Lincoln did provide strong leadership. But he was no superman. He was always ready to admit that events controlled him rather than he controlled events. His administration did relatively little to manage the economic resources, which ultimately produced victory. In a sense the Northern economy ran itself. Fortunately for Lincoln, Northern factories were able to meet all the needs of the war- and more. After 1863 the Northern economy boomed. The fact that the Union was able to produce both ‘guns’ and ‘butter’ helped Northern morale. Most Northerners supported Lincoln and determined to see the war to a victorious conclusion.
With fewer people, far less in the way of industrial capacity, a less well-developed railway system, and with a Northern blockade disrupting trade with Europe, the odds were stacked highly against the Confederacy from start. Moreover, while Lincoln took over a ‘going’ concern in Washington, Jefferson Davis’s administration had to build the confederate government from scratch. To fight- let alone to win- the war, Southerners would need to make a far greater sacrifice than the Northerners. Ultimately the efforts of the Confederate government and the Southern people were in vain. The collapse of Northern morale was the South’s best hope of victory.
The North on the other hand, with its greater manpower and resources, was always favourite to win the civil war. However, “big battalions” do sometimes lose wars. If Northern Morale had collapsed, as American morale collapsed during the Vietnam War, the union could have been defeated. Resources by themselves do not win wars: they need efficient leadership. Abraham Lincoln was the North’s ‘top’ leader. He was fortunate in that he took over a ‘going’ concern. But the extent of that concern should not be exaggerated. Before 1861 Americans rarely saw a Federal official, except for the local postmaster, and had little contact with Washington. Lincoln’s ability to control matters was limited: he did not head a well- organised and well- directed machine. His administration was heavily dependent on assistance from state governments and voluntary associations. It was also dependent on the Northern economy producing the ‘goods’.
It is often claimed that Lincoln proved to be a far better leader than Davis. Lincoln is generally, In 1960 David Potter went so far to say: “If the Union and the Confederacy had exchanged presidents with one another, the confederacy might have won its independence”. Lincoln is generally seen as more successful in communicating with the people, more skilful in keeping political factions working together for a common goal, and better able to endure criticism and work with his critics. He is lauded for keeping all his commanders (including Grant) on a leash, for appointing the final winning military team, for picking able administrative subordinates, and for knowing how to delegate. Davis, on the other hand is often seen as austere, rigid, humourless and prone to making enemies: his feuds with two of his top generals, Beauregard and Joe Johnston, undoubtedly harmed the Southern war effort.
Lincoln’s superiority to Davis might seem self- evident. But Lee could think of no Confederate leader who had done a better job than Davis. And Lincoln did make mistakes. He went through six failures as commanders in the Virginia theatre before he found the right general. Some of his other military appointments and strategic decisions can also be criticised. It is worth remembering Wendell Phillips’ view of him: ‘He is a first-rate, second-rate man’.
