Lessons from Lincoln, Then and Now

As the United States gears up for its 250th anniversary in 2026, it serves as a prime moment to reflect on the remarkable figures who have shaped, defended, and enhanced the nation. Abraham Lincoln, often hailed as America’s preeminent President, stands out in this regard for compelling reasons. He played a pivotal role in healing a divided country, authored the Emancipation Proclamation, and delivered some of the most resonant speeches in American history. In a recent discussion, EconTalk host Russ Roberts and Diana Schaub delve into how Lincoln’s unwavering dedication to foundational principles and his vision for a more liberated and cohesive future can guide contemporary Americans in confronting the current threats to democratic governance, much like Lincoln did during the Civil War.

Schaub identifies three of Lincoln’s most significant speeches: The Gettysburg Address, the Second Inaugural Address, and the lesser-known Lyceum Address. Schaub highlights Lincoln’s remarkable skill in intertwining America’s past, present, and future to address threats to freedom and democracy, all while reaffirming the framework established by the founders.

This is particularly evident in their analysis of The Lyceum Address. In this speech, Lincoln praises the founders for creating a system of republican governance and individual liberty, while also discussing how his contemporaries could safeguard that system. Lincoln’s exploration traverses the founding principles, potential divisions, and the need for enduring reconciliation, foreshadowing the tensions that would eventually lead to the Civil War:

In his youth, Lincoln presents a thorough reflection on the essence of popular governance, particularly the threats to democratic systems. His discourse spans the founding, potential disintegration, and the necessary steps to preserve a republic. He touches upon the opposition to Democrats without directly attacking figures like Andrew Jackson or Stephen Douglas, opting instead to probe deeper into the underlying threats to democracy, which may manifest in partisan forms but are fundamentally more profound.

What specific threats to freedom and democracy does Lincoln highlight? He viewed the surge of mob violence and fanaticism in the 1830s as indicative of a growing rejection of institutional authority in favor of vigilantism, populism, and demagoguery. Schaub argues that sustaining a republic is more challenging than its establishment, emphasizing the persistent struggle democracies face in channeling individual ambitions. Lincoln articulated how the very zeal that fueled the nation’s creation could also lead to its fragmentation, as autocrats sought to dismantle foundational principles for personal legacy.

Lincoln’s speeches caution against mob rule, not only for the peril it poses to individual liberties but also because bystanders witnessing such chaos may lose faith in democratic institutions’ capacity to deliver justice and security. This disillusionment sets the stage for the rise of autocratic figures:

Lincoln contended that those who are lawless in spirit would inevitably become lawless in action. The more concerning implication is the effect this has on law-abiding citizens. When they observe the breakdown of government authority, they may become alienated not just from a specific administration but from the very concept of government itself. Their desires shift toward safety, tranquility, and the security of person and property. Under such conditions, it becomes all too tempting to turn to a strongman or demagogue who promises to restore order.

In The Second Inaugural, Lincoln showcases his profound commitment to principle. Schaub and Roberts discuss how Lincoln secured election amid wartime strife and issued the Emancipation Proclamation not purely from an abolitionist standpoint, but because he believed it was essential for preserving the Union. These examples underscore Lincoln’s steadfast adherence to institutional integrity, particularly regarding democracy and the rule of law. He advocated for utilizing rights such as speech and assembly to enact democratic changes to unjust laws and warned that violating the law, even with noble intentions, erodes respect for legal structures and undermines the legitimacy of democratic outcomes.

Since all men are created equal, and there are no natural rulers, our governance must derive from the consent of the governed. We are beholden to the decisions of the majority. This is not to suggest that the majority is infallible—often, they err—but we possess democratic channels to amend laws formed through majority rule. Lincoln emphasized the necessity of employing speech, a free press, and the right to assemble and petition. These avenues allow us to engage our fellow citizens and persuade them of necessary changes. To venture outside these means is to reject majority rule and the equality principle that underpins it. Civil disobedience, he argued, is detrimental to civil governance.

The podcast culminates with a focus on the influence of rhetoric on national character. Roberts critiques the current political discourse in America, suggesting it falls short of Lincoln’s standards (a sentiment Schaub echoes). However, they also caution against the perils of rhetoric. In the hands of tyrants and demagogues, rhetoric can become a formidable weapon. Schaub proposes a return to the foundational rhetoric of past American leaders as a remedy. This blueprint resides in the founding documents and the speeches that Schaub and Roberts discuss, which are vital for realizing Lincoln’s vision of establishing American pillars of self-governance, freedom, and equality that reaffirm and protect the themes of the founding.

Ultimately, the annals of political rhetoric offer a path forward. This tradition shaped great writers like Lincoln, and it remains possible for individuals to immerse themselves in it. There are surely voices capable of crafting rhetoric that resonates with our contemporary democratic audience.