Abraham Lincoln's Understanding of the Nature of the Union: Secession,Slavery and the Philosophical Cause Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2007 Charles E.Parton Award by Jason Stevens Introduction Lincoln entered the historical stage as he took the oath of office on March 4th,1861,faced with a task "greater than that which rested upon Washington."1 All American minds were engaged with that task,but some Southern hearts had already turned away. By the time Lincoln took office,seven states had already seceded and six of them had formed the Confederacy.More would soon follow.As he delivers his Farewell Address at Springfield,Illinois,Lincoln is fully aware that "a disruption of the Federal Union is now formidably attempted."2 A Republican president had been elected by a constitutional majority,and an expressed minority had resolved to secede rather than stay.3 Never before had this happened in the history of the young American republic. Secession had been threatened before,but this menacing force had subsided through the relaxation of passion,through the progression of time,and through the reconciling effect of compromise.During Andrew Jackson's presidency in 1832,South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union after Congress passed the protective tariff.What followed became known as the Nullification Crisis,testing whether a state can refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law.Although a compromise was struck, and South Carolina did not secede,the question concerning whether or not a state can legally secede from the Union was never answered. Fifteen different men had come to occupy the office of president before Lincoln took office,and each of them had "in succession,administered the executive branch of government..through many perils;and,generally, with great success."4 Now it was Lincoln's turn,and his duty on the stage of history would be equal to the cause of free government,as the fate of the Union rested in his hands. Lincoln's coming has significance because of the stage that was set for his entrance and because of his own resolute political beliefs.The
Abraham Lincoln's Understanding of the Nature of the Union: Secession, Slavery and the Philosophical Cause Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2007 Charles E. Parton Award by Jason Stevens Introduction Lincoln entered the historical stage as he took the oath of office on March 4th, 1861, faced with a task "greater than that which rested upon Washington." 1 All American minds were engaged with that task, but some Southern hearts had already turned away. By the time Lincoln took office, seven states had already seceded and six of them had formed the Confederacy. More would soon follow. As he delivers his Farewell Address at Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln is fully aware that "a disruption of the Federal Union is now formidably attempted." 2 A Republican president had been elected by a constitutional majority, and an expressed minority had resolved to secede rather than stay. 3 Never before had this happened in the history of the young American republic. Secession had been threatened before, but this menacing force had subsided through the relaxation of passion, through the progression of time, and through the reconciling effect of compromise. During Andrew Jackson’s presidency in 1832, South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union after Congress passed the protective tariff. What followed became known as the Nullification Crisis, testing whether a state can refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law. Although a compromise was struck, and South Carolina did not secede, the question concerning whether or not a state can legally secede from the Union was never answered. Fifteen different men had come to occupy the office of president before Lincoln took office, and each of them had "in succession, administered the executive branch of government…through many perils; and, generally, with great success." 4 Now it was Lincoln’s turn, and his duty on the stage of history would be equal to the cause of free government, as the fate of the Union rested in his hands. Lincoln’s coming has significance because of the stage that was set for his entrance and because of his own resolute political beliefs. The
election of 1860 had elected Lincoln president of the United States. Lincoln was constitutionally,and thereby legally,elected to the executive office.There was no squabble as to what the Constitution meant, and,likewise,there was no perversion of where the public mind rested. In other words,no one denied that Lincoln was the next American president. What was denied was the rightness of his rule.What was challenged was the principle of majority rule.And in a republic,where majority rule is denied,there will also be found a denial of popular government."The right of the people to act by means of such a majority was itself grounded in the principle of all popular government."5 When the secessionists rejected Lincoln,they consequentially and unequivocally rejected the principle of popular government itself. But this was no accident on the part of the secessionists.They understood this notion just as Lincoln understood it.Immediately following the 1860 election,two opposing banners would have stood on the political battlefield.The Northern banner would read,"Majority rule."The Southern banner would read,"Consent of the governed."What is interesting to any student of politics is that both axioms are correct.Both represent a vital component to the American experiment.What is even more interesting is that they are both an expression of the same principle, yet it is the understanding of that principle which makes them different. In other words,the Northerners and the Southerners had a different understanding of good government.They both claimed to be lovers and defenders of liberty,but both did not mean the same thing.Thomas Jefferson,in his First Inaugural Address,said,"[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."6 But certainly some differences of opinion are differences of principle.In April,1864,as the Civil War was in its third year,Lincoln spoke at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on the consequences of a difference of opinion becoming a difference of principle: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty,and the American people,just now,are much in want of one.We all declare for liberty;but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself,and the product of his labor;while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men,and the product of other men's labor.Here are two,not only different,but incompatable [sic]things,called by the same name-liberty.And it follows that each of the things is,by the respective parties,called by two different and incompatable [sic]names-liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat,for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator,while the wolf denounces him for the
election of 1860 had elected Lincoln president of the United States. Lincoln was constitutionally, and thereby legally, elected to the executive office. There was no squabble as to what the Constitution meant, and, likewise, there was no perversion of where the public mind rested. In other words, no one denied that Lincoln was the next American president. What was denied was the rightness of his rule. What was challenged was the principle of majority rule. And in a republic, where majority rule is denied, there will also be found a denial of popular government. "The right of the people to act by means of such a majority was itself grounded in the principle of all popular government." 5 When the secessionists rejected Lincoln, they consequentially and unequivocally rejected the principle of popular government itself. But this was no accident on the part of the secessionists. They understood this notion just as Lincoln understood it. Immediately following the 1860 election, two opposing banners would have stood on the political battlefield. The Northern banner would read, "Majority rule." The Southern banner would read, "Consent of the governed." What is interesting to any student of politics is that both axioms are correct. Both represent a vital component to the American experiment. What is even more interesting is that they are both an expression of the same principle, yet it is the understanding of that principle which makes them different. In other words, the Northerners and the Southerners had a different understanding of good government. They both claimed to be lovers and defenders of liberty, but both did not mean the same thing. Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said, "[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle." 6 But certainly some differences of opinion are differences of principle. In April, 1864, as the Civil War was in its third year, Lincoln spoke at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on the consequences of a difference of opinion becoming a difference of principle: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable [sic] things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable [sic] names—liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the
same act as the destroyer of liberty,especially as the sheep was a black one.Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty;and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures&133;and all professing to love liberty.7 North as well as South understood that the consent of the majority is necessary for rule in a Republic,and neither could see good government apart from majority rule.We see that both anti-slavery Southerners like Robert E.Lee and anti-secessionists like Alexander Stephens went along with their respective states when the decision to secede had been made by a majority of the people living in those states.8 Lee,Stephens,and countless others may not have agreed with the reason for leaving or the actual leaving itself;nonetheless,they accepted the rule of the majority and consented to the rule of their state.Therefore,it is apparent that the Southerners accepted majority rule when their state seceded,but they rejected it when it elected Lincoln president. The central contention between North and South after the 1860 election was the purpose of majority rule.In the Southern mind,the purpose of a Lincoln presidency would be the eventual death of the institution of slavery.Even though a constitutional majority of the Union had elected Lincoln president,the interests of the few would thereafter be threatened. The South has an interest in slavery and cannot give it up.It is a useful institution for them,one which grants them both wealth and leisure. Slavery has always been a part of their history and Lincoln notes,"They are just what we would be in their situation."9 But at the time of Lincoln's election,slavery is no longer merely in the interest of the Southerners.It has become something much more valuable and precious: slavery has become a right.It now possesses a role greater than that of interest and has transcended the bounds of that which can be reasonably given up by the ballot.Because they believed the election of 1860 threatens their rights,the rule of the majority loses its authority and justification.Therefore,the South abandons the rule of the majority because they understand,as Lincoln did,that if the majority votes to deprive a minority of any of its essential rights,it would morally justify revolution.10 But secession is not the same as revolution,and the Southern people never claimed that their "leaving the Union"was an act of Revolution.And Lincoln certainly understood the theory of Revolution,but his argument was that the federal government had no intention of depriving any minority of any of its essential rights.Therefore,according to Lincoln,the right to revolution was guaranteed,but because no one had been harmed in his rights or his property,the people of the South could not appeal to revolution,as the Declaration says,"[W]henever any Form of Government
same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures&133; and all professing to love liberty. 7 North as well as South understood that the consent of the majority is necessary for rule in a Republic, and neither could see good government apart from majority rule. We see that both anti-slavery Southerners like Robert E. Lee and anti-secessionists like Alexander Stephens went along with their respective states when the decision to secede had been made by a majority of the people living in those states. 8 Lee, Stephens, and countless others may not have agreed with the reason for leaving or the actual leaving itself; nonetheless, they accepted the rule of the majority and consented to the rule of their state. Therefore, it is apparent that the Southerners accepted majority rule when their state seceded, but they rejected it when it elected Lincoln president. The central contention between North and South after the 1860 election was the purpose of majority rule. In the Southern mind, the purpose of a Lincoln presidency would be the eventual death of the institution of slavery. Even though a constitutional majority of the Union had elected Lincoln president, the interests of the few would thereafter be threatened. The South has an interest in slavery and cannot give it up. It is a useful institution for them, one which grants them both wealth and leisure. Slavery has always been a part of their history and Lincoln notes, "They are just what we would be in their situation." 9 But at the time of Lincoln’s election, slavery is no longer merely in the interest of the Southerners. It has become something much more valuable and precious: slavery has become a right. It now possesses a role greater than that of interest and has transcended the bounds of that which can be reasonably given up by the ballot. Because they believed the election of 1860 threatens their rights, the rule of the majority loses its authority and justification. Therefore, the South abandons the rule of the majority because they understand, as Lincoln did, that if the majority votes to deprive a minority of any of its essential rights, it would morally justify revolution. 10 But secession is not the same as revolution, and the Southern people never claimed that their "leaving the Union" was an act of Revolution. And Lincoln certainly understood the theory of Revolution, but his argument was that the federal government had no intention of depriving any minority of any of its essential rights. Therefore, according to Lincoln, the right to revolution was guaranteed, but because no one had been harmed in his rights or his property, the people of the South could not appeal to revolution, as the Declaration says, "[W]henever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends,it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,and to institute new Government."11 And the South never did appeal to the right of revolution,but instead their appeal was to something else -namely,a right to secession that the people had by virtue of the status of the individual states within the Union.In the minds of the Southern people,the legitimacy of secession rested upon the Southern argument for state rights.12 Lincoln denies that his election will deprive any citizen of his rights, and he even ensures that ample evidence exists to the contrary.He points to his previous speeches for this evidence,reiterating in his First Inaugural Address in March 1861,"I have no purpose,directly or indirectly,to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so."13 Lincoln points out that he has no intention of harming slavery where it already exists,because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the legal authority to do so.Where slavery exists now,so shall it remain untouched by Congress.That does not mean,however,that the federal government lacks the power to stop the spread of slavery to those areas where it is not already in place. In fact,Lincoln readily admits that he will do everything he constitutionally can to keep slavery out of those places.Everyone who voted in the election of 1860 was fully aware of this stance,and yet the Southern people still saw danger in Lincoln's election because they correctly understood that the survival of slavery was wholly dependent upon its growth.If slavery did not spread to the territories,the slave states would soon be outnumbered in Congress as the free-state representation continued to grow.Without the necessary number of pro-slavery votes,the North was assured the passage of any and all anti-slavery legislation that the Constitution would allow,including a Constitutional Amendment.Congress could theoretically abolish slavery if the slave states were unable to prevent the passage of an amendment. Therefore,in the minds of Southerners,the very survival of slavery was at stake,and this was the immediate threat the South witnessed with the election of Lincoln to the presidency. Because the purpose of majority rule is to protect and secure the rights of the people,the South rejected the results of the 1860 election when they viewed that their supposed right to own slaves was being threatened. In other words,they understood the election as an exploitation of the minority.Therefore,they felt fully justified in rejecting majority rule, but they did not think at any point that they were rejecting the principle of that rule.The 1860 election was a perversion of majority rule because it did not fulfill its purpose.Therefore,it was just and good for the
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." 11 And the South never did appeal to the right of revolution, but instead their appeal was to something else — namely, a right to secession that the people had by virtue of the status of the individual states within the Union. In the minds of the Southern people, the legitimacy of secession rested upon the Southern argument for state rights. 12 Lincoln denies that his election will deprive any citizen of his rights, and he even ensures that ample evidence exists to the contrary. He points to his previous speeches for this evidence, reiterating in his First Inaugural Address in March 1861, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so." 13 Lincoln points out that he has no intention of harming slavery where it already exists, because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the legal authority to do so. Where slavery exists now, so shall it remain untouched by Congress. That does not mean, however, that the federal government lacks the power to stop the spread of slavery to those areas where it is not already in place. In fact, Lincoln readily admits that he will do everything he constitutionally can to keep slavery out of those places. Everyone who voted in the election of 1860 was fully aware of this stance, and yet the Southern people still saw danger in Lincoln's election because they correctly understood that the survival of slavery was wholly dependent upon its growth. If slavery did not spread to the territories, the slave states would soon be outnumbered in Congress as the free-state representation continued to grow. Without the necessary number of pro-slavery votes, the North was assured the passage of any and all anti-slavery legislation that the Constitution would allow, including a Constitutional Amendment. Congress could theoretically abolish slavery if the slave states were unable to prevent the passage of an amendment. Therefore, in the minds of Southerners, the very survival of slavery was at stake, and this was the immediate threat the South witnessed with the election of Lincoln to the presidency. Because the purpose of majority rule is to protect and secure the rights of the people, the South rejected the results of the 1860 election when they viewed that their supposed right to own slaves was being threatened. In other words, they understood the election as an exploitation of the minority. Therefore, they felt fully justified in rejecting majority rule, but they did not think at any point that they were rejecting the principle of that rule. The 1860 election was a perversion of majority rule because it did not fulfill its purpose. Therefore, it was just and good for the
Southern people to reject it.When the states announced their intention to secede,that single act represented,in the Southern mind,the removal of the perverted concept of majority rule and the reinstatement of its true purpose. The secessionists went obediently with their states out of the Union because they held that majority rule "applied to them only as citizens of their respective states,and not of the United States."14 The justification for this application rested wholly upon the idea of the sovereignty of the state.Ironically,we find that the principle of equality is the central idea behind state sovereignty.The citizens of a state are not equal to each other because of their sovereignty as human beings,but because of the constitutional equality which exists between the states.15 The states are perfectly equal to one another because each of them is sovereign.However,not only are they equal to every state in the Union,they are also equal to every state outside the Union.16 Virginia is equal to Ohio as it is equal to England.Nothing connects the citizens of a state to the Union.They are just as much connected to the Union as they are connected to France or Spain.They are held in obedience to the state only,and any obedience they may claim to the Union is cancelled if the state goes the other way.17 And secession is the ultimate exemplification of a state quot;going the other way"as opposed to the direction of the Union.That is why the Southerners went with their states when they seceded but did not go with the Union when it elected Lincoln president.Therefore,the Southern mind understood majority rule as applying only in the state.It was a state principle that could not dictate or guide the Union and could never justify the election of Lincoln. Lincoln,a man who "never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence,"18 possessed an understanding of the nature of the Union that was derived from his understanding of those principles in that document.Those who saw the Union apart from those principles were reliant upon the doctrine of states'rights as a fundamental justification for legal secession. Chief among the architects of this understanding was John C.Calhoun,a man far better known and respected for his political thinking in 1860 than Lincoln,even though he had been dead for more than ten years.Part Two of this work will be an attempt to reconstruct Calhoun's argument, sparing nothing in the search for the highest rational and persuasive ground from which to survey the Southern view of the nature of the Union. Parts Three and Four will be Lincoln's argument in response.In this account,we will present his views in the clearest light possible,in an attempt to illustrate his understanding of the nature of the Union and the principles for which it stands
Southern people to reject it. When the states announced their intention to secede, that single act represented, in the Southern mind, the removal of the perverted concept of majority rule and the reinstatement of its true purpose. The secessionists went obediently with their states out of the Union because they held that majority rule "applied to them only as citizens of their respective states, and not of the United States." 14 The justification for this application rested wholly upon the idea of the sovereignty of the state. Ironically, we find that the principle of equality is the central idea behind state sovereignty. The citizens of a state are not equal to each other because of their sovereignty as human beings, but because of the constitutional equality which exists between the states. 15 The states are perfectly equal to one another because each of them is sovereign. However, not only are they equal to every state in the Union, they are also equal to every state outside the Union. 16 Virginia is equal to Ohio as it is equal to England. Nothing connects the citizens of a state to the Union. They are just as much connected to the Union as they are connected to France or Spain. They are held in obedience to the state only, and any obedience they may claim to the Union is cancelled if the state goes the other way. 17 And secession is the ultimate exemplification of a state :quot;going the other way" as opposed to the direction of the Union. That is why the Southerners went with their states when they seceded but did not go with the Union when it elected Lincoln president. Therefore, the Southern mind understood majority rule as applying only in the state. It was a state principle that could not dictate or guide the Union and could never justify the election of Lincoln. Lincoln, a man who "never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence," 18 possessed an understanding of the nature of the Union that was derived from his understanding of those principles in that document. Those who saw the Union apart from those principles were reliant upon the doctrine of states' rights as a fundamental justification for legal secession. Chief among the architects of this understanding was John C. Calhoun, a man far better known and respected for his political thinking in 1860 than Lincoln, even though he had been dead for more than ten years. Part Two of this work will be an attempt to reconstruct Calhoun’s argument, sparing nothing in the search for the highest rational and persuasive ground from which to survey the Southern view of the nature of the Union. Parts Three and Four will be Lincoln’s argument in response. In this account, we will present his views in the clearest light possible, in an attempt to illustrate his understanding of the nature of the Union and the principles for which it stands