Lincoln, the Bible and Slavery

In this lecture recording, renowned Lincoln scholar Dr. Joseph Fornieri reflects on how Lincoln drew from scripture, reason and the republican tradition to challenge slavery and illuminate the moral foundations of democra

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

that that uh Dallas here has it's it's like I'm uh it's my adopted home in part and uh I wanna I want to first acknowledge clearly Susan uh my sole sister uh Susan Hansen Dr. Hansen a lady of letters we've known each other for about 25 years and have uh collaborated on many projects and and fought in the same trenches uh together this clearly is a Lincoln destination you mentioned some of the luminaries uh that were here that I I wrestled and and and grappled with their thought uh Emmy Bradford who uh we could put him as part of the anti-Lincoln tradition um you know certainly uh Leopold de Alvarez uh um Glenn Thoreau who was so generous uh when my when my first book came out with a very kind uh review and and today uh you you have uh uh my friend Tom Schneider who's teaching in the political science department so the the tradition continues i where's that Oklahoma uh ato is he around here uh Professor Atto Professor Berry I want to acknowledge all these scholars is his friends and uh and colleagues um I want to thank uh ISI for its continued uh support I want to thank um Mr. Longwell for supporting uh this wonderful this wonderful institution um and finally I want to mention in alum one of my dear friends the Australian and I and I hope he has the opportunity to uh to speak here uh you will not be disappointed Sean Sutton uh who has been the chair at Rochester Institute of Technology for the past 20 years uh we're something of best friends uh he he graduated here he was a student of Tom West and Leopol uh d'Alvarez and his son is here there he is uh will the real Michael Sutton uh stand up no you don't have to stand up so thank you so much uh I I can't say enough uh about the culture here I I I had great Italian food in the in the heart of uh Texas here um there was great music last night a lot of Irish music um beautiful absolutely beautiful mass uh and I was so pleased to see uh so much devotion to uh our lady which is very special to me so uh I I I don't get that up up home so thank you all right now let's let's get to uh the talk proper on September 7th 1864 an African American community from Baltimore presented Abraham Lincoln with the gift of a Bible to which he replied quote in regard to this great book I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book but for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare here and hereafter are to be found portrayed in it. Unquote very strong. Perhaps on this occasion Lincoln the the speaking as a grateful politician may have exaggerated a bit for he clearly believed that unassisted reason as well as God's revelation could provide moral guidance for human life. He thus described the principles of Thomas Jefferson in Euclidean terms right as the axioms and definitions of free society. The self-evident truths of the declaration could be grasped intuitively much like the law of non-contradiction and as will be seen he fully recognized as Professor Hansen mentioned the pitfalls of exploiting the Bible he recognized that the same Bible could be exploited to justify wicked policies including slavery. Nonetheless the reply that I just read to you captures the extent to which the Bible sincerely inspired the life and statesmanship of our 16th president. Indeed Lincoln was an avid reader of the Bible throughout his life though he seems to have gone through a skeptical period in his youth and we can talk about Lincoln's personal piety that's not my topic today but it is interesting he never fully abandoned what I would describe as his core beliefs in a hard shall Calvinistic faith the belief in a just providential living God who guides the destinies of men and nations and who can be reached through prayer. I think this coincides with our Catholic faith to that extent as well he often quoted the line from Hamlet Act 5 scene 2 anybody studying Hamlet? I hope you are something stinks in the state of Denmark all right all right very good uh of course there Hamlet says quote there's a divinity that shapes our ends rough hew them how we will unquote well one cannot overstate the centrality of the Bible in 19th century America which was and remains to this day something of a religious Bible reading nation although much more secular historian James McPherson notes that as the children of the Second Great Awakening soldiers on both sides of the Mason Dixon line were perhaps the most religious in American history. Given its moral authority yesterday and today but especially yesterday it is perhaps no surprise that the Bible was invoked on both sides respectively to condemn and justify slavery. The house divided Lincoln quoting Matthew 12 here house divided against itself cannot stand I believe that this country cannot endure permanently half slave half free that house divided also referred to the churches the Presbyterian church in 1837 split over slavery followed by the Methodist church in 1844 followed by the Baptist church in 1845 okay since the moral legitimacy of slavery depended upon the ultimate authority of God's revelation the Civil War was also a struggle between competing interpretations of the Bible Lincoln thus ironically observed in his second inaugural address both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes his aid against the other does this lead us to a skepticism about the moral guidance of the Bible or an atheism in fact atheists yesterday in Lincoln's own time some of the radicals this was this was whispered of Wendell Phillips and some others uh and today draw the conclusion of atheism because of the ambiguity of these biblical passages and because of its support for its use uh to respond to slavery. And what follows I will show that part of Lincoln's greatness as a statesman consisted in his command of the Bible and his corresponding ability to respond on scriptural grounds to the South's pro-slavery theology I'll begin by providing an overview of the South's biblical case for slavery and then consider Lincoln's critique in Lincoln's biblical counter argument um as you'll see I will try and allow Lincoln to speak as much as I can for himself through his own words here. Does the fact that the Bible was used to justify slavery undermine its moral credibility as I mentioned a moment ago this is a challenge we should take seriously given the secular critiques of revelation today. Okay certainly this is um something that that continues in reply I think we should keep in mind Aquinas's teaching when we consider these critiques of the Bible and critiques of religion that gratia non tolit natorum said perfect grace does not destroy nature it perfects it. Keep this in mind as we as we as you listen to the lecture tonight. Okay let's uh let's begin our uh investigation um tonight with some of the putative or allegedly pro-slavery New Testament passages that Southern apologists cited in defense of slavery in the interest of time I'm only going to read a few but if you have your notebooks or if you are are uh watching this later on you could jot down some of these uh passages for future reference and this is based on on years of study and it's based on on my uh study of the Southern literature uh in some of the pro-slavery books Romans 13 1 was often invoked to as a justification for slavery let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for there is no power but God the powers that be are ordained of God kind of a uh pre a very strong predestinarian view of moral and political relations in which there could you you can't challenge the status quo and in challenging the status quo and that means slavery you're rebelling against God okay Ephesians 6 servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling sounds like that uh who is that guy there that wrote that book there Kierkegaard no uh here are other passages Colossians Titus 2 1 Peter 1 Timothy uh let's now consider some of the putative uh pro-slavery Old Testament passages Exodus 21 if you buy a Hebrew servant he is to serve you for six years but in the seventh he shall go free without paying anything well that seems uh to cut both ways Exodus 21 anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished in Leviticus 25 your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you okay from them you may buy slaves okay the um this passage uh from uh scripture or this book of scripture of Philimon was quoted on both sides of the uh uh debate over the fugitive slave provision article 4 section 2 of the constitution uh provides that uh uh those bound to service or labor should be returned under the laws thereof okay euphemism for fugitive slaves have to be returned uh to the states in which they were held and southerners invoked this passage from Philimon which is a letter St. Paul uh writes here I appeal to you for my child Monissimus whose father I became while I was in chains formerly he was useless to you but now he's become useful both to you and to me I am sending him back to you okay and it also reveals though um the pitfalls of a literal interpretation of scripture or a selective interpretation of scripture because after that when St. Paul's referring to returning uh the slave to his master he says so that you might have him back for good no longer as a slave but then as uh but better than a slave as a beloved brother okay what does what are the implications of of that all right um now that we've considered some of the uh pro-slavery passages of the Bible let's consider uh some of the passages that were adduced by abolitionists not just Lincoln uh against slavery 1 Corinthians the mystical body of Christ right for we are all baptized by one spirit into one body whether Jews or Greeks slave or free and we are all given one spirit to drink okay again Colossians seems to reiterate this here there is no Greek Jew circumscribed or uncircumscribed barbarian Scythian slave or free but Christ is all in is and is in all very famous Galatians 3 28 there is neither Jew nor Greek slave nor free male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus these passages all affirm the unity of human nature and our common human nature created in the image of God our dignity created in the image of God the abolitionists conceded the existence of some of the above passages of course but emphasize that they were not descriptive they were normative or that the New Testament had rendered them if you will obsolete the new law that and therefore we should be guided by the Spirit not the letter of the law as Saint Paul says so they were seen as I mentioned the passages in Leviticus for example were seen is merely describing circumstances and conditions in the ancient world okay before the Christian revelation but in no way did they sanction a religious or a moral imperative to enslave another okay um let's consider that as we look at what I uh think is is perhaps one of the most uh cited passages in the Bible to justify slavery and that is uh from Genesis 9. It's called the curse of ham it's interpreted as the curse of ham and here we find Jefferson Davis who would become the president of the Confederacy cited here in Jackson Mississippi July 6 1859 shortly before the fiery trial of Civil War it is a in in he says this in the context this is an attack on abolitionists for perverting the Bible and for northern radicalism that's responsible for uh disunion uh it is enough for us that the creator speaking through the inspired lips of Noah declared the destiny of the three races of men keep in mind the three races of men in Genesis 9. Around and about us is the remarkable fulfillment of the prophecy the execution of the decree and the justification of the literal construction of the text this what he's referring to is the curse of Ham in Genesis um 9. I'm gonna just provide a uh uh a brief overview it's much more profound uh uh I think an implication that that than what I'm gonna be able to do justice to uh the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were named Shem, Ham Jeffith and they were although the Bible does not say this they were considered as the progenators of the three races of humanity okay Ham was the father his of Canaan who we'll encounter in a moment um Noah was a man of the soil and proceeded to plant a vineyard uh when he drank some of the wine that he had um uh that he had created and archaeologists have since concluded that it was quite likely to be an Italian Chianti he he became drunk uh and and and lay naked in his tent okay uh Ham one of the sons saw the father and told his brothers outside and and what he did is he went into uh the tent where Noah was was um uh laying and and and in a modest way gazed at his father in this condition in contrast the other sons walked backwards into the tent and draped a a um draped a sheet over uh their father when noah woke from his his uh uh his slumber he found out how his youngest son had behaved and God speaking through noah said the following may Canaan be the slave of Shem Canaan again is it's not Ham himself but his son and and and metaphorically it will be his descendants may God extend Japht's territory may Japheth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth so the punishment is visited upon Canaan Ham's son and and here we go Japheth Ham and Shem uh actually some alternative biblical accounts that have been lost say that there was another olive skinned brother Luigi but he went to New York and was never heard of again okay so so uh that's uh that's being debated right now uh so uh in commenting on this passage the great Harry v. Jaffa uh says that one must remember that hundreds of thousands of men on both sides of the Civil War met violent deaths because of this passage. Wow very powerful statement from I think one of the greatest Lincoln scholars um Lincoln replied again and invoked a biblical counterpunch in against Genesis 9 he appealed to Genesis 3. Okay uh let's take let's consider that passage in the sweat of thy fate shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground for out of it was was thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return think of uh think of Lenten season right when we get the ashes they always say this always scared me when they said that's a reminder right so um what is this what is this about uh this is again uh the the punishment after the fall that that human beings now must labor okay uh to feed themselves and to live and labor is the predicament of all of humanity no one can be exempt from it because we have all we are all children of the fall um Lincoln puts it like this and and I there's humor in here is labor is the common burden of our race so the effort of some to shift their share of the burden onto the shoulders of others is the great durable curse of the race originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race when as by slavery it is concentrated on a part only it becomes this is beautiful the double refined curse of God upon his creature double refined okay um now Lincoln's uh appeal to Genesis 3 against Genesis 9 was also buttressed by natural reason or what we may call uh natural theology this was a book that Lincoln had read by William Paley it was an early 19th century book fascinating work that uh uh uh uh articulates many of the uh Aquinas's arguments of design by a Protestant okay uh in defense of God's existence and it looks at it looks at the beauty of nature the grandeur of nature the orderliness of nature the structure of nature and flowers and the heaven and the human body there's a there's the entire uh passages on the the complexity the design um of the integrity of the human body And Lincoln playfully, he uses the term natural theology and would playfully appeal to this in support of Genesis 3, right? So if anything can be proved by natural theology, that is unassisted reason without recourse to the literal scripture of Genesis 3 9. It is that slavery is morally wrong. God had given a mouth, a uh a mouth to receive bread, hands to feed it, and his hand has every right to carry bread into his mouth without controversy. No, I've only cited one instance of this. He does it many times, and it's hysterical. And one in one uh uh speech he says, if if God uh intended to create a slave race, he would have created them with four or six hands and no mouth, uh and and and and went on. So in my first book, I I talk about uh the three R's of Lincoln's uh political faith. His and by political faith I mean his ultimate moral justification for self-government and for consent and equality. Um these are we could say three complementary traditions, wisdom traditions, that were publicly authoritative that Lincoln invoked uh to reinforce the same moral teaching. And we would do well to follow his example in this regard. Uh use every weapon at your disposal. I don't want to use too much of a bellicose analogy, but truth is truth. Uh, Revelation, for example, Genesis 3.19 and the sweat of thy face. In opposition to, do you remember? Genesis 9, the curse of Ham. And we're not talking trichonosis. Uh 2. Reason, natural theology. Lincoln, I think, was a child of the Enlightenment. I think Galzo is is uh uh has done great work in in um uh revealing the Enlightenment influence uh on Lincoln and his understanding of unassisted reason. And republicanism. By republicanism, I mean the the classical Greco-Roman uh tradition of self-government, particularly the Roman understanding of libertas, of liberty, of manly liberty in opposition to uh monarchy or servitude, and constitutional government, and Cicero's uh understanding of uh for the laws, for the republic, for patriotism, the linkage between uh these things. This was an important tradition. There's remarkable passages of John Adams and and uh even Jefferson testifying to the influence of Cicero on the founding. We speak of Athens and Jerusalem, and we should, but we also should speak of Rome. Athens, Jerusalem, and Rome, where the synthesis occurs. Um let's consider how this Republican tradition um is invoked by Lincoln. He was talking about how the slavery is the exact principle of divine right of kings, which the founders overthrew at the time of the revolution, and it was anathema to classical Romans and anathema to libertas. In fact, when the Romans uh uh actually lost their republic, they had to come up with a new name for a king, uh imperator, right? The emperor. Uh they had to disguise it from themselves because the word king and monarch was so repugnant to them. So Lincoln here at Alton, Illinois, says, he's speaking about the struggle between freedom and slavery. It's the eternal struggle between these two principles, right and wrong, throughout the world. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It's the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, you work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it, Genesis 3.19. And later he says it's the same tyrannical principle. Lincoln's um attack on slavery in his defense of freedom was also rooted in an understanding of, as I have mentioned before, our common humanity. And certainly our dignity created in the image of God, Genesis 1.27, Genesis 1.26, depending on what uh uh scripture you use. Uh let's look at this. Let's find textual basis of this. This is a very moving, eloquent passage by Lincoln around the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on and degraded and imbrooded by its fellows. Lewiston, Illinois, August 17th, 1851. But the dignity of our common human nature is only one dimension of uh what it means to be human. The depravity of human nature is just as relevant for Lincoln to democracy as the dignity of human nature, and that means the understanding of the fall. No one can be entrusted with absolute power or limitless power over another human being, not even Mother Teresa. Um and so we see uh Lincoln's view of human nature and of our common humanity informed by this understanding of human of uh original sin and human fallibility. He says, well, as we mentioned a moment ago, when concentrated on a part of humanity is the double-refined curse, uh, slavery. Uh there is a desire to concentrate, to shift uh what is justly everyone's burden uh onto a few. Um this is a very, I think, uh telling quote in the Peoria address of October 16, 1854, that consent to the govern is derived from the principle of equality, but it's also derived when we look at equality from our equal dignity, our equal depravity. No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I see this is the leading principle of the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Okay? That is to say, no one could govern another is from the standpoint of either a god or from the standpoint of degrading another person to the level of a beast. Consent is the operative principle amongst equals. And without consent, power can be easily abused and is easily abused. Of course, that was the idea of divine right. If you look at James I's uh articulation of it and other articulations of it in the time period, it was a uh potesta solito legibus, a power freed from law. A power freed from law, okay, where the king's will was law. Well, that's not law. Okay, that's despotism. And it's the same principle that permits someone to execute their will in an unbridled manner on another human being. Of course, this is this we see this um uh of course echoed in and Madison's statement in Federals 51 if men were angels, no government would be necessary, kind of an acknowledgement of human fallibility. Now, I think one of the most in instructive um uh critiques of the biblical case for slavery is found in a fragment Lincoln wrote. Lincoln would write these meditations, uh these reflections, and then put him in his hat or put him in his put it, put it in his uh desk. And there were just after his assassination, a trevor treasure trove of these found by uh his secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, and subsequently published. This is one of them. Uh, and it is in reply to a book which I've read, and it was interesting. It was it was based out of all places. I'm a Buffalo Bills fan. It was based on lectures he gave in Buffalo, New York. Presbyterian minister Frederick Ross from Huntsville, Alabama, comes up to Rochester, New York. They probably didn't have wings then, and uh it and preaches this. And then it's published in a book. Uh and Lincoln uh reads it and rebuts it. Uh so he summarizes uh the major thesis. The relation of master and slave is not sin, according to slavery ordained of God. And by the way, slavery ordained of God is a reference to, if you remember, Romans what? Romans 13, 1. Okay, all powers that be are ordained of God. Slavery is ordained of God as part of the status quo. Any opposition to it uh is rebellion. And again, this was the argument uh uh of uh divine right monarchs, right? That that everything they did was justified and could not be contested by any human power. Uh it could be it could be contested by a divine power, but if there was a dispute between the divine will and the human will, the king's will was always the perfect arbiter of the divine will. You can see how that's a problem. Um, the relation of master and slave is not sin and will be most benevolent for the ultimate good of the master and the slave. Conservative on the union by preserving the South from all forms of northern fanaticism. Slavery was found to be in absolute harmony with the word of God. Again, this is what Ross says in his book in 1857. Sorry, Lincoln summarizes it now, here on this slide. The sum of pro-slavery theology seems to be this slavery is not universally right, nor yet universally wrong. It is better for some people to be slaves, and in such cases it is the will of God that they be such. Then this reflection right afterwards. Certainly, there is no condemning contending against the will of God. An important concession or rec acknowledgement on Lincoln's part. But here's the problem, and here's the problem today, uh uh about 200 years later, but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining and implying it to particular cases. Right? For instance, will we suppose that Reverend Ross has a slave? And the question is, is it the will of God that he shall remain a slave or be set free? And then he goes on very humorously to say that Reverend Ross is sitting with his lemonade in the sun with gloves on while his slave is doing all the labor and sweating uh uh by his brow. And he asks the rhetorical question Will Reverend Ross be an impartial judge of whether or not um uh his slave should be free. And then to reiterate this point, he says the Almighty gives no audible answer. He recognizes the ambiguity here to the question in his revelation, the Bible gives none, or at most, none but such as admits of a squabble as to its meaning. Lincoln concedes this, he recognizes the pro-slavery quote, but it doesn't, it doesn't drive him to abandon scripture altogether. It's scripture interpreted in a certain manner and scripture uh complemented by uh republicanism and reason. Um course we find this um uh strikingly in the next passage of this fragment, uh, where he makes it clear. But slavery is good for some people. As a good thing, slavery is strikingly peculiar in this, that it is the only good thing which no man ever seeks the good of for himself. Are you humorous, right? And of course, what what is this? Lincoln is invoking the golden rule, right? Found in Luke 6 and Matthew 7. Here are some other expressions of Lincoln's appeal to the golden rule. Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a slave himself. And of course, the very famous aphorism as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this to the extent of the difference is no democracy. Very uh profound and moving expression of the golden rule and divine justice, uh, even retribution, uh, is seen in Lincoln's uh letter to Henry Pierce on April 6, 1859. Uh and interestingly, this is the same speech where he invokes the principles of Jefferson as the definitions and axioms of society. Uh, so you have that Euclidean enlightenment terminology in the beginning of that speech, and then you come to the end of it, and it's as if Isaiah, right, is is uh the prophet is is warning of divine judgment. This is a world of compensation, and he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. And under a just God cannot long retain it. So Lincoln is is clear, although there are different interpretations. A proper understanding of God's justice is incompatible with slavery. Of course, what does he say about pro-slavery theology at the end? Nonsense. It's a kind of sophistry. We see a lot of that at the university. Wolves devouring lambs, not because it is good for their own greedy maws, but because it is good for the lambs, right? Whenever you do something nasty to someone, have you encountered this? I mean, there's great psychology books written on it. You know, you you blame the victim. You know, it's not me, it's it's it's really, you know, you who deserve this. Um, and it's good for you. It's good for you to be a slave. Um, where does this come from? Does anybody know the wolves devouring lambs because it's good for the lambs? You guys are, you know, you're Greco-Roman. Siamo tutti Italiani, vai, yes. Right on. Gold star for that cat. Give him an extra piece of pizza. It's from Aesop's fable number two, The Wolf and the Lamb. And I encourage you to look at some editions of this in which there's commentary, and the commentary is an explanation of that sophistry that justifies evil doing under the pretext of the good. All right. One more uh very important speech. We would be remiss not to discuss it. And this is Lincoln's reply to a Baptist delegation on May 30th, 1864, where he um notes that Christianity in ordinary perceptions of right recognized that slavery is wrong. Uh the context is that there was a uh Baptist delegation of three individuals uh that uh came to the White House and Lincoln thanked this the Christian communities, the this Baptist delegation, other Christian communities for their support. And he says uh uh it's difficult to conceive how it could be otherwise, that is, support for the Union dedicated to the principles of uh equality in the Declaration of Independence, with anyone professing Christianity or even having ordinary perceptions of right or wrong, not to support the Union. And then very scornful, almost uncharacteristic of Lincoln, scornful statement. Um, to read in the Bible is the word of God Himself, that in the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread, and to preach from there that in the sweat of other man's faces, Lincoln's humor, right? In the sweat of other man's faces, thou shalt eat bread. To my mind, can scarcely be reconciled with honest sincerity. When brought before my final reckoning, may I have to answer for robbing. So for Lincoln, slavery is a kind is stealing, right? It violates the great commandment, thou shalt not steal, robbing no man of his goods, yet more tolerable even than this, than for robbing one of himself. You have property in yourself, Lockheed in view, and all that was his. Then he goes on to this when a year or two ago those professedly holy men of the South met in the semblance of prayer and devotion, in the name of him who said, As ye would all, as ye would all men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, appealed to the Christian world to aid them in doing to a whole race of men as they would have no man do unto themselves. Of course, it's it sounds awkward because Lincoln's quoting the actual King James Version of the Bible and playing with it. Uh okay, this was a uh a reference, interestingly enough, to the Southern Presbyterian church, which had uh endorsed slavery. They had broken over slavery before, but now they asked the world to endorse slavery as a blessing to both master and slave, right around this time. And Lincoln is scornfully replying to it. And he says, To my thinking, they contemned and insulted God and his church far more than did Satan when he tempted the Savior with all the kingdoms of the earth. The devil's attempt was no more false and far less hypocritical. You're familiar with Matthew 4, right? And it's always at the beginning of Lent, okay, where uh Christ goes into the desert and he's tempted by Satan. There's three temptations. Buff Staevsky uh brilliantly unpacks this and applies it to uh I can anticipating kind of totalitarian movements of the 20th century. But if you'll note, Satan quotes scripture. Satan quotes scripture to Christ, and Christ does what he counters it. And so we have, you know, we have a recognition amongst Christ himself and of the the writers of scripture itself that scripture can be perverted, and it was perverted by Satan. Uh by Christ gave an alternative meaning. And this is what Lincoln's getting at, right? The devil's attempt was no more false and far less hypocritical, because he was the devil. And then he he ends, he stops saying, Let me, but let me forbear remembering it's also written, judge not, lest ye be judged, Matthew 1. He tempers, he tempers his scorn. Finally, we turn to the second inaugural address, where we see some of these passages are uh reiterated and reaffirmed very powerfully. Uh Reinhold Nieber and I agree with him, uh great theologian of the 20th century, argued that the second inaugural address is really the living expression of Lincoln's own faith publicly. Um and of course, in seeking to reconcile uh the nation, at the end of the war, Lincoln invokes the power of Christianity and Christian faith. Uh he says it may seem strange that men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of their other man's faces. Again, here's the appeal to Genesis 3.19, found in the second inaugural, tempered by, let us judge that we not be not judged. And then noting the irony, as we saw before, the prayers of both could not be answered. Some people were upset about this. What do you mean the prayers of both could not be answered? We won. God is on our side. That if neither has been answered fully, the Almighty has his own purpose. Lincoln recognizes the distance between human striving and the divine will. They're not identical. Uh he suggests, he suggests that war may be uh a divine re retribution or judgment over slavery again. Um, but doesn't claim to know with certainty. But if it was, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether, right? Finally do we hope fervently do we pray? Listen to the poetry of this. This mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the last shall be paid by another drawn with the sword. What an image. Uh, as was said three thousand years ago. So it must be said today, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous all together. A very, very profound statement. So, in conclusion, Lincoln appealed to Genesis 3.19 against slavery as part of his counter-biblical argument. He appealed to Genesis 1.27, Imago Imago Dei, but also the common depravity of human nature. No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent, as we mentioned. And we see the golden rule appealed several times. There's more, but this is a this is a summary for the time we have allowed. Lincoln's critique of pro-slavery theology reveals the both the use and the abuse of the Bible in public life, though we recognize the difficulty of applying principles in particular cases. His biblical counterargument provides a defense of human dignity and common humanity that is the core of our ancient faith of equality. Finally, it should be noted that Lincoln's case does not stand on a literal interpretation of the Bible or scripture alone. It's complemented by reason and republicanism. So as we confront the moral and political challenges of the future, as Catholics, we may do well to follow Lincoln and Aquinas' example. Thank you.