Was Abraham Lincoln the "Man of the Hour"?

[TheRockofChickamauga]

Would any other figure in OTL North have been able to prosecute OTL Civil War as successfully as Lincoln did? Lincoln seemed to be the man for the moment in the United States, staying in prominence just long enough to finish the task before him before being tragically taken from the scene by an assassin's bullet. Could Seward, Chase, Douglas, Fremont, Sumner, or any other figure prominent at this time have done it as well as Lincoln did? If you think so, I am curious as to who you think it is. I am not asking if any other man could have lead the Union to victory. I am sure many of the previously listed men could have done it if they conducted themselves well. I am asking if anyone could have lead the war better in any sense of that phrase, or could have provided a more resonating effect on our modern times than Lincoln.

**Sorry, I just realized the poll is screwed up, and I forget to put "not" in the first answer, making both response pretty much the same. I will have added a third response. Please disregard the first one.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

It is hard to say since Lincoln got the chance, and no one else did. For all we know someone else might have done even better but our OTL blindness makes it hard to see it.

I really should get to work on my Douglas wins in 1856 TL....

 

[Nivek]

We got Secession because Lincoln, Since the lincoln-douglas debates, he was already a know Fire breather(even if he moderated himself) than the fire eaters know have their day numbered. that was the whole secession affair, even them depend who lead the USA in a secession like event.

 

[unprincipled peter]

He gets a lot of praise, but his task was simple - prosecute the war. The north was quite into that task, and the politicians were into it as well. Europe really wanted to stay out of it, so keeping them out was no herculean effort.

Certainly, someone else could have mucked it up, but I don't think Lincoln was the only man for the job. He had the job, and he didn't fail, although had the South been just a wee bit stronger/had slightly more staying power, it might have been bye-bye Lincoln in the election. Folks were getting tired of the war, and Lincoln got a boost by winning a war of attrition (men and materials). The usual mantra is that the North winning is a forgone conclusion sans them mucking it up. I think that's the case if any decent alternative is sitting in the seat. Of course, I'm not sure if a decent alternative was amongst the likely candidates, but I'm speaking generically.

Lincoln stepped up to the plate when called upon, but that doesn't mean he was the only one that could. But likewise, someone else could have been a buffoon.

 

[Derek Jackson]

He was the right amount ahead of public opinion

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

Just to clarify what I am asking here, I am not asking if anyone else could have won the war. Many a northerner could have done that. I am asking if anyone could have done it better than Lincoln or added more to America's memory of the war and its meaning than he did.

 

[Wendell]

Lincoln is a hero and a patriot of the first order. That being said, the historical memory of Lincoln has been profoundly shaped by his assassination. Without that, he and his legacy would be viewed in a more even-handed manner.

 

[Mikestone8]

Just to clarify what I am asking here, I am not asking if anyone else could have won the war. Many a northerner could have done that. I am asking if anyone could have done it better than Lincoln or added more to America's memory of the war and its meaning than he did.

Hard to say because so much was outside the President's control.

Meade had done better at Gettysburg, the war could have ended sooner. If worse it might have dragged on longer. The same could be said of other generals at other points in the war. Of course the POTUS appointed the generals, but any POTUS would have to choose from much the same short list. So it would be largely a matter of luck whether the war went better or worse under someone else.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Just to clarify what I am asking here, I am not asking if anyone else could have won the war. Many a northerner could have done that. I am asking if anyone could have done it better than Lincoln or added more to America's memory of the war and its meaning than he did.

Probably. I mean, I don't know enough about Northern politics to name any specific names, but the Union was very much fighting in easy mode during the conflict: it had about twice the population and ten times the heavy industry of the South, Union public opinion was largely in favour of suppressing the rebellion, and no foreign countries were particularly interested in supporting the Confederacy. I wouldn't call Lincoln incompetent by any means, but the fact that the Union took over four years to win the war in spite of having all these advantages doesn't really suggest that he was a brilliant war leader, either.

 

[George Washington]

Other people could have replaced Lincoln. One example that comes to mind is William Seward. With a really big POD, potentially Zachary Taylor and/or Millard Fillmore could replace Lincoln a decade earlier. The war could have been finished earlier with a less patient president who would get rid of McClellan earlier.

 

[Thomas1195]

Other people could have replaced Lincoln. One example that comes to mind is William Seward. With a really big POD, potentially Zachary Taylor and/or Millard Fillmore could replace Lincoln a decade earlier. The war could have been finished earlier with a less patient president who would get rid of McClellan earlier.

If Seward decides to say "I am not going to pick McClellan", he might end up doing better than Lincoln. Winfield Scott might play a bigger role under Seward as well.

 

[David T]

An old post of mine (sorry for any links that may no longer work) at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/worst-union-president.438048/#post-16615102 on Seward, who would certainly be the most plausible Republlcan president if Lincoln were not available:

**

A case can be made that Seward, one of the most able men considered for the Republican nomination, might actually be the one most disastrous for the Union. I used to think that a President Seward might unintentionally allow peaceful secession. By "unintentionally" I mean that of course Seward wanted secession to fail--but he had an unrealistic idea that if the North just avoided conflict by abandoning Sumter and possibly Pickens as well [1], not only could the Upper South be held but a Unionist reaction would develop in the Lower South, leading to reunion. (He also thought that a war scare with Spain--I am not convinced he wanted an actual war--could bring about North-South reunion in the interests of "patriotism." See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/HfDoPtlOem0/gbVpY6q3OzsJ for a discussion of this.) By the time he realized that voluntary reconstruction was a pipe dream, the independence of the Lower South might be so established that he could do little about it.

I am now inclined to think, however, that Seward was such a staunch Unionist that once it was clear to him that his strategy for bringing about voluntary reunion by abandoning the forts had failed, he would have to resort to some sort of "coercion"--even leaving aside his own strong nationalism and expansionism, it would be politically disastrous for the Republicans to be known as the party that accepted disunion. The most likely method, once the forts were gone, would be an attempt to collect the revenues offshore.

[1] There is no actual proof that Seward advocated it, but most historians believe that Scott's sudden recommendation that Pickens as well as Sumter be abandoned--and on openly political (basically "Upper South Unionists insist on it") rather than military grounds--must have come from Seward. E.g., William Cooper in his We Have This War Upon Us: The Onset of the Civil War, November 1860-April 1861:

"No evidence makes Seward's involvement indisputably clear, yet little doubt can exist. He had had Scott's confidence since the winter, before Buchanan left office. He and the general had become closer, though Gideon Welles surely exaggerated in calling Scott no more than Seward's pawn. The secretary of state and the general had given Lincoln identical advice on Fort Sumter since the outset of the crisis. But Scott had never before mentioned politics in suggestions he had given his commander in chief. Seward knew firsthand, however, that his Conservative Unionists wanted federal authority gone from Pickens as well as Sumter. If Seward and Scott had hoped with this double-barreled counsel to bring the president closer to them, they grossly miscalculated..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=LT5_dhd8JNMC&pg=PA249

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I'm pretty sure that a military figure as president (think of a "northern Robert E. Lee") would have made better choices when it comes to the generals commanding the northern armies; this could have ended the war much faster.

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

I think Chase would’ve been up to the task, the problem with him is that from what little I know about his personality he may have been uneasy to deal with. Nonetheless, as it seems that most of his issues stemmed from not being the President, I think he would’ve actually done better than Lincoln. A. I think he picks Seward as his VP, so perhaps the least capable member of Lincoln’s Cabinet gets essentially sidelined. B. Chase had a more established relationship with the national Republican Party, especially the radical wing which Lincoln had a bit of trouble with. C. Chase probably makes the war about slavery through an Emancipation Proclamation a bit earlier than OTL, which would discourage British aid although being somewhat more unpopular than OTL. D. ITTL Chase probably appoints Hamlin Secretary of the Treasury, who seems to be just as capable as Chase was. E. In general I think Chase is your best bet of legitimate alternatives, I think Seward had some major flaws, and Chase showed himself as a competent administrator. He probably gives Stanton the Secretary of War position immediately instead of giving it to the incompetent Cameron. That alone represents a huge shift in Union military capacity

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

I'm pretty sure that a military figure as president (think of a "northern Robert E. Lee") would have made better choices when it comes to the generals commanding the northern armies; this could have ended the war much faster.

Of course, this cuts both ways. A military figure like McClellan or MacDowell would have made worse choices in this regard.

 

[Thomas1195]

He probably gives Stanton the Secretary of War position immediately instead of giving it to the incompetent Cameron

Obviously. IOTL, he was anti-patronage, anti-Spoils System, pro-reform. A two-term Chase Presidency would have major impact on post-war political landscape.

And not appointinf McClellan would have major impact as well.

 

[Mikestone8]

If Seward decides to say "I am not going to pick McClellan", he might end up doing better than Lincoln.

Yet Mac's first few replacements - Pope, Burnside, Hooker and Meade - didn't do conspicuously better than he, and the first three did worse. So the odds are that choosing someone else would make little immediate difference.

As Lincoln told a Congressman who said the "anyone" would be better than Mac "Anyone may do for you, but I must have *someone*."

 

[Wendell]

Wait, Seward wanted to instigate a crisis with Spain to foster reunion? How would that work?

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

Wait, Seward wanted to instigate a crisis with Spain to foster reunion? How would that work?

He wanted the country to reunite around a common external enemy and annex Cuba.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

He wanted the country to reunite around a common external enemy and annex Cuba.

I believe he also floated a similar proposal of uniting to conquer Canada.

So really, I'm not sure Seward would be a good replacement, he seems too likely to end up blundering into a war with some European power.