Kearns Goodwin (2005, p. xvi) highlights the remarkable nature of Lincoln’s cabinet choices:
“That Lincoln, after winning the presidency, made the unprecedented decision to incorporate his eminent rivals into his political family, the cabinet, was evidence of a profound self-confidence and a first indication of what would prove to others a most unexpected greatness. Seward became secretary of state, Chase secretary of the treasury, and Bates attorney general. The remaining top posts Lincoln offered to three former Democrats [Lincoln was a Republican] . . . Gideon Welles, Lincoln’s “Neptune,” was made secretary of the navy, Montgomery Blair became postmaster general, and Edwin M. Stanton, Lincoln’s “Mars,” eventually became secretary of war.”
She (Kearns-Goodwin, 2005, p. xvi) goes on to note that:
“Every member of this administration was better known, better educated, and more experienced in public life than Lincoln. Their presence in the cabinet might have threatened to eclipse the obscure prairie lawyer from Springfield.”
The “Insanity” of Working with Rivals
Isn’t it “insane” for a new president to increase levels of volatility, uncertainty, and turbulence by bringing in powerful people with differing views? Doesn’t Lincoln have enough contradiction in his own views regarding preservation of the union—and the matter of slavery? Aren’t matters complex enough without adding competing interests? Does Lincoln really need to “muddy the water” with greater diversity of perspectives given that everything already seemed to be saturated with ambiguity? Most importantly, doesn’t Lincoln risk the loss of control given the power and influence which his rivals bring to the Presidential cabinet?
Kearns Goodwin (2005, p. xvi-xvii) observes that Lincoln was not only able to overcome these challenges, but actually turn them around to his benefit:
“It soon became clear . . . that Abraham Lincoln would emerge the undisputed captain of this most unusual cabinet, truly a team of rivals. The powerful competitors who had originally disdained Lincoln became colleagues who helped him steer the country through its darkest days. Seward was the first to appreciate Lincoln’s remarkable talents, quickly realizing the futility of his plan to relegate the president to a figurehead role. In the months that followed, Seward would become Lincoln’s closest friend and advisor in the administration. Though Bates initially viewed Lincoln as a well-meaning but incompetent administrator, he eventually concluded that the president was an unmatched leader, “very near being a perfect man.” Edwin Stanton, who had treated Lincoln with contempt at their initial acquaintance, developed a great respect for the commander in chief and was unable to control his tears for weeks after the president’s death. Even Chase, whose restless ambition for the presidency was never realized, at last acknowledged that Lincoln had outmaneuvered him.”
This preliminary statement regarding Lincoln’s skill in working with rivals and the outcomes of his partnering with those differ from himself sets the stage from Kearns Goodwin’s documentation of his strategies and accomplishments (Kearns Goodwin, 2005, p. xvii)
“This, then, is a story of Lincoln’s political genius revealed through his extraordinary array of personal qualities that enabled him to form friendships with men who had previously opposed him; to repair injured feelings that, left untended, might have escalated into permanent hostility; to assume responsibility for the failures of subordinates; to share credit with ease; and to learn from mistakes. He possessed an acute understanding of the sources of power inherent in the presidency, an unparalleled ability to keep his governing coalition intact, a tough-minded appreciation of the need to protect his presidential prerogatives, and a masterful sense of timing. His success in dealing with the strong egos of the men in his cabinet suggests that in the hands of a truly great politician the qualities we generally associate with decency and morality–kindness, sensitivity, compassion, honesty, and empathy–can also be impressive political resources.”
