In a previous posting I had predicted that Barack Obama would, in his Inaugural Address, call for shared sacrifice from all Americans. It is now being widely reported that this will be a theme of his address. What did Lincoln have to say about this, and as a practical matter, what sacrifices might Obama ask us to make?
At Gettysburg, Lincoln called upon us to make a moral commitment – to rededicate ourselves to the work that the soldiers who died there had left unfinished – the great task of giving to the world a new birth of freedom:
The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion–that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Similarly, in the Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln called upon us to make another moral commitment – to understand that slavery existed among us because the Constitution created it – it was the fault of both North and South – a dark bargain that we had exploited for material gain – and that now that the war was drawing to a close we had to commit ourselves not only to end slavery but also to let go of the hatred that had both caused the war and resulted from it:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
But Lincoln did not simply ask us for moral commitments. To prosecute the war took money, as did the other internal improvements that the government undertook during his adminstration such as the Homestead Act, the Transcontinental Railroads, and the Land Grant Colleges. As a result the federal budget increased twenty-fold from $63 million in 1860 to $1.3 billion in 1865, and the government installed the first income tax to pay for it.
Nor was the sacrifice simply financial. Over 625,000 soldiers died in the Civil War, more than have died in all of our other wars combined. In what may be an apochryphal story, after the War Joseph Medill, Editor of the Chicago Tribune, reportedly told the Atlantic Monthly that during the summer of 1864, when the North had become discouraged at the lack of progress before Atlanta and Richmond, and by bloody defeats like the one at Cold Harbor, and Lincoln had called for yet more troops to be raised, Medill and other leaders from Chicago and Boston visited the President and demanded that their cities be exempted from the draft. For once, Lincoln did not respond with patience and kindness nor did he tell an amusing story or attempt to lift their spirits with inspirational language. Instead Lincoln said:
Gentlemen, after Boston, Chicago has been the chief instrument in bringing this war on the country … It is you who are largely responsible for making blood flow as it has. You called for war until we had it. You called for emancipation, and I have given it to you. Whatever you have asked for you have had. Now you come here begging to be let off from the call for men which I have made to carry out the war you have demanded. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I have a right to expect better things of you. Go home, and raise your 6,000 extra men. And you, Medill, you are acting like a coward. You and your Tribune have had more influence than any paper in the northwest in making this war. You can influence great masses, and yet you cry to be spared at a moment when your cause is suffering. Go home and send us those men.
Medill reportedly said:
I couldn't say anything. It was the first time I ever was whipped, and I didn't have an answer. We all got up and went out and when the door closed, one of my colleagues said, "Well, gentlement, the old man is right. … Let us go home and raise the men." And we did – 6,000 men, making 28,000 in the war from a city of 156,000. But there might have been crepe on every door almost in Chicago, for every family had lost a son or a husband. I lost two brothers. It was hard on the mothers.
What sacrifices can we be expected to make in order to overcome the challenges we face?
Obviously, taxes will go up – if not immediately, then eventually. The United States cannot continue to run deficits – we will pay our debts either through taxes or by reducing the value of the dollar, either of which will reduce the amount of purchasing power in private hands.
Our businesses, health care institutions, and educational institutions will have to become more efficient. The people will not bail out banks and insurance companies that pad their payrolls. Government financing of health care will not pay for more adminstrators or for the current grossly inefficient system of private lawsuits for medical malpractice. The G.I. Bill and Student Financial Aid programs will not expend funds on colleges and universities that engage in featherbedding. People in business, medicine, education, and law will have to become more efficient and more productive. This means more work and lower pay for many professionals so that every American can have a job, every American will receive high quality medical care, and every American will have access to the highest level of education that he or she is willing to work to attain.
If we are going to pull together as a Nation, then the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families must be matched by sacrifices from all of us.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
At a minimum, it is too early to start the comparisons of Obama and Lincoln. I hope, but do not expect, Obama to ascend to such heights. As is the case with Christopher, I am very disappointed with Obama's stand on abortion. Here is where he differs most from Lincoln.
Lincoln may not have adhered to modern notions of racial equality, but he was a fierce opponent of slavery and denounced the Dred Scott decision of that "august tribunal". Lincoln clearly saw that to which the then Supreme Court was blind: the humanity of blacks. The battle over abortion is similar. Is the unborn child a human being entitled to all the rights of personhood that are accorded to post-partum human beings? To date, Obama has answered that question in a most unlincolnesque fashion.
Dear Quidpro and Christopher,
I am in the minority in finding Obama's Inaugural to have been inspiring – the "word fitly spoken" for the moment we are in. I believe that he has an abundance of courage – witness as well his interview yesterday broadcast to the Muslim world. And although there are parallels we can draw between Obama on the one hand and Lincoln and F.D.R. on the other, it is of course too soon to draw conclusions about whether he will measure up to them in his performance as President. Let us hope he does.
As for the question of abortion, you and I differ, as does the Nation, as to which of the persons involved has the strongest moral claim. No doubt you feel that full human rights are invested at the moment of conception; I and others regard humanity of a fertilized ovum, preembryo, embryo, and fetus to become invested over time, and with it the endowment of inalienable rights. Both sides may rightly appeal to Lincoln or the Declaration or the Constitution on this subject – all these sources are of course silent regarding the specific result. It is well for persons on both sides of this matter to keep in mind the strongest arguments asserted by those who disagree. Those on my side of the equation must remember that an embryo and fetus are life and as such deserve respect at the earliest stages of development. On your side, recall that for centuries women had the right to abort a fetus prior to quickening, that neither the church nor the state considered this to be wrong, and that the outlawing of abortion in the mid-19th century coincided with the development of the concept that pregnancy and childbirth are a medical condition to be treated by male physicians rather than an event in women's lives mediated by female midwives. Those who are "high and mighty" about their position on either side of this question should stop and consider how so many Americans, all of whom are committed to liberty and equality, could differ from them so starkly on this matter.
I could not in good conscience tell a woman that she must endure pregnancy and childbirth and become a mother against her will simply because I felt a moral imperative for her to do so. I respect the power of that moral imperative upon your conscience, even though I disagree with the conclusion you draw from it.
Professor,
We share the hope that Obama becomes a successful President. I also agree with you that he has shown courage in some of his decisions. On the issue of abortion, however, he is an unreconstructed leftist.
You appeal to a view of history in which women generally had a right to abortion, at least prior to "quickening". I believe the history is not as clear as you may suppose. But is that really the issue?
Many societies tolerated slavery throughout history. Was Lincoln thereby wrong to oppose it and argue against its spread to the territories? Historical imperative is a poor argument for normative behavior. Certainly our scientific knowledge has advanced beyond what we knew in the 19th century.
It is not that I "feel" that the human embryo is entitled to full human rights. Rather, it is an undisputed scientific fact that the embryo is fully human, containing its complete genetic information. Although you recognize that the embryo is life you withhold recognition of its humanity claiming that that ontological status becomes "invested over time". Please explain your taxonomical classification. If the embryo or fetus is not human until the passage of some undetermined time, then in which species should it be classifed prior to it becoming a full member of homo sapiens?
Let me make a final observation. Liberals have usually championed the cause of those who lack a voice or who lack power. The unborn child is certainly without power or voice. Is it not curious that, as a general rule, it is conseratives who oppose abortion and liberals who support it? One might think (I certainly have), that liberals should be natural allies of the pro-life cause.
RE: "I and others regard humanity of a fertilized ovum, preembryo, embryo, and fetus to become invested over time, and with it the endowment of inalienable rights." AND "Is the unborn child a human being entitled to all the rights of personhood that are accorded to post-partum human beings?"
At this time the answer must be "NO" for the following reason:
personhood is not established until there is a Certificate of Live Birth.
If "rights" are to be assigned at conception, the laws relating to 'child abuse' must apply from that moment. A pregnant human female who smokes cigarettes, uses illegal drugs, or malnurishes her 'child' via poor eating patterns must be held accountable. All those situations which contribute to damage to the unborn child are supported by undisputed scientific facts too. Should not the "fertilized ovum, preembryo, embryo, and fetus" be protected from such abuse?
If so, please quit playing king-of-the-moral-mountain games with an issue that has no indisputable 'correct' answer, and use the existing laws to their fullest extent to protect all 'children' without regard to their stage of development.
Dan is correct as a matter of positive law. The point of comparing Obama and Lincoln is whether such positive law should be changed. In Lincoln's day, Black slaves were not entitled to the rights of personhood.
Yet both the unborn child and the black slave are clearly human. To respect human life, both are entitled to the protection of law "without regard to their stage of development"