Chester Hearn, believes that although Abraham Lincoln was one of America’s most venerable statesmen, his presidency was marked by flaws and a general misunderstanding of how war is waged. McPherson’s Tried by War and Hearn’s Lincoln, The Cabinet and the Generals, make the argument for each of these theories about Lincoln. When read together, one is faced with the question as to what degree Lincoln succeeded in combining military strategy with the politics of war. Hearn fails to find such a connection his book. McPherson, on the other hand, argues more convincingly that Lincoln accomplished the tasks of defeating the Confederacy and of freeing the slaves by combining these two tasks into one.
Abraham Lincoln is perhaps one of the most interesting characters to have ever graced the American political arena and presidency. He is most noteworthy, obviously, for his role in saving the United States from its own destruction and the eradication of the vile Southern tradition of slavery. However, upon deeper inspection, one finds there was much more to Lincoln than his political achievements. Throughout his years as a politician, there's a noticeable shift in terms of his character, and political persona. He seems to go from ambitious and boisterous to being more solemn and reserved.
During the civil war there were few opportunities greater to watch genius of war time procedures and tactics than of the accounts of a particular northern Union General, William Techumseh Sherman. Marked by the examples of great victory and tactical intelligence his legacy the Shiloh counterattack and the “March to the sea” campaigns were most regarded. Because of his implementation of total warfare during his campaigns, Sherman played a large role in the victory of the Union. In the two text I chose for this essay the General is regarded in two very different aspects, in “The General Who Marched Through Hell” by Earl Shenick Miers, General Sherman’s mental state and struggles are vividly pointed out. (Miers 1951) While in “Sherman’s March”
Ulysses S. Grant was able to win the Civil War for the Union and surpass his predecessors due to his superior military experience and background, appropriate tactics, and better knowledge. Up until 1863, Grant did not own a job as a main leader of the Union, so his strategies had less of an impact. However, in 1863, Lincoln saw his skill and appointed him to full control of the Western Army of the Union. This was just in time before the Battle of Chattanooga. Grant was given full control of the army in 1864, when he began his final campaign to end the war (Simpson).
Even though he didn’t have the military education or experience as his counterpart Confederate President Jefferson Davis (1808-1889), he continued his abilities as a fearless leader by becoming a student of... ... middle of paper ... ...both Lincoln and Davis were reared in a Democratic atmosphere; Lincoln emerged as a Whig, Davis remained a Democrat. Both their interests in public affairs were continuously growing, before and up until the end of the Civil War. As leaders of their respective people during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis faced similar problems and coped with similar issues. The solutions to their problems and the policies devised and followed by the two men were added up by the actions of their generals and the crippling economies fighting for what was considered right in America. In general, the ideas of Lincoln and of Davis stemmed from the same Anglo-American source; and frequently the ideas of both men echoed those expressed by their common American forebears and contemporaries.
In a sense the Northern economy ran itself. Fortunately for Lincoln, Northern... ... middle of paper ... ...s (including Grant) on a leash, for appointing the final winning military team, for picking able administrative subordinates, and for knowing how to delegate. Davis, on the other hand is often seen as austere, rigid, humourless and prone to making enemies: his feuds with two of his top generals, Beauregard and Joe Johnston, undoubtedly harmed the Southern war effort. Lincoln's superiority to Davis might seem self- evident. But Lee could think of no Confederate leader who had done a better job than Davis.
Yoel Shernofsky Lincoln and Washington are usually the top two admired Presidents of the USA’s presidential history. However, they do not have as many similarities in their career as presidents. One would expect that their leadership styles would be similar being they are the two presidents who were in office and in charge at the time of two most famous American Wars, which in fact both fought for federal liberty. But however, their similarities have about nothing to do with their presidency Their Military experience affected their leadership. Washington had extensive experience in the military, and became a general to fight in an Indian war.
There are many myths about the American Civil War fought from 1861-1865. One such myth is that the south was forced into action by the tyranny of the north, specifically that of newly elected President Abraham Lincoln. Another was that the war was not about slavery in any way, shape or form; rather, it was a war over a state’s right to govern itself without interference from the federal government. But no other myth has permeated through the decades more than the myth of the Lost Cause, which presupposes the inevitability of defeat to the Union army. The term was first coined by journalist Edward Pollard in his 1866 book entitled “The Lost Cause” (Civil War: A Visual History).
Being a General brought him significant amounts of fame and a nickname “Hickory”. These were earned from the battles he fought in His presidential terms showed the most democratic expectation can sometimes also be the best man for the job, as shown through his political an economical policies. Andrew Jacksons days serving in the military were, by far, some o... ... middle of paper ... ...Creek War). After building his forces back up he moved against the Creek Indians which were concentrated on the Tallapoosa River at Horseshoe Bend. It is here where he decisively defeated the Creek Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and ended the Red Stick resistance.
John Adams, who became the second president of the United States, has been accused by some historians of being the closest thing America ever had to a dictator or monarch (Onuf, 1993). Such strong accusations should be examined in the context of the era in which Mr. Adams lived and served. A closer examination of the historical events occurring during his vice presidency and his term as president, strongly suggests that Adams was not, in fact, a dictator. Indeed, except for his lack of charisma and political charm, Adams had a very successful political career before joining the new national government. He was, moreover, highly sought after as a public servant during the early formation of the new federal power (Ferling, 1992).