Political Leadership In The Civil War Essay, Research Paper

President Abraham Lincoln once said You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can t fool all of the people all of the time (Degregorio 243). This quote refers to the fact that Lincoln was a politician who could easily relate to his public. A political figure who can relate to his public with ease is one that shows exceptional leadership. The North defeated the South in the Civil War chiefly due to superior political leadership.

Lincoln, as leader of the Union, had a great ability to mold public opinion. This was important because it was essential for Lincoln to have the public support the war effort. Lincoln knew that he had to take action because that was what the people wanted to see; results (Beringer 6-7). General McClellan had a way of conducting his army that Lincoln thought was overcautious (Degregorio 240). Lincoln accused McClellan of having the slows (not being able to take decisive action) and replaced him with General A. E. Burnside (Bailey, Kennedy 472). Lincoln did this because he saw that McClellan was taking too long to provide results whereas other army commanders, such as Grant in the west, were definitively winning battles.

At times, Lincoln made political decisions for the sole purpose of successfully conducting the war. An example of this being the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Although it was unconstitutional for Lincoln himself to do this (Appendix A), he knew that it was necessary to keep the Union war effort intact. Another example of Lincoln making an important decision without proper consent of Congress was when he chose private citizens to spend public money for arms and military preparations (Madaras 345). While these decisions could be subject to criticism, the fact that he made these decisions just for the purpose of helping win the war shows that Lincoln was not afraid of doing what ever it took to reach his ultimate goal. This particular characteristic is demonstrative of

Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederacy, experienced many problems relating to his ability as a political leader. He lacked many of the qualities that made Lincoln such an esteemed leader. It became increasingly clear that the majority of Southern population was losing confidence in their President. The Confederacy was losing key battles, and because of the naval blockade, the military supplies were running low, and prices of material goods in the South were becoming inflated (McPherson 428). Most of these failures were the result of Davis not having the political skills to make the important war-winning decisions.

Most of the Confederate governors and legislative representatives were avid believers in strong state rights (Beringer 6). Davis, on the other hand, wanted to create a strong central government for the Confederacy. With state leaders already lacking trust in Davis, Davis had a difficult time making the Southern leaders accept the idea of a central government over individual states (Beringer 218-219). For example, the militia from the state of Georgia was withdrawn from active duty because the governor resisted Davis s attempts at centralization (Beringer 220). This illustrates the fact that the leadership skills of Jefferson Davis were not comparable to those of Abraham Lincoln. These circumstances were one of the primary reasons that Davis s confederacy lost the civil war.

Lincoln displayed a political acumen that was clearly superior to that of Jefferson Davis. The personality of Honest Abe was one that won people of all types over. He could do this, because at all costs he had the ability to not take himself seriously. If someone spoke about Lincoln in a deprecating manner, he would often pass it off for a

joke. For example, when someone once told him that Secretary of State Stanton had called him a fool, Lincoln smiled and responded, Then I must be a fool because Secretary Stanton is rarely wrong (Beringer 178). This relaxing personality that Lincoln possessed is a very valuable tool for running a country, especially in wartime. This is because, if a

president is a tense person, he will make others around him uncomfortable and defensive. A government can not be conducted well under these conditions. On the contrary, Davis possessed a personality that came off as sententious and defensive. That is one of the reasons that he was partially distrusted by his own generals. Personality is a characteristic that is easily overlooked but imperative for a good political leader.

Let s suppose that Lincoln, the superior political leader was the leader of the confederacy, and Davis the leader of the Union. Would the North have won the war? It is likely that Davis would not have displayed the executive ability to go against the constitution and suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He would not have used public funds illegally to build up the military as Lincoln did. Davis might not have chosen the different military leaders as Lincoln did in order to eventually win the war. This all would have led up to the South winning the war, which would have led to the South being a permanent independent country. Slavery might have existed long after the war and the entire face of the history of the world would be altered after 1865. This demonstrates how political leadership played such a key role in this war.

The superior political leadership experienced by the North gave them a sharp advantage in winning the war. The better the leadership available to a country, the better the decisions that will be made for that country. If these superior decisions are followed carefully, than the goals will more easily be achieved. Eventually, as in this particular case, the war will be won. This illustrates how and why superior political leadership on the side of the North helped lead to the victory in the Civil War.