This may be the wrong forum but I really wanted to get a response from AACW players.
The two best wartime American Presidents are probably Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt. Both were faced with wars that not only impacted American history but world history. Who was the better wartime President?
The issue that comes to mind for me is the management of leaders (Generals). Mr. Roosevelt seemed to have an uncanny ability to pick the best Generals for the job. While Mr. Lincoln had an almost uncanny ability to pick the worst Generals.
Am I being fair or is it just the cards Mr. Lincoln was dealt? He did the best he could with what he had.
How about the overall management of the wars? Who did better, Lincoln or Roosevelt?
Thanks for the response Black Cat. In the first sentence of my post I acknowledged this may be the wrong forum and explained my reason for posting it. With all do respect, it's not Bush vs Clinton, it's Lincoln vs Roosevelt.
This particular forum is all about history. The little time I've been here I've become amazed at the knowledge of some of the participants. I'm interested in their opinion.
I didn't delve into the politics of the wars. I talked about the military aspects. Specifically who was the better wartime President?
Of course if the Dev's think it's inappropriate they can lock it.
This particular forum is all about history. The little time I've been here I've become amazed at the knowledge of some of the participants. I'm interested in their opinion.
I didn't delve into the politics of the wars. I talked about the military aspects. Specifically who was the better wartime President?
Of course if the Dev's think it's inappropriate they can lock it.
The biggest difference, I think, is not in the ability of the presidents but rather in the skills of the military they inherited.
Pre-Civil War US Army was very small and West Point's program dealt mainly with engineering. Courses on logistics, war production, personnel mobilization, strategy and manuever of large forces were limited or lacking altogether. After WWI the US Army was again reduced in size but a core of officers remained who understood staffwork, intelligence, the operation of large forces and the importance of material production and rapid mobilization of manpower. Plus, the Army and Navy had strategic plans for conducting wars (Plan Orange and Rainbow for example). These officers made mistakes in WWII but they benefited from 70 years of staffwork.
Lincoln showed due deference to the military - perhaps too much - by allowing commanders to fight the first two years of the war pretty much as they wished. Later he (and the War Department) exercised more control, managed expectations better, provided more resources and in general both assisted and prodded the Army on to victory.
Roosevelt faced some of the same political problems as Lincoln (McClellan, MacArthur) but had I think deeper reserves of political capital. Roosevelt had been in office for years; Lincoln was an unknown new-comer. Roosevelt had (with mixed success) already guided the nation through one trauma (the Depression) and, like him or not, the public knew what they were getting. Also, support for the Civil War was divided in the North, with some proposing to let the South go, others reluctant to support Abolitionists and a third group (south Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and parts of Kentucky and Missouri) related to the Confederacy by regional, commercial and social ties. Roosevelt may have taken blame for allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, but the country was united on whether or not to take up the Japanese challenge.
Jefferson Davis was highly respected for his work as Secretary of the War Department and great things were expected from his management. Every check and disappointment seemed to redouble against him because of the initial high expectations. Lincoln may have been 'cut some slack' based on his comparative anonymity at the start of his term.
Pre-Civil War US Army was very small and West Point's program dealt mainly with engineering. Courses on logistics, war production, personnel mobilization, strategy and manuever of large forces were limited or lacking altogether. After WWI the US Army was again reduced in size but a core of officers remained who understood staffwork, intelligence, the operation of large forces and the importance of material production and rapid mobilization of manpower. Plus, the Army and Navy had strategic plans for conducting wars (Plan Orange and Rainbow for example). These officers made mistakes in WWII but they benefited from 70 years of staffwork.
Lincoln showed due deference to the military - perhaps too much - by allowing commanders to fight the first two years of the war pretty much as they wished. Later he (and the War Department) exercised more control, managed expectations better, provided more resources and in general both assisted and prodded the Army on to victory.
Roosevelt faced some of the same political problems as Lincoln (McClellan, MacArthur) but had I think deeper reserves of political capital. Roosevelt had been in office for years; Lincoln was an unknown new-comer. Roosevelt had (with mixed success) already guided the nation through one trauma (the Depression) and, like him or not, the public knew what they were getting. Also, support for the Civil War was divided in the North, with some proposing to let the South go, others reluctant to support Abolitionists and a third group (south Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and parts of Kentucky and Missouri) related to the Confederacy by regional, commercial and social ties. Roosevelt may have taken blame for allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, but the country was united on whether or not to take up the Japanese challenge.
Jefferson Davis was highly respected for his work as Secretary of the War Department and great things were expected from his management. Every check and disappointment seemed to redouble against him because of the initial high expectations. Lincoln may have been 'cut some slack' based on his comparative anonymity at the start of his term.
Caesar wrote:This particular forum is all about history. The little time I've been here I've become amazed at the knowledge of some of the participants. I'm interested in their opinion.
I'd like to disagree politely. I believe this belongs in the 'ACW History Club' as this forum is about AACW the game, and not ACW or related historical things. The point is interesting, but I also think you'd get better response there as it is a forum designed for such things.
I think Director summed it up nicely, with several salient observations.
Both presidents were men of destiny, whose experience shaped them for the challenges they faced.
In a nut shell, I would give the nod to Lincoln because I believe that the precipice of the Civil War was a greater danger to the Republic than WWII. Our chances for failure were greater. Our technological hurdles were more significant (transport, communication, etc.). Fascism was an incredible threat to democracy, but the military balances were in our favor once our war machine caught up to the Germans in terms of production.
Also, without Lincoln, there would have likely been no Roosevelt. This would be a good subject for a comparative study.
Re: Jeff Davis: I have a great book "Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West" I recommend it highly. It covers significant ground related to most of the generals used in the game.
Both presidents were men of destiny, whose experience shaped them for the challenges they faced.
In a nut shell, I would give the nod to Lincoln because I believe that the precipice of the Civil War was a greater danger to the Republic than WWII. Our chances for failure were greater. Our technological hurdles were more significant (transport, communication, etc.). Fascism was an incredible threat to democracy, but the military balances were in our favor once our war machine caught up to the Germans in terms of production.
Also, without Lincoln, there would have likely been no Roosevelt. This would be a good subject for a comparative study.
Re: Jeff Davis: I have a great book "Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West" I recommend it highly. It covers significant ground related to most of the generals used in the game.
'Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.'
-
mark1baker
- Civilian
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:59 pm
- Location: Hexham, UK
Lincoln's political position in 1861 was far weaker than FDR's in 1941. as Director says, the USA was firmly behind FDR whereas Lincoln had to try to keep onside a spectrum of opinion from radical Abolitionists to Lower North Butternuts and Peace Democrats.
Again as Director says, keeping Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware in the Union was crucial in the eventual balance of resources between the two sides.
Because of the political presures on him Lincoln was forced to appoint Democratic losers like Butler and McClernand, or generals from ethnic minorities such as Sigel. Would FDR have put up with a McClellan for so long?
McClellan v MacArthur is a good comparison: a measure of FDR's strong political postion is the inconceivability of MacArthur mounting a serious electoral challenge in 1944.
Lincoln had the special talent of being able to work with difficult generals so long as they did the job. Davis admitted himself that he found it hard to disagree with opponents without acrimony.
As a foreigner, I'd say that Lincoln's achievement was the greater.
Again as Director says, keeping Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware in the Union was crucial in the eventual balance of resources between the two sides.
Because of the political presures on him Lincoln was forced to appoint Democratic losers like Butler and McClernand, or generals from ethnic minorities such as Sigel. Would FDR have put up with a McClellan for so long?
McClellan v MacArthur is a good comparison: a measure of FDR's strong political postion is the inconceivability of MacArthur mounting a serious electoral challenge in 1944.
Lincoln had the special talent of being able to work with difficult generals so long as they did the job. Davis admitted himself that he found it hard to disagree with opponents without acrimony.
As a foreigner, I'd say that Lincoln's achievement was the greater.
I for one, think this is a very easy one to answer.
Without Roosevelt, we aren't going to lose WWII. There was little to no chance of that. Whether we get in it in the first place is another story completely, but we had too much weight and talent on our side, plus very strong allies.
Without Lincoln in place at that time, things could go south (No pun intended) very quickly. A president without the immense willpower Lincoln posessed would not have been able to navigate the very stormy waters between the Democrats and Republicans, or to survive the immense defeats suffered regularly early in the war. Not to mention the generals who through the opposition in Congress wielded quite a bit of political clout. A weaker leader would not have had the guts to basically suspend the constitution to keep areas like Maryland in the Union, or to deport and arrest the loudest voices in the opposition. But here's where the balance comes in, a stronger hand, such as Thaddeus Stevens, a rabid abolitionist would have never been able to get either side of the government working together, and even if by some chance, he managed to win the war, his policies would have probably led to even more unrest and resistance in the South afterward.
Lincoln definitely had the harder job, and I believe did a better job of it. And this is from someone who doesn't care much for many of the things he did. In the situation he was in, I simply don't think the job could have been done much better.
Without Roosevelt, we aren't going to lose WWII. There was little to no chance of that. Whether we get in it in the first place is another story completely, but we had too much weight and talent on our side, plus very strong allies.
Without Lincoln in place at that time, things could go south (No pun intended) very quickly. A president without the immense willpower Lincoln posessed would not have been able to navigate the very stormy waters between the Democrats and Republicans, or to survive the immense defeats suffered regularly early in the war. Not to mention the generals who through the opposition in Congress wielded quite a bit of political clout. A weaker leader would not have had the guts to basically suspend the constitution to keep areas like Maryland in the Union, or to deport and arrest the loudest voices in the opposition. But here's where the balance comes in, a stronger hand, such as Thaddeus Stevens, a rabid abolitionist would have never been able to get either side of the government working together, and even if by some chance, he managed to win the war, his policies would have probably led to even more unrest and resistance in the South afterward.
Lincoln definitely had the harder job, and I believe did a better job of it. And this is from someone who doesn't care much for many of the things he did. In the situation he was in, I simply don't think the job could have been done much better.
-
bloodybucket
- Sergeant
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:41 am
- Location: Shoreline, WA
I think Lincoln had to break more new ground than FDR. Lincoln had no tradition of strong federal government or military to draw on, and as noted above, he did this without the unity that FDR enjoyed after Pearl Harbor.
It's an interesting question about FDR putting up with 1940's Little Mac. The US Army had learned from the Civil War and WWI, and was cranking out more leaders trained to think about commanding large formations than the pre ACW West Point did, with a much improved staff system, so he was less likely to get a McClellan.
FDR did well with Marshall, Ike, Nimitz and Dugout Doug, but remember that Marshall picked Ike, and Nimitz was selected by Admiral King, although certainly with FDR's input. MacAurthur wasn't admired by all. Truman wrote:
"...I don't see why in hell Roosevelt didn't order Wainwright home and let MacArthur be a martyr. We'd have had a real General and a fighting man if we had Wainwright and not a play actor and a bunco man such as we have now."
Not the sound of harmony.
The senior ranks of the US military in WWII weren't free of less than stellar leadership. An Army at Dawn: The war in North Africa, 1942-1943, by Rick Atkinson paints a very Civil War like picture of timid commanders getting sacked after a Bull Run style whipping at Kasserine Pass, and the Hurtgen Forest battles have strong echoes of Cold Harbor, or even Fredricksburg. The failure of US intel to spot the German buildup for the "Battle of the Bulge" has a Pinkerton flavor to it.
It's an interesting question about FDR putting up with 1940's Little Mac. The US Army had learned from the Civil War and WWI, and was cranking out more leaders trained to think about commanding large formations than the pre ACW West Point did, with a much improved staff system, so he was less likely to get a McClellan.
FDR did well with Marshall, Ike, Nimitz and Dugout Doug, but remember that Marshall picked Ike, and Nimitz was selected by Admiral King, although certainly with FDR's input. MacAurthur wasn't admired by all. Truman wrote:
"...I don't see why in hell Roosevelt didn't order Wainwright home and let MacArthur be a martyr. We'd have had a real General and a fighting man if we had Wainwright and not a play actor and a bunco man such as we have now."
Not the sound of harmony.
The senior ranks of the US military in WWII weren't free of less than stellar leadership. An Army at Dawn: The war in North Africa, 1942-1943, by Rick Atkinson paints a very Civil War like picture of timid commanders getting sacked after a Bull Run style whipping at Kasserine Pass, and the Hurtgen Forest battles have strong echoes of Cold Harbor, or even Fredricksburg. The failure of US intel to spot the German buildup for the "Battle of the Bulge" has a Pinkerton flavor to it.
-
mark1baker
- Civilian
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:59 pm
- Location: Hexham, UK
Return to “General discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests