Was Lincoln a good war president?

Question

Sure he won the Civil War, but it would have been difficult for even the worst President to lose that war (the north had so much more resources and fighting men).

But did Lincoln do a good job fighting the war? Did he have any major blunders or bad command decisions?

I know the generals do most of the commanding but people like FDR and Churchill certainly had a guiding hand with how their war was run. Was Lincoln the same way?

Winning isn't very relevant in this situation. I might be able to beat a 3rd grader in a boxing match, but does that make me a great boxer?

The odds were stacked against the south, I was just wondering if Lincoln was a good military leader like FDR or Churchill, etc?

Answer 1

Lincolin had personel problems. His experienced Generals were all old men who had seen action in the Mexican War. Winfield Scott who had virtually created the Army in the War of 1812 was too old to take an active roll in the conflict. The men he was left with, who didn't side with the south, were of inferior quality. Generals like Mcclelland, Hooker, and Burnside were not up to their tasks. It was the next great generation of generals that would eventally win the war for the North. Men like General Grant, Sherman, and Meade

As a "Commander in Chief" Lincolin was smart enough to realize that he knew nothing about commanding large volumes of troops. His only military experience was fighting aginst the Indidans in the Blackhawk War. He defered to his commanders. His only requirment seemed to be action aginst the South. Grant was finally able to keep the pressure on the South forcing the South to lose irrepacable Men and Supplies.

Lincolin's best quality was on the political side. He was able to difuse sitcky political situations and keep Europe out of conflict. By drafting the Emancipation Proclomation he was able to tie the goal of the Union to the destruction of slavery, yet not alienate the border states which stayed loyal to the North but had slavery. He also had to campaign aginst a popular General in the Middle of the war and succeeded in winning reelection.

So in short yes Lincolin was a supreame War Time Commander because he offered 100% support to the troops but kept the pressure on the commanders until he found one that could win.

Answer 2

Well if Abraham Lincoln had not been Who he was there might not have been a Civil War - - - It was Lincoln's determination that the Union remain One Nation that generated War - - - his predecessor James Buchanan and many many others were quite content to break the USA in two or more pieces. Lincoln was the driving force behind pursuing War, as late as the election campaign of 1864 lots of politicians were willing let the South go, in fact eager.

Lincoln did an o-k job as a War President, he was more right than wrong and that counts for a lot - - - actually as a Strategist, Lincoln was a genius, he was quick to agree to splitting the South in two along the line of the Mississippi and saw that without Texas the South would be hurting. One of the ironies of War is that Lincoln would have been a great general, he had the courage & the intelligence. As a manager he made the war successful. A lot of that was delegating authority, yes Edwin Stanton was a weird Duck and Lincoln probably cringed to employ him, but Stanton was a Great Secretary of War as was Gideon as Navy Secretary, and of course with Steward as Secretary of State, well, it was a successful War Cabinet.

Peace.....

Answer 3

Most certainly. Lincoln was confronted with the only ongoing war on U.S. territory after the revolution. Although there was a lack of efficient military leadership on the side of the north Lincoln kept trying until he found generals that were capable of doing the job (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan)
Politically he enacted several important pieces of legislation to keep the north in tact. He signed the Pacific R.R. Act into law authorizing the building of the R.R. which tied the north to California and the west, he signed the Homestead Act which kept the west loyal to the union, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in rebellion against the U.S. but not freeing slaves in the border states that remained loyal to the union.
He enabled free slaves to join the military albeit in segregated units. He kept England and France out of the war on the side of the confederacy by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and he had started work on a reconstruction plan which would bring the Confederate states back into the Union without severe punishment.

Answer 4

Lincoln was committed to saving the Union at any cost. In that sense, he was a good President during the war.

He freed the slaves in the South as a strategic military decision to give the North the edge in the war, as the South depended on slave labor to run their economy, whereas the industrialized North did not. Moreover, the freed slaves fought on the side of the North, giving the North thousands of willing troops.

I think Lincoln did a good enough job, but he could have done better, perhaps, if he had

1) freed the slaves in the South sooner in the war (i.e. at the beginning of the war) and

2) freed the slaves in the North.

May God bless you.

Answer 5

If he were, it shouldn't have taken him four years to win the war (1861–1865). But, I think he set a score in modern stage of history on how long a war should approximately last. Four example, World War I (1914- 1918), and World War II ( 1939- 1945) for about 4 or 5 years at most.In fact in modern history, if any large scale war lasts more than that, I would even say more than two years at most, it's just doomed and should be tagged as no win situation for either side, like the Vietnam War or the Iraq War.

Answer 6

Yes he was an excellent war president. He was saddled with some very bad generals that he inherited. When he got Grant then the tables turned. The worst thing that ever happened to the South was the assassination of Lincoln. He was killed and never had the chance to carry out his planned reconciliation.

Answer 7

Lincoln thought the war would last 3 months, he was wrong. look up Lincoln. i did last night. it has photos and the story about his assassination. great reading. just go to your search bar and type in Lincoln. Lincoln was a great president. he did not want this country divided. alot of links there to read up on.

Answer 8

His sincerity and noble stance guided him to be the victorious above all presidents of the USA.

(Churchill worsened chaos, all what he did was utter mockery around the colonies. He should not be acclaimed as a good military leader)

Answer 9

it extremely is an superb question, and referenced examples. war IS- IS the main suitable atrocity guy can set against yet another guy( no longer gender particular)!!! No SANE human has ever got down to slay yet another, "and not applying a reason, purpose, purpose, venture, "DREAM" !!! be conscious the definitive be conscious SANE !!! history is a time interior the destiny, and considered with the help of finding decrease back to the referenced time. history is recorded, "in the process the eyes and psychological innovations-set" of the recorder!!!!! a minimum of ninety% of the history studied in our academic gadget is slanted with the help of the writers of the debts occuring on the referenced time/s! in basic terms time, in line with possibility as quickly as 40 YEARS into the destiny, can verify how President Bush's Presidency would be graded. right this moment, "we are in a position to no longer SEE THE woodland because of fact, THE timber ARE interior the way"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

Not really. He cut one of his best general's forces in half because he thought the guy was moving too slow.

He proceeded really weakly with the war because he didn't want to anger the Southern states that were still in the Union. There were still 4 in the Union at the time the war broke out.

It's really complicated.