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 3 of 4)
But the general who acquired the nickname of Tardy George never learned that lesson. The same was true of several other generals who did not live up to Lincoln's expectations. They seemed to be paralyzed by responsibility for the lives of their men as well as the fate of their army and nation. This intimidating responsibility made them risk-averse. This behavior especially characterized commanders of the Army of the Potomac, who operated in the glare of media publicity with the government in Washington looking over their shoulders. In contrast, officers like Ulysses S. Grant, George H. Thomas and Philip H. Sheridan got their start in the western theater hundreds of miles distant, where they worked their way up from command of a regiment step by step to larger responsibilities away from media attention. They were able to grow into these responsibilities and to learn the necessity of taking risks without the fear of failure that paralyzed McClellan.
Meanwhile, Lincoln's frustration with the lack of activity in the Kentucky-Tennessee theater had elicited from him an important strategic concept. Generals Henry W. Halleck and Don C. Buell commanded in the two western theaters separated by the Cumberland River. Lincoln urged them to cooperate in a joint campaign against the Confederate army defending a line from eastern Kentucky to the Mississippi River. Both responded in early January 1862 that they were not yet ready. "To operate on exterior lines against an enemy occupying a central position will fail," wrote Halleck. "It is condemned by every military authority I have ever read." Halleck's reference to "exterior lines" described the conundrum of an invading or attacking army operating against an enemy that holds a defensive perimeter resembling a semi-circle—the enemy enjoys the advantage of "interior lines" that enables it to shift reinforcements from one place to another within that arc.
By this time Lincoln had read some of those authorities (including Halleck) and was prepared to challenge the general's reasoning. "I state my general idea of the war," he wrote to both Halleck and Buell, "that we have the greater numbers, and the enemy has the greater facility of concentrating forces upon points of collision; that we must fail, unless we can find some way to making our advantage an over-match for his; and that this can be only done by menacing him with superior forces at different points, at the same time; so that we can safely attack, one, or both, if he makes no change; and if he weakens one to strengthen the other, forbear to attack the strengthened one, but seize and hold the weakened one, gaining so much."
Lincoln clearly expressed here what military theorists define as "concentration in time" to counter the Confederacy's advantage of interior lines that enabled Southern forces to concentrate in space. The geography of the war required the North to operate generally on exterior lines while the Confederacy could use interior lines to shift troops to the point of danger. By advancing on two or more fronts simultaneously, Union forces could neutralize this advantage, as Lincoln understood but Halleck and Buell seemed unable to grasp.
Not until Grant became general in chief in 1864 did Lincoln have a commander in place who would carry out this strategy. Grant's policy of attacking the enemy wherever he found it also embraced Lincoln's strategy of trying to cripple the enemy as far from Richmond (or any other base) as possible rather than maneuvering to occupy or capture places. From February to June 1862, Union forces had enjoyed remarkable success in capturing Confederate territory and cities along the south Atlantic coast and in Tennessee and the lower Mississippi Valley, including the cities of Nashville, New Orleans and Memphis. But Confederate counteroffensives in the summer recaptured much of this territory (though not these cities). Clearly, the conquest and occupation of places would not win the war so long as enemy armies remained capable of reconquering them.
Lincoln viewed these Confederate offensives more as an opportunity than a threat. When the Army of Northern Virginia began to move north in the campaign that led to Gettysburg, Gen. Joseph Hooker proposed to cut in behind the advancing Confederate forces and attack Richmond. Lincoln rejected the idea. "Lee's Army, and not Richmond, is your true objective point," he wired Hooker on June 10, 1863. "If he comes toward the Upper Potomac, follow on his flank, and on the inside track, shortening your [supply] lines, whilst he lengthens his. Fight him when opportunity offers." A week later, as the enemy was entering Pennsylvania, Lincoln told Hooker that this invasion "gives you back the chance that I thought McClellan lost last fall" to cripple Lee's army far from its base. But Hooker, like McClellan, complained (falsely) that the enemy outnumbered him and failed to attack while Lee's army was strung out for many miles on the march.
Hooker's complaints compelled Lincoln to replace him on June 28 with George Gordon Meade, who punished but did not destroy Lee at Gettysburg. When the rising Potomac trapped Lee in Maryland, Lincoln urged Meade to close in for the kill. If Meade could "complete his work, so gloriously prosecuted thus far," said Lincoln, "by the literal or substantial destruction of Lee's army, the rebellion will be over."
Instead, Meade pursued the retreating Confederates slowly and tentatively, and failed to attack them before they managed to retreat safely over the Potomac on the night of July 13-14. Lincoln had been distressed by Meade's congratulatory order to his army on July 4, which closed with the words that the country now "looks to the army for greater efforts to drive from our soil every vestige of the presence of the invader." "Great God!" cried Lincoln. "This is a dreadful reminiscence of McClellan," who had proclaimed a great victory when the enemy retreated across the river after Antietam. "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.
When word came that Lee had escaped, Lincoln was both angry and depressed. He wrote to Meade: "My dear general, I do not believe you appreciate the magnitude of the misfortune involved in Lee's escape....Your golden opportunity is gone, and I am distressed immeasurably because of it."
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