Header
Outsourcing, Lincoln-Style
 By Tom Shoop | Thursday, August 21, 2008  |  07:56 AM

I'm working my way through Doris Kearns Goodwin's fascinating assessment of the Lincoln presidency, Team of Rivals, trying to gain some insights on how one of the nation's greatest presidents took on the challenge of setting up his administration under especially difficult circumstances.

The book has some terrific details about the management challenges Lincoln faced at the outset of his term, as the Civil War broke out.

"The demands placed on the War Department in the early days of the war were indeed excruciating," Goodwin writes. "Not only were weapons in short supply, but uniforms, blankets, horses, medical supplies, food and everything else necessary to outfit the vast numbers of volunteer soldiers arriving in Washington daily were unobtainable. It would have taken thousands of personnel to handle the varied functions of the quartermasters department, the ordnance office, the engineering department, the medical office and the pay department. Yet in 1861, the War Department consisted of fewer than two hundred people, including clerks, messengers and watchmen."

Whats more, Lincoln believed that many employees in the War Department and other agencies couldn't be trusted to remain loyal to the Union. So he took a highly unusual procurement approach. "With the Cabinet's unanimous consent," Goodwin writes, "he directed [Treasury Secretary Salmon P.] Chase to dispense millions of dollars to a small number of trusted private individuals to negotiate and sign contracts that would mobilize the military. Acting 'without compensation,' the majority of these men did their utmost under the circumstances."

Now that's outsourcing.



Comments


*Patriotic* business men, eh? That's why 'shoddy' as a term for a specific type of woven goods (Woolen yarn made from scraps or used clothing, with some new wool added; Cloth made from or containing such yarn) became instead a synonym for low, poor quality goods. The Union Army was sold moth-eaten, unusable material that was supposed to be quality equal to the generally-accepted level called shoddy; what they received was so substandard that soldiers remarked 'That's shoddy!?!' in disgust.

RW  | Wednesday, August 27, 2008 |  04:37 PM


Th worst war in US history with casualties that dwarf WW1 or 2. Lincoln invaded the South even though secession was part of the framers intent. Joining the union was voluntary and leaving was their right

dan ketter  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  05:18 PM


"Now that's outsourcing." No Tom, that is competition, something this Congress and today's Federal employees are deathly afraid of - with your support. I suppose they got the message then too, as the largest most significant and perhap the best run logistics system ever built in this country went into full operation in no time flat. Otherwise, great comments all!

Taxpayer  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  02:41 PM


I've yet to read “Team of Rivals”. However, I plan to as I’m a fan of Doris Kearns and a civil war buff. That said, what I find fascinating, is the phenomenon of rising and falling Presidential reputations. Today – Lincoln is the toast of the Presidential ranking tree – as the “leading historians” rank the Presidents reputations every 2-3 years. But, recall – in his day Lincoln was considered by many as monkey-faced boob – a thoroughly hated figure -- in the North: a profligate spender of union blood, a cynic teasing about with emancipation of the slaves -- in the South: a tool of Northern industrialists, shill trying to chain the South to New York bank credit or just burn down Southern industry, the would be destroyer of Southern civilization, and a manipulator of Abolitionist hatred). During the war, he was a man who seldom slept, by night, haunting the Army telegraph office and reading reports of losing battles and the long, long lists of the dead and wounded -- union and southern men broken by his commands. He had a wife going slowly mad, a young son who died suddenly, and a crew of squabbling generals, jockeying for high command, jealous for fame, but, until Grant and Sherman, none who could win a battle or sustain a campaign. Take a sample read (Google it) of the war era criticisms in the “leading" newspapers of the day (e.g. Atlantic Month and NY Times types) – therein read of continual excoriation for all manner of incompetence, cruelty and stupidity. So, what to learn for 2008 -- I'd say a bit of humbleness - as today's citizens are told by our leaders about our "hardships", or by our pundits about how "rough" and impolite are the current Presidential arguments. Finally, a cup of deep humble tea and a big slice of humble pie for all the wise heads, policy wonks, Ivy professors (I'll exempt D. Kearns) - who pontificate on Bush, Iraq, sub prime, etc. I've no quarrel with sharp criticism, cutting program or policy analysis (my former jobs and manner) - but a taste of Lincoln's days should provide for the citizen a healthy dose of skepticism to all the foolish certainty surrounding today’s political issues, foreign wars, and the hour’s white hot “crises” as breathlessly packaged from our 24/6 news factories, then diced by their house “experts.”

Concerned Retiree  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  01:17 PM


Civilization hangs on the thin thread of consent of the governed.The fact that we live in a day when many people would not even consider uncompensated service to the country, and many don't see the need to have rules or obey them, is as bad and dangerous to us as Lincoln's inability to find trusted public servants was on his day.

May we have the fortune of finding leaders who, like Lincoln, can take us beyond our own dangerous times. May we learn the lessons of history and remain a beacon of freedom and liberty to the world instead of following the way of earlier empires, which mostly fell, not because of the inherent power of their enemies,great at that may be, but because of their inability to keep their nation's core from rot and corruption.

Midtoon Author  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  11:35 AM


I agree with Pendleton Act Fan. A rotten system can turn lots of patriotic, law abiding individuals into criminals or people who ignore the criminals. I would place the modern period of downfall, and a return to our spoils system/robber baron roots at 1973. The protections enacted as a result of the New Deal began to be systematically dismantled by corporate funded politicians. The public had forgotten the privations of the Great Depression. Deregulation of utilities, the stock market, home mortgages and personal credit and all the problems of letting the free market have it's way with us, reemerged then.

Alfred Molison  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  10:43 AM


This book should be a must read for all who are history buffs. What I found interesting were the articles commenting on the war from the various media outlets during this war of rebellion. What I found even more interesting is how they sound so much like current media releases on the war in Iraq. I guess we will have to wait another 100 years to get the truth from the media again.

HistoryFan  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  10:30 AM


Having a "team of rivals" lessens the chance of having groupthink lead to -- how shall I put it -- poor decision making from the Executive Branch.

A "team of rivals" is a better arrangement than a team of like-minded wackjobs.

Clive A.  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  08:53 AM


I believe Lincoln was also reacting to the huge problem created by the 'spoils system'--in which political cronyism was the chief method of filling federal jobs. The result was that many of the employees of the War Department were simply not competent to perform the massive job of mobilizing the military. These problems with the federal workforce during the Civil War were some of the first rumbles contributing to the great reform movement that led to the enactment of the Pendleton Act twenty years later, and selection of federal employees based on merit. An old idea, perhaps, but still a good one.

Pendleton Act Fan  | Friday, August 22, 2008 |  08:46 AM


It has nothing to do with CEOs or Globaliztion - and the Fraud Act that is still used today was passed during the Civil War. It had to do with a time and a period when people - government employees, business people and citizen soldiers put country over self. It is interesting that the loss of that time - that philosophy - can almost be peggeed to not the 1860s but to the 1960's, just after Kenndey asked about asking not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

DCFed  | Thursday, August 21, 2008 |  01:45 PM


That was before the age of the CEO and globalization. Lincoln did not need to contend with massive corporations that are disgracing themselves in Iraq. In Lincoln's day business men were still patriotic.

Wise Old Owl  | Thursday, August 21, 2008 |  09:09 AM



Post a comment



ABOUT THIS BLOG


Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


SUBSCRIBE to this blog's RSS feed

ARCHIVES



CATEGORIES