CHARITY AND CIVILITY IN A POLITICAL SPEECH?! AN EXAMPLE FROM ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Lincoln in the late 1850s

Lincoln in the late 1850s

I’ve been making my way slowly through the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln this summer, and yesterday I re-read a speech that I’ve known for years, only this time I read it against the backdrop of this year’s interminable presidential campaign and the schoolyard name-calling that passes for serious political debate in 2016.  The speech is what is known as Lincoln’s “Cooper Union Address,” a talk that he made at a prominent lecture hall in New York City in February 1860, four months before the Illinois Republican received his party’s nomination for president.

As a historian, I am reflexively suspicious of supposed “golden ages” in the past, and when talking heads look solemnly into the camera and lament how far we have fallen from the civil discourse of past eras, I instinctively groan.  And yet, as I re-read Lincoln’s speech—a speech that introduced Lincoln to eastern audiences and transformed him into a serious contender for the presidency—I was repeatedly struck by the charity, humility, and civility that permeated it.  Here are just two examples:

First, in speaking figuratively to white Southerners (there were few, if any, in the audience), Lincoln began with this acknowledgement: “I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any people.”  This echoed a familiar refrain in Lincoln’s speeches of the late 1850s, as he repeatedly, pointedly refused to characterize the southerners who vilified the Republican Party as either malevolent or misinformed.

“I have constantly declared, as I really believed,” Lincoln told an Illinois audience in October 1858, that “the only difference between them [the white South] and us, is the difference of circumstances.”  In an 1859 speech in Dayton, Ohio, Lincoln again used the rhetorical device of addressing the South with this promise: “We mean to remember that you [Southerners] are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances.  We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have.”

Almost no southerners heard these disclaimers, as Lincoln surely understood, but in making them, he was indirectly admonishing his northern followers to avoid self-righteousness.  Lincoln was not arguing the moral equivalence of the two political factions.  He made no bones about his belief that slavery was a “moral, social, and political wrong,” but he simultaneously refused to portray antislavery advocates as morally superior to slavery’s defenders.

Second, in speaking to northern Republicans, Lincoln imparted this advice:

It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, with one another.  Let us Republicans do our part to have it so.  Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper.  Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can.

The current Republican nominee claims to admire Lincoln, explaining to Bob Woodward that Lincoln “did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time,” whatever that means.  What is more, Trump has touted his ability to be “as presidential” as Lincoln, or nearly so.  Is it possible to imagine the current nominee following Lincoln’s example in either respect?

In fairness to Trump, his caustic, defamatory, polarizing anti-intellectual rhetoric is but an extreme example of the general tenor of partisan debate in our time.  Each party portrays the other as a combination of evil leaders and stupid followers.  What is destroyed in these characterizations is the possibility of what political scientists call “persuasive engagement,” the potential for rational argument in which each side respects the other and can conceive of some sort of compromise in which both sides benefit.

One hundred and fifty-six years ago, Lincoln implored his southern critics to be open to persuasive engagement.  Let the battle be over principles, not personalities, he exhorted them.  Above all, “meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side.”  The first step to constructive political dialogue, in other words, is humility, a willingness to acknowledge that no single party has a monopoly on wisdom and virtue.  Not bad advice.

TrumpLincoln

6 responses to “CHARITY AND CIVILITY IN A POLITICAL SPEECH?! AN EXAMPLE FROM ABRAHAM LINCOLN

  1. Debates and speeches in the ante bellum period could be quite ferocious. Witness the rhetoric and outright racism in the Lincoln Douglas debates which were much more substantive than our debates and speeches today. I read most of the Congressional debates over the Compromise of 1850 and there was less civility than one might imagine. However, compared with the light weight intellectual content today the pre-Civil War political speeches seem like high minded rhetoric and analysis(even considering debates and open racism over slavery as well as the the white supremacy in both north and south regarding the role of free blacks). Thank you for your interesting posts this summer on Lincoln and Toequeville. I have learned a great deal from them.

    • Thank you, John. You’re absolutely right to say that 19th-century debates could be vicious, and we should certainly not think of the period as some sort of golden age of civil discourse. In my research into southern Unionism years ago, one of the characters that I dealt with a great deal was a journalist/politician named William Brownlow, who could rival the most scurrilous voices of our current political climate.

  2. Pingback: Charity and Civility in a Political Speech?! An Example from Abraham Lincoln - The Raven Foundation

  3. OUCH, and Double OUCH! Does Dwayne really think that Lincoln was that blood thirsty? Of course, given the rhetoric of the current political campaign I suppose such thinking is to be expected.

    • What do you think of him, Jack? The man unconstitutionally assembled an Army (an authority exclusively held by the Congress), suspended habeas corpus (another authority exclusively held by the Congress), and then waged a war on sovereign States (treason) that caused the deaths of over 800 thousand people. Again, charity and civility? Pffft…

      The man was an unconstitutional dictator; a monster; end of story.

  4. Of course we know what he really meant today; either listen to us (ME) or I will have you killed. Charity and civility? Pfft…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s