President Roosevelt and President Taft held very different leadership styles while serving as the President of the United States. While President Roosevelt was a trusting individual who believed in the concept of a "gentlemen's agreement," President Taft was a by-the-book personality who valued rules over trust. President Roosevelt brokered a deal with the U.S. Steel Company, where he promised not to attack their monopoly as it was beneficial to the citizens of the country. President Taft, however, disregarded this agreement upon assuming office and pursued legal action against the company. The ethicalities of both Presidents' actions remained a topic of debate.

Born in 1858, President Roosevelt ascended to office at the age of 43, becoming the youngest President in U.S. history. His eccentricities earned a mention, as he even captured an outlaw during his pursuit of big game in the Dakota territory after losing his first wife. He pushed the boundaries of the President's capabilities and limitations. Born a year before President Roosevelt, President Taft succeeded him to become the 27^(th) President in 1909, serving in the role till 1913. President Taft preferred to stay within the rules set out by the Constitution and never venture into any territory that might be deemed as stepping out of line. His wife was a significant driving force behind his Presidency aspirations, as he had greater interest in serving on the Supreme Court.

During their Presidency tenures, President Roosevelt and President Taft's views on the ethical functioning of the country, and their approach to leadership, differed vastly. President Roosevelt believed in an informal approach to governance and led the country through a "gentleman's" approach, doing whatever he could to benefit and improve the country, keeping the Constitution and laws as his guiding forces. In contrast, President Taft adhered to a strict interpretation of the rules, only performing actions the Constitution allowed him to undertake. It is as if President Roosevelt ran the country like a business, striving to increase benefits for the shareholders -the citizens of the country- while President Taft abided by the code of conduct to a T.

They also had different approaches towards legal and ethical matters. President Roosevelt believed in people's word, often resorting to "gentlemen's" agreements rather than implementing legally binding contracts. In contrast, President Taft valued laws and regulations, restricting himself to conducting only activities that the Constitution and laws permitted. One can assume that President Taft avoided conducting business based on trust alone without a legally binding document.

Regarding the Presidents' personalities, it can be concluded that President Roosevelt's overconfidence might have led him to create unrealistic expectations, assuming people and companies would hold up their end of the bargain without legal documents in place. Although he had many accomplishments throughout his life, including serving as a Lieutenant Colonel during the Spanish-American War, his overconfidence in himself and others led him to push the boundaries of his Presidency.

In conclusion, President Roosevelt and President Taft's leadership styles and ethical boundaries differed vastly during their Presidency tenures. While they took different approaches to governance, neither President's approaches were wholly wrong or right. The fact that their leadership styles were influenced by personal experiences is both intriguing and enlightening.

In this scenario, I think that President Roosevelt's actions were more detrimental than Taft's breach of the agreement. Although President Taft's decision to sue the U.S. Steel Company may not have been the best move, President Roosevelt should not have relied solely on the company's word. From today's perspective, it's clear that President Roosevelt was wrong to make an agreement with a company without any legal documents or other evidence. In today's world, people are corrupt and will do anything for money, often without considering the ethical implications. While I hope that the U.S. Steel Company would honor its agreement with Roosevelt, it is still possible that they could break it. While President Taft's violation of the agreement was not ethical, he still pursued legal avenues when dealing with the company.

Between President Taft and President Roosevelt, I believe that President Taft's approach to the presidency would be more desirable. President Taft followed the Constitution and never did anything that was not explicitly stated. In today's world, presidents often do more than they should, and while this isn't always a bad thing, we need more leadership that is ethical and follows the rules during a time when our political landscape is corrupt. Roosevelt would have been an excellent president in his time, as people were more ethical then, and a gentlemen's agreement was often sufficient.

I believe that President Trump embodies President Roosevelt's leadership style. Trump, like Roosevelt, was an unconventional president. Roosevelt pushed the limits of presidential power, creating national parks and adhering to the "speak softly and carry a big stick" mentality. Trump was a businessman and a celebrity who wasn't afraid to speak his mind, which many people respected. Although he was different from Roosevelt in that he tended to speak more bluntly and used a "big stick" approach, Trump and Roosevelt shared similar leadership styles. Roosevelt may not have been a businessman, but he and Trump both believed in the power of a gentleman's handshake.

President Roosevelt and President Taft were very different leaders. Roosevelt challenged the limits of presidential power while still adhering to the Constitution. President Taft was very strict in his interpretation of presidential powers – if the Constitution didn't explicitly grant him a power, he didn't use it. When dealing with the U.S. Steel Company, both presidents took different approaches. President Roosevelt made a gentlemen's agreement with the company, promising not to sue them. The agreement, however, was not legally binding, and President Taft sued the company, breaching Roosevelt's agreement with the company. Although President Taft violated the informal agreement, he pursued legal means to deal with the U.S. Steel Company.