One Searing Phrase: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Abraham Lincoln, 1863

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

“And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:24-25) [italics added]

Sometimes, a single searing phrase blasts our moral dilemmas into the open. In his “House Divided” speech, future president Abraham Lincoln woefully prophesized the United States of America’s oncoming calamity. The era faced a fundamental moral and political choice between slavery and freedom. Which way would the United States turn? Toward the light, or plunged into the darkness? No one knew.


Lincoln’s Warning

On June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln accepted the nomination to be United States senator from Illinois. Speaking in the old Illinois State Capitol, he warned that the United States of America could not be permanently divided into free States and slave states. Sooner or later, he predicted, the nation would become one or the other.

This led Lincoln to utter one of his most dramatic rhetorical passages. Rephrasing the Bible, he said:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Most of his audience surely not only recognized Lincoln’s biblical allusion, but grasped its prophetic implications. Into what abyss was the United States of America falling due to the sin of slavery? Worse, was Satan divided against Satan? In other words, did the backwards, rural South and the ever-smug North conspire to perpetuate a wicked national philosophy? Did Lincoln not imply all of that?

Dred Scott

Now, in fact, most of Lincoln’s speech offered a technical discussion of the Dred Scott decision. As we recall from our history classes, Dred Scott was enslaved by a southerner who voluntarily took Scott to live in a state where slavery was illegal. After returning home, Scott secured an attorney and filed a lawsuit claiming that, since he had lived in a free state, not as a fugitive but under his master’s supervision, he was no longer a slave and was thus entitled to his freedom. An extremely conservative Supreme Court ruled otherwise on the shocking ground that no one of African descent could be a citizen of the United States. The court continued that no person of African descent could have standing to file a lawsuit against a white man in court. Completing the humiliation, the court further ruled that for the government to free an enslaved person would deprive the slave master of his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

This created a political problem. Favoring a moderate, gradual anti-slavery policy, the Republican Party of the 1850’s opposed allowing slavery to spread to any of the new territories that were eventually becoming states. Lincoln ruefully noted that the Dred Scott decision devastated that policy. The Dred Scott decision meant that Congress could not forbid slavery in any state or territory. At the same time, Lincoln knew that the Dred Scott decision by no means put an end to the slavery controversy:

“Agitation [on the slavery issue] has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’” [italics added]

Slavery was evil, he implied, and a nation could not endure half slave and half free. The Dred Scott case was the impetus, but Lincoln reified the controversy into a massive moral dilemma. The United States could not be all good and all bad at the same time. Indeed, he prophesied that the United States could either fall into the abyss of oppression, or free itself from slavery entirely. Yes, the Dred Scott decision had eliminated any middle course. More importantly, Lincoln’s biblical allusion confronted the nation with a moral controversy that would follow the United States through the coming horrors of the Civil War and the monstrous tragedies of racial oppression which followed, and which, we must remember, have not entirely evaporated.

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of "Liberty" 


Hope for the Future

Lincoln continued:

“I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved --I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”

Yet, of course, the Union did dissolve two short years later, reuniting only after enormous suffering. When the Civil War ended in 1865, more than half 600,000 Americans had died, my home state of Virginia was, like much of the South, reduced to starvation amongst smoldering ruins, and Lincoln’s successors still needed to figure out how to put the battered nation back together into one piece. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution seemingly settled the question—would the nation be half slave or half free?—but not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was there any serious movement to implement the Declaration of Independence’s value that “all men are created equal.” (Indeed, not until the 19th Amendment in 1920 did women gain the right to vote.) 

Yet, despite the bitter times, Lincoln ended this famous speech by discussing the Republican Party’s rapid growth and expressing his hope that the (moderately) anti-slavery cause would, one day, triumph:

“The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail—If we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay, but sooner or later the victory is sure to come.”

Lincoln expounded his ideas at greater length in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln ultimately lost the 1858 senatorial election but won the presidential election in 1860. The rest is history.

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln, White Supremacist: The First Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln, White Supremacist, Part 2: The Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate

In a complex irony, the Republican Party of 2023 is the party that stands against any expansion of civil rights.

 
Is Our House Still Divided?

Still, the repercussions of Lincoln’s dire warning reverberate today. Can a nation divided against itself long stand? For Lincoln’s biblical text also says, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.” Can a nation survive when divided against itself? When angry hordes, supported by public officials who should know better, attacked the United States Capitol with a mission to hang Congressional leaders and reinstate the losing presidential candidate? When a sitting member of Congress called for secession in 2023? Indeed, in 2023, is it “woke” for the descendants of slaves to have the chance to go to college or get good jobs? Should schoolchildren be shielded from the history of slavery? Should rogue police cite flimsy excuses to gun down the descendants of slaves on the street? That is, is our house still divided? More to the point, can it stand while divided? As was his habit, Lincoln spoke for the ages.

With one striking biblical sentence, Lincoln posed the nation’s ultimate challenge. The nation could not be half good and half evil, could not be half slave and half free. A nation that stands against itself has doomed itself. A crisis was coming, Lincoln warned, and no one could foresee its outcome with certainty. Each generation since has had a chance to respond. Or not.

Photo of Abraham Lincoln, 1863, Moses Parker Rice, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Dred Scott, Missouri Digital Heritage

Abraham Lincoln, White Supremacist, Part 2: The Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Abraham Lincoln

On September 18, 1858 during the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate in Charleston, Illinois, future president Abraham Lincoln declared:

“I as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”

Yes, Lincoln favored white supremacy, that is, he stated both that White people should be in charge, and that White people were superior in nature to Black people.

Yesterday, browsing on social media, I stirred up a bit of dissension when I commented that Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, was a white supremacist. I would think that anyone familiar with the United States history would have known that. Lincoln certainly disliked slavery; however, as he rose to political prominence, he equally opposed racial equality. His seven debates against Stephen Douglas during their 1858 campaign for Illinois senator made him the leading moderately anti-slavery candidate. So, today, let us look carefully at the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate to clarify Lincoln’s opinion about racial equality.

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln, White Supremacist: The First Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln was a creature of his time. His views were politic, and he could never have been elected president in 1860 if he openly favored abolition. The abolition of slavery was, at that time, considered to be a radical policy. Those are important matters, but they do not refute the simple reality that Lincoln favored white supremacy as a matter of public policy, and I don’t understand

Lincoln Memorial

why that causes so much controversy. Nor is the issue outdated. Consider that members of Lincoln’s party, the Republican Party, sometimes today advocate some version of white supremacy themselves. Nor do we, citizens of the United States, do ourselves any favor if we whitewash our past, or if we elevate Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, into some kind of pristine demigod, remembered only as a larger-than-life statue of a marble man on a pedestal. 

With that said, I hold, as a modern white son of the South, that chattel slavery and all of the other cruel forms of forced labor are and always have been wicked, and that white supremacy is a foul philosophy. Readers who think otherwise will have little interest in the rest of this post. 


Lincoln Opposed Racial Equality

During their 1858 campaign, Douglas positioned himself as the pro-slavery candidate, while Lincoln held that slavery was evil and should not spread to any of the new states that were gradually being admitted to the Union. Lincoln carefully promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed. This was, overall, considered a liberal position. 

For example, during this fourth debate, Lincoln specifically said that the White and Black races should not be equal, and that he certainly did not intend for Black people to have the right to vote. It was also his policy to keep juries all-white, to keep Black people out of public office, and to outlaw racially mixed marriages. He stated these points at the long debate’s outset:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.”

Interesting, is it not, that the reporters noted that Lincoln’s brazenly racist comment received the audience’s applause? Yes, the assembled crowd evidently enjoyed Lincoln’s white supremacist opinions. Indeed, one wonders whether they were relieved to hear that Lincoln, although a liberal, nevertheless supported white supremacy. Evidently, even in a free state like Illinois, only a white supremacist could hope to win an election.

Lest we think that Lincoln’s views should be relegated to the 19th Century, let us remember that not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both adopted only in my own lifetime, 100 years after the Civil War, did the United States government take a firm stand against white supremacy and racial subjugation. What explanations, however, made Lincoln feel that white supremacy was acceptable?


Lincoln Stated that Black People Were Inferior

And, indeed, white supremacy obviously required some kind of moral justification. The standard explanation that White racists gave in the 1800s was that, according to White racists, Black people were simply not as good as White people. Lincoln baldly endorsed that view in this debate. In fact, Lincoln continued that the supposed inferiority of Black people required that Black people remain in a subordinate position:

“And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” [italics added]

So, was Lincoln a white supremacist? That statement removed all uncertainty.  

Earlier Post: Rev. Henry J. van Dyke, Sr. and the pro-Slavery Rhetoric of the Christian Right, Civil War Style


Lincoln Was a Sympathetic White Supremacist

Nevertheless, Lincoln did advocate some level of civil rights for African Americans. That, no doubt, must have shocked some of his audience. First, he did say that African Americans should have a degree of liberty:

“I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing.”

Then, much to his audience’s delight, he immediately turned that noble assurance into a tasteless joke. Maybe he wanted to soften the shock. His joke, in turn, helped him to restate that he opposed racial equality:

“I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.”

So, there we go. Abraham Lincoln, a sympathetic, jovial, good-hearted racial supremacist.


Conclusion

In no way do I demean Lincoln’s dramatic accomplishments as president. Although he lost the 1858 senatorial election, he was elected to be President of the United States in 1860, taking office in March 1861. He preserved our union, assets and faults and all. He led the nation through the Civil War’s horrors, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and was eventually martyred for his anti-slavery views. His legacy endures in his speeches: his pre-Civil War speeches were models of careful reasoning and audience adaptation, while some of the speeches that he gave during the Civil War are inspiring landmarks of American thought and eloquence.

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time

Earlier Post: A White Supremacist Spoke from the Steps of the Lincoln Memorial

Also, let’s not forget that, when we call Lincoln a creature of his times, we inevitably ignore the fact that political public opinion in the United States of America was, at that time, only the public opinion of White people. Slaves struggling under the cruel lash obviously had no vote and little public voice. Even in the north, many free states still denied African Americans the right to vote. Lincoln adapted to his audience by expressing racist views. That does not mean that the entire nation was racist. It means that many people who had power were racists. Furthermore, the fact that Lincoln was elected to the presidency in 1860 shows, obviously enough, that anti-slavery sentiment was spreading in large parts of the country.

So, when we ask whether it is fair to judge Lincoln by 21st Century standards, let us remember that a great many people in 1858 already knew that slavery and racial oppression were wicked.

If circumstances allow, I hope to write more about Lincoln’s speeches, as he is justly admired as the United States’ greatest orator. We can and should admire the man; we must, however, equally remember the horrors that swirled around him.

Nor should we underestimate those horrors. The Civil War started three short years after the Lincoln-Douglas debates. That brutal conflict took almost as many American lives as the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam War, and the war against terror added together. If slavery was the United States’ original sin, the penance was terrible. Nor is the penance complete. Its reverberations continue to echo through our society today. We gamble on a losing hand when we forget the past.

________________

P.S. I’m sure we all noticed that Lincoln favored putting “the white man” in charge, with, of course, no recognition of women. We’ll reserve that important issue for another day.

Note on the text: There were no sound recording devices in 1858; the texts of these debates were produced by skilled shorthand reporters. They are probably as accurate as such a method can be, but errors would be inevitable. These texts were printed in newspapers across the country, reaching a far larger audience than the 12,000 people estimated to have heard Lincoln and Douglas debate on that day. 

Photo of Abraham Lincoln, 1863, Moses Parker Rice, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Photo of Lincoln statue, National Park Service

Rev. Henry J. van Dyke, Sr. and the Rhetoric of the Christian Right, Civil War Style

Cotton ruled the American economy. In 1860, cotton was king, and King Cotton made Americans rich, except, of course, for the slaves. Slaves worked under the lash to grow cotton, while northern workers processed the cotton and shipped it to Europe. Abolitionists terrified King Cotton, and many churches charged to his rescue. 

On December 9, 1860, four months before the first shots of the American Civil War, the Rev. Henry J. van Dyke, the minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, New York, preached against the abolition of slavery. He published his sermon as a pamphlet, complete with footnotes. Van Dyke’s theme was Christian morality, but his fear was that abolition would wreck the cotton-based economy. Religion was merely his excuse, his smokescreen, his blustering apotheosis. As so often happens, the speaker’s crude motives contradicted his moralistic proof.

“I have selected a text from the Bible, van Dyke said, “and propose to adhere to the letter and spirit of its teaching.” At the outset, he prepared his audience to believe that religious authority supported his subsequent economic, pro-slavery arguments. And how could his audience argue with that? I mean, Christians can argue against slavery, but to clash with the Bible? So, he gave (biblical) authority as an excuse—or a bludgeon—to preempt moral arguments against his position.

This famous, distinguished minister of a Christian church in a non-slave state used religion to support the absolute evil of chattel slavery. Still, quoting religious scriptures for an evil cause is nothing new. As Antonio opines in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice:

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose!
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.

Van Dyke cited scripture for his purpose. As we will see, van Dyke built his vile case by expounding a lengthy Bible passage, which, by an intricate pattern of reasoning, led him to warn of the dire economic consequences that would follow if abolitionists destroyed slavery.


What Does the Bible Say?

Van Dyke’s sermon-pamphlet began by quoting this passage from 1 Timothy, chapter 6:

1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Ironically, the biblical book of 1 Timothy, taken as a whole, is a diatribe against false teachers. I can hardly imagine how shameless van Dyke must have been to draw his text from that book. Van Dyke pointedly did not quote an otherwise similar passage in Colossians 4:1, which adds, “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Starting with religious evidence did, nevertheless, give this sermon great power. Religious arguments can stop political conversations and shut down reasoned debate in a heartbeat.

________________

Dr. Robert Jeffress Tried to Close Down Conversation about Jerusalem - by Praying!

________________

Note, please, that 1 Timothy says nothing about politics or economics. Instead, this passage asks slaves to submit to the yoke, while expressing no sympathy for their plight. However, it says nothing to justify being a slave master. We could easily interpret this passage to mean that a person should willingly submit to evil, but one must stretch to say that the passage encourages people to commit evil. That’s a different thing entirely, is it not? Van Dyke pulled quite a trick there. How did he do that?

Van Dyke insisted that this ancient moral teaching refers, not just to ancient times, but specifically to the United States in 1860. Van Dyke projected his biblical text centuries ahead—to be a prophecy for the Abraham Lincoln era. To make that historical and logical leap, van Dyke jumped from saying that slaves should obey to the broader, political claim that sin underlies the very practice and ideology of abolition. So, van Dyke uttered this stunning claim:

“The text . . . is a prophecy written for these days, and wonderfully applicable to our present circumstances. It gives us a life-like picture of Abolitionism in its principles, its spirit and its practice, and furnishes us plain instruction in regard to our duty in the premises.” (p. 6) [italics added]

Prophecy was not, however, the point that van Dyke ended with. Having proven to his own satisfaction that slavery was morally good, he then turned to his real topic: the advantages of lucre, mammon, or, if you prefer, plain, unadorned greed. Let King Cotton rule, and everyone (except the slaves) could prosper.

Picking cotton under an overseer’s watch, c. 1850

The Bible and Economics?

Indeed, as his sermon continued, van Dyke wandered away from slavery’s morality and, as a true conservative, complained that abolition would disrupt (white people’s) economic health. Yet he still gave credit to Providence, not to simple greed, for the way that the cotton trade linked North and South:

“A kind and wonderful Providence has so tempered the body of these States together, so bound and interlaced them with commercial and social ties, to say nothing of legal obligations, that no member can be severed, and especially no contests can be waged among the members, without a quivering and anguish in every active, and a stagnation in the vital currents of all.” (p. 29)

It was heaven, in other words, that set up the slave-based economy. And not just any heaven, but “a kind and wonderful Providence” that set up the slave-based economy. So, van Dyke concluded, abolition would prevent any peaceful attempt to settle the nation’s dispute without war:

“And as Abolitionism is the great mischief-maker between the North and South, so it is the great stumbling-block in the way of a peaceful settlement of our difficulties.” (p. 29)

As he neared his conclusion, van Dyke left his moral arguments trodden into the dust, instead focusing his congregation’s attention on simple economics. Since the North depended on the cotton trade just as much as the South, he remarked, what would happen to factory workers and ships’ crews if they could no longer process the products of slave labor? The very thought of abolition filled van Dyke with horror. Indeed, he warned that abolition would devastate the economy:

“When the thousands of working-men whose subsistence depends upon our trade with the South, many of whom have been deluded by Abolitionist demagogues, shall clamor in our streets for bread, free labor may present some problems which political economy has not solved.” (p. 38)

In fact, stunningly, even as he defended his view against the abolitionists, van Dyke unwittingly admitted that Christian teaching does not endorse slaveholding after all:

“The New Testament is utterly silent in regard to the alleged sinfulness of slaveholding.” (p. 10)

Van Dyke’s opening text from 1 Timothy, which asked slaves to obey their overlords, turned out to be merely an excuse. So, what was left was his view that Christian teaching is silent about slavery, that the divinely arranged economy rested on slavery, and, therefore, slavery was moral while abolition was wrong. The logical gaps are obvious. 1 Timothy did not defend capturing people and holding them in slavery, and claiming that the slave economy was Heaven-sent merely begged the question. The cruel facts of American slavery, known then and now to any school child, received no mention. Well, no one expects slavers to exhibit moral consistency.


Conclusion

Van Dyke began his pro-slavery argument by citing a tangentially relevant biblical passage, drew a conclusion that that passage failed to support, and finally argued that he supported slavery, really, mostly for economic reasons. The sermon perverted Christianity into an excuse for economic oppression. Van Dyke bludgeoned abolitionists down to hellfire. Even sadder, Van Dyke feared for Southern plantation owners and northern (mostly white) factory workers, while giving not a moment’s thought to enslaved families in their abject misery. Where did van Dyke really get his inspiration? From the Bible, or King Cotton?

Yes, there were abolitionist white churches in 1860, especially the Quakers. Too often, however, white churches had made their peace with slavery. And what about today? Does anyone see a family resemblance to the 20th Century Christian Right’s continuing opposition to civil rights enforcement or to “wokeness?” To their campaign against teaching African American history? Does the advancement of minority group members still make other people anxious? The Bible is right about many things, but the most blatantly obvious is when it says that “there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9)

________________

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Rev. Witherspoon and the Christian Right in the Revolutionary War

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents: Religion Becomes a Political Tool
________________

Research note: Slavery wasn’t just a southern issue. Although New York had outlawed slavery in 1817, historians often note that large swaths of the 19th century United States economy still depended indirectly on forced labor. The southern economy used slave labor to produce raw cotton, while the cotton was often processed in and exported from the north. Often enough, northerners protested slavery and looked down on slavers, even as they profited from slaves’ unpaid work. For example, Eric Foner’s widely used textbook, Give Me Liberty, vol. 1, discusses this issue.

Textual note: How accurate is the text of van Dyke’s speech? In the days before film, television, and YouTube, major speeches received far more distribution in pamphlets and newspapers than they did when originally presented to the audience. Thus, speakers could revise, expand, or condense the speech text to suit their purposes. Yet, my former professor Kurt Ritter said that published texts often had the most influence and were therefore most worthy of study. Which do you think matters more: the speech delivered to the initial audience, or the version that was widely distributed to the public?

Images: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity

Ronald Reagan, White House photo

On July 4th, 1986, United States President Ronald Reagan spoke for unity. He praised the United States for being one nation, united. Ceremonial speeches are at their best when they remind audiences of shared values, when they pull us together—when they encourage us to work “heart in hand.” Reagan celebrated religious and ethnic diversity, praising a nation that is united, not by race or creed, but, more importantly, by shared values.

While acknowledging our differences, Reagan focused instead on our common goals. Reagan asked the nation to put disagreements into perspective. He asked us to celebrate and embrace what is good. He called Americans to uphold shared values, with world freedom (not just our own freedom) being the paramount value, working together, yes, “heart in hand.”

Today, have we forgotten that lesson?

A true traditionalist, Reagan quoted our third president, Thomas Jefferson, to reach across the ages with his optimism. Quoting Jefferson, Reagan reminded the audience about the nation’s ability to triumph over adversity, to ride through storms. He reminded the audience that we can overcome strife and continue to enjoy a united America: a United States of America. By quoting Jefferson, Reagan tied his ideas to tradition, while simultaneously looking to the future:

“‘It carries me back,’ Jefferson wrote about correspondence with his co-signer [John Adams] of the Declaration of Independence, ‘To the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right to self-government. Laboring, always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us and yet passing harmless, we rode through this storm with heart and hand.’”

“Rode through the storm.” We often lose perspective, don’t we? Our differences alarm us, while we overlook what we share. That is why, continuing, Reagan stated the balance—the balance between our heritage and our hopes for the future, on the one hand, and the seemingly minor differences that set us apart:

“…the things that unite us, America’s past of which we’re so proud, our hopes and aspirations for the future of the world and this much-loved country. These things far outweigh what little divides us.”

Having reinforced the nation’s shared principles, Reagan neared his value-laden conclusion. Drawing an even larger point, Reagan gave the nation a lesson in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):

“And so tonight we are to reaffirm, that Jew and Gentile, we are one nation under God. That black and white, we are one nation indivisible. That Republican and Democrat, we are all Americans. Tonight, with heart and hand, through whatever trial and travail, we pledge ourselves to each other and to the cause of human freedom. The cause that has given light to this land, and hope to the world.”

Doesn’t that make sense? By definition, a united nation is an inclusive nation. We are all Americans, Reagan insisted, no matter what our religion. Regardless of race or ethnicity, he said, “we are one nation indivisible” (echoing the Pledge of Allegiance). Regardless of our disagreements, he said, Americans are to reach “heart and hand,” not only to one another, but to “the cause of human freedom.”

Indeed, yes, ceremonial speaking at its best pulls us together and reminds us of our shared values. Reagan talked about values by which we can live. We are weak if we fracture, but we can live in a united America. We can agree that freedom is important, and not just freedom for the privileged few, but freedom for everyone.

So often, conservatives today honor Ronald Reagan as one of our greatest presidents. However, should we all listen to him more often than we do? Can we agree about “the cause of human freedom?” Can we, on the Fourth of July 2023, remember to work together, “heart and hand?”

What Happened to the Fourth of July Speeches? 

In my youth, we always heard a patriotic speech before the July Fourth fireworks. The content varied a little from year to year, but the speaker always reminded us about what it means to be an American. That practice has died away. The 4th of July should mean much more than setting off fireworks or grilling frankfurters. Shouldn’t it? Can we “ride through the storm?”

Happy Birthday, United States of America!

________________________

Mark Twain's 1886 Fourth of July Speech

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Reagan versus Trump: The Unifier and the Divider. Two Public Speaking Styles. Same Message, Different Songs

President Trump Awards Medal of Honor: An Epideictic Speech

________________________

Research note: the insight that ceremonial (or epideictic) speeches teach shared values traces back to The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, by Belgian philosophers Chaïm Perlman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca.

Thanks to the good people at rev.com for preparing a transcript of this important speech.

An Artificial Intelligence Preached the Gospel. Can We Humans Do Better?

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) preacher modestly began by saying “Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year’s convention of Protestants in Germany.” During a 40-minute church service, various AI personalities were projected onto a screen near the altar as their artificial voices came from loudspeakers. The avatars took on the appearance of different men and women. The congregation of more than three hundred worshippers filled historic St. Paul’s Lutheran Church on Dr. Martin Luther King Square in Fürth, Bavaria. The church's glorious architecture stood as a monument of human creativity, while the congregation heard a computer lecture them about the Christian faith. It was a truly historic event.

Jonas Simmerlein, a theologian from the University of Vienna wanted to see whether he could produce an artificial worship service. According to news reports, “the believers in the church listened attentively as the artificial intelligence preached about leaving the past behind, focusing on the challenges of the present, overcoming fear of death, and never losing trust in Jesus Christ.” A bunch of platitudes similar to those heard at Christian churches every week.  

So, yes, okay, it finally happened. An artificial intelligence (AI) with four or so avatars delivered a sermon on a general Christian topic.  The IT specialist/programmer/theologian gave the AI a few prompts and let it rip. (There wasn’t just a sermon; apparently there were also AI hymns, testimonies, and whatnot.) The artificial sermon sort of worked. People laughed only occasionally. Is that because technology is grand? Or is it because people expect little from their sermons, and thus are hard to disappoint? I suspect that the latter is the genuine answer. The AI succeeded, to a degree, because human preachers aren’t consistently setting a high bar. Let’s look at that.

Another Lutheran pastor who attended the event commented that, “I had actually imagined it to be worse. But I was positively surprised how well it worked. Also the language of the AI worked well, even though it was still a bit bumpy at times.”

To no one’s surprise, the worshippers complained that the avatars spoke with no feeling or emotion. I’m sure that a vocal variety plug-in could correct that.

The fact that this experiment worked at all represents, not only a triumph of artificial intelligence, but also a condemnation of the inconsistent state of Christian preaching. Too much of what Christian worshippers typically hear on Sunday morning (or Saturday evening) is a collection of recycled platitudes, often only tangentially related to holy scripture or ancient traditions, which simply repeat trite words that previous generations of pastors have droned on about. “Overcome fear of death?” “Never lose trust in Jesus Christ?” Although that message is fine, as far as it goes, it is no wonder that an AI could do the job.

Now, I don’t mean to denigrate the thousands of enthusiastic Christian ministers who take the time to learn their subject and to speak about it with sincerity and interest. The fact remains, however, that there has long been a hidden underbelly of lazy approaches to preaching.

For one thing, religious bookstores have long carried entire volumes of pre-written sermons. Ministers, elders, or priests can simply go to the bookstore, spend a few hundred dollars on books, and be ready to preach for the rest of their career. Each Sabbath, all you need to do is photocopy the day’s sermon and read it word for word. Of course, this has become easier and cheaper in the Internet age. Today, any number of websites provide sermons ready for ministers and priests to print up and read aloud to their congregations. An old trick is for the preacher to start with, “As John Wesley once said, and I quote, …” and let their congregation assume that the quotation ends after the first sentence rather than after the first hour.

No, I’m not going to give links or citations to any of those sources. I have no wish to give lazy or dishonest preachers any help whatsoever.

Is there an alternative? Surely there is! Allow me, a public speaking teacher, to offer some suggestions for giving good, truly human sermons. These are general comments that can be adapted to various religious traditions. Indeed, different religious traditions call for sermons that might be conversational or energetic, loud or quiet, personal or intellectual. All of those options are fine. What is important is to educate and exhort the congregation in their religious tradition and faith. 

First, the true preacher’s usual method is to ponder the day’s Bible lesson, do in-depth research, explain what the text means, and give historical context.

This is why ultra-conservative Bible scholar Henry Halley, author of Halley’s Bible Handbook, is absolutely right that Christian congregations never tire of learning about the Bible. Why do so many pastors forget that? Of course, long and careful study, regardless of whether it is in seminary or the library, is the necessary and sometimes tedious prerequisite. The preacher should certainly know the subject, and the congregation has every right to expect to learn something new and important every time the preacher speaks. Instead of just repeating what the congregation has heard before, the preacher can dig into the day’s subject anew, endowing the lesson with historical and theological context. The AI presented boring platitudes. A real speaker can and should do better.

Second, congregations often expect the preacher to apply the daily lesson to everyday life or current events. Most people attend religious services because they hope to improve themselves. Accordingly, the preacher should give them a boost. It is, however, a mistake to use the sermon as an excuse to impose one’s own personal political prejudices or bigotry on people. If a preacher uses a captive audience as an opportunity to claim divine inspiration for his or her ridiculous political opinions, well, that’s worse than an AI.

Finally, a preacher must prepare sermons with care. Dr. Rev. Jack B. North, the inspiring minister who married my wife and me 45 years ago, routinely spent three days preparing each week’s sermon. That was not overkill. Good results require hard work. Indeed, no matter how confident a speaker is, the preacher should rehearse the sermon three or four times, out loud, with feeling. Silent practice is no practice at all. Indeed, to override artificial intelligence, the preacher must speak with enthusiasm, compassion, and a caring attitude. Follow those simple steps, and then no one will mistake the preacher for a computer.

Yes, many preachers already do those things. To those who don’t, perhaps an AI computer can remind us that we need a change.

How can you detect a human preacher who is not better than an AI? It’s not often hard. If your minister, priest, or elder reads sermons word for word, droning along, stumbling over big words that he or she has never seen before (because he or she didn’t write them), you might be tempted to engage in uncharitable and unworthy suspicion of the preacher’s level of preparation. 

We have not reached the point where an AI can duplicate the thoughts and feelings of a speaker who has sincere religious faith. The AI in Bavaria could, however, easily duplicate the platitudes of a typical Sunday morning presentation. That is sad, not because technology should scare us, but because many congregations have come to expect trite, banal sermons. 

Let me wish peace and blessings for all my readers, regardless of whatever religious views you do or do not hold. Thanks for reading!
_________________________

By the way, here are blog posts that I’ve written about sermons that I think were admirable.

“Somebody Must Have Sense Enough to Dim the Lights:” Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

Pope Francis’ Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

_________________________

Also, by the way, I am always looking for worthy sermons to analyze on this website. The preacher does not need to be famous. I would need an accurate transcript. If applicable, a video link would also be appreciated. You can post it in the comments below, e-mail me at wdharpine@hotmail.com, or tag me on Twitter at @WHarpine.

Tom Hanks, Truth, and the American Way at Harvard University

Harvard University

Truth seems to be a graduation theme in 2023. In his May 25, 2023 commencement speech at Harvard University, movie star Tom Hanks cited a pop-culture character to remind his audience that truth is a basic American value. Ceremonial speeches remind the audience about their values, and Hanks made the point that, not only is truth a great value, but it is a fundamental value of American tradition. Nothing, he showed, could be more patriotic or more traditional than to speak the truth. And what could be more American, more traditional, than Superman’s flowing red cape?

In an era when liars proudly call themselves patriots, Hanks asked us to return to values that we once treasured. Instead of quoting Thomas Jefferson, however, Hanks cited that heroic cultural icon, Superman, to bring his audience back to our traditional American values. No, in real life, truth did not always rule in Superman’s heyday.  Instead, Superman’s values were ideals to strive for. Still, Hanks reminded us of that perhaps-forgotten ideal. What better goal can a speech serve? Hanks reminded us about honor and self-respect. He reminded us that it is we, ourselves, who must stand for truth. No one else will do it for us. Hanks taught a lesson we needed to hear: a lesson that has disappeared in a blizzard of conspiracy theories, news cycles, and the endless scratching for temporary advantage. 

While Liz Cheney’s commencement address at Colorado College defended truth by citing a biblical quotation, movie star Tom Hanks reminded the students about Superman:

“Some of us here can recite by repetition the preamble for a television show we might have seen 5 days a week about a strange being from another planet with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.”

That preamble, Hanks then cleverly reminded us, cited the three values for which Superman fought:

“Superman, you see, and his prox[ies], Wonder Woman, Captain America, Black Panther and Black Widow and the Fantastic (Four) … are all enmeshed in that never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way. And in such a struggle, being a Superman is a plus.” [Italics added]

As Hanks cleverly noted, truth ranked first among Superman’s red, white, and blue values. Generations of boys and girls grew up hearing on television that “truth, justice, and the American way,” above all others, gave the United States of America its moral focus. Truth was the American way. 

Yes, people often want supernatural heroes like Superman to solve their problems and put the world right. Superman, however, does not exist. As Hanks next said, it is we, ordinary people, who must fight for what is right:

“But, hey, there ain’t no Superman or anyone else in his Justice League, there’s just us on this planet.”

If not Superman, who is going to stand for truth, justice, and the American way? Hanks pounded on the theme that it must be us, all of us, who work for what is right:

“Even though, yes, we are all but human. Still, we’d like to look up in the sky and see not a bird, not a plane, but, well someone who is young and strong and super, who will fight the never-ending battle, for truth, for justice and for the American way, someone who will take on that work.” [Italics added]

There is nothing new, of course, about people who talk about justice, while pretending that lies are truth or that the truth is a lie. The United States of America has reached a terrible point where falsehood dominates large chunks of American culture. Hanks continued:

“Truth is mined at the intersections of our chosen behaviors and our fixed habits and our personal boundaries. Truth has synonyms such as honesty, honor, transparency.” [Italics added]

Anyone who follows cable news or talk radio, or devours conspiracy theories on the Internet, can see at a glance that truth does not always reach forward toward us. We need to look for it. 

Furthermore, telling lies is not the only way to oppose truth. For instance, we can distract people’s attention from the truth. We can say something that is factual, but leave out crucial information, without which the listener will miss the full truth. Indeed, as Hanks wisely noted, the word “truth” means much more than simply misrepresenting facts:

“Likewise, truth has opposites. Omission. ‘You don’t need to know that.’ Distraction. ‘That’s not the real story, this is.’ Opinion masquerading as clairvoyance. ‘Oh, here is what is going to happen.’ And influence-peddling. ‘You know, a lot of people are saying …’”

The Nunes Memo: Why Does Context Matter?

In a thinly veiled reference to Kellyanne Conway’s concept of “alternative facts,” Hanks explained how the entire idea of the American way can twist around to support grifters and abusers:

“Someone will report the world to you exactly as you wish it were, full of alternative facts.… The American way can be demonstrated without ceasing as a perpetual prayer by every bigshot and any plain Jane or Joe Blow.” [italics added]

To Hanks, however, neither lies nor “alternative facts” are truth’s main enemy. The destructive force that gives truth its greatest challenge is indifference. The biggest problems arise when we don’t care. The tragedy is when we stop worrying about what is true or false, much less what is good or bad:

“Truth, too, has a nemesis, equal to any colored kryptonite. That, like a feral hound is never too far off the path in the weeds and in the shadows, lying in wait for the lethal opportunity to bring truth down. And that beast is indifference, which will make moot all the permanence found in truth. [italics added]

He had a point. We live in a nation where 70% of Republican voters believe Donald Trump’s ludicrous claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Fully 46% of Trump voters think there could be some truth to the bizarre accusation that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring in the basement of a tiny pizza place that has no basement. Noble fact-checking websites like FactCheck.org have had too little effect, as liars simply accuse the fact-checkers of bias. The real problem, of course, is that it is the liars themselves who are biased: they are biased against facts. 

People try to ban books, Hanks implied in another part of his speech, not because books are bad, but because books often teach true things. Too often, we struggle for advantage, too rarely do we think about what is true or honorable. A speech reaches its highest level when the speaker reminds us about the values we treasure. Tom Hanks implicitly directed his speech against conservatives who twist truth and censor schools, but he conveyed a profoundly conservative message: he called for us to remember Superman’s American values. 

Image: David Adam Kress, Creative Commons License

__________________

Here are some more of my posts about commencement speeches over the years:

Kamala Harris' Speech at West Point: Tradition and Innovation

The Themes of Savannah Guthrie's Commencement Speech at George Washington University

Joe Biden's 2022 University of Delaware Commencement Speech Reminds Americans that Our Nation Was Founded on an Idea

Oprah Winfrey at Skidmore College, May 20, 2017

Dolly Parton's Commencement Speech: Lively, Extemporaneous, Specific, Detailed

Tim Cook's Commencement Speech at Duke University - "Be the Last to Accept It"

For more, type "commencement" in the search box above and right. 

Liz Cheney's Commencement Speech at Colorado College: "The Truth Shall Make You Free"

Liz Cheney at Colorado College

Have we ever had a year when so many people gave speeches about truth? 

Ceremonial speeches teach us about values. What value can be higher than truth? In her May 28, 2023 commencement address at her alma mater, Colorado College, former Republican representative Liz Cheney explained to the graduates that truth matters. She started with this thesis:  

“The first thing we ask of you is that you live in the truth.” 

Continuing, Cheney cited the inscription on a building on Colorado College’s gorgeous campus: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

Cheney immediately followed that noble premise by reminding the graduates that:

“…after the 2020 election and the attack of January 6th, my fellow Republicans wanted me to lie. They wanted me to say the 2020 election was stolen, the attack of January 6th wasn’t a big deal, and Donald Trump wasn’t dangerous. I had to choose between lying and losing my position in House leadership.”

Continuing, Cheney talked about her final meeting as Chair of the Republican House Conference:

“As I spoke to my colleagues on my last morning as chair of the Republican conference, I told them that if they wanted a leader who would lie, they should choose someone else.”

How can we disagree? Cheney was right that it is, indeed, a basic life rule: to be free, we must embrace truth. Cheney continued:

“It is a fundamental fact - we cannot remain a free nation if we abandon the truth. As you go out to change the world, resolve to stand in truth.”

Yes, truth is life’s most basic virtue. How can we expect our plans and ideas to work out if they arise from falsehood? Why should it surprise us that lies never turn out to be true? That relationships based on lies mean nothing? 

For her second value, Cheney asked the students to “do good and be kind to each other.” That is also a basic value, but it is, once again, subordinate to truth. If we live in lies, all else falters.

Liz Cheney concluded by repeating her values:

“Class of 2023, go forth. Stand in truth. Do good and be kind. Always do the next right thing. Be heroes. Be incandescent with courage. Defend our democracy. Love and serve our country. She – and we – have never needed you more.”

Yes, it’s easy to talk about truth. It is easy to say that we each have our own truths. It is, unfortunately, all too easy for us to fabricate beliefs that we know, deep inside, to be false. We often admire the truth as a principle, while rejecting its harsh reality. Truth challenges us. In contrast, all too often, lies comfort us. 

Cheney was not only applauded but booed during her speech, perhaps partly by Trump supporters, but also by many students who protested her conservative views. More generally, Cheney paid a price for her integrity. She was essentially expelled from the Wyoming Republican Party. She was censured by the Republican National Committee, which, astonishingly, held that the January 6 Capitol riot was “legitimate political discourse.” Rejected by Democrats for being too conservative, rejected by most Republicans for being too honest, she wanders without a political home. She chose to rely, instead, on truth. 

Cheney was absolutely correct to tell the students to honor truth. She rightly told them that this requires courage. It is, after all, often much easier to tell lies. Her successor as Republican Conference Chair, Elise Stefanik, happily and falsely tells people that the 2020 election was stolen, and her voters and the caucus alike seem to love her. Stefanik won almost 60% of the vote in her rural New York State district. The point is not that liars never prosper. Nor is it even true; indeed, we all know that liars often triumph. No, the point is that people tell lies when they know they are in the wrong, and yet do not care. The point is that liars never know what it means to be free. 

Ceremonial speeches are about values. Cheney talked about the most important value of all, the value of truth. Although she is just as dedicated to right-wing policies as the typical Republican voter, she refused to lie about Donald Trump or the 2020 election. That ended her political career. She discovered that it was too much to speak even one word of truth to people who didn’t want to hear it. Truth could turn her into an exile, a pariah. So it was.

Liz Cheney Used Examples to Remind Us of Our Values in Her Courageous Speech about Trump's False Election Claims

Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

Liz Cheney is a very smart woman. She knows that her party has rejected truth. She knows that she will never again win any election as a Republican. She gave this speech, I imagine, because she hopes that the new generation of leaders can learn more integrity than the old ones.

Almost a year ago, Liz Cheney told the Select Committee investigating January 6 that, “Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.” In this remarkable commencement address at Colorado College. Cheney was speaking to history. This was not only a speech for our times, and not just a speech about the danger that Trumpism still poses to the United States of America. It was a speech for the ages.

Liz Cheney's Courageous Speech Asking Republicans to Reject Trump's False Election Claims

______________________

Research Note: Speech scholars have various theories of ceremonial or epideictic speaking. A good ceremonial speech is never just empty show. A good ceremonial speaker appeals to basic values, reminds the audience about what is important, and aims for social cohesion. In his Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle said that epideictic speaking aims at the goal of honor. That is true enough, and Cheney honored truth. Belgian philosophers Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca expounded the idea that epideictic speeches promote social cohesion by stressing shared values.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca also introduced the postmodern idea that the audience exists in the speaker's mind. From that viewpoint, Cheney spoke to multiple audiences, not just to the students, but also to the audience of the future. She spoke for history. 

Of course, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” is from the King James Bible, John 8:32.

Image: Lonnie Timmons III / Colorado College. Used by permission.