[CAScot]

Well I can't let that one go! Lincoln in 1864 was even more inept a war leader than Johnson was in 1964!
Lincoln and Davis BOTH micromanaged the war to extreme, the only difference was that Davis was a West Point graduate and at least knew a little about such things, and Lincoln didn't have a clue about what he was doing!
To put Lincoln in a class with Washington as a war leader is shear idiocy, and proves a total lack of knowledge in military leadership principles! It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt that we had another war leader who was in a class with Washington!
Granted there were men like Taylor who might have been competent in that area, but they were not leaders during wartime!

[exmarine]

It would have helped if you had posted what I said. This thread took place 2 years ago.

In any case, it is a subjective judgment as to whether or not Lincoln was a great wartime leader, isn't it. Most historians would say that he was. You disagree. You have that right. There is zero doubt that he was a very clever politician, and zero doubt that he had the correct perspective on the conduct of the war - and his generals were WRONG most of the time. McClellan, Hooker, Meade - all failed to go after Lee's Army at crucial junctures and/or fell back after they got a bloody nose. Lincoln understood (CORRECTLY!) that the real object was Lee's Army, not Richmond. Lincoln's strategy was vindicated in the prosecution of the war by U.S. Grant. Lincoln repeatedly told his generals that their object of attack was Lee, and Grant was the ONLY general who carried out this aim in the East - and it worked. The war was not won until Lee surrendered his Army. So, how was it that those "West Point graduates" were WRONG about the correct way to prosecute the war, but dumb lanky ole Abe was right? I think you got some 'splainin' to do.