Additionally, Davis’s strategy was to gain foreign support in areas they were most weak such as naval power, financial assistance and foreign trade in the hopes that they could offset the Union’s numerical advantages. However, no foreign European nation would recognise the Confederacy unless they could demonstrate an overwhelming military victory, which it could not. Hence, the South was in no state to withstand an extended war, and this significantly influenced the outcome of the conflict. Historian David Potter sees Jefferson Davis’s poor management of the war as the central reason for the South’s defeat.

Although, Abraham Lincoln also had his faults, such as some initial hesitation over military issues, his political governance by comparison proved to be more effective in maintaining morale and unity. Lincoln was very gifted politician, who was able to persuade Congress and the public that his policies would bring victory. He was also flexible in his tactics and delegated jobs appropriately. His election victory might have been the spark that ignited the war, but his presidency was also responsible …show more content…
His orientation changed throughout his presidency. During inaugural speech, he repeatedly insisted that he wouldn't violate the doctrine of states' rights or “interfere with the institution of Slavery in the States where it exists.” He thought that preserving the Union was the most vital aim, and that emancipation could not be tackled because slavery was protected by the Constitution. However, he moved to the radical side of the party during the war as a means to further the Union’s objectives, and later used his political authority to garner support for the Emancipation Proclamation. David Potter believes that Lincoln’s leadership was one of the main causes of the Union’s victory, stating that “Had Lincoln been leading the Confederacy, the South might well have