Lincoln vs Davis

I think it is very difficult to compare.Of course, the South was crushed  by the North. But we cannot say this L was better then D. It was because the North had a stronger economic and industrial power then the south. But this strong economic and industrial was not built by L himself.We cannot say say D was no good, since one man could not chang the whole inferior situation of the South(weaker economin and industrial power, highly dependent on cotton and lack of a large food production, fewer population,lack of a strong navy, many western states turned to the North0). But  I think that L was more active in  military commanding,while D did not make many ideas in military action.From My impression, it seem that Lee and Jackson were the leaders of the South. it was because at that time, The  continuous surviving of the south dependent  on  the high commanders in the army. Just like George washington was the leader of the republic during the revolution it was because at that time, The continuous surviving of the Us dependent on army. How many will consider those presidents in the revolutionary congress were the leaders.

I agree with bradcorazon.

But I'd add: Davis was better educated, Lincoln was smarter.

On Andrew Carnegie's tombstone it says something like 'Here lies a man who knew how to use the brains of other men more than his own'. It could go for Lincoln too.

The chief mistake he made was giving in to the pressure to make McLellan general of the armies.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by gcle2003 I agree with bradcorazon. But I'd add: Davis was better educated, Lincoln was smarter. On Andrew Carnegie's tombstone it says something like 'Here lies a man who knew how to use the brains of other men more than his own'. It could go for Lincoln too. The chief mistake he made was giving in to the pressure to make McLellan general of the armies. Not having been the commander-in-chief of large armies before, Lincoln had a learning curve until 1863.  Fortunately in W. Sherman and U. S. Grant he found two of the best generals of the early industrial age.

Pitted of course against the best of them.

Once Grant 'came east' Lee was no longer sufficiently superior enough to offset the North's logistic superiority. And there was noone west of the Appalachians to oppose Sherman.

Incidentally I'm looking forward to reading Newt's book 'Grant Comes East'. I read 'Gettysburg' last year and thought it excellent. But I haven't been in the US since the later one came out.

Davis's better formal education was not much help.  He could not do all by himself, and the Confederate leadership was short of politicians who understood much other than Southern honor.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 gcle: I have not read either.  I can't find time to read fiction anymore.  Too much to do.  Incidentally, I live 30 miles from Gettysburg.  My great, great grandfather and his brother were there in a PA cavalry regt.   (mother's side)

My mother-in-law died last year in Atlanta and in going through all the papers, we discovered a packet of letters from a great-...uncle written home to Georgia while he was serviing with the Confederate Army. One of them, indiscreetly, describes the dispositions of the Confederate forces just prior to Second Manasses.

It could have made a lot of difference falling into the wrong hands.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by gcle2003 I agree with bradcorazon. But I'd add: Davis was better educated, Lincoln was smarter. On Andrew Carnegie's tombstone it says something like 'Here lies a man who knew how to use the brains of other men more than his own'. It could go for Lincoln too. The chief mistake he made was giving in to the pressure to make McLellan general of the armies. Not having been the commander-in-chief of large armies before, Lincoln had a learning curve until 1863.  Fortunately in W. Sherman and U. S. Grant he found two of the best generals of the early industrial age. Davis's better formal education was not much help.  He could not do all by himself, and the Confederate leadership was short of politicians who understood much other than Southern honor.

I remember that Davis strongly opposed the invasion of Pennsylvannia which Lee strongly insisted.  Being a veteran of Mexian-American War, and Secretary of Defense prior to the war, Davis knew that the only way to win the war was to keep the war dragging on until the opposition in the North erupted. He favored more focus on the defensive end rather than being the aggressive one. He was not wrong because as we know the Battle of Gettysburg was the turning point for the South. Thing might be quite different  if the Confederate avoided the tragic defeat of Gettysburg.

I agree with glce, sending Longstreet and his corp West to support Vicksburg would not have stopped Grant.  In the West Grant commanded an army with a superb officer corp and his movements were crisp and effective, as opposed to the bumbling movements of his subordinates when he commanded the AoP.  I think Grant would have beaten off any Confederate counter attack .