Democracy at Gettysburg
By J.K. Baltzersen
web posted November 18, 2024
What was this talk about government of the people, by the people, and for the people at Gettysburg? Was it about the slaves being denied the right to vote in the South? Voting rights for blacks weren't that widespread in the North either.
It seems strange that a slave abolitionist, even the one known as the Great Emancipator, would sell slaves he inherited from his father-in-law. But Lincoln did. He had the rights to the slaves his wife inherited, and he sold them. Many of his in-laws freed the slaves they inherited, but Lincoln did not. So much for the Great Emancipator.
Lincoln was a lawyer, and lawyers are not supposed to be identified with their clients, but it does seem a bit odd that an abolitionist would talk cases for slave owners but not for slaves.
Lincoln defended slavery in his first inaugural address, where he also made clear that tariffs would be collected. He supported strengthening the constitutional protection of slavery.
Of course, he could never have made the war explicitly against slavery, as there were slave states on the union side. Let us suppose that Lincoln "knew" he would become President and that he would lure some slave states to fight a war that really was a war against slavery by cleverly hiding his deep-down abolitionist sympathies until the war was over and tricking them into fighting a war they thought was for something else. Seems very unlikely, but it would be theoretically possible.
Sure, the need to keep support for the union in line can explain his inaugural address and other behavior signaling indifference or opposition to the abolition of slavery, or even support of slavery, right before the outbreak of the war or during the war. But acts long before he was a candidate for President? That does seem very far-fetched! Sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
Why is this Gettysburg Address seen as this great oratory in support of democracy? No one was fighting for the expansion of the franchise that came in the wake of the war. At least not officially. Voting rights came officially, but impediments were put up against them for roughly another century. Blacks lacked voting rights both in the South and the North.
It was the other side that was fighting for self-determination.
If the North lost the war, according to the Gettysburg Address, government of the people, by the people, and for the people would perish from the Earth. If the South had won, that kind of government would likely continue on both sides of the border. Slavery would have continued but likely not indefinitely.
Is there a meaning other than propaganda? Monarchical and aristocratic Europe was considering intervening in the war on the side of the South. Slavery was probably the main factor behind their hesitation. Maybe Lincoln feared such an intervention, and that the war would become a clash between the old and new world, and that the old world would seize the opportunity to crush the new world of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Well, that kind of government was emerging on the other side of the Atlantic too.
And if there were a Southern victory, the union would be permanently split. Maybe he was referring to a quote of Benjamin Franklin: "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." How relevant that was with emerging democracy elsewhere in the world is certainly highly debatable.
Also, secession was triggered by the election of Abraham Lincoln. The South didn't accept the election. So they seceded instead. Lincoln made it clear in his first inaugural address that the minority had to accept the decision of the majority. It seems so no matter what. That has very serious implications for limits to the powers of the majority.
The ultimate consequence of this is that with, let's say, a global democracy with a majority consisting of India, China, and Africa, the minority West has to accept the redistribution decisions of that majority.
It also has the implication that individuals cannot move from a country if they don't like the way the majority is running things. There's no moving to Switzerland if you don't like the tax level.
You must accept the majority decision no matter what. This is what this means. Or else government of the people, by the people, and for the people will perish from the Earth.
This is a recipe for tyranny, as there is no effective check on the power of the majority. 
J.K. Baltzersen is a Norwegian political commentator and writer. His work has appeared, among other places, in The Washington Times, FEE.org, and Enter Stage Right.
