Leadership Style of Abe Lincoln

Leader Analysis: Abraham Lincoln

Background

Abraham Lincoln came from humble origins: he was not born into a wealthy aristocratic family like so many of this nation’s presidents. Rather, he was born on a Kentucky farm in 1809, and was largely self-educated. He had few books to help him on his way, but after learning to read he used the Bible as his main reference source, and it instilled in him a sense of ethics and rightness that he often relied upon in order to influence others. He had a great memory and could memorize the Scriptures or recall stories that he knew and thus regal audiences with a folksy, down-to-earth manner that was also typically insightful and logical. Lincoln advanced in his career as he grew up by learning law on his own and starting his own law firm with a partner, William Hendon in 1840.

Following his work as a lawyer in Illinois, Lincoln moved into politics, becoming a US Representative in 1847. In Congress, he made a name for himself by challenging President Polk on the matter of the Mexican-American War. Lincoln did not spend much time in Congress, however; and soon he returned home to practice law. He always had an eye on returning to office, and he tried but was not successful until the time was ripe for a shot at the White House.

For the most part, Lincoln did not adopt many controversial positions in his private or in his public life. At a time when the nation was on fire with hot rhetoric from many different political and religious and social view points, Lincoln sought to maintain a balanced perspective. He did not want to inflame circumstances, and as a lawyer he understood the importance of maintaining logic and order at all times. However, as he would show in his later political career in the 1860s, sometimes he used more force than others in his position might have used. But Lincoln had a vision and a mission that he felt compelled to pursue. As a leader of a nation, he believed he had to make difficult decisions that would directly affect the future of the nation.

Lincoln became the 16th US President and the first Republican president of the US in 1861. He inherited a divided nation, torn over the issues of slavery, states’ rights, and westward expansion, and yet he achieved much during his stint in office. He led the Union to victory in the Civil War, conditionally emancipated blacks throughout the South, and called for peaceful and fair reconstruction when the war was over. Yet he also faced numerous challenges and experienced failure. He was ultimately unable to build a coalition around himself to bring his grand vision to fruition, as radical Republicans objected to his reconstruction plans. He also did not fully end slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation—but he did push Congress to amend the Constitution so as to end the peculiar institution once and for all. At the same time, Lincoln was ambitious, perhaps to a fault, as he himself did not hesitate to violate some the Constitution during the War in order to see the Union prevail (Gooddwin, 2006). Over the course of his leadership as president, he faced several hurdles—such as lack of popular support and lack of unity; sometimes he acted questionably, but in the end he always held fast to a vision and mission to keep the nation together.

Leadership Successes

One of Lincoln’s greatest successes was simply the fact that he won election in the first place in 1860. Up until his run for president, Lincoln had only enjoyed moderate success as a politician. He had lost his most recent bid for election in the US Senate. However, he did not let this failure prevent him from continuing his pursuit of office. Instead, he used the freedom he had to give speeches and tours across the nation, speaking often on behalf of other politicians in office and thereby building a base of political support for himself. Moreover, he avoided some of the traps that other speaks fell into at the time. As Burlingame (2020) points out, Lincoln’s “style avoided the wordy moral rhetoric of the abolitionists in favor of clear and simple logic.” In so doing, he also avoided offended any of the various groups around the nation. The nation was already torn on the matter of slavery, and with states looking to gain influence in the western territories it mattered a great deal how a politician viewed the issue. Lincoln never ventured into moralizing, but used a sensible, logical approach to the problem and this prevented him from being pegged as an abolitionist, which would have caused one half of the nation to hate him, or as pro-slavery, which would have caused the other half of the nation to hate him. He also made more a national name for himself as a speaker and politician, which helped him when he ran for office of the president in 1860. But most importantly of all during this time, Lincoln “had established a solid group of campaign managers and supporters who came to the Republican convention prepared to deal, maneuver, and line up votes for Lincoln” (Burlingame, 2020). In other words, he had identified his deficiencies that had caused him to lose his Senate race; and over the course of the following year he had built up support that would enable him this time to win election.

Lincoln also managed to fly under the radar in the lead-up to the nomination. The front runner was William Seward, and as front runner Seward managed to serve as the main lightning rod for criticism from opponents. No one paid much attention to Lincoln because he was not seen as a real contender. Rather than announce himself loudly and draw attention to himself, Lincoln bided his time and waited for Seward’s star to dim—and then he was able to rally Republicans around himself. Lincoln also had an ace up his sleeve knowing that Seward would be unlikely to carry Indiana and Pennsylvania in the general election—meaning if Republicans wanted to win the White House they needed another candidate. That is when Lincoln suddenly became the best option. Delegates gathered around him at the convention, and, finding nothing controversial about him in particular gave him the nomination (Burlingame, 2020). This was Lincoln’s first great success as a leader: it showed that he was able to maintain poise and confidence even as others appeared to be making headway. He had a plan and stuck to it, knowing that in time it would pay off—just as it did.

After defeating Seward to win the Republican nomination, he had to face a fractured Democratic Party in the general election. The Democrats were divided by the fact that if they ran on a pro-slavery plank, no one in the north would vote for them and the Republicans would win the White House—but if they ignored the slavery issue, no one in the south would vote for them and they would lose the White House. Stephan Douglas tried to convince the Party that it needed to run a middle-of-the-road plank in order to win votes in both the north and the south. But, still, Lincoln had to show that he was worth a vote from northerners—and really only northerners since he was not on the ballot in any of the southern states. Thus, he supported the branding of himself as Honest Abe and he picked an issue that was none too controversial to rally people behind: the Homestead Act. This was an Act that would give 160 acres of federal land to anyone who agreed to farm on it. It helped spur the settlement of the western territories, and it gave Lincoln enough appeal to muscle his way through the general election. The other candidates failed to find an issue that would not be divisive: Lincoln settled on one that everyone could get behind—an incentive. By incentivizing the populace to vote for him with free acreage he all but ensured that he would have enough popularity among a decent size of the population. He carried almost all of the northern states and thus won the White House.

However, once in office, he had to prove himself. He did that by identifying his mission and vision for the country and pursuing vigorously. He was not popularly supported by the nation, as such popularity would have been impossible in such a divided nation. But he had to prove that he could hold the Union together, and he did that rather cunningly. He appealed to the moral consciousness of the nation once the war with the South was underway. Whereas the main issue was really one of state’s rights, Lincoln decided to refocus the nation’s attention on the issue of slavery, which up until then he had avoided because it was such a contentious issue. But now in order to win the heart of the nation he had to change the nature of the what the fight was about. He issued his Emancipation Proclamation in order to give the war a moral tone: it would from that point on be a war about ending slavery and bringing equality once and for all to the United States.

His emancipation of blacks during the Civil War was indeed a game changer, because it meant that England could not in good conscience support the South. Up until then, the South had been hoping England would support its cause for independence (Foote, 1958). But England had banned slavery in its own state, and could not very well come to the aid of a state that still maintained the institution of slavery. By refocusing the war on the issue of slavery, Lincoln effectively prevented the South from obtaining a major ally across the Atlantic. But more than that, Lincoln effectively ended the slavery issue by free those slaves in Confederate states still fighting the Union. Many thanked him for the Emancipation Proclamation. One individual, whose own family was freed thanks to Lincoln’s intervention, wrote to Lincoln, stating, “When you are dead and in Heaven, in a thousand years that action of yours will make the Angels sing your praises” (Johnson, 1863). Such was the impact of Lincoln’s Proclamation that it became one of the defining moments of his legacy.

After the war, Lincoln still had to prove that his vision for the nation made sense, and he did this by laying it out expertly in his 2nd Inaugural Address. In this speech, Lincoln showed that the driving force of America was not bitterness, hatred, envy or wrath: it had to be love and forgiveness. No speech by any president has ever been as eloquent and forceful as Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural. It laid out the blueprints for America’s redemption after the bloody Civil War. In this speech, Lincoln showed himself as a transcendent, transformational leader—laying out his vision, and encouraging everyone to buy into it. His vision in his 2nd Inaugural resounds with magnanimity—and if he lacked this quality in some ways—by denying people their right to due process, for instance, during the Civil War—he tried to make up for it with his speech to America when sworn in for a second term.

Leadership Challenges/Failures

One of the biggest challenges Lincoln faced after the war, however, was the issue of reconstruction. There were many in the Republican Party who wanted to handcuff the southern states and treat them as second-tier citizens of the US. Lincoln felt otherwise; he knew that in order for the nation to heal, it needed to extend the bond of friendship to the former foes with whom the Union had just warred. It would be the only way the nation could move forward. Lincoln (1865) stated in his 2nd Inaugural that he wanted “to bind up the nation’s wounds.” Lincoln was opposed by the radical Republicans in his own party. But Lincoln (1865) insisted that the Union be gracious: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in…” The only thing that prevented Lincoln from making good on this endeavor was his assassination.

Had Lincoln lived longer he might have helped the nation avoid the continuation of racism. The 13th Amendment only freed the blacks—it did not protect them from unfair rules and laws that denied their equality under the law. It could be argued that Lincoln did not push the envelope far enough in terms of making sure blacks were protected as free and equal citizens. After all, he himself had once entertained the notion of removing blacks from America all together and sending them to a colony in Latin America so as to settle the matter of racial division once and for all (Guelzo, 2000). He did not always hold the view that blacks should be free (DiLorenzo, 2002). Yet, in the White House, he saw that he needed to do something to re-focus the war, and he saw ending slavery for blacks in Confederate states as a good way to do this. It also laid the political foundation for the 13th Amendment. Lincoln may not have had the same perspective on slavery throughout his whole life, but as president he made the decision to end slavery, and once he made that decision he took the issue to Congress, urging them to amend the Constitution. Slavery had always been a big issue in the states, and Lincoln had up to that point tried to avoid taking a big stance on it one way or another because of how it might upset the balance of the nation. But with the war, the challenge was not how to keep from offending some voters—it was how to keep the Union from falling apart.

Yet another problem with Lincoln’s leadership is that he suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War (DiLorenzo, 2002). Due process has been a cornerstone of law in America from the beginning. Jefferson (1774) wrote that “a free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” For Jefferson, every citizen of America had a right to due process as a result of natural law. But Lincoln subverted this law when he denied people their due process during the war, which lasted years. It was not a very magnanimous decision on his part, but he believed it necessary in order to retain an iron grip on the nation. The failure of Lincoln to observe the Constitution throughout the Civil War has been seen by his critics as a stain on his leadership (DiLorenzo, 2002). Rather than uphold the Constitution, the laws governing the nation, he as president ignored it on multiple occasions.

Lincoln also did not afford Jefferson Davis the opportunity, which the latter sought, to debate the legality of succession in Congress and if necessary in court (Foote, 1958). Instead, Lincoln dared the South to fire the first shot in the war by descending on Ft. Sumter in a provocative maneuver that succeeded in triggering the southern rebels (Foote, 1958). The fact is that Lincoln did not want to risk giving the secessionists a fair hearing, because there was the possibility that they might actually prove their case in arguing that states had a right to secede from the Union. Lincoln did not want to lose the south because it had such important economic value to the nation as a whole. The only way he could see keeping the southern states in the Union once they did secede was to go to war against them and force them into submission.

Lincoln often had quite a challenge when it came to keeping the Union together while simultaneously respecting and honoring the Constitution. As a lawyer, he knew the law but he also knew how to twist the law. With respect to the South, he aimed to keep the fight out of the courts, because secession was not a matter he felt confident enough to handle with recourse to the law. It was also not a matter he felt could be confidently handled with recourse to the Constitution. This fact is seen best perhaps in his blockade of the South. The blockade was unconstitutional and could be said to be tyrannical, since Lincoln had no authority to enforce it. The reason for this is simple: a blockade is an act of war and acts of war need approval from Congress before they can be conducted—but Lincoln had not declared war on the southern states and he did not want to seek permission from Congress for the blockade. He did not want to declare war on the southern states because this would essentially be an acknowledgement of their independence. Lincoln wanted to view them as belligerents who needed to be brought back to heel. He could only legally justify a blockade of the southern states if he viewed them in this manner; but it was a twist of logic because in blockading the south he was declaring war on the south.

Lincoln often did whatever he thought it expedient to do in order to achieve his goals, regardless of whether it was constitutional or not. Sometimes this worked out in his favor, as with the Emancipation Proclamation, and sometimes it did not. He tried to be an authentic leader, open, honest, and grounded by a set of principles that he gleaned from his early immersion into the Scriptures, which he was taught in his youth. However, his authentic leadership clashed with his authoritarian leadership, and a mixed style of leadership emerged throughout his presidency, complicating his legacy, and making him enemies along the way.

Had Lincoln adopted a less controversial stance after winning the White House a second term, he might not have been assassinated—but he saw that what mattered most was not his own political career but rather the future of the nation. He could not compromise on what he felt was the most important step that the country now had to take. It had to heal. Others wanted to continue the fight against the South, forcing the South into abject poverty from which it would never return. Lincoln did not want such a future. He wanted the nation, now restored, to move past its bitterness and resentment. He thus adopted a position that was morally right—and he defined it in no uncertain terms in his 2nd Inaugural. He was in this sense not the same man who had run for president in 1860 by avoiding adopting controversial positions. He was a man determined to set the nation on the right path, whatever the personal cost to himself and his career might be. Thus, even though his authoritarian and authentic leadership styles clashed during his first four years, his authentic style emerged as the greater: he was open, candid, and rooted in a principle of charity. He did not want to see radical Republicans grinding the South into the dirt. He had already permitted Sherman to wage total war on the South—but that had been to make a point—to win a war. Now it was time to turn the page. In short, Lincoln put the well-being of the nation ahead of party politics.

Overall Leadership Effectiveness

Although Lincoln was not hugely popular across all political demographics, he did manage to make himself just popular enough with voters to win the White House. He did this in a number of ways but mainly by developing his brand as Honest Abe and by motivating voters—i.e., giving them a reason to want to go out and vote for him. He knew that there were a lot of contentious issues sweeping the nation, and in order to avoid taking a position on any of them and risk alienating a large segment of voters he had to settle upon a non-controversial issue that people would like—which was a promise to give settlers out west free land so long as they would promise in return to farm it. By making himself as non-controversial as possible, he appealed to a wide enough swathe of voters to win the White House in 1860.

He won re-election in 1864 by demonstrating his leadership throughout the Civil War, committing himself totally to the vision and mission of preserving the Union. He understood that if the Union lost the South, the North would not survive. He had to win the war, and he pushed his generals to adopt strategies that would work. In the early days of the war, his generals were not being aggressive enough (Foote, 1958). Finally, he found in Gen. Grant and Gen. Sherman the type of military men he could use—ones willing to attack and lay waste to the enemy, including whole cities if need be. Thus, Lincoln authorized Sherman’s infamous March to the Sea, which was total war against the South. The aim was to break the morale of the South and induce it to surrender. By allowing Sherman to destroy everything in his path, Lincoln was showing that he would not stop until the South submitted once more to the Union.

From this perspective, Lincoln was most effective as an authoritarian leader: he did not let the Constitution get in his way when it came to warring with the South. He had to win to achieve his mission, and he could not win with generals who were reluctant to fight, like Gen. McClellan. Grant was not reluctant: Grant was impetuous and boldly charged into a fray with everything he had, even if he was outnumbered. Grant’s boldness and bravery was a welcome change for Lincoln: he immediately recognized the power that Grant could afford the Union if given more of a dominant role. Lincoln thus showed effective leadership by recognizing the leadership abilities in others—particularly in Grant. Grant was successful first in the western theater and then Lincoln moved him towards the main fight.

Lincoln was effective in identifying the right attributes in others that could help him achieve his mission. An effective leader has to be able to find supporting role players whose abilities align with the needs of the organization. Lincoln would not have won the war if he had allowed Gen. McClellan to remain at the head of the military, for McClellan was too cautious in his approach to the war. Gen. Grant, on the other hand, had one objective—and that was to fight regardless of what forces or readiness the opponent had. Lincoln admired Grant’s fearlessness, and he saw that such fearlessness was exactly what the Union needed.