Lincoln's Virtures - Part II

As threatened this is my second post on Robert Lee Miller's book, "Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography." Apparently early in his public career before taking on slavery, Lincoln took up the cause of temperance, a major issue in the 19th century. Lincoln's approach when speaking on the subject was different than the norm. To use words attributed to Clarence Darrow, he condemned the sin, not the sinner. His efforts were to promote temperance, he didn't criticize those with drinking problems or try to act like he was morally superior. Apparently the more typical temperance crusader did just that. Part of Lincoln's reasoning was that those who didn't enjoy drinking liquor weren't tempted in the same way and couldn't, therefore, claim any superiority.

Lincoln took this same path when it came to slavery. He strongly condemned slavery as a great moral evil - "if it isn't wrong then nothing is wrong," but he never condemned the slave owners themselves. Lincoln consistently said that if "we" had been in the same position "we" would have done the same thing. But this did not in any way lessen his strong position on slavery itself. As slavery became a more contentious issue in the 1850's, Lincoln's position was very simple, he didn't condemn the slave owner, he condemned slavery and he consistently said that the important issue was the extension of slavery into the territories.

Lincoln always said that the Federal government couldn't do anything about slavery where it already existed and unlike most abolitionists, he did not oppose the Fugitive Slave Law. He recognized that if slavery was legal anywhere there had to be a Fugitive Slave Law. But Lincoln drew the line at slavery expanding into the territories. It was the potential of the Kansas-Nebraska Act to do just that which brought Lincoln back into public live in the 1850's. And while he made many overtures to keep the southern states in the union, slavery in the territories was his line in the sand. That may seem like a somewhat limited and inadequate response compared to the abolitionists, but unlike them, he was trying to get elected and and do something so difficult that today, we tend not the recognize the magnitude of the accomplishment. And that is what I will write about in my third post on this book.