Lincoln as Commander in Chief
A self-taught strategist with no combat experience, Abraham Lincoln saw the path to victory more clearly than his generals
- By James M. McPherson
- Smithsonian magazine, January 2009, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 4)
In July 1862, Lincoln decided on a major change in national strategy. Instead of deferring to the border states and Northern Democrats, he would activate the Northern antislavery majority that had elected him and mobilize the potential of black manpower by issuing a proclamation of freedom for slaves in rebellious states—the Emancipation Proclamation. "Decisive and extreme measures must be adopted," Lincoln told members of his cabinet, according to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles. Emancipation was "a military necessity, absolutely necessary to the preservation of the Union. We must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued."
By trying to convert a Confederate resource to Union advantage, emancipation thus became a crucial part of the North's national strategy. But the idea of putting arms in the hands of black men provoked even greater hostility among Democrats and border state Unionists than emancipation itself. In August 1862, Lincoln told delegates from Indiana who offered to raise two black regiments that "the nation could not afford to lose Kentucky at this crisis" and that "to arm the negroes would turn 50,000 bayonets from the loyal border States against us that were for us."
Three weeks later, however, the president quietly authorized the War Department to begin organizing black regiments on the South Carolina Sea Islands. And by March 1863, Lincoln had told his military governor of occupied Tennessee that "the colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest."
This prediction proved overoptimistic. But in August 1863, after black regiments had proved their worth at Fort Wagner and elsewhere, Lincoln told opponents of their employment that in the future "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."
Lincoln also took a more active, hands-on part in shaping military strategy than presidents have done in most other wars. This was not necessarily by choice. Lincoln's lack of military training inclined him at first to defer to General in Chief Winfield Scott, America's most celebrated soldier since George Washington. But Scott's age (75 in 1861), poor health and lack of energy placed a greater burden on the president. Lincoln was also disillusioned by Scott's March 1861 advice to yield both Forts Sumter and Pickens. Scott's successor, Gen. George B. McClellan, proved an even greater disappointment to Lincoln.
In early December 1861, after McClellan had been commander of the Army of the Potomac for more than four months and had done little with it except conduct drills and reviews, Lincoln drew on his reading and discussions of military strategy to propose a campaign against Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston's army, then occupying the Manassas-Centreville sector 25 miles from Washington. Under Lincoln's plan, part of the Army of the Potomac would feign a frontal attack while the rest would use the Occoquan Valley to move up on the flank and rear of the enemy, cut its rail communications and catch it in a pincer movement.
It was a good plan; indeed it was precisely what Johnston most feared. McClellan rejected it in favor of a deeper flanking movement all the way south to Urbana on the Rappahannock River. Lincoln posed a series of questions to McClellan, asking him why his distant-flanking strategy was better than Lincoln's short-flanking plan. Three sound premises underlay Lincoln's questions: first, the enemy army, not Richmond, should be the objective; second, Lincoln's plan would enable the Army of the Potomac to operate near its own base (Alexandria) while McClellan's plan, even if successful, would draw the enemy back toward his base (Richmond) and lengthen the Union supply line; and third, "does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time...than mine?"
McClellan brushed off Lincoln's questions and proceeded with his own plan, bolstered by an 8–4 vote of his division commanders in favor of it, which caused Lincoln reluctantly to acquiesce. Johnston then threw a monkey wrench into McClellan's Urbana strategy by withdrawing from Manassas to the south bank of the Rappahannock—in large part to escape the kind of maneuver Lincoln had proposed. McClellan now shifted his campaign all the way to the Virginia peninsula between the York and James rivers. Instead of attacking a line held by fewer than 17,000 Confederates near Yorktown with his own army, then numbering 70,000, McClellan, in early April, settled down for a siege that would give Johnston time to bring his whole army down to the peninsula. An exasperated Lincoln telegraphed McClellan on April 6: "I think you better break the enemies' line from York-town to Warwick River, at once. They will probably use time, as advantageously as you can." McClellan's only response was to comment petulantly in a letter to his wife that "I was much tempted to reply that he had better come & do it himself."
In an April 9 letter to the general, Lincoln enunciated another major theme of his military strategy: the war could be won only by fighting the enemy rather than by endless maneuvers and sieges to occupy places. "Once more," wrote Lincoln, "let me tell you, it is indispensable to you that you strike a blow. You will do me the justice to remember I always insisted, that going down the Bay in search of a field, instead of fighting at or near Manassas, was only shifting, and not surmounting, a difficulty—that we would find the same, or equal intrenchments, at either place. The country will not fail to note—is now noting—that the present hesitation to move upon an intrenched enemy, is but the story of Manassas repeated."
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (6)
Abraham Lincoln was the master of the American Civil War. James McPherson is right: Lincoln had a clearer vision than his generals about how to win the war.
He initially wanted Robert E. Lee to be the commanding general of all Union forces, and offered this position to Lee, who declined because he wanted to go with his "country", i. e., Virginia.
Whether Lincoln appointed West Pointers or "political generals", he did so with calculated purpose, but always with the goal of winning the war.
While he appointed the blundersome generals, such as Burnside, Pope,Banks, or Schimmilfennig he also appointed and approved of Grant, Sherman, and "Blackjack" John A. Logan.
Taking the good with the bad, the successes with the failures, Lincoln saw the war through to its successful conclusion, going to the telegraph office daily for news from the front, and calmly steering the country to a common unity of purpose and cause. He thus really did usher in a "new era of freedom" for the United States of America.
Posted by James Zaworski on April 20,2010 | 04:44 AM
this website so cool.this has so much facts.abe fights with justice.he never gives up.i liked him as a president.i wish he was still alive.
Posted by haley smith on May 1,2009 | 11:15 AM
When compared to the instant short term and fast paced memories of the present 21st century era, pondering past era history is actually a very useful pastime for today's leaders. Comparing the epic Abraham Lincoln Era to that of the present President, also eerily a former Senator from Illinois, relating to the current threat to the future existence of the United States of America, one is struck by the doppelganger facial similarities of General George B. McClellan with that of current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. My fear is that like McClellan, Geithner is so paralyzed by convention and senior advisors, that his actions are also merely attempts to buy time, rather than to take decisive actions. Like McClellan he seems intimidated by the very Adversaries who started the economic mess, in this case the Barron's of Wall Street.
Posted by Marshall Houston on February 21,2009 | 09:44 PM
Thank you, Duzzle, for spelling that out. Of course, that was from Lincoln`s point of view. As a Southerner, it has been drilled down our collective throats for the last century that slavery was the reason. While a disgraceful practice, it was not just a Southern one, as slavery was also in the North at the start of the War. Much of the start of the War dealt with overtaxation and a lack of freedom for Southern ports to do their own trading with Europe without first going through Northern ports. Another little forgotten part of all this was that prior to the War, secession was legal under the constitution, made so in an effort to get some of the original colonies to sign in the first place. Lincoln rightfully did not want the Union divided, and once in office, had the Congress declare it illegal, but at the time South Carolina left, it was legal for her to do so. This should have also been brought out in the article to show on what limb Lincoln put himself in order to keep the Union together. After an incident on the high seas when British ambassadors were taken off a Confederate vessel by a Union warship, Britain could have then sided with the Confederacy. With the right of secession legal at the time, it could have been the Revolution in reverse. Lincoln took a huge chance and was successful.
Posted by John E. Truitt on February 3,2009 | 08:27 PM
In this time period why do men have their right hand under their jacket flap?Is it some sort of symbolism? Thank You
Posted by J.W. Lewellen on January 28,2009 | 02:19 PM
The Gardner photo (p.40), of Lincoln with McClellan, apparently shows two flags. The Confederate flag is on the ground and the US flag on the table. The US flag seems to be in use as a table covering. Was that normal at that time?
Posted by John Mark on December 31,2008 | 10:23 AM
Very good informative interpretation. I'd gathered before that Lincoln had to chivvy his generals, but I hadn't realized to what extent. I was struck by this quote too: "Will our Generals never get that idea out of their heads? The whole country is our soil." That, after all, was the point of the war. Very true.
Posted by Duzzle on December 20,2008 | 02:13 PM