Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davies led Americans in the Civil War. The titanic struggle remained the most divisive war in American history. The American Civil war started on 2nd, April 1861 and lasted for four years. The secession of South Carolina from the Union prompted Confederacy to command the US government to relinquish its fort in Charleston Harbor. Lincoln strongly condemned the attempt, and this provoked a Confederate attack. The Confederacy surrounded the fort and fought the Union forces with dangerous weapons. After two days, the Union forces were forced to surrender Charleston Harbor after the bombardment. After the outbreak, the undecided states had the option to either support the Confederacy or the Union. As a result, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee also seceded. Lincoln had little military experience but remained committed to protecting the Union to the extent of applying force. On the other hand, Davies had extensive military experience and as the president of the new Confederate, he advocated for the separation from the Union. The paper will compare and contrast the military tactics used by Lincoln and Davis in the major battles fought in the civil war.
Although technology has been overlooked, there is evidence that it allowed the Union to win the war, but not the Lincoln’s strategies.in the Bacon’s book. The technology, industrial capacity, and transportation were the main significant elements that lead to winning or lose of the American Civil War. Bacon expounds on “differing logistical or technological events and how [they] became an integral part of the conduct of the war’s various military campaigns” (Taylor 1512). The development of the new technologies perfected or played a vital role in the war. The advancement of the technology enhanced the widespread use of innovative weapons such as faster-loading rifles, Gatling gun, and the deadlier ammunition known as min-ball. Consequently, these technologies advanced the military operations that lead to the Union’s victory in the civil war.
Jefferson Davis was the reason the Confederacy lost in the Civil War. Since Davis was knowledgeable with a vast military experience, he could have applied a strong commitment to defend the Confederate. Davies was associated with insecurity and indecisiveness, and the two factors led to the failure. The main flaw was the idea of placing faith to his pre-war friends to military positions irrespective of their qualifications. His unwillingness to remove military generals like Leonidas Polk and Joseph E. Johnston spelled doom for the Confederacy since it was exposed to wrong military tactics as experienced in the past. Davis failed to recognize the talented and experienced military officers and also believed in his personal friends. Also, despite the incompetent officers causing massive damage to the Confederacy, Davies was not first enough to replace them with conversant military officers. Moreover, Davis failed to offer the best military strategies and tactics to his military commanders. His ideas could have helped the Confederacy to win the war, but his skills and experience were not useful in any way. On the other hand, Lincoln may have emerged successful in the Civil war but not all decisions he made remained admirable. For instance, Lincoln fired some of the generals that had failed to win the war but at the same time spared some of the incompetent officers. His indecisiveness to replace the determined McClellan with aggressive commanders was the most painful incident of his governance (Avila 30).
Both Davis and Lincoln had different aspects in terms of education and military experience. For instance, Davis went through the fine schools such as at West Point, and this enabled him to acquire substantial military experience during the Mexican-American War. In addition, Davis served as a member of the two houses of Congress, and President Franklin Pierce later appointed him as a secretary of war for four years since 1853. Considering that Davis had graduated from U.S. Military Academy, he was in a better position and more prepared for taunting tasks compared to his counterpart (McPherson 2). On the other hand, Lincoln was self-educated, had little experience on military operations and served in the House of Representative for only one term. For instance, as a member of Congress, Lincoln made astonishing campaign speech regarding his services in the Black Hawk war:
“By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes sir; in the days of the Black Hawk war, I fought, bled, and came away. [] If he saw any life, fighting Indians, it was more than I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes; and, although I never fainted from loss of blood, I can truly say I was often very hungry” (Fornieri 114).
During this speech, Lincoln revealed that he can only relate his military experience only on the war against mosquitos in 1832. This ridiculous statement aimed to scorn the heroism claims that were implicated to General Lewis Cass. Therefore, comparing Lincoln and Davis, it is evident that that Davis was more superior to Lincoln vis-à-vis education and military experience. In addition, both men had a different personality as elucidated above because Lincoln was funny while Davis was a military man.
Jefferson Davies and Abraham Lincoln used different tactics and strategies in the civil war. The Confederate, under the leadership of Davis, applied major strategies to win the war. For instance, the Confederate applied the strategy in which they waited for the Union out. The Confederate decided to avoid playing defense to avoid the Union from perceiving that the war was not worth it. And so, Davis ensured that the Confederate kept away from invading the North. Furthermore, Davis also used the strategy of convincing the neighboring countries to recognize his country and at the same time piled pressure on the union to settle. Davis led the Confederate to invade states and the finished at Gettysburg. The strategy was meant at ensuring the Confederate believe in winning the civil war. During the invasion, France, Britain and other countries recognized the presence of the Confederate. The Confederate used the strategy of fighting on their soil, and they believed others could support them as a show of mercy. They also built enormous, government-owned munitions factory to manufacture powerful and heavy machinery. Contrariwise, Lincoln applied the National Strategy in the battlefield (Avila 9). The strategy focused on slavery and emancipation. He ensured that his country handled emancipation in the appropriate manner to avoid states joining up together to secede from the United States. After nine months, the national strategy had failed to conciliate the Border States and the anti-emancipation democrats. Due to this, Lincoln changed the National Strategy tactic. He announced the Emancipation Proclamation whereby he ordered an immediate release of slaves in the rebellious states. Lincoln appointed political generals who had the little military experience to serve in the army. Although his move was criticized by most people, Lincoln had a strategy that proved successful in the war. As a matter of fact, the political generals had a mass following that helped them to mobilize their constituents to join the war. As a result, the National Strategy experienced a positive impact, and this was a nice move for Lincoln.
Lincoln and Jefferson used distinct motivation strategies on their troops to acquire victory in the civil war. Through his remarks on the Gettysburg Address, he argues that the civil war was a test of the Americans’ dedication and endurance. In addition, Lincoln opened his speech by suggesting that the America’s founding fathers build a nation perceived in liberty and dedicated to equality when they acquired freedom from Britain. Therefore, since their founding fathers brought forward freedom, liberty, and equality, it was the time for the Union troop to preserve these elements by winning the Civil War. Lincoln also motivated his troops by giving the vote of honor to the dedicated soldiers who participated in the Gettysburg war (McPherson 4). He argued that their efforts had shown the American dedication beyond what him and his troop can detract or add. The rhythm, arrangement of words in his two-minute speech showed Lincoln’s dedication and inspiration to his troops. However, the Lincoln’s key encouragement to his troop is that they should be dedicated to Civil Wars so as to honor those who died so that the American can live as a nation. On the other hand, during the Speech at Macon, Georgia, Davis presence and delivery raised the morale of his troops. Davis was optimistic that his people will destroy and pursue Sherman army similar to the case of Napoleon at Moscow. However, this announcement was seen as the betrayal of the potential Confederacy’s strategy. Contrary to the Lincoln’s speech, the Davis’s arrangement of words was seen as the satire. He criticized those has withdrawn from the army suggesting that they are not worthy to be called Georgian, and they resemble Spartan mothers. His announcement that his army is reducing in number was seen as encouragement to the opponents.
In conclusion, Lincoln had effective tactics and strategies such as national strategy and more effective speech than his counterpart, Jefferson Davis. These strategies and tactics enabled him to win battle in the Civil War and subsequently gained victory in that War. On the other hand, Davis was more superior in terms of education and military experience compared to Lincoln, but his tactics such as poor motivation strategies led to the demise of the Confederate States of America.
Works Cited
Avila, Rolando. "ABRAHAM LINCOLN: STRATEGIST O F U N IO N VICTORY." Diss. the University of Texas-Pan American, 1999. Print.
Fornieri, Joseph R. The Every-day Life of Abraham Lincoln: Student and Book Club Edition. United States: Regnery Publishing, 2008. Print.
McPherson, James M. Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief. Penguin, 2014.
McPherson, James M. Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln As Commander in Chief. New York: Penguin Press, 2008. Print.
Taylor, Robert A. "Review." The Journal of American History 84.4 (1998): 1511-1512. Web. 21 June 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568149>.
THE REBEL ARMY. THE NEW REBEL GENERALISSIMO. New York: The New York Herald, 1865. Print.
