Abraham Lincoln personified moral purpose in applying his leadership skills toward achieving freedom and equity for all people. It was his humanistic empathy and pathos that charged his crusade for equal rights of all people. He successfully effectuated this mission to fully achieve the change from slavery to freedom for all. Lincoln applied his ethos of solid principles and oratorical persuasion that was salient to the majority of his audience in order to actualize abolition. He exemplifies the process of change by remaining loyal to beliefs based on logic and human compassion to resolve one of the most moral exigencies in our country’s history.
Surprisingly, Lincoln was able to consummate abolition while lacking in the ability to build relationships within his own administration. Fortunately, his morale and connection to the public superseded his administrative deficiencies. Lincoln’s governance was an anomaly in that his morale contradicted allegiance to his government. Although his ability to sustain political relationships was weak, he applied moral purpose and intellect to address and overcome his contradictory position. He did not gain power from his cause; rather, he gained power to change a cause. Lincoln’s process of change was partly by default in that he gained a position of power as a result of losing an election that provided exposure of his moral purpose. He first worked toward gaining power on the basis of morale, and then took advantage of that power to achieve change.
After he gained power, Lincoln embodied the ability to gain knowledge and share it to achieve change. He centered his emancipation campaign on empathy, equity, logic, and effective persuasion. His acquired position of power enabled him to share his ideas and rationale with everyone on a large scale. The general public’s reception of that rationale along with Lincoln’s rhetorical skills, lead to the formal unity of a divided nation. Although not everyone agreed with his moral purpose which lead to his unfortunate ultimate demise, he was able to achieve coherence among the people that all men are, and should be treated, equal.
Gini, A. (2009). Lincoln and Leadership. Illinois Library Association Reporter, 27, 18-19.
Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.
Schneider, T. E. (2007). Lincoln and Leadership. Perspectives on Political Science, 36, 69-72.
Vickerey, B. R. (2000). Lessons in Leadership from Lincoln the Lawyer. South Dakota Law Review, 45, 334-344.
Lincoln's humanistic empathy is a quality that I am most fascinated by. It is truly remarkable how far he got in his life based on that desire to help others. Human empathy and the lack there of was a quality of Sanger that both helped and hindered her cause to promote change in her time. Her human empathy towards women to have ownership over their bodies and the right to protect not only themselves but their unborn children from disease or a life of poverty was admirable. However, her lack of understanding towards individuals of low income status and diverse ethnicity was quite alarming and disheartening. "The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped (Margaret Sanger, 1921)."
ReplyDeleteReferences
Margaret Sanger (1921). Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Birth Control Review. Gothic Press. pp. 172 and 174.
President Lincoln was a leader who never gave up and who showed empathy for people much like Diana, Princess of Wales did. Both of these leaders seem to have trouble with their administrative responsibilities. Lincoln did not have the ability to maintain many political relationships, while Diana seemed to have trouble even getting along with the rest of the royal Monarchy. In the end, it seems possible that both leaders, due to their lack of administrative and communicating skills, may have contributed to their tragic ends. Both of their deaths were mourned by the general public and many believe that these two leaders died much too early in their political careers.
ReplyDeleteEven though these two leaders seem to have similar strengths and weaknesses they both were able to succeed and help the people they were fighting for. Lincoln was able to set the slaves free and he initiated some much needed equality among the American people. He was still able to help people and change their lives for the better up until his assassination. Diana was able to help many public charities and hospitals right up to her death. Who knows what either Lincoln or Diana would have done if they had lived longer lives.