A Lesson on Leadership

[Correll]

Irony is reading a post from a sniveling bed wetter who still believes that meat puppet faggot messiah of his was a "leader", or even a decent fucking human being.

Anyone who voted for obozo doesn't have a clue what leadership actually is.

.

You clearly have no clue as to leadership, anyone who voted for trump and does not see a megalomaniac is out of touch with reality. Trump's recent (apparent) narcissistic rage is evidence he is unfit to be POTUS.

By Definition, everyone who runs for the office of the US president, considers themselves to be a good choice to be the most powerful person on the planet.


Calling one of those people, "narcissistic" is king of weak.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Interesting claim. You made the claim. Now support it with reason.

Apparently you've never been a successful leader, or any leader in fact. The reason is to lead subordinates with the necessary truths, actively listen to them and when you are wrong, admit it. It's really that simple, and very easy if the leader is consistent, not vindictive and knows what subordinates do and on occasion fits in and lifts the load with them.

When did LIncoln admit "the necessary truths"? When did he admit that his goal was abolition of slavery, even if it meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men? for one example,

No man is prefect, I suggest you read: LINCOLN, a life of purpose and power by Richard Carwardine. Chapter 4 (The Limits of Power from President elect to wartime president) and Chap 5 (The Purpose of Power: Evolving Objectives).

It is on Amazon Prime for $10.95

You made a claim AND you set a standard for proving it. I'm just asking about the example you must have already considered, since you went though the analysis of Lincoln, using those standards and found that he met them.


So, what is the biggest and best example of LIncoln telling the American people a " necessary truth"?


I always gave Lincoln a lot of credit for some things, but honesty was never one of them. To his credit of course.

There is a time to lie, and if his lies to the Southerns, had worked, ie prevented a Civil War, and thus saved hundreds of thousands of lives, I would have considered him a great President and one of the greatest liars of all time.

But we are discussing YOUR analysis. What is his big Truth, that he told the American people?

Pg. 136 in the book I noted above:

"The President-in-waiting was prepared to run the risk of a de facto breakup of the Union rather than relinquish the high ground of nonextension; to yield on that would be to invite the disintegration of his party, the only political force capable of implementing the egalitarian principles of the Declaration of Independence."​

​

Notes: 356-357 on the limits of power​

Yes, I understand that that is where he was coming from.

My understanding of history is that at this point, he dishonestly pretended to be willing to negotiate false promises of protecting slavery in order to either lure the south into a false feeling of security and prevent the Civil War, OR, failing that, to dishonestly present to the people of the North the idea that he had done all that could be done, to save the union, and now they had to fight.


You set the standard of leadership as telling "the necessary truths", and said that Lincoln met them.


So, when did he tell the people of the United States this truth, or what did he tell them that, in your mind, was him showing leadership in that way?

Note his believe in the first part of the Declaration of Independence, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, later followed by the Proclamation of Emancipation. I'm certain this did not provide liberty and the pursuit of happiness and even life to the generations of black men and women even today; but remember this proclamation was a heroic gesture by a man who wanted to keep the Union of States, using both the words of the Founding Fathers and Scripture to support this necessary truth.

Ten years later Jim Crow superseded white men's privilege in the South and lasted in words if not in deeds for a hundred years.

 

[Richard-H]

Love him or hate him, the fact is that Lincoln won the Civil war, held the Union together and freed the slaves. He accomplished his goals against heavy odds - that defines him as a great leader.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Irony is reading a post from a sniveling bed wetter who still believes that meat puppet faggot messiah of his was a "leader", or even a decent fucking human being.

Anyone who voted for obozo doesn't have a clue what leadership actually is.

.

You clearly have no clue as to leadership, anyone who voted for trump and does not see a megalomaniac is out of touch with reality. Trump's recent (apparent) narcissistic rage is evidence he is unfit to be POTUS.

By Definition, everyone who runs for the office of the US president, considers themselves to be a good choice to be the most powerful person on the planet.


Calling one of those people, "narcissistic" is king of weak.

Not true. Power corrupts only those who are easily corrupted. Giving someone a badge, even when they have been fully vetted and on the job, were in my agency placed on one years probation. During that time they can be let go, if the hiring authority comes to the conclusion they have abused that power.

 

[Correll]

Interesting claim. You made the claim. Now support it with reason.

Apparently you've never been a successful leader, or any leader in fact. The reason is to lead subordinates with the necessary truths, actively listen to them and when you are wrong, admit it. It's really that simple, and very easy if the leader is consistent, not vindictive and knows what subordinates do and on occasion fits in and lifts the load with them.

When did LIncoln admit "the necessary truths"? When did he admit that his goal was abolition of slavery, even if it meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men? for one example,

No man is prefect, I suggest you read: LINCOLN, a life of purpose and power by Richard Carwardine. Chapter 4 (The Limits of Power from President elect to wartime president) and Chap 5 (The Purpose of Power: Evolving Objectives).

It is on Amazon Prime for $10.95

You made a claim AND you set a standard for proving it. I'm just asking about the example you must have already considered, since you went though the analysis of Lincoln, using those standards and found that he met them.


So, what is the biggest and best example of LIncoln telling the American people a " necessary truth"?


I always gave Lincoln a lot of credit for some things, but honesty was never one of them. To his credit of course.

There is a time to lie, and if his lies to the Southerns, had worked, ie prevented a Civil War, and thus saved hundreds of thousands of lives, I would have considered him a great President and one of the greatest liars of all time.

But we are discussing YOUR analysis. What is his big Truth, that he told the American people?

Pg. 136 in the book I noted above:

"The President-in-waiting was prepared to run the risk of a de facto breakup of the Union rather than relinquish the high ground of nonextension; to yield on that would be to invite the disintegration of his party, the only political force capable of implementing the egalitarian principles of the Declaration of Independence."​

​

Notes: 356-357 on the limits of power​

Yes, I understand that that is where he was coming from.

My understanding of history is that at this point, he dishonestly pretended to be willing to negotiate false promises of protecting slavery in order to either lure the south into a false feeling of security and prevent the Civil War, OR, failing that, to dishonestly present to the people of the North the idea that he had done all that could be done, to save the union, and now they had to fight.


You set the standard of leadership as telling "the necessary truths", and said that Lincoln met them.


So, when did he tell the people of the United States this truth, or what did he tell them that, in your mind, was him showing leadership in that way?

Note his believe in the first part of the Declaration of Independence, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, later followed by the Proclamation of Emancipation. I'm certain this did not provide liberty and the pursuit of happiness and even life to the generations of black men and women even today; but remember this proclamation was a heroic gesture by a man who wanted to keep the Union of States, using both the words of the Founding Fathers and Scripture to support this necessary truth.

Ten years later Jim Crow superseded white men's privilege in the South and lasted in words if not in deeds for a hundred years.

None of that is relevant to what we are discussing.


You made the claim that leadership is telling the " necessary truths", supposedly learned from looking at Lincoln.


The Core Truth of Lincoln is that he was determined to end slavery and was prepared to fight a bloody war to do it.

His attempts at diplomacy with the South was deceptive, not truthful. His promises of NOT ending slavery were obvious lies.

He spun this to the people of the North, with him presenting the war to them as "preserving the Union" when really, all he had to do for that, was not run for office in the first place, or to actually give the Southern leadership what they wanted, which was more slave states.


And to be clear, I wish he had succeeded. IMO, the world would be a better place, if the southern leaders were dumb enough to believe his lies, and slavery ended as Lincoln initially intended, by legislation, 10 to 20 years later.


But the topic here is your views on leadership, per Lincoln.


When was he clear to the American people about his goal and the cost he was willing to pay to get there?

 

[Correll]

Irony is reading a post from a sniveling bed wetter who still believes that meat puppet faggot messiah of his was a "leader", or even a decent fucking human being.

Anyone who voted for obozo doesn't have a clue what leadership actually is.

.

You clearly have no clue as to leadership, anyone who voted for trump and does not see a megalomaniac is out of touch with reality. Trump's recent (apparent) narcissistic rage is evidence he is unfit to be POTUS.

By Definition, everyone who runs for the office of the US president, considers themselves to be a good choice to be the most powerful person on the planet.


Calling one of those people, "narcissistic" is king of weak.

Not true. Power corrupts only those who are easily corrupted. Giving someone a badge, even when they have been fully vetted and on the job, were in my agency placed on one years probation. During that time they can be let go, if the hiring authority comes to the conclusion they have abused that power.

Nothing in your reply addressed my point.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Lincoln was a master politician as well as a profound thinker and morally thoughtful person. His training in the law and personal experience in life and politics gave him rare insight into the problems facing the country. Any serious study of his life or even just of his speeches shows how careful and precise he was in limiting and enunciating his aims. He was no demagogue.

Some here seem to think that to be a master politician requires one to be a masterful conman, a boaster, someone who lies constantly, or “a tyrant.” That was not Lincoln.

 

[Correll]

Lincoln was a master politician as well as a profound thinker and morally thoughtful person. His training in the law and personal experience in life and politics gave him rare insight into the problems facing the country. Any serious study of his life or even just of his speeches shows how careful and precise he was in limiting and enunciating his aims. He was no demagogue.

Some here seem to think that to be a master politician requires one to be a masterful conman, a boaster, someone who lies constantly, or “a tyrant.” That was not Lincoln.

The op is attempting to link Truthfulness and Leadership. It was his choice to use LIncoln to do so.


I don't see it, in Lincoln's actions. He was at times, in his use of rhetorical persuasion techniques and his use of diplomacy, quite sly.


I'm not denying his leadership, I'm denying his "honesty".

And to be clear, I wish he has been even more sly. This country, at that time, could have used a "con man" that could have convinced the Southern slaver owners that their institution was safe, as Lincoln tried to do, while in fact it was doomed, as it obviously was.

THAT hypothetical Leader, would have been an even better Leader, than Lincoln was, to get his goals without having to fight a bloody war to get them.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Lincoln was a master politician as well as a profound thinker and morally thoughtful person. His training in the law and personal experience in life and politics gave him rare insight into the problems facing the country. Any serious study of his life or even just of his speeches shows how careful and precise he was in limiting and enunciating his aims. He was no demagogue.

Some here seem to think that to be a master politician requires one to be a masterful conman, a boaster, someone who lies constantly, or “a tyrant.” That was not Lincoln.

The op is attempting to link Truthfulness and Leadership. It was his choice to use LIncoln to do so.


I don't see it, in Lincoln's actions. He was at times, in his use of rhetorical persuasion techniques and his use of diplomacy, quite sly.


I'm not denying his leadership, I'm denying his "honesty".

And to be clear, I wish he has been even more sly. This country, at that time, could have used a "con man" that could have convinced the Southern slaver owners that their institution was safe, as Lincoln tried to do, while in fact it was doomed, as it obviously was.

THAT hypothetical Leader, would have been an even better Leader, than Lincoln was, to get his goals without having to fight a bloody war to get them.

Political leaders need not always be truthful. They rarely are. But a time comes in the history of nations and men when only hard truthtelling can lead forward.

No amount of clever talking, no brilliant plan for another “Great Compromise,” could have prevented the outbreak of that “irrepressible conflict.” It had all been tried and failed. “Fate & the Cotten Gin” played key roles for sure. But after bloody Kansas, after The Dred Scott Decision, as black “self-emancipated” men and women were hunted down even in abolitionist strongholds and returned to masters in the South, after southern representatives inside Congress drew pistols to protect another as he beat abolitionist Charles Sumner almost to death with a cane ... time had run out for more self-deluding lies.

When Lincoln gave his “House Divided” speech in Springfield in 1958, his closest friend and advisor thought he was making a terrible mistake, and it did indeed cause him to lose that election. But Lincoln shrugged and said he couldn’t NOT say what he did. Lincoln had taken care to use the biblical expression, and not frame the issue like his more fiery Republican opponent Howard Seward did, speaking provocatively of the “irrepressible conflict” later that year. This was typical of Lincoln. Not to lie, not to needlessly inflame, but to face reality.

Here’s a short article that I think captures what made him a GREAT leader, by the always interesting Carl Cannon: Where Lincoln Stood on Slavery | RealClearPolitics

It shows Lincoln’s clever use of a formulation that I believe truly captured his thinking up to the outbreak of the War:

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave,” I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

This “sly” expression showed Lincoln to be a shrewd and clever politician (he had already decided to change his position and issue the Emancipation Proclamation). I don’t see any others who could have matched him in political savvy, then or earlier.

I also don’t think anybody could have “fooled” most of the states that joined the Confederacy into staying in the Union, something their arrogant and determined slaveholding elites flatly rejected.

 

[blackhawk]

Lincoln was one of our nations greatest Presidents but he was far from perfect or a saint.
10 Reasons Lincoln Was Secretly A Terrible President - Listverse

 

[Correll]

Lincoln was a master politician as well as a profound thinker and morally thoughtful person. His training in the law and personal experience in life and politics gave him rare insight into the problems facing the country. Any serious study of his life or even just of his speeches shows how careful and precise he was in limiting and enunciating his aims. He was no demagogue.

Some here seem to think that to be a master politician requires one to be a masterful conman, a boaster, someone who lies constantly, or “a tyrant.” That was not Lincoln.

The op is attempting to link Truthfulness and Leadership. It was his choice to use LIncoln to do so.


I don't see it, in Lincoln's actions. He was at times, in his use of rhetorical persuasion techniques and his use of diplomacy, quite sly.


I'm not denying his leadership, I'm denying his "honesty".

And to be clear, I wish he has been even more sly. This country, at that time, could have used a "con man" that could have convinced the Southern slaver owners that their institution was safe, as Lincoln tried to do, while in fact it was doomed, as it obviously was.

THAT hypothetical Leader, would have been an even better Leader, than Lincoln was, to get his goals without having to fight a bloody war to get them.

Political leaders need not always be truthful. They rarely are. But a time comes in the history of nations and men when only hard truthtelling can lead forward.

No amount of clever talking, no brilliant plan for another “Great Compromise,” could have prevented the outbreak of that “irrepressible conflict.” It had all been tried and failed. “Fate & the Cotten Gin” played key roles for sure. But after bloody Kansas, after The Dred Scott Decision, as black “self-emancipated” men and women were hunted down even in abolitionist strongholds and returned to masters in the South, after southern representatives inside Congress drew pistols to protect another as he beat abolitionist Charles Sumner almost to death with a cane ... time had run out for more self-deluding lies.

When Lincoln gave his “House Divided” speech in Springfield in 1958, his closest friend and advisor thought he was making a terrible mistake, and it did indeed cause him to lose that election. But Lincoln shrugged and said he couldn’t NOT say what he did. Lincoln had taken care to use the biblical expression, and not frame the issue like his more fiery Republican opponent Howard Seward did, speaking provocatively of the “irrepressible conflict” later that year. This was typical of Lincoln. Not to lie, not to needlessly inflame, but to face reality.

Here’s a short article that I think captures what made him a GREAT leader, by the always interesting Carl Cannon: Where Lincoln Stood on Slavery | RealClearPolitics

It shows Lincoln’s clever use of a formulation that I believe truly captured his thinking up to the outbreak of the War:

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave,” I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

This “sly” expression showed Lincoln to be a shrewd and clever politician (he had already decided to change his position and issue the Emancipation Proclamation). I don’t see any others who could have matched him in political savvy, then or earlier.

I also don’t think anybody could have “fooled” most of the states that joined the Confederacy into staying in the Union, something their arrogant and determined slaveholding elites flatly rejected.

You talk of an unpreventable “irrepressible conflict.” and "hard truth telling" and how it was too late for any further compromises.


But then you give Lincoln credit for trying to "not to needlessly inflame" in his rhetoric, and quote him talking about how his goal was to "save the Union".


This all flies in the face of the OP, which is that leadership is about telling the Truth.


Lincoln's passion was NOT preserving the Union, but abolishing slavery. His election was the immediate THREAT to the Union, because the South saw him as their enemy. His talk of not being motivated by that, was obviously a lie.


Persuasive rhetoric, diplomacy, politics, all generally require some level of evasion and deception. And let's not even talk about war.


And you want another Truth? This is not in the History sub forum for a reason. THis is about Rye Catcher's anti-Trump hysteria.


If Lincoln can talk shit about not being motivated by abolishing slavery and still be considered a Great Leader, than Trump can talk shit about Obama's birthplace and still be a great leader TOO.

After all, Trump's Birtherism, is not likely to get 600 thousand Americans killed.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Correll —

The OP is about Lincoln and leadership.

You cannot discuss Abraham Lincoln’s “leadership” of our nation during its greatest internal crisis with calm and logic, without distorting history, without ... comparing him to Donald Trump!

I would be open to discuss the “leadership qualities” of not only the great Lincoln but also different Confederate leaders, including even some I might despise, or on the other hand I would be open to discuss what made abolitionists like John Brown and Frederick Douglass real leaders ... all with calm and logic, without demagogy, with respect for historical circumstance, without once saying any of them “talked shit.”

What I won’t do is waste any more time arguing with YOU.

 

[Correll]

Correll —

The OP is about Lincoln and leadership.

You cannot discuss Abraham Lincoln’s “leadership” of our nation during its greatest internal crisis with calm and logic, without distorting history, without ... comparing him to Donald Trump!

I would be open to discuss the “leadership qualities” of not only the great Lincoln but also different Confederate leaders, including even some I might despise, or on the other hand I would be open to discuss what made abolitionists like John Brown and Frederick Douglass real leaders ... all with calm and logic, without demagogy, with respect for historical circumstance, without once saying any of them “talked shit.”

What I won’t do is waste any more time arguing with YOU.

If you did not want to compare Lincoln to Trump, you should have addressed that to the OP. Because that is obviously what this thread is about.


My point about Lincoln's motivation and the inherent dishonesty of his offers to the Confederacy leadership, are valid points.

AND considering the example set by your refusal to talk about issues to people on the other side, in the context of increasing division and strife, looking at a past president dealing with bitter division,


is actually quite timely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Apparently you've never been a successful leader, or any leader in fact.

Curious, and what standing do you have to lecture others on leadership?

Idiot-grams?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. -Aeschylus

I like your signature quote from Aeschylus. I have a weak spot for all the Greek playwrights (except Aristophanes). I especially love the way they could arrive at so many deep philosophical and even moral insights ... without believing in a single all powerful God. They also had quite a bit to say about polity and leadership.

A few more good quotes from Aeschylus:

“The truth
Has to be melted out of our stubborn lives
By suffering.
Nothing speaks the truth,
Nothing tells us how things really are,
Nothing forces us to know
What we do not want to know
Except pain.
And this is how the gods declare their love.”

”Self-will in the man who does not reckon wisely
Is by itself the weakest of all things.”

 

[Rye Catcher]

OP....

I'd be very pleased to walk on your neck.

 

[Oddball]

OP....

I'd be very pleased to walk on your neck.

I have no doubt that you have lots of practice putting your jackboots on necks.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Apparently you've never been a successful leader, or any leader in fact.

Curious, and what standing do you have to lecture others on leadership?

Idiot-grams?

I directed four supervisors who supervised four supervisors who supervised 12 supervisors who each supervised leads in six units in a 24-7-365 jail. In total I was responsible for dozens or sworn deputies along with the leads in the kitchen staff, the maintenance staff and the outside security staff.

 

[Thinker101]

Apparently you've never been a successful leader, or any leader in fact.

Curious, and what standing do you have to lecture others on leadership?

Idiot-grams?

I directed four supervisors who supervised four supervisors who supervised 12 supervisors who each supervised leads in six units in a 24-7-365 jail. In total I was responsible for dozens or sworn deputies along with the leads in the kitchen staff, the maintenance staff and the outside security staff.

In other words, there were enough layers implemented so you managed to dodge any and all responsibility...good for you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I directed four supervisors who supervised four supervisors who supervised 12 supervisors who each supervised leads in six units in a 24-7-365 jail. In total, I was responsible for dozens or sworn deputies along with the leads in the kitchen staff, the maintenance staff, and the outside security staff.

Okay. So, what makes you think this qualifies you to lecture the President on how to do his job?

How is the position you held, and the position the President holds similar?

America isn't a prison, Rye, it is a democracy, a republic. Prisoners have basic rights and no say-so in how the system works, free law-abiding Americans have all of their rights. They can redress the system (government) any time they choose by multiple methods, voting, protesting, peaceful rebellion.

Wait.

You know what?

That reply of yours offered me some insight into how you, as a theoretical president, would treat American citizens during the COVID-19 crisis and similar other crises. You would treat them in the only way familiar to you: Like prisoners in a 24-7-365 jail complex. Not too dissimilar to the Governor of Michigan.

Might I suggest you stick to your day job? And please don't lecture me or anyone else about leadership, okay? You are wholly unqualified.