The job of Commander in Chief during times of war is exceptionally difficult; leading the nation through Civil War was a monumental task. Both Lincoln and Davis led their governments through enormous military build-ups and four hard years of war. When Davis was inaugurated, he had no standing military; by the end of the war, 800,000 men had served the Confederacy. Lincoln also saw his military grow; by war's end over 2, 000, 000 men had fought for the Union.{242} Add to this rapid expansion the problems of dealing with stubborn, sometimes insubordinate generals, and uncooperative governors and the enormity of the job becomes even more evident. Comparing the leadership and command methods they used to deal with these problems is worthwhile even today. Many of the same qualities that defined an effective Commander in Chief in the Civil War are still valid today, and many of the lessons they learned had a direct impact on the relationship between the military and its civilian leadership today.
A good example of a lesson learned in the Civil War that remains true is the perception that prior military and government experience is necessary for an effective Commander in Chief. While this may be desirable, it should not be the main discriminator when choosing a Commander in Chief as some believe even today. Davis was well educated, highly experienced in the federal government, and a leader of troops in combat. Davis's considerable skill in organization allowed the Confederacy to field a military and defeat the initial Union attack at Bull Run, all in only five months. Davis also showed early in the war that he could be proud and stubborn, and exhibited these qualities throughout the war to the detriment of the Confederate war effort. Lincoln had none of Davis's formal qualifications, and was considered by many, even some of his own cabinet, to be well meaning but incompetent. Lincoln's talents were his understanding of people and his ability to see beyond the latest setback to his goal of restoring the Union. Lincoln had numerous setbacks during the first years of the war, but never considered anything less than restoration of the Union. His skill in influencing people allowed him to utilize the talents of people who disliked or disregarded him.
As Commanders in Chief, both men again exhibited different talents and flaws when dealing with their generals. Davis made the initial mistake of not having a General in Chief, but more than made up for that when he appointed Robert E. Lee to the job in early 1862. He and Lee worked very well together, but he "temporarily" put Lee in charge of the Army of Virginia in addition to his General in Chief duties. Lee remained in command of the army in his home state for the duration of the war. By putting his General in Chief in a field command, Davis lost his services as an impartial commander of the entire Army. He also attempted to take on those duties himself, and was unable to give the government and the military the time each required.
Lincoln's General in Chief woes are known well enough to be the subject of several books. Lincoln had four Generals in Chief and six commanders of the Army of the Potomac. He and Secretary of War Stanton also took a turn at the role of General in Chief, but abandoned that idea in a few months. Lincoln was constantly concerned with the safety of Washington, and maintained direct command of the Army of the Potomac until just prior to Gettysburg in 1863. This was an inefficient command structure, with a field commander receiving orders from both the President and the General in Chief, and Lincoln should have fixed the problem sooner than he did. He did not completely trust a General in Chief to protect Washington until he appointed Grant in 1864. Even when Grant was in charge, Lincoln considered recalling him from the field to personally take command of the Washington defenses when Early made his raid in 1864, but Grant dissuaded him.
Both sides were forced to resort to conscription to keep their manning levels high enough to prosecute the war. This was new to America, and both Lincoln and Davis faced challenges from the states. Both men engaged in fairly protracted constitutional debates with a troublesome governor. Working with the handicap of the Confederacy's commitment to states' rights, Davis was still very effective in responding to Governor Brown of Georgia. Unlike Lincoln, Davis published his opinions of conscription in a pamphlet, taking his argument directly to the people of the Confederacy. Knowing he could not force Georgia to comply if their Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, this method probably helped erode Brown's popular support in Georgia. By the time the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law, Brown had lost support from both his legislature and the Court. Lincoln faced riots in New York, and his firm handling allowed the draft to continue in New York as well as the other states. Although he wrote a paper specifically outlining his opinions on the draft, he never published it. This suggests he wished to keep his distance from the unpopular law, much as his Provost-Marshal-General advised him to do with calls for new troops. Lincoln did, however, show great political skill in his choice of General Dix to resume the draft in New York.
Each man had unique strengths and weaknesses, each was effective in certain capacities as Commander in Chief. Davis's initial achievements were impressive, however he was unable to continue this success over the course of the war. The Confederacy's victories in the first year of the war were due in large part to his organizational skills. The high point for the Confederate military effort was the fall of 1862, when Davis and Lee planned and executed a two pronged attack into Kentucky and Maryland. These campaigns were timed to influence the Union elections, and were brilliant and politically successful. Although Davis was never able to achieve this level of success again, he maintained the war effort for two and a half more years. Without him, the existence of the Confederacy would likely have been very much shorter.
Lincoln started slowly, but grew into the role of Commander in Chief. He persevered through the initial defeats, always keeping the goal of reunification in sight. This was one of the keys to his effectiveness; he never gave up. Lincoln himself said "I intend to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or I am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me."{243} This vision and determination, combined with his ability to understand and influence people enabled him to persevere through defeats and personnel changes until he had a General in Chief he trusted completely. Once Grant arrived, Lincoln began to back out of the routine operations of the military. Realizing the end of the war was approaching, he began planning for the peace to follow. Lincoln's vision allowed him to shift his efforts to the impending post-war difficulties rather than merely sit back and await them, a crucial quality in a Commander in Chief.
Both men have been extensively studied, and both exhibited qualities that are valuable today. Davis was effective in the initial stages, Lincoln survived early setbacks and allowed nothing to stand in the way of restoring the Union. Each side eventually adopted a strategy that reflected its leaders; the Confederacy tried in vain for the glorious, climactic battle that would end the war, the Union finally winning with slow, relentless advances. Both men struggled to hold together a coalition of states, and in doing so created the powerful type of federal government we have today. Because of the conflict these two men waged, the American government and military became what it is today.