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.