The Speeches of Richmond and Richard in Shakespeare's Richard III Essay

The Speeches of Richmond and Richard in Shakespeare's Richard III - Essay Example In Act III, Richard has the two princes imprisoned in the Tower of London. He also gets rid of all the people who might stand between him and the throne and spreads the rumor that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth was invalid and hence the children illegitimate and did not have right to the throne. In Act IV, Richard is finally crowned the King of England. However, he still fells insecure that the princes may one day stake their claim at the throne and so has them killed. The last and the final Act, shows the preparations for the Battle, the actual battle and Richard's death in a bloody duel with Richmond. Richmond does not enter the play until the final Act, but as the one who finally defeats Richard his character is shown to be virtuous in contrast to the evil Richard. The contrast between Richard and Richmond's characters is best brought out in the speeches that the two give to their respective armies just before the start of the Battle. The Act V, Scene III shows the preparations ma de by the two warring sides on the night before and early morning of the battle. Scene III is one of the longest scenes of the play and culminates with the two commanders addressing their troops. The two speeches bring out the basic characteristics of Richard and Richmond. ... Also, by promising that he would martyr himself if the need arises, he showed that he was a leader of men. Richard, on the other hand, tells the soldiers that their adversaries were not worthy people and were just "scum of Bretons, and base lackey peasants" and were led by a "paltry fellow", "a milk-sop". His speech does not say anything that would lift his soldiers' spirits or fill them with enthusiasm to defeat the enemy. If anything, the speech made it look like that defeating the invaders should be a child's play. The ineffectiveness of the speech and his words raise questions regarding Richard's leadership abilities. Richard was fighting the battle to protect his kingdom and his right to the throne. As such he should have been much more motivated to win the battle and prove to everyone that he truly deserved to be the king. Unfortunately, he did not take Richmond's threat seriously. Richard had ascended the throne with relative ease by either convincing people to side with him o r killing those who opposed him. He thought of himself as an intelligent and charismatic person who could get anything that he wanted. Until the battle of the Bosworth Field, he had never really been challenged because he had taken care to kill all those who could challenge him. As a result, his speech reflected his arrogance. Unlike Richmond, Richard's speech did not promise to lead his troops from the front or to die for the cause if need be. Instead, he arrogantly told his troops to "whip these stragglers o'er the seas again" because the invaders were not worthy enough to "enjoy our lands". He did not appeal to his soldiers to protect the honor of the land from foreigners,

Self Leadership Another Way To Achieve Performance Education Essay

Self Leadership Another Way To Achieve Performance Education Essay Abstract In the quest for employee performance organizations seek novel leadership strategies. Self leadership behavioral-focused, natural-reward and constructive-thought strategies provide a sound solution (Houghton, 2006). Research across diverse settings has shown that the practices of effective self-leadership strategies can lead to many benefits including enhanced motivation, positive self-efficacy perception, and improved employee performance (Bandura, 1991). Rooted in social learning theory cognitive evaluation theory, self-leadership is more comprehensive theory of self influence than self-control and self-management theories. A conceptual self leadership frame work for employee performance is also suggested in this paper for organizational application. Keywords: Self-Leadership, Self-leadership Strategies, Self efficacy/Personal mastery, Motivation, Employee performance. Introduction The most influential part in our life that has the ability to support growth than anyone else is our own self. This paper is not about the leadership of others, rather something more fundamental and more powerful i.e. self-leadership. Simply stated leadership is an art of mobilizing others for shared aspirations (Bass, 1995). Leadership is the behavior of an individual when he is directing the activities of a group towards a shared goal (Coons, 1957). Leadership requires using power to influence the thoughts and actions of other people (Zalenik, 1992). Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished (Engle, 1986). Leadership is a social process in which one individual influences the behavior of others without the use of threat and violence (Buchannan, 1997). The simplest definition of leadership perhaps is a process of influence between a leader and follower (Hollander, 1978). There are many definitions or descriptions of leadership based on equally vast and differing viewpoints. So in the light of above, Self-Leadership can be described as a process of self influence to navigate own-self for achieving desired outcome (Manz, 1992). In fact, as the opening lines suggest, our greatest latent source of leadership and influence comes not from an external  leader, but from within ourselves. Self Leadership Self-leadership theory is based on self-influence, self-management and self control theories that has recently gained significant popularity and inspiring potential for application in modern organizations. Simply stated, self-leadership is a process through which people influence themselves to achieve the self-direction and self-motivation required to behave and perform in desirable ways (Manz Neck, 1999). Self-leadership is rooted in Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) and Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986). Social learning theory explains that how people can influence their own cognition, motivation, and behavior (Yun, 2006). On the other side, social cognitive theory explains that there is a continuous interaction between people and their environment (Davidson, 2000) and behavioral outcomes are means of information and motivation (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, how self-leaders think and behave according to cognitive, motivational, and behavioral strategies (Yun, 2006) is explained by Self-Leadership theory. This is a process of self-influence which is facilitated through the use of both behavioral and cognitive strategies. Self-leadership has three distinctive strategies: behavior-focused strategies, natural reward strategies, and constructive thought pattern strategies (Houghton, 2006). Behavior-focused strategies comprises on self goal setting, self observation, self-reward, self punishment and self cueing. These strategies are intended to strengthen positive, desirable behaviors (e.g. Job performance, Team Performance). Behavior-focused strategies are particularly useful in managing behavior related for achieving performance including its unpleasant aspects. Natural-reward strategies focus on tasks that are intrinsically motivating. These strategies can also include the focusing of attention on more satisfying or rewarding aspects of a given job or task rather than on the unpleasant or difficult aspects. Constructive-thought pattern strategies focus on how thinking functional patterns are created and maintained. These strategies include identification and replacement of false self assumptions and irrational beliefs, creating of mental imagery for future successful performance, and positive self talks. Combining all these strategies yields an impressive package of self-influence kit that has a huge potential for organizational application in todays rapidly changing business environment. Self-leadership is a more comprehensive theory of self-influence than both self-control and self-management (Manz, 1986). Self-leadership combines the behavioral strategies suggested by self-management and self-control with cognitive strategies based on the concepts of intrinsic motivation and constructive thinking patterns. Self-leadership is more of a broader concept than both the theories of self-control and self-management. Self-management highlight extrinsic rewards (e.g. monetary rewards, praise, recognition, and self-reinforcement based on external stimuli). But self-leadership goes beyond this viewpoint and focuses on natural rewards. Natural rewards imply that performance of the task or activity is a reward in itself (Manz Neck, 1999). In summary, conceptualization of natural rewards in self-leadership theory is mainly based on the intrinsic motivation literature. Motivation, according to one definition, is an attribute that moves us to do or not to do something (Garrison, Broussard and Gredler, 2004).Motivation refers to the motives underlying behavior (Guay et al., 2010). Motivation can also be defined as voluntary uses of high-level self-regulated learning strategies, such as paying attention, connection, planning and monitoring (Turner, 1995). However Hornby (2000) states that motivation is an incentive to act or move. Research tells that there are two types of motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic motivation is the result of externally administered motivators including pay, compensation and benefits, material possessions, monetary gains and positive evaluation by others. Intrinsic motivation is that type of motivation that is activated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure (Deci et al, 1999). Intrinsic motivation is derived from within a person and positively effects behavior and performance (Ryan Deci, 2000). Performance refers to the effectiveness of individual behaviors that contributes to organizational objectives (McCloy, Campbell Cudeck, 1994). However Motowidlo (1997) argues that performance is all about behaviors with an evaluative aspect. Self-leadership theory encompasses both intrinsic motivation literature and cognitive evaluation theory (Deci Ryan, 1985).Cognitive evaluation theory advocates that intrinsic motivation is driven by the need for competence (i.e. to exercise and extend ones capabilities) and the need for self-determination (i.e. the need to feel free from pressures such as contingent rewards). Cognitive evaluation theory argued that individuals will try to seek feelings of competence and self-determination by overcoming challenges (deCharms, 1968). Support for the efficacy of intrinsic motivation has been demonstrated in numerous empirical studies (e.g., Deci, Connell, Ryan, 1989; Harackiewicz, 1979; Zhou, 1998). Feelings of competence and self-control (i.e.self-determination) are central part of natural rewards provided by self-leadership theory (Manz Neck, 1999). Through self leadership strategies, activities and tasks can be chosen, structured, or perceived in ways that lead to increased feelings of competence self-determination that in turns enhance task performance. Self leadership theory is very much complementary with self-determination theory (Deci, 1972). Although natural reward strategies are generally effective, self-reward strategies utilizing external rewards may also be helpful (in those situations where natural or intrinsic rewards are not needed) to increase (individual or team) performance (Manz Neck, 1999). At the heart of social cognitive theory lies the concept of Self-efficacy or personal mastery (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy talks about persons beliefs regarding his/her capabilities to achieve a specific task (Bandura, 1991). As per cognitive evaluation theory need for competence and self-determinations (Deci Ryan, 1985) leads to more difficult goals selection and increased perceptions of self-efficacy which in turn, leads to higher future performance (Bandura, 1991). Self-leadership theory incorporates all above components of cognitive evaluation theory and social cognitive theory. In short self-leadership strategies mentioned above enhance self-efficacy perceptions, which lead to higher levels of performance (Manz Neck, 1999). Empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of self-leadership strategies in increasing self-efficacy perceptions and performance. More recently, role of self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between self-leadership strategies and performance has also been examined indicating significant relationships (Prussia et al., 1998). Positive Perception of self Efficacy or Personal Mastery SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE Based on the literature above it can be summarized here that Self-leadership is a process of self-influence based on self-control, self management and self regulation theories. It is also rooted in motivation theories, Social learning theory and cognitive evaluation theory.  Research across diverse settings, from the educational domain to the airline industry, has shown that the practices of effective self-leadership strategies can lead to many benefits including high motivation, self-efficacy, and enhanced employee performance (Bandura, 1991).  As mentioned Self leadership strategies include behavioral-focused, natural-reward and constructive-thought pattern strategies. Taken together these core self-leadership strategies and aligning them to motivation, self efficacy and performance following conceptual frame work (figure.1) is suggested aiming at to achieve successful performance in an organization. This suggested conceptual frame work is modified from the basic model of Self leadership and personal effectiveness proposed by Manz Neck (2007). Figure.1 In the light of the self leadership literature the figure.1 above is suggesting a conceptual framework which implies that applying self-leadership strategies and their components through effective training programs in organization can help in developing self-led employees who can achieve goals like individual, team based or organizational performance through personal mastery. Successful performance leads to positive perception of self efficacy which creates a positive self sufficient upward spiral effect for new successful performance. As per limitation in this paper identifying individuals team based self leadership and team member work role performance was not studied which creates room for future research. Effective self-leadership strategies do not stress independent employee behaviors by ignoring teams or organization context. Rather, effective self-leadership strategies encourage a coordinated effort by individuals to seek their own personal identity and mode of contribution as part of a group, teams or organization that produces synergistic performance (Konradt; Andreßen; Ellwart, 2009). Furthermore, self-leaders are less likely to be resistant to organizational change (Neck, 1996) which is important for any learning organization as it responds and adapt to changing environment. As organizations continue to redesign and adopt structures that need a greater dependence on individual initiative, the popularity of self-leadership concepts is likely to remain strong. Finally, self-leadership behavior shaping strategies provide considerable assurance for taking the quest for employee performance to the next higher level. Indeed, effectively trained self-led employees, both behaviorally and cognitively, may offer the best blueprint for achieving employee and organizational performance in the 21st century.

Caribbean Integration Essay -- essays research papers

CARIBBEAN POLITICS and SOCIETY Caribbean Integration Rationale for Integration. The Caribbean remains fragmented both economically and politically as a result of competition and conflict among the European powers. Fragmentation is in part the product of a long history as separate colonies of a metropolitan power or powers. It is also in part the psychological effects on people of separation by sea. The case for regional integration is both simple and irrefutable. First we are small and we need to achieve economies of scale. We need to achieve such economies in markets, production, the mobilisation of regional capital for regional use, university education, science and technology, sea and air transport to mention some areas. We therefore need to pool as far as is feasible our markets and our financial human and natural resources. We need a single unified and truly common market for goods and services, capital, and trained manpower. In addition we need to coordinate not only the development of our productive sectors but also our economic policies. And we need both a common external tariff and a common set of external trade, economic and other policies. Very basically put, we must come closer together because even the more economically advanced and biggest of us are mere specks of dusts in international terms. To admit that we are specks of dust does not however mean that we should sink ourselves in passive apathy in economic and international matters; rather we should get together to forma an object with more mass and more weight so that our presence could be more easily seen and more effectively used in the promotion of our own interests. We are small states by world and even Hemispheric standards, we are economically and politically weak individual units. We must avoid the temptation if at any given time our individual national economy is more prosperous than those of our other partner states, to be so arrogant as to forget that our economic situation may be suddenly reversed and that therefore we will soon need close links with our partner states in matters concerning both the intra-regional and extra-regional spheres. West Indian history abounds with instances of countries suffering sudden reversals of their economic fortunes. Advantages of Integration.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  a stronger voice internationally (a)  Ã‚  &nbs... ...ess and Hurdles: A European View, Kingston: Kingston Publishers. West Indian Commission (1992) An Overview of the Report of the West Indian Commission: Time for Action, Barbados: West Indian Commission. Issues to Think about: What are your reasons for Caribbean Integration. Is the integration process within CARICOM marred by cynicism, lack of political will and self-aggrandisement of the political directorate? Comment with regard to the issues confronting the realisation of the CSME. What role can the OECS play in strengthening the Caribbean Community? Can the goal of integration be realised without the building of trust? What is the role of the ACS (Association of Caribbean States). Do you think the ACS will enhance or undermine CARICOM? Questions to Consider: 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"What God have divided no man can put together†. Discuss in relation to Caribbean integration. 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Assess the approaches to integration in the region and consider what have been the main failures and benefits of the movement. What else needs to be done and why? 3.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Should Commonwealth Caribbean countries politically integrate?

I Will Survive Essay

Since I was young I was told not to ever judge a book by its cover, up until a few weeks ago I believed this was complete bull but a series of uncanny events insisted on changing my mind. This chain of unforeseeable circumstanced began a few weeks ago where . . . The sounds of keyboards was almost deafening, the constant click blurred into a humming drone which one could debatably compare to the fog horn of a light house warning helpless ships away from there watery grave. I stare a little dazed but unfazed by the bright light of the computer screen, flashing uncountable numbers and words which I’m supposes to make some kind of sense of if I am to continue with this curse most people call being an accountant. I feel some what contained in this shit tip excuse of a cubical, but to be honest the only thing caging me is the confines of my on reality. Closing my eyes I open them to this dark fantasy of a world plagued with zombies which are swiftly breaking down and tearing apart the countries of the world. But then a unexpected hero named Lorry strives to find a cure and against all odds saves the human race from absolute extinction. â€Å"Lawrence order these files and crunch these number by the end of the day or your fired! † Just so where clear my names Lawrence but my friends call my Lorry, okay no one calls me Lorry, I don’t have any friends, or family for that matter. I live alone in this crumby apartment building in room 147. To be fair I get it on good rent but I think that because someone got murdered here. I try to be optimistic about it an say its just a rumour but between you and me the smell of death still lingers. You could say I’m just your usual nerdy 19 year old boy who loves his movies and video games and especially zombies. I mean zombies and I go together like peanut butter and jelly like a hero and his side kick, I love zombies. I often wish for a world in strife due to an out break of zombies where I save the world and get the girl, okay I may have prayed to god once or twice for that. It’s a little funny when you wish for something and at the time it sounds like such a good idea. Lawrence order these files and crunch these number by the end of the day or your fired! † said the floor manager with a high pitch squeal piercing the flow of my train of thought. â€Å"Righteo will do† I said back with a smile as fake as fairy tales. I began to digress as soon as the managers eyes were off my back, surfing websites until something very captivating caught my eye. A breaking news bulletin streaming live showed footage which looked like the street in front of the building, I mean facade looks identical but that wasn’t the most alarming part. Apparently they were reporting an incident about a man who tackled another individual to the ground and started to devour another man living body and I quote â€Å"tearing flesh from bone with nothing but his teeth. † That’s when my semi attractive but still way out of my league co-worker Jazz leaned over, â€Å"ahhh your always looking at zombies you freak. † All though Jazz was a complete mess and frankly a female dog I had an odd some what mercurial attraction to her. I mean I’m not one of those superficial shallow guys . . . Okay I’m tend to take what I can get. As these thoughts raced through my mind at million miles an hour suddenly it hit me â€Å"Zombies! The people on the news their zombies† I nervously said as my voice broke multiple times. â€Å"what? I was joking† Jazz naively replied. â€Å"Are you even watching what I am watching? We have to get out of here! † It was at that moment the sound of shattering glass filled the room followed quickly by melody of foot steps thunderously increasing in speed and sound, mirroring my heart almost beating out of my chest. I watched as this man who looked drunk, uncontrollably sprint towards Jazz, teeth gnashing finger nails gashing at thin air. I could see the blood lust in his eyes. Now it was like time stood still, screams seemed to become silent but my other sense seemed to heighten. I noticed a foul stench so thick in the air you could cut it with a butter knife. Through the chaos and the haze, something deep down with in began to stir. A hero was being born. With out hesitation or mare thought I pulled the pen from my shirt pocket bounded over the desk. I held my pen like a blade an with all my strength I trusted pen into the temple of the crazed man right before Jazz’s eyes.

Distance Education Essay

Similarities and Differences Between Richard Henry Lee and Abraham Lincoln A reserved man, Abraham Lincoln rarely talked about his childhood. He was â€Å"also embarrassed by his crude family background. † (Gienapp, 1) He also knew little about his ancestry, save for what his father Thomas repeatedly narrated about his grandfather being killed by Indians â€Å"while laboring to open a farm. † (Gienapp, 1) He was born in a one-room log cabin, built by his own father. He grew up on a farm, which was at first rented, but eventually was paid for by his father from his painstaking labor as carpenter and cabinetmaker. Although he was barely literate, he performed several official duties and appeared several times in the local records of his community, having a scrupulously honest and moral reputation. On the other hand, Richard Henry Lee was the scion of one of the colony’s first families. The first Richard Lee came from Worcester, England where their family was into the manufacture and trade of cloth. Upon the deaths of his parents, their mother’s brother was awarded guardianship of him and his three brothers. Richard was sent to America to help expand the family business. Twenty-five years since his arrival in Jamestown, Richard Lee had amassed 10,000 acreas, three plantations in Jamestown and established an impressive commercial empire that spanned both sides of the Atlantic. The civil war in England and the Cromwellian interregnum had little affected the Lee businesses. By the restoration, Richard had decided to move his family to England, grooming the eldest, John, for eventually assuming control of the family business in England and America. Upon Richard’s death at forty-five, he had successfully ensured that his three sons would continue the family’s flourishing transatlantic commercial empire. John and Richard II returned to the colony and divided management of the business. The third son, Francis, stayed in London as their father wished, to be the family’s London commercial agent. This second generation of Lees shifted the family business from fur trading to tobacco, showing an adaptability to challenges within the economy and Virginia’s provincial government. When Richard II became the family’s patriarch, he learned the advantage of fostering cordial relations with the provincial government as the surest way of retaining royal patronage. This practice was continued by the third generation of Lees. Thus, despite the disarray in their transatlantic interests following the death of their London sibling, Thomas, the third patriarch tended to political matters in Virginia and shied away from their London affairs. Thomas entered the political arena; with a short-lived first attempt, the second was not only successful in the House of Burgess but advanced further to the Council of State. His marriage produced six children, one of whom was Richard Henry. Richard Henry Lee was ten when the family moved into the comfortable Stratford Hall. His boyhood was spent running â€Å"around the plantation grounds, making friends with the children of the slaves living on the plantation, unfettered by parental supervision†. (McGaughy, 17) In stark contrast, Abraham Lincoln’s life was that of a typical pioneer farm boy: doing chores, such as hauling water and chopping wood, and helping in the fields. The area was heavily wooded, and since he was remarkably strong for his age, the tall youngster was soon set to work clearing land with an axe. He later recalled that from then â€Å"till within his twentythird year, he as almost constantly handling that most useful instrument – less, of course, in plowing and harvesting seasons. † (Gienapp, 3) Thomas Lee devoted a â€Å"tremendous amount of time and energy making sure his sons were prepared to assume their legacy when the time came. (McGaughy, 18) He understood the value of providing his children with formal education. Three different tutors catered to the children’s needs in reading, writing, mathematics, Greek, Latin and religion. In addition the children were introduced to dance, music appreciation and performance lessons seriously. They were later sent to England to continue their studies. This, perhaps, more than anything, else fostered a close bond between him and his children. The sudden deaths of both parents when Richard Henry was in his teens was strongly felt. He isolated himself from the rest of the family and articulated his feelings in a poem that was later inscribed on Thomas’ gravestone. The last verse was concluded with â€Å"what limit can there be to our regret at the loss of so dear a friend† (McGaughy, 32). The other Thomas, Thomas Lincoln, on the other hand, was barely literate and did not put much value on education. Abraham and his sister Sarah attended local schools for short periods only and by the time he was seven, Abraham still could not write. Yet, even as a child, Abraham exhibited a burning desire for knowledge and self improvement. He was described to have no energy for anything except reading. He read and re-read the limited books that his stepmother, though illiterate herself, valued knowledge, brought to their house. His father did not approve of his constant reading. â€Å"Thos Lincoln never showed by his actions that he thought much of his son Abraham when a boy,† one Hanks family member noted, adding, â€Å"He treated him rather unkind than otherwise. † Dennis Hanks admitted that Abraham’s father sometimes â€Å"slash[ed] him for neglecting his work by reading. †(Gienapp,7) This would explain Abraham’s closeness to his stepmother as his friend, rather than his father, unlike the Lees. â€Å"He later said that she had been his best Friend in this world and that no Son could love a Mother more than he loved her. † (Gienapp, 5) He supported himself by manual labor until he reached twenty one and he had moved to New Salem, Illinois where he continued his self-education while working as storekeeper, militia captain and postmaster. He lost in his first bid for the state legislature but won a seat as a Whig 2 years later. He served four terms and gained state-wide popularity for his homespun wit and integrity. This time, Lincoln began his private study of the law, borrowing books from a local attorney, and earned his license to practice in 1836. He settled in Springfield, the new capital, after his marriage to Mary Todd of Kentucky and became one of Illinois’ ablest lawyers. He was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in 1847 for a single term, during which he gained attention for his opposition to the Mexican War and the institution of Slavery. He switched to the new Republican Party in the next election and ran for the U. S. Senate against Stephen A. Douglas, to whom he lost. The race attracted national attention because of the widely reported debates over the issue of slavery in the territories. Ironically, his winning opponent had unknowingly granted him the break not only to resume his political career, but set him on his path to the White House. This was the Kansas-Nebraska Act which repealed the original prohibition of slavery in the region of the Louisiana Purchase and replaced it with popular sovereignty to decide on the status of slavery. The ensuing â€Å" hell of a storm† (Gienapp, 49) correctly predicted by the proponent, Senator Stephen Douglas, brought together Whigs, Democrats, Free Soilers in indignant protest. Pondering Douglas’ motivations and the significance of this legislation, Lincoln seemed more withdrawn than usual on the circuit. Back home in Springfield he began reading the congressional debates on slavery, taking notes at the State Library for future use. (Gienapp, 49) On February 27, 1869, he delivered his famous Cooper Union speech, where he lambasted the federal government on the slavery issue, to an influential audience. In July, he won the nomination for presidency on the third ballot at the Republican convention. The following November, Lincoln won over 3 other candidates with only 40% of the popular vote. This was unacceptable to Southern politicians; South Carolina, quickly followed by 10 other states conveniently used this pretext to secede from the Union. When he arrived in Washington for his inauguration as the country’s sixteenth president, the Confederate States of America had been formed. In 1747 Thomas Lee had been appointed president of Virginia’s Council of State. Two years later, he assumed the governorship. As a tobacco planter, he was concerned with having access to western lands, target for England’s and France’s rivalry for dominance in North America. With other planters, they directed their efforts toward trade and cultivation of new lands for tobacco production. Thomas established the Ohio Company of Virginia, which had been likened to the Virginia Company established in 1606, from which the Jamestown settlement sprung. His will gave one of his two full shares to his eldest son, Philip. The second full share he divided equally among the younger sons led by Richard Henry. The two oldest sons realized the significance of active association in the Ohio Company and in Virginia politics. In their father’s absence, they could only achieve any gains if they put family above personal interests. Richard Henry decided to fulfil his father’s aspirations. Richard Henry and his cousin Richard â€Å"Squire† won a seat each in the House of Burgesses. They were shortly followed by Thomas Ludwell and Francis, both Richard Henry’s brothers, and another cousin Henry. Within one election cycle, the Lee family once again emerged as a powerful voting bloc in the House of Burgesses, especially when combined with their many friends and allies, (McGaughy 42) Richard Henry became the spokesman of his family and the Northern Neck proprietors in the capital. He served on several important committees that soon put him in a position that challenged Speaker-Treasurer John Robinson’s role as leader in provincial politics since 1738. While the governor and the Speaker-treasurer disputed over provincial leadership, Richard Henry worked actively to continue the war against the French. Among his duties was monitoring the British and colonial forces by regular correspondence with the highest ranking officers in Virginia’s colonial militia. By the time the Board of Trade had authorized the immediate separation of the offices of speaker and treasurer, the governor had announced vacation of his post and returning to England. Richard Henry’s role in the effort to separate the offices of speaker-treasurer helped establish his leadership position in the House. His former tutor Alexander White wrote to congratulate him, though surprised, â€Å"at how quickly Lee had challenged the established leadership in the House so soon after winning his first election. † (McGaughy, 44). Abraham Lincoln entered the presidential office conscious of his lack of administrative experience. But as president and commander in chief, he learned from his mistakes. In his Inaugural address he tried to woo the Secessionists back to the Union, which responded with bombarding Fort Sumter. Lincoln reacted with a firm hand; he declared a blockade of Southern ports, authorized the suspension of Habeas Corpus in areas threatened by pro-secessionists. Lincoln’s conservatism made him accept the fact that only a vigorous war would restore the Union, which was his primary aim. This strengthened his will to win, despite enormous battle casualties and strong political opposition, from his own cabinet members and radical fellow Republicans. He was careful not to alienate his basic constituency, the citizenry of Northern and Western states, while advancing the progress of the war. He carefully worded his Emancipation Proclamation to avoid offending loyal but slave owning states in the Union. Like Lincoln, Richard Henry Lee had a similar affinity for books, which was revealed most when he became a family man and had his own home, Chantilly, away from Stratford Hall. He built an impressive library with almost 100 titles, covering historical topics and biographies, not to mention scientific, theological and philosophical studies, plus various literary works of Shakespeare, Milton, Jonathan Swift and Laurence Sterne. He had conservative views about slavery, himself. †¦ like many of his contemporaries, (Lee) expressed contradictory views toward slavery, expressing their hatred of the institution yet refusing to abolish it because he and other planters needed slave labor to run profitable tobacco plantations. (McGaughy, 63) Richard Henry’s defiance of convention is best exemplified by his reaction to the enactment of the Stamp Act. He launched his own protest separate from his peers; he led a procession to the county courthouse parading effigies of Mercer, the Crown-appointed stamp distributor for Virginia and George Grenville, Britain’s lord of the treasury. Ultimately, Richard Henry’s concerns for his and fellow planters interests overtook the interests of the Crown in Virginia and the colonies. A series of legislations made for the evolution of Richard Henry from loyal British subject with the interests of the Crown at heart (in the footsteps of his father and grandfather) to American revolutionary. Their distinct childhoods and family backgrounds in no way prevented the occurrence of similarities in their personalities, ambitions, careers, and family lives, not to mention their fathers with the same first names. The antislavery borne out of Abraham Lincoln’s parents’ Baptist faith had been internalized in him that he could not not fight for it. His gentle nature was overcome by his fierce resolve to win the war. But, as mentioned above, he also exercised prudence in words to avoid rocking the boat of his constituents who may have been loyal but were still slaveowners. As a revolutionary, Richard Henry Lee evolved. It could be described as almost like a natural evolution, if one traces a person’s loyalty and interests originate from the self, radiating to the family, to the immediate community and the larger community. When it came to a conflict of interests between his own as a planter, a family man, and Representative of his community as opposed to the interests of the Crown, it is easy to deduce whose side he would take. More so, when the interests of the Crown were to the detriment, loss and eventual harm to his family and community. The goals of both Abraham Lincoln and Richard Henry Lee reveal their deep patriotism and mature adherence to what their country (province, as in Lee’s case) had evolved into. Their political careers were run within a framework of what can be now termed â€Å"public service† in their hearts.