HW for April 12 - commentary on "the House Divided metaphor" (and practice for the text)
"A house divided against itself cannot stand" (anthology, p. 233) - this is a sentence that has its context in a speech by Abraham Lincoln on the course of debates withing the Republicans (later known as the Lincoln-Douglass debates), after the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision. It also stands in relation to other historic moments in the US. Comment on the quotation, interrelating at least three other historical texts from our course.
The statement “A house divided against itself can not stand” is an emblematic line of Abraham Lincoln’s speech, during his Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas. It is a metaphor for the increasing division within the United States over the issue of slavery. In the context of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which ruled African-Americans were not U.S. citizens, Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories, inflaming tensions between North and South, as it became impossible to restrain the spread of slavery. In the same way, the president signed the Nebraska Doctrine, determining that each state decides by popular sovereignty whether it would be a slave-state or a free state (repealing the Missouri Compromise).
ReplyDeleteThe discussion over slavery, started to inflame due to the path of American expansionism. In the essay “Manifest Destiny” (pp.171-173), Carl Schurz demonstrates how the annexation of Texas and new territories exacerbated the division of the country. Some people saw “Manifest Destiny” as an opportunity to increase the number of slave states, while others criticized the acquisition of foreign soil "for the benefit of slavery." (p.171). Schurz captures the negative consequences of this "indiscriminate aggrandizement," warning that the increase in Slave States could lead to a "rapid deterioration in the character of the people and their political institutions" and a future of "turbulence, demoralization and final decay."
This author also defends that the US has an expansionist thirst that will be recurrent, since one of the arguments for annexation was that it would certify that certain territory is not occupied by another big power and threaten their security. Concurrently, to assure their protection, the US also introduced a new policy, the “Monroe Doctrine”, which prohibited European powers from acquiring colonies in the American continent.
Moreover, the Missouri Statehood Controversy brings the question of whether Missouri would enter Union as a slave state or a free state, intensifying the division on the topic.
Besides, the United States has historically exhibited a tendency towards division, as evidenced by its enduring two-party system. The discussion over the bank veto, divided the country into pro-Webster or pro-Jacksonians (whigs or democrats), over the policies of President Jackson. This president demonized, in his discourse, the “despotism of wealth”, coming from privilege, while the opposition accused him of “despotism of the masses”. (p.157).
In Lincoln’s statement, he seems to advocate for unity. A possible comparison would be with John Winthrop’s sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity”, where he emphasizes the importance of unity and community for the prosperity and well-being of society. Winthrop argues, "we must knit together, in this work, as one man," (p.44) highlighting the need for cooperation to achieve common goals and maintain peace. However, Winthrop's advocacy for the expansion of the United States in order to prosper, presents a contradiction when viewed in light of the country's history of division and conflict, particularly over issues like slavery and territorial expansion.
In conclusion, all the examples of division presented above underscore challenges of maintaining unity in a democratic society, where differing ideologies and interests often lead to polarization and conflict. Abraham Lincoln’s quote highlights that to maintain a strong and enduring nation, unity and compromise is needed, otherwise, it would mean the downfall of its government.
Pages of the anthology:
“Manifest Destiny, Carl Schurz” (pp. 171-173)
“James Monroe Warns European Powers (1823)” (pp. 145-146)
“The Missouri Statehood Controversy” (pp. 142-144)
“E. The War on the Bank” (pp. 157-158)
“A Model of Christian Charity” (pp. 43-44)
Abraham Lincoln pronounced the “House Divided” speech after the passing of the Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln presents these two events in relation to Democrat presidential candidate Stephen Douglas, whose attitude towards slavery was described by Lincoln through these words: “[Douglas] cares not whether slavery be voted down or up.” (237). Lincoln appears to denounce slavery, although his stance is not strong, nor stated clearly. He seems more preoccupied with ensuring the United States remain intact than he is fighting slavery. At the start of the speech, he does not take a stand against slavery. Instead, he says: “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. [...]. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” (235).
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Lincoln describes Douglas’ stance as unclear, stating multiple times that those who are in any capacity anti-slavery are left to infer whether he wishes for slavery to persist or for it to cease. Douglas was a supporter of the notion that the government should not have interfered with State laws, even those regarding slavery, in order to keep the United States united and free. His attitude was similar to that of Daniel Webster in 1850 (“The Preservation of Sectional Harmony: The Compromise of 1850”, 200). Webster, a Democrat like Douglas, accepted the compromise proposed by senator Henry Clay in order to alleviate the tensions that the annexation of the newly acquired States created in Senate. Webster’s ready acceptance of Clay’s compromise was due to his undying nationalism, but it cost him the support of the other abolitionists. Lincoln himself was not an active abolitionist. He also valued the unity of the United States above the abolition of slavery, but he was not wholly against conflict as long as it served the purpose of uniting the States: “In my opinion, [the agitation] will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.” (235). Douglas accused Lincoln of rooting for an armed conflict; Lincoln led the United States through the Civil War not three years later.
Secondly, Lincoln cites the Constitution of the United States many times throughout the speech. The document, Lincoln argues, was used as an instrument to create the perfect conditions for slavery to be upheld. The black man was not recognizes as a citizen so that he could not benefit from the benefits that the Constitution grants its subjects. “The people were to be left “perfectly free” “subject only to the Constitution.” [...]. [I]t was an exactly fitted nitch for the Dred Scott decision to [...] declare that perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all.” (238). Douglas and his supporters instrumentalized the constitutional right to self-government of the States to defend that the central government could not, under any normal circumstance, force a State to abolish slavery. Ironically, it was Douglas’ homonym who, in 1852, had argued that the Constitution was not in any capacity defending slavery. Frederick Douglass, in his speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”, says, “[T]he Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.” (220). Douglass argues, as slavery is never mentioned in any capacity in the Constitution, that it cannot be interpreted to defend it or uphold it. On the other hand, he says, “it contains principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery…” (221). Lincoln, although in tones more vague than Douglass, seems to share the same belief.
(1/2)
Finally, the “House Divided” speech ends with a call to patience to his fellow Republicans, who wished for a presidential victory after years of Democratic power. “Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but sooner or later the victory is sure to come.” (p. 241). Lincoln wanted to act upon slavery, which he considered immoral, but he was not yet actively protesting against it, although he showed contentment at the idea that some people were. He was willing to wait until the Republican party won to finally change the system. Thus, Lincoln was in 1858 what Henry David Thoreau described in “Civil Disobedience” as someone who obeyed the unjust laws “until [they] have succeeded. [...]. Men, generally, [...], think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them.” (p. 202).
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, with his “House Divided” speech Lincoln is able to maintain a balanced position, never leaning too far into an abolitionist stance, while at the same time defending his views of slavery as immoral. Lincoln’s ultimate goal was the unity of the United States, and he was willing to wait however long it may take for his goal to become reality.
(2/2)