Saturday, November 2, 2013

Lincoln as Commander in Chief

As somewhat new to the political arena in 1861, it was clear that Lincoln still had much to learn upon taking office.  During a time of war, a president's decisions and role as commander in chief are even more crucial towards the country's future.

Lincoln had no political experience, unlike his Confederate counterpart Jefferson Davis, who had graduated from West Point.  Yet, this reading paint Lincoln as an arguably successful commander-in-chief, even if he drastically expands his executive power in order to do so. 

What is your evaluation of Lincoln as commander in chief?  What are the key decisions that he makes in order to ensure Union strength and an eventual victory.  And even more curious: why doesn't he fire McClellan right away, even upon Wade's insistence?

13 comments:

  1. Well i was very surprised in learning that Lincoln had no previous political experiences. But From what the article said he seemed to me to be one very good commander and chief. He knew exactly what he was doing. His strategies he used were based of the confederates weaknesses. He had great intuition figured out what he was doing wrong in the beginning of the war and after he fixed it he was very successful.I think he does not fire McClellan right away because he thought that Mcclellan would turn out to be very helpful and he would sooner or later be a great leader. But in the end Lincoln does fire McClellan because he just could not get the job done

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that Lincoln when he was first starting off as commander in chief wasn't good. Since he was unexperienced and new to everything, he made some decisions that probably weren't really good. But, he quickly caught on and became a really good commander in chief. He was in the army before, and was a captain which allowed him to know some good strategies. Even though he was unexperienced in being a commander in chief, he still knew things about being a soldier and fighting in war. This allowed him to make good plans and knew how to react in battles. I think he doesn't fire McClellan right away because McClellan was still a young man and was still in the process of learning what to do. Even though he was delayed in EVERYTHING that he did for Lincoln, he was still learning and Lincoln figured that he should continue giving him chances because he really wanted him to improve.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lincoln surely was a hard-worker also he is the reason why the Union won the war. When he was the president of the union, he was automatically the commander in chief. Unluckily, he was a rank amateur in military affairs and his counterpart Jefferson Davis was West Point educated. However, Lincoln study a lot, interact with his West Point trained officers. I personally think Lincoln should receive the most credit of wining the war for Union. If the commander in chief wasn't Lincoln but another well trained military commander with arrogance, he couldn't be making wise decision as Lincoln could because of his arrogance. McClellan was a good example of a great military commander but too arrogant. The reason why Lincoln didn't fire McClellan was because McClellan was such a good commander who could not be replace by anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lincoln was the president of the Union and the commander in chief. In the beginning, the war was not in favor of the Union army, and Lincoln wasn't doing as well as he could have. However, he was wise and brilliant. I think that the reason why Lincoln didn't fire McClellan was because he didn't have another military commander to take his place. Also, perhaps Lincoln believed McClellan would eventually be a great leader and win some battles. Luckily, Grant was recognized and took over.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even though Lincoln was never taught the necessary military training skills, based on the article Lincoln sounded like a great commander in chief. The only way for Lincoln to make key decisions to ensure Union strength and an eventual victory was to try military ideas through trial and error. In the article it states “When Lincoln became president, he was but a rank amateur in military affairs; however, the crisis of the Civil War made it crucial that he learn about such things. And to his great credit, this he did, efficiently and well.” This proves that even with little experience Lincoln’s intuition got him very far. One smart intuition move that he made was to use the South’s strengths against them such as destroying everything to tank their economy and eventually fish surrender out of them. I think the reason why he doesn’t fire McClellan right away is because he waited him out to see if anything would change so that he could see all of his options before he fired him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The text shows that Lincoln was a great Commander in Chief since he was able to be victorious against the Confederacy despite his original lack of military understanding and the lack of respect from important figures underneath him. He must have worked tirelessly to master conventional military strategy and make sound military decisions in only a year. He also ignored the insolence and personal insults from some of his generals and staff because he knew that they were important to the preservation of the Union. He also set the stage for future leaders by persuading the public to accept his bending of the Constitution in times of crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unlike Jefferson David, who was a graduate of the West Point, Lincoln was never a experienced commander in chief before the Civil War. However, through the civil war, Lincoln showed his ability to be a successful commander in chief. Because he was never a experianced military officier before Civil War, what Lincoln did was that he fought wars through trying different ideas, which turned out very well for the Union. The fact that Union decided to use the military strategy "scorge-earth" in order to starve out not only the South economy but also starve out the moral of the Southeners illustrates how Lincoln was a amazing commander in chief. In my opinion, Lincoln did not fire McClellan right away because Lincoln considered firing him not because McClellan was too much of a coward, but because of the pressure Lincoln was getting from the press and the population.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lincoln didn't have the experience as Jefferson Davis because first of all he was new and nobody never taught him militaristic skills. However he had a huge strength and it's that he was a very quick learner. In fact, in the article they say that he even became a professional so I believe that he was a really good commander in chief. Also he had some good skills such as common sense and a good intuition. Even though he made a bunch of errors and the beginning of the war and many trials, it helped him to become smarter and that is how he found out step by step all the strengths and weaknesses of the Confederacy and finally beat Robert Lee.
    I believe Lincoln did not fire Mclellan because first of all he had work with him and was used to his way to work and his tactics. in fact he learned a lot from his militaristics skills and also no one could replace that job.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Despite the fact that Lincoln did not have as much political experience as Jefferson Davis, Lincoln soon caught on very well to the way war worked. As the commander in chief of the Union Lincoln even with his lack of political experience managed a great triumph against the union and that is how it is evident that he was a very wise man. I feel that Lincoln was not extremely quick to rid of McClellan because of the potential that Lincoln saw in him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lincoln obviously tried hard and handled what he was dealt with but this piece glorifies him to such an obnoxious extent. It is those beneath him who are more deserving of the credit. It was the commanders who were actually in battle who with time and experience learned how to maneuver their troops in anticipation of the other side. It was those with the first hand accounts who i think actually brought america to victory, not lincoln. Lincoln, as president, is just a symbol. The people need one concise establishment to which they can direct their worries. Which disregarding the electoral process doesn't make him any different than a king. As for McClellan,although he did have some good points like what he said about the campaign against richmond in 1862, he too was learning. Lincoln obviously saw promise in him but in this circumstance the country needed immediate action which lincoln thankfully realized, eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lincoln was in command of an army and war machine that was vastly larger and more efficient than the souths making up for any of his tactical mistakes. lincoln knew that the union army needed to advance on the south hard and break them down. which is why the civil war is considered a total war. lincoln was aggressive and determined to keep the union together which gave soldiers another reason to fight rather than the idea of just ending slavery which could unappealing to others for some reason. without the norths dominate army and production Lincoln's decisions could have gone ary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. While Lincoln didnt start off as a very strong war leader it wasn't unexpected or surprising especially due to the fact that he had no expierience. However, after only a short while Lincoln caught onto what he was doing and what he was supposed to be doing. He became a very good war leader, and while he was given credit for the war and freeing the slaves, just like Tracy said he's not the only one who put it in effort and there are millions of soldiers who fought and even died for this war and the freedom it would bring.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Despite the fact that I believe Lincoln was credited far too much for the end of slavery I don't think it was too far fetched that Lincoln helped the North win the war. The North was at a big advantage to begin with, they had more people and they had more materials however, South had the drive to fight so they were a force to be reckoned with. Without Lincolns tactics there is no way the North would have won, if he hadn't passed the Emancipation Proclamation then other places abroad might have helped the South and changed the tide of the war. Without his timing of making orders, then the North would have been exploited at the end, he is the one who changed the tide of the war.

    ReplyDelete