Lincoln's Second Inaugural: A Historic Call to Charity | Fr. James
V. Schall, S.J. | March 3, 2006
Lincolns Second Inaugural: A Historic Call to Charity | Fr. James
V. Schall, S.J. | March 3, 2006
"With malice toward none, with charity to all, with firmness in the
right as God gives us to see the right...." Abraham Lincoln,
My father was born in Pocahontas, Iowa, on March 4, 1904, the original
and traditional day for the inauguration of an American president. In
Franklin Roosevelts second term in 1937, the date was changed to
what is, in effect, my birthday, January 20th. Family lore
has never mentioned any causal connection in exchanging the date from
my fathers birthday to mine! But thinking of this date, it never
quite struck me before that my father was born only thirty-nine years
after Lincolns famous Second
Inaugural Address, given on March 4, 1865. It was presented during
the rapidly ending Civil War also called the "War between
the States," the "War of Northern Aggression," or the "War
for States Rights." Lincolns address was given exactly 141
years ago this year.
Shelby Foote, in the third volume of his Narrative History of the Civil
War, tells us that immediately after this brief address it
fits on one typed single-spaced page Lincoln was sworn in with
his hand of an open Bible. After this oath, he patiently shook hands with
some six thousand people. Foote tells us that a few people found this
address "awkward," but the British press was moved by it, as
were many others. Charles Francis Adams justly compared it to the Gettysburg
Address. Lincoln himself was worried about how it was received. But by
any standard it is a great speech, well worth memorizing in any era. Aristotle
said that a man should be able to defend himself both with his arms and
with his words. Unexpectedly for many who thought they were electing merely
a gangly small town lawyer, the man from Springfield, Illinois, proved
he could both fight and speak.
The address is brief, eloquent, solemn. Lincoln stated that he had been
addressing the great issues of the war all along since his lengthier First
Inaugural of four years previously. At this point, what needed to be said
could be briefly stated. Lincoln did not think words or persuasion alone
were sufficient in this endeavor. "The progress of our arms, upon
which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself...."
Lincoln did not piously say that "all force or violence is evil,"
or that all wars are bad or unnecessary, even if he did think that this
war might have been avoided. But he always asked "at what cost?"
He is different from too many people, pious and otherwise, who
even when clear principles are at stake are "opposed"
to war but themselves take no responsibility for the consequences of what
happens when it is not fought and those principles are undermined.
Many, Lincoln among them, initially wanted to settle the matter without
war. Lincolns main effort was to save the Union, a greater good
in his eyes, not merely to avoid war. Some agents, to avoid fighting,
wanted quickly "to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation.
Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than
let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let
it perish...." Lincoln thus assigned blame through elaborating principle.
Thus he added, "and the war came," but not outside of reason.
Lincoln did not deny that saving the Union was related to slavery. He
could have accepted a status quo to save the Union, provided no
extension of the practice took place. Even from the debates with Douglas
in Illinois, Lincoln argued that slaves were men, not property. Most of
the slaves, he acknowledged, were in the South. They constituted "a
peculiar and powerful interest," an interest that "all knew"
was somehow the "cause of the war."
No one expected a war of such proportions to ensue. The Civil War has
rightly been called the first of the "modern" wars; it was the
first war in which you could shoot a man without being up close to see
him, this due to rifling and the perfection of guns. Both sides sought
an easy way to finish off the war.
At this point, Lincoln became reflective, even meditative. Indeed, this
address is in many ways a theological tractate. "Both (sides) read
the Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the
other." What irony this was! This war was not a conflict of Protestants
against Catholics, Muslims against Christians, Chinese against Hindus,
or even cowboys against Indians. No reason could be given to doubt the
piety of either opposing side. Still, no place is found either in the
Bible or in tradition that indicates a promise that Christians will never
go to war against other Christians.
Everyone, after all, knows the history of France and of the English civil
wars. Any reader of Augustine on war will likewise recognize this possibility
of brother fighting against brother. The effects of sin and the scope
of pride not only are not eliminated by revelation but may even
be strengthened among Christians. This eventuality does not prove that
Christianity is not true. More likely it reaffirms that it is true, since
it understands fallen human nature so well. We are a redeemed race, not
a sinless one, even in our redemption. Nothing in the literature of redemption
promises a world without war or its threat.
Lincoln is clearly pondering the theoretic implications of this upsetting
fact that both sides pray to the same God. "It may seem strange that
any men should dare to ask a just God assistance in wringing their bread
from the sweat of other mens faces, but let us judge not, that we
be not judged." The last phrase about "judging not," comes
from Matthew 7:1. Lincoln uses this latter principle, not against the
issue of war itself, but against his economic analysis that the injustice
of slavery was constituted by the use of labor without paying for it.
Even here the phrase "sweat of the brow" is taken from the Genesis
account of the consequences of the Fall. In that context, it did not apply
specifically to slavery but to all "labor" or "work."
All men, slave or free, would work by the "sweat of their brow."
The context is Lincolns consideration what his projection of what
a "just God" would do in such economic circumstances. This is
what the Marxists called "exploitation." It seems "strange"
to Lincoln that "a just God" would approve of this wrongful
use of labor.
But, Lincoln cautiously adds, "judge not, lest you be judged."
He hints at a Socratic caution at claiming to know what he does not know.
It is conceivable that God, in His wisdom, could have purposes operative
even midst the manifest sins of His rational creatures. In spite of our
outraged "social justice," greater things were at stake than
slavery. These truths needed to be learned before addressing effective
this vexing issue. Economic or political slavery may not, in the eyes
of a "just God," be the worst kind of slavery or the one most
in need of attention.
We have all, no doubt, wondered about what happens
to the prayers to a "just God" that come from opposite directions
in a war. Lincoln speaks in the logic of our voice: "The prayers
of both could not be answered." Not even God can do contradictory
things. Both sides cannot win. Yet, we must be cautions. Man learns by
suffering, a notion found in the Greeks and deepened by the Cross. Some
things he may not be able to learn in any other way. Prayers are answered
in ways we do not expect, sometimes only through suffering the consequences
of evil. Quite often our prayers are answered even when we do not get
what we pray for. As the old saying goes, "What happens when we get
what we pray for, then find we do not want it?" Do we blame God?
Thus Lincoln recognizes that "the Almighty" has "His own
purposes" to which he is not wholly privy. Lincoln does not yet know
for sure on March 4 that the North will win. Though he assumes it is,
he has no way of knowing for certain whether, in the long run, it is a
good thing that his side wins. Other consequences, either good or evil,
could also result if his side did not win.
The sober Aristotle had recognized that any change in regime, violent
or peaceful, might make things worse, as well as better. This too was
Chestertons worry about the Civil War, that what was at issue was
not so much slavery but the whole mood of modernity and its principles
of individual autonomy and vast state power, things we are dealing with
daily in our time. Perhaps the war was not the best way to solve the issue
of slavery, though it was one way. Thus Lincoln was humble enough to see
that he did not know the purposes of the "just God." This uncertainty
did not prevent him from acting in his own light on the basis of probable
certitude, but he also was aware of a providence above the affairs of
To illustrate the just Gods purposes, Lincoln next cited a surprising
passage from the Scriptures, the one having to do with giving scandal
to little ones where, by comparison, it is better to have a millstone
tied about us and be "tossed" into the sea. "Woe unto the
world because of offenses; for it must needs to that offenses come, but
woe to that man by whom the offense cometh" (Matthew 18:7). This
passage is followed by one of the most blunt passages in the New Testament,
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off...."
"The prayers of "neither side has been answered fully."
The application that Lincoln evidently makes of this principle is that
"offenses" presumably in this case the injustice of slavery
must and have come. They are a "woe" to the world, but
they are an even greater "woe" to those through whom they come.
Lincoln sees himself as seeking to stop these "offenses" and
thinks he is on the side of the "just God" in doing so, but
recognizes that the divine purpose takes place in ways he does not know
even amid the "offenses."
Thus, Lincoln makes bold to "suppose" that "American slavery"
is "one of those offenses, which, in the providence of God, must
needs come." He merely "supposes" that he can legitimately
relate the "woeful offenses" to slavery. He thinks it is fair
to do so, but he knows it has an ancient history even under divine providence.
Perhaps other things had to be established before this issue could be
safely tackled. So God has "allowed" it to be "continued
through His appointed time." "He now wills to remove" it.
How? "He gives to both North and South this terrible war." What
is this war theologically? It is nothing less than "a woe due to
those by whom the offense came." Like most sin or woe, its consequences
affect everyone, not just the guilty or their immediate victims. The scope
of the consequences of freely chosen sin is one of the facts of our social
life on this earth, one of the "realities" we must be aware
But if the "just God" chooses to remove this "woe"
of slavery by a "terrible war," Lincoln goes on, "shall
we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the
believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?" Of course not.
Lincoln does not think that the Lord who spoke of "wars and rumors
of war" (Matthew 24:6), even to the end time, does not include in
His "divine attributes" (in this case his providence) the reality
of war out of which this purpose is still intact. Lincoln hopes "fondly"
and prays "fervently" that this "mighty scourge of war"
might disappear "speedily."
But Lincoln is not sure that it will pass "speedily," as he
is not sure of the depth of its disorder or, once it is gone, how to repair
the order. "Two hundred and fifty years of unrequited labor"
may indeed have to be paid for justly, that is, it demands (i.e., God
may "will it") that "every drop of blood drawn with the
lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword." There may be
a kind of "eye for eye" demanded, though Lincoln was himself
more of a New than an Old Testament prophet.
As proof of the possibility that this extreme case may be yet required
of us, Lincoln cites something from "three thousand years ago,"
namely, Psalm 19:9: "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether." When one reads these lines, he is amused by the notion
that somehow someone can understand America without understanding the
Bible and the theological reflections that stem from it.
If the Second Inaugural Address ended here, it would still be a great
address. It would have been basically a treatise on providence and justice,
on the place of war in the pursuit of order, on the need for a Union before
anything else can be politically resolved, including slavery. But there
are still some four more, most famous and reflective lines in the Address.
Lincoln finally looks forward to what is ahead of him. How are we to treat
the defeated? How are we to deal with those who "have borne the battle
and for his widow and his orphan?"
Lincolns first principle in approaching the defeated is, again something
that has biblical origins, "with malice toward none." One of
the remarkable things about the Civil War, a war fought with men, the
leadership of whom had mostly studied together at West Point or elsewhere,
was that, as I believe Grant insisted, Lee and the Southern Generals were
not to be executed, nor was Jefferson Davis. The vindictiveness that arises
in later more totalitarian centuries and wars is not the spirit of Lincoln,
though he did not remain alive to enforce his approach during the Reconstruction
of the South. He has just elaborated why, because he understands the dimensions
of the "just God," and our relation to them.
Thus we proceed "with charity for all," not primarily with justice,
though not without it. This is the spirit of Deus Caritas Est.
We proceed "with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the
right." We need grace even to "see what is right." The
war is to be "finished," the "wounds" are to be "bound."
Why do we do all these things? We "do all which may achieve and cherish
a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Lincoln
evidently realizes that a civil war such as this one does not involve
solely the nation fighting it among its own citizens. Principles are at
stake for all men, something that we likewise grasp by reflecting on Lincolns
own Gettysburg Address, which itself recalls the Declaration of Independence,
and both Addresses in various ways go back as far as Pericles Funeral
In the end, it is not without significance that the last two words of
Lincolns Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1865, near the end
of our poignant Civil War and his own assassination, were "all nations."
Is it perhaps not inappropriate to add here, after reading this justly
famous Address so filled with theological overtones, that among the last
words of Christ before His Ascension were precisely to "teach all
nations" (Matthew, 28:19).
Nor would Plato have been surprised that Lincoln also understood that
before we can have a "just and lasting peace" with "all
nations," we too must have this spirit first within ourselves. In
all these things, including war, we are to proceed "with malice toward
none, and with charity toward all." That we understand these principles
is not merely the reason why we are Americans, but the only reason why
we can become and remain Americans. To do this, we can do nothing better
than read and re-read the Second Inaugural Address given in Congress by
Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1865, 141 years before our time.
Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles:
In Courage": An Analysis of the 2006 State of the Union Address
| Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
Author page for Fr. James
V. Schall, S.J., with listing of all IgnatiusInsight.com articles
James V. Schall, S.J., is Professor of Political Philosophy at Georgetown
He is the author of numerous books on social issues, spirituality, culture,
and literature including Another
Sort of Learning, Idylls
and Rambles, On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs: Teaching, Writing,
Playing, Believing, Lecturing, Philosophizing, Singing, Dancing,
and A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning.
Read more of his essays on his
the Insight Scoop Blog and read the latest posts and comments by
IgnatiusInsight.com staff and readers about current events, controversies,
and news in the Church!