Abraham Lincoln: From Humble Beginnings

Abraham Lincoln became a great moral leader forged from humble beginnings to become the president of a country torn apart by civil war. Lincoln felt he was just fulfilling a role that was bestowed upon him. He was a fatalist believing that all events were determined by fate. This belief highlighted recognisable traits of his character like compassion and tolerance: “Like thousands of Calvinists who believed in predestination, he worked indefatigably for a better world-for himself, for his family, and for his nation” (Donald, p 15). When asked about his early life, Lincoln modestly replied that it could all be condensed into a single sentence which is ‘The short and simple annals of the poor’ (Donald, p 19). However, these annals of the poor were detrimental in shaping the persona of one of the greatest presidents the White House ever hosted.

   Not only did Lincoln preside over his country in a most trying period in history, successfully preserving the Union of states despite the bitter civil war and pushing through legislation to abolish slavery but he proved a strong commander-in-chief, fully participating in military planning. His eloquence in defence of democracy ensured that he was not just regarded as a great American leader but also an icon of peace and unity for generations to come. The following is a review of David Herbert Donald’s biography Lincoln exploring the sixteenth US president’s unique personality traits and leadership skills that made him an exemplary leader.

   From a young age Lincoln established himself as a meticulous and clever worker. Long before he was recognized in politics he was noted for his ingenuity by the people of New Salem: “Everyone grew very fond of this hardworking and accommodating young man, so able and so willing to do any kind of work. Quickly he established himself with the men of the town” (Donald, p 39). He was not yet in any position of power but already he was winning the hearts of the people in this small town. He was a labourer, an average working class man that understood his fellow man and his fellow man welcomed him for “he had an inexhaustible store of anecdotes and stories” (Donald, p 39).

   These sociable aspects of his character would later win him admiration in his political career as a true leader of the people who understands the homely virtues of physical strength and hard manual labour. These qualities were applied to his leadership styles combined with a righteous desire to overthrow the corrupt powers controlling the country. Becoming a well known Whig leader in central Illinois he had a burning ambition to emerge as a political groundbreaker exploring new avenues that would bring about change for the greater good: “Towering genius disdains a beaten path..... It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.... It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen” (Donald, p 81). Perhaps his desire for distinction took precedence over genuine good intentions for the people and emancipating slaves incidentally served to achieve this distinction putting Lincoln in the history books as a leader who affected change. Nevertheless this cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason put him at the threshold of an advancing society. He would lead the way to a new era because he possessed the qualities of a great leader.

   As a lawyer Lincoln was no stranger to the management of groups and individuals. This is evident from the Dred Scott case in which he denounced the judiciary for its perversion of the law in ruling that Scott was not allowed to sue because, as a negro, he was not a citizen of the United States. Previously he had been reluctant to challenge the Court but he felt the Scott decision was simply wrong and the Declaration of Independence was being distorted to make slavery eternal and universal: “So blatant was the chief Justice’s misreading of the law, so gross was his distortion of the documents fundamental to American liberty, that Lincoln’s faith in an impartial, rational judiciary was shaken; never again did he give deference to the rulings of the Supreme Court” (Donald, p 201).

   He was not going to let injustice flourish within the justice system and he accused the Chief Justice and the senator of collaborating with other democrats to extend and perpetuate slavery. He delivered a powerful speech in which his words revealed the Court’s abuse of power referring to the oppression of the negro: “They stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is” (Donald, p 202). Lincoln had a way of persuading individuals to support him. Some of his strongest supporters were converts like Norman B. Judd who refused to vote for him in 1855 but later worked closely with him in business and legal matters: “It was Lincoln’s special gift not merely to attract such able and dedicated advisers-and other names could readily be added to the list-but to let each of them think that he was Lincoln’s closest friend and most trusted counsellor” (Donald, p 203).

The civil war presented many conundrums for Lincoln both internal and external as regards stakeholders. One such problem was with the General-in-Chief George B. McClellan who was slow to advance on the Confederate capital of Richmond. Lincoln received repeated excuses for not advancing and constant complaints. Lincoln’s responses were “written less with the hope of influencing McClellan than with an eye to establishing a record to show that the President had done everything possible to assist an insatiably demanding commander” (Donald, p 359). Their views on how to handle the crisis differed. McClellan wanted a constitutional and conservative policy which Lincoln felt had already failed. Lincoln appointed Henry W. Halleck as General-in-Chief: “That appointment signalled a repudiation of McClellan, and of McClellan’s view of the war” (Donald, p 361). Lincoln wanted to work with stakeholders who held a more offensive viewpoint and he found this in his appointment of General John Pope: “Boastful and indiscreet, Pope made no secret of his scorn of Eastern generals, like McClellan, who he thought grossly overestimated the strength of the confederates, and he ridiculed those who believed that strategy was more important than fighting” (Donald, p 361). Pope’s bustling and energetic command restored Lincoln’s confidence: “The new general rapidly whipped his troops into shape, and he projected a direct, overland advance against the Confederate capital-just the strategy that Lincoln had unsuccessfully urged McClellan to follow” (Donald, p 362).

   In times of dire circumstances like the summer of 1862 when everything seemed to be going wrong and Lincoln’s hope of bringing a speedy end to the war was dashed, he felt especially in need of divine help which was a source of motivation when he found himself in a corner: “Whenever Lincoln’s plans were frustrated, he reverted to the fatalism that had characterized his outlook since he was a youth” (Donald, p 354). The famous words that came to be his personal motto were ingrained in his brain and always at the forefront of his mind in every situation, ‘I claim not to have controlled events,but confess plainly that events have controlled me’. These words filled him with inspiration in the belief that “Perhaps he might be an instrument in God’s hands of accomplishing a great work and he certainly was not unwilling to be” (Donald, p 354).

   Negotiation and conflict resolutions were imperative in Lincoln’s case with a civil war on one hand and an Indian uprising on the other. The largest massacre of whites by Indians in American history happened in south-western Minnesota where 350 whites were killed. Lincoln dispatched general Pope to Minnesota to deal with the Indians who reported that whites who had been terrified during the uprising were determined to secure vengeance: “The people of Minnesota were so exasperated that if everyone on the list was not executed it would be ‘nearly impossible to prevent the indiscriminate massacre of all the Indians-old men, women, and children’” (Donald, p 394).

   Lincoln received a list of 303 Sioux Indians condemned to death but he cut this down to 39 “seeking to identify those who had been guilty of the most atrocious crimes, especially murder of innocent farmers and rape” (Donald, p 394). He was poorly informed on Indian affairs but knew them to be a wronged and neglected race (Donald, p 393). Therefore he sought to find a happy medium that offered some justice to the white settlers of Minnesota and some mercy to the Indians. His Clemency sparked protests in Minnesota earning his administration resentment which tainted Republican strength in Minnesota: “Senator Ramsey told the President that if he had hanged more Indians he would have had a larger majority. ‘I could not afford to hang men for votes,’ Lincoln replied” (Donald, p 395).

   Through negotiations Lincoln was actively encouraging both Southern Unionists and army officers stationed in the South to bring about a secession from the Confederacy in the hope of “peace again upon the old terms under the constitution of the United States” (Donald, p 397). The arrangement would make these Southern States exempt from the final proclamation of emancipation but having such rebellious States back in the Union would be a crippling blow to the enemy forcing them to follow (Donald, p 397). He foresaw that war was nearly over but the United States would remain a slaveholding nation, however, he was not troubled by this as he was convinced that slavery was doomed: “He thinks the foundations of slavery have been cracked by the war, by the Rebels” and that “the main task now was to plan for a transition from slavery to freedom” (Donald, p 397). Lincoln was a patient man that knew negotiations to be a step by step process in winning complete emancipation.

   His communications skills showed a man that was well versed in the English language with an eloquent mastery of words justifying his ideology as righteous. He won the camaraderie of previous opponents, urging Congress to unite behind his plan to restore national authority and prosperity by rising to the occasion of a new era in history: “We cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves.... We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it” (Donald, p 398). With Shakespearean cadence which reflected his expert way with words in addressing an audience, he reminded legislators: “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free-honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve..... We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope for this earth” (Donald, p 398). In his engagement with his audiences, he certainly won distinction for his communication skills, and through his dismantling of legislature to ensure emancipation, he earned distinction in the history books as one of the great leaders of our time.

Title: Lincoln

Author: David Herbert Donald

Publisher: Jonathon Cape, London

Year: 1995

 

Nelson Mandela's Long Walk To Freedom

Nelson Mandela is arguably the most inspirational leader of our time encompassing a moral philosophy of inequality that saw him win the hearts of not just the people of South Africa but also the world receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. But it is not just his political accomplishments in talking with the enemy since his release from 27 years imprisonment under an apartheid system that make him the revered martyr that he is today. 'The struggle is my life' he reiterated. From the rolling hills of the Transkei valley of his youth where he experienced a mixture of wealth and poverty to growing hungry in Johannesburg working as a law attorney before being inspired to become a freedom fighter and begin his long walk to freedom. His life was a rollercoaster of ups and downs taking unexpected turns at the worst of times but even though his life was a bumpy ride, his mindset remained steady, his eyes fixed on the prospect of freedom, always looking forward. His experiences were the forces that shaped and moulded him into the leader that he is. In the following review of his autobiography, I will explore the different aspects of his psyche that made him the father of a nation free from oppression and apartheid.

   His leadership styles always respected the collective. He never wanted to seem like he was dictating any decision no matter how small for he was adamant in establishing a society governed by a democracy of equality and never wanted to reflect the ideals of the enemy who had suppressed him all his life: “For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others” (Mandela, p 751). Mandela refers to prison as a crucible that tests a man's character: “Some men, under the pressure of incarceration, showed true mettle, while others revealed themselves as less than what they had appearded to be” (Mandela p 539). He goes on to mention the dramas they were allowed perform in the later years at Robben Island. One such drama became ingrained in his memory as a symbol of South Africa's struggle. Mandela plays the role of a King Creon who appears to be sincere and patriotic suggesting that experience is the foundation of leadership and that obligations to the people take precedence over loyalty to an individual but he deals mercilessly with his enemies who rebelled against the city declaring that the main character Antigone's brother does not deserve a proper burial (Mandela p 541). This is symbollic of the laws of oppression that were weighed on Africans more heavily after defiance campaigns and protest demonstrations including gatherings and stay at homes.

   Mandela states that a leader must temper justice with mercy. Even though he plays the role of the King in the play, I feel as though he is a real life version of Antigone: “It was Antigone who symbolized our struggle; she was, in her own way, a freedom fighter, for she defied the law on the ground that it was unjust” (Mandela p 541). Mandela was courageous in the face of oppression never letting the prison authorities dampen his spirit by harassing his wife or cutting off most prison privileges even though he was a political prisoner. He took the moral high ground disarming the prejudiced warders with words and threats of legal action. The plays were a reflection of the difficulties he faced: “What I took out of them was that character was measured by facing up to difficult situations and that a hero was a man who would not break down even under the most trying circumstances” (Mandela p 540). Nelson Mandela certainly is one of those heroes.

   He took solace in the company of his comrades and considered them all his equals striving never to undermine them when speaking for any of his groups whether it was the African National Congress, Umkhonto we Sizwe, or the State of South Africa. In developing his leadership styles he took inspiration from such works as Tolstoy’s War and Peace: “Kutuzov defeated Napoleon precisely because he was not swayed by the ephemeral and superficial values of the court, and made his decisions on a visceral understanding of his men and his people. It reminded me once again that truly to lead one’s people one must also truly know them” (Mandela p 585). He demonstrated this after his release by voluntarily living in the poor district of Soweto which was known for having dire conditions and no running water. He could have well afforded a more comfortable lodging.

   Mandela has a wealth of experience in the management of individuals and groups. That is one of the vital ingredients that led to his inauguration as President of South Africa. After his father lost his place in office Mandela was adopted to a family of Thembu tradition in order to be educated as an advisor to the King of the region. He was groomed from his early years to be involved in decision making matters becoming a prefect in college as well as being a member of the student representative council. He did not want to be confined to ways of Thembu tradition and ran away to Johannesburg to practise as an attorney and soon established the first black law firm in South Africa: “I had to make my way on the basis of my ability, not my heritage” (Mandela p 39). This is an integral part of his belief that everyone should be awarded on the basis of ability after receiving free education in a system of equality.

   Before he even got involved with the ANC or was in any way fighting for freedom, he was already well established in dealing with individuals and groups through his law firm and other previous intellectual exploits. He resigned from the student representative committee on the basis that their demands were not met such as improvements to the diet. The principle presented him with a dilemma where he would either return to the committee or be expelled. He stood his ground. This was evidence from a young age that Mandela was not going to bow down to a dictatorship of any kind: “Something inside me would not let me. While I appreciated Dr Kerr’s position and his willingness to give me another chance, I resented his absolute power over my fate” (Mandela p 62)

   Mandela was a great manager of groups in organising defiance campaigns and raising awareness of the rights the ANC was fighting for. But he like any other leader was faced with internal conflicts. One such conflict happened in jail with one of his comrades Tefu. It was just a small incident but a great example of Mandela’s problem solving skills and absolute humility and humanitarian attributes that recognise him as a true leader of the people. He had established dealings with a sympathetic warder who supplied them with sandwiches and tobacco but the warder was adamant he would only deal with Mandela. Tefu became rash, suspicious that his portion of tobacco was not equal and demanded the warder to give him his tobacco directly. Mandela swiftly shooed Tefu and persuaded the warder to relax. Mandela punished Tefu for almost compromising their supplies by not allowing him tobacco or sandwiches that night. Tefu woke Mandela later pleading that he had suffered for his commitment to the people and now Mandela as his leader in jail was punishing him like this. Mandela felt he had abused his power to a fellow comrade and immediately gave Tefu his sandwich and half the tobacco: “Tefu was always difficult, but from that point on he behaved much better” (Mandela p 412).

   As a politician working with stakeholders can prove a difficult task within your own organisation as well as that of the opposition. Mandela was regularly engaged in long debates with his colleagues about ANC policies and about the pros and cons of certain decisions. But he had enormous respect for his colleagues and they would nearly always come to an agreement of some sort. He would never pursue a proposal if he did not get the approval of the group. Sometimes this hindered opportunities to begin talks of peace and freedom with the government but eventually Mandela was put in what he referred to as a splendid isolation. He knew the ANC was a collective but the government had made collectivity impossible. Mandela felt it was time to sit down with the enemy but knew his colleagues in jail would condemn his proposal, killing his initiative: “There are times when a leader must move out ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading his people the right way ..... my isolation furnished my organisation with an excuse in case matters went awry: the old man was alone and completely cut off, and his actions were taken by him as an individual, not a representative of the ANC” (Mandela p 627).

   Once he had commenced talks with the National Party, they expressed concerns repeatedly about the ANC’s affiliation with the Communist Party maintaining that the ANC was dominated by communists. Mandela always stood his ground and was resolute in all his responses to attacks by the National Party explaining that the ANC and Communist Party were separate organisations who shared short-term objectives like the overthrow of racial oppression and the birth of a non-racial South Africa, but that their long-term interests were not the same. His responses seemed to be falling on deaf ears and he exclaimed in exasperation: “There are four of you and only one of me, and you cannot control me or get me to change my mind. What makes you think the communists can succeed where you have failed?” (Mandela p 642). The National Party expressed concerns as to how the ANC could protect the rights of the white minority in a majority rule. Mandela stated that no organisation in the history of South Africa compares to the ANC in terms of trying to unite all the people and races of South Africa, referring them to the preamble of the Freedom Charter: “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white. I told them that whites were Africans as well, and that in any future dispensation the majority would need the minority” (Mandela p 643).

   Mandela derived motivation from the prospect that one day he would be free. He reminded himself that he was more a representative of the people than his own man. The priorities of the individual had to be set aside. He did not regard himself as superior to any South African but he knew that he was regarded as a symbol of justice and freedom to his people. He delighted them by such actions as that of the Rivonia trial: “I had chosen traditional dress to emphasize the symbolism that I was a black African walking into a white man’s court. I was literally carrying on my back the history, culture and heritage of my people” (Mandela p 385). He took great pride in his role that day and it motivated him to endure the forces of oppression as he continued his battle against those forces: “I felt myself to be the embodiment of African nationalism, the inheritor of Africa’s difficult but noble past and her uncertain future” (Mandela p 385).

   It was the simple things of everyday life that he missed as well as his family. It was his yearning of these things that made him strive all the more for his freedom. He said in a letter to his wife: “I’ve been away from you for so long that the very first thing I would like to do on my return would be to take you away from that suffocating atmosphere, drive you along carefully, so that you could have the opportunity of breathing fresh and clean air, seeing the beauty spots of South Africa, its green grass and trees, colourful wild flowers, sparkling streams, animals grazing in the veld and be able to talk to the simple people we meet along the road” (Mandela p 592). He is sad that his political career has dictated his life leading him away from his family. He saw his prison garden as a metaphor for certain aspects of his life. He wrote to his wife Winnie about a beautiful tomato plant that he coaxed to a robust plant producing deep red fruits but it began to wither and decline and there was nothing he could do to bring it back to health: “I did not want our relationship to go the way of that plant, and yet I felt that I had been unable to nourish many of the most important relationships in my life. Sometimes there is nothing one can do to save something that must die” (Mandela p 582).

   Throughout his years in prison his wife Winnie had been a constant moral support, lover, and comrade. She supported him wholeheartedly in his struggle and understood the implications it had on their relationship. In 1992 after his release from prison Mandela announced his separation from his wife due to dictated circumstances stating that they came to a mutual agreement that it would be best for the ANC and them personally to part: “Comrade Nomzamo and myself contracted our marriage at a critical time in the struggle for liberation in our country. Owing to the pressures of our shared commitment to the ANC and the struggle to end apartheid, we were unable to enjoy a normal family life ..... My love for her remains undiminished” (Mandela p 718-719).

   Mandela was proficient in his capability of using his position as a political prisoner and martyr of the people to negotiate terms with the government. The government offered him freedom if he ‘unconditionally rejected violence as a political instrument’. The offer had been presented by the state president himself who stated: “It is therefore not the South African government which now stands in the way of Mr Mandela’s freedom. It is he himself” (Mandela p 620-621). It was a ploy by the government to decrease international awareness of the situation in South Africa but Mandela knew it was not real freedom being offered and wrote a response that was read publicly by his daughter Zindzi. She concluded his response with: “Only free men can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts... I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when I and you, the people, are not free. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. I will return” (Mandela p 623). Well able to respond to the government’s devious tactics he succeeded in bringing the negotiations to a new level scheduling the first face-to-face meeting between the ANC and the government in March 1990. However there was on-going violence especially in Natal where 230 people lost their lives: “In Natal, Zulu was murdering Zulu, for Inkatha members and ANC partisans are Zulus” (Mandela p 689). It was strongly believed that the police were inciting violence by providing weapons to the Inkatha to undermine progress by the ANC. The government claimed to know nothing about it but Mandela responded to great affect: “I announced the suspension of our talks and warned Mr de Klerk that he could not ‘talk about negotiations on the one hand and murder our people on the other’” (Mandela p 691).

   His expert communication skills allowed him to mount enormous pressure of all sorts on the National party forcing progress in negotiations. He exploited the media as an efficient communication tool to portray the difficulties of the struggle. He made and maintained contact with political leaders all over the world and even did a tour visiting many Countries including Ireland. On his trip he met with leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush. These powerful people now had their sights on South Africa. It was only a matter of time before Mandela achieved the freedom he sought for all his life. No political party wants to be seen in a negative light on the international stage. There would be some consolation for the National party to be seen as the party that dismantled the apartheid system. And they were recognized for this with Mr de Klerk receiving the Noble Peace prize with Mandela in 1993.

   Mandela was always able to keep in contact with the ANC and all the stakeholders concerned with South Africa’s welfare. In prison he devised ways of getting messages out to the ANC who would deliver them to the media. In his speeches he always reminded people that he was not a messiah, but an ordinary man who had become a leader because of extraordinary circumstances. In his speech after his release from prison after nearly three decades he stood before his people in servitude and said: “Friends, comrades and fellow South Africans. I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all! I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people. Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today. I therefore place the remaining years of my life in your hands” (Mandela p 676)