34 pages • 1 hour read
Abraham LincolnHouse Divided Speech
Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | Adult | Published in 1858A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Insincere Appeal to Democracy
Content Warning: The source material and this guide reference the enslavement of Black Americans and the associated racism and prejudice.
Lincoln asserts that Douglas’s appeal to democracy is nothing more than a gesture to justify or distract the public from the true intention of the Kansas-Nebraska Act: stoking public apathy about whether slavery is voted up or down. Lincoln remarks:
This necessity [of shaping public opinion] had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of ‘squatter sovereignty,’ otherwise called ‘sacred right of self government,’ which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object (427).
The term “squatter sovereignty” alludes to the fact that the inhabitants of new territories were originally squatters, having no legal claim to federally owned lands other than their presence on it. Moreover, according to Lincoln, Douglas’s perversion of the principle of self-government would regard any objection to slavery coming from outside a particular jurisdiction as undemocratic: “That if any one man choose enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object” (427). The argument made by Lincoln foreshadows Martin Luther King’s argument in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963). To the argument that the issue of apartheid in Alabama should be left to be decided by the citizens of Alabama, King responds, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King, Martin Luther. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” African Studies Center).
Furthermore, the issue of whether slavery should be addressed at a state or federal level aside, Douglas’s insincerity about his concern for democracy is clarified by his rejection of the Republican amendment to the Nebraska bill, which would have expressly recognized the right of a territorial legislature to reject slavery. “Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down?” asks Lincoln (430). Lincoln’s answer is that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was nothing more than a temporary mirage to distract the public from the effort by Democrats to prevent the exclusion of slavery from any federal territory.
While Lincoln aims to prevent the expansion of slavery in the United States and condemns Douglas’s manipulation of the public for a personal and political cause, Lincoln walks a similar path in his delivery of this speech and his many other orations. Lincoln appeals to the apprehension of the public to trust politicians by highlighting Douglas’s insincerity, but Lincoln also carefully crafts his speech to persuade the audience to support his endeavors. Regardless of how passionate and personally invested Lincoln may be on the just subject of slavery abolition, Lincoln is still a politician whose speeches are careful and intentional with the goal of persuasion. Thus, Lincoln’s criticism of Douglas’s conspiratorial manipulation also highlights Lincoln’s political gameplay.
The Hidden Politics of Judicial Opinions
While politicians may channel insincerity in their speech delivery and political choices, this verbal manipulation, as addressed in the theme The Insincere Appeal to Democracy, also extends to the exploitation of the judicial process for political purposes. The federal courts have been understood historically as a place of legal objectivity compared to the subjective prejudices of Congress. Therefore, it would have seemed all the more unbecoming that any of the justices, no less the chief justice of the United States, would have engaged in the kind of political chicanery of which Lincoln accuses the Court. Lincoln draws attention to the conspicuous timing of the case. Although it was argued prior to the presidential election, it was decided after Buchanan’s inauguration, with resounding public approval from Buchanan as well as Douglas (428). More importantly, he notices that the Constitution is being construed in a manner that tends to favor the pro-slavery movement.
The portion of the Constitution in question in Dred Scott is the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that no citizen will be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” One may anticipate that this would help Scott’s case, given that as an enslaved person being held in a free territory, he was unjustly deprived of his liberty. However, Chief Justice Taney, ruling for the Court, argues that since the US government has always excluded persons of the African race from citizenship, so Scott is not entitled to protection and has no standing to sue in federal court. Furthermore, because he has been held as an enslaved person and therefore the property of another, to recognize him as a free citizen would be to deprive his “master” of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 [1856]). This interpretation of the Constitution seems very much at odds with the arguments in favor of popular sovereignty made by Douglas in the adoption of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, yet according to Lincoln, he is vehement in “denouncing all opposition to it” (428). Likewise, President Buchanan “express[es] his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained (emphasis in original) (428).
Buchanan’s astonishment that there could be any other interpretation is seen by Lincoln as an insincere appeal to the objectivity of the law. This idea would have held great currency in the 19th century, when the rationalist thinking associated with the Enlightenment still held great intellectual sway. Essentially, ignoring all the controversy that has preceded the current crisis, Buchanan would still maintain that the Supreme Court’s interpretation is indisputable. Lincoln suggests that this is simply not so. The Constitution, like the law, has been wielded to support a political agenda rather than to objectively apply justice.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that it will not be wielded even further in accomplishing its objective. Just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act had refused to include language guaranteeing that a territory could exclude slavery, the Dred Scott decision has omitted the question of whether a state, rather than a territory, may exclude slavery under the Constitution. This leaves the door open for a second ruling from the Court, in which it will be explicitly stated that slavery may not be excluded by a state. Indeed, if all this were to come to pass, it is implied that it would also be possible that the African slave trade, closed by Congress in 1807, would be reopened. Lincoln wants the convention to realize that neither the Constitution nor the law will, of themselves, protect the Union against the imposition of slavery. What will accomplish this, Lincoln contends, is bold moral leadership and the joined efforts of the Republican Party.
The Need for Moral Leadership
Unlike Buchanan, who insists that the Court’s ruling represents an objective reading of the Constitution that must be respected by the public, Lincoln suggests that the law and the Constitution are only as good as the moral character and political tact of those who determine its meaning and powers. To explain the moral difference between himself and Douglas, and to elevate his sense of character, Lincoln relies on a reference to scripture: “For a living dog is better than a dead lion” (Ecclesiastes 9:4, KJV). Lincoln states, “Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advance of slavery? He don’t care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the ‘public heart’ to care nothing about it” (433). Lincoln wants to impress upon fellow Republicans Douglas’s inability to oppose slavery. While he may in fact be a lion—that is, a great rhetorician, politician, and legislator—Douglas has proven that his status as a Democrat puts him in a political cage. He must draw votes from those who support slavery. He is also toothless in that he lacks the will or sense of moral clarity to join Republicans in their struggle. In contrast, Lincoln depicts himself as a “living dog,” ready to attack political adversaries with brilliant irony and skilled rhetoric.
The welfare of the Union, Lincoln argues, depends on the political will of the Republican Party and its allies. Unity under morality, Lincoln believes, is the only way out of this conflict—contradicting beliefs will lead to softer legislation and state-by-state disparities, such as with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which begin a slippery slope of lax rules and ensure the return of slavery in the US. Lincoln expresses concern that many Republicans have considered aligning themselves with Douglas, who has always positioned himself as a moderate open to various courses of action:
There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They do not tell us, nor has he told us, that he wishes any such object to be effected. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed (432).
Lincoln points out that while Douglas is considered by many to be an apt politician, he has no convictions that align with the movement against slavery. Douglas’s “squabble,” or “quarrel,” as Lincoln refers to it, with President Buchanan is nothing more than a ruse to deceive Republicans, as well as the public in general, that he is a fair-minded, prudent politician who does not simply obey partisan commands. The reality, Lincoln insists, is that Douglas’s political commitments differ from those of the Republican Party.
Reminding them that in the last presidential election, Republicans made an impressive showing, especially for a new political party, winning 1.3 million votes, Lincoln promises to once more unite and lead Republicans in opposing the Democrats and the pro-slavery movement. After addressing a monumental conflict in the US, Lincoln creates a roadmap towards the solution. With the unity of the Republican Party under Lincoln’s leadership, slavery may be abolished at last.
Related Titles
By Abraham Lincoln
