Obama on Lincoln as a compromiser

By Michael Lynch

Like many other American politicians, President Obama invokes the legacy of Abraham Lincoln from time to time.  He did so while discussing the current debt ceiling controversy, referring to the Emancipation Proclamation as an example of Lincoln’s willingness to make compromises:

“This notion that somehow if you’re responsible and you compromise, that somehow you’re giving up your convictions — that’s absolutely not true,” the president said at a University of Maryland town hall.

While the proclamation declared slaves who were in areas that had rebelled against the Union to be free, Lincoln exempted five slave states from the terms of the agreement.

The basis for the proclamation was its utility as a war measure and Lincoln excluded several areas on the basis that they were not at war against the U.S. because they remained loyal to the Union.

“Now think about that,” Obama said. “The Great Emancipator was making a compromise in the Emancipation Proclamation because he thought it was necessary in terms of advancing the goals of preserving the Union and winning the war.”

With the August 2^nd deadline to default rapidly approaching, Obama asked if Lincoln can do it, why can’t Congress?

“So, you know what?  If Abraham Lincoln could make some compromises as part of governance, then surely we can make some compromises when it comes handling our budget,” Obama said.

Obama was correct in noting that the proclamation did not completely and immediately eradicate slavery.  Lincoln considered abolitionists’ calls for an immediate and total end to slavery to be unrealistic, and believed that he lacked the authority to simply extinguish slavery by decree.

When he finally issued his Emancipation Proclamation, he did so as a war measure, exercising his military authority in a time of rebellion.  Those states and portions of states still in revolt were the only areas where Lincoln could invoke this extraordinary power.  The loyal border states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri were therefore exempt.  So was Tennessee (much of which had fallen into Union hands), along with parts of Virginia (particularly those western counties in the process of becoming a separate state) and southern Louisiana.

This map shows the Emancipation Proclamation's reach. Slaves in areas colored red were declared free. Slavery existed in the light blue areas, but these regions were exempt from the proclamation. Image from Wikimedia Commons

Critics of Lincoln sometimes claim that the proclamation was both ineffectual and hypocritical—ineffectual because it supposedly freed no one, and hypocritical because it applied only to areas over which Lincoln’s government had no effective control.  These critics are wrong on both counts.  The proclamation did free many slaves, and it did so immediately. Parts of the Carolinas, Alabama, and Virginia had fallen behind Union lines but weren’t exempted, so thousands of slaves in these regions became free when the proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863.  And, of course, slaves who were still in Confederate-held territory on that date eventually experienced emancipation once Union armies penetrated and occupied the areas where they lived.  The claim that the proclamation did not free anyone is therefore simply untrue.

Having taken the fateful step of moving against the institution, Lincoln also played a crucial role in securing freedom for those slaves in the areas exempted under the proclamation.  He sought and achieved the passage of a constitutional amendment which permanently and completely eradicated slavery in the United States, and the states ratified this Thirteenth Amendment after his death.  This measure freed those slaves who remained in bondage in Kentucky and Delaware; Maryland and Missouri had already taken action to end slavery within their borders by that time.

While portraying the Emancipation Proclamation as a half-way measure is somewhat accurate, it minimizes the political and constitutional realities Lincoln faced.  He acted decisively and dramatically, but he did so within the limits of what he believed his authority to be at the time.  The proclamation was thus something of a paradox—a measure both cautious and radical at the same time.

—Michael Lynch graduated from LMU with a degree in history, worked at the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum as an assistant curator, and now teaches survey-level history courses on campus.  He holds an M.A. in history from the University of Tennessee and blogs about historical topics at pastinthepresent.wordpress.com.

Lincoln as a Transformational Leader

This is the second of our discussions with graduates of LMU’s Ed.D. program who have completed dissertations on Lincoln and leadership theory.  As stated in our first interview, one of the Institute’s goals is to apply the insights of Lincoln studies to problems relating to leadership and administration.  As part of this mission, Dr. Charles Hubbard works with candidates in the program who are interested in researching the connections between Lincoln and leadership theory.

Cindy Bowman is a high school principal who received her doctoral degree in May 2011.  Her dissertation examined Abraham Lincoln as a transformational leader.

How did you get interested in doing a dissertation on Lincoln and leadership? 

Our first day of classes at LMU, I discovered this awesome history person named Dr. Charles Hubbard.  My undergraduate degree was in History, and here was this man who was filled with so much knowledge concerning Lincoln.  I was truly amazed.  Also, Dr. Cynthia Norris asked me to consider a dissertation on Lincoln and leadership.  So I had two experts asking me to do something different from my colleagues.

What is transformational leadership? 

Transformational leadership is a process where a leader engages followers by raising their level of motivation through empowerment, learning, trust, and communication.  The organization achieves goals beyond expectations.  The leader and followers work collaboratively on a shared vision for the present and the future of the organization.  The transformation of the organization improves and increases effectiveness, allowing for the organization to prosper and grow. Transformational leadership creates a positive organizational environment where stakeholders feel empowered and encouraged to take risks.

What kind of research does one do for a project that combines current leadership theories with history? 

I read an immense amount of literature on leadership theory and on Lincoln.  However, the benefits of focusing on the two areas outweighed the amount of time needed to focus on the topic.  I tried to read a couple of books on Lincoln every two weeks and then I would focus on research articles and books on leadership.

Were you able to draw on the work of any Lincoln specialists, or did you rely more on experts in the field of leadership studies? 

I used the work of many Lincoln authors in trying to determine if Lincoln was a truly transformational leader.  I decided early on in the research process to utilize Bennis and Nanus’ 1985 research on the characteristics of transformational leaders.  Students who go through the Education Specialist program at LMU are familiar with Warren Bennis, who co-authored Learning to Lead.

After reviewing several theories about the characteristics of a transformational leader, I chose to stick with Bennis and Nanus as the framework for my project.  The authors completed a study with ninety leaders and discovered four common characteristics of transformational leaders.  These characteristics included vision, being a social architect, trust, and deployment of self. From this point, I focused on the Lincoln literature and Lincoln’s own words in finding examples of each of the four characteristics from the Bennis and Nanus framework.

What are some ways that Lincoln exhibited this leadership style?

Upon Lincoln’s election, he made it plain that his vision was to preserve the Union. “I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of theses States is perpetual,” Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Address in March 1861. He told Horace Greely in 1862 that he would save the Union even if it meant he would not free any slaves. In November 1863, as he made his famous Gettysburg Address, Lincoln discussed “a new birth of freedom.”  Here the vision for America changed to one that met the ideals put forward in the Declaration of Independence, where all would achieve freedom and America would be the world’s example of equality for everyone.

Another example of leadership by Lincoln included his letter to Ulysses Grant after Vicksburg.  Lincoln had criticized Grant’s tactics at Vicksburg and he sent him a letter apologizing for his criticism.  Lincoln told him that “you were right and I was wrong.”  Lincoln empowered Grant by showing self-deployment.  Lincoln was not afraid to admit he was wrong and he wanted Grant to know he should not have criticized him.  The letter led to Grant trusting and respecting Lincoln at a higher level, and eventually led to Grant being entrusted with the Army of the Potomac.

Do you think Lincoln was conscious of the “transformational” aspects of his leadership, even if the concept itself hadn’t been defined yet?  Were these characteristics that he worked to develop in himself? 

I believe Lincoln was aware of the transformational components of his leadership.  These characteristics were a part of him.  A good example of this would be Lincoln’s willingness to meet daily with normal, everyday people who might come to ask for a pardon for their son or who just wanted to sit down and talk to the President.  He made time for others and always placed the needs of others before his own.

He established trust with his cabinet by allowing them to do their jobs without his influence.  A good example of this would be Secretary of War Stanton, who had previously called Lincoln an “ape” at the McCormick Reaper Case in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Lincoln knew he had excellent organizational skills and when his first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, had to be replaced due to his involvement with corruption, Lincoln remembered Stanton.  Stanton reorganized the War Department and became one of Lincoln’s greatest supporters.  When Stanton’s son died, it was Lincoln who supported and comforted him in his time of need.  Stanton said upon Lincoln’s death, “Now he belongs to the ages.”

Lincoln had the ability to empathize with others and he had a great deal of emotional intelligence.  I believe this is one of the main reasons he was successful in a time of immense crisis.

How did this style of leadership influence Lincoln’s presidency? 

Lincoln’s ability to understand human dynamics allowed him to keep the country together during the Civil War.  For two years, rebel forces won the majority of the battles.  Washington, D. C. possibly could have been taken by the Southern armies and when the threat became severe, Lincoln called on his nemesis and former leader of the Army of the Potomac, George McClellan, to save the capital.  Lincoln’s ability to forgive and to take credit for the blunders of his ineffective military leaders allowed him to gain the trust of the soldiers of the North and eventually led him to find a General who was not afraid of conflict, Ulysses Grant.

In a time of enormous uncertainty, he provided leadership where the country changed from one more intent on sectional interests to one focused on the entire country.  Lincoln believed strongly that slavery was wrong.  He said this over and over again.  He witnessed the slave trade in New Orleans, where families were torn apart after being sold to different masters. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation, knowing many in the North might not fight to free the slaves.  Government became more centralized, including the addition of the Department of Agriculture and the re-organization of the military.  The country saw an emphasis on internal improvements and a new banking system was initiated.  All of these things occurred during the conflict between the states.  Lincoln wanted America to be the great shining star in the world and the place people would call the last, best hope for freedom.  He believed strongly in the Declaration of Independence and through his determination America would grow and prosper.

What insights do you think Lincoln historians could learn from your research that they haven’t paid sufficient attention to yet? 

I believe my research could provide a framework to analyze the characteristics of Lincoln as a transformational leader.  Other leadership characteristics displayed by Lincoln could be evaluated based on the framework I used in my research.  I plan on looking at both Lincoln’s transactional and transformational characteristics in the future as the basis of showing how an effective leader needs to balance both characteristics to produce organizational success.

Is transformational leadership a trait that you see among many modern political leaders? 

Honestly, I see limited transformational leadership characteristics among our leaders.  How many of our leaders discuss their vision?  And if they do talk about vision, it’s their vision, not one on which they collaborated with their stakeholders  Another important transformational characteristic is trust.  How many of our leaders do we trust?

I think modern-day political leaders could learn a lot by studying historical leaders such as Lincoln.  Obviously, today’s leaders need a lesson in communication and empowering followers.  They need to “be able to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.”  The ability to empathize and understand others is a lost art.

Since you’re an administrator, what lessons do you think you’ve learned from Lincoln during your research that you think would be useful to you in your own career? 

I have learned many lessons from Lincoln.  One of the most important is to work collaboratively with my staff to develop our current and future visions for our school.  This year we developed two school goals, one for literacy and the other to improve our ACT scores.  I started the process and then focused on our staff working together as a collaborative team in producing our vision for both goals.  Our mission has become our future vision for where we want our school to be five years from now.

Another important lesson is to practice active listening.  I have learned to keep my mouth shut and to listen to others and their needs.  Our school is successful because we have great teachers and great students.  My role is more of a coach, empowering others to be innovative and to take risks in order for all of our students to experience success.  Another lesson learned from Lincoln is that when you have great teachers, stay out of their way.  If they need help, I’m there to provide guidance.  Lastly, Lincoln taught me the importance of humility and giving credit to others for any successes.

Lincoln, Horace Maynard, and the East Tennessee Unionists

By Natalie Sweet

Horace Maynard. From a photo by Mathew Brady in the National Archives, via Wikimedia Commons.

A little over 30 miles to the south of Lincoln Memorial University is Horace Maynard Middle School in Maynardville, Tennessee. Both the town and school are named after a former educator who was one of the few Southern members of the House of Representatives to remain at his post when war was declared in 1861. A staunch Unionist, Maynard repeatedly wrote to Abraham Lincoln, imploring the president for assistance in East Tennessee:

Westboro: Mass. Oct. 1st. 1862—

Sir,

Having provided for the freedom of the slaves,can you not, I beg you, in God’s name, do something for the freedom of the white people of East Tennessee? Their tears & blood will be a blot on your Administration that time can never efface, & no proclamations can cover up. Every promise made to them has been broken — not one has been attempted to be kept, even to the ear. Hopes have been excited only to end in disappointment; suffering, long-continued, has been endured, only to be followed by blank despair.

The little force at Cumberland Gap was kept chained in the mountain passes for months, forbidden, though begging, to go forward to the relief of their homes, & now they are recalled from a position where they could, at least, keep hope alive in their tortured hearts. For more than a year have Gov. Johnson& I, with others, implored for aid in their behalf. Day after day have we attended in the purlieus of the White House, the War Department & at Military Head Quarters– We have entreated, we have besought, we have humbled ourselves, submitted to official neglect, not to say rudeness, annoying & mortifying, only to be put off with assurances, that I am now satisfied, & that at the time, we sometimes feared, were never intended to be regarded; accompanied by sneers from your most trusted supporters at “Border State dictation”; conditional loyalty,” with imputations upon our motives, very hard to bear– While our poor people, in whose behalf we labored, have been absolutely abandoned, to use no harsher word.

We are told that the Gap, through which we looked for aid to come, had been blocked up with rocks & made impassable. We begged for bread, you have given us a stone. We begged entreated you to erect our part of the State into a Military District, with a competent commander — you divided us by a line drawn through the middle & assigned one fragment to Fremont, & left the other to Divine Providence.

We asked for a fish, you gave us a serpent. For the moment you satisfied the clamors of a seditious press & the partisans of a seditious leader; but at a terrible cost to us.

For all this, you, you Sir, are directly, individually responsible. There has been no time when an imperative word from you would not have sent the people relief. But you have listened to the counsel of men who never wanted us relieved — who, when you attempted to build a military way for our relief, raised a howl that affrighted you from your purpose. These men do not intend to have us as fellow-citizens again, & they are, & from the beginning have, been counselling to prevent it. Their influence has always been against us; & you have acquiesced.

For a long time, I had strong confidence in you personally, & have  labored hard to inspire it in the country. You can judge how cruelly I have been disappointed, to write as I have done, & how great have been the sufferings of our people.

I am very Respectfully,

Your Obt. Serv’t.

Horace Maynard

(Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.)

Horace Maynard’s letter was penned a short time after the preliminary announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation.  As others have pointed out, the letter demonstrates Maynard’s own conflict over slavery. It also, however, allows us the opportunity to put the distress Lincoln felt concerning East Tennessee into an interesting light. Horace Maynard “made it personal” with the attack on Lincoln’s leadership, and he was not the only member of his family to write to Lincoln. A little over a month before, Mayndard’s wife Laura wrote,

Buffalo, N. Y. Aug. 29th. 1862—

Sir,

Pardon me for intruding upon you, when you are already overwhelmed with care & anxiety. But the brave, good men who went out from my home, E. Tenn., & have been struggling to free her from disloyal tyranny, the last twelve months are now in danger of being cut off, at a blow. At Cumberland Gap, just within reach of their homes, shall they now be butchered, or be made the menials of Mr. Jefferson Davis, for the want of more men? Excuse me, Sir, but let me entreat you to send a force into that country, sufficient to save these honest, loyal men, from so horrible a fate, & to deliver E. Tennessee from her present misery.

I have seen many men, now volunteering from Northern N. Y. & Vermont, who would hail with joy, an order to go, at once, to drive the rebels from that long-suffering region. Their sympathies are aroused & they would go with full hearts & strong hands, & they would accomplish that whereunto they were sent.

Pardon my importunity, Sir — perhaps you have a son– I have one in that little army at Cumberland Gap, & many another mother’s son is there– Shall they be saved?

With great respect,

Mrs. Horace Maynard

(Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.)

Perhaps Lincoln took Horace Maynard’s accusation to heart that he was “directly, individually responsible” for the misery of those in East Tennessee.  Evidence for this comes in a speech General Oliver Otis Howard made in the Cumberland Gap in 1896. The retired commander described how Lincoln presented him with a map of East Tennessee in August, 1863, and proclaimed, “They are loyal, there, General they are loyal!” Howard also alleged that Lincoln spoke of a desire to help the mountain people. Although the only contemporary letter we have of the meeting, written in 1863 to Howard’s wife, simply notes that Lincoln gave Howard the map, there is reason to believe that Lincoln was distressed about the situation in East Tennessee.  Letters such as the Maynards’ served as a testament to the sacrifices made by those caught in the crossfire of the Civil War, and reminded the president that his decisions had important ramifications even in the remote Appalachian Mountains.

As for Howard, his meeting with the executive leader had far reaching effects. In the same breath in which he remembered Lincoln’s exclamation in 1863, he also discussed Cyrus Kehr’s hope of designing an institution of learning to honor Lincoln’s memory. The university that Howard based on his meeting with the 16^th president, Lincoln Memorial University, carries on Lincoln’s legacy to this day. How much the founding owes to Horace Maynard’s critique of Lincoln’s leadership in East Tennessee is up for debate.

—Natalie Sweet is a graduate of Lincoln Memorial University who holds an master’s degree in history from the University of Kentucky.  She has created a number of educational programs that have been used in historical museums, and her research on Lincoln and the Civil War era has appeared in The Lincoln Herald.

Lincoln, FDR, and their decisions for war

By Dr. Charles M. Hubbard

The sesquicentennial of the American Civil War reminds us of the enormity of the secession crisis that confronted the nation in April of 1861. On April 12 the Confederates opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. President Abraham Lincoln was confronted with gravest decision any president is required to make—how to respond to an attack on the country. Lincoln made the fateful decision to use military force to suppress the rebellion. His decision eventually escalated into a bloody and prolonged Civil War.  At the time many of Lincoln’s critics accused him of maneuvering the rebels and manipulating the circumstances to force Jefferson Davis and the Confederates into firing the first shot. Lincoln had made his position on secession clear in his first inaugural address when he pledged to protect the government: “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.”

The same charge of deliberately leading the country into war is sometimes leveled at Franklin D Roosevelt. In Roosevelt’s case the question was how to respond to the aggressive military tactics of the Empire of Japan. In an effort to force Japan to refrain from further aggression in Asia, Roosevelt placed an embargo on military supplies and moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor. These actions form the basis of the charges that Roosevelt forced Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt wanted war.  Both presidents responded to unprovoked attacks on the country. Their critics continue to argue that a more passive response to the events preceding the outbreak of hostilities could have avoided the two deadliest wars in American history, but Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were astute politicians and understood that Americans would support a forceful response to any threat to the security and preservation of the nation.

The two wars were different—one was a Civil War between Americans and the other a world war involving people all over the globe—but the decisions of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt significantly changed the world in which we live. In 1864 Lincoln wrote, “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”  The same could be said of Roosevelt. The events and circumstances left little choice for either President and both decided to take the nation into armed conflict.

—Charles Hubbard is Executive Director of the Abraham Lincoln Institute for the Study of Leadership and Public Policy

Lincoln and the political shift toward hard war

…is one of the subjects raised in an interesting article posted at Civil Warriors.  Ethan Rafuse explains the relationship between political necessity and the shift toward a more aggressive military effort.