today, the argument that slavery was a moral good had been propagated in the South for decades. Various historians have found that Southern ministers of the Gospel argued that slavery was not only acceptable (after all, Jesus had "accepted" the institution), it was actually beneficial to the African race. The white race had taken black people out of a "heathen" continent and brought them to the New World where they could be educated on the Gospel of Christ.(11) In addition, Southerners argued they were providing a kind of cradle to grave care for slaves, seeing to their physical and spiritual needs. According to one historian, "(T)he overwhelming majority of Southern clergymen had for a generation given the church's blessing to the institution of slavery and its right to spread into the territories."(12)
It was confusion about the morality of slavery that caused such enmity between slaveholders and abolitionists. Slaveholders frequently perceived their slaves to be well taken care of, happy, and contented. They recognized the difficulties slaves would have if suddenly turned loose into the world to make a living on their own. Abolitionists could see the slave only in light of the words of the Declaration of Independence: "...All men are created equal." They thought of the terrible beatings and the degrading slave auctions where children and their mothers were separated.
The Southern economy was based upon slavery and cotton, and the Confederacy's constitution guaranteed slavery.(13) Although only about one in four Southern households owned slaves, the majority of the Southern people supported the existence of the "peculiar institution."(14) Southern political leaders maintained the support of the majority by convincing non-slaveholders that in threatening slavery, the North was actually threatening the entire South, its way of life, and its livelihood. The only logical solution was for the South to secede from the Union and establish a country founded on slavery, guaranteeing the Southern way of life.(15)
In spite of politicians' efforts to justify slavery from a socio-economic basis and religious leaders' efforts to justify it morally, many Southerners remained unconvinced of the moral soundness of founding a nation upon the principle of human .(16) As religious people, many Southerners saw success or failure on the battlefield as indication of whether God approved of their cause. When they were winning, God was heaping favor on His chosen people. But when they were losing, God was either chastising them or showing disfavor.(17)
It was up to Davis, as a transformational leader, to continue to convince the Southern people that, despite military setbacks, God truly supported their cause, and that founding the Confederacy upon slavery was morally sound. If he could not win the war or support this position, his people would have to accept the idea that either a separate nation was not justified or the new nation should be founded without slavery as an absolute. Nevertheless, eliminating slavery in the Confederacy-even only partially-would require a significant transformation of the Southern people's attitudes.
As tools to convince his people of slavery's morality, Davis had his own leadership skills and the aid of the Southern religious leaders. Although no adequate study of how well Davis used ministers to motivate civilians exists, Gardiner Shattuck writes that Davis failed to place sufficient emphasis on religious guidance of his troops. Davis and Secretary of War James A. Seddon, Shattuck writes, "thought that ministers would be more useful to the country as soldiers than as preachers"(18) and did little to aid in the establishment and maintenance of religious leadership for soldiers.
Without executive leadership, Southern ministers were left to their own devices and interpretation when it came to maintaining morale. According to James W. Silver, "when war weariness caused the people to hesitate and falter, the men of God boldly attempted to sustain and strengthen civilian tenacity by resort to the use of atrocity stories and fear techniques."(19) In light of Silver's findings that "there is overwhelming evidence that preachers as a whole retained a higher degree of morale than they were able to instill in their parishioners," and the fact that Southern ministers had effectively supported slavery for decades prior to the war, Davis' inaction on the part of religious leadership may have been a serious blunder.(20)
Lincoln's use of religious leaders to reinforce his policies during the war stands in sharp contrast to Davis's refusal to do so. Early in the war, Lincoln insisted that every regiment have a chaplain of "a Christian denomination" and did what he could to assist civilian organizations such as the U. S. Christian Commission in evangelizing and ministering to the troops.(21) Christian Commission clergy were generally in favor of emancipation, and the ministers' presence in the army had a significant impact on the attitudes of soldiers.
Historians have maligned Davis' personality and leadership skills. Although the Confederate president was perceived by many as a cold, indifferent man, the opposite was true. He displayed a generous spirit with many people, especially with acknowledged subordinates and close friends. With his slaves he was paternal in nature, happily passing out gifts to the slave children when he returned from a long journey. With friends he was the most devoted of men--doing all within his power to overlook their faults and provide means for their benefit. (When it came to the selection and placement of generals, this latter quality would eventually work to the detriment of the Confederacy.)
Davis was much less capable of dealing effectively with his peers. As a product of the planter class, he was used to being lord over all he surveyed. When forced to deal with people that were not his subordinates, he displayed a lack of ability in the normal give and take of politics. He frequently had neither the patience nor the inclination to reconcile differences with political foes. His wife, Varina, knowing her husband's strengths and weaknesses, had hoped that he would be appointed commanding general of the Confederacy rather than its president. She summed up his political skills when she said "he did not know the arts of the politician and would not practice them if understood." She also said, "As a party manger, he would not succeed."(22)
So Davis was handicapped on the morality issue by his lack of natural abilities as a politician. Could he make up for these shortcomings by effective use of his oratory skills? While he was a U. S. senator, word that Davis was to speak had often packed the galleries. When he resigned his seat prior to joining the Confederacy, people thronged to the Senate Chamber to hear his farewell address. But the oratory skills he displayed in the Senate seemed to elude him as president of the Confederacy. Davis was unable to articulate effectively the moral justification for a separate nation. According to one historian, Davis "never said anything people could remember."(23) When military reverses came, he attempted to motivate followers by warning them of what terrible things would happen if the North won, rather than encouraging them with words about the righteousness of their cause.
The story of Davis' encounter with Richmond housewives rioting for bread serves as an example of his poor communications skills during the war. First he made a short speech and promised future distribution of food. He then threw his pocket money at them, demanded they go home, and told them that they had five minutes to leave. The soldiers with him prepared their weapons to fire upon the crowd. The people left unsatisfied, to say the least.
Typical of Davis' cumbersome speech is his second inaugural address.(24) In one its introductory paragraphs, he tried to explain the reasons for the formation of the Confederacy. As usual, he chose to berate the United States government instead of painting an inspiring picture of the noble causes the Confederate States:
"When a long course of class legislation, directed not to the general welfare, but to the aggrandizement of the Northern section of the Union, culminated in a warfare on the domestic institutions of the Southern States -when the dogmas of a sectional party, substituted for the provisions of the constitutional compact, threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established."(25)
continued on next post
Bringing the