1. Lincoln shows us that changing his mind about an important issue while in office is a positive example of intellectual growth. In his Pultizer Prize winning book, The Fiery Trial (2011), Eric Foner shows that when Lincoln came to office, he shared many of the deep racial prejudices held by the majority of Americans. But he argues that by the beginning of his second term, he had dramatically changed his mind and not only wanted to free all the slaves in the reunited American states, but also wanted them to have equal rights.

• What would we call this change of political beliefs today?
• How does this make Lincoln relevant to understanding America today?
• What types of changes have we seen President Obama make during his years in office? Do you think that he is a "flip flopper" or a president who has changed his mind given new information and new exposure to new situations?

2. Lincoln shows us how a president and politicians can work with those who have opposed and who do oppose you. In her book, Team of Rivals upon which the movie Lincolnis based, Doris Kearns Goodwin shows that Lincoln took the unparalleled step of appointing four of his political rivals to his cabinet: William H. Seward - second below, who was expected to win the Repubican nomination for president - as secretary of state; Salmon P. Chase -fourth below, a would-be hopeful for the Republican nomination - as secretary of the Treasury, Edward Bates - first below, another presidential hopeful - as attorney general; and Edwin M. Stanton - third below, a Democrat and avowed enemy of Lincoln - as secretary of war.

Could this "team of rivals" - each of them initially convinced of his superiority to the inexperienced president - work together in harmony? Goodwin tells us the answer is yes, because Lincoln had an incredible ability to rise above personal slights and a talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other.

3. Lincoln shows us how a president could set a precedent for the presidential usurpation of congressional powers during times of war. In his book, Tried by War, James McPherson explains that despite the constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war, shortly after troops of the newly declared Confederate States of America (CSA) bombed Union soldiers at Fort Sumter on April 15, 1861, President Lincoln declared war and immediately mobilized the political, economic, diplomatic, psychological, and military resources of the nation. He claimed he had the right to do so as commander in chief.

But again, as McPherson explains, the Constitution does not define the duties of commander in chief. Thus, Lincoln established a precedent by arguing that as commander in chief, he could bi-pass Congress and could use executive orders to raise an army. How did he justify this? After declaring war when Congress was out of session, he explained the following to them on July 4, 1861: "It was with the deepest regret that the Executive found the duty of employing the war power in defense of the Government forced upon him. He could but perform this duty or surrender the existence of the Government ... He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his own life, in what might follow."

He further declared that his oath of office required him to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution and this duty overrode any specific constitutional constraints on executive action. In short, President Lincoln - as quoted by McPherson - maintained that "as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war - I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy - I conceive that I may in an emergency do things on military grounds that cannot be done constitutionally by Congress."

4. Lincoln shows us how the precedent was set for the presidential usurpation of civil liberties during times of war. Again, McPherson in Tried by War writes that shortly after the Civil War began, President Lincoln signed the Executive Order,"Writ of Habeas Corpus Relating to the Events in Baltimore" which suspended the writ of habeas corpus - the constitutional guarantee giving prisoners the right to be brought to court to determine if they were being legally held as well as the right to challenge their detention through independent judicial review.

The U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 9 says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Only Congress was authorized to approve such a suspension. But Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without waiting for Congress to authorize it. He then ordered military authorities to arrest and detain without trial those in the northern and border states who aided the rebel cause, were believed to be Confederate spies, and who resisted the draft - and he detained them until the war's conclusion.

He further ordered that all arrested under this law could be tried and punished by military courts as regular courts were deemed to be inadequate during a rebellion and all those who opposed the Union endangered "the public safety." Over 4,000 military trials were held throughout the war. In 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act endorsing Lincoln's decision to deny habeas corpus in 1861 by authorizing suspensions throughout the war and enabling the government to detain persons suspected of disloyalty to the Union.

5. The era of Lincoln's presidency shows us how a vocal minority - the Radical Republicans - can not only make Congress barely functional, but can also force radical political change. Again, in Team of Rivals and in Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin demonstrates that the Radical Republicans were a small political minority but were able to force passage of three very controversial constitutional amendments - the 13th, 14th, and 15th Freedom Amendments.

• What contemporary situations exist in which a vocal political minority in Congress has made it barely functional and supports radical change - especially in terms of taxation and "entitlements"?

Check out an extreme example of contemporary obstructionist politics at http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/08/23/gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama-aide-in-bed-with-gop-lover-how-do-we-get-a-stimulus-deal-reply-baby-theres-no-deal/