Abraham Lincoln


Abraham Lincoln’s Beliefs on Slavery and Spark of the Civil War

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Lincoln’s Beliefs and the Civil War

The election of Lincoln was the main cause of the Civil War because Lincoln’s platform of not letting slavery expand westward threatened the South’s political rights. However, some might argue that the Dred Scott Decision was the main cause of the Civil War because it disregarded the Missouri Compromise and fueled the abolitionist movement. When Lincoln ran for president in 1860, he ran as the representative for the Republican party, which meant he believed in what the Republican party platform stood for. Although Lincoln never once said that he would abolish slavery, the South saw their tenth amendment as being jeopardized simply because he believed slavery was morally wrong. The final straw that contributed to the war was the secession of several Southern states, each state stated clearly in their declaration of secession that their primary reason for leaving was the president’s open denunciation of slavery. The tensions between the North and South had been rising for a while, mainly surrounding the conflicting views on slavery and whether or not it should be able to expand westward. All the tension finally came to a point when Lincoln was up for election and being openly against slavery. The South feared that he would abolish slavery and take away their slaves, which would be detrimental to the Southern economy. Upon the election, the Southern states began to secede, one by one from the Union and used Lincoln as their reason.

As Lincoln ran as a Republican in the 1860 election, he carried the Republican party platform with him that openly denounced Democratic principles, which created worry among the Southern states. In article ten of the platform, the Republican party points out the Democratic ideas of non-intervention and popular sovereignty in relation to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. . They go on to to call the bill a “demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein” (Republican party platform 1860). The Democrats and Southerners saw this as the Republicans calling bluff on their threats to secede from the Union, giving them even more reason to leave. Once Lincoln was elected, the South became scared that not only would he try to change the Kansas-Nebraska act but abolish slavery as well. The platform goes on to openly condemn slavery in the U.S. territories explaining that “… the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy …” and calling it “subversive of the peace and harmony of the country” (Republican party platform 1860). The Republicans considered slavery to be harmful to the country’s peace, as if they were acknowledging the potential for war. Essentially, they wanted to show that they are refusing to accept the Kansas-Nebraska act.

The Southern states considered their tenth amendment to be at risk because the thought Lincoln would try to abolish slavery. Slavery was, to some extent, considered to be protected under the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, stating that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (U.S. Constitution). The State’s rights clause was a way for some states to preserve laws that the federal government could potentially deem unconstitutional. A large majority of the North believed Slavery was something the federal government should rule on because it was becoming such a large issue. However, the Southern states used the tenth amendment to argue that the individual states should decide for themselves whether or not slavery should be allowed within their borders as it would affect each state differently. For example, the Southern economy depended heavily on plantations and slaves, but the Northern, factory-based economy would suffer less impact if slavery were to be abolished. Although Lincoln repeatedly insisted he would not abolish slavery, the South considered the fact that he did not want it to spread Westward as a precursor to abolition. Charles Sumner, an abolitionist from Massachusetts, strongly believed that the Civil War was brought on by this controversy over State’s Rights and Slavery. “Therefore, there are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights” (The Barbarism of Slavery). Although Sumner was an abolitionist, the dispute over how much power the tenth amendment gave the states and if slavery was included in that power. The Southern states did not get defensive when it came to their rights until Lincoln and the Republican party threatened them from their point of view with the platform of not allowing slavery to expand Westward.

Some might argue that the Dred Scott Decision was the main cause of the Civil War because it disregarded the Missouri Compromise and fueled the abolitionist movement. The final ruling on the Scott v Sanford case was essentially that slaves were considered to be property of their owners regardless of where in the U.S. they were. Many Southerners argued that their use of slaves was protected by the fifth amendment, which states that men will not “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (U.S. Constitution). This amendment also averted any possible laws that the federal government could put in place to take away slaves from their owners. However, the decision didn’t abide by the rules of the Missouri Compromise because Dred Scott had been taken to territory where slavery was prohibited according to the compromise (Brinkley 356). The Supreme Court justice justified their ruling by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional as they believe that the power that Congress had was limited to the extent that it could not get new territory and set up a government system within that territory. This decision made people in the U.S. uneasy because Chief Justice Roger Taney believed that the federal government had no power in this situation and had no right to act on this decision (Brinkley 359). While the ruling showed the bias of the Supreme Court, it also fueled the abolitionist movement. The movement rested on the simple truth that all men are created equal and that includes slaves as well. The South frequently feared that the slaves would revolt and overpower the slaveholders, something some abolitionists attempted to kick start, like John Brown. These events, started by the Dred Scott Decision, could arguably be the main cause of the war because the decision brought together Northern abolitionists and led them to begin to fight harder for what they believed in.

While the Dred Scott Decision may have been one of the causes of the Civil War, it was not the main cause because in the secession declarations of several Southern states, they ultimately blamed Lincoln. Several of the secession declarations of the Southern states had the same reason for seceding from the Union, which was Lincoln. Specifically, in South Carolina’s declaration, they said “all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” (South Carolina Declaration of Secession). This statement is directly blaming the election of Lincoln for South Carolina’s secession from the Union. They continue to explain that the mere fact that Lincoln believes slavery is morally wrong will eventually lead to the “extinction” of slavery. Another common Lincoln-related reason for seceding from the Union was because common association between the North and abolitionism. “For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us” (Georgia Declaration of Secession). The South believes the coming war and tension surrounding slavery had been building for twenty years. They consider the North to be trying to undermine the South’s institution of slavery by trying to create laws that limit the power of Southern states. Considering the newly elected president Lincoln was blatantly against slavery was enough for the Southern states to secede from the Union.

In essence, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, his platform upset the Southerners because he did not want slavery to expand westward, making Lincoln’s election the main cause of the war. However, it is arguable that the Dred Scott Decision was the main cause because it declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and led to a rallying point for the abolitionist movement. The Republican party platform of 1860 added to the tensions, that had existed for years before, surrounding slavery and the platform supported views of not allowing slavery to expand that the South did not agree with. In their point of view, their tenth amendment was at risk because Lincoln was opposed to slavery, even though he never acted on this opposition. While the Dred Scott Decision was a potential main cause of the war because it greatly affected the abolitionist movement, the secession statements from the Southern states directly blamed Lincoln for their secession. Collectively, Lincoln’s beliefs on slavery and his opposition to it expanding Westward was the main cause of the Civil War.

Read more


Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln: a Comparison Study

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Caesar and Lincoln

The lives of two great historical men, Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln, have many unique differences and similarities. The similarities between the two are compared by their lives history. Both individuals were once leaders in the past who shared a large amount of power in their countries, with people still looking up to them in today’s society. There is the background of Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, then we will look at the the two backgrounds comparatively.

The birth of Julius Caesar in approximately 100 B.C. marked a new chapter in Roman history. A series of men aspired to become the absolute leader of Rome, but Julius Caesar was the only one who seemed likely to achieve that. The citizens of Rome whom favored democratic leadership more feared that Caesar would enslave Roman citizens. This eventually lead to a group of conspirators, which was comprised of approximately 60 men including Marcus Brutus, coming together planning for what became the assassination of Julius Caesar. As he gained more power, more people began to hate him. Caesar wanted to control as much land and power as possible. After only a year of ruling Rome, he was assassinated by his own senators at a meeting in a hall next to Pompey’s Theatre in approximately 44 B.C. leaving his son Caesarion without a father.

Abraham Lincoln, born in 1809 had a huge life ahead of him. He became a self taught lawyer, legislator, and a vocal opponent of slavery. Later he became the 16th president of the United States with the Civil War soon to follow. Although Lincoln only had a brief, undistinguished service in the Black Hawk War, he quickly surprised many people when he proved to be a capable wartime leader. He learned quickly about strategy and tactics during the dawn of the Civil War. Lincoln, being a speaker against slavery, had many enemies early on in his political life. By the time he was elected president, seven southern states had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate states of America. After Lincoln won the re-election in 1864 he addressed the need to reconstruct the South and rebuild the Union in his second inaugural address in 1865. A couple months later Lincoln presented a speech on the lawn of the White House urging the audience he had to welcome the seven southern states back into the Union. Tragically he did not live to fulfill this reconstruction of the Union. A few days later he was assassinated in Ford’s Theatre by John Wilkes Booth. A group of three conspirators met in a bar in Washington to plot the abduction of the president, but when the president had changed his plans the day that they had planned to abduct him, the plan failed. The same three conspirators altered the plan to kill president Abraham Lincoln, vice president Andrew Johnson, and secretary of state William Seward on the same evening. One of the men backed out of his part which was to assassinate the vice president. The secretary was stabbed many times before the man fled away. Then, president Lincoln was shot in the back of the head and died.

Although these two historical men are from two totally different time periods they have their similarities along with their differences. Even though they both had a large amount of power in their countries, Caesar wanted to control more land and power while Lincoln wanted the reform the Union and abolish slavery. Both powerful leaders began to have more enemies as they gained more power in their countries for different reasons. In Lincoln’s case many people in the south began to be against him for wanting to abolish slavery. In Caesar’s case more and more people began to disagree with him because of the amount of power he was gaining. They feared him having too much power would lead to him enslaving the Roman citizens. With both of them having enemies this lead to their assassinations. Caesar was assassinated by a group of 60 men, while Lincoln was assassinated by one man. Lincoln was assassinated after serving 5 years as president while Caesar only served one year as dictator.

To compare these two you must look at each of their backgrounds then compare both of them together. Caesar was a powerful man who wanted more power and land, while Lincoln only wanted a better country for his citizens and to reform the Union. There are many other great leaders of the past whether that be from 50 B.C. or from 1860, that many people from todays society still look up to today.

Read more


Evaluation of Abraham Lincoln’s Responsibility in Mcpherson’s Book, Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Abraham Lincoln had several positions before he eventually became president of the United States of America, which is arguably the highest office in the land. In addition to these, Abraham Lincoln also managed to break a number of records, although some of these could not be envied – like becoming the first individual to hold a patent as well as being president together with becoming the initial president to be assassinated while holding office. There has been the documentation of variety of aspects, in relation to the life of Abraham Lincoln, with various historians, writers, as well as reporters seeking to offer different kinds of information about him, or making analysis of his life and style of leadership among other aspects. The primary aim of this historiography is to make an analysis of the underlying sources use to make the accounts by McPherson, together with how he is able to elucidate the facts.

Abraham Lincoln held positions that had responsibilities that were closely tied to his office as president. All his responsibilities called for his attention at different times. Despite this, Lincoln managed to achieve immense success, which could be measured through the results that he garnered. One of the major roles that Abraham held was that of commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States of America. This position called for a lot of intelligent at the war front, together with tactical tenacity that in necessary to overcome all the enemies. Moreover, most of the wars that Abraham was engaged in were against people who were citizens that were seeking to break away from the united federation (McPherson, 2009).

In this analysis, the main aim is to examine the manner in which the role of Abraham Lincoln is brought out as the commander in chief is brought out by McPherson in his book. In addition, the analysis will make an examination of the underlying as well as related sources with an aim of making a verification of the accuracy of the presentation. Different from these, the analysis will also look at the biases that could be presented in the publication. In his publication, McPherson seeks to bring out the triumphs together with the challenges of Abraham in combat as well as the succession from periphery states. The main aim of the book is to make an examination of the position that Abraham Lincoln held during the civil war as the commander in chief of the armed forced of the United States of America, especially his responses to the numerous challenges that faced him. The book also offers some interesting information on the civil war, especially on the events that took place and inspired Abraham to make decisions. It also summarizes it, and has a fantastic format and approach to history.

One of the most outstanding aspects is the fact that McPherson has heavily borrowed from different historians, who have come up with extensive pieces of literature on the life as well as the different roles that Abraham has played. The author has made citations of a variety of works from major authors like Ballard C, Willian T, and Ferenbancer among other sources like debates and peer reviewed papers, on which he bases his reference of Abraham. Among the interesting observations is that McPherson has gotten immense support from the a variety of articles that argued that before Abraham was elected, he was not the most suitable candidate to become the commander in chief of the armed forces (McPherson, 2009). However, Abraham strived to get the skills required to succeed in the role, including conducting vigorous studies on available pieces of literature related to war as well as military strategies. After conducting intensive research, Abraham was able to establish a strong understanding of strategies on both the national and international levels of military action. Having studied a lot of literature of strategies, Lincoln seemed to follow by a maxim of combat strategists who argued that war should be viewed as an alternative to the propagation of national policies, more so when the political approaches seem to be failing (Miller, 2012).

In his work, McPherson brings out a character of Abraham as an individual who is very aggressive as a commander in chief, despite being brilliantly persistent. Famously viewed as a self trained commander in chief and a lawyer by training, Abraham was very aggressive to pursue perceived enemies when they seemed to pose a challenge. Thus, it was necessary that he operated with army generals who shared a similar ideology, more so those with the agility to pursue victory when they sort to (Bever, & Suarez, 2014). McPherson has brilliantly portrayed the level of energy and vigor that the commander in chief pursues different victories. This could have been the reason Abraham was forced to replace his generals over time, as he sort to find one that had the required level of aggressiveness. In his book, McPherson has reiterated this view, where he goes on to argue that Abraham Lincoln was actively involved in most of the offensives that took place in the year 1863. Abraham expected that all his generals would act with a high level of urgency, something that is reflected in the year 1863 when he opted to oust General Haleck H together with General McLellan G B. He made these decisions with an aim of making sure that there was an adequate level of aggressiveness. As McPherson makes a presentation, the commander in chief had the intention of finding the generals who facilitated a reliable level of synergy to match his political knowledge (McPherson, 2009).

On the preface of the book, McPherson makes an assertion that a majority of literature that talks about Abraham pays a disproportional level of attention to his role as the commander in chief rather than on his devotion to the task ahead of him (Ford, 2011). This looks like his rational of McPherson when writing his book ‘Tried by War’, instead of coming up with another biography of the life of Abraham Lincoln. The entire piece of literature focuses on Abraham’s presidency, more so his prosecution of the civil war.

The justification given by McPherson for coming up with this book seems spurious. The pace of the book, together with the insight of the author towards Lincoln’s style of management seems to be terrific. Although the book is easily legible and understandable, something that makes it constantly informative and entertaining. While most of the books written on Abraham Lincoln seem to be filled with dull explanations and details of tactics for war as well as movements of troops, this work seems to be targeting a younger generation, more so the patient audience.

Despite this, most of the content in the book is not true. Considering the background of the author, together with the sources used, it would have been expected that there was some deeper analysis, deeper as well as a robust analysis of the actions and decisions that Abraham made during the war. Although McPherson successfully demonstrates a strong mastery of the subject matter, most aspects of the commentary external and shaky. However, the book has a substantial amount of new and emerging content related to the military leaders that Abraham worked with during the battle. This would be very exciting to the readers that are looking for a special insight on the great battles, more so on the military strategies. McPherson manages to utilize a number of primary sources, which offer strong arguments and insights on military strategies used by Abraham (McPherson, 2009).

Overall, McPherson has opted to take an alternative approach to many historians, who have concentrated on writing biographies of Abraham Lincoln, opting to write more about his achievements during the civil war. In his book, McPherson utilizes both primary and secondary sources that give him a strong basis for arguments, which are related to the military strategies and decisions that Abraham Lincoln utilized at the war. This book offers both education and entertainment to the readers, and is most suitable for people that are looking for insight on his Abraham’s management of the civil war. Moreover, this book also gives a detailed analysis of the life of Abraham Lincoln as a president to the extent where he is ‘Tied by War’ to a level that is satisfactory.

Read more


Opinions on Slavery: Abraham Lincoln Vs. James Hammond

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Lincoln and Hammond: Perspective

When placed side by side, Abraham Lincoln and James Hammond both seem to give off contrary vibes to their political affiliations. Hammond, a southern slave owner and democrat utilizes a shocking amount of religion to support his support for American slavery, while Lincoln, the republican leader of the North and president of the United States, seems to avoid the subject of personal injection and religion altogether- at least within this specific argument. Hammond’s letter to the abolitionist in 1845 was a means of representing the views of all slaveholders in America at the time, as it explicitly states towards the end. It served to refute common arguments on the basis of morality and religious admonishment of slavery, as well as “dispute” any misconceptions floating about on the subjects of conservativism, and the benefits to the model of slavery. Naturally, we all know slavery is wrong. This is not what will be analyzed in this assignment- but rather it will focus on Hammond’s viewpoints and their relation to Lincoln’s argument on the free market system, which will be analyzed as well. Specifically, the underlying goal of a free market economy and slavery’s failure to uphold it, as well as the religious justification of a free labor economy and its place in 19th century American society.

Hammond’s argument to justify slavery on its own, as an abstract concept and its very real execution in the slave states of pre-civil war America, relies heavily on scripture and a heavy heart of faith. He, as many people do to this day, chose to justify the moral ramifications of slavery by both proving that it was not a sin through citation of scripture, and by going as far as to say it is in fact the moral thing to do, as according to scripture. To quote: “We accept the Bible terms as the definition of our Slavery, and its precepts as the guide of our conduct….” (Hammond 263). This is the basic closing to an argument I do not wish to regurgitate, but it essentially boils down to a firmly set belief that slavery’s morality is as strong as fact. There is no changing that- its roots are in faith, which cannot be usurped. Beneath this, though, and much less directly addressed, is Hammond’s disdain for the idea that slavery is contrary to the Republican model. While there is more to discuss on Hammond’s specific underlying disdain for a free market, there is a more basic message to be found in his support of slavery from an economic standpoint. A Republican model would, at its most basic abstract concept, level the playing fields to pave the way for a free market- to try and displace the wealth solidified in slaveholders that remains solely in the hands of slave owners and is not recycled to a working class, a prominent and poorly treated feature of the north’s economy at that present time. So, clearly, there is more to this justification of slavery than just the morality. Even if the bible dictated it was the moral thing for Hammond to own and extort another human being for free labor and unmatched monetary gain, it does not match the more common desire to acquire and amass wealth. Hammond is not just abiding by the scriptures apparent desire for the superior man to take the weaker “heathen” under his wing to serve him and be cared for by him, rather, he is chasing a system that serves his own gains and chooses to justify it after the fact. The exact gains behind slavery and its pertinence to Lincoln’s idea of a free market economy will be further discussed later in the paper.

Lincoln, a man most known for politically siding amongst the more progressive of two prejudiced sides of a country, had a different kind of argument against slavery. One that ousted the repercussions of slavery from an economic standpoint. Lincoln spends the first few paragraphs of his piece explaining the virtues of hard work and the satisfaction we share as a country when the economy benefits from honest working class men pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Then, he starts introducing the concept of what is called a “free market”. In short, a free market is a system that starts with a working class citizen. This person, starting with little to their name, is hired to work in some manner of profession, be it a farmhand or a factory worker in the rapidly industrializing union. Then, when this person has worked hard enough for a long enough time and has accumulated enough wealth to start their own life, they provide for themselves on an independent venture- providing for a family. This is where they start their own mill, or farm, or what-have-you. After enough time, their prospects expand to the point where additional hands are needed, and this person hires another working class citizen into their field. Thus, you have the cycle of a free market. While explaining this system and its correlation to a world that betters itself by combining the benefits of strong hands and able minds, Lincoln establishes an implied argument against the southern model of free (slave) labor. A free market cannot thrive in a slave economy, because instead of a free hired man moving on to spread his wealth down to his own future farm hands, slave owners relish in the wealth of their slave labor and fail to disperse any wealth back into the market. Making for a stagnant lower class and a stacked economy that favors the South. He goes on to explicitly chastise the south with statements like “A Yankee who could invent a strong handed man without a head would receive the everlasting gratitude of the ‘mud sill’ advocates.” (Lincoln 230), mud-sill theory being, of course, the model of letting the poor do all the laboring and mindless strength at the bottom of society while the rich utilize their restricted special access to education to “advance civilization” (i.e. retain wealth and power indefinitely).

This is where things come back to Hammond’s rationale against free market and the republican dream. Hammond views the republican model as one of equal representation and power to everyone, which he then cites as detrimental to the country because if everyone equally powered, population alone would favor the lower class- giving the poor and less educated more say in the “advancing of civilization”, as the mud-sill theory puts it. This is further expounded the idea that Hammond simply did not care whether or not the lower class were hurt by a free labor system. Hammond thought that the world was on a divine track and there was no reason to interfere in matters concerning slavery, poverty, disease, and so on. He actually cites these as things beyond our control or meddling, as it only ends in divine intervention and tragedy for us. So what Hammond is implying is that if the nation kept up with the free labor system, then it is simply God’s plan for the destitute to remain and destitute and for he and his slave owners to retain all the wealth they can scrape into their bloodline. A free market would only proport equality amongst the major divide between rich and poor, and since Hammond disagrees with Lincoln’s notion that everyone should take on the responsibilities of the hand and the mind in order to create a society that can thrive upon the smallest plot of land, it is evident he does not proport a society that needs to thrive in those situations. This further implies that if he does not wish for a society of that nature, then he does not truly wish for any peace, as peace would lead to rapid population expansion and Lincoln’s model favors this prospect. Furthermore, one could go as far as to say this is indication of Hammond’s desire for secession, or even civil war, as his loathing of the destitute and admonishment of Lincoln’s models as improper for Hammond’s biblical America all point towards a disdain for the republican values Lincoln purports.

Read more


The Leadership Style of Abraham Lincoln

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

You won’t go far in leadership analysis before you read about Abraham Lincoln being one the greatest leaders in modern history. It wasn’t until I read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals when I truly understood and appreciated just how much of a leader Lincoln was. In Team of Rivals, Doris sets out to relive the story surrounding Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet and his presidency. The book provides an extensive portrait of the political figures who were vying for the presidency of the United States in 1861 while narrating one of the most tumultuous periods in American history. The book does a tremendous job of analyzing Lincoln as well as his three main competitors for the Republican nomination – Salmon P. Chase, William Henry Seward, and Edwin Bates.

There are a multitude of reasons why anyone would find Abraham Lincoln the classic definition of a leader and why he was an overall successful leader. Examples that I found throughout the book included his ability to preserve through tremendous hardships whether in his extremely poor upbringing, to his ability to maintain his composure during the bloodiest war in American history. In this paper, I will analyze and take a deeper look at his ability to galvanize and persuade people to follow him, his decision-making skills, and finally how he was able to leverage his greatest internally skill set, his emotional intelligence to bring people together and work towards common interest and resolutions

Author Keith Grint summarizes in his work Leadership: A Very Short Introduction that there are four types of leadership types that any one person could be classified under. Those are position-based, person-based, result-based, and process-based. “However at its most basic, the ‘essence’ of leadership – as an individual leader – leaves out the followers, and without followers, you cannot be a leader. Indeed, this might be the simplest definition of leadership: ‘having followers’” (Grint, 2). As I read through Team of Rivals, I continued to see evidence of Lincoln being able to attract a follower base without a lot of resources. One example we see clearly is during the Republican nomination for the presidency. During the run-up to the nomination, Lincoln was very much the unknown candidate. Almost all of the other candidates were more funded, more well known, and had every advantage over him. As we see in the book though, Lincoln, however, was able to use the combativeness and aggressiveness of other candidates against them to gain support from the general public. “I am certainly not the first choice there; and yet I have not heard that anyone makes any positive objection to me.” (Goodwin, p 244) Lincoln did not speak out poorly against any of his fellow candidates nor did he allow his team at the convention to make any contracts that would bind him in exchange for nominative votes. Lincoln’s political skills, sound character, and circumstances at the convention won Lincoln the nomination.

Additionally, in the book, Doris Kearns Goodwin does a magnificent job at describing the upbringings of Lincoln and how that played a key role down the line of his ability to attract a follower base. Unlike the other three contenders Lincoln was not born to wealth, nor did he receive a prestigious education. In rural Kentucky and Indiana where Lincoln was raised, most rural families could not afford the tuition for private schools and public education did not exist. Lincoln had to be his own teacher through books and interactions with people. Stories told by adults that came to visit his family had a profound effect on his life. He enjoyed finding meaning and moral lessons behind the stories and often used these stories as president to explain his decisions. Lincoln’s modest surroundings help him develop a level of empathy for his fellow human beings that none of his contenders could parallel. His ability to convey complex political issues in laymen’s terms served him well in speeches and thus in his ability to reach the people. Lincoln developed this skill as a young child, watching his father and other family members speak as he was transfixed. As quoted in the book, “Lincoln, unable to sleep, would reformulate the conversations until, as he recalled, I’d put it in a language plain enough, as I thought, for any boy, I knew to comprehend …. He had discovered the pride and pleasure an attentive audience could bestow.” (Goodwin, p50) Lincoln was able to take this passion and develop it to become one of his greatest skills once he became president. In Drucker on Leadership, we see how much importance Drucker placed in the role of communication positioning as an effective means of persuading a target audience. As stated in Drucker on Leadership, “It is impossible to imagine leadership without communication, and the importance of communication in leadership is self-evident.” (Cohen p245) However, the insight that Drucker laid out was in the positioning of the communication and discovered that much of communication and getting through to the receptors depended greatly on what was already in the hearts and minds of the receivers and the receiver’s reaction to the message. Lincoln clearly was ahead of his time as he took this approach and was able to position his communication whether it was through the confidence he was able to gain by having all these primarily republican competitors join his cabinet, to the ability to end the Civil War. What I see in Lincoln was someone was a masterful communicator and someone who used this skill to gain followers.

Abraham Lincoln’s decision-making skills were in my determination another reason why he was such as successful leader. Throughout his presidency, Abraham Lincoln was constantly required to make decisions that had enormous ramifications on the overall country. After reading Doris’ book and reviewing the Vroom-Yetton Normative Theory of leadership I saw instances of Lincoln using the different styles to come to a decision. Based on the normative decision tree, I would determine that Lincoln mostly used a CII which was to discuss situations as a team but to make the decision on his own. We see this most clearly during the early stages of his presidency when Lincoln was moving quickly to exercise the use of his presidential powers in would be the unraveling of America which led to the Civil War. However, despite being in charge Lincoln would often consult his cabinet throughout Team of Rivals to strengthen his ideas and speeches and gain criticism. He understood that a man’s ideas should be scrutinized. The cabinet meetings also showed that he would not bend to political pressure simply to get re-elected however he understood and was very concerned with public sentiment. Lincoln believed in coalition and cooperation which is what he was trying to create in his cabinet. Lincoln was not afraid of criticism and realized that he would need guidance to steer the country during such a tension-filled time. Ultimately what I really appreciated about Abraham Lincoln’s decision-making ability was that he never took one approach. He never just decided without consulting with others, but at the same time, he never let someone else decide for him. He ultimately knew he was the person that would be able to make the last choice, and he never shied away from that great responsibility.

Lastly, when I think of what made President Lincoln successful, in my opinion, it was because of his emotional intelligence and his ability to channel his emotional intelligence to bring people together and work towards common interests and resolutions. The profound lesson to be drawn from Team of Rivals is that Lincoln led brilliantly, not just from his mind, but also from his heart. General William Tecumseh Sherman who served as a general in the Union Army during the Civil War, called it his “greatness and goodness.” Lincoln’s intellectual skills were never in doubt. His capacity to use his critical thinking skills was abundantly clear since childhood, However, his deeply humanitarian instincts very well may be the reason he’ll be revered by all future generations. As Doris Kearns Goodwin describes in the book, “Lincoln’s prodigious influence on friends and foes alike was due to his “extraordinary empathy – the ability to put himself in the place of another, to experience what they were feeling and to understand their motives and desires.” (Goodwin) Even as the civil war drew to a conclusion and the Union was destined to claim victory, Lincoln was keenly aware that any decision on punishing the south thoroughly, would ultimately hurt his long-term goal of unifying the country. Sadly, Lincoln was never able to see his vision of unifying the country come full circle as he was assassinated.

As I reflect on Team of Rivals and think back on what principles of leadership I was able to derive, four main principles would come up again and again. First, Lincoln’s ability to be decisive and bold when needed was clearly shown throughout the book. There was no better example than when Lincoln decides to move forward with the emancipation proclamation, which would free slaves in the Confederate states. His cabinet was deeply divided on the question — some were strongly in favor of emancipation, others were concerned that it would violate property rights, and still, others believed that it would do nothing but embolden the South to fight harder. “The proclamation was shocking in scope. In a single stroke, it superseded legislation on slavery and property rights that had guided policy in eleven states for nearly three-quarters of a century.” (Goodwin) Lincoln already knew that the Cabinet members were deeply divided on this issue. Rather than continue to rehash the same arguments again, Lincoln knew that it was time for a bold decision. So he made it. He set the right expectations with his leadership team — he “welcomed their suggestions,” but he had already “resolved upon this step, and had not called them together to ask their advice.”

Secondly, Lincoln was determined to always surround himself with the best minds, who would challenge him. Many leaders are tempted to surround themselves with “yes people.” As a leader, it’s far more comfortable to select people who will readily agree with you and unquestioningly support your direction. Unfortunately, leaders who do this may fall victim to their own biases — confirmation bias, overconfidence, over-optimism, etc. They are likely to ignore warning signs and blind spots and overlook contrarian ideas and perspectives. Lincoln took the exact opposite approach. When constructing his cabinet, he selected the best people for the job — even his own political rivals, who were likely to disagree with him and challenge him. Once Lincoln had assembled this exceptional cabinet team, he leveraged the team’s intellectual horsepower at key moments.

Thirdly, It was Lincoln’s ability to stand up for his deeply held principles at moments when all was lost or defeated. At various times during his political career, Lincoln called for some revolutionary ideas, primarily the emancipation of all slaves. He advocated for these views to a deeply divided American. On one end, there were abolitionist Republicans who wanted to immediately end slavery for moral reasons. On the other end, there were conservative Democrats, some of whom harbored racist sentiments, and others who feared that ending slavery would strengthen the will of the Confederacy to fight harder.

To drive this tremendous change in society, Lincoln had to stand firm for his deeply held principles. Throughout his presidency, there were those among his own party that requested the President show some conciliations with the South during negotiations regarding the expansion of slavery into newly developed territory. Lincoln sent a clear message that he would stand by his morals and convictions and not allow for the expansion of slavery at any point of his presidency.

The Civil War ended more than 150 years ago, however even today, we are not finished with the man who led the country through it. Lincoln’s journey was one of learning by doing, ongoing commitment to bettering himself, keen intelligence harnessed to equally astute emotional awareness and the moral seriousness into which he grew as he attained immense power. It was also an all-too-human path marked by setbacks, derailments, and disappointments that we see the leadership genius of Abraham Lincoln. Ultimately Abraham Lincoln made himself an effective leader. May anyone who aspires to lead learn from the life and leadership of the 16th president of the United States of America.

Read more


Abraham Lincoln Biography: Civil War, Gettysburg Address

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Found on the coin called the penny, and the five-dollar bill is Abraham Lincoln. Also called, “Honest Abe”. Born on February 12, 1809, in Hodgenville, Hardin County, Kentucky. He died on April 15, 1865. Abraham was the middle child, he had two other siblings, Sarah and Thomas Lincoln. Unfortunately, Thomas did not survive infancy. He was married to Mary Todd and had four children. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States. Served as President from 1861 until he died in 1865. Lincoln led the nation during its bloodiest war, the American Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln was raised in a one-room log cabin in Kentucky. His family moved a lot during his childhood. They ended up settling in the town of New Salem, Illinois where Abraham worked as a shopkeeper and postmaster. Unfortunately, Abraham’s mother died on October 5, 1818, when Abraham was only nine. This led Sarah (Abraham’s older sister) to take responsibility for the household. He had very little education but he read immensely when he was not working on his father’s farm. He married Mary Todd in 1842 and they had four children. Only one of their children lived to adulthood. Mary grew up wealthy and her mother also died when she was a young age. He met Mary at Springfield, Illinois, where Abraham was working as a lawyer. He became a part of politics when he became a supporter of the Whig Party and won the election to the Illinois State legislature in 1834. He taught himself law and worked as a lawyer for the following years. This is when he earned the nickname “Honest Abe.”

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States. He served as President from 1861 until he died in 1865. After Lincoln’s election, the state of South Carolina proclaimed its withdrawal from the union. Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery and focused on commerce and cities rather than agriculture. Since he was anti-slavery, it made him unpopular among southerners. Although, as President, Abraham Lincoln had many achievements. One of them being on January 1, 1863, when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared forever free those slaves within the confederacy. He also built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. During his presidency, Abraham wrote his own speeches. A well-known one is the Gettysburg Address, which he gave during the Civil War. The Civil War was a big part of his Presidency. Lincoln’s election is said to have a part in why the war broke out. After Lincoln’s death, Andrew Jhonson assumed the presidency.

The Civil War was a war between the Union and the Confederate States. It was primarily over the enslavement of black people and the debate between the power to the States or the National Government. This War lasted from 1861 to 1865. When Abraham Lincoln was elected as President, seven southern states seceded and formed the Confederate States. They formed the Confederate States to threaten Abraham Lincoln since he was anti-slavery. Abraham Lincoln was commander in chief during the Civil War. Some of the important battles fought during the Civil War include The Battle of Fort Sumter, Antietam, Shiloh, Pea Ridge, Atlanta, and other battles. The Battle of Fort Sumter is the first battle of the American Civil War. The Confederates bombarded the Union soldiers. It took place in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The Civil War ended in the spring of 1865 when Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant. The last battle was The Battle of Palmito Ranch. It took place in Texas, on May 13, 1865. Roughly 620,000 soldiers died during the Civil War. The Union won this war and ended slavery. The process of rebuilding a united nation without slavery began.

On November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the National Cemetery of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. This was the site of one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. The Gettysburg Address would be remembered as one of the most important speeches in American History. Lincoln spoke for less than two minutes and his speech was less than 275 words long.

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865. He was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. John Booth was a famous actor and confederate sympathizer. Booth had already planned a kidnapping of Abraham Lincoln to take him to Richmond, the Confederate Capital. Lincoln failed to appear at the spot where the kidnapping would’ve taken place. Unfortunately, Booth had already planned something eviler. Lincoln was assassinated only five days after the last Confederate army surrendered. Lincoln was pronounced dead at 7:22 am on April 15, 1865. Abraham Lincoln died at the age of 56. The President’s death quickly spread and the nation mourned the death of their President.  

Read more


Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address. He was the president of the United States at the moment so therefore he was a political individual during these times. Lincoln did not attend college, but he did get lower education. The speech was primarily for the whole American nation. It was dedicated to the soldiers who lost their lives and the ones who still stand proud. The setting of the speech was at a cemetery for the people who were losing their life due to the war that was going on at that exact time. President Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech, which later became known as the Gettysburg Address in November 1863, at the official dedication ceremony for the National Cemetery of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, on the site of one of the worse, heartbreaking, and most decisive battles of the Civil War. 

Though he did not know that day, Lincoln’s brief address would be remembered as one of the most important speeches in American history. Lincoln gave an effective speech it had a very powerful effect on not only the people who had lost a loved one but also on the whole country as one. Also, the purpose was of the soldier’s sacrifice: equality, freedom, and national unity. The Civil War that carried across the nation from 1861 to 1865 was the brutal ending to the decades of diversification. The 1800s started out having men leaving the farms and ranches and had them breaking out into the world of business in shops, offices, and the like. This left the women at home in charge of their own little world. Education for women in the 1800s was minimal during that period. Schooling was for the male gender, and if a woman wanted to go to school, she was looked down upon. The woman’s role was in the house and only the house and nothing more or less. This is what it was like in 1800 for equality for women. Although there was still slavery happening at the time people still had freedom. The only reason we had freedom was for those soldiers sacrificing everything not only their freedom, equality, and unity. They sacrificed so much more just for us. Lincoln knew the audience would understand what he was saying without saying it. He shows compassion for the Civil War is shown as he mourns the loss of the soldiers that were lost. He creates abutment in his final statement of a “new birth” and the interference of a “perished” nation. The use of his words allowed Lincoln the motivation to take action by uniting the people of the United States. Although this speech was just 279 it was an incredible and magnificent speech, and every word was accurate. This speech is believable because due to the circumstances of the whole purpose of the speech. 

The civil war was happening, therefore, people were dying, the president must speak up and say something to the people of the United States to level out what everyone is dwelling on also known as the great task and the setting was an excellent place for what Lincoln talked about in his speech. The speech could be taken from a political point of view because when Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address he was the president of the United States. He was very determined to get across their mind what he was trying to say in his speech. He also wants the speech to emerge into something other than just a 272-word speech. He wants people to look at this speech want to make the change of unity and all the other things. The intro “Four scores and seven-year ago” is from the bible and “the days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if because of strength they are fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it soon cut off, and we fly away’ also comes from the bible so this speech is very religionist. Additionally, some terms and phrases have to do with the bible like “ dedicate” “ under God” “ new birth” and “perish”. The religion in this speech help stance on slavery.     

Read more


Gettysburg Address and Civil War

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The Civil War is usually not a popular topic of discussion. It’s surrounded by differing opinions, controversy, and a general apathetic attitude. But for the thousands of people that visit, work at, and work to preserve Civil War battlefields every day, it’s an extremely important part of history. One such battle of that war is the Battle of Gettysburg. While it may be well-known, its importance is greater than most people would think. The Battle of Gettysburg is one of the most significant battles of the Civil War, both today and in the late 1800s, for several reasons.

The Battle of Gettysburg began in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on July 1st, 1863. The first shot was fired three miles west of Gettysburg on Knoxlyn Road. It’s unknown who actually fired this shot, but the most credible claim is that of Marcellus Jones of the 8th Illinois Cavalry Regiment, who says he fired at a mounted officer of the Confederate Infantry. The fighting continued through the town and spread out to the surrounding land. This battle ended on July 3rd, 1863 with a Union victory after a failed Confederate charge. Although July 3rd is commonly considered to be the end of the battle, small skirmishes took place on July 4th and Confederate forces didn’t retreat until that night. Many places of conflict became popular because of the battle: Little and Big Round Top, Devil’s Den, the Slaughter Pen, the Wheatfield, the Peach Orchard, and Cemetery and Seminary Ridge, among others. Buildings that were exposed to fighting are now marked with plaques that read “Civil War Building July 1863.” The end of this battle brought about 51,000 casualties, as shown on a graph in an article titled “Civil War Casualties” (American Battlefield Trust 2). It changed the town forever as the battlefield was converted into a military park and became heavily commercialized.

One aspect of the battle that makes it significant is the fact that it ended up being the turning point of the Civil War. The Civil War had been going strong for over two years by the summer of 1863. At that point, the Confederacy was beginning to gain the upper hand. Americans feared that another Union loss could lead to the end of the United States. But the Union victory at Gettysburg was enough to change their tune. Their morale was finally restored after their recent loss at Chancellorsville. And with that win came a substantial loss for the enemy. An article titled “Twilight of the Confederacy” describes how crushed the Confederates were after Gettysburg. One soldier wrote, “The campaign is a failure and the worst failure the South has ever made.” Another wrote that “the Armey is broken hearted” and now “don’t care which way the war closes for we have suffered very much” (Guelzo 26). Along with the effect on each army’s morale, the battle’s outcome ensured that General Robert E. Lee would not regain the military initiative. The Gettysburg Campaign was a result of Lee’s invasion of the north. His loss prevented him from moving further north. All around, it ensured that the Confederates would not win the war and would not permanently secede. These things helped secure the democracy that Abraham Lincoln was determined to save and gave the Union the advantage for the battles following Gettysburg. This is summed up in the same article, “Twilight of the Confederacy,” when Allen Guelzo says, “Gettysburg did not end the war in one stroke, but it was decisive enough to restore the sinking morale of the Union, decisive enough to keep at bay the forces that Lincoln hoped could be persuaded to revoke emancipation, and decisive enough to make people understand that the Confederacy would never be able to mount a serious invasion again” (26).

Another aspect that made the battle significant is its location. As previously stated, Gettysburg, located in Pennsylvania, was part of Lee’s invasion of the north. The purpose of this invasion was to help relieve the state of Virginia, which was ravaged by battles all over, and to defeat the Union on their own ground, furthermore destroying their morale. Despite the desire to start a fight on Union soil, the events at Gettysburg were not intentional. In Jeff Shaara’s “Civil War Battlefields: Discovering America’s Hallowed Ground,” he clarifies the fact that neither General George Meade nor General Lee was ready for an engagement at Gettysburg (88). The fact that Lee specifically was not ready for an engagement may have spelled out trouble for him early on. What’s most important about the battle’s location is that even though a battle there was unintentional on both sides, it became unavoidable. In the same book as above, Shaara explains Lee relied on a map that showed a network of roads leading to Gettysburg that he could use to gather his troops (89). That means that not only could Lee’s troops make their way to Gettysburg, but so could Meade’s troops because, again, Gettysburg is surrounded by roads that all lead to the town. A quote from General Lee in Colonel G.J. Fiebeger’s “The Campaign and Battle of Gettysburg” confirms that Lee knew what would eventually happen at Gettysburg because of its location and terrain: “It had not been intended to fight a general battle at such a distance from our base unless attacked by the enemy, but finding ourselves unexpectedly confronted by the Federal Army, it became a matter of difficulty to withdraw through the mountains with our large trains… A battle thus became, in a measure, unavoidable” (75).

Another important aspect of the battle is its immensity. One part of that is the combat size. In an article titled, “10 Facts: Brandy Station,” the American Battlefield Trust states that the Battle of Brandy Station was the largest cavalry battle of the Civil War and had a great impact on the future battle at Gettysburg (1). While it wasn’t directly part of it, this merely makes a point about the overall enormity of the Gettysburg Campaign. Another important point is that this battle is claimed to be the largest known battle fought in North America. But with a large battle comes a large loss of life and amount of casualties. Tens of thousands of men were killed, wounded, or captured over three days. To show just how bloody this battle was, an article titled, “10 Facts: Gettysburg,” says that the first day of fighting alone is ranked as the 12th bloodiest battle of the Civil War. The second day comes in as the 10th bloodiest battle (American Battlefield Trust 1-2). The American Battlefield Trust talks about these casualties and why the amount of lives lost is so great in an article titled, “Civil War Casualties.” It states, “More American soldiers became casualties at Gettysburg than in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 combined. New military technology combined with old-fashioned tactical doctrine to produce a scale of battle casualties unprecedented in American history” (2).

The acts of heroism that took place at Gettysburg are a big part of why people continually return to the battlefield. Both group and individual heroism were displayed by the events at Gettysburg. One example is the bayonet charge at Little Round Top. On the second day of fighting, Union Colonel Joshua Chamberlain, who knew how important it was to keep high ground, told his men to hold Little Round Top “at all costs.” When the Confederates attacked the hill, Chamberlain’s men ran out of ammunition and he called for a bayonet charge. This bravery led the Union to defeat them and may have been a large part of their overall victory. Another act of group heroism was Pickett’s Charge, the final push made by the Confederacy. Led by Major General George Pickett and Brigadier General James Johnston Pettigrew, a line of Confederates marched across three-fourths of a mile of an open field to a line of Union soldiers and their cannons. Walking across a field towards the enemy and to their imminent demise takes true bravery, even if they were on the wrong side of history. An example of individual heroism comes from the story of John Burns, found in an article titled, “John Burns.” He was a resident of Gettysburg and a veteran of the War of 1812. When fighting broke out on July 1st, Burns, who was in his seventies, picked up his musket and joined the fight. He was wounded, but survived the battle, and lived until 1872 (Hawks 3). Individual heroism was again shown by the 64 men who received the Medal of Honor for their efforts at Gettysburg.

Lastly, the Gettysburg Address that was written because of the battle makes it extremely significant. This speech, written by Abraham Lincoln at the David Wills House in Gettysburg, changed what the Civil War meant to Americans. This is explained in the article, “Gettysburg Address,” where it states, “With the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln transformed the meaning of the war from a conflict to preserve the Union to a sacrificial dedication to the survival of a political order built on liberty and equality” (Allen 3). As discussed in Austin Allen’s article, The Gettysburg Address was delivered on November 19th, 1863 to commemorate the Gettysburg National Cemetery. With up to 750,000 dead as a result of the Civil War, they were typically buried on the battlefields where they died. But this cemetery brought about a new way to treat the dead when fallen soldiers at Gettysburg were reburied there (1).

The Battle of Gettysburg remains significant for multiple reasons. The Union victory virtually saved the United States from collapsing. The roads leading to Gettysburg made a battle unintentional but unavoidable. The battle was large from its combat size to its casualties. Both group and individual acts of heroism made the battle memorable. And the Gettysburg Address, one of the most recognizable speeches in history, was brought into existence because of it. The Battle of Gettysburg has stayed relevant and important to Americans from all over the country for over 150 years and will continue for generations to come. 

Read more


The Emancipation Proclamation as a War Action

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The liberation announcement together with the13th Modification was attained through Common battle with notable achievements in the long procedure of closure legitimate servitude in the US. Nearly from the earliest starting point of his organization, advocate and drastic Republicans compelled Abraham Lincoln to give this announcement. In spite of the fact that Lincoln hated servitude, he was persuaded by his confirmed jurisdiction as president to challenge subjugation just with regards to important war measures. He likewise stressed over the responses of those in the dependable fringe domain where conquer was yet to be legitimate. Lincoln is said to have summarized the significance of keeping the fringe domain in the Union by saying ‘I want to have God on my side, however I should have Kentucky.’

Liberating the servitude/slaves would help the Association win the war by turning down the alliance of work and giving the Association military extra work. Servitude was a coldhearted framework wherein African Americans were handled as property; the war turned into a chance to end subjection. The liberation announcement was applied uniquely to those servitudes under Federation control, legitimized the nullification of subjugation on military not on good grounds. The 46,000 captives in the faithful Boarder Domain, the 276,000 servitude in Association involved Tennessee and the countless servitude in area constrained by the Association Armed force in Louisìana and Virgìnia were not freed by this announcement.

However, people contended that the announcement did not really save any servitude or crush the foundation of bondage itself. It was only applicable to domains in dynamic defiance, not to the slave-bonding boarder nation or to revolt regions effectively under Association control. As a general rule, it essentially liberated Association armed force officials from giving back deserter captives to their proprietors according to the national Fugitive Servitude Act of 1850. Any got away slaves who figured out how to join forces with propelling Union armed forces and anyone who resided in the area, in any way caught by those armed forces never again must be taking back, in the expressions of the announcement, they were ‘forever after, and everlastingly liberty.’

Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation principally as a war action. Maybe its critical quick impact was that it authoritatively put the U.S. government against the ‘exceptional establishment’ of Servitude, in this manner setting a hindrance linking the South and its acknowledgment by European countries that had forbidden servitude. The South had since a long time ago depended on help from Britaìn and France. A few reports inside the Federation States’ Constitution explicitly secured bondage within the Alliance, but a few reports of the U.S. Constitution likewise secured servitude, the Liberation Announcement produced more clear differentiation linking the two.

Read more


Breaking the Chains of Slavery: from Early Compromises to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer


‘Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.’ Abraham Lincoln broke barriers in the fight against slavery. At first, he was not against slavery but his views changed over time. Early on, Lincoln tried to compromise with slaveholders and abolitionist. Over time, Lincoln compromised less and took a more active role in fighting slavery. The purpose of this paper is to show how Lincolns views evolved and that he became one of slavery’s strongest opponents.

Changing His Views

Early in his career, Lincoln was a simple prairie lawyer in Springfield, Illinois with no major interest in slavery. Once he was elected to Congress, slavery was a big topic for politicians. ‘The Constitution explicitly protected property, and slaveholders regarded their slaves as just that — and so did the Founding Fathers in their time. The Constitution was almost sacred to Lincoln. Lincoln started changing his views because he wanted to beat his rival, Stephen A. Douglas, to become the leader of the Republican party, which did not support the spreading of slavery.


As he advanced in his political career, Lincoln made compromises regarding slavery at first. One of his compromises was supporting colonization, which was an idea to send former slaves back to Africa. As President, he had conversations with opponents of slavery and ‘opted for a compromise: let slavery exist where it was granted by the Constitution, but contain the system and prevent its further expansion.”i Changing attitudes in the country and the Civil War also caused Lincoln to change his views. ‘Neither slave owners nor slaves supported colonization. Slavery was beginning to disintegrate in the South. And the Union Army was looking for new soldiers to enlist — and they found willing African-American men waiting for them in the South.’

The Emancipation Proclamaition and the 13th Amendment

During the Civil War, Lincoln wound up having many conversations with abolitionists. He also realized ending slavery could help end the Civil war faster. These are a few of the factors that changed Lincoln into a leader in the anti-slavery movement Early in the Civil War, Lincoln approved a policy that did not allow fugitive slaves to be returned. Many thousands of slaves were freed because of this policy. It also gave the North hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers by the end of the war. Abraham Lincoln told his generals to emancipate slaves as they fought their way south. Lincoln used abolitionist generals such as David Hunter.

In addition to what he did with the military, Lincoln also worked in politics to help end slavery. He got laws passed such as the 2nd Confiscation Act which helped to free more slaves. On January I, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It marked a turning point in the war and it was the beginning of the end for slavery. ‘What’s more, the Emancipation Proclamation made a promise: it promised that the United States was committed to ending slavery once and for all. It promised African Americans in the South that under no circumstances would they be returned to slavery if the North won the war. Finally, it promised the Confederacy that there was no turning back the clock to before the war.

The Emancipation Proclamation made the promise that the Civil War would change the United States forever.”V Lincoln reached out to the South peacefully as well. He offered a Reconstruction policy to southern states rejoin the Union peacefully if they abolished slavery. President Lincoln did not stop there. He pressured politicians to support fighting to free slaves through many speeches and letters. Lincoln pushed hard for the 13th Amendment to be ratified, which happened on January 3 1, 1865. This amendment abolished slavery in the entire United States of America. In the last speech he gave before being assassinated, he was considering voting rights for black people.


In conclusion, one can see how Abraham Lincoln progressed from being on the sidelines in the fight against slavery to being one of the greatest abolitionists in American history. Lincoln broke many racial barriers of his day. He fought and died trying to break the chains of slavery. Although he did not start out as an abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln’s fight to free slaves made him one of the greatest presidents in American history.

Work Cited

  1. Nagler, Jörg. ‘Abraham Lincx)ln’s Attitudes on Slavery and Race.’ American Studies Journal 53 (2009). vsws.asiournalvorg/ 53-2009/abraham-lincolnsattitudes-on-slavery-and-race/. 1 Dec. 2019. DOI 10.18422/53-02.
  2. Nagler, Jörg. -Abraham Lincoln’s Attitudes on Slavery and Race.’ American Studies Journal 53 (2009). vsAMW.•asjournal.org/53-2009/abraham-lincolnsattitudes-on-slavery-and-race/. 1 Dec. 2019. DOI 10.18422/53-02.
  3. Nagler, Jörg. 0Abraham Lincoln’s Attitudes on Slavery and Race.’ American Studies Journal 53 (2009).y»yyy,@>[email protected]/abraham-lincolns- 1 Dec. 2019. DOI 10.18422/53-02.
  4. Foner. Eric. Lincolns evolving thoughts on slavery, and freedom. NPR. October 11, 2010. www.npr.org/2010/10/11/130489804/1 i ncolns-evoiving„thoughts-on-slaveryand-freedom October 11, 2010 Eric Foner NPR interview. December 4, 2019 www khanacademy.0%/humanities/us-hjstocv./_cjviVwa ra/slavery-and, the -civilwar/a/the-emancipation-proclamation. December 6, 2019 vi. www.nps.æov(liho/learn/historycuiture/slavery htm. December 6, 2019.
Read more