Abraham Lincoln’s Speeches: Preserving the Union

Throughout his political career, Abraham Lincoln was forced to make saving the Union his top priority. For three years before the Confederacy fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln spoke with the ultimate goal of preserving of the Union. He did so in the face of southern hostility over the divisive issue of slavery. In his speeches, five concepts stand out as being prominent. These are: heroic images of past American individuals and American moments; the notion of an impending irrepressible conflict; Government of the people, by the people, for the people; religious overtones, specifically biblical imagery; and human rights. It is my intention to analyse these in relation to the central Northern goal of winning the Civil War and keeping the Union intact.

As the Union triumphed in 1865, slavery had become the critical theme of the war. As the North defeated the South the institution of slavery was destroyed, but this had not been the goal in early 1861. In his first inaugural speech upon assuming the Presidency, Abraham Lincoln promised the southern states who were preparing to secede that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it already exists.1” This is explicit, and definitive. The clarity and simplicity of his language exemplifies what he always wanted to do: speak to average Americans as well as to politicians2. After all, saving the Union would require the will power and strength of almost every man. But President Lincoln’s disregard for the rights of slaves to be free is clear, and needs no further clarification. The message of the above sentence is polarised from the Emancipation Proclamation, and the issue of human rights. Principles of humanity, however, would soon enough become a hallmark of Lincoln’s critical orations.

In the same speech, Lincoln vows to enforce the controversial fugitive slave law, promising they “shall be delivered3”. But what Lincoln says in his first inaugural address does not necessarily contradict what he had stated in previous orations. In 1858, for example, Lincoln stressed (in what many consider to be his most important speech4) that he believed “this government cannot endure ... half slave and half free.5” It would be wrong to interpret what Lincoln said when assuming the Presidency as him trying to make the Union work ‘as half and half’; he spoke as he did only with a short term view. A most likely explanation for the sentiments he expressed in his inaugural address of 1861 is that Lincoln was trying to keep the South content, for a short while longer at least. To substantiate this assumption, I draw you attention to what he reminds his listeners at the end of his first inaugural address that “nothing valuable can be lost by taking time.6” Lincoln’s attempt to buy the country and himself some time ultimately failed: the shots were fired at Fort Sumter within a month. Indeed, principles of humanity -- the first prominent concept of his speeches -- were soon to become the tools of his public speaking. He took to using them whenever possible to further aid the preservation of the Union and the speedy close of the war he so badly desired.

This in itself is an important point to clarify. The manipulation of humane principles was a means to preserving the status of the Union. This is not the same as what the likes of William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass were pushing for at the time; advocates of abolitionism stressed that the institution of slavery should be wiped out at any cost. If faced with the option of saving the Union but keeping slavery, it is not too bold to assume Lincoln would have taken this choice. In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln states:

“If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them ... If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.7”

But if Garrison had the chance to liberate the slaves at the cost of the Union, he almost certainly would have done so.

Having said that, Lincoln’s use of humane principles bordered on abolitionism at times. He was never able to fully embrace the abolitionists, however, because of the extremist tag which had been attached to them by mainstream commentators during the 19th century. Implicitly, though, it is clear that Lincoln’s heart was always in the right place. In 1858, he makes it clear at the beginning of his “House Divided” speech that there can be no compromise between good and evil. Having half the nation allowing the institution of slavery and half the nation outlawing it suggests a middle ground between right and wrong8. Indeed, Lincoln’s friend and law partner William H. Herndon praised Lincoln for being morally courageous, but considered him politically incorrect.

Later in his speaking career, human rights became more explicit in Lincoln’s orations. On August 18 and 22, 1864 (after the Emancipation Proclamation), Lincoln spoke to two Ohio regiments at the White House. When speaking to the sixty-fourth Ohio Regiment on the 18th, he stated:

“We have, as all will agree, a free Government, where every man has a right to be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one.9”

The rights of men, though not an initial cause of the war, were by this point a key principle for Lincoln in justifying the actions of the Union army. His words are free of race, colour, and religion, and suggest that the human rights of all citizens living south of Canada and north of Mexico are only going to be enshrined if the Confederate army is defeated.

The United States army of today fights under a flag which supposedly embodies the basic principles of humanity, and the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Abraham Lincoln was, with the words he used, the first Commander-in-chief to supervise an American army which explicitly fought for these rights.

Another concept of public speaking which was later used by Lincoln in conjunction with human rights was that of religion, specifically religious imagery and biblical imagery. President Lincoln was not the first to use this in public speaking10, but he is today regarded as one of the best exponents of it thanks to the way he applied it to the Civil War.

The philosophy behind this technique is based upon God and Christianity both being undisputable powers. It is critical for Lincoln to speak as if God is on his side in this dispute because that makes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy indisputably wrong. With the polarised opposite of God being the Devil, the Confederacy is cast in an evil light, as if they are fighting in the name of Satan. So not only are the Union troops going to be fighting for human rights, but they are now God’s Christian warriors as well.

To illustrate this, it is important to consider how Lincoln asserts the power of God. At the beginning of a response to an unexpected serenade outside the White House, three days after Independence Day in 1863, he starts: “I do most sincerely thank Almighty God for the occasion on which you have called.11” Notice how he doesn’t just thank God, but he thanks Almighty God. This is significant because it highlights the undisputable power in God, and which only God has. By doing this, he not only puts himself in line with Christianity, but with the unquestionable power of God also.

The technique of including religious overtones also draws a connection to the concept of America’s Manifest Destiny. It is widely accepted that Lincoln was a great believer in America’s God given right to spread democracy and American values across the planet12. For Manifest Destiny as a concept to work, it has to be seen to be working in the United States. If the Union could not crush the Confederate States, then America’s God given right to expand itself across the continent of North America would be severely undermined.

Similarly, the role of religion in the destiny of the United States is a crucial factor in Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg. Its importance is underscored by the fact that the religious element of the speech came right before the line by which everybody recalls the speech for: “... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom ...13” The notion of a new, more free America is rooted by President Lincoln in a Christian power structure -- under the watchful eye of God. By doing this, he also guards against a completely new revolution; what the Union troops are fighting for in the Civil War is a new and unified America, but not one which is completely unrecognisable from the America which was founded by the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

As would be expected, though, Lincoln’s use of religious overtones stretches back before 1861. His address to the House in 1848 regarding the war with Mexico is one of Lincoln’s earliest speeches of note, and about two thirds of the way through he suggests President Polk “feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to heaven against him.14” This is a strong religious simile which he employs here, portraying the President to be just as bad as Cain. This is too strong for him to speak plainly, so he does it through comparing the blood of his soldiers to the blood of Abel. When Abraham Lincoln eventually became President some thirteen years later, he will have almost certainly been guided by the mistakes President Polk made as Commander-in-Chief during the war with Mexico.

Ten years later, and no longer a simple Congressman, Lincoln gave his talk in Springfield, Illinois, which is referred to today as his “House Divided” speech: it is named so because early in the introduction Lincoln included the line “a house divided against itself cannot stand.15” To open such a forthright and aggressive oration by paraphrasing what Jesus had said in the New Testament was political dynamite. This line was made all the more significant because of the explosive political context in which it was delivered. As early as 1858, the stench of secession from Southern states was strong. The geography of Illinois made the race for this particular Senate seat (a race between Lincoln of the G.O.P. and Stephen A. Douglas of the Democrats) even more important than it usually would have been. His remarks were inevitably characterised by some to be too far in advance of the times in which they were uttered16, but the tone had been set.

The religious paraphrasing led to Lincoln prophesising agitations which would not cease until a crisis had been reached and passed. In going on to practically rule out a peaceful resolution to the issue of slavery, he was accused of proposing a war. But Lincoln was far form being a war monger; he argued it was a prediction only, though he said nothing during his campaign to suggest a peaceful resolution could be reached.

What Lincoln describes in detail in his “House Divided” speech is the notion of a forthcoming irrepressible conflict. This is the third concept which helped Abraham Lincoln preserve the Union against Southern hostilities. Abraham Lincoln did not devise the term, but along with political ally William H. Seward, he brought it to the attention of the political mainstream.

The concept is one of agitated fear: his “House Divided” speech is menacing and one packed with perils and dangers. The extremist reading of it casts the oration as a bloody manifesto -- a declaration of war against the institution of slavery, and thus the South17. But taken in its broadest sense, Lincoln’s speech is merely preparatory in nature. As Johannsen phrases it, Lincoln employed his best doomsday rhetoric18, but he did so not simply to scare Illinoisans into voting for him, but as an honest warning that trouble was waiting further on down the road.

It is understood that Lincoln publicly saw the 1858 race for the Senate as the irrepressible conflict, but one wonders, when reading the closing statements of the speech, whether he honestly foresaw an actual war in the all-too-near future. The words “resistance,” “battle,” “enemy,” “brave,” and “victory” work in conjunction with phrases such as “we stand firm,” “the result is not doubtful” , and “we shall not fail” to form the metaphor of an ideological war at the very least. In my opinion the words and phrases are all too outspoken to mean just that. Lincoln could see the battles and the enemy all too clearly.

This, it is important to remember, is 1858. Fort Sumter was three years away. Being able to envisage the ever-approaching conflict at such an early stage required great insight into the American psyche, and that Lincoln undoubtedly possessed. It was not surprising to many in the North when the Confederacy fired first, but it was surprising to Abraham Lincoln least of all. He had seen this for at least three years. And he had been planning how to save the Union for that length of time as well. We can understand the notion of the irrepressible conflict as almost being a self-warning for Lincoln himself to prepare for the worst, should it occur.

The element of irrepressibility of the impending conflict is drawn from the fact that both sides are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. When these sides collide, no compromise can possibly suffice as a legitimate and suitable conclusion for all. President Lincoln justifies the use of the war power by the executive at the end of his war address to Congress on Independence Day, 1861, he states that: “no compromise by public servants could, in this case, be a cure.19” In other words, this conflict was always going to happen, so he is not going to do anything but let it happen and do his utmost to win it.

The “House Divided” speech of Abraham Lincoln is unique with respect to his other prominent orations because it is completely void of heroic images of past Americans. Equally, there is no mention of great American moments from history. Like the inclusion of religious imagery, this concept was widely used at the time, as it still is today. By dropping into a speech the names of great American heroes from the past, a speaker may hope to justify a vast array of ideas, policies and actions.

The thinking behind this is that by simply mentioning a great American of a by-gone era, or perhaps one of the great American documents (the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence etc.), then the ‘righteousness’ of it will be transferred to the new idea which the speaker is illustrating. What Abraham Lincoln was constantly promoting was the saviour of the union from (as he saw it) utter destruction and complete annihilation. As previously mentioned in this essay, President Lincoln gave a few informal remarks upon receiving a serenade, some four months before he delivered the Gettysburg Address. When he did so, he manipulated this opportunity to clearly polarise the Confederacy from the Declaration of Independence, placing them at opposite end of the spectrum:

“... and now, on this last Fourth of July just passed, when we have a gigantic Rebellion, at the bottom of which is an effort to overthrow the principle that all men are created equal, we have the surrender of a most powerful position and army ...20”

Lincoln motivates the crowd into supporting the war by drawing upon the recent capture of Vicksburg, Mississippi, but at the same time portrays his troops as having successfully defended, at the absolute least, the opening line of the 1776 document: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

Yet it is in President Lincoln’s war address to Congress where these references become so critical. In many respects, the President needs the backing of Congress more than he needs the backing of the people to win a war; it is, after all, Congress who finance it and it is they who must organise the budget for the war. Roughly three quarters of the way through his crucial address, Lincoln implies the United States has the best government on the planet. “The free institutions we enjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of our whole people,” he insists, “beyond any example in the world.21” One of only a few ways he can possibly substantiate such a bold claim is by following it with a name and situation: the name of a great American, carrying out a courageous act. The Confederacy’s new Declaration of Independence, he says, unlike the “good old one, penned by Jefferson ... omit[s] the words “all men are created equal.”22” By questioning why this is so, he tries to convey what has gone before as being practically perfect -- it cannot be improved upon, and any attempt to make it better will only have a reverse affect. Furthermore, by insisting the Union has the best democracy in the world, he is suggesting that there will never be another nation better positioned to crush the Confederate uprising.

Further on in the speech, the President uses a similar sentence structure to convey a similar meaning:

“in the preamble of [a temporary national constitution], unlike our good old one, signed by Washington, they omit "We, the people," and substitute "We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent States." Why?23”

The most noticeable aspect of this section of the speech is the repartition. Not only does Lincoln repeat the same words, but there is grammatical parallelism present, also. These were common traits in the speeches of Abraham Lincoln, and he uses them here to draw attention to the heroes of years gone by24. Moreover, in his inaugural speech of 1861, Lincoln emphasises the role of the Constitution of the United States. No less than 34 times does he refer directly to it, or to something as being “constitutional”. This statistic emphasises Lincoln’s repartition, as well as his willingness to rely upon the American Constitution to aid in saving the Union.

But the belief in the power of the policies advocated by the Constitution is not something Lincoln developed overnight. In his speech in the House about the war with Mexico (a speech of 1848), he insisted President Polk should assume the role of the first President, George Washington: “Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer, as Washington would answer.25” Again we have repartition of the sentence structure, but in this instance, Lincoln is searching for honesty on the part of President Polk, whom he suspects to be trying to con himself as well as the House and the Senate and the American people. Even today, some Americans hold George Washington to be the purist of Presidents, simply because he was the first to assume the high role. It is this which Lincoln takes for granted, and thus plays upon with his words.

Many of the great Americans from by-gone years whom Lincoln references helped establish what Lincoln coined to by “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Whilst this is the last thing President Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, the point at which the speech itself occurred in the war is significant. 1863 was the middle of the war, two years into what would be the United States most bloody conflict until their entry into World War II in 1941. Both sides expected a quick victory, so after two years of hard-fought battles and many lives lost on both sides, Abraham Lincoln’s orations had to be of the highest order to sustain the war effort.

The last line of the Gettysburg Address is one of strong democratic values, but to better understand it one should also take into consideration a line from his Inaugural Address of 1861:

“[Faithfully executing all the laws] I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people [emphasis mine], shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary.26”

What Lincoln stresses here are the rights of the average American citizen. It is clear why Lincoln was, according to Herndon, so eager to communicate his messages to the masses. What the last line of the Gettysburg Address and the above quote show is willingness on Lincoln’s part to accentuate that he is President because the majority of the American electorate wanted him to be. They expressively chose him to lead the country, and he is happy to govern for them, and on their terms.

It is also noticeable that Lincoln does not incorporate a religious element to governing the Union. Lincoln’s liking for religious instruction cannot be discarded, even when an American is casting his vote, but the American must remember that the President who is elected will not be governing God, but the people at the ballot box.

Lincoln gave the Union army something to fight for when he said “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. It is a catchy phrase, with a ring to it. It is true that Lincoln was already waging a war in the name of Christianity and in the name of democracy, but what he effectively did at Gettysburg was put a slogan to it. The Northern Americans already knew their troops were fighting for democracy, but now they had a catchphrase to remember it by. And in that last line, Lincoln sold the war to the people who, after hearing of thousands killed on the battlefields, often with little gain, must have felt their appetite for warfare fading away. Lincoln breathed new life into the war effort, and helped boost the morale of the Northern Americans citizens and the Union army.

In conclusion, the many facets of war are often played out linguistically. In his speeches, Abraham Lincoln spoke plainly of war in a variety of ways, ranging from an irrepressible conflict which was heading straight for the heart of American democracy, to something which could ultimately be a crusade for good in the world.

The shifting emphasis of the American Civil War can be traced in his orations. In 1861, he spoke solely of saving the Union. By 1865, the emancipation of the slaves in the Confederate states became the easiest way to achieve this. As a result, Lincoln spoke openly of humanity. The Emancipation Proclamation, and the way he sold it to the American people in conjunction with other ‘American’ principles, became the great preserver of the Union.

When pushed, to defend her beliefs and her principles, the United States came up fighting, and in the process of fighting created a few more along the way.


Bibliography

Barker, Alan. The Civil War in America. London: A. & C. Black Ltd. 1961.

Basler, Roy P. “Abraham Lincoln and Rhetoric”. American Literature. 11:2 (May 1939): p 167 – 182.

Brice, Marshall M. “Lincoln and Rhetoric”. College Composition and Communication. 17:1 (February 1966): p 12 – 14.

Dawes, James. The Language of War: Literature and Culture in the United States from the Civil War through World War II. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. 2002.

“History of the United States Republican Party.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party Accessed December 12 2007.

Johannsen, Robert W. Lincoln, the South and Slavery: The Political Dimension. Baton Rouge, L.A: Louisiana University Press. 1991.

Lincoln, Abraham. “First inaugural Address.” Abraham Lincoln Online. Accessed December 12 2007.

Lincoln, Abraham. “House Divided.” Abraham Lincoln Online. Accessed December 12, 2007.

Lincoln, Abraham. “Gettysburg Address.” Abraham Lincoln Online. Accessed December 12 2007.

Lincoln, Abraham. “Response to a Serenade.” Abraham Lincoln Online. Accessed December 12 2007.

Lincoln, Abraham. “Speech to Ohio Regiments.” Abraham Lincoln Online. Accessed December 12 2007.

Lincoln, Abraham. “War Address.” Abraham Lincoln Online. Accessed December 12 2007.

Manifest Destiny.” Wikipedia. Accessed December 12 2007.

Mays, Peter. “The War with Mexico.” Animated Atlas. Accessed December 12 2007.

Munton, Michelle. “Rhetoric and the Spanish-American War”. American Studies Today. 16. (September 2007): p 03 – 13.

Quarles, Benjamin. Lincoln and the Negro. New York: Oxford University Press. 1962.


1 Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address. Washington, D.C.

2 William H. Herndon, as quoted by Basler, Roy P. “Abraham Lincoln’s Rhetoric.” American Literature. 11:2. (May 1939):p 167

3 Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address. Washington, D.C.

4 Johannsen is just one of several historians who place Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ speech as more important than the Gettysburg Address

5 Lincoln, Abraham. House Divided. Springfield, Illinois

6 Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address. Washington, D.C.

7 Quoted in Basler, Roy P. “Abraham Lincoln’s Rhetoric.” American Literature. 11:2. (May 1939):p 168

8 Johannsen, Robert W. Lincoln, the South and Slavery: The Political Dimension. Baton Rouge, L.A.: Louisiana University Press, 1991. Page 92

9 Lincoln, Abraham. Speeches to Ohio Regiments. Washington, D.C.

10 For at least the last one hundred years previous, the Bible was used to justify slavery just as much as it was used to denounce it

11 Lincoln, Abraham. Response to a Serenade. Washington, D.C.

12 I make this assumption based upon the fact that Wikipedia, for what it is worth, quotes Lincoln as saying the United States is the “last, best hope of Earth”.

13 Lincoln, Abraham. Gettysburg Address. Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

14 Lincoln, Abraham. The War with Mexico. House of Representatives.

15 Lincoln, Abraham. House Divided Speech. Springfield, Illinois.

16 See Johannse, Robert W. Lincoln, the South and Slavery: The Political Dimension. Baton Rouge, L.A.: Louisiana University Press, 1991. Page 74

17 Johannsen, Robert W. Lincoln, the South and Slavery: The Political Dimension. Baton Rouge, L.A.: Louisiana University Press, 1991. Page 70

18 Ibid, Page 89

19 Lincoln, Abraham. War Address. Congress.

20 Lincoln, Abraham. Response to a Serenade. Washington, D.C.

21 Lincoln, Abraham. War Address. Congress.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Basler, Roy P. “Abraham Lincoln’s Rhetoric.” American Literature. 11:2. (May 1939):p 167

25 Lincoln, Abraham. The War with Mexico. House of Representatives.

26 Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address. Washington, D.C.