In looking at Lincoln and whether or not he could be considered courageous we found some small number of examples where he might have been courageous.  However, the number of such examples so far was next to nothing.  And even then our working definition of Courage is not necessarily completely defined.  

So far we have the Aristotelian definition which presents the spectrum of actions and intentions.  There is the act of Courage, but if this acts is born from ignorance or from brashness then we do not considered it to be a Courageous act since the person acting didn't judge there situation well and just stumbled upon a successful course of action.  For there to be Courage under this line of thinking than the person preforming the act must understand the danger(s) and understand what the options are for resolving the situation.  Then picking the course of action that will get the best results.  

Kant works with the intention of the person in the act overcoming of their fears.  However, if the act of overcoming fear is not involved then there is no Courage.  

The Utilitarian perspective is the one that I least understand in terms of Courage.  From what I understand they do not take virtues like Courage into account in their lives.  For them only the calm choice of what shall produce the best results is what matters.  

I ask that if anyone can give a better explanation of the Utilitarian perspective than please comment as I am both curious and wondering what I am leaving out or possibly misunderstanding.