Lincoln's Second Inaugural

Some have called it the greatest sermon ever delivered on American soil, but it’s more. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address rings as a literary masterpiece, but also as a window into the heart of the sixteenth president after four years of devastating warfare.

Lincoln historians are sometimes struck by his knowledge of the Scriptures even though for most of his adulthood he was understood to be a great skeptic. Many believe that his faith began to take root only after assuming the presidency, and although it has always been questioned whether he was a Christian in the orthodox sense, his growing awareness of what he called Providence and the The Almighty made its way into his speeches, writings, and conversations.

It is striking that his Second Inaugural sounds prophetic, not in the sense of predicting the future, but in the sense of having the feel of an Old Testament prophet. Those prophets spoke of national guilt and national responsibility bringing on the judgment of The Almighty. Christian theology tends to focus on each individual’s covenant and relationship with God, in contrast to the Old Testament’s focus on the relationship of one specific nation’s covenant with God.

Listen to these words, speaking of the North and the South:

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Notice that Lincoln viewed the troubles of his time as a just rendering for national sins. Now read this passage from Jeremiah 18:

If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. (Jeremiah 18:8-11 KJV)

Clearly the King James Bible influenced Lincoln’s writing style, but it is just as clear that the prophets influenced Lincoln’s theology. Do we believe that the God of the New Testament also rules in the affairs of nations? Do we see those Divine Beings as the same God? And do we take seriously that this God cares about the affairs of nations as well as the affairs of individuals?

For more reading, see Matthew 25:31-46, Leviticus 26, and Deuteronomy 28.

If the Pursuit of Happiness Is an Inalienable Right, Why Is There No Department of Happy?

The argument that the Declaration of Independence promises the right to pursue happiness and not happiness itself is a good one as far as it goes, but it somewhat misses the point that Jefferson and the Founders were attempting to make.

“Happiness” is one of those mushy words that is hard to specifically define. Webster’s Online defines it this way: “An agreeable feeling or condition of the soul arising from good fortune or propitious happening of any kind; the possession of those circumstances or that state of being which is attended enjoyment; the state of being happy; contentment; joyful satisfaction; felicity; blessedness.”

So, according to Webster, happiness is a subjective thing dependent upon each individual’s experiences, circumstances. What brings you happiness might bring me distress. You might experience an “agreeable feeling or condition” watching a soccer game, something I might find aggravating and frustrating.

The Founders likely had something larger in mind when crafting the phrase “pursuit of happiness”. They knew the classics, and certainly they knew of Aristotle’s formulation of happiness. For Aristotle, happiness centered on the pursuit of virtue in order to reach one's potential as a human being. The right to pursue happiness becomes an interesting concept in this context.

Read Mortimer J. Adler's paper (link below) for additional insights. It discusses where the Founders were coming from.

http://www.utpa.edu/dept/curr_ins/faculty_folders/tevis_m/docs/TheoryOfHappiness.pdf