Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:50 AM ET, 02/ 7/2011

Craig Symonds: Was there a better choice for C.S.A. president than Jefferson Davis?

By Craig Symonds

Professor Emeritus at the United States Naval Academy

Symonds

It is hard to argue that there was a better choice as Confederate president than Jefferson Davis in 1861.There was no shortage of aspirants, especially among the so-called “fire-eaters” who had lobbied so long and so hard for secession. But as a rule, revolutionaries make poor statesman, and once secession became a reality, what the South needed was a statesman. Moreover, Davis had an impeccable pedigree—especially for a society engaged in war. He was a West Point graduate, a hero of the Mexican War, a former Secretary of War, and a former chairman of the Senate Military Affairs committee. It would be hard to find anyone with a better resume as a war president.

Once the war turned sour, however, Davis became the target of criticism, and that criticism turned especially bitter in the post-war years. One of the claims of the Lost Cause interpretation of history was that Davis’s poor leadership had contributed to, or even caused, Confederate defeat. This, however, was more a reflection of the South’s disappointment than of Davis’s weaknesses.

To be sure, Davis comes off second best in any comparison with Abraham Lincoln.
In a well-known essay written half a century ago, the late historian David M. Potter asserted that the outcome of the Civil War might have been reversed if the two sides had simply exchanged chief executives. No doubt Potter meant his statement to be deliberately provocative, but his assertion reflects the view of most historians that while Lincoln was a great president, Jefferson Davis was merely a good one, and that “good” was not enough to overcome the inherent difficulties the South faced in the war.

Jefferson Davis had to create both a government and a military establishment from scratch; his nascent country lacked a mature industrial base that could produce the tools of modern war; and the South had a smaller population and no Navy. Moreover, he had to fight a total war as the head of a society that avowed the virtues of limited government.

Lincoln, too, faced unprecedented problems. But during the war, his political skills allowed him to meet and master those problems—including military problems—that bedeviled and defeated Jefferson Davis. Indeed, it is the near-universal judgment of historians that the inexperienced Lincoln was a better natural leader than his well-prepared and experienced southern counterpart. Lincoln was pragmatic and flexible while Davis tended to be dogmatic and ideological. Worse, Davis clung to favored advisers (and generals), even after their effectiveness or political viability came into question.

A comparison of Lincoln and Davis suggests rather strongly that temperament is more important than experience or expertise in a president.


By Craig Symonds  | February 7, 2011; 9:50 AM ET
Categories:  Views  | Tags:  Craig Symonds  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dennis Frye: Was there a better choice for C.S.A. president than Jefferson Davis?
Next: Waite Rawls: Was there a better choice for C.S.A. president than Jefferson Davis?

Comments

military experience is fine. However, in a chief executive, one often has to delegate matters to a general. Davis was too often unable to do this and often micromanaged. there was no overall CSA general in chief (with Lee in command only in virginia).

Davis' greatest flaw (and where Lincoln was different) was in his continuing appointment of his political cronies in military positions. the worst example was Braxton Bragg whom Davis kept bringing back after repeated failures. so, Davis may have felt he knew better.

Contrast that with Lincoln (whose only military experience was a short term in the IL militia) who would appoint generals, and then remove them until he landed upon the winning team of Grant, Sherman, etc.

Posted by: malcolmyoung1 | February 7, 2011 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company