In Abraham Lincoln, America is so fortunate to have such a great man born, lived and died for her. I am endeavoured to consider that Pax-America derives her good karma from Lincoln's deed.
I said it not in the religious sense. Rather, having read the highly acclaimed "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearn Goodwin, I begin to appreciate and understand better of Lincoln and of the strenght of the American system that make it possible to produce such a truly great leader.
Very often, we tend to classify a great leader in term of the territory they conquer or the building they constructed. To my mind, they are better described as a successful leader. Greatness really mean preaching and practicing universal values that transcend time and geography.
The time was was April 15, 1865 and the place was Washington DC.
Abraham Lincoln died 9 hours later after an assasin struck a bullet into his head when he was watching in a theatre. Lincoln's passing made him one who belongs to the ages. Yes, I subsribed to this view and am convinced that he was really a benovalent and sagacious leader.
In my reading of historical figures, I don't recall any comparison that equal or coming close to such an achievement by any person of such a background within such a short time.
Lincoln, in his two Presidential terms of slightly more than 4 years prematurely terminated by the assasination, was not only maintaining a precarious Northern Union but also succeeded in ending the civil war unifying the United States and in the process presided over the end of slavery.
No question, in territorial term, his accomplishment is but a tiny fraction of what was accomplished by Alexander the Great or Caesar. In architectural term, he left nothing of monumental values resemble even the least of the Shah Jahan's Taj Mahal or the Qin Shiwang's Great Wall.
Lincoln's greatness lies beyond these. His greatness was unusual in that it vested in his magnanimity and good-natured temperament as a leader.
How often a man lost with grace and won in humility? He was one. How often, a man is tolerant of his competitors. He was one. How often the victorious is not vengeful against the loser. He was one.
The team or rivals consisting Willian Seward, the Secretary of State, Edward Bate, the AG, Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War and Salmond Chase, the Secretary of Treasure were largly won over by his sheer strength of character, not imposing or overbearing, but subtle and intelligent.
A contemporary described Lincoln as very wise - if more radical would have offended the conservative - if more conservative the radical. That was the best desciption of the precarious North he was presiding.
At the high time of civil war between the Free States and the Slave States, Lincoln keenly believed that "there never will be two countries.... securing peace to the peoples of our one common country". The dichotomy of free states and slave states echo what we heard now from Obama, the red states and the blue states. These men appeal to the values that laid the state foundation - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When the civil war was coming to an end, Lincoln in his second Presidential inauguration speech said the famous words "with malice towards none; with charity for all,.... to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nation." It is still so apt at this time for America and for the world.
Doris has written an exceptional good book with Lincoln's management of team of rivals and what makes this book even better in my view were those passage that touched on his loss of parents, chidlren and friends, his ability to identify and empathize with others who sufferred a great deal during the war or of disease that made him so human an so sagacious.
Team of Rivals is a very moving book. I felt immense sadness for Abraham and Mary Lincoln for the sacrifce they made without having the opportunity to live long and in happiness to see their accomplishment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Happy New Year! And what a nice post, although it can hardly count as short I certainly look forward to the long version (if one is forthcoming).
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the book and for the link to CNN's interview with the historian/Lincoln biographer James McPherson.
These following paragraphs are thoughts I had written a few days ago in response to the interview for future posting even before reading your present post; but now I find our train of thoughts actually dovetail quite nicely.
What I find very interesting reading the interview was that it reminded me that when historians talked about greats leaders during times of crisis, they very often attributed greatness to temperament. Yes, temperament well beyond other more conventional matrices like intelligence, experience or management skill. Temperament goes even beyond character; character can be a conscious choice but temperament is so inate that the choice was automatic because thats how the person 'is'.
From the insights and examples given in the interview, Lincoln certainly was far from perfect or a genius. Often times he was really scrmabling to learn and improvise on the job but he has this inner moral-compass to carry him through.
This also raised in my mind this question: Does the moment maketh the man (or the leader) or whether a great man maketh his moment? Which comes first action or the reaction? Are defining moments in history simply when an unstoppable force in history meets an unavoidable event?
Skills and experience are useful when managing common and recurring situations. However during extraordinary times of great uncertainty (when fear and chaos often paralyse the ordinary person), more intangible qualities come to the fore: attributes of clarity/presence of mind, compassion, peace/calmness, humility and fearlessness in judgment. Taken together we often call them temperament.
Temperament is also what comes to mind with Mandela and Gandhi. Leading even without power, that has to be the ultimate test.
Post a Comment