Davis was dogshit. >Couldn't command his general's properly. >Refused to name a General-in-Chief partly because he thought he could do it himself and partly because he didn't want to raise up a political rival. >Intense micromanager and loved playing favorites with his friends and close relations over their actual ability, leading to resentment in the government. >Spent too much time trying to appease the plantation owner class instead of trying to rally the commonfolk who were actually dying and bleeding in the war. >Made terrible strategic gambits, like letting Lee launch a costly invasion at Gettysburg while Vicksburg and the West were screaming for aid. >Feuded with his vice president. >Feuded with governors constantly over command and control of the militia. >Diplomatically failed at getting French/British recognition >Completely abandoned the Confeddy idea of State's Rights, earning state's ire, because it turns out a weak federal government is a bad idea in industrialized warfare >Inflation due to printing money constantly >Failure to solicit investments from Euros >Food shortages because he insisted on keeping the cotton train going in the middle of a Union blockade. lol
All to the detriment of the Confederate war effort.
>Davis was dogshit.
't command his general's properly.
AHAHAHAHAHA
tall talk when his opponent was one of the most militarily incompetent leaders in this nation's history
Lincoln won the war. And a good statesmen knows when it's time to delegate, especially military matters, instead of assuming they're some great military genius.
Even Bismark knew the best he could do was give the armies the best chance by minimizing the number of enemies Prussia/Germany had to fight. He did this by getting allies or making sure nations sat out of wars so Prussia never had to fight more than 1 great power at a time. The war was left to the generals, but a statesmen is about securing advantages for their country, not trying to be the next Napoleon as a vanity project. We consider Bismark a great statesmen, the greatest of his time. He didn't need to have to micromanage his generals to be great.
Jeff Davis try to be a general, fricked up, and lost the war.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Lincoln won
that means frick all and you know it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that means frick all and you know it
Lincoln winning is a pretty sound argument for him being a statesman than Jeff Davis. Lincoln was the superior leader of the two.
The argument isn't who's the better military commander. It's who's the better statesmen. Lincoln slaps Davis around like a b***h.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Lincoln winning is a pretty sound argument
>lincoln won, that somehow makes him a better commander than somebody who went to military school
just take the L lbjgay
2 years ago
Anonymous
You’re arguing with the McClellangay, anon. Don’t engage too hard
2 years ago
Anonymous
>lincoln won, that somehow makes him a better commander than somebody who went to military school
just take the L lbjgay
2 years ago
Anonymous
>actively shits all over the board just to seethe about his imaginary friend “lbjgay”
Is the power of unadulterated autism?
2 years ago
Anonymous
shits all over the board >loses shit shit because he thinks lincoln was a better general than somebody educated at a military academy
2 years ago
Anonymous
Aren't you a radical republican supporter? I can recognize your posts by how much you seethe about LBJgay, but it seems you have no coherent ideology whatsoever.
"greatness" is a loaded concept, since it lies right on the razor's edge of the subjective/objective dichotomy. In any case, in terms of long-lasting influence the answer is undoubtedly Lincoln, FDR, and Nixon.
Davis was dogshit.
>Couldn't command his general's properly.
>Refused to name a General-in-Chief partly because he thought he could do it himself and partly because he didn't want to raise up a political rival.
>Intense micromanager and loved playing favorites with his friends and close relations over their actual ability, leading to resentment in the government.
>Spent too much time trying to appease the plantation owner class instead of trying to rally the commonfolk who were actually dying and bleeding in the war.
>Made terrible strategic gambits, like letting Lee launch a costly invasion at Gettysburg while Vicksburg and the West were screaming for aid.
>Feuded with his vice president.
>Feuded with governors constantly over command and control of the militia.
>Diplomatically failed at getting French/British recognition
>Completely abandoned the Confeddy idea of State's Rights, earning state's ire, because it turns out a weak federal government is a bad idea in industrialized warfare
>Inflation due to printing money constantly
>Failure to solicit investments from Euros
>Food shortages because he insisted on keeping the cotton train going in the middle of a Union blockade. lol
All to the detriment of the Confederate war effort.
>Davis was dogshit.
't command his general's properly.
AHAHAHAHAHA
tall talk when his opponent was one of the most militarily incompetent leaders in this nation's history
Lincoln won the war. And a good statesmen knows when it's time to delegate, especially military matters, instead of assuming they're some great military genius.
Even Bismark knew the best he could do was give the armies the best chance by minimizing the number of enemies Prussia/Germany had to fight. He did this by getting allies or making sure nations sat out of wars so Prussia never had to fight more than 1 great power at a time. The war was left to the generals, but a statesmen is about securing advantages for their country, not trying to be the next Napoleon as a vanity project. We consider Bismark a great statesmen, the greatest of his time. He didn't need to have to micromanage his generals to be great.
Jeff Davis try to be a general, fricked up, and lost the war.
>Lincoln won
that means frick all and you know it
>that means frick all and you know it
Lincoln winning is a pretty sound argument for him being a statesman than Jeff Davis. Lincoln was the superior leader of the two.
The argument isn't who's the better military commander. It's who's the better statesmen. Lincoln slaps Davis around like a b***h.
>Lincoln winning is a pretty sound argument
You’re arguing with the McClellangay, anon. Don’t engage too hard
>lincoln won, that somehow makes him a better commander than somebody who went to military school
just take the L lbjgay
>actively shits all over the board just to seethe about his imaginary friend “lbjgay”
Is the power of unadulterated autism?
shits all over the board
>loses shit shit because he thinks lincoln was a better general than somebody educated at a military academy
Aren't you a radical republican supporter? I can recognize your posts by how much you seethe about LBJgay, but it seems you have no coherent ideology whatsoever.
Ask lbjgay, he's the one obsessed with me
diplomatically, Lincoln ran circles around Davis, who just threatened everybody with cotton boycotts
For me, it's
1. Joseph Smith
2. Brigham Young
3. Stephen Douglas
Honorable mentions Ezra Taft Benson
kys mormon bong. nobody gives a shit about your delusional freemanson faith
>Stephen Douglas
Caused the civil war with his “muh popular sovereignty so that I can profit off of the railroad” bullshit
based mormonbro
Enjoy Hell.
thomas jefferson
andrew jackson
John F Kennedy
yes, i am a QAnon
Abraham Lincoln
Thaddeus Stevens
Robert F. Wagner
"greatness" is a loaded concept, since it lies right on the razor's edge of the subjective/objective dichotomy. In any case, in terms of long-lasting influence the answer is undoubtedly Lincoln, FDR, and Nixon.
>Benjamin Franklin
>Andrew Jackson
>Theodore Roosevelt
William Jennings Bryan
Henry Long
Daniel Webster
Mic dropped.
>Honorable mention to Woodrow Wilson
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
George H.W Bush
1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Henry Cabot-Lodge