Conservatives and the Fear of Rainbows

This has to stop.

Recently, the Waukesha, Wisconsin school board voted 9-0 to fire a teacher named Melissa Tempel. Waukesha is a conservative community and votes strongly Republican. An elementary school teacher, Tempel asked for permission for her students to sing “Rainbowland,” a charming song written by Miley Cyrus, Oren Yoel, and Dolly Parton. The school board declared the song to be “controversial.” However, Kermit the Frog’s “Rainbow Connection,” which I guess seems more traditional, was approved. Tempel stated publicly that the children were excited about singing “Rainbowland” at a school performance and were disappointed when permission was refused.

The song strikes me as positive and joyful. Dolly Parton herself said that, “How about we make this song about wanting to live in a free & safe world, you know, we all want to live in a Rainbowland.” Judging from the school board’s vote, maybe some people prefer to be grumps. I guess. 

Here are some of the song’s lyrics:

“Living in a rainbowland
Where you and I go hand in hand”

Or, how about this?

“We are rainbows, me and you
Every color, every hue
Let’s shine through
Together we can start living in a rainbowland”

That all seems harmless enough. Still, gay clubs often display a rainbow flag, and the rainbow has long symbolized diversity and connection. I guess diversity scares people. Maybe letting people live together in peace offends the school board to their core. Maybe a safe, loving, make-believe place scares them. Or maybe they’re just insecure and don’t like to be called out in public. Who knows?

Rainbows have long symbolized linkages and relationships. Rainbows do not merely show the entire spectrum of colors, but they also link the sky to the earth. Furthermore, as a symbol of unity, the rainbow does not belong to any one group. In ancient Greece, the rainbow created a link from the gods to humanity. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, in the Bible’s first book, God says that the rainbow represents “a token of a covenant between me and the earth” (Gen. 6:13), while, in the Bible’s last book, an angel with a rainbow announces the fulfillment of justice (Rev. 10). I would think that everyone loves rainbows.

The teacher wasn’t fired, however, just because she wanted her students to sing a rainbow song. She was fired after she complained on social media that her students weren’t allowed to sing this rainbow song. In other words, she was fired for exercising her First Amendment right to complain about a governmental decision. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect that kind of speech. A successful lawsuit will no doubt ensue. I hope the school board has good insurance. 

Still, there is a larger point. How can we solve our problems if we won’t even listen to one another? How can we resolve our differences if people use the power of government to crush dissent? How can a political party that markets itself as the guardian of liberty, freedom, and constitutional rights expect to retain any credibility if it uses its power to punish harmless disagreements? How can we, as a nation, solve our problems if we won’t even listen to one another? The answer, of course, is that we can’t.

Yesterday, I blogged about a speech in which Abraham Lincoln appealed to “the better angels of our nature.” Speaking only for myself, I would like to hear from the better angels more often.

__________________

P.S.: I hope no one ever tells the Waukesha school board about “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows.” Or that song in the Wizard of Oz. Or… Or… Or…

__________________

P.P.S. Like most communication professors, I’m a big advocate of free expression and the First Amendment. After all, speech is what we teach. Here are some previous posts in which I complained about the suppression of free speech on colleges and school campuses:

Free Speech on Campus? It Happened Again!

Free Speech on College Campuses - Time for Some Humor?

Student Lulabel Seitz Exercised Her First Amendment Rights - and Was Cut Off!

__________________

Image: ©Elaine Clanton Harpine

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

Lincoln's Inauguration

Can logic and morality overcome our fears? Can honest reassurances restore trust? Can people, overwhelmed by the fear of change, even remember “the better angels of our nature?” Or, on March 4, 1861, when Abraham Lincoln gave his First Inaugural Address, had the United States reached juncture that could be resolved only by bloodshed and horror? Lincoln’s magnificent rhetorical effort may have marked the limits of what we can expect rhetoric to do.

Having won the United States presidency, Abraham Lincoln faced a dilemma: save the Union, or end slavery? Feeling unable to do both, Lincoln appealed, on March 4, 1861, in his first inaugural address, to “the better angels of our nature.” Such a noble theme, such a futile theme. Ultimately, the Union collapsed, to be reborn years later as a nominally free nation.

In this speech, Lincoln futilely appealed to reason, then to law, and then to conscience. A futile trifecta of rhetoric: logic, imperatives, and morality, the three principles on which civilization rests. Any school child knows that Lincoln failed in his central purpose. A few weeks later, the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter. By 1865, hardly a household anywhere in either the United States of America or the Confederate States of America had not lost a husband, son, or brother to the heartless conflict.

Lincoln spoke on that day in March in a final, desperate, hopeless attempt to save the Union. The public already knew that Lincoln’s policies were moderately anti-slavery, and that the Republican party’s agenda was to prevent the spread of slavery while leaving it alone in places where it already existed. Even that modest policy was enough to terrify southern conservatives.

So, Lincoln made a choice: his message on March 4 was not to speak forthrightly against slavery, but instead to reassure White southerners. In this speech, he made one last, desperate attempt to save the union of states. His message failed. Maybe emotions were already running too high. Maybe Lincoln’s precise, sincere logic was helpless against the blind fear of change. Maybe, in the depths of their empty hearts, the southern aristocrats already knew that Lincoln was right—but didn’t care. Surely knowing all of this, Lincoln made his last, desperate plea for union and peace.


Lincoln Promised to Preserve Slavery

In 1858, Lincoln had warned about a “house divided” and rued that the nation could not endure “half slave and half free.”

_______________   

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech
_______________ 

Nevertheless, in this First Inaugural Address, Lincoln began by reassuring White Southerners. He first asserted that he had, throughout his entire political career, promised not to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed. Indeed, at his speech’s very outset, Lincoln noted that “the people of the Southern States” were worried that “their property [i.e., enslaved workers], and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.” Lincoln’s thesis was that “There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.” This was a complete surrender on the issue of slavery. Ironically, rejecting Lincoln’s concessions, the South embarked on a course that, four years later, ripped their cruel, cherished institution of chattel slavery from its roots.

In any case, to reinforce his assurance, Lincoln quoted his own statement from the first Lincoln- Douglas debate:

“I do but quote from one of [my] speeches when I declare that ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’ Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.”

_______________ 

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

_______________ 

Lincoln then cited the Republican Party platform, which specifically called for states’ rights: “the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively.” That, again, denied any ambition to abolish slavery.

Lincoln also cited the United States Constitution’s requirement that fugitive slaves needed to be returned to their enslavers and endorsed the Fugitive Slave Law. In this speech, Lincoln even specifically endorsed a constitutional amendment to protect slavery. Yet, even this was not enough to reassure White Southerners.


Sectionalism: Is the Union Forever?

Having promised not to end slavery, Lincoln followed by warning the southern states that they had no legal right to leave the Union. “I hold,” he said, “that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual.” He offered a series of legalistic arguments that no state had the right to leave the Union. He cited contract law. He decried the lawlessness of seceding from the Union:

“Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.”

Anarchy is, of course, at least in theory, the very opposite of conservative thought. Or so one might think.

Toward the speech’s end, however, possibly reigniting the worries of the southern states’ White voters, Lincoln did reiterate the ultimate dilemma about chattel slavery:

“One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended.”

Lincoln nevertheless placed the onus of civil war entirely on the southern states, while denying that such a conflict could be in any way his responsibility:

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it.’”

Again, Lincoln’s point was legalistic: he had sworn an oath, which he would honorably follow. He turned again to logic:

“Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them.”

Yet, in a matter of weeks, they separated indeed.  

And Our “Better Angels”

Ever the optimist, however, Lincoln appealed to everyone, northerners and southerners alike, to remember the nation’s heritage and to live by conscience. As so often happens, appealing to conscience is a forlorn faith, the last useless refuge of honest rhetoricians. In one of the most dramatic passages of any American public speech, Lincoln appealed to friendship, “the mystic chords of memory,” “the chorus of the Union,” and, finally, so hopefully, to “the better angels of our nature.” This was one of the greatest passages from one of history’s greatest speakers:

“The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Yet, how quickly the better angels were crushed! Fort Sumter was followed by a long series of horrible battles, scorched earth tactics, and total war in the Shenandoah Valley and the March through Georgia. In 1865, General Sherman attacked the capital of South Carolina, which quickly burned to the ground. As the Roman historian Tacitus said, “they make a desert, they call it peace.” By 1861, the nation had passed beyond what rhetoric could accomplish.

Conclusion

Today, we must ask ourselves the same questions. Do we feel the swelling chorus of Union? Are we touched by “the better angels of our nature?” Or do we, instead, allow fear and discord to rule over us like the tyrants they are?

_______________ 

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

 
_______________ 

Image: Unknown photographer, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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.