“Justice and fairness” has become something of a mantra ever since presidential candidate Barack Obama told Joe the plumber that his hope was to “spread the wealth around” so that the economy is “good for everybody.” The plumber, Samuel Wurzelbacher, was less than thrilled by the implications of spreading the wealth, since his fear was that much of the wealth the president-to-be proposed to spread around was the plumber’s. But that has done nothing to give pause to President Obama’s determination to answer the “call to justice and fairness.” In his 2009 Lincoln’s Birthday speech in Abraham Lincoln’s hometown of Springfield, Illinois, the president described justice and fairness—the “sense of shared sacrifice and responsibility for ourselves and one another”—as “the very definition of being American.”
Perhaps. But that was not Abraham Lincoln’s definition of justice or fairness or “being American.” And our current president’s failure to see that gives us an uneasy sense that Barack Obama has wrapped himself in some other man’s coat.
Lincoln certainly had more than a little to say about justice. After all, he was a lawyer by profession. “My way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice,” he joked in 1848, although what he saw happening there wasn’t always justice. “I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client’s neck, in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up, with many words, some point arising in the case, which he dared not admit, and yet could not deny.” And in politics, which was his other great vocation, he had seen how often “the immutable principles of justice are to make way for party interests, and the bonds of social order are to be rent in twain, in order that a desperate faction may be sustained at the expense of the people.”
But this somehow never made Lincoln cynical about either law or politics. He never doubted that certain “immutable principles of justice” existed, or that people could discern them in the law of nature itself. Slavery was a prime example. In one of his earliest political acts in the Illinois state legislature, Lincoln branded “the institution of slavery” as “founded on both injustice and bad policy.” That “injustice” was so plain that it scarcely needed explaining. “All feel and understand it, even down to brutes and creeping insects.” Even the “ant, who has toiled and dragged a crumb to his nest, will furiously defend the fruit of his labor, against whatever robber assails him.” And, by the same token, even “the most dumb and stupid slave that ever toiled for a master, does constantly know that he is wronged.” In their heart of hearts, slaveholders knew it, too: “Your sense of justice, and human sympathy” is “continually telling you, that the poor negro has some natural right to himself—that those who deny it, and make mere merchandise of him, deserve kickings, contempt and death.” What trampled across this inherent sense of the injustice of slavery was nothing but self-interest, aided by pure, raw power, since “an arbitrary exercise of power” is what leads to “still more flagrant violations of right and justice.”
But Lincoln believed that the chief barrier to power was not “fairness,” but law. “The injustice of men” is not righted by compensatory displays of well-intentioned power, but by faithful adherence to law. “If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or noncompliance with contracts, it is a common object with peaceful and just men to prevent it,” Lincoln explained. “Hence the criminal and civil departments” of law. One of the tasks of government, then, is the impartial application of law to all of its citizens.
Still, even government can develop a nasty appetite for power, especially if it can be disguised as the dispensing goddess of fairness. “The legitimate object of government,” Lincoln argued, “is ‘to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves.’” It could not reach toward the redress of inequities in property, talent, wealth, industriousness, or self-esteem without appropriating lethal amounts of power that, sooner or later, would bring down both fairness and law together. “At the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me,” Lincoln said, is “the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own.” And he extended that “to communities of men, as well as to individuals.”
Lincoln was not oblivious to economic or social unfairness. How could he be, having been born poor? But what he thought was the genius of the American system of law and government was the opportunities for self-transformation it opened up, not the “fairness” it mandated. “Twenty-five years ago, I was a hired laborer,” he said in 1859. But “the hired laborer of yesterday, labors on his own account to-day; and will hire others to labor for him to-morrow.” Under a government of laws, “it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can.” That will not guarantee the same results for everyone. “Some will get wealthy.” But in the case of those who didn’t, the solution was not to “spread the wealth” by interposing the hand of power. “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself.”
Not every complaint about fairness is really a protest against injustice; and not every complaint about injustice can be satisfied without running some risk that its real motive is the will to power. “Inequality is certainly never to be embraced for its own sake,” Lincoln admitted. But that was no sanction for “the pernicious principle . . . that no one shall have any, for fear all shall not have some.” Two hundred and one years after Lincoln’s birth, it might be well to remind ourselves that the real enemy of both fairness and justice is not weakness of will or an unwillingness to bear “shared sacrifice,” but the seeping gas of power.
Allen C. Guelzo is Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Director, Civil War Era Studies, at Gettysburg College.
Comments:
Lincoln's comments on slavery above (“If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or noncompliance with contracts, it is a common object with peaceful and just men to prevent it,”) seem to fit the abortion issue very well; something Obama doesn't even begin to understand.
While it may be difficult for the President to wrap himself around Lincoln's coat it also seems incredibly difficult for Lincoln to fit into the coat you are trying to place upon him. Lincoln was certainly not a small government libertarian or conservative as you try to describe him, selecting a few choice fragments from letters he wrote before he entered political life. As a lifelong Whig he believed that the government did have a responsibility beyond simply protecting property. Not only did he support the federal seizure of 4.5 million forms of 'property' by using an activist government to emancipate the slaves, he also consistently favored government intervention throughout his political life. In fact he firmly believed in internal improvements and spent his brief time in Congress advocating for greater federal spending on construction projects in the interior because he realized that private investment could only be spurred by a firm public foundation. He also wrote extensively on how these government projects would employ able bodied men and grant them the opportunity to succeed. While this certainly does not make him a committed welfare statist it certainly marks him as favoring far more government intervention than you let on. In fact these internal improvements are quite similar to the later projects of the New Deal and arguably the intent of the recent Recovery Act spearheaded by that other president from Illinois you are so quick to disparage.
Similarly this commitment to pragmatic and constructive government intervention continued during the Civil War. Lincoln clearly had no commitment to small government if he favored a draft, favored expanding the federal government drastically to meet the demands of wartime production. And while you could counter that by arguing war time necessitated such an expansion Lincoln also passed the Homestead Act and the Land Grant Colleges to not only expand the country by also ensure that poorer and working people could have a slice of the pie. He specifically did spread the wealth around by granting large tracts of federal land to poor individuals willing to work and maintain this. He created the Land Grant colleges to break up the elitism a college education bred during his time and opened up the doors of education and opportunity to many more Americans across the country. He also created the first government social security pension system for our veterans. Lincoln also wanted to expand the navy increasing our global reach and was intrigued by Bismarck's experiments in social insurance and elderly insurance. To argue that he was a small government conservative that would be opposed to the President's agenda is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
While he might have many objections to the President's agenda on a lot of fronts, and I agree with the commentator that for anyone to read Roe v Wade and not be reminded of the Dred Scott decision is to close one's heart and mind to the consequences of history; Lincoln firmly that an activist government committed to providing equality of opportunity for all Americans was not only wise policy but part of the founding purpose of our great Republic.
While it may be difficult for the President to wrap himself around Lincoln's coat it also seems incredibly difficult for Lincoln to fit into the coat you are trying to place upon him. Lincoln was certainly not a small government libertarian or conservative as you try to describe him, selecting a few choice fragments from letters he wrote before he entered political life. As a lifelong Whig he believed that the government did have a responsibility beyond simply protecting property. Not only did he support the federal seizure of 4.5 million forms of 'property' by using an activist government to emancipate the slaves, he also consistently favored government intervention throughout his political life. In fact he firmly believed in internal improvements and spent his brief time in Congress advocating for greater federal spending on construction projects in the interior because he realized that private investment could only be spurred by a firm public foundation. He also wrote extensively on how these government projects would employ able bodied men and grant them the opportunity to succeed. While this certainly does not make him a committed welfare statist it certainly marks him as favoring far more government intervention than you let on. In fact these internal improvements are quite similar to the later projects of the New Deal and arguably the intent of the recent Recovery Act spearheaded by that other president from Illinois you are so quick to disparage.
Similarly this commitment to pragmatic and constructive government intervention continued during the Civil War. Lincoln clearly had no commitment to small government if he favored a draft, favored expanding the federal government drastically to meet the demands of wartime production. And while you could counter that by arguing war time necessitated such an expansion Lincoln also passed the Homestead Act and the Land Grant Colleges to not only expand the country by also ensure that poorer and working people could have a slice of the pie. He specifically did spread the wealth around by granting large tracts of federal land to poor individuals willing to work and maintain this. He created the Land Grant colleges to break up the elitism a college education bred during his time and opened up the doors of education and opportunity to many more Americans across the country. He also created the first government social security pension system for our veterans. Lincoln also wanted to expand the navy increasing our global reach and was intrigued by Bismarck's experiments in social insurance and elderly insurance. To argue that he was a small government conservative that would be opposed to the President's agenda is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
While he might have many objections to the President's agenda on a lot of fronts, and I agree with the commentator that for anyone to read Roe v Wade and not be reminded of the Dred Scott decision is to close one's heart and mind to the consequences of history; Lincoln firmly that an activist government committed to providing equality of opportunity for all Americans was not only wise policy but part of the founding purpose of our great Republic.
-- His Homestead Act released government lands, for a fee, into any private hands willing to work them -- if they did not work them for five years, they lost that land.
-- His Land Grant Colleges act accorded land to both public and private colleges, with a focus on the self-sustaining ideals of agriculture and mechanic arts.
-- And his pension for Civil War soldiers originally applied only to those injured during active service in the war or to soldiers or their widows in dire poverty.
I fail to see how any of these "activist" government policies had the aim of creating a more expansive and dominating federal government. Using the government to create equality in opportunity is far different from using the government to create equality. The first succeeds or fails at the hands of the individual; the second takes the freedom to succeed or fail from the individual.
Looking at some of the other Whig platforms on this site, I suppose that one could draw an inference, as James Conway did, that there might have been some sort of government activism in mind. All the same, its difficult to imagine Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor or Millard Fillmore coming forward with anything like Obama's patently obvious attempt to have the government run literally everything.
Thank you, Erin.
I am not arguing that President Lincoln and President Obama are crafting the same agenda and support the same level of government intervention. The biggest problem with Prof. Guelzo's argument is that it tries to link two figures who really cannot be compared on an even plain because they come from entirely different times. That said, he argued that Lincoln favored small government while the historical reality is that he drastically expanded government, not only to meet the challenges of the Civil War but also to meet the challenges of the peace and the expanding West. To argue otherwise is to deny history.
Obama, with his view stated to Joe the plumber that the purpose of government is to spread the wealth around and further that capitalism with its free economy harms Americans, fundamentally differs from Lincoln
Another point is that Lincoln was a man of impeccable integrity who spoke with few, remarkably well chosen words.
Obama is a garrulous, narcissistic soul who frequently plays loose with the truth. Comparing himself to Lincoln would be a good and rather risible example.
Lincoln would never have compared himself to any former great president; he let his actions speak and is arguably our greatest president.
I cannot believe this to be the case about Lincoln when he abandoned the writ of habeas corpus on those who disagreed with him. That isn't exactly using law as a barrier to power but is an abuse of power.
The more traditional understanding of justice and fairness to be giving people what they deserve (or allow them to retain what they earned) simply doesn't jive with Obama's.
If Obama means for one's sacrifice for the sake of another to be enforced by law, then his definition of justice would be more consistent with Lincoln's definition of slavery.
The more traditional understanding of justice and fairness to be giving people what they deserve (or allow them to retain what they earned) simply doesn't jive with Obama's.
If Obama means for one's sacrifice for the sake of another to be enforced by law, then his definition of justice would be more consistent with Lincoln's definition of slavery.
"...That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prisons, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission."
Professor Guelzo moves a little too quickly in the last part of his blog, however, with his conclusion that President Obama is exhibiting a "will to power" and dispensing a "sleeping gas of power."
Lincoln did subscribe to the "self-made man" ethos (see Calvin Colton's "This is a country of self-made men. . ."). President Obama would have been on firmer ground if he looked to the great Progressive figures of the early twentieth century to make his admirable case.
Regarding your statement earlier that Lincoln fought a "necessary war" is also questionable. I don't believe the war was necessary and there were other ways of ending slavery than to committ to war and the killing of 625,000 people. Furthermore, the South had a valid reason for secession. It was not for Lincoln to decide who should secede. Furthermore, there was northern support for southern secession. The war was not necessary and a major turning point in American history in which states began to lose their rights. Slavery was and is bad, and yet the huge reason for the war was to try to prevent the secession of the south. The south had felt pressure from the north so, like the Declaration of Independence allows, they felt the need to secede.
I have to say I cannot agree with your sentiment that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents ever. To me, it was the exact opposite.
Either way, that's my take. Thanks for listening.
(As an aside, I have just finished listening to Professor Guelzo's lectures on the American Revolution, produced by The Teaching Company, and he is an outstanding scholar and a very agreeable lecturer. I would not hesitate to order more of his recordings.)