Lincoln Davis v Lincoln

[atlantis]

Lincoln really grew as a president and by 1864 election commanded the respect and affection of many. Davis on the other hand grew evermore unpopular and disrespected as president. What qualities in these 2 men produced such different outcomes.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lincoln really grew as a president and by 1864 election commanded the respect and affection of many. Davis on the other hand grew evermore unpopular and disrespected as president. What qualities in these 2 men produced such different outcomes.

Not winning a war certainly didn't help Davis's approval ratings .
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Lincoln really grew as a president and by 1864 election commanded the respect and affection of many. Davis on the other hand grew evermore unpopular and disrespected as president. What qualities in these 2 men produced such different outcomes.

To be fair the Democrats won the 1862
Congressional elections. McClellan won a few states in 1864 and he didn't loose by the largest loss in the popular vote in U.S. presidential history

Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Lincoln really grew as a president and by 1864 election commanded the respect and affection of many. Davis on the other hand grew evermore unpopular and disrespected as president. What qualities in these 2 men produced such different outcomes.

To also be fair to Davis it was Davis not FDR who tried to establish a (Confederate) wide welfare system . It wasn't an overwhelming success but then again it was not that easy to implement.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Lincoln really grew as a president and by 1864 election commanded the respect and affection of many. Davis on the other hand grew evermore unpopular and disrespected as president. What qualities in these 2 men produced such different outcomes.

Not being able to ensure that cotton growers grew food instead of cotton to feed soldiers families didn't help Davis's approval ratings either.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Lincoln really grew as a president and by 1864 election commanded the respect and affection of many. Davis on the other hand grew evermore unpopular and disrespected as president. What qualities in these 2 men produced such different outcomes.

To also be fair if hypothetically Lincoln led the Confederacy and Davis the Union then Lincoln would not of been popular either.
Interestingly after the Civil War Davis was able to become a popular public speaker and author at least in the South and border states. "Jefferson Davis American" by Cooper has quite a few details on Davis post Civil War.
Oscar Wilde was a huge Davis fan and visited Davis after the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebforever]

Lincoln has better crooks helping him!!

 

[leftyhunter]

Lincoln has better crooks helping him!!

Lincoln has a better army
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

Lincoln has better crooks helping him!!

You mean the ones who helped Lincoln lawfully put down an unlawful rebellion?

 

[AndyHall]

Lincoln really grew as a president and by 1864 election commanded the respect and affection of many. Davis on the other hand grew evermore unpopular and disrespected as president. What qualities in these 2 men produced such different outcomes.

And it's interesting because on paper, Jefferson Davis had an absolutely stellar resume to serve as President. He had been a soldier, Secretary of War, and a member of the U.S. Senate in turn. Until he resigned his seat in early 1861, Jefferson Davis was overseeing construction of the U.S. Capitol in Washington. It's kind of amazing how he and Lincoln, a man whose resume of public service was (charitably speaking) somewhat limited, turned out to be so very different in style and approach to governing as the chief executive.

 

[Drew]

And it's interesting because on paper, Jefferson Davis had an absolutely stellar resume to serve as President. He had been a soldier, Secretary of War, and a member of the U.S. Senate in turn. Until he resigned his seat in early 1861, Jefferson Davis was overseeing construction of the U.S. Capitol in Washington. It's kind of amazing how he and Lincoln, a man whose resume of public service was (charitably speaking) somewhat limited, turned out to be so very different in style and approach to governing as the chief executive.

I'm pretty sure there's historically little correlation between resume qualification and successful presidencies. Many of the newcomers have been successful and many of the fancy resumes have fallen on their faces. Just sayin'.

 

[Captain Davis]

Lincoln has a better army
Leftyhunter

*bigger

 

[leftyhunter]

*bigger

Excuses excuses. Everyone knows one Johnny Reb can whip 10 Billy Yanks.
Leftyhunter

 

[Youngblood]

The southern states were sovereign and resisted much of their federal govt. Lincoln didnt have that issue.

 

[atlantis]

Both men were not rigid but adjusted to the demands imposed by war, yet victory declares Lincoln as the more effective in responding to those demands. Was it status of health that made one more effective than the other or how they interacted with people. What impact did their public speaking have on their effectiveness.

 

[leftyhunter]

Both men were not rigid but adjusted to the demands imposed by war, yet victory declares Lincoln as the more effective in responding to those demands. Was it status of health that made one more effective than the other or how they interacted with people. What impact did their public speaking have on their effectiveness.

Nothing succeeds like sucess. Speaking style can't make up for loosing territory and not providing basic life necessities. Yes being in good healthis important but it pales in wartime to steadily loosing terrritory and not replacing manpower.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

Nothing succeeds like sucess. Speaking style can't make up for loosing territory and not providing basic life necessities. Yes being in good healthis important but it pales in wartime to steadily loosing terrritory and not replacing manpower.
Leftyhunter

Lefty, as for loosing territory, agreed success sires success yet Stalin was pushed backed to the outskirts of Moscow and survived. IMHO it was a terrible decision to move the capital to Richmond.
I would be remiss and not pointing out that Lincoln started out having the Potomac as a frontline.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, as for loosing territory, agreed success sires success yet Stalin was pushed backed to the outskirts of Moscow and survived. IMHO it was a terrible decision to move the capital to Richmond.

In a little over a year the Soviets had halted the Axis advances. The Soviets were receiving massive amounts of Foreign aid and the Axis could not blockade the key port of Vladivostok on the Pacific Coast. The Axis could not even effectivly blockade the port of Archangel, although they took out some convoys.
From July 1942 the Soviets would not suffer any more major defeats although they would suffer fierce losss.
Soviet troops were simply better motivated by mid 1942 and they did not defect as they did early in the war where an estimated one million Soviet citizens fought or served on the German side although some redefected back to the Soviets.
The Confederates lost territory every year of the war and desertion and defections increased every year. The Confederates couldn't get food to their citizens in needed quantities the Soviets bolstered by food aid more or less could of course the siege of Leningrad was a major exception sort of the Soviet version of Vicksburg with a long term happier ending.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, as for loosing territory, agreed success sires success yet Stalin was pushed backed to the outskirts of Moscow and survived. IMHO it was a terrible decision to move the capital to Richmond.
I would be remiss and not pointing out that Lincoln started out having the Potomac as a frontline.

We have had a lot of debates about the wisdom of moving the capitol to Richmond. Richmond was always going to be a major Union objective just because it was a major manufacturing hub. Without Richmond it would be difficult for the Confederacy to survive.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebforever]

In a little over a year the Soviets had halted the Axis advances. The Soviets were receiving massive amounts of Foreign aid and the Axis could not blockade the key port of Vladivostok on the Pacific Coast. The Axis could not even effectivly blockade the port of Archangel, although they took out some convoys.
From July 1942 the Soviets would not suffer any more major defeats although they would suffer fierce losss.
Soviet troops were simply better motivated by mid 1942 and they did not defect as they did early in the war where an estimated one million Soviet citizens fought or served on the German side although some redefected back to the Soviets.
The Confederates lost territory every year of the war and desertion and defections increased every year. The Confederates couldn't get food to their citizens in needed quantities the Soviets bolstered by food aid more or less could of course the siege of Leningrad was a major exception sort of the Soviet version of Vicksburg with a long term happier ending.
Leftyhunter

Soviets fought at Vicksburg?