Revisiting Lincoln’s Argument: Can America Live Half Slave, Half Free?

Douglas Murray publishes a weekly column, Things Worth Remembering, on The Free Press. This week his topic is the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 and how beautifully Lincoln summarized the then current debate over extending slavery outside of the states that became the Confederacy in 1861. As Murray noted:

The debates also tell us much about the political and intellectual culture in America in those days. This was a time before people’s attention spans had been shot by electronic devices, before soundbites and gotcha quotes and 24-hour cable news cycles. This was a time when the public was expected to follow long and complex arguments between respectful opponents who disagreed deeply on the most important matters of the day.

And so there is an interesting question about how Lincoln's rhetoric would be received today. His Gettysburg Address well fits our time, being only 272 words, but his longer form argumentation au courant then would be cut short by a pundit or the audience. And, if so, so much would be lost.

The fathers of the Government expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be in the course of ultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only say that I desire to see that done which the fathers have first done. When I say that I desire to see it placed where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made this Government part slave and part free.

Understand the sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself—was introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making the Government they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the difficulty—the absolute impossibility—of its immediate removal.

And when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the Government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, when the policy that the fathers of the Government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world—the only wise policy—the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon—that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution—I turn upon him and ask him why he could not let it alone. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in regard to it.

He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 22nd of March of the present year, 1858. I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it? I ask too of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it? I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had no war out of it, when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief that we shall have war out of it, if we return to that policy? Have we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis? I maintain that we have not. I have proposed nothing more than a return to the policy of the fathers.

On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has any thing ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity save and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery—by spreading it out and making it bigger?

You may have a wen or cancer upon your person and not be able to cut it out lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong—restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example.

The "peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example." But it didn't work out that way. Murray says, "Today, of course, we know that Lincoln won the argument." But did he?

The first problem with Lincoln's argument was that when the nation was founded, several of the 13 original colonies had legal slavery, including New York. So the question arises as to what time frame is in Lincoln's mind. Likely it was closer to 1800 rather than the adoption of the Constitution, as the new federal system had some prior northern "slave" states abolishing the practices within their boundaries. But by 1858, slavery had already expanded beyond the four southern states (Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia), whose territories were subdivided to create four additional states (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi). It now included Florida (acquired from Spain), Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri (acquired from France), and Texas who had gained independence from Mexico and then joined the United States. But I think Lincoln is correct that "The fathers of the Government expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be in the course of ultimate extinction."

The 3/5ths rule for counting slaves in the popular census that allocated power in the Congress, had both short and long-term impacts. In the short run it retarded the relative power of Virginia et al. in the national governing structure; and in the long run, states that drew new, non-slave immigrants which increased their relative power. Think about current events: what if illegal immigrants were counted as 3/5th for census purposes? But once truly new slave states were added, the table was set for a re-evaluation of federalism itself. We see that today, as well, in the questions of abortion, gay marriage, and transgender "care" for children.

It is an irony of history that Lincoln argued both for federalism and for Congress to restrict the expansion of slavery into new states, and then fought a war to deny state secession, using abolition of slavery in rebelling states as a weapon. He saw abolition as an end-state that would occur over time, in any event; but he prized the union above anti-federalist national abolition. We tend to see Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal as the end of federalism, but seeds were firmly planted in the 1858 debate, the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, and the creation of a federal income tax -- all of which predate the New Deal.

The 1858 debate? Lincoln's opponent in that debate, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, was clearly the greater proponent of federalism -- Douglas was prepared for the nation to live "half slave, half free" based on the preferences of the individual states. But let's be frank: the argument for "half a loaf" is always made by those out of power, or fearful of losing power by insisting on the whole "loaf". If we update the issues -- abortion, gay marriage, transgender "care" for children -- are we not more comfortable with our preferred solution as a national policy rather than a state-by-state determination? Do we not see the alternative view as a "moral stain"?

As we view our continuing political conflicts we have three paths: Lincoln's 1858 approach, Stephen Douglas' approach, and the post-Civil War approach. Lincoln's 1858 approach was to accept status quo on a matter but not permit it to expand into new territory. Douglas' approach was states' rights, i.e., federalism. The post-Civl War approach is to more and more convert states into large aggregations of counties -- identified separately, but more and more fused nationally through taxation, regulation and the 14th amendment. The problem is that each path is distinct and it is hard to prize a single issue from the others and coherently argue that states continue to operate as "laboratories for democracy". We only argue that when we are losing, not when we are winning.