Lincoln Davis Davis v Lincoln

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 me, it seems that Davis would have been a much better peace-time Chief Executive, than as a leader of a desperate Revolutionary War of survival. He was essentially deeply conservative(if not reactionary) trying to lead his people, the South, back to a storied, mythic Past. He had very real strength of character and courage to lead a Revolution, but I think his mind was a little too fixed and bureaucratic to be the true revolutionary southern independence required.

Lincoln, to me, was a man for all seasons, self made, self taught, inured to hard physical labor, and personal disappointments, and through it all, had(or developed) a sense of purpose for himself and the United States, whose futures, he seemed to have linked together.
Considering his past, Lincoln was very much a man of the present looking ahead to the future, with confidence and hope.
 
Davis tried to micro manage too much, especially on the military side. He played favorites and held grudges against certain high ranking generals. he needed to appoint a general in chief and get out of the way.

Remember Davis didn't totally want the job of President, he wanted to be given the job as the head of the military, and that is how he ran the presidency.
 
Davis tried to micro manage too much, especially on the military side. He played favorites and held grudges against certain high ranking generals. he needed to appoint a general in chief and get out of the way.

Remember Davis didn't totally want the job of President, he wanted to be given the job as the head of the military, and that is how he ran the presidency.
To add to that Cooper points out an example Davis in the Spring of 1865 being concerned that an officer was being prematurely prompted at a mid rank. One would think that by the spring of 1865 Davis would have bigger fish to fry.
While all of your post is spot on at the end of the day in order to win a Civil War ones side either as enough manpower foreign or domestic or it doesn't. The second option is to drive down the larger sides morale and then try to negotiate an acceptable peace settlement. Davis tried mightly to do either one but could not.
Could any other contemporary Confederate politician of done better?
Leftyhunter
 
To add to that Cooper points out an example Davis in the Spring of 1865 being concerned that an officer was being prematurely prompted at a mid rank. One would think that by the spring of 1865 Davis would have bigger fish to fry.
While all of your post is spot on at the end of the day in order to win a Civil War ones side either as enough manpower foreign or domestic or it doesn't. The second option is to drive down the larger sides morale and then try to negotiate an acceptable peace settlement. Davis tried mightly to do either one but could not.
Could any other contemporary Confederate politician of done better?
Leftyhunter
John Reagan, Robert Toombs, Alexander Stephens, Henry Foote.
 
John Reagan, Robert Toombs, Alexander Stephens, Henry Foote.
Quite possibly but the above politicians were not the overwhelming choice: it was Davis with no one close. The above politicians would be what Donald Rumsfeld would call "Known unknowns."
What ever Davis's defects are as a leader and by no means did Davis walk on water it's very difficult to mske the case some contemporary Southern political or military leader could of done better.
Leftyhunter
 
I'm curious. We know a lot about Lincoln, with his hands-on technique.
But we hear much less about Davies.
He doesn't seem to be much quoted, and I know little of his command style.
I'm thinking maybe such records may be lost due to burning in Richmond, but even anecdotes are few and far between.
It could be he just gave Lee free reign.
So what was Davies up to during this time?
 
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.





IMO, it was matter of temperament.While bothmen were passionate in their beliefs, but, Lincoln, not unlike Lee in this respect, ruled his passions with iron control and Davis did, or could, not.

The report of Lincoln saying that he would hold McClellan'[s horse for him, he he would only give him vctories, whether apocraphyl or not, it describes, I think, the difference in the two. One can never imagine Davis saing any such thing, while it is perfectly imagineable for Lincoln.
 
IMO, it was matter of temperament.While bothmen were passionate in their beliefs, but, Lincoln, not unlike Lee in this respect, ruled his passions with iron control and Davis did, or could, not.

The report of Lincoln saying that he would hold McClellan'[s horse for him, he he would only give him vctories, whether apocraphyl or not, it describes, I think, the difference in the two. One can never imagine Davis saing any such thing, while it is perfectly imagineable for Lincoln.
Just so. Exactly to the point. While Lincoln was lauded as a statesman and C in C, an oratory genius. A superb analyst.
Should we not analyse Davis more deeply?
 
Just so. Exactly to the point. While Lincoln was lauded as a statesman and C in C, an oratory genius. A superb analyst.
Should we not analyse Davis more deeply?
Actually as as follow-on. Do we know Lincolns “private“ opinion of Davies? His capabilities and mentality?
 
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 think the elephant in the room that nobody has addressed is that Davis and the southern rebels were rebelling for arguably one of the worst reasons anyone every rebelled. To protect and maintain a system of chattel slavery. The ideology of the confederacy was rotten to the core. This ideology is best summed up this statement by Davis;
"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

This ideology that some humans are meant to be slaves and some are meant to be masters is in direct contradiction to our founding ideology. That's why I like to refer to the southern rebellion as the anti-American revolution.

So the Soldiers in the United States Army went to war to keep the Union together, which was a good cause. Later the United States added the war aim of freeing the slaves, which made it almost a holy cause. As the US army marching song Battle Hymn of the Republic states;
"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

I would imagine this gave the Union Soldier much greater motivation that the average rebel soldier.
 
I think the elephant in the room that nobody has addressed is that Davis and the southern rebels were rebelling for arguably one of the worst reasons anyone every rebelled. To protect and maintain a system of chattel slavery. The ideology of the confederacy was rotten to the core. This ideology is best summed up this statement by Davis;
"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

This ideology that some humans are meant to be slaves and some are meant to be masters is in direct contradiction to our founding ideology. That's why I like to refer to the southern rebellion as the anti-American revolution.

So the Soldiers in the United States Army went to war to keep the Union together, which was a good cause. Later the United States added the war aim of freeing the slaves, which made it almost a holy cause. As the US army marching song Battle Hymn of the Republic states;
"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

I would imagine this gave the Union Soldier much greater motivation that the average rebel soldier.
Although to be fair both armies had major desertion problems although Conferate troops were more likely to defect to the Union Army or become anti Conferate guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
 
Not winning a war certainly didn't help Davis's approval ratings .
Leftyhunter
And to be fair despite the "respect of many" or "unpopular"..........One lived out their years on the beaches of Biloxi writing books while the other died of a assassins bullet........apparently popularity isnt all that.

Though in the end 70,000 + people viewing the body in state, and 200,000 at funeral seems not really all that unpopular for Davis.............and this not counting the funeral train and laying in state in 4 state capitals three years later..........
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the economy of the CSA was ruined by Davis's policies, inflation was rampant.
It's the economy stupid. Always has been. His withholding of the shipments of cotton to Great Britain in 1860, before the Union blockade was established doomed the Confederacy, in two ways,
1. There was a record harvest that year, the sale would have been worth several hundreds of millions, one estimate was 750 million. Enough to stave off inflation and finance the war.
2. It would have in all probability lead to more support from Great Britain, perhaps recognition as a nation.
While the seat of his government was still in Montgomery Davis was asked where his state department was, he replied, "under my hat."
It rested on his head.
 
Despite his advantage in military experience, Davis had little experience in elected political office. I think he was elected once as a Representative and once as a Senator. Lincoln won and lost many elections. He was an experienced party member who could give and get favors. He knew how to motivate and persuade. Doris Kearns Goodwin described him as a "political genius." Davis paid less attention to foreign relations. Lincoln was certainly better able to tolerate insults and insubordination to find and keep men who were capable and furthered his ultimate goals. Lincoln was definitely in better health. Once he found generals who would fight, Lincoln left the fighting up to them.

Davis started with much more popular support than Lincoln. Davis rode to his inauguration through cheering crowds. Lincoln snuck into Washington, DC late at night under threat of assassination. At the start of the war, Richmond was a better location for a capital than Washington DC.
 
I think the elephant in the room that nobody has addressed is that Davis and the southern rebels were rebelling for arguably one of the worst reasons anyone every rebelled. To protect and maintain a system of chattel slavery. The ideology of the confederacy was rotten to the core. This ideology is best summed up this statement by Davis;
"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

This ideology that some humans are meant to be slaves and some are meant to be masters is in direct contradiction to our founding ideology. That's why I like to refer to the southern rebellion as the anti-American revolution.

So the Soldiers in the United States Army went to war to keep the Union together, which was a good cause. Later the United States added the war aim of freeing the slaves, which made it almost a holy cause. As the US army marching song Battle Hymn of the Republic states;
"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

I would imagine this gave the Union Soldier much greater motivation that the average rebel soldier.
Lincoln recognised
Davis tried to micro manage too much, especially on the military side. He played favorites and held grudges against certain high ranking generals. he needed to appoint a general in chief and get out of the way.

Remember Davis didn't totally want the job of President, he wanted to be given the job as the head of the military, and that is how he ran the presidency.
I thought he had a general in chief in Lee.
Lee was a master tactician, Davies was not. He was barely able to even promote his own agenda. I view him as a very weak man.
Davis was operating above his pay grade as we say these days.
If Davies had just a small persentage of what Lincoln had he might, just, have forced an armistice. Might just have forced terms. Might just have won the South.
Why do we know so little about Davies anyway?
And by the way, I have no axe to grind, I'm 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 English.
 
Lincoln recognised
I thought he had a general in chief in Lee.
Lee was a master tactician, Davies was not. He was barely able to even promote his own agenda. I view him as a very weak man.
Davis was operating above his pay grade as we say these days.
If Davies had just a small persentage of what Lincoln had he might, just, have forced an armistice. Might just have forced terms. Might just have won the South.
Why do we know so little about Davies anyway?
And by the way, I have no axe to grind, I'm 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 English.
Based on the inherent weaknesses of the Confederacy and one hundred and fifty plus years of hindsight not available to Davis how would a better president of the Confederacy have won Confederate independence?
Leftyhunter
 
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.

View attachment 238823
Great post @AndyHall
 
Based on the inherent weaknesses of the Confederacy and one hundred and fifty plus years of hindsight not available to Davis how would a better president of the Confederacy have won Confederate independence?
Leftyhunter
That is a bloody good question.
Whatever Lee needed by means of a C in C I think he got from Jefferson.
Jefferson may have been, um,
Less exuberant, but by the same token was not anymans fool.
He **** near won at various points, but never could quite ram it home.
Am I being fair?
 
Back
Top