With this speech, Abraham Lincoln secured his place as not only the greatest American orator, but one of the greatest speakers of all time. Lincoln's approach is brilliant, he covers the entire spectrum of appeal, Logos, Pathos and Ethos, while clearly stating his intent and leaving the "ball" effectively in his opponent's "court."
He begins by defining his goal as preservation of the Union, nothing more. He says that he will fulfill his obligation as President to uphold the Constitution and not interfere with state's rights. He also assures the people that he will enforce the law equally in all states (references to the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution.)
References to threats of invasion in this section have a dual-purpose. Lincoln wanted to assuage fears (stirred up by "fire-eaters") that the north would openly sponsor terrorist activity like John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry as well as assure people that there was no plan for an invasion or occupation of the south.
To address the issue of possible secession, Lincoln uses an effective appeal to logic. By referencing the Articles of Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, he establishes that government proceeds from the will of the people, and that no provision for dissolution of government can exist without the consent of all parties involved. This means that secession by a minority, not bound forcibly to the will of the majority, is irrational. "A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations...is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism."
Lincoln continues to keep the argument centered on the law and preservation of the Union, adding an ethical appeal to the speech. He addresses slavery as the central issue in the dispute between states, but does not attempt to condemn it as immoral. By foregoing judgement on the issue of slavery itself and focusing on the potential consequences and futility of war, Lincoln avoids passing judgement on those who support slavery while criticizing the idea of secession. He urges Southerners to trust in the judgement of the people, reminding them that government power is limited for a reason, all people have a right to be heard, and that disputes are best settled within the framework of the law, not by rebellion.
In closing, Lincoln reassures the people of his goodwill, intention to uphold the law, and preserve the Union. He again assures the Southerners that he does not plan to infringe on their rights in any way, and that any action to dissolve the Union will not be initiated by him. Turning to emotional appeal, he ends with language designed to invoke a spirit of unity and national pride,"Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory...will yet swell the chorus of the Union...when again touched...by the better angels of our nature."
Was his argument convincing? I don't think Cicero could have done better, but it didn't convince the Southerners. This document is most significant, however, because it provides excellent ammunition against Southern Apologist arguments regarding Lincoln's "plans" for abolishing slavery and the necessity of secession in order to preserve Southern rights and their way of life. Instead, we see a President who defines his role strictly as a Chief Executive, determined to enforce and uphold the law and preserve the Union.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Letter to an English Abolitionist, John Henry Hammond 1845
In this letter, John Henry Hammond (a South Carolina politician and slave owner) responds to an Englishman who has criticized the institution of slavery and called for emancipation of the slaves in America. Hammond responds in a methodical, logical and precise manner, effectively deflating the emotional qualities of many pro-abolition arguments of the day.
Hammond attempts to use logic to analyze and systematically refute the claims of the abolitionists. He first uses Biblical references to validate the purchase and ownership of slaves. This was an argument that divided many American Protestants; is the Bible pro-slavery? By founding their arguments (in large part) on emotional appeal and Biblical authority, abolitionists had left themselves open to many pro-slavery rebuttals. The Bible is arguably as pro-slavery as the Constitution was at that time.
Hammond continues his rebuttal by using philosophical arguments (in existence since the time of Plato) regarding the merits of government by the masses or the aristocracy. He also hints at the low social status and intellectual ability of American Abolitionists.
He continues, extolling the financial benefits of slavery, the civic-minded responsibility of the "gentleman slave owner," the relationship between social obligation, treatment of slaves and productivity, and finally turns the argument back on his accuser.
He finishes by attacking conditions in British factories and the plight of the poor in that country. He believed that slaves enjoyed a far higher standard of living than the poor in England.
On the surface (if you can suppress your modern-day hatred for the institution of slavery,) Hammond seems to present an effective argument. Upon close examination, however, we can discover some great fallacies in his logic. Appealing the Bible as a guide for government, morality, etc., though socially acceptable at the time, is an appeal to an unqualified authority. As a historical example, he distorts the argument by changing the subject to the role of the people in government; a red herring. Finally, he attacks his opponent as a hypocrite by asserting that the poor in England are treated worse than slaves in America.
This argument, though greatly flawed, is significant because it allows a glimpse into the mind of a "true believer" in slavery. He claims to have no great love for slavery, acknowledges the financial benefits of the practice, dodges the issue by claiming to treat slaves humanely and turns arguments back on his accusers.
It may be difficult for us to imagine how someone could rationalize slavery in this manner, but in it's time, this argument reflected the belief of many Americans (north and south.) It is easy to try to imagine millions of angry abolitionists railing against this injustice, but that is pure fantasy. Abolitionists were a very small, vocal minority group. This letter gives insight into the mind of many educated, wealthy politicians; the majority of less-privileged Americans (north and south) probably gave the matter even less consideration.
What is most telling in this letter, is that Hammond refuses to admit that the government exists to provide and preserve liberty. I cannot help but to wonder if his feelings would change if he were deprived of his own liberty, and what arguments he would use against his persecutors.
Hammond attempts to use logic to analyze and systematically refute the claims of the abolitionists. He first uses Biblical references to validate the purchase and ownership of slaves. This was an argument that divided many American Protestants; is the Bible pro-slavery? By founding their arguments (in large part) on emotional appeal and Biblical authority, abolitionists had left themselves open to many pro-slavery rebuttals. The Bible is arguably as pro-slavery as the Constitution was at that time.
Hammond continues his rebuttal by using philosophical arguments (in existence since the time of Plato) regarding the merits of government by the masses or the aristocracy. He also hints at the low social status and intellectual ability of American Abolitionists.
He continues, extolling the financial benefits of slavery, the civic-minded responsibility of the "gentleman slave owner," the relationship between social obligation, treatment of slaves and productivity, and finally turns the argument back on his accuser.
He finishes by attacking conditions in British factories and the plight of the poor in that country. He believed that slaves enjoyed a far higher standard of living than the poor in England.
On the surface (if you can suppress your modern-day hatred for the institution of slavery,) Hammond seems to present an effective argument. Upon close examination, however, we can discover some great fallacies in his logic. Appealing the Bible as a guide for government, morality, etc., though socially acceptable at the time, is an appeal to an unqualified authority. As a historical example, he distorts the argument by changing the subject to the role of the people in government; a red herring. Finally, he attacks his opponent as a hypocrite by asserting that the poor in England are treated worse than slaves in America.
This argument, though greatly flawed, is significant because it allows a glimpse into the mind of a "true believer" in slavery. He claims to have no great love for slavery, acknowledges the financial benefits of the practice, dodges the issue by claiming to treat slaves humanely and turns arguments back on his accusers.
It may be difficult for us to imagine how someone could rationalize slavery in this manner, but in it's time, this argument reflected the belief of many Americans (north and south.) It is easy to try to imagine millions of angry abolitionists railing against this injustice, but that is pure fantasy. Abolitionists were a very small, vocal minority group. This letter gives insight into the mind of many educated, wealthy politicians; the majority of less-privileged Americans (north and south) probably gave the matter even less consideration.
What is most telling in this letter, is that Hammond refuses to admit that the government exists to provide and preserve liberty. I cannot help but to wonder if his feelings would change if he were deprived of his own liberty, and what arguments he would use against his persecutors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)