Lincoln Davis Davis v Lincoln

Soviets fought at Vicksburg?

Reb, if you think that's something, wait to you read David Williams account of the Lumbee Indians' aerial attack on Murdoch Morrison's gun factory. I pass by there a couple times a week and marvel at the bomb craters still visible in the woods.
 
Reb, if you think that's something, wait to you read David Williams account of the Lumbee Indians' aerial attack on Murdoch Morrison's gun factory. I pass by there a couple times a week and marvel at the bomb craters still visible in the woods.
:roflmao:
 
Responding to the original thread question about the contrasting qualities of Lincoln and Davis: Lincoln had the ability to set aside his personal feelings in order to work with a wide range of political friends and enemies, to attain his goals. Davis, on the other hand, was blindsided by his opinions which allowed him to stand by friends no matter how incompetent or undeserving (e.g., Leonidas Polk, Braxton Bragg, Lucius Northrop) while at the same time, using every opportunity to denigrate or withhold support from his perceived opponents (e.g., Joe Johnston, Pierre Beauregard).
 
The southern states were sovereign and resisted much of their federal govt. Lincoln didnt have that issue.

Not true.

Check out the book, Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism, by Mark E. Neely, Jr.

The book contains evidence that Southerners were as ready to give up civil liberties in response to real or imagined threats of wartime.

From the onset of hostilities, the exploits of drunken recruits prompted communities from Selma to Lynchburg to beg Richmond government to impose martial law. Southern citizens resigned themselves to a passport system for domestic travel similar to the system of passes imposed on enslaved and free blacks before the war.

The citizens of the South wanted MORE government control than the Confederate central government was able to give.

Check it out, the book is a real eye-opener.

Unionblue
 
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.

Much of Davis' unpopularity stemmed from his inability to get along with certain key politicians in the Southern states like the Toombs brothers, Little Eleck Stephens, Yancey, Zeb Vance and others. He was an unflinching believer - or at least put on the airs of one - in the righteousness of his own views, etc. He could also ignore unwanted advice, as when Stonewall Jackson supposedly urged him to aggressively pursue the Federals after Bull Run. He was also touchy and a know-it-all, making collision with other headstrong individuals like Beauregard likely. Among his commanders only Lee had the happy ability to get along unconditionally with him. He expected everyone to be as devoted to The Cause as he was and was often disappointed when they failed to live up to his expectations - and let them know it! Lincoln on the other hand seemed both able and willing to soothe ruffled feathers among his notorious Team of Rivals.

Health also played a big part - Davis suffered badly from neuralgia and was effectively blind in one eye, making him both irritable and reclusive. Lincoln's melancholy is well-known, but it didn't seem to prevent the "folksy" homespun "common touch" for which he was famous.
 
Much of Davis' unpopularity stemmed from his inability to get along with certain key politicians in the Southern states like the Toombs brothers, Little Eleck Stephens, Yancey, Zeb Vance and others. He was an unflinching believer - or at least put on the airs of one - in the righteousness of his own views, etc. He could also ignore unwanted advice, as when Stonewall Jackson supposedly urged him to aggressively pursue the Federals after Bull Run. He was also touchy and a know-it-all, making collision with other headstrong individuals like Beauregard likely. Among his commanders only Lee had the happy ability to get along unconditionally with him. He expected everyone to be as devoted to The Cause as he was and was often disappointed when they failed to live up to his expectations - and let them know it! Lincoln on the other hand seemed both able and willing to soothe ruffled feathers among his notorious Team of Rivals.

Health also played a big part - Davis suffered badly from neuralgia and was effectively blind in one eye, making him both irritable and reclusive. Lincoln's melancholy is well-known, but it didn't seem to prevent the "folksy" homespun "common touch" for which he was famous.
True. But as @cash said on a previous thread "Davis was the second worst choice to lead the Confederacy the eorst was anyone else. In Montgomery, Alabama at the Seccession Convention the leaders of the Seccession movement could of picked any Southern politician but almost unanimously even Davis's old political rivals supported Davis for president.Coopers biography of Davis gives details.
Leftyhunter
 
Jefferson Davis made a very hard fought attempt to lead the Confederate States to independence, which given how lopsided the resources pools were that both sides had to draw from, was a uphill climb all the way. And he knew that going into it. He was not a smooth, charismatic politician, but he was able to rally the people on more than one occasion. And he had the friendship and trust of his most capable general, Robert E. Lee, which made a big difference.

Where I think Lincoln was able to outdistance Davis was in two areas. Leaving aside the much vaster pool of manpower and resources, which there is no doubt was one of the deciding factors, Lincoln ultimately became much more ruthless in his conduct of the war, and he was willing to make the move towards freeing the slaves and elevating them in society, which was a tectonic shift in the social landscape of the day. Davis did reach that point, or at least had started down that same road, but too late to make a difference in the outcome. People talk about how Davis was obsessed with keeping the fight going when it should have been clear that all was lost, but Lincoln's determination to "save the Union" by casting aside of many Constitutional restraints and his willingness to go after the civilian population of the South doesn't seem all that different to me. He just succeeded in his goal, while Davis didn't.
 
Jefferson Davis made a very hard fought attempt to lead the Confederate States to independence, which given how lopsided the resources pools were that both sides had to draw from, was a uphill climb all the way. And he knew that going into it. He was not a smooth, charismatic politician, but he was able to rally the people on more than one occasion. And he had the friendship and trust of his most capable general, Robert E. Lee, which made a big difference.

Where I think Lincoln was able to outdistance Davis was in two areas. Leaving aside the much vaster pool of manpower and resources, which there is no doubt was one of the deciding factors, Lincoln ultimately became much more ruthless in his conduct of the war, and he was willing to make the move towards freeing the slaves and elevating them in society, which was a tectonic shift in the social landscape of the day. Davis did reach that point, or at least had started down that same road, but too late to make a difference in the outcome. People talk about how Davis was obsessed with keeping the fight going when it should have been clear that all was lost, but Lincoln's determination to "save the Union" by casting aside of many Constitutional restraints and his willingness to go after the civilian population of the South doesn't seem all that different to me. He just succeeded in his goal, while Davis didn't.
I can agree with most of your points, however how was Davis more of a civil libertarian then Lincoln? Are you arguing Davis never suspended civil liberties? Are you arguing that many Southerners black and white were not willing to rebel against the Confederacy?
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.

I don't think the premise of the question is accurate.
 
I can agree with most of your points, however how was Davis more of a civil libertarian then Lincoln? Are you arguing Davis never suspended civil liberties?

I think there are some parallels between Lincoln and Davis on things like conscription, and to some extent the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, but you don't see Davis going after hostile press like Lincoln did, or arresting half the Maryland legislature, so I think Lincoln took things further than Davis. The idea of "hard war" against civilians certainly horrified Davis.

Are you arguing that many Southerners black and white were not willing to rebel against the Confederacy?Leftyhunter

I wouldn't argue that! No, clearly neither side had 100%, for lack of a better word, loyalty from the citizens within their borders.
 
I think there are some parallels between Lincoln and Davis on things like conscription, and to some extent the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, but you don't see Davis going after hostile press like Lincoln did, or arresting half the Maryland legislature, so I think Lincoln took things further than Davis. The idea of "hard war" against civilians certainly horrified Davis.



I wouldn't argue that! No, clearly neither side had 100%, for lack of a better word, loyalty from the citizens within their borders.
On our current thread about conscription @unionblue quoted Glatthar that the Confederates were indeed harsher with conscription then the Union.
The Maryland legislators were only briefly detained. Certainly you are correct that their was significant internal political and armed dissent on both sides.
Has far has Davis not firing incompetent generals quickly enough that may be true. On the other hand Davis a former U.S. Army officer and West Point graduate may pf thought that he had a limited pool of military talent to draw on and therefore he can only fire so many generals.
Leftyhunter
 
Jefferson Davis made a very hard fought attempt to lead the Confederate States to independence, which given how lopsided the resources pools were that both sides had to draw from, was a uphill climb all the way. And he knew that going into it. He was not a smooth, charismatic politician, but he was able to rally the people on more than one occasion. And he had the friendship and trust of his most capable general, Robert E. Lee, which made a big difference.

Where I think Lincoln was able to outdistance Davis was in two areas. Leaving aside the much vaster pool of manpower and resources, which there is no doubt was one of the deciding factors, Lincoln ultimately became much more ruthless in his conduct of the war, and he was willing to make the move towards freeing the slaves and elevating them in society, which was a tectonic shift in the social landscape of the day. Davis did reach that point, or at least had started down that same road, but too late to make a difference in the outcome. People talk about how Davis was obsessed with keeping the fight going when it should have been clear that all was lost, but Lincoln's determination to "save the Union" by casting aside of many Constitutional restraints and his willingness to go after the civilian population of the South doesn't seem all that different to me. He just succeeded in his goal, while Davis didn't.
Lincoln could persue a hard war strategy because he could. The Confederates simply for the most part didn't have the ability to invade deep into Union territory.
Leftyhunter
 
Responding to the original thread question about the contrasting qualities of Lincoln and Davis: Lincoln had the ability to set aside his personal feelings in order to work with a wide range of political friends and enemies, to attain his goals. Davis, on the other hand, was blindsided by his opinions which allowed him to stand by friends no matter how incompetent or undeserving (e.g., Leonidas Polk, Braxton Bragg, Lucius Northrop) while at the same time, using every opportunity to denigrate or withhold support from his perceived opponents (e.g., Joe Johnston, Pierre Beauregard).
I was going to say something similar. Lincoln was a masterful politician. I got the sense that Davis was never as comfortable in that position. He was loyal to a fault, where Lincoln would do whatever he needed to do to reach his goal.
 
I was going to say something similar. Lincoln was a masterful politician. I got the sense that Davis was never as comfortable in that position. He was loyal to a fault, where Lincoln would do whatever he needed to do to reach his goal.
I suppose the 64 thousand dollar question is did Davis lead the Confederacy to defeat because of personality defects or simply because of lack of man power and logistics combined with strong internal opposition? Has some have pointed out in a role reversal Davis would have won; certainly a debatable proposition.
Leftyhunter
 
I suppose the 64 thousand dollar question is did Davis lead the Confederacy to defeat because of personality defects or simply because of lack of man power and logistics combined with strong internal opposition? Has some have pointed out in a role reversal Davis would have won; certainly a debatable proposition.
Leftyhunter
Who knows, but regardless of who the president was, the longer the war dragged on the more it favored the Union.

I'm pretty sure Davis and his Generals knew this, but what choice did they have but to see it through?
 
Who knows, but regardless of who the president was, the longer the war dragged on the more it favored the Union.

I'm pretty sure Davis and his Generals knew this, but what choice did they have but to see it through?
Try to negotiate a soft peace and save thousands of lives from being uselessly destroyed , comes to mind.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top