The military is very hierarchical, but until we are in positions of power then we don’t know how we will handle them. Often the people who struggle internally the most and are unsure of themselves make the best leaders. Situations are pondered by second guessing when a stronger personality may force through their instinct or first impression .
I read a book titled A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness around a decade ago and I remember one section discussing the Civil War. Lincoln suffered greatly from depression, but on many presidential ranking he comes at or near the top. The book argues that his madness was an asset rather than a liability. I think he could sympathize with far more people, even slaves, because of his mental frailty rather than be irrevocably hindered by it.
A similar occurrence happened with his Generals. George McClellan went to West Point, served with distinction in the Mexican-American War, and served as the Commanding General of the United States Army. This is the resume of a perfect Soldier and General. The right academy and experience rolled into one person. He was also ineffectual and removed from his position once they were on the battlefields. Lincoln said he was too timid and wouldn’t engage with the enemy. I think he is a good example of where he was a great General for training during peacetime when things required order, but was too sane and predictable during war time when managing chaos was required. A touch of madness makes you unpredictable and we have all read some of the “The Art of War” regarding the importance of being unpredictable.
William T. Sherman was well known to have mental illness. He broke the Confederate’s economic back and burned Atlanta. He accomplished these feats by going entirely against conventional wisdom and leaving his supply lines and having his troops live off the southern land and confederate populations. This was a radical strategy at a time when war had more rules. Armies stood at distance apart from each other in lines and fired in an orderly fashion. Naive citizens would pack picnics and watch battles from nearby hills without knowing the potential danger they were in. Of course, there were ambushes and flanking attacks, but burning a major city to the ground was an extreme measure. Even today, Sherman is vilified for his actions in Georgia by much of its population.
Would the orderly, perfectly sane, conventionally trained, timid, and professional McClellan have done the same? Would he have drawn the Civil War out for many more years due to his conservatism?
If the war was won or shortened by Sherman’s unconventional, ungentlemanly war against the South’s economy, then is that an acceptable tactic?
Do you know of anyone who is an excellent leader during safe, orderly situations but struggles during uncertain or chaotic ones, or vice versa?
Millionaire Librarian 