In terms of civilian leadership, most historians rank Abraham Lincoln among the greatest Presidents who ever lived. They cite his rhetoric, his political savvy, and his flexibility in the face of enormous challenges. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, is often described as aloof, inflexible, and sometimes indecisive. Of course, Davis as a leader was dealing with even more challenges than Lincoln was in trying to hold together a collection of states that had supposedly...
In terms of civilian leadership, most historians rank Abraham Lincoln among the greatest Presidents who ever lived. They cite his rhetoric, his political savvy, and his flexibility in the face of enormous challenges. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, is often described as aloof, inflexible, and sometimes indecisive. Of course, Davis as a leader was dealing with even more challenges than Lincoln was in trying to hold together a collection of states that had supposedly left the Union in defense of states' rights. But most would probably argue that Lincoln was the superior wartime President.
As far as military leadership, the conventional wisdom is that the South had better generals, and that the North won the war essentially through weight of numbers. It is true that the South had many generals still admired by students of military tactics. Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in particular are still viewed as daring and innovative tacticians, who repeatedly achieved stunning victories against larger and better-equipped armies. But the North had its share of quality generals as well, and though the quality of officers was definitely an advantage for the South at the outbreak of the war, generals such as William Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant emerged as at least the equals of their Southern counterparts. These men were notable for their grasp of the nature of modern war, and are hailed as tactical and strategic visionaries by many military historians.
No comments:
Post a Comment