Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said “We have faith that future generations will know that here, in the middle of the twentieth century, there came a time when men of good will found a way to unite, and produce, and fight to destroy the forces of ignorance, and intolerance, and slavery, and war.” This is one of many examples of a successful leader keeping trust with the people, unlike Tiberius Claudius Germanicus who found success by trusting nobody. Overtime both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Tiberius Claudius Germanicus rose to power, although one kept faith with his people when another didn’t. Each leader trusted certain people differently depending on if they are society, the government or their own family. Neither leader gained the public’s trust for just being there. After, serving …show more content…
As Franklin Delano Roosevelt already had lots of supporters he decided to maintain his plans with the Executive Order 6101. This document helped decrease unemployment rate along with lowering the nation's debt. He gained even more supporters from this and he planned to continue to grow. Later, in his 3rd term although some people disliked his decision of siding with the allies in World War II they trusted his decision. Their wishes came true as the allies won out the war against the Nazis. He also was heavily respected for he was the first president to visit an active war zone during a war. Unlike Roosevelt, Emperor Claudius didn’t care about his trust with the people as he had no intentions to increase it. Throughout his reign he mainly kept Rome at a stable state. Although, he did not gain much trust from the people or senate he did gain some from the guards after giving them a donation for their help. He liked to keep Rome friendly with neighboring civilizations and not cause to much conflict. Because of this his trust between the people neither rose nor
April 2, 1865 Grant had taken charge. He had been plowing through city after city. He was going after Davis next. Davis was getting ready to leave. Grant had already taken control over the Mississippi.
President Jefferson’s style was very different from that of Adams and Washington; because of that, many Americans looked forward to his inauguration. Jefferson in Office As President, Jefferson believed strongly that the primary functions of government were to: • Protect the nation from foreign threats, •Deliver the mail, and • Collect customs duties, Jefferson hit the ground running with his attempts to put his republican ideas into practice. He urged the newly won Democratic-Republican controlled Congress to allow the Alien and Sedition Acts to expire. Jefferson then lowered military spending and reduced the size of the U.S. Army, reduced the number of Navy ships, and urged newly appointed Secretary of Treasury Albert Gallatin to find ways
The ascension of Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency marked a dramatic turning point in bringing meaningful reform in America because he was the first ever president to lead hands on and believed that the government should serve as an agent of reform for the people. Roosevelt abandoned his Republican counterparts’ ideals of a ‘laissez-faire’ economy and turned to helping the American people through welfare programs and minimum wage laws. Above all, Theodore Roosevelt served as a voice for the masses and implemented what they had long desired. Around 1902, exposing the evils of industries, politicians and the rich and famous was a very hot industry.
Despite their differences and detestations against each other, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay were both political leaders who possessed similar characteristics and philosophies. In the book Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay , the author Harry L. Watson described the two leaders’ loathing for each other, but he also wrote about the likenesses and related circumstances that Jackson and Clay underwent in Antebellum America. Both men’s beliefs and philosophies played a major role in the formations of the two-party system. With their dedication of preserving the federal Union, both Jackson and Clay devoted themselves to the government and also influenced politics in American public life. One concept that is most notorious about them, however, is the fact that they wholeheartedly despised each other.
Depending on where one falls on the political spectrum, Jefferson could either be at the top of all presidential polls, or he could be near the bottom. If a Jeffersonian was asked about Jefferson, he would sing his praises from the rooftops. Jefferson was the hero of the common man in that he ardently supported states' rights and an agrarian society. He also lowered the national debt by over twenty-five percent, doubled the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase, and kept the nation out of a costly war with the old world. In the Jeffersonian's mind, there wasn't, and never would be, a greater president than Jefferson.
FDR Vs. LBJ Because of their position in the government, Americans have such high standards for presidents. However, a lot of the time presidents are criticized more for their mistakes rather than their accomplishments. As Michael Siegel shows in his book President as Leader “presidential leadership is exercised by real, flawed human beings, and not by superheroes or philosopher-kings beyond the reach of scrutiny or critique.”
The relationship between two great leaders Woodrow Wilson and Vittorio Orlando and their effect on the treaty of Versailles. In this world, we have had a long history of great leaders whom has changed the world and left they legacy behind and two leaders whom stand out to me is Woodrow Wilson and Vittorio Orlando. Woodrow Wilson and Vittorio Orlando were two of the big four, which is also known as the head allied leaders whom in 1919 met at the Paris peace conference. Vittorio Orlando was an Italian statesman whom was born in Palermo in May of 1860. After World War was over and they had lost he had become one of the leaders of the Italian commission at the Paris Peace meeting between two parties.
Did you ever consider whether King George or George Washington would be better suited to lead? King George was not a bad leader as everyone claimed he was. King George and George Washington were both good leaders, but when you look deeper, you will realize who really was the better leader; King George. Thus, I believe King George would be better suited to lead, because King George was taught to be a leader since he was little, King George took care of his men well, and King George did what was best for the people. First of all, King George was raised being taught how to be a good leader since he was little, and he was born into a long history of kings and queens that all were experienced leaders.
Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis are very similar in many ways and very different in many ways as well. Davis was president of the Confederacy and Lincoln was president of the United States of America. To start off early as possible, both Davis and Lincoln were both from Kentucky, and lived approximately 100 miles away from each other. Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln were both presidents during the time of the Civil War.
Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln were similar in a lot of ways. Both were very famous political figures known for dealing with civil wars amongst their countries. They also both supported the common people and wanted to advance their countries to be more modern. Caesar updated the Roman Calendar and contributed to many reforms that helped the common people of his empire. Lincoln was a supporter of stopping the expansion of slavery which won him the popularity of the northern states.
Franklin Roosevelt had a positive effect on people and gave many people hope. He told Americans that there was nothing to fear except for fear its self. That speech gave many Americans hope, the Americans believed that Franklin Roosevelt would help them get out of the Depression. FDR also introduced many new ideas such as the New deal and the Programs in the New Deal. He also held fireside chats that explained the New Deal and Defend the New Deal.
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson had similar political philosophies. They were very important in the history of presidents. Jefferson and Jackson believed in the common man having a voice in government, and did not want too much power being given to the federal government. They were educated men, with very good knowledge of the law like almost all presidents, and they believed that an agricultural based economy was the key to Americas economical growth. Thomas Jefferson's ideas in the 1800s was to do away with Aristocratic Democracy to have a huge Democracy party,and he believed greatly in the common man.
People’s choices decide if history will view them as a martyr or a murder. Both Caesar and Abraham Lincoln are considered martyrs by history. As Lincoln had just won the Civil War and Caesar had just defeated Pompey, they were well liked at the time. But almost immediately after these events Brutus and J.W Booth subsequently killed them due to their belief that they were doing what was right for the nation and because they felt pressure from their past, therefore while some differences between Brutus and Booth are evident, the similarities are prominent.
Would you trust someone who kills their best friend for the good of their country or some guy who thinks they knew the leader? Exactly, you would want and trust a leader who would do anything for the good of their country. Julius Caesar was murder by Brutus and the other conspirators but they said it was for the good of Rome. Brutus and Antony both gave a speeches over Julius Caesars death to appeal to the plebeians. Brutus funeral speech was a more effective speech than Antony because his use of ethos, pathos, and logos made the plebeians focus on his words more.
“To be or not or not to be - that is the question” (3.1.64). In life, people often have to decide whether to fulfill their desire by harming others or to uphold their conscience. In Hamlet by William Shakespeare, King Claudius chooses to pursue his desires through the suffering of King Hamlet, Queen Gertrude, Hamlet, and his servants. King Claudius’s lust for absolute power, in addition to his deceitful and manipulating tactics, leads to his downfall.