The following is an essay I wrote for my Civil War class.
Isaac McPheeters
Professor Jennifer Webber
History 412, Final Essay
December 8, 2007
A Nation of Leaders: North and South
We have talked quite a bit about political and military leadership this semester. How critical was this in bringing the nation to war, in determining the outcome of the war, and in shaping Reconstruction?
The traditional view of history is often one of a “top–down” perspective, saying “Lee fought Meade here in July” even though the men never actually engaged in combat themselves. Many historians counter this with a “bottom–up” perspective which focuses more on the men who actually did the fighting. These historians are right to not disregard the soldiers who fought in the mud and filth (and you could argue won or lost the war). However, there is genuine merit in looking at history from a top–down perspective, especially when considering the men who were in high–ranking positions of leadership. There is a very good reason that often times history (particularly military and political history) is presented from this top–down view, a view that shows us the perspectives of the leaders of these men. The fact of the matter is that you don’t get the Lincoln administration without Lincoln, nor do you get the Army of North Virginia without Lee. History is not just a random series of events driving people. Leaders rise up with their ideas and shape the world for good or bad sometimes on a small scale, sometimes on a large. This was the case with the civil war in both the North and the South. Before, during, and after the war, leaders with their skills in communication, decision–making, and their sense of responsibility are what became the major factor of the war.
In the antebellum era, various figures of political and social clout were influencing the age with their ideas and actions. John C. Calhoun was one of the most influential politicians during this time, and much of this was because of his power with communicating his views. A senator from South Carolina, he was a strong proponent of white supremacy and of the slave trade saying in 1848 “With us, the two great divisions of society are not the rich and the poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class…” These words are largely definitive of the Herrenvolk Democracy that abided in the South, and Calhoun’s words were taken to heart by many Southerners.
Calhoun was extremely influential on the people of his day with his decisions and influence. Often times, his skills in communication went along with his decisions in the Senate. When David Wilmot made his proposal of the Wilmot Proviso which would restrict the territories like New Mexico from having slavery, Calhoun took his stand. He pointed out that slaves were property and that the federal Congress had no right to deny citizens to take their property with them into other states.
Like Calhoun, Senator Henry Clay also had huge impacts on the country. A chief of the Whig party, and known as the “Great Pacificator”, he would go on to provide many compromises between the radicals of both North and South so as to preserve peace and union in the country. He provided the Compromise of 1850, solving the disputes of the territories of New Mexico and Texas as well as the issue of slavery in the District of Columbia. This compromise extended the life of the antebellum period by another ten years. This alone was significant in stalling the war a little further. Had not put forth this compromise, then a civil war might very well have taken place but in a time without Lincoln as President.
Looking at examples of Henry Clay and John. C. Calhoun, there arise various equivalent skills between them. Both men showed how decisions that they made influenced not only their respective offices, but also public opinion.
During the war, many leaders were very influential on both fronts in areas of morale, army discipline, and of course victories. They had different methods and various strengths, yet nonetheless the strengths of a leader had to show in nearly all of them in order for them to be effective.
In the South, it could easily be argued that without General Robert E. Lee, the Southern cause would have been lost much earlier. His military genius gave the Confederacy victories which kept the morale high and kept the Union forces at bay. A result, his men had incredible faith in his ability to win battles. After the battle of Gettysburg, he had to retreat across the Potomac after suffering losses of over 28,000 casualties. Still, the morale of the men was very good because of the faith they had in Lee. This faith in his leadership was not without just cause.
Lee was a man of initiative who could make decisions and win battles. In the battle of Chancellorsville, he split his army not once, but twice. He knew it was an extremely risky venture, but it was a decision he deemed necessary, and he gained one of the greatest victories in military history which is still studied today.
Lee had a great sense of responsibility. This was best exhibited after Picket’s Charge at the battle of Gettysburg. The charge had failed, and Lee rode out to the returning men to console them and confess that the fault was his. He knew that there were other factors involved in the defeat, but as commanding general, he took the blame upon himself and acknowledged that he was not infallible.
Lee also encouraged good communication between his officers and himself. Lee was known as being very gentle, though firm and could appropriately reprimand his commanders without humiliating them. He also had the ability to build good relations with Jefferson Davis (something that was lacking between Davis and General Johnston) as well as his fellow generals. The victory at Chancellorsville was very much due to the coordinated strategy of Lee’s plan and General (Stonewall) Jackson’s excellent implementation.
Not all of the generals in the civil war were as successful as leaders in these areas, however. General George McClellan, though not the worse general in the war by any means had an enormous impact on the initial phases of the war, much of it negative .
In early 1860, to call the federal army an army was generous to say the least. Militias in the North were lacking in discipline, and soldiers were ill prepared for the grueling task of bringing the confederacy to its knees. McClellan was very good at organizing the army and outfitting it with the right materials and supplies. He made sure that the soldiers learned how to march and drilled accordingly. He also instilled in his men a great love for their general, and he was known for caring deeply for his “boys”. He served a valuable purpose in the first part of the war by setting up the army for his successors like Meade and Grant by giving them a disciplined, well–trained fighting force.
Unfortunately, McClellan’s skills on the field of battle were lacking in areas relating to critical decision–making as well as initiative. In the area of leadership decisions, his character flaws handicapped him. His fear of losing battles led him to a strategy of winning by avoiding defeat. He would frequently break off engagements declaring that the enemy far outnumbered him and that he needed more supplies and more men before engaging. This fear of failure had huge ramifications at various times of the war. Many times, he would simply not lead his men into battle. He wasted time during the Summer of 1862 and refused to fight, neglecting the days when the roads were good. During his campaign to capture Richmond, he was overly cautious and overestimated the enemy time and time again. Not only that, but he underestimated his own men, reporting he needed reinforcements and could not send more than 80,000 men into battle, while three weeks earlier, he had declared to his wife he had over 100,000 active soldiers. A rare opportunity was lost when one of his men found a copy of Lee’s plans; the general had an opportunity to break the Confederate lines, but his fear still restrained him, and he did not take the chance to move quickly.
Not only did he make poor decisions, but he also refused to accept responsibility for them. He was constantly blaming others for failure, saying he had done all that he could. He once sent a telegram to Washington requesting 50,000 more men. Three days later, he said he required 100,000. One telegram to the government in Washington said “If I save this Army now I tell you plainly that I owe no thanks to you or any other persons in Washington—you have done your best to sacrifice this army.” When he did not get all that he asked, the result was that anyone who disagreed with him was called a traitor including General Winfield Scott who, before, was McClellan’s mentor. Later when McClellan did not get his way, he wrote to his wife “I do not know whether he [Scott] is a dotard or a traitor!”
This attitude resulted in a breakdown in communication and any chance of well working relations with Lincoln or Congress. He did not give the president or other commanders inside information to his plans, considering them too inept as to understand, thus disintegrating the connection with both his superiors and his subordinates. His fear of failure, a rejection of responsibility for his failures, and his breakdown of communication cost him his command.
It was not only military leadership that made a difference in this war however. Abraham Lincoln carried the bulk of the political issues during the. He not only had to re–unite the country, but he also had to unite the newly formed Republican party. The party consisted of Whigs, Democrats, Know–Nothings, Free–Soilers, and abolitionists, and this was the party that was going to re–unite the country. In many ways, this helped Lincoln because he was able to stress unity to his party as well as to his country. Everyone had various standpoints on a number of policies concerning how to win the war, when to win the war, and what to do with the union. To maintain a platform that would not divide up the North, Lincoln decided, “My policy is to have no policy.”
Lincoln would think on his decisions as a leader, and act on them. On the subject of emancipation, Lincoln was extremely skilled in making effective policies that would hold up and not get voted down by conservatives (or even radical abolitionists). His initial stance was one of containing the slave trade. In his first Inaugural Address, he stated that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed. This satisfied moderates and many northern democrats, though it was not enough to hold the Union together. Eventually, as the war progressed and it became evident that the slaves were the backbone of the Southern economy, Lincoln moved closer to sine qua non as far as emancipation was concerned, that reunion and emancipation were essential for the survival to the country. The fact that he pushed emancipation as a war effort allowed him to take measures that congress was not yet ready to take, thus furthering the cause of the blacks. His decisions required precision and excellent timing.
As many great leaders, Lincoln was no stranger to the importance of great communication with people as well as good relations with members of different parties. He was able to articulate his ideas and vision for the country in a way that gave people a cause for which to fight. The Gettysburg address was one such event. He spoke of a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…” The war was about union, but also freedom. This gave the North a vision, unified the people and steeled their resolve. The Federals had just won a great victory against Lee’s army, and Northerners’ outlook on the war changed. This even had an effect on people overseas like John Stuart Mill who then felt that a victory for the Confederacy “would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of its friends all over the civilized world.”
Lincoln was also very aware of his responsibilities as commander in chief of the Northern armies. Late at night, he would be up studying war manuals and other articles of war, educating himself on matters so as to be able to critique his commanding generals. He initially held a view that the President should not be so involved with military tactics, that such issues were best left to men of expertise such as secretaries of war and navy. However, his episode with McClellan forced him to become more involved as commander and take a more active role. He was willing to face the nation in times of defeat and bear the burden accompanying that pressure, and he faced the nation in victory with speeches like the Gettysburg address.
When the war had officially ended, the issue of reconstruction arose. Days before Lincoln was shot, he spoke of binding up the nation’s wounds. His death prevented this leader from continuing to influence the country in this matter, and a new leader took his place who had a profound impact on what happened from that point on.
Andrew Johnson, a democrat from North Carolina and the only Southern senator to remain with the union, rose through the ranks until he became vice–president under Lincoln and then to become President of the United States. His administration is often considered a failure, but he is nevertheless one of the most influential presidents in American history.
Some might say it was a lack of decisions that hindered his leadership, but a failure to act is indeed a decision. He nearly abandoned Lincoln’s commitment to the freedmen by allowing states like Virginia to rejoin the union without the states declaring suffrage for blacks. When Southern states enacted the black codes, (laws that closely mirrored an oppression of slavery), Johnson looked the other way. Not only that, but he felt that the Freedman’s bureau was unconstitutional and vetoed the bill extending its life. Eventually, Congress became so opposed to him that they would override vetoes made by him, and he came within one vote of impeachment.
Needless to say, he had very poor skills with relating to various parties. As a leader of the country, Johnson was very divisive. While his predecessor was also a divisive leader by mere fact that he had views on slavery, Lincoln did all that he could to unite the country as well as work with a diversified congress. Johnson on the other hand, in an attempt to ally with the democrats, alienated himself from the republicans to the point of calling radical abolitionists traitors.
He had a sense of responsibility, but he handled it very poorly. In a move that was unheard of in that day and age, he went through the countryside trying to appeal to people. He felt himself something of a savior for the nation and compared himself to Jesus Christ, saying he would spill his blood for the country if necessary.
Johnson’s administration is very much one of missed opportunities. He could have pushed civil rights much further for the freedmen, but his character of hatred to the black population prevented that. His poor decisions and hostile attitude towards the Republican party made him impotent towards the end of his presidency with the inability to veto any laws.
We can see a great deal by examining the issue of leaders before, during, and after the civil war. Individual leaders made important decisions, and their individual styles and methods of leadership varied a great deal, but one can see similarities in ways that they made decisions, worked at relating to people in their circle, and bore the responsibility thrust upon them. With such a complicated war that allowed for many factors to influence its outcome, we could play the “what–if” game all day considering if a single one of these leaders had acted differently. Regardless, there is hardly any group of factors more influential on the outcomes of wars as that of the leaders that shape the country, direct the war, and endeavor to rebuild.
