Of Definitions and Circumstances
Is slavery evil and therefore slaves were treated badly or were they treated badly and therefore slavery was evil? Lincoln argued the former. That because it was an egregious insult to the rights endowed to us by our Creator, it corrupted the slave owner who then abused the slave. In response, the Democrats argued that slavery was a moral good because slaves were better off than the factory workers in the north, especially because the Negro was intrinsically inferior to the white. In other words, Lincoln argued that slavery was by definition wrong and the Democrats argued that it was right because of the circumstances.
Lincoln did not argue that because slaves were treated badly or that slavery was ineffective for the economy that slavery should be put on path to ultimate extinction. He never took the bait offered by the Democrats and responded to the argument that slaves were treated better than factory workers. He did not because in many cases slaves were treated materially better than factory workers and that the Democrats’ argument rested on the inability of the Negro to take care of himself anyway. According to the Democrats, because of this inability, it was the right, if not the duty, of the whites to take care of, that is enslave, the Negro. If Lincoln had argued from the circumstances of the slaves’ poor situation, he would have conceded that slavery and free labor were equivalent and that the relative abilities of some entitled them to rule over others.
Instead, Lincoln started from first principles and definitions. He argued first that when the founders had written “all Men” that all really did mean all and that Men meant mankind, which is the traditional understanding of the term Men. Instead of describing the horror of the lash in gruesome detail, he dedicated great portions of his speeches making these arguments. Then, once he had established these definitions, he applied them to the circumstances of the current law and situation on the ground.
Arguing from circumstances is very common today, but usually counterproductive for Republicans because it takes the definitions for granted. Unfortunately, after a century of the Square Deal, the New Deal, the Great Society, and all the other Progressive programs, almost all the terms have been redefined by the Democrats. Why is that we have a health care system instead of a market? Why is it that we expect our Federal government to manage our economy? Why is it that America seeks to spread democracy around the world instead of republicanism? Why is it capitalism instead of free enterprise?
We have gotten so conditioned to arguing from circumstances that we have forgotten to think about the definitions. Do we really want to concede that the relative abilities of some entitles others to rule over them? That because some people make poor choices that others are entitled to make those choices for them?
