Lincoln And Davis Leadership Essay

The southern states although far less populated and without initial means to manufacture war supplies did have the strengths to be very competitive. Strong, experienced Confederate leadership in their practiced military, and the overall will power to protect their way of life would prove to be their greatest assets. Jefferson Davis became the president of the Confederacy and was a model leader. He developed a distinguished political career with many years served in the senate, he was a West Point graduate, the former Secretary of War, and a veteran of the Mexican American War. He was the ideal candidate for a president in war times. He had the advantage of having General Robert E. Lee commanding his army after Joseph Johnston was injured in The Battle of Bull run. Robert E. Lee due to strong respect, character and performance in the Mexican American war was Lincoln’s first choice as the Union general but Lee’s patriotism to his home state

I start this project on Lincoln’s leadership very reluctantly. I am a history buff and have always viewed his leadership through the eyes of jaded historians. They have portrayed him as a dictator, incompetent, and a buffoon at some points. After reading the Donald T. Phillips book Lincoln on Leadership, my mindset was totally changed. This book broke down four key areas that produced an effective leader in Lincoln. These areas are character, people, endeavor, and communication. I will be sharing a principal from each key area that I found important and then conclude with an overall thought.

The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and

Several factors played in to the American Civil War that made it have the outcome that it did. Although the South had better trained officials due to their military school, the North was far more advanced than they. The North had the advantage over the South in several ways. However, the outcome of the Civil War was not inevitable: it was determined as much by human decisions and human willpower as by physical resources, although the North’s resources gave them an edge over the South.

Jefferson Davis was undoubtedly an important figure in the Confederacy. Davis was placed in charge of nation that had very few soldiers, little industrialization, and a lack of unity. Many historians blame the defeat of the South on Davis for being a “hot-tempered micromanager”. After the war, Davis was made into a scapegoat; a symbol of treason and racism. Who was Jefferson Davis as a person, solider, statesmen, and leader? A focus on Davis’ life, leadership skills, speeches, and actions before, during, and after the war may offer evidence to show who Jefferson Davis truly was. Also, it is crucial to take into account circumstances that affected Davis and his decision making before, during, and after the

Historians have argued inconclusively for years over the prime reason for Confederate defeat in the Civil War. The book Why the North Won the Civil War outlines five of the most agreed upon causes of Southern defeat, each written by a highly esteemed American historian. The author of each essay does acknowledge and discuss the views of the other authors. However, each author also goes on to explain their botheration and disagreement with their opposition. The purpose of this essay is to summarize each of the five arguments presented by Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, David Herbert Donald, and David M. Potter. Each author gives his insight on one of the following five reasons:

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

A frequently, and sometimes hotly, discussed subject; the outcome of the American Civil War has fascinated historians for generations. Some argue that the North's economic advantages proved too much for the South, others that Southern strategy was faulty, offensive when it should have been defensive, and vice-versa. Internal division in the South is often referred to, and complaints made against Davis' somewhat makeshift, inexperienced, government. Doubts are sometimes raised over the commitment of Southerners to a cause many of them were half-hearted about. Many historians have argued that the South lost the will to fight long before defeat was inevitable. However, many of these criticisms could easily be applied to the North, had the

From the onset of the war, the Union had its obvious advantages. They simply had large amounts of resources of which the South did not. "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. You are bound to fail" --Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman to a Southern friend. Over 85 percent of the nation's industry and significant material resources were controlled by the North. The North was able to use take power of their economical advantages to produce military supplies, and replace damaged equipment more rapidly than the Confederacy. On top of that, forces for the field could be re-supplied rapidly because

From 1861 to 1865, Lincoln and Davis oversaw different perspectives of their nation. We may well wonder how much of Kentucky these men took with them in their very different lives. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis had a passion for their beliefs. Both men were willing to sacrifice all they had for their respective countries. Abraham fought for what he thought was right and what many other people thought were right, but he did at times override the Constitution when he felt it was necessary. As for Davis could be a cold and demanding leader.

This new formation indicated that Lincoln was losing part of the Union. As a president, Lincoln was trying his best to help preserve the Union. At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln applies the northern advantages to help strengthen the military. First, the North had a huge population advantage, so that the North were able to recruit more soldiers and volunteers to help fight for the war. Second, “the North controlled more than 85 percent of the nation’s industry and significant material resources. These advantages enabled the North to produce military supplies and replace lost or damaged equipment more rapidly than the Confederacy” (Boyer 371). With these economic advantages, Lincoln was able to supply the army with better foods, shelters and clothing. The soldiers did not need to suffer as more as the Confederate. Even if the Union was out of supplies during the war, it would be more fasten to resupply it. “In addition, since most of the nation’s railroad lines were located in the Northeast and Midwest, the Union could move troops and supplies with ease” (Boyer 371). The economic and transportation advantages also helped fasten the process of resupply and aiding the army. The percentage for the Union to win the war was higher since the North was having better economic advantages than the South.

     I agree with the idea that the North had won the Civil War before it began to the extent of Lincoln’s conservative political stands. Trying to receive the favor of the South while winning in the North would require Lincoln to take neutral stands in heated political issues like slavery. It wasn’t really wan by the North until he broke away from these stands to enact the Emancipation Proclamation and turn the tides of war in favor of the North. “This Lincoln always publicly condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery by extra constitutional means – and condemned also the mobs who deprived them of their right of free speech and free press.” (Holfstadter, Lincoln and the Self-Made

1. The war in 1862 was only more than a year old and the people in both the Union and Confederate sides didn’t anticipate it would last that long, but it is going to go on. Close to the end of the summer in this same year, the Union has made huge progress in claiming confederate lands, winning some major battles. They have put the confederacy in the defensive. They have taken over New Orleans, with even black troops major on the ground of New Orleans. They have taken Missouri and are working hard to take over the Mississippi Valley and maybe even Richmond itself. Bruce Catton puts it this way in The Civil War, “Except for guerrilla activity, Kentucky and Missouri has been swept clear of armed confederates, Western Tennessee had been reclaimed, there was a Yankee army in Cumberland Gap, another one was approaching chattanooga, and a third was sprawled out from Memphis to Corinth, preparing to splice down through Mississippi and touch hands with the Union occupation forces in Baton Rouge and New Orleans” (85) So not only that they Union had taken over regions, they are advancing as well, but they did not win the way this year for some reason. Firstly, because they did not have generals and army heads capable of taking them to victory. General Halleck, chief of the Union Armies and Pope in charge of one of the Union armies in Virginia, were major examples of this.

On the other hand had the Confederates been able to press their advantage after the Union lines broke, they might have made things difficult for Washington. Later in the war, with more experience they certainly would not have passed up that sort of opportunity, but as it was they were quite happy with the victory they had won.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”1 These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln, foreshadowed the war that became the bloodiest in all of the United State's history. The Civil War was a brutal conflict between the North and South; brother against brother. With slavery as the root cause, Southern states had seceded from the Union and were fighting for their independence. They became the Confederate States of America (CSA) and were a force to be reckoned with. The Union, however, put up a fierce struggle to preserve the country. If the Civil War was to be a war of attrition, the North had the upper hand because of its large population, industrialization, raw materials, railroad mileage, and navy. But if the war was short lived, the