An Independence Day Message from Abraham Lincoln

By Eric Von Salzen

One hundred and fifty years ago, almost to the day (July 10, 1858), Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at Chicago. He was campaigning for the United States Senate against Stephen Douglas (always referred to it seems as “Judge” Douglas, although he was in fact the incumbent senator). In the course of the speech, Lincoln referred to the celebration of Independence Day:

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

He commented briefly on the growth and increased prosperity of the United States over the 82 years since its founding (not yet “four score and seven years ago”), and observed that we attribute this advantageous change to the work of our founders:

We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations.

But what, then, Lincoln asked, about those Americans, perhaps half the population, who were not descended from the “iron men” who founded the country? How do the German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian immigrants, and those descended from them, connect with the founders? That question resounds for me. My German ancestors came here about the time that Lincoln gave this speech, and my Irish grandfather didn’t arrive until even later. Here’s Lincoln's answer:

If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, [loud and long continued applause] and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

That brought Lincoln to the issue of slavery. The Declaration of Independence declared that all men were created equal. How could you square that with slavery? The Supreme Court had recently resolved that dilemma in the Dred Scott decision, by declaring that “negroes” were not fully human, were not “men”. Judge Douglas supported that decision (as we would say today, “It’s the law of the land”), and argued further that all the Declaration meant was that the Americans of 1776 were the “equal” of the Englishmen from whom they were descended.

According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form.

That was good politics, of course. There were a lot of Germans in Illinois and the West in those days. But there was more to it than that. Lincoln was arguing to White men that their own freedom depended on freedom for Black men.

Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.

Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me'' "no one,” &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,''] let us stick to it then, [cheers] let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

This message resounds as much for us today as it did for those who heard it in Chicago 150 years ago. More so. We have seen, over a century and a half, that denying the humanity of one class or race or group of people never stops with that one group. On a plaque at the Holocaust Museum you can read “. . . then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. . . .”

In our Episcopal Church today we say “The Episcopal Church welcomes you”, and by and large we do. We didn’t use to. For a long time we weren’t any more welcoming to African-Americans than the rest of American society was, and we welcomed women only so long as they knew that their place was in the parish kitchen baking cookies and not in the pulpit, and most certainly not in the Bishop’s chair. I was reminded of how far and how fast we’ve come by a post yesterday on this blog that mentioned that the Church of England is now meeting in General Synod to debate the question of women bishops.

At the moment, the big question is whether our church will continue to treat Gays and Lesbians the way we used to treat African-Americans and women. We elected one openly Gay bishop, but in the last five years we have been observing a moratorium on electing any more. We have some openly Gay and Lesbian priests, but new ordinations are often on hold or are governed by a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. I don’t want to exaggerate the challenge before us. No one in the Episcopal Church today is “coming for” the Gays and Lesbians, the way the Nazis came for the Jews or the KKK came for Blacks and civil rights “agitators”. On the other hand, the government of Nigeria does appear to be “coming for” them, and the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria seems comfortable with that.

The Episcopal Church, as I understand the situation, has paused in welcoming Gays and Lesbians not because we as a church are having second thoughts about whether such people are indeed our brothers and sisters in Christ. Those Episcopalians who agree with the Archbishop of Nigeria are a distinct minority among us. We have paused in response to the request of the larger Anglican Communion that we do so, because we think it important to maintain if we can a communion with other churches around the world with which we share historical ties.

Lincoln would have understood that. In the same speech he acknowledged that, although the Declaration said all men were created equal, for pragmatic reasons our founders adopted a Constitution that allowed slavery to continue.

It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slavery among us, we could not get our constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more, and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand as our standard.

And then Lincoln turned, as so often he did, to the words of scripture:

My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote Scripture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of the Lord, "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.'' The Savior, I suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the Father in Heaven; but He said, "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.'' He set that up as a standard, and he who did most towards reaching that standard, attained the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can.

Lincoln closed with these words:

I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.

The speech, we are told was greeted with “a perfect torrent of applause and cheers.”

I would hate to see the Anglican Communion broken up over the question whether Gays and Lesbians are to be treated as our brothers and sisters in Christ. I believe that it is honorable for our church to pause for a time, as it has been pausing, and to engage fellow Christians in dialogue, if they are willing to listen as well as to talk. But I do not believe that my own Episcopal Church can continue much longer to deny all our brothers and sisters full participation in all aspects of the church. If the unity of the Communion can only be purchased at the price of injustice, then the price of unity is too high.