Lincoln vs. Davis: The War of the Presidents

by Nigel Hamilton

From renowned biographer­­­ Nigel Hamilton, author of the epic FDR at War trilogy and the bestselling Reckless Youth, comes the greatest untold story of the Civil how two American presidents faced off as the fate of the nation hung in the balance — and how Abraham Lincoln came to embrace emancipation as the last, best chance to save the Union. Of all the books written on Abraham Lincoln, there has been one surprising the drama of how the “railsplitter” from Illinois grew into his critical role as U.S. commander-in-chief, and managed to outwit his formidable opponent, Jefferson Davis, in what remains history's only military faceoff between rival American presidents. Davis was a trained soldier and war hero; Lincoln a country lawyer who had only briefly served in the militia. Confronted with the most violent and challenging war ever seen on American soil, Lincoln seemed ill-suited to the inexperienced, indecisive, and a poor judge of people’s motives, he allowed his administration's war policies to be sabotaged by fickle, faithless cabinet officials while entrusting command of his army to a preening young officer named George McClellan – whose defeat in battle left Washington, the nation’s capital, at the mercy of General Robert E. Lee, Davis’s star performer.   The war almost ended there. But in a Shakespearean twist, Lincoln summoned the courage to make, at last, a climactic issuing as a “military necessity” a proclamation freeing the 3.5 million enslaved Americans without whom the South could not feed or fund their armed insurrection. The new war policy doomed the rebellion—which was in dire need of support from Europe, none of whose governments now would dare to recognize rebel “independence” in a war openly fought over slavery. The fate of President Davis was sealed.   With a cast of unforgettable characters, from first ladies to fugitive coachmen to treasonous cabinet officials, Lincoln vs. Davis is a spellbinding dual biography from renowned presidential chronicler Nigel a saga that will surprise, touch, and enthrall.  

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, American History, Biography, Presidents, Audiobook

800 pages, Hardcover

First published November 5, 2024

About the author

Nigel Hamilton is an award-winning British-born biographer, academic and broadcaster, whose works have been translated into sixteen languages.

Reviews

[Jodi C · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, Lincoln vs. Davis: The War of the Presidents, is essentially two biographies in one place, showing the chronological progression in the lives of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis before their paths intersected and then examining the leadership of both during the American Civil War.

The lack of bias presented here is notable. Instead of just focusing on Lincoln as the magnificent leader he was, while treating Jefferson Davis as a Cotton-Headed Ninny Muggins, both men are portrayed realistically and honestly.

The information on the Lincoln marriage was more than I was aware of previously and was extremely interesting. I knew that Mary Todd Lincoln’s elevator didn’t necessarily always go to the top floor, but I had no idea she was so physically abusive in her marriage. She drew blood on her husband in anger, threw inanimate objects, and had screaming fits on the floor, and these are just examples of what was documented in some way.

Another engrossing part of this book was the relationship between Lincoln and George McClellan. McClellan was given command of the Army of the Potomac after the Union rout at the first Battle of Bull Run. Little Mac was a real piece of work, and although he did have a moment of redemption later at Antietam, early in the war he was shockingly incompetent, paranoid, arrogant, and downright disrespectful to Lincoln.

McClellan is the guy who decided to invade the Confederate capital of Richmond, VA, only a hop, skip, and a jump from Washington, and said, “Hey! I know! I will float 140,000 Union troops down the river to get there!” Needless to say, this plan was doomed from the start. After the Float of the Century, McClellan was pushed right back to the James River by Robert E. Lee, who had just been given command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

The relationship between McClellan and Lincoln represents the end of the era of Lincoln being a new, hesitant, and inexperienced president facing an unimaginable crisis, and becoming the president who would deliver the Emancipation Proclamation to a fractured nation. It didn’t immediately bring out the better angels of our nature, but it put down the first building block of a new America.

In total, this is an excellent piece of work, and I found myself enjoying the read, and I learned new things on this topic. I highly recommend this work to anyone wanting to learn more about Lincoln and Davis and how their leadership impacted the Civil War in America. I wish, as I often have, that Lincoln could have lived to show us what else he was capable of.

I appreciate the author, Nigel Hamilton, the publisher, Little Brown and Company, and NetGalley for letting me read this advance copy.

[Bill · Rating 2 out of 5]

Abraham Lincoln’s staunchly anti-slavery Secretary of State William Seward was actually a “pro-slaver.” Lincoln’s stalwart Secretary of War Edwin Stanton “was manifestly worse than Simon Cameron,” his unscrupulous predecessor. Confederate President Jefferson Davis deserves some measure of credit for Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. And Lincoln himself was “timid,” “ignorant,” “a well-meaning but vacillating politician and lawyer… whose views about slavery” were “all over the place.”

These are just some of the “insights” contained within what I found to be a terribly disappointing book.

I’m aware that I’m being a contrarian wet blanket here, with an overlong review of a book that seems to have earned mostly excellent feedback. So apologies to those who liked it. As a biographer, Hamilton does have an impressive body of work. And this book’s heft suggests a certain seriousness, more than a slapdash two- or three-hundred page quickie would. But if you’re an author new to the subject of Lincoln who’s going to publish a mainstream 700+ page tome about someone who's been written about ad nauseam, it had better be because you have something worthwhile to say to justify the effort. Jon Meacham boldly tackled Lincoln a couple of years ago, and brought something to the table with his take on Lincoln’s morality and defense of his reputation in the context of our current political climate. Erik Larson earlier this year tackled the months leading up to Lincoln’s inauguration, by turning it into a page-turning thriller as only he can. 

Hamilton, in contrast, has taken on the subject of Lincoln and Davis as commanders-in-chief, in a bloated, poorly-written book whose only reason for being seems to be to castigate Lincoln for not becoming the Great Emancipator on the timetable that Hamilton would have preferred. 

Hamilton here is an omniscient biographer who knows how the story he’s writing turned out. He knows the decisions that should have been made and when. So he appears frustrated that his protagonists don’t. And that judgmental, haughty tone ends up permeating the book.

The idea of the book is promising - a dual biography of opposing presidents, comparing and contrasting their lives and leadership. Davis was a military man who had to learn how to lead a country, while Lincoln was a politician who had to learn how to manage a war. The strength of this structure is that you get to see events from both sides, and see how each president had to grow into their role. But this personality-based approach seems to boil down to a clash of two individuals playing a cat-and-mouse game, trying to one-up each other. What will Lincoln do? How will Davis respond? What will Lincoln think about how Davis responds? How will Davis react to what Lincoln thinks about what he’s done? Each is portrayed as agonizing over decisions, only sometimes making them, continually second-guessing themselves and focused on trying to best their opponent, like the Civil War was some sort of chess game played for bragging rights. 

Certainly his counterpart’s actions played some part in Lincoln’s decision making. But while waging a war, managing his wayward generals, and trying to keep the country and his political coalition together, I’m not sure that what Jefferson Davis thought about anything was foremost in Lincoln’s mind.

He certainly didn’t have slavery on his mind, if Hamilton is to be believed. Hamilton has identified the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation as the book’s end point, so the whole book builds toward it. This wouldn’t be the first time that an author aimed to show Lincoln’s growth in his role and the deliberative decision-making process that led him to issue the Proclamation. But instead of examining how Lincoln worked his way toward that decision, Hamilton considers the solution obvious and spends most of the book chiding Lincoln for not seeing it sooner, for not making the eradication of slavery a clear war aim from the very start, even suggesting that it never even occurred to him. 

This, of course, ignores Lincoln’s steadfast anti-slavery beliefs, his strong desire to see slavery ended - by legal, incontestable, Constitutional means - and the many ideas he floated to persuade the states to do it themselves, as only they could. Those ideas ranged from the lamentable-in-retrospect (freeing slaves and colonizing them overseas) to the more plausible (compensated emancipation) before he ultimately gave up trying to persuade and forced the issue with his Proclamation. Hamilton interprets all of this by claiming Lincoln “would prefer colonization of Black people” to emancipation, that he would rather “leave slavery to be tackled by the states themselves another day,” suggesting a complete disinterest on his part in seeing the issue addressed, and that he believed “the war should be won as soon as possible by the army without having to free anyone,” which suggests an absolute callousness that Lincoln did not actually display. In Hamilton’s telling, Lincoln was too “locked in prewar civil-war legal semantics” and refused to “act manfully as the nation's ultimate military chieftain in a time of war.”

Of course he excoriates Lincoln for overruling Gen. John Frémont’s 1861 emancipation order in Missouri, ignoring that Lincoln considered that to be his prerogative and not his field commanders’, and dismissing Lincoln’s concerns that allowing the order to stand at that early stage of the war would antagonize the border states. “The loss of Kentucky would not have lost the Union the war in any conceivable way, historians have accepted,” Hamilton claims (which “historians have accepted” this, and if true, how could Lincoln have known that at the time?) thereby suggesting that callous self-interest motivated Lincoln, that he cared less about slavery than he did in keeping his birth state loyal. 

Others in Lincoln’s orbit don’t escape Hamilton’s scorn. For believing that preserving the Union was of primary importance, Seward, as mentioned earlier, is ludicrously branded a “pro-slaver.” Lincoln naming Stanton as Secretary of War “had probably been as much of a mistake as appointing McClellan as supreme commander.” And it’s easy to pick on George McClellan, especially in hindsight, but Hamilton goes overboard, calling him a “lunatic” whose “madcap Peninsula Campaign” was “a plan that only a child could have conceived,” and dismisses both McClellan and his boss as “a man of rhetoric more than action - just as he, Abraham Lincoln, was.” 

I haven’t even gotten to Hamilton’s annoying narrative tics that made the book’s style as unpalatable to me as its content. One is his extremely overused habit of quoting someone, then incredulously repeating a portion of that quote to express his surprise or disagreement: 

“...The Fort in its present condition of affairs is of inconsiderable military value.”
   Inconsiderable military value?

Another is the plethora of sentence fragments. Which I suppose is an effort to be conversational. But is actually very distracting. And annoying, too. Just like this is. 

Then there are the entire paragraphs - sometimes multiple paragraphs - consisting of nothing but an endless series of convoluted questions, which do little to advance the narrative:

   Had Lincoln given in to his fears, and overreacted to mindless newspaper assertions: imagining Davis to be preparing the South for an aggressive Confederate policy, when Davis had never, in fact, intended or planned to "invade" the North, and was only planning defense against Northern attack? Had the "Great Panic" in the city in April therefore been unwarranted, the result of a fiction? Was Lincoln's proclamation-appeal for a Union army of 75,000 troops, as Fort Sumter fell, an unfortunate mistake: one that had driven the border states to rush to protect themselves by seceding and then joining the Confederacy?
     Had Scott perhaps been right to hold off on invasion of the Southern states until a far more powerful Union army was assembled than Mr. Lincoln's original call for 75,000 volunteers? A Union army that would be powerful enough, organized enough, trained well enough, to prevail in difficult, hostile territory such as Virginia?

And still other paragraphs could have been a sentence:

The wording of his proclamation was especially commendable, the president congratulated himself. It was, after all, a document, an edict, fashioned upon the anvil of the moment. The notion of negotiation with Southern commissioners and insurrectionists - especially after such humiliation - was done, was over. Without literary improvement or interference by any member of the cabinet - no interrogatories, no emendations, no elisions, no shilly-shallying - he had condensed his resolve into 366 words of proclamation.

If only Hamilton had “condensed his resolve” by cutting back on this florid prose, the book wouldn’t needlessly be as long as it is.

Back to the narrative, though, since we haven’t even gotten to the Emancipation Proclamation yet. When the “carrots” of colonization and compensated emancipation were conclusively rejected, Lincoln turned to the “stick” of uncompensated military emancipation, and waited for a Union victory in order to announce his proclamation from a position of strength. Hamilton rejects this chronology, though, suggesting that the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was a panicky response to Gen. Lee’s invasion of Maryland. Since Davis backed Lee’s plan to go on the offensive, during which Lee issued his own proclamation to the people of Maryland inviting them to capitulate, Hamilton essentially gives the Confederate president credit for forcing Lincoln’s hand, for making him do what he “had hitherto done everything possible to avoid” and “issue his own counter-proclamation.”

Counter-proclamation? (see what I did there?) 

So in this president-vs-president narrative, the passive Lincoln acted only after the aggressive Davis went a step too far. Suddenly “sloughing off all concerns about legality, the Constitution, (and) loyalty in the border states” - suggesting that his earlier concerns were unfounded and insincere - Lincoln apparently made the rash decision to make a move against slavery, with a "counter-proclamation" that was little more than a knee-jerk response to Lee's proclamation. “It was the South’s own fault,” Hamilton writes, blaming them and yet somehow also crediting them for backing Lincoln into a corner and making him do an abrupt, hypocritical about-face, “manning up to defend the United States,” “his long vacillation over,” for which Hamilton doesn’t give him credit, so much as he exasperatingly suggests it was about time.

Toward the end of the book, we learn that “Mr. Lincoln, to his Cabinet members’ surprise, had not been in the Oval Office when they gathered,” which is understandable, since the Oval Office wouldn’t exist for another four decades. But given all my other concerns about this book, that’s nothing.

If closing the book with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation was meant to be a soaring, inspirational conclusion, showing how Lincoln grew into his role to meet the moment and his counterpart Davis failed to grow into his role and overplayed his hand, it doesn’t come across that way. Hamilton knew this was where his story was going to end, and his impatience in waiting for his protagonists to figure it out, shows. Lincoln’s moral opposition to slavery is mostly ignored, and his Proclamation is portrayed as a desperate move born solely out of military necessity, a punitive measure, aimed at one-upping Davis and winning the war. And if some slaves had to be freed in order to do so, so be it - which is far from accurately depicting Lincoln’s position on slavery. 

Closing the book here also makes the end of the war seem to be a fait accompli. You wouldn't know there were still two hard years of war ahead. All you need to know, apparently, is that the Emancipation Proclamation was the moment Davis lost the war. Not the moment that Lincoln won it. It's overall a disappointing, distorted take - with poor writing to boot - that I’m glad for you if you liked, but one that I cannot recommend.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 Stars!

This book is a monster!

As a Kentuckian I'm pretty sure the Civil War was the last time Kentucky had any importance in America. Abraham Lincoln, his wife Mary and confederate President Jefferson Davis were all born in Kentucky. Kentucky staying or leaving the Union was extremely important to both sides. I've obviously seen the Ken Burns Civil War doc( I need to re-watch it) but most Civil War media I've encountered is from the Union side, unless it's jump out the windows racist.

Lincoln v Davis looks at the Civil War from both perspectives. The author is obviously pro Union but he does call out the mistakes Lincoln made, including wanting to kick all Black out of the country after ending slavery.

Obviously the Union officially won the Civil War but it's clear that with Lincoln's murder the confederacy won the ultimate war. Slavery was simply replaced with Jim Crow...political violence worked for the confederacy and all those pro slavery ghouls.

This book is long and I've been battling a reading slump so I had to set it aside for a bit. I completely recommend this book to my fellow History lovers. It's dense and well researched. I overall enjoyed this book ...can I count Jefferson Davis in my reading through the President's journey???

[Louis Muñoz · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars. This book is a magnificent work of scholarship, and I would rate it five stars on that count. The author brings events and people to life in very compelling ways, and helps us understand how so much of the Civil War and its many tragedies and losses could have gone in other ways, even avoided. Where the book comes up short is in fulfilling its central premise, offering a dual biography of two presidents at war. In the acknowledgements that close the book, the author tells us that he was originally going to write a book about the war but instead decided to write a book about its two rival leaders, ironic because what we really get is a VERY granular history of the Civil War anyway. For example, a full third of this 32-hour audiobook takes place BEFORE the first major battle of the war (the Battle of Bull Run) in July 1861!

Ultimately, yes, the book does give us close-up looks at how Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis led their respective wars: their reactions and counter-reactions, their ups and downs, and their various triumphs and losses. However, they disappear during many sections of the books, with other players taking center stage. (William Seward, I'm looking at you.)

The other main way that this book comes up short for me is the author's strange choice to essentially end his book with Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, almost 2 1/3 years before the end of the war. Hamilton explains his reasons, but not very convincingly to these eyes, and because the book ends so early on, I didn't feel I got a complete dual biography of these two rivals at war. With all that in mind, I found this an excellent, masterly, engrossing book, despite its significant flaws.

[Dr. Alan Albarran · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent "semi-biography" of the only time in American history where two Presidents ruled: Abraham Lincoln for the United States of America, and Jefferson Davis for the Confederate States of America. It is not a full biography, as author Nigel Hamilton explains in his ending notes, but a look at both presidents beginning when both were elected in January, 1861, and taking the reader through January 1, 1863, the day Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery in the Southern states.

Having never read anything about Davis, I found this "side" of the book fascinating. I learned a great deal about Jefferson Davis, and his wife Varina. There were a couple of interesting similarities between Lincoln and Davis. Both were the same age upon election, and both were born in Kentucky. Davis had a career as a military officer (he served in the Army and fought in the Mexican War); Lincoln never served in the military and was a politician. These two different perspectives are illustrated throughout the book, especially understanding the decision-making between the two leaders. Lincoln vacillated when faced with difficult decisions (such as the firing of General George McClellan) while Davis really didn't desire the Confederate presidency.

The book also explores the economic challenges faced by the Southern states, who faced a naval blockade following the attack on Fort Sumter and the inability to get cotton, their most lucrative asset, exported to Europe. The CSA wanted to be recognized by European countries as a separate nation in hopes that would give them more stability. Efforts were underway to entice Great Britain, France, and Spain but all was undone with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation (EP).

Hamilton points out the many turning points in the first two years of the American Civil War. These included the key battles at Bull Run, Manassas, Antietam, Shilo, Frederricksburg, and other bloody confrontations. The ongoing indecision of McClellan to have any sort of wartime strategy is discussed in detail. CSA General Robert E. Lee's failed effort to invade Maryland and "free" those citizens from Northern control with his own proclamation in the fall of 1862 game Lincoln the impetus for his own, much more defining EP.

The book's ending left the reader wanting more, and Hamilton should consider a second volume detailing the last two years of the Civil War. Still, this is a book for anyone interested in military history and the Civil War.

I reviewed an advanced copy which did not contain any maps or illustrations. That's my only criticism of the book. I'm sure they will be part of the published work.

I want to thank NetGalley, the author, and publisher for the opportunity to review this ARC, and attest my review is my own work.

[Sean Chick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Did you know that Anderson was committing treason by surrendering Fort Sumter? Or that McClellan was insane? Or that Lee could have bagged McClellan at Harrison's Landing (Union navy be damned!)? This and other stupid opinions can be gleamed from a historian who really should stick to World War II. Sad too, because sometimes outsiders can bring fresh perspectives and as a historian of presidents, Hamilton does have some insight. But then he has these dumb opinions that show great ignorance of the subject and the nature of warfare and even of America in the era. Much of it I chalk up to the English need to be cheeky and original, which makes their military histories often among the worst in the world.

Oh, and the prose and "research" is utter bollocks.

[Bonnie G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Equal parts enlightening and infuriating.

This book was well-researched, and I learned a ton, perhaps most especially about that little weasel General George McClellan. Also, it was delightful to see Lincoln written about in a very non-fawning sort of way. That act of knocking Lincoln from his pedestal though becomes part of one of the problems I had with this book. Hamilton knocks him down and then proceeds to metaphorically kick the shit out of him while he is lying on the ground already wounded. The attacks are gratuitous, and at least on the page often do not appear to have a lot of foundation. I appreciated that Hamilton discussed Lincoln's own abhorrent views on race. His goal was not to free the slaves to be free and equal Americans. His goal was to form a colony to which the US would ship off all the Black people, free and enslaved, because their presence caused so many problems. This was disheartening to learn about, and to hear direct quotes from Abe blaming Black Americans for being at the center of this mess was painful. But I also feel that knowing this will help me see America a little more clearly. As good as that illumination was, Hamilton otherwise paints Lincoln as a political hack, all cagey people-pleasing window-dressing while he was paralyzed by the need to make any real decisions At the same time he waxes rhapsodic about Davis' brilliance and decency, a man felled by one bad decision. This whitewashing (phrase used purposely) includes many discussions brushing off the fact that he was a large slaveholder by noting that he had moral qualms about slavery and that he was "kind" to his slaves, so much so that only one slave ever tried to run away from his plantation, and when that slave was returned he ended up being put in a position of responsibility. As if the mistreatment of slaves was the problem with slavery, not, you know, the ownership of human beings.

Hamilton may knock Lincoln off the platform, but that frees it up for him to place Davis' wife, Varina right there above it all.I think Hamilton has a thing for Varina, I do believe he likes likes her. He goes on endlessly in early chapters about her fine face and figure (though he acknowledges that her multiple pregnancies left her more "voluptuous" he notes that the man he refers to as "Jeffy D" was still warm for her form.) He also prattles on and on and on about her grace, her wit, and her celebrated conversational skills. (He also mentions her BFF a lot, and every time he does he calls her Varina's "bosom friend.") Later in the book he includes many letters showing what a devoted and loving wife and devoted helpmate and mother she was. She sounds awesome, truly, but it got obsessive. Mary Lincoln does not get the same treatment. He actually spends little time talking about her other than to note that she was short and stout, spent a lot of cash on fripperies, was clinically depressed, and had as her dearest friend her Black modiste, an interesting woman who plays an important background role in this story.

My other major problem with the book was the writing. I generally groove on pretentious writing, but this was that kind of fusty pretension that is hard to like. The prose is littered with off-had French words and phrases and to a lesser degree Latin. He defines none of them for the first 90% of the book. In a weird turn, after using the term "casus belli" at least 30 times he defines it 92% into the book. I know what casus belli means, but it was used in some tortured sentences and that led me to look it up to make sure that word means what I think it means (yes, that is a Princess Bride reference, I can't help myself.) I was correct, it is something used as a justification for war. So yes, there are many ways to say that without whipping out one's Latin. He also uses many English words that no one ever needs to use. I counted eight uses of the word "pusillanimity." I confess I have never seen nor heard that word. I don't use the word but I know "pusillanimous." I was unaware this was an accepted form of the word. And if you are wondering, he was never quoting people from the time when people possibly used words like that. It was just him. He could have used timidity, cowardliness, indecisiveness, or many other words that people would understand. Also on the language front, Hamilton is often quite bombastic in his turns of phrase. I found it irritating (I feel like I should use a word like nettlesome or vexatious to stay with Hamilton's tone.)

So, learned a lot and appreciated both the choice not to treat Lincoln as a demigod, and to compare these two leaders to one another, but found the tone of the book off-putting and occasionally creepy as well as often racist and misogynistic. (I didn't talk about the latter here except in the constant references to Varinas hot bod, but there were other things. At the end one instance made me laugh. He is talking about how "homo sapiens" were naturally drawn to conflict and then in the next sentence he says that the women were also drawn to conflict and often the most vicious. So women and homo sapiens is his breakdown of gender.) There is also a good deal of repetition of obvious points, and when reading an 800-page tome repetition is particularly problematic for me. Great subject, great research, but with problems in the execution. (Here is where I note that a 3-star is a positive rating for me. It is a "good" but not a "very good" or a "great.")

[Len Boselovic · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted to love this book. And there is much to commend about it, even if you don't buy his rebuttal of Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals thesis. But Hamilton has the irksome habit of saying in 100 words what could be said in 20 -- and making the same point over and over again employing the same long-winded prose. If I had a dollar for every time he used the phrase "three and a half million slaves," I could have purchased one or more bottles 16-year-old Lagavulin. Perhaps that tonic would have made a 700-page book that could have been written in 550 pages more enjoyable.

[Madalyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is phenomenal! I learned a great deal from it and appreciated the insightful comparisons and contrasts. As a history student, I consider it essential for my bookshelf. The portrayal of both presidents is vivid and humanizing, making the book highly engaging. Its accessible content means that readers of all experience levels will find it valuable. I highly recommend it and look forward to getting my own copy once it's published!

[Steven Z. · Rating 5 out of 5]

One might ask if we need another book about the Civil War. What angle might an author take that would appear new and consequential? It appears that presidential historian Nigel Hamilton, the author of a trilogy focusing on the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, another on Bill Clinton, and finally one on John F. Kennedy has done so. Further, Hamilton has also written a monumental multi-volume biography of British General Bernard “Monty” Montogomery and seems to have found his Civil War niche. Hamilton’s latest effort entitled THE WAR OF PRESIDENTS: LINCOLN VS. DAVIS focuses on presenting a comparative biography of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis zeroing in on the first two years of the war and their viewpoints and actions. Hamilton’s goal as he states in the preface is “to get into their warring minds and hearts – hopefully supplying enough context, meanwhile : to judge their actions and decisions, both at the time and in retrospect.”

From the outset Hamilton raises an important question; how did the “rail-splitter” from Illinois grow into his critical role as Commander-in-Chief, and manage to outwit his formidable opponent, Jefferson Davis who was a trained soldier and Mexican War hero, while Lincoln, a country lawyer had served only briefly in the militia? The answer to this question is fully addressed by the author as he reaches a number of important conclusions, none more important than Lincoln’s refusal to name slavery as a cause and goal for the war in order to maintain border state loyalty and encourage a reunion with the Confederacy. This was Lincoln’s mindset for two years as Hamilton relates his personal moral equation in dealing with slavery as he ultimately will change his policy and issue the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863 freeing 3.5 million slaves without which the south could not fund their armed insurrection. Once Lincoln made it clear the war was being fought over slavery European support for the south and diplomatic recognition necessary for the survival of the Confederacy would not be forthcoming – sealing the defeat of the south and the failure of Davis’s presidency.

Hamilton’s methodology is to alternate chapters following the lives of both men. From Davis’s arrival in the first Confederate capital in Montgomery, Alabama to Lincoln’s tortuous voyage avoiding assassination plots as he arrived in Washington, DC. The key topics that Hamilton explores include a comparison of each president’s personality, and his political and moral beliefs including events, strategies, and individuals who played a significant role leading up to and the seizure of Fort Sumter. These figures encompass role of Major Robert Anderson who commanded the fort and General Winfield Scott, who headed northern forces, the role of Lincoln’s cabinet particularly Secretary of State William H. Seward, who was seen by some as committing treason for his actions, Postmaster General Montogomery Blair who was against the war, and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Hamilton goes on to lay out the catastrophe that was General George McClellan and his paranoia and refusal to take advantage of his overwhelming military resources and his incompetent “Peninsula Campaign.”

Hamilton does a wonderful job digging into the personalities of the major historical figures and how their actions influenced Lincoln and Davis and the course of the war. The roles of McClellan, Fremont, Scott have been mentioned but the author also delves into the mindset of important military leaders such as Generals Joe Johnston, Pierre Beauregard, Stonewall Jackson, Irvin McDowell, and others. Further, Hamilton also introduces a number of important sources that other historians have not mined as carefully. For example, the diaries of State Department translator Count Adam Gorowski, a Polish aristocrat whose negative opinions of Lincoln are striking as it seemed Lincoln was unable to enforce the powers of his office and lack of military competence would have drastic consequences. London Times war correspondent William Howard Russell’s opinions are explored in detail, in an addition to Elizabeth Keckley, a formerly enslaved woman who first served as a seamstress to Davis’s wife Varina, and later to Mary Todd Lincoln, and John Beauchamp Jones, a War Department clerk from Maryland who supported the Confederacy.

Hamilton’s view of Lincoln is rather negative for the first two years of the war as he writes, Lincoln, “had really no idea what he must do to win the war – or how to reconstruct a civil society in the slaveholding south, so dependent upon cotton, if he ever did.” Interestingly, Davis wanted a defensive war to protect the deep south, he never favored a full blown civil war with the seizure of Washington, but was forced into it when more states seceded, he was called upon to protect them as they moved the Confederate capital to Richmond, Va. Davis’ strategy was to bluff Lincoln until it was clear that McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign was foolish, then he went on the offensive.

What sets Hamilton’s work apart from others is his writing style. His narrative prose flows evenly and makes for a comfortable read. His sourcing is excellent adding the latest documents and secondary sources available. His integration of letters, diary excerpts, and other materials creates an atmosphere where the reader is party to conversations and actions between the main characters, i.e., Lincoln-McClellan interaction in person and in writing among many others. Hamilton’s approach provides for subtle analysis, but he does not hold back, particularly in providing evidence for Lincoln’s mediocre performance as a military leader, who is overly worried about political issues. This is evident in his approach to McClellan’s Peninsula campaign when the overland option driving south toward Richmond made much more sense than a complex amphibious strategy designed to go ashore in southern Virginia and drive north toward the Confederate capital. By 1861 Hamilton argues that Lincoln seemed out of his depth as a military commander and appeared reluctant to make military decisions. His reaction to John C. Fremont’s Emancipation Proclamation in Missouri is a case in point as he forced the General to rescind the order which was consistent with his refusal to have the issue of slavery affect the fighting.

Davis’ strategy was a simple one. Fight a defensive war and gain European recognition for the Confederacy. His problem was slavery was viewed negatively in European diplomatic circles. Davis hoped that the need for cotton, necessitating England and France breaking through the northern blockade, would become more important than moral stances related to the enslavement of three and half million people.

Lincoln had difficulty accepting the fact it was slavery that allowed the Confederacy to fight as cotton provided the wealth to purchase weapons, slaves provided food to survive, and the overall manpower to run plantations when southern whites went off to fight. Davis was fully aware of Confederate weaknesses; southern planters were against taxation, European recognition was not forthcoming, 5.5 million v. 23 million people, the extra expense and manpower to defend Kentucky and Virginia spreading his lines thinner and thinner until McClellan’s refusal to engage with superior forces provided Davis with a solution.

Perhaps Hamilton’s most important theme is “Lincoln’s eventual recognition in extremis, of his blunder would compel him, belatedly, to change his mind and agree to make the Confederacy’s use of millions of enslaved Black people – almost half the Southern population – a war issue.” By doing so Lincoln poked holes through Davis’s southern fiction that the Confederacy had “a legal justification for mounting armed insurrection: defense of soil and family.”

Hamilton argues that Davis did not defeat Lincoln because of hubris in the person of General Robert E. Lee who took Confederate troops north in 1862, and Davis’s failure to stop him. Once the southern argument of self-defense was lost, Lincoln could finally pivot to his strongest position – emancipation. Once the war became a conflict to end slavery, accepted by enough of the north, the south would lose hope of diplomatic recognition by European powers hungry for cotton. The book will conclude on January 1, 1863, with the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Historian Louis P. Masur October 31, 2024, Washington Post book review of Hamilton’s work hits the nail right on the head as he writes: “Lincoln too would dramatically transform his side’s military strategy. Much to the dismay of abolitionists, and biographer Hamilton as well, Lincoln initially refused to take direct action to emancipate the enslaved in the Confederacy. Radical Republicans were especially enraged when, in September 1861, Lincoln forced Gen. John C. Frémont to rescind Frémont’s unauthorized order declaring martial law and freeing the enslaved in Missouri. Lincoln offered the legal and political argument that the order stood outside military necessity and served only to alienate the four slave states remaining in the Union, of which Missouri was one. Within a year, though, he decided on an Emancipation Proclamation that would liberate most of the enslaved people in the Confederacy; the multifaceted story of how he changed his mind, pieces of which are told in Hamilton’s book, is one of the most absorbing in all of Lincoln scholarship.

“In truth,” Hamilton writes, “Lincoln had really no idea what he must do to win the war.” But “Davis had had no idea how to win the war, either.” These thoughts capture a truism — much of what we think about the past comes from understanding it backward. Neither Lincoln nor Davis, in the moment, knew what might work or what needed to be done or how to do it. This is why counterfactuals are so prominent in considerations of war. What if Lincoln had fired McClellan earlier? What if Davis had stopped Lee from invading Maryland? What if Lincoln had acted sooner against slavery? Hamilton is keenly attuned to the way hindsight can both enlighten and obscure, and he peppers the narrative with questions and retrospective speculations, sometimes excessively so.

There have been scores of books on Lincoln and Davis, but few that examine them jointly. Hamilton’s uncommon approach helps illuminate an observation once made by the historian David Potter, who suggested that “if the Union and the Confederacy had changed presidents with one another, the Confederacy might have won its independence.” The statement invites us to identify the qualities that distinguished Lincoln from Davis. There are many, but none more instructive than this: Over the course of four years, Lincoln grew into the job of president and commander in chief, whereas Davis remained set in his ways. This sweeping dual biography succeeds in dramatizing the reasons one triumphed and the other failed.”

It is clear from Hamiliton’s monograph that the turning point in the Civil War did not take place on the battlefield per se. Hamilton developed the Confederate strategy that in the end resulted in an invasion of the north through Maryland and an obnoxious Proclamation on the part of General Robert E. Lee. Expecting Marylanders and Kentuckians to rally around the Confederacy, Lee and Davis were surprised when that did not come to fruition. Once the south invaded the north, the rationale that the Confederacy was a victim of northern oppression was no longer valid and acceptable to European diplomats. With the invasion of Maryland, Lincoln was driven into a corner and finally was willing to do something about slavery being the foundation for the Confederacy’s economy and military strength. Lincoln “bit the bullet” by employing the issue of millions of enslaved people as a military and moral issue.

His strategy was clear, the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing 3.5 million slaves as of January 1, 1863. This would result in Europeans refusing to recognize the Confederacy with the war now being fought over slavery. For Davis, it appeared the war would eventually be lost. But it would be his decision to allow Lee to invade Maryland that drove Lincoln to the war of attrition.

Hamilton has completed a remarkable work of narrative history with a unique approach which should be welcome to historians and Civil War buffs alike.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quoting Allen Guelzo in his review of this book, “Hamilton is blessed with a vivid and swiftly rollicking style—the one-sentence paragraph, the calculated guess, the pitch-perfect timing. Above all, there is the quick-stroke uncovering of personality, sometimes in the most shocking terms. Lincoln is "often indecisive, and sometimes deeply depressed," occasionally "deceitful" with a "tendency to vacillate," and "solely concerned with garnering white support for the war" until it is nearly too late. Lincoln’s secretary of state, William Henry Seward, is "a serpent if ever there was one," a "pro-slaver" with "all the devilish, Iago-like skills of deceit, intimidation, manipulation and ambition." By contrast, Jefferson Davis "was neither shifting nor wavering," and based his "entire plan of Confederate survival to be a war of military defense," even in the face of the pleas of his generals. George McClellan, Lincoln’s first choice as a Union general-in-chief, is simply an "idiot" who "went completely to pieces" at his defeat during the Peninsula Campaign of 1862.”

Note: Guelzo's full review here -
https://freebeacon.com/culture/lincol...

Hamilton’s style and tone are more akin to a historical soap opera, complete with rhetorical questions to elevate the drama, speculative foreshadowing and speculative hypothesizing more suitable to directorial annotations on a script to foster and mold the performance. His editorial commentary is also exasperating.

For example, he writes that James Buchanan’s comments to Lincoln at Lincoln’s inauguration were merely that “he hoped the new president would find himself as “happy” settling into the White House as he, James Buchanan, would be in retiring to his beloved estate in Pennsylvania.” He then follows with this:

“Happy? Happy to be inheriting a nation being ripped apart, and potentially crippled, by mass rebellion? And with its most symbolic U.S. fortress in the South, at the epicenter of the nation’s current crisis, an almost literal sitting duck in Charleston’s harbor, running out of provisions, and impossible to relieve without assigning more troops to its protection than constituted the nation’s entire army?
Happy?”

Hamilton engages in moralistically simple judgments that disregard considerable current events, realities of the times and related historical events. Lincoln’s "refusal to address slavery" for the first two years of the war was "morally reprehensible" and "also a war-losing strategy," and underscores for Hamilton his lack of fixed purpose. Historians "are entitled to ask why President Lincoln had been so tardy in embracing emancipation as a military measure," and should entertain no excuses based on Lincoln’s fear that it would lose "faraway, neutral Kentucky" for the Union. Ummmm ... because of the strategic importance of a state whose borders embraced both the Mississippi and the Ohio rivers, and whose secession might well have been the trigger for the Great Lakes states to form a confederacy of their own?? Ummmmm... because Lincoln’s basic reason for this "refusal" was not a failure in morality, but an appreciation of, and fealty to, the law??? Lincoln had no authority to deal with slavery because, in reality, no such authority existed.

Quoting Guelzo again: “Hamilton wishes that Lincoln had been able "to summon the psychic will" to use "his constitutional war powers to deal manfully" with slavery far earlier, and without dilly-dallying with border state politics. The problem with this, however, is that presidents have no "constitutional war powers"; they have only that designation—commander in chief—and it was by no means clear what that entailed. Lincoln knew this, and knew that he was going out on a constitutional limb in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation at all. He had no guarantee that, even in the border states, maniacal slaveowners wouldn’t file suit in federal court, arguing that their "property" had been unjustly taken (which is the reason the border states are not included in the proclamation). He himself admitted that once the shooting had stopped, the courts would have to decide whether the Proclamation should stand or not. And the plaintiffs would have found quite a friendly hearing with Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the author of the infamous Dred Scott decision.”

Lincoln certainly had his limitations, but he was not the hapless, diminished personality painted by Hamilton. To cite just one more example, Hamilton disdains McClellan, summarizing him as an “idiot.” Now McClellan was many things - vainglorious, indecisive, insubordinate, disrespectful, a timid and ineffectual combat commander, to name a few ... but he was not an idiot. Frankly, if you are interested in Lincoln and the Civil War, there are far better books to read than this one, starting with any and all of the works by Allen Guelzo.

[Dawn Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read multiple books about Lincoln [mostly nonfiction with a couple good historical fiction books thrown in there], but knew almost nothing about Jefferson Davis [just what I vaguely remembered from a book I read about him ages ago], so I was really excited to dive into this one.

Well-written and researched [SO. MUCH. RESEARCH.], this is a deep dive into the two men who were President at the same time - their early lives, their marriages [Varina Davis was more stable than Mary Todd, but she also had to deal with being hauled pillar-to-post and had to deal with her cowardly husband, so there is that], AND the war and how they dealt with that and the result is absolutely fascinating.

While Lincoln made many mistakes [he may be my favorite President, but I am not completely blind to his faults] and let certain Generals stay in charge longer than he should have [I have read several Civil War books this year and not ONE of them touched on what a MORON General McClellan was nd how unsuited he was to military leadership {or lack of it}, not to mention that he was pro-slavery [I AM SORRY, WHAT??] - all of this was shocking to me], but in my opinion, that is nothing compared to the absolute uselessness of Jefferson Davis [I found it interesting that he actually WAS a soldier and Lincoln was not, but Lincoln was a far better stratigist and surrounded himself with people who could lead him correctly, minus the whole McClellan debacle] that led to the south losing the war. Reading about his cowardice was fascinating and made me wonder how anyone could have even spent time with him after that.

A really great read for any history lover or Civil War aficionado, this was just what I was hoping it would be [even after all I have read about Lincoln, I still learned SO MUCH reading this book] and I am so glad I was able to read it.

Thank you to NetGalley, Nigel Hamilton, and Little, Brown, and Company for providing this ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Bill Wagner · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was so excited to read this book. When I saw it for the first time I very much anticipated enjoying this dual biography. I considered it an awesome idea. I don’t think I could have been more disappointed. For me, the only thing that saved it at all was that it was a fairly readable volume.

I certainly was not expecting a scathing indictment of the way Abraham Lincoln managed the first two years of the Civil War. Nigel Hamilton seems to have expected Lincoln to have freed the slaves immediately after war broke out. The author completely ignores the reality of the war. He had to keep the border states in the Union. And he knew many northerners didn’t want to fight a war to end slavery. He waited until the border states were secure and northerners were more prepared to abolish slavery.

The author also portrays certain characters in a way that better fits his narrative. He indicates that Secretary of War Simon Cameron was let go because of his anti slavery beliefs. He ignores the fact that Cameron was incompetent and corrupt. Hamilton also has somehow turned the abolitionist William Seward into a pro slavery advocate. And he claims Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because the south invaded the north and called for Maryland to join the Confederacy. In fact Lincoln would have issued his proclamation regardless of where the next victory took place.

A lot of people liked this book. I was not one of them. To me the author either had an agenda against Lincoln or was simply delusional. And I would not recommend this book.

[Sarah Cupitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

is there a trope for soldier vs politician lol

(anyway the book focuses on two men who began their presidential journeys on the same day in early 1861 – Abraham Lincoln, the self-taught lawyer from Illinois, and Jefferson Davis, the experienced soldier from Mississippi)

At its core: Lincoln’s dramatic shift on slavery – a topic he tried to sidestep, but one that would determine the war’s outcome. Lincoln vs. Davis offers intriguing insights about how the Emancipation Proclamation came about, and why Davis and his Confederate General Robert E. Lee may in fact have opened the door for Lincoln to finally make a decisive decision.

Notes:
- though both hailed from Kentucky and were of similar age, their paths to power and their leadership styles were vastly different.
- The secession of Southern states set the stage for an inevitable confrontation. Davis, already stockpiling resources and commissioning military leaders, solidified the Confederacy’s defense strategy. Lincoln’s inaugural address, meanwhile, called for unity and peace, but it failed to sway Southern leaders, who dismissed his words as naïve.
- Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 militia volunteers to suppress the rebellion, asserting his determination to preserve the Union. While his bold proclamation galvanized Northern resolve, it also had unintended consequences in the border states, where loyalties were divided.
- In Washington, Lincoln had to admit that he had no military experience. As a result, debates raged over strategy and would continue to do so for the next year and a half.
- The resulting Battle of Bull Run, or First Manassas, unfolded in July 1861 near the Bull Run River, just 20 miles from Washington, D.C. Union General Irvin McDowell, leading 50,000 men, sought to outflank a smaller Confederate force of 20,000. Early Union advances seemed promising until Confederate reinforcements arrived by train, tipping the scales in the South’s favor.
- Despite the rising stakes, both leaders avoided addressing slavery directly, keeping it sidelined as an issue for another day.
- By October 1861, many Confederate leaders wanted him to be more aggressive. They envisioned 50,000 troops crossing the Potomac River and taking the fight to Washington. Davis, though, didn’t see it as a viable option. They had only 34,000 troops available and the Confederacy had the advantage of making this a war of Northern aggression. If the Confederacy were seen as the aggressors, it would make their case in Europe even more of an uphill battle.
- With McClellan stalling and the Union Army’s progress halted, Lincoln’s leadership came under increasing fire.
- In November 1861, George McClellan, the pro-slavery Union General, confidently predicted he could capture Richmond by February 1862. In doing so, he proclaimed, he could resolve the war while keeping the issue of slavery untouched. But once in command of the Union Army, McClellan proved to be a disastrous leader. He stalled, citing inflated estimates of Confederate strength and refusing to act without more troops under his control.
- the Union ferried over 120,000 troops to Fort Monroe, on the southern tip of the Virginia Peninsula. From there, they were to strike decisively at Richmond. But once again McClellan hesitated at every chance. When a small Confederate force under General Magruder appeared, McClellan settled in for a prolonged siege at Yorktown, squandering his overwhelming numerical advantage and losing precious momentum.
- the Confederates ultimately lured McClellan into a trap at Seven Pines, near Richmond. Instead of pressing forward, he hesitated again, pleading with Lincoln for reinforcements but showing little resolve to complete his mission and always staying far from the line of battle.
- McClellan’s retreat down the peninsula revealed his inability to adapt, leaving the Confederacy emboldened. By the time the Seven Days Battles unfolded, Lee and Davis had turned McClellan’s campaign into a humiliating withdrawal, trapping the Union Army on an area of the peninsula known as Harrison’s Landing, and positioning the Confederacy for a stronger defense of its capital.
- On September 22, 1862, Lincoln convened his cabinet to unveil the Emancipation Proclamation. Though divisive, it was a transformative decision, reframing the war as a moral battle against slavery. Effective January 1, 1863, the proclamation declared freedom for all enslaved people in rebellious states.
- Davis revealed his lack of political understanding. He had the chance to counter Lincoln with a proposal for gradual emancipation, which might have swayed European opinion, but he chose inaction. This lack of adaptability revealed a deeper failure to address the Confederacy’s growing vulnerabilities and signaled its inevitable decline.
- The moment Lincoln signed the proclamation marked a turning point – not just in the war but in the nation’s moral identity. He ensured that the fight for the Union would also be a fight for freedom

[Rob Pantuliano · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved his FDR trilogy. This book has lots of new details, especially at the war's beginning. However he seems to just criticize Lincoln not knowing political realities he faced. I get the point he is making, but doesn't need to repeat it literally dozens of time. And please do without constant questions at paragraph end. It's a slog. But I still enjoyed a bit. It's a cool idea for dual biography and seems to focus more on depth of Davis, a chimera historical figure wise. Essentially Ferguson states that the Civil War was lost essentially by the Confederacy after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Tony Dieckmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

To hear the events of the times from both sides is revealing. I gained new insights and a different understanding of the two men. It was fascinating to see the contrast of a politician and a military man and how they thought of the conflict and how they prosecuted the war.

[Peter McGough · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this book because of the interesting idea of chronicling the presidencies of Davis and Lincoln. Sadly, this pales next to many other books on these men and the Civil War. Spends a lot of time fawning on the wife of Davis, Farina. More importantly, he relies on the benefit of hindsight to vastly underestimate the challenges facing Lincoln with regard to emancipation and his role as Commander in Chief. Davis is given much credit for his prior experience as a military leader who led a lost cause to maintain slavery. Would skip this long and, I believe, skewed book.

[Janine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nigel Hamilton’s Lincoln vs. Davis: The War of the Presidents attempts to contrast the leadership styles of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, but it does so with a slanted lens that places Lincoln in a disproportionately unfavorable light—particularly during the early years of the Civil War. Rather than offering a balanced view of both presidents’ wartime decision-making, the book zeroes in almost exclusively on Lincoln’s fraught relationship with General George McClellan. This narrow focus gives the impression that Lincoln’s presidency was defined by indecision, inexperience, and failure to assert authority—without giving equal weight to the significant evolution of his leadership as the war progressed.

Hamilton repeatedly circles the same ground, reiterating Lincoln’s hesitations with McClellan to the point of redundancy. This repetition inflates the book to over 700 pages, though the material could easily have been condensed into a tighter, more effective 300-page analysis. Instead of providing broader context on Lincoln’s policies, character, or Civil War strategy beyond McClellan, the book hammers a single point until it loses its impact.

Stylistically, Lincoln vs. Davis mimics the narrative structure of Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative, but without Foote’s range, depth, or storytelling finesse. Readers hoping for a comprehensive study of both presidents’ wartime leadership will find this book lacking in scope and balance. You’re better off turning to Foote’s trilogy, which captures the full arc of Lincoln and Davis’s leadership rather than a one-note portrayal that reduces Lincoln to a series of early missteps and missed opportunities.

[Jung · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book "Lincoln vs. Davis: The War of the Presidents" by Nigel Hamilton takes a unique angle on the American Civil War by spotlighting the contrasting leadership styles of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Beginning on the same day in 1861, these two men—one, a self-taught lawyer from Illinois, the other, a seasoned soldier from Mississippi—embarked on a journey that would shape the course of the nation. Their presidencies represented two competing visions for America: Lincoln’s focus on preserving the Union, and Davis’s defense of the Confederacy and its dependence on slavery. Though history remembers the outcome of the war, Hamilton explores the critical decisions, strategies, and missteps that brought the nation to that result.

Lincoln’s early days in office were fraught with danger and uncertainty. Lacking military experience and facing a fractured Union, he tread carefully, focusing on rallying Northern support while avoiding direct confrontation over slavery. Davis, on the other hand, reluctantly assumed leadership of the Confederacy, positioning himself as a defender of states’ rights and Southern independence. From the outset, the two presidents approached their roles with starkly different styles. Lincoln sought to balance pragmatism with moral conviction, while Davis, leaning on his military background, focused on defense and logistics, often at the expense of political foresight.

The attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861 marked the beginning of the conflict and set the tone for both leaders’ wartime strategies. For Lincoln, the fall of the fort galvanized Northern resolve, but his call for troops to suppress the rebellion inadvertently drove additional Southern states, including Virginia, into the Confederacy. Davis, emboldened by the capture of Fort Sumter, prepared for a prolonged conflict, relying on the South’s belief in its own military superiority and its ability to defend its territory. However, the seeds of both leaders’ eventual successes and failures were already apparent: Lincoln’s hesitation to tackle slavery directly and Davis’s overconfidence in the South’s ability to sustain its war effort.

The Battle of Bull Run, the first major engagement of the war, revealed the challenges facing both leaders. Lincoln’s reliance on an untested Union army led to a humiliating defeat, while Davis’s Confederate forces secured a morale-boosting victory. Yet the victory came at a cost, stretching Southern resources thin and exposing the Confederacy’s vulnerabilities. Davis’s defensive strategy was effective in the short term, but his reluctance to pursue aggressive offensives or adapt to changing circumstances would ultimately hinder the South’s long-term prospects. Meanwhile, Lincoln faced mounting criticism for the Union’s lack of progress and his inability to find a capable general to lead his forces.

As the war dragged on, both leaders grappled with internal divisions and mounting pressures. Lincoln’s relationship with General George McClellan, a cautious and politically ambitious commander, became a focal point of frustration. McClellan’s hesitation and insubordination delayed critical Union offensives, further straining Lincoln’s leadership. Davis, for his part, struggled to unify the Confederacy and gain foreign support. The South’s reliance on slavery made it difficult to secure alliances with European powers, particularly Britain and France, who were hesitant to back a nation openly defending the institution of slavery.

The turning point came in 1862, as the war’s stakes became increasingly tied to the issue of slavery. Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation was both a strategic and moral gamble. By reframing the war as a fight against slavery, Lincoln not only strengthened the Union’s cause but also undermined the Confederacy’s ability to sustain its war effort. The proclamation, however, was not without controversy. It alienated some Northern Democrats and threatened to fracture the Union’s fragile coalition. Nevertheless, it marked a decisive shift in Lincoln’s leadership, transforming the war into a battle for the nation’s moral identity.

Davis, meanwhile, faced growing challenges within the Confederacy. The failed Confederate invasion of Maryland and the bloody Battle of Antietam exposed the limits of Southern resources and manpower. Davis’s decision to allow General Robert E. Lee to pursue a high-risk strategy of invading the North ultimately backfired, leaving the Confederacy vulnerable and its capital, Richmond, nearly defenseless. The Union’s strategic victories, combined with the moral weight of the Emancipation Proclamation, began to tilt the war in Lincoln’s favor.

Hamilton’s narrative highlights the contrasting strengths and weaknesses of Lincoln and Davis as wartime leaders. Lincoln’s ability to adapt, learn from his mistakes, and align his moral convictions with his political strategy proved critical to the Union’s eventual success. Davis, though a capable military leader, struggled to balance the demands of war with the political and economic realities facing the Confederacy. His unwavering commitment to the South’s foundational principles, particularly slavery, limited his ability to rally international support or adapt to the changing dynamics of the war.

In the end, Lincoln’s leadership was defined by his ability to transform the Union’s cause into a moral crusade, while Davis’s tenure was marked by his failure to effectively navigate the political and strategic challenges of leading the Confederacy. Hamilton’s account underscores the complexity of their roles and the enduring impact of their decisions. Through their contrasting approaches, the war became not only a battle for the survival of the Union but also a defining moment in America’s struggle to reconcile its ideals with its realities.

Nigel Hamilton’s "Lincoln vs. Davis" provides a compelling lens through which to view the Civil War, emphasizing the critical role of leadership in shaping history. By examining the decisions and dilemmas faced by these two presidents, the book offers valuable insights into the enduring legacy of a conflict that continues to resonate in American politics and society.

[Cindy · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. He is so judgy. He’s complaining that Lincoln took some time to feel out the people he worked with before immediately jumping in and bullying them around. He calls Lincoln Abraham more than once, which feels wrong, and he appears to put a lot of thoughts in people’s heads — as in, just because you’re framing the Civil War as a chess match between Lincoln and Davis doesn’t mean they were thinking like that as they made their decisions.

I didn’t get very far but I just couldn’t stand the tone of this book, which is disappointing because I was looking forward to it.

[K · Rating 2 out of 5]

I haven't read any book that's so repetitive. It's as if it's written for fourth-graders who have no attention span, and the teacher at the front of the room is droning on and on about the same thing, in some rote learning style. I'm not exaggerating when I say the author makes the same handful of points hundreds of times each: namely, that the South had about 3.5 million slaves at the start of the Civil War, and neither President Jefferson Davis nor President Abraham Lincoln was willing to acknowledge slavery as the core issue behind the South's secession. We literally have the phrases "three and half million slaves" or "between three and four million people in bondage" hundreds of times in this book, often in sentence after sentence. I really wonder if he wrote this book as a textbook for elementary school kids --- though they'd be bored by about page 3.

Other points also are made over and over again. Lincoln's indecision. Davis's stoic manner and lack of understanding of politics. The South's unsuccessful effort to get France and England to recognize it as a sovereign nation. The treasonous (or near-treasonous) actions of George McClellan, who was the top miliary officer for the North for about 15 months in the early stages of the war. A couple of these references would be sufficient for anyone who has any level of memory or intellect.

So, the writing of this book is terrible, amateurish, the kind of thing a high school student would do in an 8-page essay on the Civil War when she has nothing to say but needs to pad it to 8 pages.

Is there anything worthwhile? Well, I don't know much about the Civil War, except about specific battles, having visited sites such as Antietam and Gettysburg. This book was intriguing because it promised something else: a look at the two political leaders and their actions and motivations, rather than the battle tactics of generals. And this mission is somewhat realized by the author. He does look closely at what the two men were doing, saying, and writing in the lead-up to hostilities and through the first several years of the war (not much on the ending because it was kind of a foregone conclusion). And, surprising to me, he's way more critical of Lincoln than of Davis. Davis is penalized for abandoning his country (ie., committing treason), but is generally applauded for realizing he had to fight a defensive war and seek political support from abroad. Davis is a leader, a decisive guy, and also quite brave (as a former successful soldier and a president who went to the battlefront a lot). Lincoln is the prime prevaricator, always seeking more input, putting off even obvious decisions (fire McClellan), keeping incompetents around, and coming late to the idea that Black people deserved to be free. The last part is known about Lincoln: that for a long time he said things like Black people are different (implied: inferior) and they should be shipped to South America so as to rid the White US of a problem. It was only when pushed to the edge in the war that he made the famous Emancipation Proclamation and stuck unreservedly to freedom for all.

The book was also revelatory about how terrible Lincoln's cabinet and generals were. Often the cabinet members are lauded as his "team of rivals," men who gave the president honest advice as they jockeyed for power and attention. This book shows that they were idiots --- wrong most of the time on tactics, morals, and everything else. Several of them were pro-slavery and kept telling Lincoln to negotiate a peace and leave the South as a slave-holding region. Lincoln, to his credit, knew that slavery would divide America until it was ended permanently, and so he resisted their ideas. But the fact that he kept them in his circle and listened to them at all is astonishing.

In the end, I learned some stuff from this book, and some of it was contrary to the general ideas I'd picked up from documentaries, battlefield visits, and books. I'm glad I read the book. I just wish it was 1/3 as long.

[Shelly♥ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Title: Lincoln vs. Davis, The War of the Presidents

Author: Nigel Hamilton

Publisher:  Litte Brown and Company

Genre:  Biography, History, Civil War

Available:  November 4, 2024

Rating: 3.5 of 5 stars

Thanks to the publisher for providing me with an advanced readers copy of this book. 

Summary: This books analyzes North vs. South, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as they take on not only the role of president, but also that of commander and chief. This book basically covers the progression of Abraham Lincoln coming to the understanding that the war must be about more than the Union. The 3.5 million black men and women held as slaves in the Confederacy were a vital source of labor and war support that Union armies didn't have. Recognition of this fact would lead to the Emancipation Proclamation and change the direction of the war. The book also covers the mistakes and successes each president makes during this time period.

What I liked: Hamilton uses first person sources to tell this important tale of two presidents and the trials and tribulations they face in the early war years. The author does not make Lincoln a hero or Davis a scoundrel in his telling of these historical events. He shows readers the strengths and weaknesses of these two men and how they grow and change with the conflict. There are many interesting details and connections that he makes that are not found in other Civil War books about these men. The contrast is not only in who they are, but what they face.

What I didn't like: This book is far too long for the story. The author provides more than enough details on each situation drawing the narrative out for an unnecessary amount of time. He also overly focuses on the 3.5 million slaves of the Confederacy, which feels like it is mentioned in every other paragraph. While I agree it is an important part of the story, but think that the significance could be more aptly addressed with other narrative techniques. I have not read other material by the author, and this could be a style element that he uses in his work.

My overall opinion: I gave up on this book about half way through, skimming the second half of the book in particular areas of interest. I really enjoyed the writing style and what the author was conveying, but it could have been better edited to keep the story moving. The author's fixation on slavery and constant mentioning of it is unnecessary. If the story were succintly told, the slavery component would makes sense. I did enjoy his analysis of the two presidents, mentioning of Davis's military strategy and how it was foiled by the addition of Confederate states outside the deep south and Lincoln's early war mistakes, like chastizing Gen. John Fremont and later dismissing him. I also like that the author included information on the Mary Todd Lincoln and Varina Davis and the influence and effect these women had on their husbands.

As a Civil War historian, I have read countless books on the war and the two subjects. Despite that, I learned some new things and enjoyed the comparative progression of the story. I would recommend this for any person who is willing to tackle a longer work on these two presidents and might want a detailed insight on the early years of the Civil War.

Thanks again to the publishers for the chance to read this book!

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't think I knew much of anything about Jefferson Davis except for his being president of the Confederacy and a previous U.S. hero in the Mexican-American War. General Robert E. Lee loomed larger in whatever histories I read.

And I thought Abraham Lincoln was devoted to saving the union and freeing the enslaved and that he had a cabinet of people who disagreed with each other, but he with his wit and wisdom kept them and his generals together fighting for one United States.

Hah!

I had a lot to learn, and Lincoln vs. Davis delivered. Its length is its strength, but it requires a real commitment to wanting to understand turn by turn what was going on in the parallel worlds of Lincoln and Davis, the North and the South.

An audiobook doesn't get to be 32 hours without repeating some points endlessly.
-- How many people were enslaved.
-- How much the wealth generated off their backs kept the South able to fight.
-- How Lincoln seemed to ignore this fact with his desire to keep slavery out of the reason for fighting.
-- How Davis also wanted to keep slavery out of the reasoning so as to try to gain support from would-be European allies who had renounced slavery themselves.
-- What a narcissistic jerk Lincoln's General George McClellan could be TO HIS BOSS, THE PRESIDENT.
-- What a two-faced Sec. of War Stanton could be.
-- What an idiotic move it was for Lee and his ragtag army to take the battle into the North — Maryland and Pennsylvania — and expect to be met with an outpouring of recruits and support. Spoiler alert: IT WASN'T.

But in its repetition, the book also cemented in my mind the actual battles for public support going in in each administration, outside the fields of physical war.

Getting to know more about the characters around Lincoln and Davis, including their wives and their long-time friends and advisors, also fleshed out the picture of the messy realities each dealt with day after day.

And the book — excellently narrated by Rick Adamson — goes only till the Jan. 1, 1863, Emancipation Proclamation! YES, I would like for Mr. Nigel Hamilton not to leave us hanging, and to get on with the rest of the war in his next book. :-)

Easy for me to say, I know, but deep, deep research like this is welcome here anytime. I think I'm ready for the quiz.

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nigel Hamilton's "Lincoln vs. Davis: The War of the Presidents" offers a captivating dual biography of the two men who shaped the American Civil War from opposing sides. Released on November 5, 2024, this 800-page tome provides a fresh perspective on the conflict by examining the leadership styles and decision-making processes of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Hamilton, an award-winning historian known for his presidential biographies, brings his expertise to bear in this meticulously researched work. He delves into the contrasting backgrounds of the two leaders: Lincoln, the politically savvy but militarily inexperienced president of the Union, and Davis, the decorated war hero thrust into the role of the Confederacy's chief executive. The author's narrative skillfully weaves together the personal and political challenges faced by both men as they navigated the tumultuous early years of the war. Hamilton doesn't shy away from critiquing their missteps, portraying Lincoln's initial indecisiveness and Davis's struggles with criticism and management. One of the book's strengths lies in its exploration of pivotal moments that shaped the conflict. Hamilton provides insightful analysis of key decisions, such as Lincoln's handling of the Fort Sumter crisis and Davis's fateful choice to allow Robert E. Lee's invasion of the North. The author's treatment of the slavery issue is particularly noteworthy. He examines how both presidents initially sought to downplay its significance, only for it to become the war's central moral and political focus. Lincoln's eventual issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation is presented as a turning point that fundamentally altered the nature of the conflict. While the book's length may be daunting to some readers, Hamilton's engaging prose and ability to bring historical figures to life make it a compelling read. His use of primary sources and unpublished materials adds depth and authenticity to the narrative. “Lincoln vs. Davis" is more than just a dual biography; it's a comprehensive examination of leadership under extreme pressure. By juxtaposing these two presidents, Hamilton offers valuable insights into the nature of executive power during wartime and the personal qualities that can shape the course of history.

[Scott Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Audiobook) (3.5 stars) This work looks at the political and military rivalry between Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, or rather, the rival administrations of the two political figures in the first half of the Civil War. It is an interesting take on the way both men ran their respective countries. What might be a bit galling for some is that in the 1st half of the war, Lincoln was the weaker political figure, vis-a-vis Davis and how he seemed to run his administration. In particular, Hamilton excoriates Lincoln for indecisiveness, especially when it came to McClellan and his insubordination and operational incompetence in running the Union Army. In one way, you could look at this as somewhat balanced, as Hamilton shows how flawed Lincoln was and how strong Davis was, at least in the 1st part of the war.

The main tipping point, at least to Hamilton, was when Lincoln made good on his proposed Emancipation Proclamation. It was not necessarily the thing that Lincoln wanted to do, but it did get done, primarily after the summer of 1862 and the eventual Union victory at Antietam. That, and some of the miscalculations of Davis and Lee with their proclamations in Maryland. Once those events came into play, the fate of the war and administrations shifted.

Perhaps this work would rate stronger if Hamilton had taken the analysis/comparison of the wartime political figures to the end of the Civil War. Both men’s leadership abilities evolved or devolved as the war progressed, but there is much that Hamilton leaves on the table, even in as filled a volume as this work. The political figures Lincoln and Davis come across as human, with virtues and faults, but neither are heroes or villains. The real “heels” are Steward and McClellan, as their personal egos and shortfalls did much to hinder the Union, making a Confederate victory more likely than originally figured. Hamilton doesn’t seem to rip Davis’ administration as much, even as he rips the raisin d’etre for the Confederacy (maintaining of slavery and the Southern Way of Life).

An intriguing work, but not the greatest, or certainly not as great as it could be. Still, worth a library checkout.

[Jon Z. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nigel Hamilton does a good job comparing and contrasting Abraham Lincoln with Confederate president Jefferson Davis. Hamilton describes Lincoln's first year and a half in office as a tentative president who faced possible removal from office at any moment, including Seward's treasonous behavior and McLellan's apparent courting of Robert E. Lee to take Washington.

While Davis begins his tenure as a confident president/military leader of the South, Lincoln struggles. Lincoln is failing politically and with the military. Neither pulls out the slavery issue, until Antietam. Antietam is the battle that gives Lincoln the confidence to write and present the Proclamation. (Lincoln had deleted Fremont and Butler's emancipations.) It is Lincoln's trump card. European nations back off possible intervention for a new Confederate nation. This seems to be the moment when Davis looses his momentum. It appears to leave Davis at a loss.

By no means does this determines who wins the war, but it does inject Lincoln with purpose and confidence, guiding the war for the North by his will. In many ways leaving McLellan and his cabinet behind.

It was well worth the read.

[David A · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Lincoln vs. Davis" attempts to compare the leadership styles of two iconic Civil War figures but falls short due to significant issues with accuracy and depth. The book often oversimplifies the motivations and actions of both leaders, portraying Lincoln as almost infallible while reducing Davis to a caricature of incompetence.

For one, the author seems to cherry-pick events to fit a narrative, notably misrepresenting Lincoln's stance on slavery and the timing of his Emancipation Proclamation, which is portrayed more as a political maneuver rather than a moral imperative, ignoring the complexity of Lincoln's evolving views on the subject. Similarly, Davis is depicted with a one-dimensional focus on his role in the Confederacy, glossing over his military background and political maneuvers before and during the Civil War, which were crucial to understanding his leadership.

In essence, "Lincoln vs. Davis" does not adequately serve as either a scholarly work or an engaging narrative for history enthusiasts, offering instead a watered-down, error-laden comparison that does little justice to the legacies of these two complex figures.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lincoln vs. Davis by Nigel Hamilton is a deep dive into how two presidents, with much more in common than one might have thought, faced the challenges of the first two years of the U.S. Civil War. Nigel Hamilton is no stranger to writing histories and it shows in the length of this tome as well as how deeply researched it is. Much of what's been written about Lincoln borders on idolization but this does not. Hamilton lays bare how poorly he managed the Gen. George McClellan situation. It was painful to read, as you found yourself wanting to yell at Lincoln to snap out of it with each and every moment of indecision about what to do with the hapless General. Davis gets a bit shorter coverage but he is humanized in this book. Much ink has been spilled about the Civil War and this one concludes with the publication of the Emancipation Proclamation. Had it gone further, readers would have been lost. This book takes some time to read but I found it more than worth it. Thank you to #Netgalley and #LIttleBrownandCompany for the opportunity to preview this book.

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much has been written on President Lincoln though until now I had read nothing on Confederate President Davis. The author does a well documented job of contrasting the two leaders. While Lincoln apparently did not contemplate a presidency including war, he found himself outclassed by Davis who was an army warrior of some fame. Sadly Lincoln chose McClellan to be in charge of the entire Northern Armies only to find him totally inept at the job. Loyalty and saving face kept Lincoln from making a change. In addition, Lincoln took steps to keep the war all about slavery out of the conflict.
The book details the run up to the conflict and the behind the scenes events during the first few years of the war. He uses diaries, logs and other documents to prepare a very interesting book that, in my opinion deals with events not covered in other books on this subject. I recommend reading it.

[Earl Ecklund III · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book Nigel Hamilton examines the lives of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis during the first two years of the Civil War. From February 11, 1861 the day both men coincidentally left their respective homes to travel to their inauguration as president of their respective countries to January 1, 1863 when Lincoln changed the cases belli for the North from preservation of the Union to eliminating slavery with the release of the Emancipation Proclamation.

The chapters alternate between each president as they each face the challenge of the conflict both men knew was inevitable. Davis viewed it primarily through the eyes of a military man, Lincoln through the eyes of a politician. This difference often led the other to wonder what his opponent was doing.

The book is fast paced and well written and contains much insight into the progress of the war as both men initially refused to address slavery as its root cause.

A great addition to the literature on the Civil War, I sincerely hope Hamilton eventually writes a sequel to carry the story forward to the end of the Civil War.