Honest Abe, Cunning Prince: Lincoln’s Machiavellian Mastery

ECW welcomes back guest author Kyle Hallowell.

Throughout his political career Abraham Lincoln practiced the teachings of the Florentine philosopher and historian Niccolo Machiavelli, whose best-known work The Prince gained enduring infamy for its revolutionary examination of politics as they were rather than idealized to be. Machiavelli’s assertion in The Prince that the “ends justify the means,” praise of ruthless political cunning, and criticism of contemporary political and religious leaders provoked such an adverse reaction that it was banned by Pope Pius IV in 1569.^[1] Despite its controversy, The Prince was groundbreaking and has enduring relevance as the intellectual basis for modern political science and strategy.^[2]

So, what does the humble, principled, and moral Lincoln have in common with the cunning, shrewd, and ruthless teachings of Machiavelli? Simply put, Lincoln employed Machiavellian tactics throughout his political career. He frequently outmaneuvered his opponents, controlled the situation, and patiently, yet forcefully, molded events to his will. While Lincoln did not succumb to the amorality described by Machiavelli, he was calculating, cunning, and willing to use harsh measures to achieve his desired results.

According to Machiavelli, rulers who improperly assess their realities or delude themselves will meet with failure or lead their states to ruin, therefore a clear understanding of reality is needed for a ruler to be successful. In the decade before he entered office, Lincoln was firmly grounded in reality and saw the political situation of the United States as it was, and not as many wished it were.^[3]

Unlike his predecessor, James Buchanan, Lincoln recognized that the issue of slavery would continue to divide the nation and action needed to be taken to address the festering sectional conflict.

Lincoln’s lucid assessment of domestic politics helped him secure the Republican nomination in 1860. He knew the other leading candidates had better résumés and more national notoriety than he. However, Lincoln shrewdly assessed his opponents’ political liabilities and concluded that none had broad enough support to win the nomination. Lincoln determined that if he made himself the second choice to all, he would secure the nomination when his rivals failed to do so.^[4]

According to Machiavelli, the most dangerous position a new ruler can be in is introducing a new political or social order.^[5] Introducing this new order makes enemies of those who benefited under the old one, necessitating the use of force to implement the new one.

Lincoln found himself in a precarious position upon entering office, having run on a platform of changing the existing political order by maintaining the prohibition of the expansion of slavery into new territories. As commander-in-chief, Lincoln had the power to use military force to implement his new order, making him what Machiavelli called an “armed prophet.”^[6]

Simultaneously, Lincoln was willing to use force to preserve the existing political order, the Union. This willingness differentiates him from James Buchanan, whose failure to deal with the secession crisis violated Machiavelli’s dictum to “never allow disorder to develop in an attempt to avoid war, as this way you are not escaping war, but simply postponing it to your own disadvantage.”^[7] Lincoln demonstrated remarkable skill over the next four years of his presidency, as he deftly managed his coalition and brought public opinion to the point of tolerating the new social and political order.

Lincoln believed that slavery was a moral evil that he was constitutionally bound to protect. This tension between his personal beliefs and those of political imperatives routinely vexed Lincoln. Had he been driven solely by morals, he would have taken more aggressive steps to abolish slavery earlier in his administration, eliciting criticism that would have undermined his already fractious coalition. Lincoln was keenly aware of the need to retain the support of pro-war democrats and the slave-owning population in the border states and was therefore sensitive in his advancement of abolition.^[8]

An enduring aspect of Lincoln’s legacy was his management of war and the military, which according to Machiavelli “is the only art suitable for a man who commands.”^[9] Machiavelli further states, “A prince who does not understand military matters will not be respected by his soldiers and cannot trust them.”^[10]  Lincoln entered into office as a neophyte in military matters, and his inexperience attracted the scorn of numerous generals, including George McClellan and Joseph Hooker, who openly criticized him.^[11]

Lincoln recognized his inadequacy and quickly educated himself by reading numerous military works such as military manuals written by Winfield Scott and Henry Halleck and biographies of George Washington and Francis Marion.^[12] Lincoln taught himself enough that he felt comfortable challenging his generals and firing them when they failed to meet his expectations. Lincoln’s self-education would meet with praise from Machiavelli, who stated that “a prince must read histories and study the actions of great men so he can see how they conducted themselves in war.”^[13]

Machiavelli believed that a prince’s intelligence could be assessed by looking at the quality of the men he surrounded himself with.^[14] Lincoln appointed the leading political men of the era to his cabinet and ensured that every major political party was represented. This was a bold move because some of these men, namely William Seward and Salmon Chase, were Lincoln’s rivals for the Republican nomination and, in the case of the latter, would actively undermine him during the war in preparation for a presidential challenge in 1864.

Seward initially smarted at being subordinate to Lincoln and sought to supplant and minimize his power. However, Lincoln’s resolution, wit, and skill impressed Seward, prompting him to remark that Lincoln was “wise and practical.”^[15] Lincoln admired ability and rewarded it. He promoted the ablest soldier of the war, Ulysses S. Grant, to the highest rank then possible for an American soldier to attain. This recognition and promotion by Lincoln conform to Machiavelli’s dictum that “a prince must also prove himself someone who admires ability, furthering skillful men and honoring those who excel in what they do.”^[16]

Lincoln demonstrated his political skill by retaining, or when necessary, firing less capable men who served a purpose, such as John C. Frémont, whose premature proclamation of emancipation overstepped his authority and prompted Lincoln to consider removing him. A favorite of Radical Republicans, Frémont’s dismissal risked backlash within Lincoln’s party. To mitigate this, Lincoln delayed action until a War Department investigation exposed Frémont’s mismanagement. By publicly releasing the findings, Lincoln prepared public opinion for Frémont’s removal, ensuring political stability while asserting his leadership.^[17]

Throughout his works, Machiavelli repeatedly cautions rulers against using mercenaries and exhorts them to rely on their own arms and soldiers. This is a literal and metaphorical prescription by which Machiavelli means rulers should not be intellectually beholden to others and retain their freedom of thought.

Lincoln consistently demonstrated that he was his own man and kept his own political counsel. In this way, Lincoln possessed his own arms. A prime example of this is Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation against the advice of his Cabinet.^[18] Lincoln was unyielding in his decision to issue the proclamation, which aligns with Machiavelli’s assertion that “a prince who yields in his decision will be seen as irresolute and garner disrespect as he is susceptible to flattery and conflicting advice.”^[19]

An argument could be made that Lincoln’s decisions were more pragmatic than intentionally Machiavellian. While there is some merit to this, it overlooks the fact that Lincoln deliberately made decisions that achieved sub-optimal short-term outcomes for long-term gain—for example, Lincoln allowed the Union to implement an inefficient draft system that deprived new soldiers of the opportunity to learn from veterans, yet maintained Lincoln’s support from governors and pro-war Democrats.^[20] The primacy of politics in Lincoln’s decision-making led him to promote and retain men in command long after they demonstrated their incompetence, such as Nathaniel Banks. Banks, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, was commissioned as a major general before several more qualified West Point-educated officers were. Banks would gain notoriety during the war for his defeats in the Shenandoah Valley, failure to reinforce Grant at Vicksburg, and the failed Red River Campaign, yet Lincoln retained him in command.

History has looked kindly on Lincoln, memorializing him as one of the United States’ greatest presidents and citizens. Lincoln’s legacy is one of honesty and principle.

Yet a large part of Lincoln’s success as a politician is his cunning, calculation, and use of Machiavelli’s teachings. While Lincoln may have personally disagreed with this assessment, his success in preserving the Union and abolishing slavery was undoubtedly due in no small part to the wisdom and maxims of Machiavelli.

 

Kyle R. Hallowell is an active-duty U.S. Army Strategist assigned to the Headquarters Department of the Army in the Pentagon. He holds a master’s in International Policy from Texas A&M University and a BA in History from Norwich University. He has been passionate about the Civil War since childhood and lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and son.

 

Endnotes:

[1] Catholic Church, Index Librorum Prohibitorum cum Regulis confectis per Patres a Tridentina Synodo delectos authoritate … Pii IIII. comprobatus. Una cum iis qui mandato Regiae Catholicae Majestatis et … Ducis Albani, Consiliique Regii decreto prohibentur, etc (1569).

[2] Matthew Kroenig, “Machiavelli and the Naissance of Modern Strategy,” The New Makers of Modern Strategy, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2023), 91-3.

[3] Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005), 225.

[4] Goodwin, Team of Rivals, 244.

[5] Niccolo Machiavelli, “The Prince,” in The Essential Writings of Machiavelli, ed. and trans. Peter Constantine (New York: Modern Library, 2007), 23.

[6] Ibid, 24.

[7] Ibid, 15-16.

[8] “To lose Kentucky would be to lose the whole thing.”

[9] For an evaluation of Lincoln’s legacy as Commander-in-Chief, see Eliot A. Cohen’s Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime. Machiavelli, “The Prince,” 56.

[10] Machiavelli, “The Prince,” 57.

[11]“George B. McClellan,” The National Museum of the United States Army, accessed 2 March, 2025.

[12] Robert Bray, “What Abraham Lincoln Read—An Evaluative and Annotated List,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 28, no. 2 (2007).

[13] Machiavelli, “The Prince,” 58.

[14] Ibid, 88.

[15] Goodwin, Team of Rivals, 430.

[16] Machiavelli, “The Prince,” 87.

[17] Goodwin, Team of Rivals, 395.

[18] Ibid, 464.

[19] Machiavelli, “The Prince,” 90.

[20] Eliot A. Cohen, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2003), 49.