I've seen some well thought out opinion stated here. So I propose a questoion. Who, in your opinion, was the better Commander in chief during the Civil War; Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln?

In my opinion, Davis would make the better commander in that he was a West Point grad and Lincoln's military experience was very limited.
In any case, this is subjective. I know of no objective way to measure the abilities. But I could be wrong.

So what do you think?

easy trivia question; This man led his nation during the war. He was born in a log cabin in Kentucky in 1808. Who was he?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jefferson Davis

Davis was a West Point graduate, but what method of war would he have subscribed to, Clauswitz, Jomeni or follow Napoleon like so many others did? Would he have had the ability to switich from one to another or throw them totally aside and work from a new point of view, in other words improvise?
I really wonder when other officers on both sides provrn incapable of adjusting and using new methods in lieu of the older ones.
Lincoln not having the background of a West Point education, which at that time was basically for engineering, not warfare, was not burdened by the constraints of obsolecent military thinking and tactics. Lincoln was a reader, he read continously, and had the ability,as a amatuer can, of picking out the best or worst of the the warfare methods of fighting available at the time.
He tried the establishment of West Point and they let him down for almost three years. He then went with a man who knew how to fight, fight and fight again. Grant was no great student of warfare to the extent others at the time were. He knew, from experience what worked and what didn't. He then adjusted accordingly. Lincoln, seeing that this was finally working, let him have his head and continue. Now the question arises, would Davis have done that? Yes and No. He let Lee have his head and go, but in the sense Lee was fighting a comtempory war using tactics that his opponents were too timid and rigid to adapt to. But still established tactics. Lee even marched through country like Napoleon.
Davis wanted to be commander in field, not President. He wanted to be a field commander and show what he could do. NOW, that is a question that is really a good one to discuss and wonder what if?

GEEZ! C'mon guys, don't let me scare you off on what I posted. Wow, like there is plenty left to discuss and write about on this thread. Good lord I just scratched the surface of this subject! C'mon!

It's hard to read about the Army of Tennessee and not jump to the conclusion that Davis was an interferring and useless commander in chief, but don't ignore his other efforts and disadvantages: There were politicians in his government who misunderstood the nature of a Confederation and refused to build uniform rails, send replacements from local guards, and even send necessary supplies to units from other States.
Lincoln had no such problems because his authority was much more absolute - he was able to keep the radicals mostly in check because he was close enough to them, but anyone who he saw in his way would be pushed aside or thrown in jail. His military experience is much less than Davis' and his order to defeat the ANV in the field and not take Richmond shoots holes in the lie that the North fought modern war while the South was stuck in a Napoleonic mindset. Lincoln interfered and allowed others to interfere with McClelland's operations early in the war, much more than Davis ever interfered with any of his commanders' plans. Davis was actually keen to bring his commanders to council, even when he had serious personal disagreements with them. Overall, Lincoln was much better as a speaker and propagandist, but Davis was a better soldier, statesman, and son of his country.

Very good remarks! Very good! One thing and I personally have debated the 1862 Campaign to capture Richmond, also, as not a modern type war and campaign. That didn't happen until the spring and summer of 1864 when Grant and Sherman started to change things.
McClellan was a classic Napoleon type general and once he got his mind set in one way. it stayed there. He did not adapt to the changing situation until the Confederates forced him to do so. Then things came apart. This goes back to the US not having any kind of General Staff or General Staff college for officers to learn the more skilled precepts of war. Also it helped to make them realize that you had to have somone keeping track of all the movements and battles to make sure that it contributed to the overall plan, and not just a disjointed set of battles occuring randomly. In essence the birth of the Operations Section of a staff.
The part about the holding back of supplies,troops and etc by the various governors is right on the mark. In the summer and fall of 1862, Colonel Northrup, Head of the Confederate commisary and Supply was angry at Lee because of the millions of sets of food rations that were burned at bull Run that he ignored Lees numerous request for shoes, by stating there were none. There were 12,000 pairs in the warehouses around Richmond!
Good post, c'mon guys, let's see some more!

How do the two compare on civil rights? It is well known that following Sumter, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland. It is probably less well known that Davis did the same thing in eastern Tennessee when Union
loyalist began stirring up trouble in 1861.

According to Shelby Foote, in The Civil War Secession to Fort Henry (pg 202-203) the actions Davis took were "sterner." "Troops were sent at once from Memphis and Pensacola. Resistance was quashed and a considerable number of Unionists arrested." In fact, 5 persons were hanged.

If Five hanged was the greatest number (I don't know that it is), and if we are judging their Civil Rights record, then Lincoln is 200 times worse: Consider the New York City Massacre of 1863 - 1,000 citizens shot dead in the wake of a massive draft protest. Note that they weren't actually endangering the lives of their fellow citizens, as were the Southern "Unionists," and so were not guilty of treason (aiding and abetting the enemy) against their country which existed north of the Mason-Dixon.
Civil Rights is not the final and most important factor though, not by far. What good are civil rights if you are dead or enslaved to your enemy? Davis certainly was stern and willing to take the necessary measures to defend his nation. Lincoln was a tyrant, and thus he was not only our national enemy as the head of an aggressor nation, but an ideological foe as well, fit to be killed as are all tyrants who threaten the Law.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
If Five hanged was the greatest number (I don't know that it is), and if we are judging their Civil Rights record, then Lincoln is 200 times worse: Consider the New York City Massacre of 1863 - 1,000 citizens shot dead in the wake of a massive draft protest. Note that they weren't actually endangering the lives of their fellow citizens, as were the Southern "Unionists," and so were not guilty of treason (aiding and abetting the enemy) against their country which existed north of the Mason-Dixon.
Civil Rights is not the final and most important factor though, not by far. What good are civil rights if you are dead or enslaved to your enemy? Davis certainly was stern and willing to take the necessary measures to defend his nation. Lincoln was a tyrant, and thus he was not only our national enemy as the head of an aggressor nation, but an ideological foe as well, fit to be killed as are all tyrants who threaten the Law.

I beg to differ. Lincoln was not responsible for the riots. The victims of the New York draft riots were blacks. In fact, an orpanage was burned to the ground by the rioters. Lincoln sent in troops to restore order.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm

"The nation is at this time in a state of Revolution, North, South, East, and West," wrote the Washington Times during the often violent protests that occurred after Abraham Lincoln issued the March 3, 1863, Enrollment Act of Conscription. Although demonstrations took place in many Northern cities, the riots that broke out in New York City were both the most violent and the most publicized.
With a large and powerful Democratic party operating in the city, a dramatic show of dissent had been long in the making. The state's popular governor, Democrat Horatio Seymour, openly despised Lincoln and his policies. In addition, the Enrollment Act shocked a population already tired of the two-year-old war.
By the time the names of the first draftees were drawn in New York City on July 11, reports about the carnage of Gettysburg had been published in city papers. Lincoln's call for 300,000 more young men to fight a seemingly endless war frightened even those who supported the Union cause. Moreover, the Enrollment Act contained several exemptions, including the payment of a "commutation fee" that allowed wealthier and more influential citizens to buy their way out of service.
Perhaps no group was more resentful of these inequities than the Irish immigrants populating the slums of northeastern cities. Poor and more than a little prejudiced against blacks-with whom they were both unfamiliar and forced to compete for the lowest-paying jobs-the Irish in New York objected to fighting on their behalf.
On Sunday, June 12, the names of the draftees drawn the day before by the Provost Marshall were published in newspapers. Within hours, groups of irate citizens, many of them Irish immigrants, banded together across the city. Eventually numbering some 50,000 people, the mob terrorized neighborhoods on the East Side of New York for three days looting scores of stores. Blacks were the targets of most attacks on citizens; several lynchings and beatings occurred. In addition, a black church and orphanage were burned to the ground.
All in all, the mob caused more than $1.5 million of damage. The number killed or wounded during the riot is unknown, but estimates range from two dozen to nearly 100. Eventually, Lincoln deployed combat troops from the Federal Army of the Potomac to restore order; they remained encamped around the city for several weeks. In the end, the draft raised only about 150,000 troops throughout the North, about three-quarters of them substitutes, amounting to just one-fifth of the total Union force.
Source: The Civil War Society's "Encyclopedia of the Civil War"

Don't you know that the "Civil War Society" is a group dedicated to creating inflammatory revisionist history? It's amazing how far they will go to justify slaughter: The rioteers were attacking blacks, so their death was justified! Even if they did so, it was the fault of the Lincoln administration which blamed the war on them to begin with by trying to force victim status (another kind of slavery).
It is just as much his fault that his army, which he used to suppress his own population, killed so many of its own citizens as it was Davis' fault that traitors were hung (which is no fault). How many innocents were hung in the north? Every one of John Wilkes Booth's friends were indicted as co-conspirators, and several hung with no charge at all (including an aquaintance-librarian). The atmosphere between the two countries was different even though the North was hardly under serious attack.

Thrust311, back off on this! How can you put out any kind of comment on a situation you've never had to deal with, yet TRY to understand?
Too many people forget that the Union was under martial law. Things DO NOT function normally under martial law. All it takes is suspicion for you to be picked up, shot or have a military tribunal trial on the spot! The least of which you could be thrown into prison until the end of Martial Law. That could be years!
None of us really know what Lincoln really had to do or suffer himself to hold the Union together. He did what he had to do, history has shown that. Let it be, its a fact it happened, stop wastin time arguing a point that's already moot!

This is an interesting question ..as I have stated before I am no Civil War athority however I think Jeff Davis most likely had a very good miltary mind based on his background but I can't help but think that may have been severe character flaw ...from what I have read I think a lot of petty jealousy plaged the southern upper echelon ...it appears due to that jealousy that certain commanders where not appointed to positions they were qualified for ..and other commanders where promoted to positions due to what state they were from not their qualifications ..had Jeff Davis not had this West Point backround he may not have had this soldiers jealousy that clouded his judgement on a number of occations..I still feel like he has to bare a lot of the blame for Gettysburg ...as for Lincoln by all accounts he had no equal when it came to politics ..probably as shrude as they come and I am sure this served him well..but then again this is just an opinion from a novice.

OFC

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OneFatCat,

quote:

Originally posted by JPope:
Thrust311, back off on this! How can you put out any kind of comment on a situation you've never had to deal with, yet TRY to understand?
Too many people forget that the Union was under martial law. Things DO NOT function normally under martial law. All it takes is suspicion for you to be picked up, shot or have a military tribunal trial on the spot! The least of which you could be thrown into prison until the end of Martial Law. That could be years!
None of us really know what Lincoln really had to do or suffer himself to hold the Union together. He did what he had to do, history has shown that. Let it be, its a fact it happened, stop wastin time arguing a point that's already moot!

That's right Lincoln is infallible.
The Lincoln worship is the most absurd personality cult in the entire world outside of North Korea. It is truly shameful and amazing how people will loose or reject all ability to think critically when Lincoln's godhood is questioned.

I see nothing wrong with criticising Lincoln in a fair and evenhanded way. Calling the president a tyrant for imposing martial law and suspending habeas corpus while ignoring the fact that Confederate president Davis did the same is just wrong.

In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

I do not believe that I anywhere professed to be involved in "Lincoln worship" or "Lincoln can do no wrong." That's absurd and I take umbage at it. I tend to be somewhat cynical in my approach to life and a realist.
The man did what he thought was right to save the Union. You need to read a piece that Winston Churchill wrote about Lincoln and the consquences of his leadership and the Union remaining together. It doesn't hero worship the man it gives what the result became in importance to the world 80 years later.
That to me, justifies what Lincoln did in perserving the Union.
What guide did he have to follow? Where was the set of rules? He was faced with a crisis the size no other president had to deal with. I feel he did quite well. But others have their opinion That's your right. But don't be demaning to us because we have a different one.

quote:

I do not believe that I anywhere professed to be involved in "Lincoln worship" or "Lincoln can do no wrong." That's absurd and I take umbage at it. I tend to be somewhat cynical in my approach to life and a realist.
The man did what he thought was right to save the Union. You need to read a piece that Winston Churchill wrote about Lincoln and the consquences of his leadership and the Union remaining together. It doesn't hero worship the man it gives what the result became in importance to the world 80 years later.
That to me, justifies what Lincoln did in perserving the Union.
What guide did he have to follow? Where was the set of rules? He was faced with a crisis the size no other president had to deal with. I feel he did quite well. But others have their opinion That's your right. But don't be demaning to us because we have a different one.

HEAR HEAR JP ....excellent rebutal !

ofc

quote:

I do not believe that I anywhere professed to be involved in "Lincoln worship" or "Lincoln can do no wrong." That's absurd and I take umbage at it. I tend to be somewhat cynical in my approach to life and a realist.
The man did what he thought was right to save the Union. You need to read a piece that Winston Churchill wrote about Lincoln and the consquences of his leadership and the Union remaining together. It doesn't hero worship the man it gives what the result became in importance to the world 80 years later.
That to me, justifies what Lincoln did in perserving the Union.
What guide did he have to follow? Where was the set of rules? He was faced with a crisis the size no other president had to deal with. I feel he did quite well. But others have their opinion That's your right. But don't be demaning to us because we have a different one.

Aren't you making the assumption that America never would have reunited even stronger without the war that Lincoln started? It was the idea of executive authority, as practiced by Lincoln, which set in motion the practice of Government first in our country. I'm no anti-government lunatic and I certainly love America, but the fact is that this particular man was truly a monster and that he is deified on a level that no other American president is. Washington's picture is removed from school but children still remember the Gettysburg address - which is a great speech proclaiming the exact opposite of the result. FDR is lauded not for his uncompromising determination to destroy the Axis but for his economic practices, which were in fact destructive and he himself admitted that he knew nothing about. In Junior High, High School, and College, I learned that the Revolution was as "wrong" as the second war for independence (well that got that right at least, though their intentions weren't the same as mine), the War of 1812 was about American (mostly Southern) arrogance and the conqust of Canada (not the expiration of Alexander Hamilton's charter re-subjugating America to the bank of England), our Heroes of the Alamo died because they wanted to beat slaves, America joined WW1 late and had nothing to do with the victory (try this ISBN 0060084332), that we were equally as bad as Imperial Japan and cynical in letting the Russians bleed while we waited, and (I admit that this was exclusively in college) that I am a murderer because I fought in Iraq. Everything is upside down and that suggests that the way Lincoln is treated is more than a little suspect.

Lincoln had nothing to do with our efforts in WW2 and we were actually following the opposite doctrine when we intervened to prevent the hostile takeover of South Korea, South Vietnam, and Kuwait, even if our motivations were different. Is it also not curious that Southerners, who Lincoln's cabinet was nakedly hateful towards, fought in the front lines of all these wars? I've got nothing against Northerners and I am proud to know most of the ones I served with, but being fair, you can't erase our disproportionately high numbers of combat soldiers from the history books just because we are politically incorrect in every way.

In answer to your question: Lincoln was the first to suspend the Constitution and if anything he was bound by it more than Davis, since he declared war in its name. How could rounding up an entire State Legislature compare with the arresting of suspected enemy agents in war-torn territories inside a country fighting for its right to exist? The "Union" was in no danger itself: All we wanted was peace and that was it. Regardless of the morals of his action, he was in violation of the Constitution and it was the same as when he bypassed congress by calling for volunteers and using them to fight an offensive war.....before their States had a chance to say anything. In the end he was the one who shook the country to its foundations and it took a long time to repair, but did so slowly and with all our efforts. You reference Churchill in Lincoln's defense but also remember his hatred for the "what-ifs" of history. Certainly the world would have changed but how can you be so sure that we would have somehow brought America down? Have we not stood by the principles of hard work and the Law from the very beginning at Jamestown? Did we not finally succeed in gaining independence for all Americans in the Southern campaign? Did we not face the hangman also and endure the worst of British depredations in the Revolution? Did we not finally end their dreams of North American hegemony at New Orleans 1815? Did we not pay disproportionately high in the price of blood for the ideals of America in three seperate wars with Mexico (first and second Texas-Mexico war and US-Mexico war)? Please don't assume that our values are contrary to that which is best for the country. I believe that we fought for the right thing in all of these wars and one strategic defeat should not cause us to forsake all that we believe in.

All due respect to my opposition. I'm sure your intentions are good.

One thing I've learned as growing older is that the passions of youth mellow into the wisdom of older age.
It is apparent by your last posting that you are not familiar with the quote of Churchill about Lin coln's leadership. also you are wrong in your statement that the United States made NO real contribution to the Allied victory in WWI.
somewhere you missed alot of reading and study on that conflict.
1. The Allies by 1917 had been fought to a standstill by The Central Powers. The vast wastage of the British summer offensives had cut her manpower levels down almost nil. The U-boat campaign in the Atlantic had the British down to less than one month's supply of food in the greater United Kingdom.
2. The French poilu rebellion of 1917 had basically knocked France out of the war.
3. The Italians suffered massive disater at the hands of the Germans at the Piave and retreated back into Italy at the cost of over 100,000 men.
4. with communist takeover of Russia withdrew from the Allies and made peace with Germany thereby freeing up over 1,500,000 veteran troops that were immadiately sent to the Western Front.
The american Army was the only true young ublooded army on the European continent, the US Navy wentinto action with the British and the convoy system to circumvent the U-boat menance.
The US NAVY went into Scapa flow and became the FIFTH Battleship Squadron with all the supporting ships therein.
without the mass influx of US help the allies were looking to make peace with the Central Powers and concede defeat. America didn't do anything in WWI that was signifcant!!!!
now this brings to Churchill and WWII. By the time of the Normandy Invasion 85% of the Allied support equipment and battle equipment was American. Churchill wrote, "That without the inspired leadership of Abraham Lincoln, by keeping the Union together, produced the surge of American power for material support and manpower that decided the outcome of the European War."
QED!!!

.....and please lay this to bed! I typed that last one when I was tired and just awake. It got me going but not correctly. I have got important things on the schedule today and need my energt for those. Lincoln did what he did, its over, we are the way we are, let it go!

quote:

also you are wrong in your statement that the United States made NO real contribution to the Allied victory in WWI.

What are you talking about? I said the exact opposite and provided a well written book that makes that point better than I could.

quote:

Lincoln did what he did, its over, we are the way we are, let it go!

Sorry but he is still a tyrant who will always have the blood of his countrymen and ours on his hands. A bane on our history - he should be remembered as such, no matter what the collective opinion would suggest.