Textual Analysis of “Fragment: The Constitution and the Union" by Abraham Lincoln

     In “Fragment: The Constitution and the Union,” Lincoln worked out his thoughts on paper in order to logically understand the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. According to Lincoln, the principle of “liberty to all” was the core value that enabled the nation’s prosperity and unity. His argument was based on four premises. First, he posited the principle of “liberty to all” as the fundamental cause of prosperity. Second, he highlighted the role of the Declaration of Independence in expressing the liberty principle. Third, he envisioned a metaphor showing the relationship between the principle of liberty and the structures of the Union and the Constitution. Finally, he argued for preserving the principle of liberty while maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and the Union.

            Lincoln declared that “this” is not by chance. It is driven by philosophy. But what is this thing he was referring to? He considered “this” to be how the founders used the constitutional process to shape the Union and the Constitution. He acknowledged the extensive deliberation, debate, and negotiation required to reach the document that united the republican states under a federal union. According to Lincoln, the Union and the Constitution were essential in influencing the outcome. Despite this, Lincoln proposed that the Union and the Constitution did not primarily lead to the nation’s great prosperity. A deeper meaning seemed to back them up, binding “itself closer to the human heart.” In his contemplation, Lincoln wrote that the core principle was “Liberty for all,” which opened doors for everyone, inspired hope, and encouraged initiative and hard work. Lincoln’s Old Whig philosophy was deeply linked to this principle, allowing individuals to pursue their desires and improve their lives without unfair obstacles. Thus, his first premise argued that this liberty was the ultimate cause of prosperity.

            Lincoln hypothesized that the core principle in the Declaration of Independence, the principle of liberty, justified independence from Great Britain and was also a foundational bedrock for free government and prosperity. Lincoln pointed out that the hope of a better future, not just a change of tyrannical leader, was crucial for oppressed individuals to continue their struggle and succeed. The second premise, then, was this expression of the liberty principle in the Declaration.

            His third premise developed the relationship between the two foundational documents through a memorable metaphor. He portrayed the principle of “Liberty to all,” declared in the Declaration of Independence, as an “apple of gold.” At the same time, he described the Constitution as the “picture of silver” thoughtfully framed around the “apple of gold.” This metaphor highlighted the innate value of the Declaration’s principles and illustrated the Constitution’s role in safeguarding and enhancing these ideals.

            How did Lincoln’s metaphor articulate the relationship between both founding documents? The metaphor explains that the apple symbolizes something of the highest value and worth. It suggested that the principle of liberty is precious and fundamental. Silver, while also valuable, was valued less than gold. The “picture of silver” implied that the Constitution, while paramount, is secondary to the principle it encases. It protects and enhances the “apple.” The Constitution was created to protect, preserve, and adorn the doctrine of liberty, not to overshadow or replace it. This implied that any interpretation of the Constitution should keep the fundamental principle of liberty as the focus. The metaphor proposed that the founders created a framework (the Constitution) to ensure the permanence and supremacy of the“liberty to all” principle.

             What does this metaphor suggest about Lincoln’s views on the role of the foundational principles in guiding governmental actions and policies? Lincoln’s analogy indicated that all laws and amendments to the Constitution should strive to enhance and not contradict the Declaration’s principle of liberty. It can be inferred from his use of the metaphor that Lincoln was alluding to the contemporary issue of slavery, which directly contradicted this principle by denying liberty to African Americans. This contradiction may have led Lincoln to ponder how to align the Constitution better—the picture of silver—with its foundational purpose of protecting the apple of gold, the liberty principle of the Declaration.

            His fourth and final premise argued to perpetuate the liberty principle while keeping the Constitution and the Union intact. In the penultimate paragraph of the “Fragment,” Lincoln urged all to heed the metaphor’s message so that “neither picture, or apple, shall ever be blurred, or broken.” He called for a commitment to protect the structure of the government as outlined in the Constitution and the principle of liberty upon which it was founded. His use of the words “blurred” and “broken” suggested concern for neglect and active damage to the ideals and framework of these two foundational documents. It was a call for careful observation and active maintenance of the integrity of the Constitution and the principle embodied in the words of the Declaration, “All men are created equal.”

            His call to protect the picture and the apple implied that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were interdependent; neither was complete without the other, and both were necessary for a just, prosperous, and enduring Union. Lincoln called on leaders and citizens alike to ensure that these foundational principles and constitutional laws that uphold them are neither compromised nor forgotten. His words could be seen as a directive to future generations to interpret the Constitution in a way that perpetuates and clarifies the Declaration’s commitment to liberty rather than undermining it. The American founding documents were historical artifacts and living principles that must continually guide the nation’s development and resolve conflicts. Lincoln’s directive extended beyond mere preservation to active engagement with these principles. It was an invitation to act.

            Lincoln stated that in order to act, everyone must study and understand the Declaration and the Constitution to know all the “points of danger.” This phrase, “points of danger,” suggested specific threats to the principles in these documents. Understanding them required a deep familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the foundational texts. It implied a proactive approach to governance—foreseeing and addressing potential threats before they could undermine liberty and justice. Lincoln’s statement deeply emphasized an informed and educated citizenry for leaders and the masses. It was a call to civic duty. It was a call for an excellent education in these principles that ensured a free society for all. It was a call to protect liberty.

            In the last two paragraphs, Lincoln alluded to a vision where the Union, the Constitution, and the principle of liberty were inseparable and must advance together. He implied that it was unacceptable for any of these foundational elements to move forward independently if another is neglected. This interdependence signified that the health of the Union relied on the unity of the apple (the Declaration of Independence) and the picture (the Constitution). Such cohesion ensured that as the nation evolved, it did so with a unified identity that respected its legal framework and moral commitments. By suggesting that the integration of these documents formed the genuine Union, Lincoln provided a vital guideline for policy and constitutional interpretation, ensuring that all laws and reforms adhere to constitutional principles and advance the foundational ideals of liberty.

            One might question whether Lincoln assumed that all readers would value liberty equally. Or did he think that the moral principle of liberty should naturally override other considerations in governance? Lincoln’s use and understanding of the liberty principle in the metaphor assumed his audience universally valued liberty similarly. This assumption would be critical to how his arguments were received contemporarily and in the future. People might have interpreted the principle differently. For example, the “liberty to all” principle for some might have related to state’s rights or economic freedoms, while for others, it could have meant individual liberties. Each assumption would significantly affect the outcome of individual and group understanding of the principle, causing conflict and even a possible war.

            Lincoln's arguments would have been significantly persuasive if a universal understanding and valuation of the liberty principle existed. Was this assumption a rhetorical strength, enabling a broad appeal, or did it risk alienating parts of his audience who might feel their version of liberty was misunderstood or overlooked? Assuming that everyone valued liberty in the same way could lead to misunderstandings and alienate people who viewed it differently. However, this assumption could also bring people together and make it easier for leaders and the people to make decisions. Did Lincoln encourage open discussions about what liberty meant to different people to handle this challenge? One of his arguments was to educate all about the liberty principle and how it produced a free government and prosperity for all. Lincoln indeed encouraged a close reading and understanding of Liberty.

            Abraham Lincoln’s argument in “Fragment: The Constitution and the Union” logically and consistently aligned with historical facts and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and his conclusions validly followed his premises. His argument appropriately addressed the individual rights of all races, people, nations, and the world. It conserved the founding principle of liberty that empowered a new nation to break away from its tyrannical mother country, supported the creation of the Constitution that protected this liberty, and had the power to correct the misalignment of different understandings of the principle. Lincoln’s argument was valid; it conserved the principle and corrected the misunderstanding of that principle.

            Abraham Lincoln's analysis in the “Fragment” masterfully used the metaphor of the "apple of gold" and the "picture of silver" to highlight the critical importance of liberty as the core value driving the fledgling nation. His discussion went beyond defining the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; it was a powerful reminder that the governance structures are meant to protect and elevate fundamental rights, not overshadow them.

            Lincoln's message was clear: people needed to preserve and actively engage with the founding principles to keep the nation's ideals solid and clear. His call for vigilance and education in understanding the essence of liberty was incredibly relevant then and remains so today. He challenged each to keep the dialogue alive and continuously scrutinize whether each lived up to the promise of liberty outlined in the foundational documents. Through his thoughtful arguments and philosophical reflections, Lincoln clearly addressed the issues of his time and provided a guide for future generations.

Lincoln’s Political Calculus on the Matter of Wartime Emancipation

References in parenthesis are from Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches And Writings by Basler, Roy

     Lincoln was never a peace-time president. All his work between the first and second inaugural and beyond represented strife. Throughout 1861 and 1865, he faced numerous challenges that affected his position on slavery, which changed over time. From the outset of his presidency, Lincoln maintained that slavery was “founded on both injustice and bad policy.” Yet, he recognized that the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to abolish it. Slaves were considered property under the law, and Lincoln would not break a law to abolish slavery. He was not in the camp of Abolitionists for their “doctrines [tended] rather to increase than abate its evils” (Basler, 552). The question of how to arrive at emancipation is answered between 1861 and 1865. For Lincoln, the primary purpose was to preserve the Union, but it eventually evolved into a staunch commitment to emancipation, influenced by political pressures, international impact, legal and Constitutional justifications, military necessity, and finally, moral concerns.

In his 1838 Lyceum Address, Lincoln foresaw the potential self-inflicted demise of American democracy, stating, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” This prophetic statement made decades before the Civil War, emphasized his belief in the delicate nature of the Union and the characteristic dangers of disregarding the law. Lincoln's insistence on adherence to legal and constitutional norms reflected his understanding that the republic's survival was contingent upon its citizens' commitment to uphold its foundational principles of constitutional law, Unity, and liberty to all. He emphasized the role of the current generation in carrying forward the “political edifice of liberty and equal rights” established by the Founders, suggesting a continuous duty for future generations (Basler, 77). This perspective foreshadowed his later efforts to preserve the Union. It highlighted his deep-seated belief in the importance of multi-generational responsibility for maintaining the principles of liberty upon which the United States was founded.

Preserving the Union was Lincoln’s only goal when he became president. Before his inauguration, Lincoln delivered a farewell speech in Springfield, Ill., on February 11, 1861. He compared the upcoming challenge to that of George Washington as the first president. Lincoln declared he faced “a task before [him] greater than that which rested upon Washington.” (Basler, 568) 

The political and social atmosphere was dire. Seven Southern states had already declared their secession from the Union, largely because of the perceived threat that a Republican administration would pose to their “property”—a political term largely understood to mean slaves—and their way of life. In the First Inaugural Address, Lincoln endeavored to reassure these states, stating, “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered” (Basler, 580). He emphasized that he had no lawful right to interfere with the institution of slavery where it existed and declared his sole intention to preserve the Union.

Lincoln outlined three key reasons against secession in the First Inaugural Address: the Union is perpetual, it was formed to create a more perfect Union, and no state can legally leave without unanimous agreement from all states. He also highlighted that the intertwined economies of the North and South meant their separation could cause significant turmoil and hinder national progress. Furthermore, in his July 4, 1861, Special Message to Congress, Lincoln noted that the entire nation had purchased the land occupied by the seceding states, reinforcing the permanence of the Union (Basler, 605).

Lincoln’s commitment to the Union and his direct appeals to the South were designed to alleviate fears and affirm his resolve to reunite the nation. He frequently invoked divine guidance, asserting, “If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side...that truth and that justice will surely prevail” (Basler, 587). Lincoln’s frequent references to God reflected his personal convictions and resonated with the American public, potentially endearing him to many during these trying times.

By the end of his first year in office, Lincoln had concluded that “the last ray of hope for preserving the Union peaceably expired at the assault upon Fort Sumter,” the pivotal event that started the war (Basler, 630). Despite this, the Union forces were progressing well in the South as of August 1862. Around this time, in response to Horace Greeley’s public critical letter, which cast him as an abolitionist, Lincoln clarified that his “paramount object…[was] to save the Union,” not to save or destroy slavery (Basler, 652). This assertion came just before he would introduce the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, marking a significant shift in his administration's approach to the war and slavery.

Slavery was set up in the Constitution as a political necessity because it already existed at the time of the founding. The founders believed it would eventually go away, but with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the slave states now believed it to be a “sacred right” and should be extended under the guise of the democratic principle of “the right of self-government.” Lincoln made a clear distinction back in 1854 “between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it” so that no one would misunderstand him (Basler, 283). Where slavery already existed, it was protected by law, but the expansion of it was not what the founders intended and was fatal to the Union. Despite abhorring slavery for its "monstrous injustice" (Basler, 291), he acknowledged that the Constitution did not permit its outright abolition and had focused solely on saving the Union.

The Southern States appealing to foreign powers for aid, were ultimately unsuccessful. In his 1861 annual message to Congress, he mentioned that the Confederate states, in trying to break apart the Union further, had failed to gain significant foreign support by offering economic incentives. Lincoln indicated that these nations did not forsake their moral and foreign duties for economic gain. They had not supported the rebellious states as much as the rebels expected. Lincoln argued that if foreign nations were driven solely by economic interests, they would find it more advantageous to support the Union and help end the rebellion than to back the Confederacy. By July 4th, 1861, Lincoln assured Congress that foreign powers everywhere respected the sovereignty and rights of the United States (Basler, 601). As Lincoln faced new situations with foreign nations during the war, these interactions likely began to shape his future and broader war aims, including the potential abolition of slavery and demonstrating to the world that Americans were fighting for a good cause.

Lincoln addressed the concerns of the Southern states directly in his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861. His insistence on the Union's indivisibility was intertwined with his belief that the Constitution allowed and required him to act to preserve it. His actions during the Civil War were a testament to his astuteness in addressing border states’ concerns and his moral convictions, which were guided by this belief.

In his July 4, 1861, Special Session message to Congress, Lincoln stated his preference for exhausting all peaceful measures before using force, as demonstrated by his response to the attack on Fort Sumter, which he viewed as a direct threat to the Union's authority (Basler, 595, 597). In the first inaugural address, he emphasized that conflict would only occur if provoked by others. His aim was clear: maintain the Union, uphold the Constitution without misconceptions, and reason whether a democracy could sustain its integrity without compromising its people's liberties (Basler, 598). Seeing the rebellion as a fundamental threat to democracy, Lincoln believed his presidential duty under the Constitution's “take care” clause necessitated war to preserve the Union.

As the war intensified, political pressures rained hard on the nation. There were dire threats to national security, prompting Lincoln to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, a constitutional right against unlawful imprisonment. In the Special Message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln justified his decision to suspend it to maintain and preserve the government. He presented a rhetorical question to bring home his point: “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” (Basler, 601). This question reflected his belief that, in times of rebellion, the executive must sometimes take extraordinary measures to ensure national security. He was careful and “unwilling to go beyond the pressure of necessity in the unusual exercise of power” (Basler, 624). In all his reasoning, he continually looked at the bigger picture, maintaining a balance of law while trying to save the Union.

The war escalated, and Lincoln sought ways to weaken the Confederacy while trying to maintain support from the border states and the conservative Northerners. In an April 16, 1862, letter to Congress, Lincoln, and his ever-present attention to fairness, praised the Act abolishing slavery in the nation's capital for incorporating compensation for slave owners and colonization options for freed slaves. He expressed gratitude that the law addressed these key principles. In July of the same year, Lincoln spoke to the border states, asking them to consider gradual emancipation. 

In the 1862 annual message to Congress, Lincoln proposed emancipation with compensation. In contrast to the extension of slavery, this was part of a broader plan to end slavery without abruptly disrupting the Southern economy. His plan suggested that the states adopt gradual emancipation, with the federal government compensating slave owners. “The plan would, I am confident, secure peace more speedily, and maintain it more permanently, than can be done by force alone” and would cost much less economically and in blood (Basler, 687). He proposed the plan be made into law. Unfortunately, many in the border states and in Congress were indifferent or hostile to the idea of emancipation, even with compensation.

Earlier in September 1861, Lincoln responded to Major General John C. Fremont’s proclamation of martial law and emancipation of slaves in Missouri, a border state with divided loyalties. Fremont’s order, which included confiscating and emancipating Confederate supporters’ slaves, was criticized by Lincoln in a letter to O. H. Browning. Lincoln argued that the move was “not within the range of military law, or necessity” and raised concerns about setting a dangerous precedent in such a volatile area (Basler, 613). He contended that while a commanding officer could temporarily seize land for military use, this did not extend to making permanent decisions about property rights or changing the status of slaves. Such measures, he believed, should only last as long as the military necessity.

Lincoln expressed his urgent opposition in his letter to Browning, saying he could not “assume this reckless position [of Fremont’s], nor allow others to assume it on [his] responsibility” (Basler, 613). For Lincoln, this independent decision was equivalent to a dictatorship, where a leader, under the role of military necessity, permanently alters the law, thus undermining the democratic foundations of the nation. Lincoln’s adherence to these principles showed his commitment to constitutional limits even in the darkest times. While he was vehemently against this dictatorial role of Fremont, it had an effect on his rational thoughts and would later open his mind to options besides just preserving the Union.

Meanwhile, Union forces were actively disrupting the institution of slavery in the rebelling states, which raised legal and constitutional questions. Lincoln responded to complaints about the Union Army's interference in the master-slave relationship in his letter to Cuthbert Bullitt on July 28, 1862. He justified these actions as a "military necessity” for obtaining men and resources vital for the war effort (Basler, 649). This thinking foreshadowed his broader application of military necessity in justifying the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which he would issue a few months later, in September 1862.

As the war progressed, Lincoln’s primary aim remained the preservation of the Union, yet the issue of slavery and the idea of “Liberty to all” (Basler, 513) increasingly shaped his thoughts. With resistance from Southern and border states, Lincoln saw a chance to align the nation with the moral principles the Founders envisioned. This vision profoundly influenced him. Well before the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recognized the moral corruption of slavery, grounded in his understanding that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "all men [were] created equal." However, interpretations varied—some believed this applied to all humans, regardless of race, while others, particularly in the Southern states, believed it pertained only to white men. Lincoln pondered whether a government that protects rights should extend its protection to slaves. What about the consent of the governed? Are some humans not fully human? If so, they must all give consent. Should military force ensure that all men are protected in their liberty? These questions weighed heavily on Lincoln and fueled the initial Emancipation Proclamation, issued on September 22, 1862, freeing slaves in the rebellious Confederate states by January 1, 1863. The final version of the proclamation was issued on that same day in January 1863. The day, long hoped for from the inception of the nation, had finally come. Lincoln, in his deep desire to uphold the Union, had to stretch the Constitution to encompass the liberty principle for all men. This time, regardless of race. Nonetheless, the decision was fraught with deep emotional and national consequences.  

Heading into the 1864 election, President Lincoln’s chances of victory seemed uncertain, partly due to the backlash from the Emancipation Proclamation. Initially focused on preserving the Union without resorting to war, by his Second Inaugural address, Lincoln recognized that at the root of the conflict was always the issue of slavery—widely understood as the war’s core cause aimed at its strengthening, preservation, and expansion. He now saw preserving the Union as inherently linked to upholding liberty for all men, regardless of race, reflecting a profound shift in his understanding of the war’s moral dimensions. He realized that the war, which had surpassed all early estimates in terms of its scope and length, may have resulted from divine intervention to bring an end to the moral and humanitarian tragedy of slavery (Basler, 793). This war was not just a political struggle but a moral reckoning, suggesting that the immense suffering it brought might be a divine justice for the accumulated wrongs of slavery. His address conveyed a tone of reconciliation and unity, emphasizing “malice toward none” and “charity for all” as he called for healing and peace that would include caring for veterans and their families (Basler, 793). His marked a significant shift from his earlier stance, as he now saw the war’s end not just as a political and military necessity but as a moral imperative to right the grievous wrongs of slavery and to bind the nation’s wounds in a spirit of forgiveness and collective advancement.

Lincoln’s Narrative of the American Founding

     In 1854, Abraham Lincoln stood before an audience in Peoria, Illinois, and articulated a profound and provocative perspective on the American founding. He argued that the Founding Fathers, though they tolerated slavery, were fundamentally opposed to its principle. This interpretation distinguished Lincoln’s political ideology and framed his approach to the nation's most divisive issue—slavery. During a period marked by intense political conflict from 1854 to 1860, Lincoln consistently applied this founding perspective to address and shape the sectional debates. Abraham Lincoln argued that the founding principles of the United States were against slavery, a perspective he invariably applied to address the political challenges of the sectional crisis between 1854 and 1860.

To come to terms with Abraham Lincoln, it is best to know and understand the nation’s Founding. When reflecting on the American founding, it becomes clear that it was rooted in the principles of self-government and equality, concepts that were, according to John Adams, destined to “confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Level” (John Adams on the American Founding, 1776). These foundational ideals—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as articulated in the Declaration of Independence—were not gifts from the government but inherent rights endowed by God. Lincoln recognized that the government’s role was not to create these rights but to preserve and protect them, ensuring they were not unjustly taken away. The history of the American founding, with its emphasis on natural rights and self-governance, provided Lincoln with a guiding light during the tumultuous crisis of sectionalism.

The Founders viewed slavery with profound disapproval. Lincoln wrote, “It is sufficient for our purpose that all of them (referring to the founders) greatly deplored the evil and that they placed a provision in the Constitution which they supposed would gradually remove the disease by cutting off its source.” (Speech at Lewiston, Ill., 547). The disease was the deplorable African slave trade. The fifty-five men at the Constitutional Convention wrote into the Constitution that the slave trade would not be prohibited before 1808, which implied that the cure would begin in that year. The provision was a compromise to appease Southern interests while also appeasing Northern states that were increasingly opposed to the practice.

In his speech at Lewiston, Illinois, on August 17, 1858, Abraham Lincoln spoke of the foresight and wisdom of the Founding Fathers. He highlighted how they did not only consider the immediate needs of their generation but also looked far into the future, aiming to safeguard the rights of all humanity for generations to come. By declaring the self-evident truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they set a guiding light—a beacon—for their descendants and all future inhabitants of the earth. Lincoln noted that these wise statesmen knew the potential for those in prosperous times to become tyrants. Hence, they laid down principles to defend against future attempts to restrict these rights to only the wealthy or the white. He believed these foundational truths would enable future generations to draw strength and inspiration from the Declaration of Independence whenever their liberties were threatened. According to Lincoln, this was meant to ensure that truth, justice, and mercy “and all humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land”  and the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be unassailable, guiding the nation in perpetuating these principles.

Lincoln frequently pondered the question posed by Socrates to Thrasymachus about whether a moral order makes a people or the people make the moral order. Like Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln believed that the moral order was inherent and self-evident. Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could not be created by the government. Happiness did not mean one could do whatever one wanted; it meant improvement and moving beyond one's station. These rights could only be restricted or curtailed but not created. They existed long before humans came into the world. For the Founders and Lincoln, the purpose of government was to ensure that natural rights were preserved, protected, and sheltered and that someone would not take them away. The moral order, in this sense, made the people. On the other hand, the people had the duty to uphold and maintain the moral order. Lincoln frequently spoke, advocating for people to continually strive to align their hearts, laws, and practices with these universal natural rights. Thus, the people, in turn, kept the moral order.

The American Founding created a standard that would forever change the nation and world. Tyranny would easily be recognized against the backdrop of the principles of liberty in the Declaration of Independence. Without the Declaration, there could not have been the American Civil War. It gave the moral reasons for the Civil War, showing it as a necessary fight not just to maintain the Union but to ensure everyone could enjoy the freedoms it promised. This important document allowed Abraham Lincoln to say that fighting against slavery was part of the founders' original plan. They wanted to ensure that freedom and equality were natural rights for everyone, not just nice ideas.

The year 1854 was a big turning point for Lincoln. He had left politics for a few years to focus on his law practice. However, he returned to the political scene because of his strong feelings against Stephen A. Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed the new territories to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery. This act went against his deep belief in freedom and equality for all. It nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had greatly eased the tension between the slave and the free states. Congress had passed the Compromise allowing Missouri to join the Union as a slave state while Maine joined as a free state. The Compromise allowed an equal number of free and slave states and prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36°30’ latitude line, except for Missouri. It was an early attempt to address the growing contention over the slave trade and curtail the extension of it.

Stephen Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska Act gave the people of the Kansas and Nebraska territories the freedom to choose whether they would allow slavery. He called this the principle of “popular sovereignty.” Douglas famously said he “don’t care if [slavery] is voted up or voted down,” showing his focus was on local decision-making rather than the moral question of slavery. Lincoln accused “Judge Douglas [of being] the most prominent instrument in changing the position of the institution of slavery which the fathers of the Government expected to come to an end” (Lincoln, Debate at Alton, Ill. October 15, 1858). Douglas defied the expectation that slavery would cease, actively working to prolong its existence.

Lincoln argued, “I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it,” so clear that there would be no confusion or misunderstanding. Lincoln explained that slavery had existed when the founders declared independence and created the government. Great Britain had pushed it on the colonies. Upon the creation of the Constitution and later legislation, the Founders did everything they could to curtail it until it would gradually end. Besides the clause in the Constitution to end slave importation, Jefferson took the occasion to prevent slavery from entering the Northwestern territory through the Ordinance of 1787. Later, the Missouri Compromise delineated that slavery could never exist in the upper states. But now, Douglas was leading the movement for the extension of slavery, exciting the slave owners.

Slavery, a necessity at first, was now believed to be a “sacred right” and should be extended under the guise of the democratic principle of the “right of self-government.” Douglas’s push for its extension under the guise of self-government represented a stark departure from the founders' original intentions. Lincoln, speaking to the complacent Northerners in Peoria, Illinois, taught the principle of self-government when he said, “My faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own, lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me” (Basler, 303). Lincoln argued that the principle of self-government was correct but misapplied when justifying slavery. If an African American was seen as a man, then denying him self-governance was despotism, not self-government. Lincoln strongly argued that enslaving others contradicted the founding belief that “all men are created equal.”

In the eighty years of celebrating national independence, the doctrine of liberty had been the “wonder and admonition of the whole world,” declared Lincoln. It had provided “so much prosperity to the nation.” In his speech delivered at Kalamazoo, MI, Lincoln emphasized that this doctrine was the very “cause…that every man can make himself,” an old Whig doctrine rooted in the pursuit of happiness, inherently given to all men, regardless of race (Basler, 342). 

Lincoln sketched his political golden rule in a notebook: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy.” Lincoln’s principle of moral reciprocity—that one should treat others as one would like to be treated—was grounded in the essential democratic ideals of freedom and equality. This principle implied mutual consent; just as one would not consent to be enslaved, one should not consent to enslave another. In stark contrast, slaveholders upheld the outdated and unjust principle of the divine right of kings, which asserted that authority was granted by divine decree, not by the consent of the governed. This belief, rooted in the concept of inherent superiority and preordained authority, directly opposed the democratic values established by the Founders and championed by Lincoln.

In his “Fragment: The Constitution and the Union," Lincoln reasoned out the interconnected roles of the Union, the Constitution, and the principle of Liberty from the Declaration of Independence. He used a powerful metaphor to show that the principle of liberty was the “apple of gold” and the Constitution was its “picture of silver.” This imagery implied that while the Constitution was a protective framework (like a picture frame), Liberty was the cherished core (like a precious apple). The Fragment also implied that the Union was a body, the Constitution a skeleton, and Liberty the spirit or the soul. The "Liberty to all” principle was deeply embedded in the human heart, as essential as life itself (Basler, 513).

For Lincoln, there was no rational basis for slavery at all. Lincoln clearly reasoned, in his “Fragments: On Slavery,” that the justifications used in that day were relative and could be turned against the enslavers. It was a vicious circle — the reason used to justify slavery for one class could be used to justify it in any setting if one with fairer skin, greater intellect, or interest were to come along.

Abraham Lincoln's understanding of democracy was deeply shaped by the Founding Fathers' principles. He believed that true democracy was based on the consent of the governed and that all people, regardless of race, had inherent natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Lincoln's dedication to these principles remained steadfast throughout his early political career, but his methods and emphasis on applying them developed and became more clear over time. He held the Declaration of Independence in high esteem, particularly its assertion that "all men [were] created equal." He saw this statement as a moral foundation upon which the United States was built—a promise of equality that the Constitution was designed to protect and uphold. Throughout his early political life, particularly up to the year 1860, Lincoln argued that the Constitution was not just a legal document but a manifestation of the principles of liberty that the Declaration proclaimed. He believed these documents together formed a profound commitment to freedom and equality that the nation was obligated to fulfill. By emphasizing this connection, Lincoln argued that the extension of slavery contradicted the very core of American democratic ideals. His interpretation of these foundational texts guided his politics and reinforced his stance against slavery, framing it as antithetical to the true meaning and promise of America.

Greek Year

 Hello everyone, 

We are underway with our Ancient Greece class. Please check out the registration link above to register and for information on the class, click on the Syllabus link.

My Graduation Speech for Mount Liberty College

Good afternoon faculty, students, family, and friends! At first, I was excited when I realized that I was asked to speak to represent the graduating class as the valedictorian, but then reality set in and I realized that this came by way of default as I am the only graduate! It is truly an honor to be standing here before you today after a long steady march of 14 years. While my education started at a different liberal arts college, the crowning education I have received is here at Mount Liberty College.

It is my hope that as I tell a little of my journey of nurturing and enriching my heart and mind, you can see yourself in this journey and see how an education in the Great Books can transform you. The Great Books were written for the common man. John Erskine clarified this when he said, “The men who wrote these books would have been horrified if they had known that you and I might think of them only as matter for school and college courses. They wrote to be read by the general public, and they assumed in their readers an experience of life and an interest in human nature nothing more.”

In my long 14-year journey taking one class per semester, I can strongly say with Plato and John Milton that the most important knowledge is to “Know thyself” and “Know God aright!”

Know thyself

A long time ago and not far, far away
lived a mom who practically lived in a zoo
She had so many children
She didn’t know what to do.
It wasn’t her intention
to cause so much contention,
but she lacked a solid foundation
Of a great education.
Whatever parenting trick she tried,
Her children did not abide.
And while her marriage seemed okay,
It wasn’t “parfait”.
She spent a lot of time crying and making mistakes;
Yelling and screaming and causing headaches.
She wanted to reform them to ease her affliction,
But any amount of force caused more friction.
She felt like a failure—bottom line.
Until she learned from Albert Einstein,
“The world as [I] have created it is a process of [my] thinking.
It cannot be changed without changing [my] thinking.”

That mom was me. I knew I needed to change my thinking if I were to change the way I behaved with my children, my husband, and all those around me. Fortunately, I found a small liberal arts school and started reading the Great Books. These classics revealed to me my nature and the consequences of my thoughts, behaviors, and actions.

The Delphic maxim “Know Thyself” used by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle was meant as a warning that before proceeding or considering anything, one ought to investigate themselves. Looking inward and understanding ourselves is considered the starting point for understanding the world and the people around us.

I began my journey to know myself through literature, history, and philosophical works that “created this magic surface in which [I could] see [myself] more clearly than elsewhere.” When I opened and read the books I found reflections of myself. I could see flaws, I could see my strengths and I could see what would happen if I gloated over my strengths.

1. Shakespeare’s Shylock showed me what unmerciful justice looks like
2. John Locke reflected on ways to help my family live peaceably in our little home government
3. Milton showed me the power of evil
4. Hobbes unveiled to me my autocratic awfulness
5. Aristotle taught me how to balance virtues between two extremes.
6. Victor Hugo’s, Javert, increased my knowledge on balancing too much justice with little to no mercy.
7. Francis Bacon taught me not to rely on the status quo, but to think for myself by inquiry
8. Jane Eyre showed me how to rely on laws and principles when I am feeling insane
9. Twentieth-century leaders showed me the wretched effect of autocratic control and force.
10. But King Alfred and Odysseus showed me quite the opposite of principled leadership.

Know God

The second kind of knowledge, but not second to knowing myself is to know God. The Great Books deal with the most important questions of our earthly existence and they introduce us to universal principles which lie outside of us that continually inform us and tell us what to do in all situations. These are the laws of nature; they are the laws that God lives by and invites us to live for our ultimate happiness.

Oedipus taught me that I needed to know who I was in relation to my divine nature, and my purpose in life. I learned from him not to be blind, but to get clear and understand Truth.
Faust taught me to not sell my soul to the devil for worldly knowledge, fame, and power.
Socrates counseled me at the end of Plato’s Republic, to “hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always…” John Milton convinced me “The end then of learning is… to know God aright, and out of that knowledge to love him, to imitate him, to be like him…” William Blackstone instructed me that obeying God is equal to finding ultimate happiness. He said, “For [God] has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual…[God] has…graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, ‘that man should pursue his own happiness.’ [through obedience to] natural law”

How to help students know themselves and know God

Tonight I speak of the educational journey I’ve been on to know myself and to know God. And tomorrow I turn around and celebrate my husband’s journey as an educator for 30 years. When I was married I informed him I wanted him to be a religious educator—that decision has set the course for much of my personal learning and other educational pursuits. I am grateful he has let me fly and reach great heights of learning.

For the last two decades, following an intense desire of my heart, I have discovered that the very best way to learn is student-centered. What does that mean? It means that the student can only learn by teaching himself. Little to no amount of learning can be pushed into a soul, but it must be “drawn forth” through careful inquiry and dialogue. Fortunately, the liberal arts education I’ve received was student-centered. Our classes were designed around the Socratic method of inquiry and discussion. My senior paper has been all about transferring the balance of power of learning from the teacher to the student to learn to know themselves and to know God and their place in this world.


Conclusion

There are many institutions of education and many go through their doors to receive a certificate, but I believe that the greatest indicator of a well-educated individual is their capacity and willingness to assist fellow travelers on the path of life. Education is not represented by a certificate, but a life of service to God and their fellow man. I am the first to walk across the bridge of graduation from this marvelous institution. I recognize that with that comes the honor and responsibility to help others as they come to know themselves and to know God.

Back to that sad picture of a confused and angry mom, she changed her thinking and transformed her character and continues to do so. The path has been laid by the Greats and she is attempting to stand on their shoulders and bring others with her. Life is beautiful. Thank you

What Youth Are Saying About Humanities

What do you enjoy most about Humanities class?

1. I really like the books we have read and the discussions we’ve had on them.
2. This is a hard question because I enjoyed different things more at different points.
3. The discussions! In each class, students get a chance to exchange thoughts and ideas centered on the readings. Furthermore, they were heavily encouraged to practice their interdisciplinary skills by relating the readings to other concepts and media. Because the mechanisms of these discussions were so well-structured, I would often reach a new epiphany or perspective after each class.
4. Learning more in-depth and being able to talk about God in class.
5. The discussions we have in class, they help me pole out great principles and to bring knowledge into my everyday conversations.
6. Learning how to think deeply, find principles, and read challenging books.

What is most challenging about the class? How did you handle it?

1. For me, the most challenging thing about the class is not procrastinating on the readings. I have tried to handle this by starting the next reading as soon as I can after I finish the current one.
2. It's a time-intensive class. It takes a lot of time to do all the readings and writing reflections always took me a long time. I got a lot out of taking the time though.
3. Consistently reading long and sometimes complex books. Many of the books and poems we read through the semester were decently old and long. This meant one often had to reserve more time than expected to read through and understand the readings. Without reading or understanding the books, one could not contribute much to the discussions or learn much for yourself. To remedy this, I found it helpful to schedule your reading and/or your writing time each day at the same time. This way, I would not forget or run out of time before an assignment was due.
4. The reading. The way I handled it was just looking ahead and planning so then I could stay caught up and not feel overwhelmed.
5. It is the most challenging when I need to read a really hard book because of all its falsehoods and the evil spirit that comes from their actions or belief's that they have, but when those books come I like to spend more time reading the scriptures than that book so that I have the spirit of God with me instead of the yucky one that comes from the book.
6. Participating in discussions. You have to spend a significant amount of time on each assignment in order to understand it enough to come up with questions for the assignment. Sharing the things you learned is hard because it doesn’t always come outright. It is also hard sometimes to understand the message other people are trying to get across.

What are the discussions like?

1. The discussions are deep and require me to think. Most of the time we stay on topic but when we don’t we still have a great discussion.
2. It's possible to participate in the discussions without doing the reading when talking about broad topics. Offering an idea with some supporting evidence like a personal experience can direct the discussion in interesting ways. That said, it's much better to come to the discussions prepared. You'll be able to enjoy the discussions more and contribute more if you've done the reading, annotated in your book, written your reflections, and already thought of questions to talk about related to the reading.
3. Each discussion felt organic. They begin on one topic and often ended in on an entirely different one. Instead of a simple knowledge-based question-and-answer list, students get almost complete autonomy to guide conversations centered around quotes and ideas from the readings.
4. I like the discussions when we talk about each other's quotes and questions.
5. The discussions are a lot of fun and I learn a lot from them because they are sometimes about deep topics, liberty, and principles and sometimes just fun topics that you can still learn from.
6. Everyone brings questions to class and we go down the list trying to answer them and dig deeper into what each one can teach us. Some of the discussions were way over my head.

What do you feel you gained from the readings?

1. I have learned how to read hard books and learn from them. I have become better at retaining what I have read and I have been able to tie it in better.
2. I gained different things from different readings. Overall, the readings helped me to feel less intimidated about reading inaccessible texts. I feel more comfortable being uncomfortable and stretching myself. I really liked the accountability inherent in this class to do the readings. There are a lot of books that I want to read that I haven't sat down and read, but I got to read a lot of excellent literature through humanities class.
3. The carefully selected readings for this course have had a deep impact on my life. Almost every book I've read through this course, whether I've personally enjoyed it or not, has taught me lessons I can apply in my everyday life. The chosen literature for this course illuminates the perspectives, zeitgeist, and lessons from the past that remain relevant to this day.
4. Knowledge of things that happened in the past and being able to prevent them from happening again.
5. I gained a lot, and one thing I gained was how to not follow the same mistakes as those in the past and how to take the good they have to make me better and to bring back up to my arguments and proof to what I say so that it is not just an idea without support.
6. Understanding of how to read other hard books. The principles are worth the work of getting through the assignment.

How did you feel about the pace of the reading?

1. think the pace of the readings, while it feels fast, is at just the right place for the most growth.
2. I felt like the pace of the reading was good. It's reasonable to read 20-50 pages a day. I think it's good preparation for college. I can understand how this might be overwhelming if you have other classes that are also reading-intensive.
3. The pace of the reading was easily manageable once you got used to it. Depending on the book, I could complete my daily readings anywhere from 15-45 minutes. Since the reading pace could be slower, I often had time to go deeper into the readings with other sources.
4. Last year I thought it was really good.
5. For the most part, it is a good pace, though at times it was a little fast, nothing I couldn't handle if I worked for it.
6. It was difficult but good because it made you stay focused and on track.

In what ways have the humanities classes helped you?

1. I have become a better debater because of the discussions and the knowledge I’ve gained from the readings.
2. Humanities classes gave me an opportunity to practice thinking on my feet. The readings challenged me and made me think about things in new ways. The discussions were exciting and I loved relating literature to our lives. I liked hearing different people's perspectives. I think humanities classes sharpened my logic and critical thinking skills. They helped me learn how to analyze and articulate. I also feel like reflection is a tremendously important part of learning and that part of my educational philosophy was probably heavily influenced by humanities class.
3. I have learned how to present my thoughts clearer and more concisely. I feel more comfortable with public speaking. I learned how to tackle difficult books. I've learned how to formulate my own ideas from literature. I can debate and discuss more comprehensibly. Finally, I have gained a deeper respect for a real liberal arts education.
4. It has helped me to see others point of views
5. It has helped me be a better thinker, to bring proof to my arguments, and pole out the good in the world, and recognize the bad and what I can do against it.
6. I have recognized the topics we are studying in other aspects of my life and has helped me understand things I need to improve on.

If you could change anything about the class what would it be and why?

1. I think if I could change one thing about the class it would be to have everybody share their thoughts. I feel that most of the time theirs only 5-6 of us who fully participate in the discussion. I think that if everybody shared we’d all get more out of it.
2. I'm not sure the best way to articulate this, but I think the method of moving from book to book works better for studying literature than history. Sometimes, I felt like classmates represented an entire time period in their minds with one person and their literary work that we read. I wish there was some type of way to ground the literature in a historical timeline and present various, including opposing, figures that lived in the same time period. The historical context of a piece was usually covered as a short lecture in class time which probably made it easy to compartmentalize or forget because we had reflections only for the reading. I think a more robust historical analysis using textual evidence would be beneficial. (Mentor’s thoughts: Humanities is not a study of chronological history, but a study of ideas and truths and how to become a better individual because of our study. It is true that a contextual study of history would be beneficial.)
3. Make study groups more a part of the class. I think expressing your ideas in class is the most formative aspect of this course. It gives you a chance to exercise your knowledge, think aloud, and hear other perspectives. However, we have a limited amount of time in class. I've found that incorporating student-led study groups is a perfect remedy to this issue. Study groups provide additional time dedicated to class topics and a more casual environment where students are more likely to participate.
4. I wouldn't change anything.
5. I would read more books like the Hiding place that are good edifying books, though it is important to read the hard books and there would not need to be much changing to add those in because there are those books and it does not need to add those books and change to be amazing I learn a lot from those hard books they should not be taken out.
6. Maybe call on a few people specifically in class that don’t talk much to answer questions. Might encourage people to talk more.

How would a youth know when they are ready for this class?

1. When they want a challenge that will make them grow.
2. I think someone is ready for this class if they are confident they can regularly turn in assignments and they understand how to communicate with an instructor and classmates to ask for help when it is needed. If you are unable to ask for help when you need it, then you can develop learning gaps you aren't even aware of. You should be a confident and curious reader who is willing to devote at least half an hour a day to reading for this class. You should also be comfortable with basic reading comprehension and analysis and writing at least a paragraph in response to question prompts.
3. I think that you can tell when you mature enough to handle the reading.
4. When they choose to read harder books on their own and are responsible enough to take charge of their own learning (not being reminded to do homework).
5. Hunger for a liberal arts education. Be at a higher level of reading comprehension where you know you can (somewhat) understand higher-level readings. Confident enough at expressing your ideas in a group.

What advice do you have for the youth that are about to take this class?

1. Study hard, participate, and be ready to learn!
2. Approach a text with an open mind. Allow the reading to surprise you. Try to temper your expectations or assumptions about what the text might be saying until you have the full context. Be willing to look to other sources for additional information to help you interpret the text. It's helpful to look up terms you don't understand or situate a text within the context of the time period. Reading a summary before you read the text can be helpful for comprehension.
3. Regular study groups are a great opportunity to explore the texts and topics covered in a humanities class in more depth. They can be a really great way to practice speaking up and help you become more comfortable talking in class. They can be a great way to connect with your classmates and learn more about their experiences and perspectives. They are also very helpful for preparing for assessments.
4. You get what you put in. Participate in class discussions. Annotate in your books. Take time to write detailed reflections on the reading.
5. Don't be afraid to look or feel stupid. I can't tell you how many times I have held back a thought in a discussion or an assignment because I thought it did not add anything, but that was my loss. How can you grow without feeling understanding you're probably wrong about a lot of things? This class's culture is incredibly welcoming and understanding. I'd describe it, for lack of a better word, as a safe space. Give yourself enough time in the week to complete your assignments on time. It might be tempting to postpone your reading and writing till the last day (or hour), but it is much more worthwhile to at least start your assignments early so you can turn things in on time to get a better grade and more time to imbibe what you learned. Don't be afraid to use outside sources. While this class studies some of the most essential documents, stories, and people of history, it can sometimes be a little overwhelming to read older English or long poems without missing something. Something so amazing about the internet is its infinite amount of information just one search away. Almost every semester, I've used Wikipedia, GoogleScholar, and YouTube to get additional or deeper knowledge on topics and concepts we went over in class.
6. DON'T get behind! Just always look a week ahead so you can be prepared.
7. It will be hard to keep up at first but still go on, you will learn so much, and don't be afraid to talk in class because for me that is where I learn the most.
8. Spend a lot of time studying the assignment so you feel like the discussions are worth it and you can participate.

Do you have anything else you would like to add that you did not write above?

1. As you seek an education do not forget to bring God in, because He will help you in many ways and He is more important than anything in this world, don't forget Him.

Quest For Happiness

The Declaration of Independence affirms that I may pursue happiness as an inherent right from God. As a mom, I want happiness, but why does it seem so hard to achieve? 

Happiness is ambiguous. Those who are religious link happiness to virtuosity, devotion to God, or being enlightened. For some happiness is a sense of contentment, inner peace, and deep satisfaction in their relationships, accomplishments, and surroundings. Still, for others, happiness is the pleasure they get from their career, hobbies, travels, and people they engage with. These variances are pure differences in emphasis. Many would agree that each view apprehends the essence of happiness. But which emphasis is best?

One of my favorite authors is Aristotle. He said, “Happiness is the highest good,” and to be happy it means you are striving to be virtuous, he continued. According to Aristotle, you achieve the “highest good” or happiness by practicing being a virtuous person. He warned, however, if you continued to practice old habits, you would destroy virtue. What did he mean by that? He referred to what is now known as the golden mean; more on that later.

As a young mom, I had high expectations for well-mannered children and when they weren’t, it annoyed me. Often I resorted to being a victim. I lost patience and wound up frustrated, angry, and sometimes yelled at them. I hated how I felt and none of us were happy. 

Why did I fail? Why weren’t my children obeying me and wanting to have good manners? Didn’t they know they would be happier if they were obedient and well-mannered? If they were, then we’d all be happier, right? I would think to myself, “I was the adult and the mature one, they needed only to follow my lead and be mature, true?”

But, how did I lead them? I wanted to be patient and kind. And yet, I led them with neither patience nor kindness. My original focus was for them to be well-mannered, not me. I led them with my old habits of expecting too much, showing annoyance when they didn’t conform, and then scolding them.

When I realized I needed to change, and not them, I found the path to happiness Aristotle taught me. 

Happiness is a choice

Aristotle said happiness is synonymous with virtue. He said, “Happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue.” Activity of the soul means to work on and master good habits. So, If I were to become patient, I’d have to practice being patient. And the same is true with all other virtues. If I were to be kind, or honest, or organized, I had to practice being kind, honest, and organized.

My journey toward the “highest good" began. I placed little reminder notes all over my house and told my children I would start practicing the virtues. I frequently read Nicomachean Ethics and other inspiring books such as Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography. His list of thirteen virtues hung on my bathroom mirror to remind me each day what I was practicing. 

Aristotle also warned the difficulty in acting in virtue. Often I would forget and resort to old habits. My heart would drop and I would remember that I had to replace those old habits with a practice of the virtues. 

Sometimes, in the middle of my fit of temper, I would remember, change my demeanor and apologize. The one positive thing with the sudden apology was that my children were learning how to change direction in their own situations and practice the virtues. Children mirror our actions. 

I soon found that happiness was based more on me than on them. We would all be happy through my patience and kindness because my children had someone who listened to them and cared for their emotional needs.

The Golden Mean

I promised to tell you about the golden mean.  You’ve heard the maxim, “Moderation in all things.” It stems from the golden mean. Aristotle explained that a virtue “is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect” He meant that each virtue is the midpoint of two extremes. One extreme of the virtue is the unbridled excess of it, and the other extreme is the lack of it, or its deficiency. 

For instance, someone who eats too much will harm their health and another who eats too little will waste away. While food is necessary to life, if one has too much or too little they will harm their health. If they have the right amount their body will be strong and healthy. 

In a similar way, if one has too much or too little of the virtues, they will harm their soul, while if they achieve the perfect amount, their virtue will be strengthened. 

Remember my anger toward my children and the virtue I needed to replace it with? That virtue was patience.  Too little patience resulted in irascibility. On the other hand, trying to overdo the patience resulted in my children stepping all over me. The midpoint of the virtue is neither the excess nor the deficiency of it, but is true patience which inspires joy and happiness.

Aristotle’s golden mean works because it follows the natural laws. Ultimate happiness lies at the midpoint of each virtue. And the only person I can influence is me. As each of us moves toward the midpoint of the virtues, we finally find true happiness.