ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND JEFFERSON DAVIS.   Term Paper ID:30708 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Discusses their leadership styles.... More...

14 Pages / 3150 Words 11 sources, 41 Citations, TURABIAN Format $56.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Discusses their leadership styles. Contends that President Lincoln was a superior leader. Lincoln's possession of traits and qualities needed for success in a crisis such as the American Civil War; a statesman with a clear goal. Jefferson lacking some critical characteristics and attributes, in spite of his intellect and skill as a tactician. Paper Introduction: The Leadership Styles of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis Introduction During the upheaval of the American Civil War, the Union and the Confederacy were lead by two very different men, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. History, it is generally recognized, tends to regard “winners” in any contest as superior to those who “lose” the contest. Such a valuation is, more often than not, based on sound and substantial evidence. In the case of Lincoln and Davis, this report will demonstrate that the former was a superior leader possessed of many of the traits and qualities needed for success in a crisis, while the latter (though a remarkable intellect and tactician) lacked some critical characteristics and attributes which could have improved his performance if not the outcome of the War. Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 199 .Stadiem, William. Hecould not tolerate opposition or contradiction and would support a wrongdecision to the bitter end. There was a widely diffused sentimentthat he was indispensable to the fortunes of the Confederacy.[28] At thesame time, he did not lack for enemies, including his own vice president,Alexander Stephens. 66.[17] Ibid., p. New York: Harper Collins, 1989.Norton, M.B., Katzman, D.M., Escott, P.D., Chudacoff, H.P., Patterson, T.G., and Tuttle, W.M. 39.[4] James K. 448.[5] Ibid.[6] Ibid., p. cit., p. In other words,Livingstone concludes that Lincoln did not follow prevailing public opinionof his day on the matter of slavery and tried to elevate the opinion ofAmericans on the subject while remaining deferential to the principle ofthe consent of the governed.[11] In dealing with the Abolitionists, Lincoln confronted individuals whodisliked him and considered even the Emancipation Proclamation to have beena case of too little, too late. He worked on any number of occasions to delay succession and tobuy time for the Union. Lincoln saw his job as simply preserving the Union and guidingthe Union back toward its democratic destiny. His poverty and his steadfast refusal to accept compensation fromthe Union for the loss of his plantation further added to his legendarystatus and solidified the admiration of Southerners in similarpositions.[31] T. Harry Williams characterized Abraham Lincoln as a pragmatist whodid what he did at his own pace and in his own time.[14] Lincolnunderstood himself as the servant of the people and while he was oftencriticized as excessively cautious and even timid, his actions during theCivil War demonstrated that caution was mistaken for timidity anddetermination for cowardice. Eventhose who had found him to be a less than stellar leader during the CivilWar considered Davis to be one of the South's greatest heroes after itsdefeat. 68.[18] Ibid., pp. Klingaman contends that Lincoln was determined that theUnion would be preserved and to that end he was willing to commit hisadministration and the full power of the Union's military might.[7]Lincoln functioned as a leader with an iron hand inside a velvet glove. 39-42.Martin, James K. P.G.T. 38-44.Guelzo, Allen C. McKitrick, "The Good Loser." The New York Review of Books,November 29, 2 1, 47(19), p. Guelzo, "Lincoln and the Abolitionists," The WilsonQuarterly, Autumn 2 , 24(4), pp. The critical difference betweenthese two men was that whereas Lincoln was a man of the people, Davis wasnot; their challenges were remarkably similar, but their responses to thosechallenges were substantially different.[41] Lincoln emerges from this discussion (as he did from the War itself)as the clear-cut victor. In 1862, an admirer wrote "hebears the marks of greatness because above all, the gentleman is apparent,the thorough, high-bred, polished gentleman."[2 ] Time proved thatappearances were deceptive. 425.[38] Ibid., p. Some Democrats criticized Lincoln as adictator who had suspended the writ of habeas corpus without Congressionalauthority and arrested thousands of innocent citizens. He dealt with the at times vituperativecontempt of the Abolitionists partially by ignoring it and partially byconfronting and condemning the most radical within the Abolitionistranks.[12] Lincoln was a cautious constitutionalist, but he was also a wartimepresident with a very narrowly defined mission. Davis has been described as ill equipped to deal with the discontentthat emerged throughout the Confederacy in 1863. Unfortunately forDavis, the lack of the "common touch" ensured that he would never achievethe degree of support enjoyed by Lincoln from among the ranks of theordinary people.[39]Summary and Conclusions It would be difficult indeed to imagine two men more different thanAbraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. He also insisted on appointing only qualifiedapplicants to government jobs and took what modern managers wouldcharacterize as a "hands on" approach to the task.[8] At various times, Lincoln found himself in direct conflict withRepublicans in the U.S. 46 . In summarizing Davis' leadership qualities, Martin and Roberts pointout that he was a hard-working, but ineffective administrator. His attitudetoward the South was nowhere near as harsh or condemnatory as many wishedit to be. 4 .[24] Ibid.[25] Ibid.[26] Ibid., p. His public or outeropinions were always restrained by his strong pragmatic sense."[16] As a leader, Williams says that Lincoln possessed a deep mysticstrain in his nature and a constant sense of both public and personalfatalism.[17] He accepted the principle of a higher law but did notdemand, as did the radicals and abolitionists in the North, that thishigher law should control all political actions. 62.[15] Ibid., p.64.[16] Ibid., p. Tuttle, A People and a Nation (Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 199 ), p. "Lincoln and the Abolitionists." The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2 , 24(4), pp. New York: Crown, 198 .Williams, T. He wasadministratively competent as an officer and there are no reports that hewas anything other than courageous in action.[22] Davis served the UnitedStates well in the military, in Congress, and in the Cabinet of Pierce.The fundamental difference between Davis and Lincoln was that Davisregarded the rights of states are superior to the rights of the Federalgovernment; to that end, and because of his conviction that slavery wasthen necessary to ensure the economic survival of the South, he foundhimself diametrically opposed to the view of Lincoln. 41.[27] Ibid.[28] Ibid.[29] Ibid.[3 ] William Stadiem, A Class By Themselves (New York: Crown Publishers,198 ), p.13 .[31] Ibid., p. He severed relations with them and becametheir enemy."[33] This is a portrait of a man and a leader that is very different fromhis Union counterpart. (New York:Harper Collins, 1989), p. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, andBraxton Bragg. While Jefferson Davis tried to convince Southerners that the CivilWar was not a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, he did notsucceed.[4 ] Davis lost the support of the ordinary people as the Wardragged on and privations became more and more severe. Harry Williams. 2 3.[11] Ibid., p. BibliographyCarter, Stephen L. 58-63.Johnson, Paul. Congress. He alienated many competent leaders in theConfederacy and many of the generals and higher-level officers on whom thesurvival of the Confederacy depended. He was not well served by many of the decisions madein the field by General Lee, despite the fact that he supported all ofLee's decisions. "The Good Loser." The New York Review of Books, November 29, 2 1, 48(19), pp. Martin and Robertsclaim that Lincoln was successful on both fronts, "but he took many risks,the most dramatic being his announcement of an EmancipationProclamation."[6] William K. Martin andRoberts quote Lincoln saying to his generals, "we have the greater numbers"and "if superior forces could break through at different points at the sametime" the South could be disemboweled from the inside.[13] Thus, Lincolnwas not only a shrewd politician, but also a man possessed of aninstinctive understanding of what it would take to defeat the Confederacyin the Civil War. That Lincoln enjoyed an economic andindustrial infrastructure that Davis did not possess contributed to theFederal victory, but it was not the only or perhaps even the primary causeof that victory. Harry Williams, P.G.T. Martin and Randy Roberts, America and Its People. Unlike the rangy, ill-clothed, and physically awkward Lincoln,Jefferson Davis looked like a president. During his presidency, he also gave agreat deal of attention to diplomatic relations with foreign powers inwhich his objective was to keep European nations from supporting theConfederacy. 457.[7] William K. Others felt thatLincoln acted with a much heavier hand than was needed in quellingdissent.[37] If Jefferson Davis lacked the common touch, Abraham Lincoln did not.Though minutely involved in the day-to-day operation of the nationalgovernment and the war effort, Lincoln used letters to newspapers and tosoldiers' families to reach the common people and demonstrate that he hadnot forgotten them.[38] Unlike the more remote Davis, Lincoln identifiedwith the pain and suffering of the common people for whom the Civil War wasa tragedy. Onall measures of leadership, Davis cannot compete. 24 .[35] M.B. "The Emancipation Proclamation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Presidency: Lincoln's Model of Statesmanship." Perspectives on Political Science, Fall 1999, 28(4), pp. Beauregard, Davis ultimatelyrealized that he needed to pacify Beauregard and quiet his own critics inorder to raise popular morale.[34] Lincoln also had on any number of occasions, to cope with thepersonalities of his generals. His leadership, focused on a single andlegitimate objective, was far more successful than that of Jefferson Davis. 245.[1 ] David Livingstone, "The Emancipation Proclamation, the Declaration ofIndependence, and the Presidency: Lincoln's Model of Statesmanship."Perspectives on Political Science, Fall 1999, 28(4), p. Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation,1861-1865 (New York: Viking, 2 1), p. At the same time, Williams also notes that President Davis was attimes a smarter politician than his enemies credited him with being.Having fallen into a dispute with P.G.T. Sucha valuation is, more often than not, based on sound and substantialevidence. He was austere andprivate by nature and not able to communicate with the masses - a traitthat Lincoln possessed in abundance. He did notdelegate authority and became immersed in details or "micro-managing." Hesurrounded himself with weak assistants. To that end, he was willingto compromise when necessary and to be firm when necessary.[18]Jefferson Davis If Abraham Lincoln was a man of the people, Jefferson Davis was a man from an elite class. Nevertheless, Davis was much less willingto compromise than was Lincoln. 39.[23] Ibid., p. History, it is generally recognized, tends to regard"winners" in any contest as superior to those who "lose" the contest. A Class By Themselves. cit., p. He had noformal schooling, had spent his childhood in poverty before succeeding as acountry lawyer, had served only one term in Congress, and his militaryexperience was limited to a brief duty as a militia captain in the BlackHawk War of 1832.[4] Nevertheless, despite his unprepossessing appearance,Lincoln was ultimately regarded even by many of his enemies or opponents ashaving a profound ability to reflect and think through the implications ofproposed actions, and then to move forward decisively. During histenure in the U.S. Further, Davis failed to create an adequate policy forraising the revenue needed to fight the war and failed to generate adequatesupport from European nations sympathetic to the Confederate cause.[29] It is the belief of William Stadiem that Davis' best moments as aleader did not come during his time as the president of the Confederacy butin the years after the Civil War ended.[3 ] Incarcerated for a period ofyears after the defeat of the South, Davis endured horrible conditions withgreat dignity and won a martyr's reputation throughout the South. Army. Harry. 2 3-21 .McKitrick, Eric L. Martin and Randy Roberts, op. 447.[2 ] Ibid.[21] Ibid., p. Davis was fortunate in having at his disposal a number ofexcellent field commanders including Robert E. For that, we must look to the appeal of Lincoln's idealsand the spirit of the Union itself. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983.-----------------------[1] Stephen Carter, "Lincoln's America," Books & Culture, July 2 1, 7 (4),p. The Leadership Styles of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson DavisIntroduction During the upheaval of the American Civil War, the Union and theConfederacy were lead by two very different men, Abraham Lincoln andJefferson Davis. A History of the American People. Davis, in contrast, had little use for any who disagreed with himand may have impeded his own pause because of this characteristic. He was particularly attacked on hisefforts to conciliate the border states to prevent them from joining theConfederacy. 6 -61.[19] James K. McKitrick believes that Davis was notanywhere nearly as well served either by his generals or his politicalfollowers as was Lincoln.[27] Davis enjoyed an advantage as a leader that Lincoln did not have. 422.[37] Ibid., p. Lincoln was the superior leader and,it must be admitted, the superior thinker, commander, and politician. His greatest accomplishments had been those ofthe mind; his mind was the one thing of which he could be proud."[32] Atthe same time, Davis was vain and sought both applause and flattery. LikeLincoln, he believed that he was working to achieve a vision and toaccomplish a mission that was ordained as moral by a supernatural being andaffirmed by history and tradition.[26] Also like Lincoln, Davis took amajor role in shaping military strategy; his own military service, however,may have at least superficially rendered him more able in this area thanLincoln. Senate, he attempted to stave off secession; however, asa Southerner and a planter, he found that he had to cast his lot with theSouth.[25] Like Lincoln, Davis gave his best to the job of president. He appears to have regarded criticism ofhimself, his friends, and his politics as almost a crime. 451.[14] T. Lincoln, confronted with ongoing opposition to his policies aspresident, nevertheless used his leadership abilities to hold rivalfactions together and achieved a stunning victory on behalf of the Union. [23] Davis was, by all accounts, an impatient man who easily becameenraged with others. As it became apparent that the tide of the war had turned irrevocablyagainst the Confederacy, some Southerners struck out against JeffersonDavis. He was able to communicate his sense of shared suffering andthis ability helped to contain Northern discontent. Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, 1861-1865." New York: Viking, 2 1.Livingstone, David. Just as there were manyin the North who resented Lincoln for precisely these characteristics,there were many in the South who hated and despised Jefferson Davis. Chudacoff, T.G.Patterson, and W.M. If he could not convince opponents of their errors, he did nottry to conciliate or compromise. Despitehis cold formality, along with his ability to disarm critics as Lincoln didon so many occasions, Davis possessed the leadership virtues of irondetermination and total dedication to a mission. That mission was to win awar and to that end Lincoln was willing to use any and all weapons at hisdisposal. Perhaps most tellingly, he was not an inspirational leader -something the South desperately needed after war weariness set in anddefeat piled up on top of defeat.[21] Eric McKitrick asserts that Davis revealed a very good understandingof military strategy during his time in the U.S. Hecontinued to provide strong leadership and drove through the Confederatelegislature measures that gave the Confederacy a fighting chance. Martin and Randy Roberts, op. 131.[32] T. Harry. Lincoln appears to have been capable of anddetermined upon conciliating the disparate groups with whom he was forcedto work. Lincoln understood as aleader that man was imperfect and he tolerated imperfection in many ofthose officials and military officers upon him he depended. Beauregard. 67.[33] Ibid.[34] Ibid., p. Heretained the loyalty of the Southern people and the Confederate Congresseven when the war effort went badly. T. 424.[39] Ibid.[4 ] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. Lincoln made reference inhis speeches and particularly in the Emancipation Proclamation not to theConstitution, but to the Declaration of Independence. 421.[36] Ibid., p. This is a critical difference betweenthese two leaders, each of whom held the highest office available in theirown separate regions. 458.[41] Ibid., p. 41.[9] Ibid., p. Escott, H.P. The former was the product of thecommon people, whereas the latter was from among the Southern aristocracy.Lincoln, despite his lack of military service and education, wasnevertheless a more able commander-in-chief than the far more experiencedDavis. Williams argues that those of hiscontemporaries who viewed Lincoln as a good but not particularly bright manwere patently wrong.[15] By temperament, Lincoln was tolerant, patient,and nonsensorious. A People & a Nation. As "old Abe," Lincoln "emerged as an inspirational leader in theNorth's drive for victory."[5] Further, Lincoln took a lead role indirecting military matters, virtually hand-picking the military leaders whowould forge a victory for the Union. Williamscontends that "he loved to dispute even theoretical points to win a logicalvictory.... 2 4.[12] Allen C. His conscription policies that required young boys, old men, andslaves to serve in the Army was perceived by many as subversive of statepolicies.[35] Many Southerners refused to comply with forced conscription,but the Southern courts ultimately upheld Davis' power to conscript. However, Davis did not deploy these human resources in anywhere nearas wise a fashion as did Lincoln. In the case of Lincoln and Davis, this report will demonstratethat the former was a superior leader possessed of many of the traits andqualities needed for success in a crisis, while the latter (though aremarkable intellect and tactician) lacked some critical characteristicsand attributes which could have improved his performance if not the outcomeof the War.Lincoln's Leadership Stephen Carter has stated that "most serious historians will insistthat Abraham Lincoln was, on a variety of measures, America's greatestpresident."[1] At the same time, debate continues to rage as to whether ornot Lincoln is best remembered as a hero, a genius and a visionary, or avague, passive, even pusillanimous man "more shaped by the tumultuousevents of his era than a shaper of them."[2] Nevertheless, Carter believesthat to understand Lincoln and to evaluate him as a leader, it is necessaryto understand that Lincoln believed America was a special place with aunique understanding of the world and a virtually divine vision of itsplace in that world. On the domestic front, Lincoln's legislation was aimed atmaintaining high levels of support for the war effort. Elected to the presidency of theConfederacy by popular mandate against no opposition, Davis appeared topossess superior qualifications.[19] Davis was a wealthy slaveholdersteeped in the tradition of Southern chivalry. Lincoln demanded more of himself and of the nationthan had been asked since the Revolution itself.[3] James Martin and Randy Roberts point out that when Lincoln enteredthe White House, his credentials were viewed as unimpressive. He had a West Pointeducation, had fought in the Mexican War, had served in Congress, and hadbeen Franklin Pierce's Secretary of War from 1853 to 1857. Harry Williams (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), p. Hewas alternatively conciliatory towards his opponents in Congress andsimultaneously determined to tolerate no meaningful dissent on criticalissues. Harry Williams has also discussed the personality and leadershiptraits of Jefferson Davis stating that he "looked like an intellectual andhad the arrogance of one. It is interesting that for a man with no formal training inmilitary strategy, Lincoln was often much more prescient about militarymatters than the West Point graduates that surrounded him. Beauregard (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1955), p. America and Its People. 38.[2] Ibid.[3] Ibid., p. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1955.Williams, T. and Roberts, Randy. Under Pierce as Secretary of War,Davis had been a "purposeful, imaginative, and energeticadministrator."[24] He helped reorganize the Union Army, embraced newweapons and technology, and yet was a supreme micro-manager. He held strong opinions on allsubjects and was invariably rude with those who disagreed with hisopinions. Norton, D.M. New York: Harper Collins, 1997.Klingaman, William K. 448.[22] Eric L. The simple "country boy" out-thought, outfought, and outwitted hisopponent in every important way. 58-59.[13] James K. 3 .[8] Ibid., p. By nature, he was practical, moderate, and gradual.Williams claims that Lincoln's "political beliefs or what might be termshis inner opinions were based firmly on principle. "Lincoln's America." Books & Culture, July 2 1, 7(4), pp. The Selected Essays of T. Harry Williams, The Selected Essays of T. Lincoln was alsochallenged by this problem, but he managed to overcome it and to foster atruly remarkable degree of unity among the ordinary people - for whom hebecame a martyr upon his assassination. His solicitude was misinterpreted as weakness and it was withsome surprise that the Republicans in Congress and in the border stateslearned that beneath the velvet glove was a clenched fist.[9] According to David Livingstone, Abraham Lincoln was first and foremosta statesman whose entire tenure in the White House was focused on a singlegoal: ensuring the survival of the Union.[1 ] Livingstone also believesthat Lincoln exhibited political prudence, a prudence of the Aristotleansense of the term or meaning a faculty for knowing man's proper and highestpolitical end and the means to achieve that end. Katzman, P.D. For long stretches of time, Davisburied himself in military affairs or administrative matters and his classperspective also distanced him from the sufferings of the common people.The end result was that he began to lose the support of the plain folk.[36] At the same time that Davis was beginning to lose some of theconfidence of the Southerners, Lincoln was also experiencing difficultieswith his opponents in the North. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.