Answer :

Answer:

(Hope this helps can I pls have brainlist (crown)☺️)

Explanation:

Prior to the Civil War, the term "commander in chief" was a euphemism for "commander in chief." The president was called "commander in chief" of the nation's armed forces in the Constitution, but what did that mean? No one really knew since the US has never fought a war that genuinely put any president's war-making abilities to the test. The many battles with Native American tribes on the border were far away, the War of 1812 was brief, and the War with Mexico in the 1840s was brief and remote. The Civil War, on the other hand, was massive, frightening, and lengthy.

When Lincoln was elected president in 1860, he had practically little military experience. During the Black Hawk War of 1832, he served as an officer in the Illinois state militia, seeing no action but having "a good many bloody battles with the musquetos," as he later quipped. During the War with Mexico, he made a name for himself as an outspoken critic, using his sole term in Congress to attack President James K. Polk for bullying Mexico and participating in a land grab in the West that mainly benefitted slaveholders. Lincoln understood very little about actual combat, and much less about the enormous complications that contemporary armies and ships face in deployment.

There was more in common between Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln than one would think. For example, both were native Kentuckians, born only one year and ninety miles apart. Davis' role as commander in chief was similar to Lincoln's in several ways. In terms of presidential war powers, the Confederate Constitution was almost comparable to the US Constitution. Davis did operate in a different political environment than Lincoln did—the Confederacy never developed formal political parties, and the Confederate Constitution limited the presidency to a single six-year term, meaning that, unlike Lincoln, Davis was unable to serve more than one term as president.

Other Questions