|
-
President Abraham Lincoln's leadership was a key factor in the North's victory in the Civil War. |
Part of a series on why the
IN HIS excellent book, "Battle Cry of Freedom," historian James McPherson gives the best explanation possible on why President Abraham Lincoln was the real reason the South lost the Civil War.
Soon after the fighting began, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in parts of Maryland. The suspension was challenged in federal Circuit Court in Baltimore, where the presiding judge was Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
Taney's ruling on the matter declared the suspension invalid. Lincoln, the soul of reason, sent a message to the Congress in which he declared his primary duty as president was to suppress the rebellion so that the laws of the nation could be applied equally, North and South.
The president considered suspension of the writ a vital weapon against rebellion: "Are all the laws but one [the writ of habeas corpus] to go unexecuted, and the government go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
In other words, "Fellas, I have a war to run and a nation to unite, and I am going to do whatever has to be done to win the war and save the nation. We can fix the laws later, when we have peace."
Daniel Farber wrote a fine book on the subject. His "Lincoln's Constitution" evaluated the situation this way: "Suspending habeas corpus may have been one of the measures that kept the Union going during this very dangerous period. The suspensions not only allowed thousands of rebels and subversives to be detained without access to judges, many of whom were sympathetic to the Southern cause, but also showed Lincoln to be resolute, indeed ruthless, in the prosecution of the war."
Farber goes on to compare this critical early period of the Civil War with the early days of World War II: "Resoluteness in times of great danger is essential to staving off defeatism; it goes some distance in explaining why Britain withstood the Nazi onslaught in 1940 and France did not."
Winston Churchill's speeches gave spine to the British nation, and give the character of the man. "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" is one. Another proclaimed that though the British Empire " last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'" Sublime.
Lincoln was his equal. For him, it was personal: It was the understanding that he had sworn an "oath to administer the government as it came into [my] hands and to transmit it unimpaired [by me] to my successor." In the Civil War, it was Lincoln, always Lincoln.
Of course, the greater Northern population was important, and so was the economic dominance of the North. Better Union generals, and more of them, certainly counted, as did a more balanced two-party Northern political system. But in the final analysis, for four bitter years Lincoln drove the Northern engine and demanded victory--and that was the main reason the North won the Civil War.
The South started with enormous faith in its new chief executive. Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, a West Point graduate, wounded hero of the Mexican War, former senator and distinguished former secretary of war was nominated unanimously to be the first president of the new Confederate nation.
Davis was considered the ideal: "The man and hour have met" was the rallying cry.
His first speech was just what the secessionists wanted to hear: "The time for compromise has passed. The South is determined to maintain her position, and make all who oppose her smell Southern powder and feel Southern steel."
But then it got down to basics: Davis had a country to run, a war to wage, friends who needed favors and a Cabinet in need of leadership, and he proved unequal to the task. A presidency is at its core a political job: a chief executive has to persuade people (the "bully pulpit" approach) to do what he wants them to do.
Even Davis' devoted wife, Varina, understood his flaws: "He did not know the art of the politician and would not practice them if understood."
It is a tragic fact of life that President Davis had no leeway in his performance--as the leader of a new nation, he had to get it right from the start. And this he was not able to do.
Historians have listed some areas where his leadership was most ineffective: Davis was stubborn and tended toward croneyism (he defended Gen. Braxton Bragg long after Bragg had failed in command). He allowed Gen. John Pemberton to be bottled up at Vicksburg, which cost the South both the city and the army. He failed to use all the resources available to the Confederacy, including manpower, finances, military and geography.
Davis failed to define his own role as the president of a new nation. He failed to understand the need for a loyal opposition, a two-party system that could oppose policies and programs but would understand that his leadership was vital to the Cause. He failed in the effective use of a huge asset--baled cotton ready for export--available when the war began.
Lincoln, by contrast, understood the most basic of military principles: In order to win the war, the Union had to defeat Confederate armies. He fired a succession of generals in chief because they were more concerned with capturing territory. He even spelled it out for Gen. Joseph Hooker: "I think Lee's Army and not Richmond is your true objective."
Determination. Firmness. One magnificent goal in mind: win the war in order to preserve the Union. This was Lincoln's presidency, and the most important reason why the North won the Civil War.
Virginia readers tell why the Confederacy lost the Civil WarForrest J. Fiedler of Meadows of Dan wrote that of all the reasons I list for the Southern lost, I failed to mention "one critical element: Slavery. The British had military observers attached to both sides of the conflict, probably to see which way the tide was running, and might have favored the South early on [except] for the issue of slavery. Britain abolished slavery in 1833 (France in 1848, Russia in the early 1860s). They could hardly have entered the war on the side of the slave 'Confederacy.'
"Indeed, the British asked J. Davis several times to end slavery in his Confederacy, but Davis rejected such requests out of hand. His lifestyle required the use of slaves, and he could see no other way."
Fiedler also writes about President Davis who "for all his philosophizing, was not a critical thinker. He disastrously mis-read the world cotton situation. He thought 'King Cotton' would easily draw the British to his side."
The "King Cotton" Southern strategy, which withheld the new crop from market, was lost essentially because the South produced a bumper crop in 1860. This drove world prices down and the cotton factories in Great Britain loaded up on the lower-priced supply. In 1861 and 1862, they had no need to buy more cotton since they still had unused bales in their own warehouses Confederate bales lay inert and unsellable on Southern loading docks.
And an added comment about the slavery issue: Once Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, any hope of attracting foreign support to the Confederate cause was lost. In the 19th century, Great Britain was the world's dominant power. France was involved with Mexico during much of the war and really wanted the North to lose, but it could not act if Britain did not lead the way. And once Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the war a moral issue, English, and thus foreign support of the Confederacy was lost.
My thanks to Forrest J. Fiedler for giving me his thoughts on why the South lost the Civil War. If any other readers want to share their thoughts as to why the South lost, by all means send them in and I'll print as many as I can.
NED HARRISON is a Greensboro, N.C., writer who specializes in military history. His columns about the Civil War appear regularly in North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia newspapers. He wants to hear your opinions about why the South lost the Civil War. Write Ned Harrison, News & Record/T&C. Box 20848, Greensboro, N.C. 27420. E-mail him at
Email: h@mindspring.com.
