Category: Abraham Lincoln

We usually don’t think of Lincoln and Washington as being similar, even though the two men are usually number one and number two among America’s most admired Presidents. Indeed, there is much dissimilarity.

Washington lived well throughout his life. He was born into a well-to-do family and later became rich. Lincoln’s family was poor. For years he worked as a manual laborer. He did not become well-off until he became established as a lawyer in Springfield.

Washington had good connections with Virginia’s aristocracy; Lincoln’s family was obscure and undistinguished.

Washington had extensive experience in the military, and advanced to the rank of general. Lincoln’s military experience was limited to a few weeks as the captain of a regiment of volunteers in the Black Hawk War. Washington was a handsome man, majestic in his bearing. Few ever used the words ‘handsome’ or ‘majestic’ to describe Lincoln.

First, let me begin by giving you some similarities between Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Washington and Lincoln became president during a time that was shaken by war, and a time where the people were looking for guidance. President Washington helped pave the way for the Constitution and helped write it while dealing with breaking from Britain while Lincoln fought to uphold the Constitution. Both Washington and Lincoln served a two term presidency. In some ways that Washington and Lincoln were similar was that they were both concerned for the future of the nation, they both wanted the United States to remain united and strong for future government rule. Washington and Lincoln impacted American history by their passion and determination…show more content.

He made extraordinary efforts to attain knowledge while working on a farm. Lincoln eventually became a lawyer after spending eight years of studying on his own and eventually became an Illinois congressman. In 1858 Lincoln ran against Stephen A. Douglas for senator of Illinois but lost, but in his debates with Douglas he gained a national reputation that made his presidency possible in 1860. On Jan 1, 1863 he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared freedom to the slaves within the Confederacy. Lincoln won re-election in 1864. Like Washington, Lincoln was concerned about the state of the nation. In his second inaugural address he stated ‘With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds …” On Friday, April 14, 1865 Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth an actor and Confederate sympathizer, the result of Lincoln’s assassination made the possibility of an easy peace between the North and South difficult.

Similarities

Both were tall men for their times: Washington 6’3” and Lincoln 6’4.”

Both married women who were short. Mary Todd Lincoln and Martha Dandridge Washington were about five feet tall, and came up only to the chests of their husbands.

Both their wives came from prominent, wealthy families. At the time of their courtship, Washington’s wife-to-be was said to be the richest widow in America.

Both fought in Indian wars.

Both were athletic—-excellent wrestlers and superb horsemen.

Both lacked formal schooling. Washington received none at all; he was tutored at home. Lincoln had about one year’s schooling.

Both were skilled frontiersmen.

Both became surveyors.

Both were inventive men of a scientific temperament. Lincoln got a patent for an invention to lift ships off shoals. Washington was an avid reader of agricultural manuals, and conducted a controlled experiment, planting various grains at the same depth in different soils. He also invented a plow that automatically dropped seeds in furrows.

Both men copied from books to aid their memory.

Both had melancholy personalities. Lincoln suffered from bouts of depression, experienced two nervous breakdowns, and had dark premonitions and dreams. Washington feared an early death like his father and brother, both of whom had died young. According to Jefferson, Washington generally was ‘inclined to gloomy apprehensions.’

Both maintained close friendships with wild-living men whose reputations and actions contrasted sharply with their own reputations and actions. Washington’s friend was Gouverneur Morris and Lincoln’s was Ward Lamon.

Both were known for having volcanic tempers, and for their ability to control them.

Both were cautious with their words. For example, Washington said virtually nothing in public during the Constitutional Convention. Lincoln was an accomplished story-teller, but when it came to disclosing his innermost thoughts, a friend called him “the most close-mouthed man” he had ever known.’

Both considered themselves to be ‘harmonizers’ of conflict.

Both wrote great letters.

Both possessed the ability to predict future events. Unlike Jefferson, Washington was pessimistic about the outcome of revolutionary forces then taking place in France. He predicted that they would lead to ‘a crisis of sad confusion’ and ‘an entire change in the French system.’ What actually occurred was the Reign of Terror, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship. Washington vigorously opposed a scheme to raise an army of Americans that would liberate Louisiana from Spain and create an independent nation under the control of the French. Washington foresaw that new nations in the West with foreign connections would break up the continent and threaten the United States. (See James Thomas Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man. Boston: Back Bay/Little, Brown & Co. 1974, pp. 287, 288) As for Lincoln, his best-known example of forward-thinking is the memorable ‘House Divided’ speech in which he predicted that the United States would eventually cease to become half-slave/half-free and become all one or all the other.

Both loved the theater.

Both loved reading.

Both wrote poetry.

Both attended church services, read the Bible, and prayed; but neither was a communicant of any denomination.

Both were ambitious in the extreme.

Both were skillful at dealing with intrigue, and putting down plots by rivals and subordinates. Washington had to deal with General Horatio Gates, who became known as the hero of the battle of Saratoga. Gates bypassed his commander-in-chief and for a time communicated directly with Congress. Washington patiently outmaneuvered him; Gates later suffered a disgraceful defeat at Camden, S.C. Lincoln had to be on the defensive constantly–with Secretary of State Seward (who wanted to act like a prime minister), with General McClellan (who was openly insubordinate) and with Secretary of the Treasury Chase (who wanted to be President). Lincoln turned Seward into a confidant, he replaced McClellan and later defeated him for President, and appointed Chase to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both suffered numerous defeats and setbacks. During the Revolutionary War, Washington lost more battles than he won, but was victorious in the final one. Lincoln’s setbacks were so frequent and well-known that they have become a cherished part of American lore.

Political leadership has been studied since antiquity of human existence; prevalent through the distinct characteristics of certain leaders their actions, and rise to power and how they conduct their leadership. The question of leadership remains important due to the connection between those in power and the society in which they govern. This essay will critically evaluate the leaders Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump, in a comparative standpoint. The central premise of this essay is to examine their traits as political leaders and to indicate the progression of leadership styles of the presidents of the United States (U.S.).

In terms of leadership styles Abraham Lincoln exhibited traits correlated with a transformational leader; he was considered as a master of paradox. This is a highly devoted trait of leaders, as asserted by Galli paradoxes are crucial elements leaders must use, as they ‘set conventional management wisdom on its ears’ (Galli 2017). These paradoxes enable leaders to strive and achieve their goals; Lincoln administered these paradoxes in a proactive manner, rather than a reactive manner enabling an optimal outcome. Lincoln’s ability to recognise these paradoxes distinctively states his strong and decisive hand (Turner 1995). He was also highly pragmatic in his desire to preserve the union.

Evidently, Lincoln manifested three vital elements as a transformational leader; acquiring trust, loyalty and respect of followers, ability to inspire and make sacrifices, distinct appeal to followers ethical values – aimed to inspire them to pursue a ‘higher morality’. The first element was administered due to his common man attitude asserted by William Seward ‘There never was a man so accessible to [both] proper and improper persons’ (Turner 2002). His level of courtesy and level of respect of his followers – with no regard to social and economic hierarchy showed his noble attitude. Soldiers referred to him as “Father Abraham” “Honest Abe” and other respective nicknames. His commitment to the first element is portrayed through his 2,000 interviews with soldiers across the nation (Turner 2002). Through this, he was able to personify and exert his influence in a direct manner and portray his understanding and respect for their dedication. The war horrified him and for long periods it did not result in positive gains for the Union, he needed to remain steadfast in his approach. The second element is exemplified in the 166th Ohio Regiment, his continual speeches interested the soldiers – conveying his ability to inspire and praise their sacrifices. For instance, Lincoln states – ‘We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds of our affection’ (Perry 1911). The third element was addressed through the second element alongside his ability to be a transactional leader – an intriguing method involving ‘give’ and ‘take’ methods (Turner 2002). Overall, his collectively of elements 1 and 2 resulted in the success of his third element.

Donald Trump exhibits key notions of a highly-dominant leader in his leadership styles; with strategic altitudes. A case study in India signified Trump’s tactician attitude – he instils this throughout his leadership; through deliberatively stating what he needs to survive in the dynamic political environment, even if utility of coercion is required (Kelkar 2019). In an leadership attributes study collected by personologist Theodore Millon from 150 media reports coherently analysed temperamental features that drive Trump’s political leadership behaviour and observed three core features (Immelmann 2017) . Firstly, an outgoing histrionic pattern was found implying Trump is susceptible to poor impulse control which that can lead to impulsive/pervasive tendencies; visible on his social media platforms. Secondly, an ambitious and narcissist pattern was identified as he perpetuates elements of optimism and perversely responds to criticism. Lastly, Trump exhibits dominant and aggressive patterns; signifying his erratic temper and lack empathy despite his dominant character; unlike other presidents he does not actively try to hide this pattern.

In recognition of presidential temperament, Trump aligns most similar to James Barber’s active-positive presidential character scale, his presidential character is most compatible with leaders such as Bill Clinton. Clinton upheld values of self-confidence, optimism when pursuing and achieving their political objectives. Through Trump’s dominant assertiveness and confidence, he exhibits traits of a task-orientated leader due to power motivation. Evident in his inter-relations amongst the congress, members of the cabinet and senior government officials. His behaviour exhibits notions of demanding and competitive in regards to achieving political agendas. Imperatively, Trump exhibits traits of a transactional leader displayed through his mindset of issues being prisms and deals of transactions. For example, U.S commitments to him must adhere to cost-benefit analysis and pursue national interest. Trump states ‘NATO is obsolete and needs to be readjusted – America should no longer be the police of the world’. This implies the U.S. alliance with NATO is not profitable and is not pursuing their national interest and if they should continue their relations with NATO, imperative improvements are essential; displaying his transactional leadership trait (Dodo 2016).

Abraham Lincoln exhibited strong contemporaneous circumstances relevant to the ideals of nationalism. He was regarded as the supreme nationalist in US history and his ideological traits were correlated to earlier thoughts of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster; alongside Francis Lieber and John W. Burgess (Rawley 1963). Lincoln was naturally a nationalist and committed to preserving the union. He was strong minded with a strong political agenda for slavery; eloquently signifying his rise to power. Lincoln portrayed the Constitution as a critical tool to derive opinions for his objectives of economic growth, internal growth and anti-slavery constructs. He held the belief that freeing slaves was crucial in order to save the union and in 1862 he issued the Emancipation Proclamation; to free slaves in Southern states – as a triumph of nationalism over racism and the constitution (Neely 2011).

Lincoln’s centric belief in the U.S. and admiration of universal principles it embodied remained a pertinent analogy for his rise to power. Alongside, his prominent role in state politics which generated his reputation as a respectful man. Lincoln’s appraisal for the law and the constitution remained stagnant through his presidency, a trait which his followers strongly admired. The emancipation debates were appraised by the nation as they strengthened the exceptionalism ideology with coherence to traits of liberty and equality for the nation. Furthermore, his transformational leader characteristics upheld superiority above congress and courts and he transformed the presidential role as a commander in chief to a chief executive amongst all. His desire to strive and achieve his goals despite other entities approval was recognisable when he expanded the army, spent approximately $2 million without regard to congress, blocked southern ports and closed post offices as of offensive correspondents (Burlingame 2019). His ability to mobilise the parts of the U.S. and preserve nationalist identity, was correlated to his rise to power. His key accomplishments include; preserving the union, the exoneration of democracy through strategic power play and abolishment of slavery and these are recognised as the most phenomenal achievements of a president facing multitudes of issues. His coherency and personality can be critically analysed in a conflict and empathy cycle; elevating his rise of power; this cycle is highly efficient when administered.

In assessing Lincoln we can see he utilised this balancing loop through his avert focus. For instance, when conflict increased, empathy for other parties began to increase, when conflict decreased, focus would be diverted to a different agenda. Lincoln’s ability to adhere to a conflict/empathy cycle was advantageous – his sensitiveness and understanding of others gave him pure insight. His persona was not exploited, he was resilient enough to de-escalate conflicts (exception of the Civil War) and generate valuable relationships. For example, his former rival running for presidency in 1860 Salmon P. Chase continuously campaigned himself despite being part of Lincoln’s cabinet. Eventually, Chase resigned but Lincoln did not allow his reassignment. Instead, Lincoln promoted him as chief justice of the Supreme Court. He received harsh criticism for promoting Chase, as Chase was not seen as desirable for the role by his colleagues. Lincoln responded to this criticism by stating ‘Chase is, on the whole a pretty good fellow – only trouble is that he has ‘The White House fever’ a little too bad, I hope this may cure him’ (Pruyn 2005); an unusual series of actions in the political arena.

Trumps’ rise to power was highly unexpected against almost all odds. His political style and prose during election captured attention in an adverse manner, as his speeches, press released and overall campaign was significantly incorrect, his level of misleading was much complex than other politicians. Instrumentally, there was an underlying level of insults against Mexicans, Muslims, Women, African Americans, Immigrants, and respective Military generals (Campbell 2018). Trump supports anyone who supports him and attacks anyone he sees fit; This makes him hard to work out understand as a leader. Trump’s highest regard of appeal that led to his rise to power were his campaigns upon immigration including mass deportations, banning Muslim immigration, and borders for Mexico. His campaign was successful due to economic anxiety in the U.S as of unemployment and stagnant wages. This financial crisis was prevalent to voters, and led to Trump’s rise to power as voters were afraid of cultural displacement; most prominently amongst white working-class individuals in the U.S. (Newburger 2018).

In terms of comparison of these two leaders, it is a centuries apart debate due to the differences in time, political trends and awareness of voters. Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump have been recognised as the two presidents to declare war on half of the country and both were Republicans (Boritt 1994). Trump has been facing tremendous challenges as of the changing political, economic and social dynamics between the nineteenth and the twenty-first centuries. As examined previously they also have distinctively different leadership attributes; as Lincoln as been recognised as a transformational leader and Trump as a dominant leader. For instance during the Civil War (1861) Lincoln addressed the internal crisis with his efficient use of leadership. Whereas, Trump through examination has close correlation with the growing rates of racism in the U.S. due to his comments regarding the manner (Woods 2012). Another vital distinction between them is that Lincoln was a product of poverty and poverty gave him meaning towards life (Lincoln 1999). Whereas Trump can be perceived as a product of wealth and privilege. In cultural aspects, Lincoln entered politics during times of racial discrimination and was inclined with the idea to colonise American Blacks in Liberia and West Africa, as this was supportive of the white mass vote in the U.S. Similarly, Trump is enforcing laws upon pushing the Mexican and Spanish individuals out of the nation.

Amongst all individuals who have changed the political agenda and dynamics of the U.S. Lincoln can be perceived as the most influential individual. This can be supported by anchoring of his leadership styles even enacted by Barack Obama as he stated that apart from the bible the other book he would take with him to the white house would be the Team of Rivals book about Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War (Coutu 2009). In today’s society Trump can extend his leadership qualities through understanding the role of language in different forms i.e. religion and the detrimental factors that build relationships between leaders and followers (Scott 2014). Through cultivation of Lincoln’s leadership traits, Trump would be able to execute stronger relationships with countries that are affiliated with the U.S. (Holzer 2015). For instance, Trump has economic disagreements with the Republic of China; this dispute needs to be resolved in order to sustain world order (Santiso 2007). The immense challenges Trump is facing at internal and external levels would greatly benefit from Lincoln’s transformational leader attributes.

From the critical analysis of these two leaders, the core leadership lessons that can be learnt include; the elements of a transformational leader Lincoln exhibited and utility of conflict and empathy cycle. Transformational leader traits that Lincoln exerted fundamentally acquired him to gain the trust, loyalty and respect of his followers. These lessons are crucial to implement at a personal bias, and provided me with a strong understanding that the notion of leadership is to not only lead a nation and achieve objectives. But to also be an influential leader and leave a legacy behind. The conflict and empathy cycle is another altitude of leadership which has enhanced my knowledge; as it indicates that understanding of others in crucial in effective leadership; without empathising with others, effective leadership cannot be achieved. As low levels of empathy is linked to not being a multi-minded thinker and low levels of observant behaviour; both inefficient traits of a leader.

Through evidence-based comparison of the two leaders Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump examined in this essay, their distinct elements of leadership and multitudes surrounding these elements have been demonstrated. The behaviours and actions of Lincoln resided with the ideals of a transformational leader; whereas Trump’s actions portrayed dominant altitudes. Both of these leaders have different contemptuous circumstances; with Lincoln having struggles during war time and Trump’s ideological beliefs which impose racial comments. Overall, through analysis of the over-arching behaviour of these two leaders, their key political differences have been identified.

In his Second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln surprised his audience by not giving a speech regarding politics, but instead using harsh and then encouraging diction and biblical allusions to inspire Americans and show them that they need to continue to work for peace.

In his Second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln surprised his audience by not giving a speech regarding politics, but instead using harsh and then encouraging diction and biblical allusions to inspire Americans and show them that they need to continue to work for peace.

One rhetorical strategy Lincoln uses is comparisons. Lincoln intentionally compares Confederate hopes and accomplishments to those of the Union. He mainly chooses to word his comparisons in the past tense. For example, when Abraham says, “Neither anticipated… the conflict itself should cease.” His words all end in past tense: “anticipated”, “looked”, “read”, “invoked” etc… each and very verb in the past tense. President Lincoln used those words because they confirmed his work, he had ended the Civil War, and in doing so, he made Americans whole again. The comparison also serves to show the differences of the two governments to portray one as the tyrant and the other as the “good guy”. This comparison also appeals to ethos, to show what has been accomplished; pathos to appeal to the basic emotions of patriotism, anger, and hope; and lastly logos: the appeal to the “better side”. All of these are placed to reflect Lincoln’s purpose – to show that we are again whole. President Lincoln used disparaging diction using different metaphors, similes to bring about a saddened tone and a juxtaposition using alliteration and asyndetons of the two sides of the war in order to tell people of the Union that although this war is bloody, they must preserve and see it to it’s end. In his speech not only he appeals to the values of the people, but also to their emotions. War is an emotionally taxing occurrence ravaging through the lives and homes of all who are in this path. Lincoln describes The Civil War with many similes, like saying “as cold as ice”, “as bloody as the rose”, it really was the bloodiest conflict in American history. Everyone lost something or someone. Abraham imagined that his audience would not want to be labelled as a sinner or offend God thus evoking the emotions of all the American people contemplating their offences against god. He used a lot of diacopes, which made his speeches even more stronger and created even a stronger imagery: “every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.” Lincoln knew what he was on about and he knew that his words would remind people of the pain they felt from the death of loved ones. Another tool Abraham employed to make these powerful ideas sound appealing is poetic elements. Because his ideas carried a lot of weight, they certainly weren’t what the people wanted to hear. In the final words of his speech, Lincoln pours upon the people. Some of his most famous words, “with malice towards none with charity for all,” he once again didn’t blame one side only.

In conclusion, Abraham Lincoln demonstrated at this second inauguration that he is a rhetorical genius. No American expected this speech in 1865. Lincoln used rhetorical devices multiple times such as repetition – “Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration… Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease,”, alliteration – “These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest,” very often rhyming – “Fondly do hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away,” and some allusions to the Bible.

Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King were two very similar orators who wanted to achieve almost identical goals. Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States and the leader of the Anti-Slavery Republican Party. His speech was delivered on the nineteenth November 1863 mat Gettysburg during the ‘Great Civil War’. His primary objective was to abolish slavery and he did this partly by indirectly telling his audience, such as, purposely forgetting his status and addressing his ‘Fellow countrymen’ with intense respect which consequently reflects his beliefs in equality. Martin Luther King, a Baptist Minister, was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement. He performed his speech almost one hundred years after Lincoln’s speech on the twenty eighth August at Lincoln’s memorial. King believed in egalitarianism and he also wanted to end segregation; this is what both orators set out to do.

Both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King played pivotal roles in advocating for equality and justice, leaving a lasting impact on American history. Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, delivered during the tumultuous period of the Civil War, aimed to abolish slavery and promote equality. Similarly, Martin Luther King, a Baptist Minister and leader of the Civil Rights Movement, delivered his iconic speech at Lincoln’s memorial, echoing the ideals of egalitarianism and striving to end segregation. The works of these two influential figures continue to inspire generations, prompting further examination and analysis.

Lincoln and King have similar purposes for their speeches but targeted them in different ways. Influenced by the great legend Mahatma Gandhi who also himself was a non-violent freedom fighter, King wanted to gain black people’s freedom the same way as Gandhi, in a non-violent protest. Lincoln had a similar contractual obligation. He was to abolish slavery. He conveyed this in his concise speech ‘for the people’. Both King and Lincoln have implicit messages in their speeches. Lincoln, apart from trying to abolish slavery, also promoted ‘The honored dead’ and making people understand what their ‘fathers’ had done for them and what is left for them to do. King, on the other hand, apart from trying to gain black people’s freedom, evokes a feeling of disgust by the use of metaphors to induce an image of the ‘governor’s lips’, ‘dripping with the words of interposition and nullification’ which evokes a sinister feeling within the audience which King hoped to achieve as it would divert the ‘Negro’s’ mind and evoke a feeling f disgust towards the government.

King targets his audience cleverly. He explicitly targets the majority of the black people, who still, ‘one hundred years later’, and ‘must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free’. This clearly shows that King is telling his audience that even today after ‘one hundred years’ the ‘Negro’ are, ‘ still not free’. He implicitly talks to the ‘governor’s’; concurrently he is talking to the ‘Negro’ community by changing their views towards the ‘governor’s’. King is trying to provide a vivid reflection for the ‘Governor’s’ to make them realize what they are doing and how much better they could make if they abolish slavery and put an end to segregation. Alternatively, Lincoln’s audience was probably affluent white people from Northern US. Although King had the advantage of the TV, Radio, media and Microphone, Lincoln’s speech was just as well heard as King’s speech.

The use of emotive words engages both King and Lincoln’s audience. King unifies his audience at the ‘table of brotherhood’ which, apart from unifying the audience also has a religious impact on the black people as they were extremely religious and an indirect reference to Jesus and his disciples would have caused immense unity between the audience. This metaphor apart from providing unity, it also is a very peaceful metaphor as it includes everybody. In contrast, Lincoln believes that their ‘nation’ is ‘under God’. These religious references amalgamate the audience and make them think that they are doing this for ‘God’ and that they are ‘God’s children’.

Both orators structure their speeches in similar ways. The speech is structured in chronological order as it bequeaths a rhythmic feel. Firstly they talk about what their ‘fathers’ had to go through to get them this far, then they move into the present where both speech makers clearly make it noticeable that they talking about ‘now’. King introduces his future ingeniously by stating that he has ‘a dream’, which circuitously shows what he wants it to be like in the near future for his ‘four little children’. This poignant language also evokes sympathy not just for King but also for people around them who are going through the same traumatic experience.

Different tones area applied by both orators to conjure up diverse feelings. Lincoln uses a sincere tone to compliment his feeling to abolish slavery when he addresses his ‘fellow countrymen’. On the other hand, King uses a powerful voice to ‘Let freedom ring’ and to strengthen the speech to emphasize his beliefs of ‘freedom’. Lincoln also has a sense of vigor in his tone which shows how the soldiers ‘nobly advance’ and which portrays the strength of his own voice as well corroborating other people simultaneously. Religious and biblical manners are used by both speechmakers, which has a great impact on the nation at the same time, as persons at that time, especially black public were very religious. Lincoln refers to the people being ‘under God’ which would convey a thought of great expectations in the minds of the listeners. King says that the ‘glory of the Lord shall be revealed’, which meant that if they work together, then they can create a better world for themselves and for their children, so if they stick together and protest they will see the reward.

Both raconteurs coerce their audience by the use of different strategies. They both use analogous strategies to portray their views. Lincoln and King use the same strategies; however, King uses them extensively. Both use the rule of three but King take one-step further and converts it into repetition. When King repeats ‘Let freedom ring’, it emphasizes how much the black ‘community’ wants ‘freedom to ring’. However, Lincoln repeats two words in particular, ‘great’ and ‘nation’. The repetition of ‘great’ show the importance that can be achieved out of a ‘great civil war’ to form a bond between the people present and to say, if we are a ‘nation so conceived and so dedicated’ then we can tolerate the hardship and pain of war. The use of emotive language evokes a more personal feeling. King refers to his children to add a sympathetic feel to his speech. He also uses biblical references such as when ‘the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning’ keeps his audience interested by implicitly saying it will be done and it grants hope to his audience. On the other hand, Lincoln’s use of emotive language is more biblical rather than personal. The only reference to a more personal feeling was when he talked about their ‘fathers’ to call to mind a nostalgic upshot and to say how disrespectful it would be to go against the equality that our ‘fathers’ created ‘this continent a new nation’.

King and Lincoln use alliteration in the same way. King uses alliteration to show ‘a desert state sweltering sweltering’, which too, portrays the immense heat of injustice. An onomatopoeic effect to give a sense of power to the ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ due to the repetition of the ‘P’.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln intentionally use language to persuade their audience to fight freedom in a non-violent disapproval. Both orators take advantage of the uses of language to achieve their primary aim. Lincoln juxtaposes the ‘civil war’ with ‘great’ to encourage the greatness of war and what can be achieved out of this battle to abolish slavery. King juxtaposes ‘the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice’. Apart from being a metaphor, alliteration is also inserted and an expectant pause is added to let the audience reflect on what King had just said. Both speechmakers, to transmit a compassionate emotion use emotive language.

In conclusion to my analysis Martin Luther King’s speech was the most effective only to the obvious reason that his was of a longer length so it contained more within it. Lincoln’s speech was nearly as good as King’s speech because he also interleaved messages inside his meaning which as a consequent added depth to his speech and made his speech almost as superior as King’s. King’s speech was good too for the reason that he could express his views openly as he had more time as well as more technology to reach more people.

There are two types of democracy, namely direct and representative democracy. In a direct democracy, the people attend assemblies and decide on legislations directly. One example of direct democracy was Athenian democracy.

In a representative democracy, people elect their representatives in the legislature.1 Most, if not all modern democracies like the UK and the US are representative democracies. As defined by Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. It means a democratic government, which serves the people, is made up of members of the public elected by their fellow citizens. In this essay, representative democracy would be discussed.

Though Abraham Lincoln was not a political philosopher per se, in word and in deed he did grapple with many of the most pressing and timeless questions in politics. What is the moral basis of popular sovereignty? What are the proper limits on the will of the majority? When and why should we revere the law? What are we to do when the letter of the law is at odds with what we believe justice requires? How is our devotion to a particular nation related to our commitment to universal ideals? What is the best way to protect the right to liberty for all people? The contributors to this volume, a methodologically and ideologically diverse group of scholars, examine Lincoln’s responses to these and other ultimate questions in politics. The result is a fascinating portrait of not only Abraham Lincoln but also the promises and paradoxes of liberal democracy.

The basic liberal democratic idea is that individual liberty is best secured by a democratic political order that treats all citizens as equals before the law and is governed by the law, with its limits on how the state may treat its citizens and on how citizens may treat one another. Though wonderfully coherent in theory, these ideas prove problematic in real-world politics. The authors of this volume approach Lincoln as the embodiment of this paradox—“naturally antislavery” yet unflinchingly committed to defending proslavery laws; defender of the common man but troubled by the excesses of democracy; devoted to the idea of equal natural rights yet unable to imagine a harmonious, interracial democracy. Considering Lincoln as he attempted to work out the meaning and coherence of the liberal democratic project in practice, these authors craft a profile of the 16th president’s political thought from a variety of perspectives and through multiple lenses. Together their essays create the first fully-dimensional portrait of Abraham Lincoln as a political actor, expressing, addressing, and reframing the perennial questions of liberal democracy for his time and our own.

The Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln is the most popular American president around the globe due to his remarkable life history. Lincoln was always determined to change the dynamics of American politics and he used to borrow law books from his counselor who was a state legislator at that time. Like any other political leader, it was not easy for Lincoln to succeed in his early political career but these failures taught him wisdom and resilience. At last, he became the 16th president of the United States of America in 1861 after his lifelong struggle. During his presidency, he tried his level best to preserve the nation and end slavery. Lincoln was the greatest democratic of all time who believed the government can get the confidence of its citizens only if it works for their greater good. Lincoln says; “The people will save their government if the government itself will allow them”(Lincoln). In other words, if the government works for the welfare of its citizens then the people themselves will cooperate with their government for its survival. Now a question arises how can a government work for the well-being of its citizens?

The primary purpose of the American government is to maintain law and order, protect its citizens from external and internal threats and promote the general welfare.

The term rule of law is frequently used in the political and economic context. All governments of the world laws according to the guidelines set by the electoral representatives. However, the law-making process may vary from one country to another due to differences in their democratic structure. The rule of law can lead to a prosperous and just society where everyone enjoys equal rights. As an eminent Judge Tom Bingham says; “The rule of law is held to be not only good in itself, because it embodies and encourages a just society, but also as a cause of other good things, notable growth.” Laws perform several functions in society. Firstly, it gives equal rights and liberties to every citizen of the country. For example, the basic purpose of the American “Bill of rights” is to provide the citizen with equal democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and some other liberties. Furthermore, laws create harmony in society by settling disputes among people in federal and local courts. Moreover, the law also brings order to a country by minimizing the rate of crime (Fallon Jr).

Similarly, a government can gain the confidence of the people by protecting them from regional and international threats. Military and security policy has always been an important pillar of the national policy of any country. The military of any country sacrifices their lives to protect the lives of its citizens from foreign invaders and terrorist attacks. Furthermore, national security also includes economic, environmental, and cybersecurity. Economic security involves protecting the nation’s wealth and economic reserves from regional and foreign threats. Furthermore, environmental security can be seen from a different perspective. Some argue that environmental security is associated with protecting the life and property of the people in case of any natural disaster such as floods, water shortage,s, and climate changes. Others claim that environmental security involves the protection of the natural environment of a country from manmade interventions. Lastly, any government must provide cybersecurity to its citizens in this digital world to stop any privacy invasion (Kaganovich and Zilch).

Furthermore, any government should try to raise the living standards of its people by providing proper education and healthcare facilities. Education plays an important role in the growth and development of any country and it is a well-known fact that only countries that focus on the need for education would be able to meet the heightened expectations of society. Many countries of the world are spending a huge amount of their economic reserves to provide free education to their citizens. For example, Japan is progressing by leaps and bounds because education is free at every level for the Japanese. Moreover, so many talented people in the world are unable to seek education due to their poor socioeconomic status so governments should try to lower this financial burden to promote education and learning. Furthermore, it is the primary responsibility of any government to improve the healthcare quality of the country by investing in healthcare centers, diagnostic laboratories, and hospitals (Lock).

However, if the government fails to maintain law and order in the country then it can lead to a chaotic situation where everyone discriminates against others based on their color, race, or financial status. For example, Racism is rooted in virtually all parts of the world, but the most affected country by the curse of racism is the United States of America. African Americans make less money; have lower educational facilities and a higher unemployment rate due to racism. Recently, A police officer murdered George Floyd which fuelled the Black Lives Matter Movement where people showed their rage against the American government. Hence, most of the African American population does not trust the American government. Also, ever since 9/11 happened Americans have lost interest in the security policy of America. Similarly, some argue that instead of raising the living standard of underprivileged citizens the American government is spending millions of dollars on its war against terror in a different part of the world. Furthermore, the recent COVID-19 has badly exposed the healthcare sector of America and a large majority of Americans are questioning the role of government.

In conclusion, it can be interpreted that in the light of Abraham Lincoln’s quote American government is obliged to work for the good of the people to gain their confidence. The idea of the rule of law is critical to any democratic government because it results in equal distribution of rights. Similarly, all governments should maintain order and security to maintain the stability of the regime. Furthermore, protection provided by the government is not limited to maintaining order within its borders but it is the chief responsibility of the government to protect from external threats and terrorism. Besides, the government should also try to work for the well-being of its citizens to help them lead happy life. However, if the government fails to fulfill its duties then they start to criticize their government at every level which can lead to chaos in society. In my opinion, a government can be good or bad based on the behavior of its citizens and stakeholders. A government cannot perform well unless everyone recognizes its duties and responsibilities.

Roosevelt wanted to protect the average worker, break up monopolies, regulate railroad rates, and protect the food and drug supply. Roosevelt created the Forest Service to manage forest reserves. He expanded national parks and forests. The United States would police Latin America to guarantee that countries met their international obligation. Roosevelt helped Panama secede from Colombia and got a Canal Zone. He focused foreign policy on the Caribbean and the building of the Panama Canal. Roosevelt asked for bigger appropriations for the army and navy. Roosevelt expanded the US Navy and sent them on a world tour. He negotiated with Japan and Russia to end the Russo-Japanese War, and won a Nobel Peace Prize. He pushed for war during the Spanish-American War because he believed it would invigorate the nation. He then resigned as assistant secretary and formed the Rough Riders. Roosevelt believed that big government was needed for the regulation of business. He treated labor as an equal partner in negotiations and created the department of commerce & labor. He passed the Elkins Act so that the ICC would levy substantial fines on railroads that offered rebates, & on shippers that accepted rebates. His hero was Abraham Lincoln. The conservative part of him recognized large corporations as the producers of the nation’s wealth & power, while the liberal side realized corporations needed to be regulated in the public interest. Roosevelt passed the Pure Food and Drug and Meat Inspection Acts. He called for massive federal regulation of the trusts, banning child labor, enforcing workplace safety, minimum wage laws, and the 8-hour work day. He supported public interest in conflicts between big business and labor.

Roosevelt and Lincoln both, during their childhood, showed intellectual curiosity. Both Roosevelt and Lincoln believed in minorities, Lincoln with slaves and Roosevelt with labor workers. Lincoln was devoted to a project for constructing railroads, highways, and canals while Roosevelt pushed Congress to regulate railroads and build the Panama Canal. Lincoln was raised on a farm and Roosevelt went to live on a ranch after his wife and mother’s deaths. Lincoln enlisted in the Black Hawk War as a volunteer and Roosevelt was in the war with Spain as assistant secretary of the Navy. Both were cautious in their approaches toward reform because of the opposition. Lincoln believed that a war must be actively fought, and Roosevelt pushed for the United States to go to war with Spain.

In contrast, Lincoln and Roosevelt had very different childhoods. Lincoln was raised on a farm and received little formal education. He did not like hunting or fishing. Roosevelt was born to a wealthy family and was educated by his private tutors. He was a naturalist and explorer, so contrary to Lincoln he seemed to like the outdoors more. Both executed reforms, but Lincoln made changes in the area of civil rights while Roosevelt focused on workers’ rights.

Throughout history, the United States has had many great leaders who have helped the country grow into what it is today. Each president is unique and each of them directly or indirectly has a huge impact on the American people, thereby shaping the vision of Americans of different generations about themselves. Every American has a favorite and unloved president, they consider someone the best, someone the worst. Speaking of me, my favorite president is Abraham Lincoln. As president of the country, he did many amazing things.

Before running for president and gaining national and political attention, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer who paused at his academic learning and went to focus on the democratic view. Lincolns perspective shifted therefor he went to join the government. Then became a leader of the Republican Party. And from there onward he became what he was then which was the president. Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president that led the Civil War. And in 1776 Lincoln adopted the signing of ‘The Declaration of Independence’ which freed the slaves and gave freedom to all people.

One of his many accomplishments was nothing less than the implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation. Putting this in order set the slaves free but not in confederate states however unfortunately that was not the issue, it gave them freedom but to some was to join the Civil War, to calculate how many there were was a total of 200,000 African-Americans. Even so slaves were not fully in the ‘safe zone’ having the Emancipation Proclamation issued besides the states that were part of the Union. Lincoln proposed the Thirteenth Amendment that stuck up the support and effect to end slavery which was one of his main goals he thought that was important to document.

Throughout his presidency, Lincoln served the justice of the nation with the goals and ambitions he achieved. And there was no doubt that he had enough people on his side. Lincoln entered the Civil War to help those and tell them where to go and what to do. Lincoln also freed the slaves from slavery, but not only by giving all people the rights and justice they desired. Some will say that he was a politically bad president, but he knew what the people wanted and tried to give it to them. This is what makes him not just a good person with high moral values, but also my favorite president.

Works Cited

1. Martin Kelly, ‘Biography of Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States’. ThoughtCo. June 05, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/abraham-lincoln-16th-president-united-states-104273
2. Richard N. Current, ‘Abraham Lincoln | Biography, Facts, History’. Encyclopedia Britannica October 04, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abraham-Lincoln
3. Lenin, ‘Abraham Lincoln- Simple English Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia’. Wikipedia October 15, 2019, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
4. Michael Burlingame, ‘Abraham Lincoln’, UVA | Miller Center. January 22, 2019, https://millercenter.org/president/lincoln

There have been many different articles, biographies, and much more that have been published about the life of Abraham Lincoln to educate people on his life as a president, a father, and an all-American hero. This film was entirely based on the last four months of Lincoln’s efforts in fighting for the 13 Amendment to be passed as a law. I think for the most part the film was mostly a correct depiction of what those four months had been like for Lincoln, the use of many facts that are not very well known to most people in today’s society. President Abraham Lincoln was one of the most influential men of his time and arguable even today. He was sworn to lead the newly independent country as the President of the United States on March 4, 1861, and this was prior to the succession of the southern states insisting on states’ rights and the beginning of the Civil War. This was a dark and difficult time for people in the young nation that recently gained independence from Great Britain, and Abraham Lincoln was the right guy to guide the nation through this hard time. Southern states felt like the union was not in their favor, especially when it came to the issue of slavery and their rights as states.

One of the major subject matters of the film was how Lincoln fought and dealt with all the challenges of trying to get the 13th Amendment passed. What I recall in previous courses that I took in high school and college about the succession of the southern states, and Lincoln were stories that I believe were very much polished and not very accurate about the main reason why the Civil War happened, or what the circumstances were surrounding Lincoln’s reasons or intentions for pushing for the 13th amendment. I and many others were taught that the Civil War was about slavery and that’s about all that was ever truly taught on the matter, especially in public schools. Like most of the topics in history books, they are just little pieces to a bigger pie, and if you want to learn more, you’ll have to do it on your own time. It seems the road to getting the amendment passed was a lot more difficult than most professors, or teachers would like to go into details about, or that I had been taught. For an amendment to the constitution to be passed, it has to be passed with a 2/3 majority in Congress, and the Republicans did not have a 2/3 majority in the House of Representatives. This made passing the amendment extraordinarily tough since Democrats were in control.

When the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln made his intentions for the restoration of the Union known as loudly as possible. However early in the war, the Union started keeping escaped slaves as opposed to returning them to their owners as agreed previously, so runaway slaves gained their freedom once they escaped to the North. The movie shows Lincoln and his cabinet working to convince different democrats to vote for the change in the constitution which would abolish slavery. Lincoln is shown using the “spoils system” techniques, offering and sometimes bribing government positions to democrats who had recently been voted out of their seats in Congress and wouldn’t be returning to the House of Representatives. Secretary of State William H. Seward, Representative John B. Alley, and others were told by Lincoln to win Democrats’ votes by any means necessary and promised government posts and campaign contributions to outgoing Democrats willing to switch sides. Seward had a large fund for direct bribes which was intended to help push their agenda in Congress. Ashley, who reintroduced the measure into the house, also lobbied numerous Democrats to vote in desire of the measure.

Lobbying is frequently misinterpreted, seen, or criticized as bribery, which it isn’t. Lobbying is a practice accomplished through the manner of either individuals or corporations in which public campaigns are undertaken to stress governments into specific public policy actions. The legality of lobbying comes from the charter and from our participatory democracy. For our government to be triumphant and defend the rights of its citizens, the citizens ought to participate; lobbying is a way for our citizens to do this. Lobbyists constitute the interests of citizens who do not have the possibility or access to represent themselves in my opinion to the government. Lobbying is a critical lever for an efficient government, without it, governments might struggle to figure out the numerous complaints, and many competing interests of its citizens. Fortunately, lobbying offers access to government legislators, acts as a democratic tool, and permits personal and group interests to benefit strength in numbers.

Lincoln introduced the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862; this new amendment was going to affect Southern states more because they relied highly on the work of slaves to run their economies. This measure opened the issue of what to do about slavery in border states that had not seceded or in areas that had been captured by the Union before the proclamation. In 1864, the amendment abolishing slavery passed the U.S. Senate however died in the House as Democrats rallied in the call for states’ rights. Lincoln insisted that the amendment acquire bipartisan help; some Democrats indicated support for the measure, however many still resisted. The amendment passed 119 to 56, seven votes above the vital two-thirds majority. Numerous Democrats abstained, but the thirteenth amendment was sent to all states for ratification, which then established the passage of the amendment in December 1865.

The movie is a reminder of how much the political parties have switched positions. In ‘Lincoln,’ Republicans are the more liberal party, promoting a more progressive agenda by seeking rights for African Americans while Democrats are the ones espousing state rights. There’s something about the South even today that I find amazing. The South has a very unique culture to the North. Most people whose families have been living down South for generations have a very strong loyalty to the region. Another issue I noticed in this movie is the fact that the storyline was trying to convince the audience that the Civil War was mainly about slavery when in part it was about state’s rights. One issue that I have with how history is written; many writers are biased and are not willing to put out all the information surrounding slavery and the issue of race. It’s been over a hundred years, and race is still a major issue in the United States, despite Barack Obama being the president for eight years.

Last semester, I took a class on African American history and I learned about how once the 13th amendment was passed, most Southern states found a different name and way to keep Blacks into slavery, except this time it was called “convict leasing”.

After the Civil War, the Southern states’ economy, society, and government were in shambles. Southern state governments struggled to raise money to repair broken infrastructure and to aid new expenses which included standard public education. The prison problem was mainly hard, as most prisons had been destroyed in the course of the war. Previously, African-American slaves had been subjected to punishments at the hands of their owners. Some prisoners were wrongly convicted. With government ineffectiveness and an increase in both white and black lawlessness, the problem of where and how to house convicts changed into a business. Initially, some states paid private contractors to house and feed the prisoners. within a few years, states realized they could hire out their convicts to local planters or industrialists who could pay minimal prices for the workers and be responsible for their housing and feeding — thereby getting rid of charges and growing revenue. Soon, markets for convict workers advanced, with entrepreneurs buying and selling convict labor leases. unlike slavery, employers had only a small capital investment in convict people, and little incentive to treat them nicely. Convict workers were regularly dismally handled, but the convict lease system was fairly worthwhile for the states and the employers.

Finally, I personally wished the movie would have shown more of Lincoln’s presidency so the audience could have a better understanding of what his motivation was in pushing for slaves’ rights. It was a great movie, but like many of Hollywood’s dramas, it was super dramatic and not all that accurate. I enjoyed Lincoln’s relationship with his son and his wife. It was a different view than what we are used to. It’s nice seeing how political heads are at home in their private spheres. I think there need to be more historical movies so that the younger generation like myself who are not that into reading books can get the opportunity of witnessing history even though it’s more dramatic. It will definitely make learning much easier and more fun. We are in a digital age, so adjusting will be a great idea.   

Introduction:

Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan are two Republican presidents who left an indelible mark on American history. Despite living in different eras, both leaders embodied the core principles of the Republican Party and played instrumental roles in shaping the nation. In this essay, we will compare and contrast the lives, political careers, leadership styles, and legacies of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, highlighting their contributions to the United States.

Body:

Background and Early Life:

Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan came from humble beginnings and faced personal challenges that shaped their characters. Lincoln was born into poverty in a log cabin in Kentucky, while Reagan was raised in a working-class family in Illinois. Both men possessed strong work ethics, determination, and a commitment to self-improvement. Their early experiences instilled in them a deep empathy for the struggles faced by ordinary Americans.

Political Careers and Ideologies:

Lincoln and Reagan were presidents during critical periods in American history, each grappling with their own set of challenges. Lincoln led the nation during the Civil War and focused on preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. He advocated for a strong central government and emphasized the importance of individual liberty and equal opportunity.

Reagan, on the other hand, served as president during the Cold War era and championed conservative principles of limited government, free-market capitalism, and a strong national defense. He believed in reducing government intervention, promoting economic growth through tax cuts, and restoring American confidence and leadership on the global stage.

Leadership Style and Communication:

Both Lincoln and Reagan possessed exceptional communication skills that resonated with the American people. Lincoln’s eloquence and mastery of language were evident in his speeches, such as the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Address. His ability to articulate complex ideas in a simple and profound manner helped to inspire and unite the nation during a time of great division.

Reagan, often referred to as the “Great Communicator,” had a charismatic and engaging speaking style. His optimism, wit, and ability to connect with people through storytelling made him a popular figure, both domestically and internationally. Reagan used his communication skills to convey his conservative principles and promote a vision of a strong and prosperous America.

Impact and Legacy:

The impact of Lincoln and Reagan on American history is profound and enduring. Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War preserved the Union and ultimately led to the abolition of slavery, making him one of the most revered presidents in American history. His commitment to justice and equality laid the foundation for civil rights advancements in the years that followed.

Reagan’s presidency revitalized conservative values and shifted the political landscape. He implemented economic policies that led to significant economic growth, reduced government regulations, and advocated for a strong national defense. Reagan’s leadership helped bring about the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, solidifying his place as a transformative figure in American politics.

Legacy and Popular Culture:

Both Lincoln and Reagan have become iconic figures in American popular culture. Lincoln’s life and presidency have been the subject of numerous books, films, and plays, including the critically acclaimed film “Lincoln” by Steven Spielberg. Reagan’s charisma and leadership style have also been depicted in various media, and his speeches and quotes continue to be referenced in political discourse.

Conclusion:

Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, though separated by time, shared a commitment to the principles of the Republican Party and made significant contributions to American history. Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War and Reagan’s conservative policies during the Cold War era left lasting impacts on the nation. Whether it was Lincoln’s fight to preserve the Union and end slavery or Reagan’s belief in limited government and free-market capitalism, both presidents left their mark on American politics and continue to be revered by supporters and scholars alike. By examining the lives and legacies of these two Republican leaders, we gain a deeper understanding of the resilience, values, and leadership qualities that have shaped the United States.