Abraham Lincoln takes personal command of the Union Army.

[Dick Cheney.]

“Had McClellan followed his advice, he would have taken Richmond. Had Hooker acted in accordance with his suggestions, Chancellorsville would have been a victory for the nation. Had Meade obeyed his explicit commands, he would have destroyed Lee’s army before it could have recrossed the Potomac.” - Civil war journalist William A. Croffut

“General W. F. Smith says: “I have long held to the opinion that at the close of the war Mr. Lincoln was the superior of his generals in his comprehension of the effect of strategic movements and the proper method of following up victories to their legitimate conclusions.’ General J. H. Wilson holds the same opinion; and Colonel Robert N. Scott, in whose lamented death the army lost one of its most vigorous and best-trained intellects, frequently called Mr. Lincoln ‘the ablest strategist of the war.’” - The Observations of John G. Nicolay and John Hay.

“That Lincoln had the strategic insight to be a successful general is clear,” - historian Gerald J. Prokopowicz

Quotes from: http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/...nder-in-chief/

--

Civil War historians know for a fact that there was at least one formal instance (perhaps many more private ones) that Abraham Lincoln seriously considered taking personal command of the Union Army in the field, which would have -in effect- made him a battlefield general. Under the US Constitution, the U.S. President has since the first president, always reserved the right and legal authority to assume overall command and direction over all US forces at any level (micro, field, land, naval, or otherwise). Though Washington and Jackson were probably closest to actually commanding field armies as Presidents (whiskey and nullification crisis), this type of interference and micromanagement by the Commander in-Chief at the tactical level (to my knowledge) has never yet been exercised.

But now that we know that Abraham Lincoln could have in fact made himself a general; what would have happened to the outcome of the Civil War; say in 1862 or 1863 had he indeed done so?

General Abe Lincoln



Personally, I believe President Lincoln possessed all the unique character traits of a successful general (and he certainly would have been better than McClellan). Lincoln was intellectually brilliant, very strategically inclined with his policies; was able to grasp political aims easily within the realm of planning grand military operations (which his generals lacked). He was readily curious and very studious; he would often test fire the latest musket designs on the White House lawn, would pour over dozens of military handbooks at a time, and had a documented obsession for collecting maps. He was also extremely disciplined, both in his work and in his personal life, the ultimate self-made man at that. He knew how to lead men, give speeches, and manage personalities, and he could always be counted on to exercise sound judgment, even during moments of intense friction. He also tended to be flexible in his decision making process but could be firm in its resolve. And finally, he was a courageous character (both physically and mentally) in his own right, the only president ever to voluntary come under direct enemy fire. These solid traits for courage, strategic thinking, and leading men, with a bit of imagination, could make up for Lincoln’s relative inexperience with leading troops, which consisted only as a militia captain during the twilight of the Blackhawk wars.

Where General Lincoln might have failed however, is with handling the political consequences of such a daring move and desperate act by the President. If he defeats a Confederate army and manages to win a decisive battle, there’s a good chance he would be compared to a Napoleon or a Washington and be proclaimed a national hero by the Union press and public at large. But if Lincoln were to lose a battle, which is more than likely going to happen when confronting a deep learning curve, a bewildered Union army, and going up against a formidable Confederate force led by none other than General Lee… well, who does he exactly replace himself with???

But I’ll turn it over from here. I do however consider Lincoln to be one of the greatest leaders to have ever lived, not just as a President or a chief executive, but as an actual problem solver and as someone people would willingly follow, so even if it is just hypothetical, I think it still would have been interesting to see what his command talents would have been like.

[hellheaven1987]

Except Lincoln did make it clear he did not want to command directly, and he did not find it necessary as general like Halleck shared his strategical view after McClellan's resign.

[kentuckybandit]

I know Lincoln's options in the early war were limited but I am always baffled as to why he waited so long to permanently relieve McClellan of command. Some historians point to McClellan's popularity among his men, but this was mostly from before fighting even began in earnest and obviously the army kept fighting after his relief. Lincoln had very strong views on the power and place of the executive, perhaps he felt that the president's place was not at the head of an army? That being said I do believe that militarily Lincoln couldn't possibly have done worse than many of them. I think if he had taken command, depending on when and where, there would have been higher Union casualties (as far as individual engagements are concerned) as many Union generals failed to capitalize on fighting and make the 'final push' and any assault was always amazingly costly. If Lincoln had been there to hit Lee in Maryland or to pursue after Gettysburg the war may well have been decided.

[Turtler]

OP, what I think you're missing is the tactical and PR levels- both of which were absolutely essential in the Civil War- what they would do to a General/Field Marshal Lincoln, and why having McClellan etc. al. were helpful. But to make a long story short; having a civilian head of state assume command over a modern military in the field is a colossal risk, and in the American Civil War it would've been especially so. Just ask Tsar Nicholas II, who was the last monarch of Russia for a reason. I agree that Lincoln had a very brilliant strategic/grand strategic vision, but there's more to soldiering and generalship than that and if an army under his direct command suffered even a single Manassas it could catastrophically affect his Presidency in a way it didn't with a General.

I'll be the first to object to the idea that Grant etc. al. were just uncoordinated butchers, but the fact remains that they and the Union won the war by gnawing the Confederacy to death in a gory, torturous, costly, very controversial way that Lincoln approved of and was willing to endorse. As we know in history the Union public proved willing to pay that price time and again, and while Lincoln's presidency and his generals came under intense fire both survived (or at least survived longer than the Confederacy did). But that was with Lincoln being insulated by "Fuss and Feathers" and Grant. They could act as a sort of buffer between the public shot and Lincoln's administration and so take the heat for things so Lincoln wouldn't have to, while Lincoln could act autonomously in the rear and prop them up or switch them around as he saw fit.

Putting him in the Blue General's hat changes that absolutely. Suddenly there's nobody to take the heat but Lincoln if things go wrong. If that isn't handled well, it will defeat the Union and destroy his presidency in a swift, crushing way like the Rebellion never had a chance to do in history.

And let's not forget: as you mentioned yourself, Lincoln's battlefield experience and direct military training were nil. They start and stop with a brief stint in the militia during an obscure Indian war where he never saw combat, and somebody who has to learn the entire trade on the field is *not* someone you want going up against Lee, Jackson, Forrest, etc. al. And beyond that, the American Civil War had a lot of critical fronts in other ways, including the diplomatic and home fronts. Being a General would have seriously hampered Lincoln's ability to cope with them.

Couple this with how visible a target he was and how hated an enemy he was, and it's likely a lot more marksmen would have never stopped sniping at him until he was dead. And dead long before the Union could afford it.

@KentuckyBandit

The reason why he waited for so long to relieve McClel boil down to a couple different reasons. For one, he was indeed afraid of how popular he was with the army *and* general public, and the backlash that would come if he sacked him. But perhaps as important if not even moreso was that there were good reasons McClellan was so popular. For all his bleeding heart syndrome, gullibility, lack of aggression, and ambition he was perhaps one of the greatest organizers and trainers of the war. On top of that his planning was solid even if his execution wasn'; He did make it to within artillery range of the Confederate capitol and was defeated less by Lee than by himself, which is a feat in and of itself.

It must have seemed like he promised a sort of less bloody, systematic way to reduce the rebellion to ashes. Which after the bloody boondoggles of Manassas and the charnel house that was Shiloh appealed to just about everybody.

So my gut feeling is that Lincoln kept feeling obliged to give McClellan "just one more chance" in the hopes that he would fulfill this promise so many placed in him. Mainly being forced to act when reality made it clear that was not what was going to happen.

[kentuckybandit]

I also wonder if Lincoln had been leading the army and had been seeing the unholy carnage in the fog of war, not a hundred or more miles away in a command center getting all available intel, would he have maintained his drive for the initiative? While most of the Union's squandered opportunities on the battlefield were from utter incompetence, some were from a lack of battlefield intelligence and others were simply a case of the commanders no longer having the will to send anymore men to the slaughter.