Oliver P. Morton was a man of many talents and a man who stood out above the rest during the Civil War. A local product from Indiana, Morton who displayed a skillful leadership, a strong and stubborn personality, and sometimes ruthless policies made him one of the most prominent figures not only on the state level but also on the national level. At the time of the Civil War issues such as race and slavery, economics and power dominated Indiana politics. The rallying point and the man that stood in the middle of all the issues Indiana was facing was Oliver P. Morton. He was responsible for rallying and unifying the Hoosiers. Morton prepared the Hoosiers to fight in the Union Army. To truly understand Oliver P. Morton’s impact on Indiana, …show more content…
By 1852, he was elected as a circuit judge. Morton was a democrat as a young man but as we will soon learn that was about to change. The Kansas-Nebraska bill repealing the Missouri Compromise’s ban on slavery west of Missouri had a profound impact on the political parties of the time. Morton realized that the time to take a stand was now. He took a strong stand against the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Popular Sovereignty. In doing so he associated and switched his allegiances with the free soil wing. Soon, however under the influence of Senator Jesse Bright, the party began to expel anti-slavery members which included Morton. Within time Morton found his final political home with the newly formed Republican Party. In 1856 was one of the three delegates from Indiana to attened the first ever Republican convention in Pittsburgh. Morton left such an impact on the party that in 1856 he was unanimously nominated by the new party for Governor of Indiana, against Ashbel P. Willard. Although Morton lost the race for Governor he had made a name for himself and had built a reputation as being one of the most able politicians in the state.
During the 1856 governor’s race Morton especially gained popularity among the Republican Party in Indiana for his speeches against slavery. The vast majority of Indiana took the antislavery position. The antislavely position was essentially a “big umbrella” that a majority of northerners came to agreement
I start this project on Lincoln’s leadership very reluctantly. I am a history buff and have always viewed his leadership through the eyes of jaded historians. They have portrayed him as a dictator, incompetent, and a buffoon at some points. After reading the Donald T. Phillips book Lincoln on Leadership, my mindset was totally changed. This book broke down four key areas that produced an effective leader in Lincoln. These areas are character, people, endeavor, and communication. I will be sharing a principal from each key area that I found important and then conclude with an overall thought.
Rutherford B Hayes resigned to campaign all across Ohio to run for governor. The biggest topic of the election was whether African-Americans would get voting rights. The election was won by Hayes in 1867, but he had some struggles. He was a Republican under a Democratic legislator and had no veto power. However, he helped create a deaf-mute school and a school for girls. In his second term, he won voting rights for black males, and helped what would become Ohio State University be founded. He also brought the idea of lower taxes and a better life for prisoners. He left office in 1872 and came back in 1876 and served a year long term.
The entire truly tragic sense of the Lost Cause was that the South’s men knew their cause was lost, they knew there was really no way they could possibly win, and yet they fought on with tremendous bravery and dedication. The Civil War was such a poignant and even heart-wrenching time (Bowman, 2006, p.756). Despite the long-held notion that the South had all of the better generals, it really had only one good Army commander and that was General Lee. The rest were second-raters, at best (Donald, 1996, pp. 9-21). The North, on the other hand, had the good fortune of bringing along and nurturing people like Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, Philip Sheridan, George Thomas, and others.
Has your leadership ever been tested and what do you set your foundation on? If the country became divided and you had to choose a side, could you? What would you base your decision off of? This is the decision that Robert E. Lee faced when the Civil War kicked off. Robert E. Lee was a visionary leader and ethical leader during the Civil War. First, as a visionary leader, Robert E. Lee set his leadership foundation on self-discipline and used Transformational Leadership Behavior “Individualized Consideration” to lead and motivate his troops into battle even when they were outnumbered. Furthermore, as an ethical leader, Robert E. Lee’s loyalty to his homeland allowed him to overcome an “ethical dilemma” using “critical thinking” to avoid an “ethical trap.” Finally, Robert E. Lee’s actions allowed me to reflect on improvements to my visionary and ethical leadership traits in my new assignment and deployed environments. Robert E. Lee knew he had to be “self-aware” and utilize his men to their full potential before he could march them onto the battlefield where the odds were against them.
In May of 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska act bill was passed by the U.S Congress. The bill was introduced by Senator Stephen A. Douglas (Discovering our Past; The History of the United States Early Years p.431 and 432). The bill gives the people of Kansas and Nebraska territory popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is letting the people of the Kansas and Nebraska territory choose whether to allow slavery or not. The textbook(Discovering our Past; The History of the United States Early Years p. 432) states that “Douglas hoped to make his plans acceptable to both the North and South. He propose repealing the Missouri Compromise and letting the voters in each territory vote on whether or not to allow slavery” (notes) Kansas with slavery would
Due to Johnson’s lenient policies towards the South, he failed to achieve the nomination of his party for the presidential election of 1868. Congress clearly won the battle by overriding his vetoes of key acts in their effort to change the fabric of Southern
Henry Clay served as both Senator and Representative from Kentucky. He was elected to the Senate a total of four times, and to the House a total of three. He served as Speaker of the House on three separate occasions, and was the Secretary of State under President John Quincy Adams, between the years 1825 and 1829. Most of Clay's political career was with the Democratic Republican Party, and he ran for president in the election of 1824 as a Democratic Republican against John Quincy Adams. Clay ran for President two other times, as a National Republican Party candidate in 1832, and as a Whig Party candidate in 1844. Clay's legacy in American politics is highly controversial, due to his support for the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. Clay was also a slave owner.
Although the Proviso was not adopted it resulted in a total breakdown of the party system along sectional lines and was indicative of an increasing unwillingness on both sides for the political compromise that had one been the norm as exemplified by the Missouri Compromise. Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, which was introduced by the Compromise of 1850, is further evidence of this growing animosity between the two main factions of American society. Southerners saw Northern refusal to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act as an affront to their Constitutionally assured property rights. The final straw as far as the collapse of political compromise in America was the election of 1860. The result was the election of Abraham Lincoln, a Northern Republican candidate staunchly opposed to the expansion of slavery.
Sam Houston’s vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was his most detested he ever gave. The bill also disagreed with everything the Texan people stood for. People said he “betrayed his state in the Senate,” “joined the Abolitionists,” and “Deserted the South” (96). The Democratic State Convention didn’t approve with his decision and said, “[He] was not
When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.
In 1861 two armies went head to head. One had the best military leaders while another had a massive amount of soldiers. The Union and the Confederate armies were brawling over slavery. During the Civil War soldiers were involved in a lot of combat, so when battles broke out, there was much blood shed and death. Gettysburg, the biggest and bloodiest battle of the Civil War, persisted a total of three days, leaving approximately 7,000 Americans dead and 30,000 wounded. The Confederate leaders weren't very successful commanding at Gettysburg, that's what lead to the loss. One leader, Richard Ewell, was indecisive, and slow to act because he hesitated to attack the Union Army on Cemetery Hill at Gettysburg.
He stated he didn’t mind if it was voted for or not. What put him in trouble, nevertheless, was the inappropriate use of his opinion of moral supremacy in Kansas Territory. The Act of 1854 repealed the Missouri Compromise’s ban on slavery. Alternatively, the immigrants of the region would decide whether it would be subject to slavery4. For the Kansas, that did not imply. He had assumed that the method of popular supremacy would remove the problem of slavery’s extension from Congress and lay it in the colonies . He presumed that he was creating an ideal concession to Southern concerns and dignity, but that the functional result of this would be to encourage free
With Sarah by his side he had many campaign victories. Being a supporter of Andrew Jackson’s democratic policies at age twenty-nine he was elected to the U.S. Congress. From 1825-39 James was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and was serving as its speaker (Evisum Inc). After serving as speaker he became Governor of Tennessee in 1839-1841. In 1844 Democrats were having a difficult time getting 2/3 of the vote to nominate a presidential candidate, Polk who was running for the position of vice president, became nominated for the presidential candidate (Kelly). The focus on the campaign was to annex Texas which Polk was for the idea versus Clay who opposed the idea. Clay opposing the idea led Polk to victory.