I will say that I have been assured that this is a matter of historical fact by a Washington D.C. historian, and that is as far as I verified it, but I liked the story so much, that I would just as soon not know if it shouldn't happen to be true. But I believe it to be true, and at least its consistent with the leadership in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln.
That is, in 1863, as Abraham Lincoln was considering whether to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, it was not an issue that was totally in favor with the Republican Party at the time. But as he deliberated on this issue, he called his Cabinet in, and said, I want to hear from each of you on this Emancipation Proclamation that is here, and that I am considering signing.
So he started his Cabinet on his left, and all around the table, and they were all men at that time, as we know, and the ones that had the right to vote back then. The first one, the Cabinet member said, Mr. President, my advice to you is, no, don't sign the Emancipation Proclamation, because after all, the blacks that are north of the Mason-Dixon line are free today, and it doesn't help them.
So the next Cabinet member chimed in, and he said, Those south of the Mason-Dixon line, you can't free them because they are in the Confederacy, so your jurisdiction doesn't reach there today. It is a gesture and a gesture only.
The third Cabinet Member said, But it is, it is an empty gesture, because on the north side of the line and on the south side of line there isn't anybody that you can free with the Emancipation Proclamation. It is simply a symbolic act. As this went around the table, around the Cabinet room table, and each Cabinet member said to President Lincoln, Mr. President, my advice to you is, no, don't sign it, because among other things, you will alienate some of the people in the north that are pro-slavery that are still fighting under the blue uniform, or the Union.
There was reason after reason why President Lincoln shouldn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation and not a single reason given by any member of the Cabinet as to why he should sign the Emancipation Proclamation. So it was nay, nay, nay, nay, Mr. President, all the way around that table, his best advisors.
President Lincoln took ahold of his lapels, and he said, Well, gentleman, the aye has it. That story is a story of leadership, and it is a story that I hope goes down in history for a long time.
2007-01-22 04:16:13 · 8 answers · asked by CaptainObvious 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
His best commander, McClelland, did not want to continue the war. Lincoln was vilified for continuing the war, despite a majority of Americans being against it. Obviously he was a tyrant and a fool and an idiot for not listening to others, right? Right?
2007-01-22 04:38:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln replaced right into a Republican and while the Whigs social gathering shutdown some switched to Democrat and others switched to Republican. the reason Whigs social gathering shutdown interior the 1st place is with the help of the fact they replaced into divided, Lincoln switched to the Republican social gathering using fact he believed of their political ideals greater so then the Democrats like to illustrate freeing the slaves witch of direction is what the Republican social gathering replaced into in keeping with. Liberals consistently attempt to take credit for something it relatively is robust and blame the Republicans for each little thing it relatively is undesirable, maximum Republicans that i understand can see there is robust and undesirable human beings in the two political events however the different hand maximum Liberals that I had talked with suggested all Liberals is robust and all Republicans is undesirable hence maximum Democrats call Lincoln a Liberal attempting to take credit for his stable artwork. If human beings took the time to look at Lincoln political ideals like to illustrate economy, social, and the militia they might see his perspectives are in basic terms like the Republican social gathering we see today common-sense. in case you will do examine superb to be open mined and not purely have faith what you choose for to pay attention additionally don't be bias.
2016-11-01 00:02:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree ... both lincoln and fdr stood up and used their leadership powers to make decisions and lead the country, and were even labeled "dictators" in their time by some... however there were actually real issues facing the country .. its been shown that in a democracy things dont work too well in a time of crisis and strong leadership and initiative is necessary ... however, in the present situation i believe the "crisis" has been created as an excuse to seize power ... a totally different scenario ... but thats just my opinion ...
2007-01-22 04:23:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not. Lincoln had some of the best advisors in history and he choose them because they were his biggest critics. Imagine if Bush had done that with his advisors? Oh yea, I forgot that Bush only hires "yes men/women" & any advisor that doesn't agree with him 100% of the time is fired ASAP.
2007-01-22 04:29:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
George Bush is no Abraham Lincoln.
2007-01-22 04:23:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you are trying to make this a story to make Bush look good, stop.
What's happening with Bush is the complete opposite, the people around him tells him what he wants to hear.
2007-01-22 04:22:54 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Democrates refer to him as a monkey.
How more things change the more they remain the same.
2007-01-22 04:31:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
difference error difference issues and circumstances
2007-01-22 04:27:52 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋