In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

55 2 PRUDENCE While Lincoln’s theoretical wisdom consisted in his ability to articulate and defend a vision of self-government, free labor, and free society on philosophical and theological grounds, his practical wisdom or prudence consisted in his ability to realize as much of this noble vision as possible given the prevailing laws, customs, and opinions. Prudence harmonizes universal principles of right reason with the particularities of time and place. The following chapter considers Lincoln’s prudence as a crucial dimension of his statesmanship. More specifically, it will reveal the Emancipation Proclamation as a model of prudent statesmanship in furthering the principle of equality under a myriad of perilous social, legal, political, and military circumstances.1 The gulf between theory and practice in American politics was poignantly observed by Thomas Jefferson at the time of the founding. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he warned of a divine judgment on the nation for failing to practice what it preached (a passage often cited by Lincoln testifying to the Founders’ principled opposition to slavery): And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.2 The failure of the Founders to realize universal equality at the time of the Revolution has lent credence to the belief, both then and now, that they never viewed equality as a universal norm that applied to all human beings. This was the argument not only of southern proslavery apologists, but also of Union Democrats like Stephen A. Douglas and Roger B. Taney who claimed that the principles of the Declaration were exclusive to the white 56 PRUDENCE race. The same argument is repeated today by proponents of “the refounding thesis” who maintain that the Constitution was so radically flawed that Lincoln had to create a new one in order to realize his egalitarian vision. On the contrary, Lincoln argued that the compromises made by the Founders were a matter of necessity and not principle. Slavery had existed in North America over a century before the Revolution. It was an entrenched institution. Notwithstanding successful efforts in the North at the time of the Revolution to abolish it, the institution precariously coexisted with freedom in America. Although concessions were indeed made to slavery, the Founders had treated it as necessary evil (an exception to the rule of freedom) to be contained and placed on a course of ultimate extinction. The failure to end slavery at the time of the founding, however, did not abolish the principles of Declaration as norms to guide policy. Succeeding generations, Lincoln maintained, must strive to carry on the work begun by the Founders. This meant containing slavery and extending the principle of equality as much as possible. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, Lincoln feared that slavery was becoming the rule rather than the exception. The institution was being placed on a new path of extension and indefinite perpetuation. It was one thing to tolerate slavery as a necessary evil; it was quite another to embrace it as either (a) a positive good as preached by Calhoun, Fitzhugh, Hammond, or (b) a matter of moral indifference as taught by Stephen Douglas and his doctrine of popular sovereignty, the right of territorial settlers to choose slavery without interference from the national government. Rather, the containment of slavery demanded a clear moral recognition of its inherent evil. Despite its pretext of moral neutrality, the doctrine of popular sovereignty had the same practical effect as the positive good theory by enabling its indefinite perpetuation. Lincoln denounced popular sovereignty as blind to “the monstrous injustice of slavery .” The discretion given to territorial settlers to choose slavery was not simply a local matter; for it undermined the moral credibility of the entire nation. In Lincoln’s words, it: “deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the...

Share