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

 

'Mick: The Real Michael Collins' Book Review

It is not extraordinary that Michael Collins became a national icon as he himself was extraordinary given his exploits in politics in the short time given to him before his death. Few leaders have achieved as much as Collins at such a young age. He fought in the Easter Rising, organized the IRA and out-spied British intelligence, negotiated the Anglo-Irish treaty, and ran the first independent government in Ireland: “The superspy who confounded British intelligence. The gun runner who bought the first tommy guns right off the production line. The financial wizard who bankrolled the Irish revolution from a hundred secret accounts..... Collins the indispensable, the irreplaceable, the Lost Leader unknown before 1917 and mourned by a nation in despair in 1922” (Hart, p xiii). The following review is an account of Collin’s attributes which made him an ideal candidate to become the father of the Irish nation, and his heroic deeds which continue to instil inspiration for the people of Ireland.

   Collins was a true democrat and loved his people. He did not regard himself above them as their leader but rather their comrade who shared in the hardships of their struggle: “Mick Collins was a very good natured type. He always appeared to have a stock of cigarettes and other things in his cell and would never see any fellow short of anything that he could give him” (Hart, p 98). It was nature and nurture that developed Collins into the leader he became. His leadership styles were a mixture of the kind nature he possessed along with his experiences as a freedom fighter which made him more cold and calculated but fearless and a force to be reckoned with. To become a renowned figure proved difficult as Collins was seen as just another rebel but he soon got his chance to show Ireland and England that he would spearhead the fight: “He had conspired to overthrow Dublin Castle, worn the uniform of a rebel army in battle against the British army, fought for his rights in an English prison..... But one scene he had never played was the courtroom speech from the dock, defying his persecutors and declaring fealty to the undying cause” (Hart, p  159).

   Arrested for ‘Inciting to raid for arms’, Collin’s accompanying speech caused outrage deemed worthy of arrest as the police interpreted his remarks as inciting Volunteers to attack police to get their guns. His actions in court won him growing admiration which swelled when they came to arrest him outside the National Aid’s new office on Bachelor’s Walk. The crowd shouted ‘Up the rebels’ as he was led away. The police were nervous. Even though he was being arrested, Collin’s was in command of the situation. A word from him and the crowd would have battered the police and aided his escape but he knew better for he would use the incarceration to his advantage. Volunteers almost always won early release after riots, hunger strikes and public pressure with their sentences being regarded as badges of honour (Hart, p 167).

   Such circumstances showed that Collins was apt in the management of individuals and groups. His position gave him power even in arrest and he exploited this with one of the detectives detaining him: “Bruton endeavoured to act the bully but I soon stopped that. Of course the moral support of the crowd was an acquisition. The miserable hound knew that a word from me meant a mauling for him” (Hart, p 162). He knew exactly how to derive respect from his enemies: “Be disdainful with members of the force and then patronize them, in this way you’ll command respect from them and your wants will, generally speaking , have attention” (Hart, p 163). He contributed to An tOglach’s Organization Notes until May 1919 where he laid out the official formula for unit organization and the duties of officers which were unchanged since before the Rising and needed to be adapted to local realities: “Our object is to bring into existence, train and equip as riflemen scouts a body of men, and to secure that these are capable of acting as a self-contained unit” (Hart, p 175). Organizers would visit local areas to show the flag and demonstrate how things were done. As a man of the people and to rally support for the struggle, Collins went on several such excursions (Hart, p 175). By example Collins proved to his men the qualities he possessed. His comrade Florence O’Donoghue wrote: “Behind the dashing exterior there was keen intelligence, great strength of character, steadiness, determination and vision. He had the qualities I then thought we needed most in our leaders” (Hart, p 171).

Collins drew motivation from his aspiration to become an example for the Irish people. He knew that to truly lead his people to freedom and independence, he would have to become more than just a rebel. He revelled in the public arrest and trial in the knowledge that it had propelled him to a new level imagining himself as a hero. This was clear from his diaries that “the revolution had to be imagined before it could be enacted, and the revolutionaries had to imagine themselves into history to give themselves the power to change it” (Hart, p 168). He knew prison was one of the vital transformative experiences that made clerks and farmers’ sons into soldiers and martyrs, and he wanted the world to see him wearing a martyr’s crown: “Playing the role of the defiant rebel was far more than mere theatricality. It was a source of power and energy and solidarity- part of the basic chemistry of the revolution” (Hart, p 168). By re-enacting the clichéd role of the patriot cast into prison for defying the Crown, one could rise to immense power becoming the hero they envisioned. This is what gave Michael Collins the motivation he needed to become that idol.

   Collin’s communication skills were reflected in his diligence in the office. His obsession with tidiness and punctuality displayed a neat and tidy office inhabited by a meticulous gentleman who was always on time (Hart, p 244). He moved about constantly to various meetings working wherever he went “and all his colleagues would pay awed tribute to the unmatchable quantity of work he was able to produce or transact” (Hart, p 244). The secret to his success was that he worked harder, longer and on more tasks than anyone else reflecting personality traits of ambition and confidence which made him a prisoner of his own sense of urgency to solve problems by sheer effort rather than reflection: “His work was his life in more ways than one” (Hart, p 246). He communicated largely through correspondence at which he was extremely efficient: “Collins prided himself on turning things around quickly, so output matched input. He had no trouble keeping three secretaries very busy. He was a great dictator- able to rattle off whole sentences in rapid succession on a long list of disparate topics, one letter after another” (Hart, p 247). Collin’s had finely tuned communication skills seeking to resolve matters as quickly as possible. He liked crisp, quick meetings lasting an hour at most that started and ended on time: “He stuck to the agenda and the main issues: he wanted decisions, not discussion. No small talk or digressions, let alone inconclusive debate. In a statement that could stand as a personal motto, he told de Valera that ‘it is practical work that counts, not speaking’” (Hart, p 248).

   As a prominent plenipotentiary, Collin’s was sent to London to negotiate terms of a free state with the British government. Negotiations were tough as he was not in a position to dictate terms and the enemy could not be easily dissuaded by his reasoning. This was evident when Collins challenged Churchill stating “it would look very bad for you in the eyes of outside nations if this conference broke, not on the question of freedom of Ireland but on the question of the amount of freedom which Ireland was to possess” and that “it would look very bad for you if other Countries thought that you were endeavouring to secure places in Ireland as a jumping-off ground for an offensive war” to which Churchill merely replied: “No: I think we can deal with that” (Hart, p 299).

   Collins knew that negotiations could only take him so far and that compromises would have to be made which is why he didn’t want to go to the talks in the first place. He felt he was more the soldier with experience in the field and that de Valera was the spokesman who should have went which was initially the plan: “The fact that de Valera stayed in Ireland remains one of the greatest talking points of Irish history, and became one of Collin’s main defences for his ultimate decision: If you wanted a better deal and thought it was possible to get it, why didn’t you go?” (Hart, p 284). Collin’s used a step by step rationale when signing the treaty which offered peace with honour and real sovereignty as a Commonwealth Dominion for he knew: “Immediate unity and total independence were preferable, but were not attainable by negotiation. The only realistic alternative was another war with Britain: this time a total war, which would be far more destructive and which the IRA was bound to lose” (Hart, p 307). He wanted to resolve conflict and violence as quickly as possible and signed the terms that negotiations could alter no further in Ireland’s favour at that time.

   Since his inauguration as Commander-In-Chief Collins had a tough time in dealing with the stakeholders of Ireland’s future. Civil strife had the Country in turmoil and he was desperately working to resolve the upheaval on peaceful terms. The conflict involved his own people, the people he had vouched for when fighting for their freedom. He understood their pain and would only resort to deadly force as a last resort: “Collins was constantly calculating the politics of the situation: hence his constant insistence on retaining public support and giving opponents a decent opportunity to end the war on honourable terms..... ‘We will meet them in every way if only they will obey the people’s will’” (Hart, p 403). He faced problems with stakeholders in his own government who were bloodthirsty for more forceful action against the Anti-Treaty IRA: “No more could he just say something was an army matter, as in 1920 or 1921, and have everyone shut up: now they wanted reports and accountability” (Hart, p 404).

Collins wanted his old colleagues back in government with him even if they opposed him. He didn’t want to use force and knew that such a tactic would be futile: “Surrendering would never be acceptable to the embittered IRA leadership, but Collins may have hoped to draw off rank-and-file support, and to bring de Valera or other Republican TDs back to the Dail” (Hart, p 409). Collins adopted a policy that he hoped would bring all the stakeholders together in peace placing himself above factions, and manoeuvring to make a settlement fit for republicans: “He was manoeuvring to position himself at a politically optimal distance from both moderates and extremists, so as to maintain support from both quarters and from the general public-who might love a hero but were looking for a peacemaker” (Hart, p 416). Unfortunately Collins rivals were never ushered by his peacemaking to come back to the Dail as his colleagues but rather laid an ambush at mBaol na mBla. He took a bullet to the head and his spilt blood filled the history books declaring him as Ireland’s first heroic leader, a peacemaker, a martyr, a gentleman. His blood may have stopped running in his veins but it remained the lifeblood of Ireland herself. It symbolizes the struggle for freedom and a hero born of a revolution who achieved that freedom for the people he loved.

Title: Mick: The Real Michael Collins

Author: Peter Hart

Publisher: Pan Books, London

Year: 2006