Another factor to bear in mind was the leaders’ mobilisation of their respective home fronts. According to his contemporary critics, Abraham Lincoln's presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Jefferson Davis was known for his integrity. He was not always as forthright as he might have been in dealing with difficult persons and situations, but he observed a strict code of conduct with respect to money, favours and gifts. As President he repeatedly demonstrated his moral courage by unwavering support of unpopular individuals and measures. He had rich experiences in public affairs and he was an effective public speaker, known for his clarity and logic. He was profoundly dedicated to the Southern cause. It seems quite paradoxical that Jefferson Davis was never known as "Honest Jeff," and the man who led the Union by basically ignoring the Constitution was known as "Honest Abe." When Lincoln felt it was necessary he could act in the most undemocratic manner; as he delivered the Gettysburg Address, his troops guarded the polls at a state election in Delaware, ensuring a Republican victory. Realising that the Constitution was not made for war, especially civil war, and knowing that it took too long to change it, he was willing to bypass it and create his own emergency powers in order to preserve it for peacetime. Events were moving too rapidly to stay within the due process of the law. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorisation, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and avoided consultation with the other two branches of the government. He neglected the Constitution but managed to retain the popular appeal of the masses. Davis, contrarily, was handicapped by the excessive individualism which characterised the South's ruling classes and did little to disband these divisions. The individualism was a product of the plantation system. Each planter was in effect a petty sovereign and his exalted status tended to make him self-reliant, proud, resentful of opposition, and averse to teamwork. Davis lacked popular appeal. At no time in his life did he mingle freely with the masses under circumstances that might have enabled him to develop an appreciation of their aspirations and virtues. He never felt close to them, nor they to him. Davis never succeeded in dramatising the issues of the war or in arousing public enthusiasm for their support as Lincoln did. Wiley contends that the southern president “was never able to infuse the Southern movement with the lofty purposes and timeless qualities that Jefferson and Paine breathed into the American Revolution”. What Lincoln did for the war effort, simply, was manipulation of appeal. He is known as the “Great Emancipator” and yet who did he free? His Army of the Potomac out manned the Army of Northern Virginia at Antietam and basically fought them to a draw. Lincoln shrewdly decided that the time was right for the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation hinged on a great Northern victory and it was to be the final nail in the Confederate coffin. Foreign support would never be realised by the South. Lincoln was far superior in this regard as he managed to engaged the North in a state of total war.
In terms of strategy, both presidents were effective. Lincoln preferred to guide military policy from the background and seldom overruled or defined military objectives for his generals. He had a long-term general policy that he thought was the key to success, which involved attacking on all fronts simultaneously to best use the North’s material superiority, which he pushed from the start; but that is as far as he would go. Davis, on the other hand, often personally set military objectives for his generals. Some of his promotions and removal of individual leaders had direct and dire consequences for the Confederate cause. His inability to deal with individual state leaders also led to supply and reinforcement problems which harmed the south. Some of these problems can be ascribed to the fear of a strong central government in the Confederacy but much of it can also be attributed to Davis’ own intractable personality. With regard to military appointments, Davis’ was perhaps the more fortuitous. Lee was a very intelligent leader who knew exactly what had to be accomplished in order to win the war but was inhibited by extenuating circumstances. Lincoln was unable to find a military general who could efficiently bring the North’s superior resources to bear. McClellan, in particular, proved able to build his army but was too pusillanimous to risk their lives in battle. Lincoln finally settled on Grant, a leader who had all the attributes of a winning leader. On balance, neither president was superior to the other in these respects, but Davis was perhaps more fortunate in his appointment of Lee.
Foreign intervention was the only conceivable way in which the South could win, while the North’s objective was to avert it. The clarity of Lincoln and Seward demonstrated during the Trent Affair meant that Britain did not become involved. Northern diplomats were successful in reminding Britain that it had much money invested in the US and that a large proportion of its imports came from there. For the Confederacy, Antietam was one of the many perfect times to exercise some great diplomatic coup of their own. Their army was out numbered nearly three to one. They fought McClellan to a standstill with their backs to the Potomac. They remained on the field for another day, when they could have retreated. Lee gave Davis all of the ammunition required for a diplomatic stratagem. Nothing Lee or the other war heroes of the Confederacy did on the battlefield measured up to what Lincoln did with manipulating public opinion both home and abroad. In making comparisons with the Revolutionary War, which many historians prefer to do, it will be remembered that the future of the Revolution looked bleak until the Continental army's victory over the British and Hessians at Saratoga. However, this victory alone accomplished nothing. It was very important to have strong statesmen in foreign capitals extolling the accomplishments of the armies in the field. At this, the Continental Congress was very proficient but the Confederate diplomats were not so perceptive. Quite simply the South failed to attain the only asset that would enable victory.
In summary, Lincoln was superior in the areas of leadership that mattered most. He was better war leader, with the courage and tenacity to go to great lengths to achieve victory. Davis was perhaps too cautious in some respects but he cannot be solely imputed for the South’s defeat since there are many aspects of leadership that he fulfilled adequately; there were circumstances that could not be overcome and determined that the South would lose despite Davis’ best efforts.
