Research: Practical Applications on Statesmanship
Gina Lee
Helms School of Government
Introduction
“[H]e took the greatest control of the process leading up to the nomination, displaying a fierce ambition, an exceptional political acumen, and a wide range of emotional strengths, forged in the crucible of personal hardship, that took his unsuspecting rivals by surprise” (Goodwin, 2005, p. xvi). Abraham Lincoln, America’s 16th President, transformed American history for the betterment of a society. Lincoln’s consistent integrity brought him to make a moral decision that would change the lives of African Americans; they would be free. Surrounding Lincoln’s abolishment of slavery—the historical context in which he lived—it has been said that Lincoln did not truly desire the freedom of slaves; however, upon looking at his life, and the time from which he came, the false narratives begin to be silenced. Lincoln was a true statesman by definition, not because he was a perfect man but because he exemplified the prerequisites needed to stand on principle, manage change in a growing civilization, as well as lead with integrity with the fear of God. Lincoln’s fierce leadership made him a true rival to other candidates of his time; the world would soon see more clearly why he was providentially led to such a role in government.
A Statesmanship Model
Newell states: “What we seek are not statesmen but acts of statesmanship, times when leaders rise above more selfish interest to accomplish something positive for the future” (Newell, 2012, p. xvi). Statesmanship is something that can be developed in any leader; it does not take a perfect person to hold the title as statesman, but someone who, with humility, desires to consider the best possible plan, or statecraft, for the betterment of a society; it is someone whose statecraft is driven by brotherly love, sincerity, and integrity rooted in biblical principles and an adherence to the Constitution, which brings those principles to life. He has found what C.S. Lewis would call the “first principle” (Lewis, 1974, p. 16). When discussing Plato’s analysis of virtue, Lewis writes: “The little human will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likable, disgusting, and hateful” (p. 16).
Our God-given conscience assists in making the right choices; a true desire to please God first, outside of our own human instincts, is even a step higher towards true character. These principles lived out are the prerequisites for statesmanship “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place” (Bastiat, 2010, p. 7).
What one can find in a statesman is that they inspire and expect a high standard of moral living in others. They don’t merely “walk the walk”, they proclaim such a life as a moral absolute. “Indeed, it is their capacity to elicit higher character in others in pursuit of the good society that turns statesmanship in theory into statesmanship in practice” (Newell, 2012, p. xvi). The goal is not perfection; it’s a desire and willingness to be transformed to right living. George Washington left an honorable legacy. Though not perfect, he rose to the occasion.
It was the Christian religion that was the standard in the world of governance. Washington not only honored the Christian faith, but he believed in displaying the example of Christian charity.
Keeping the fear of God at the core of his life, Washington steered away from Virginia culture that encouraged immoral living. He was guided by a true moral compass. He was led by his conscience to protect his reputation, for he “feared that he was being watched from afar and made sure his conduct could stand up to the most severe critical standards” (p.134).
Wilberforce was serious about his faith in God; it was not faith for mere appearance’s sake. What led to his reputation as a great leader, was his “seriousness and zeal” as a Christian (Vaughan, 2002p. 128). From humility comes integrity, for integrity is absent of deceitful pride. Wilberforce was courageous in his faith and proclamation of the Christian lifestyle. He strived not to be one way behind closed doors and another way in the public sphere. He took the truth of holiness very seriously and even kept a journal for accountability and spiritual progress (Vaughan, 2002, p. 132). It was important for Wilberforce to be an authentic Christian; this mindset sets the foundation to lead well. The abolishment of slavery would come to existence through the influence of being true to the justice of God, fear of God, liberty for all, and personal integrity. “Though legislating for reform was critical, he apparently understood that the best way to change the world was to fix one soul at a time” (p.141). One’s worldview plays an essential role in policy making and getting things done for the good of all. In addition to these principles, the Christian worldview of keeping godly people as mentors and influencers in one’s life is essential. Wilberforce kept godly friendships and Christian influence a consistent principle in his life.
Lincoln: Statesman or Pseudo-statesman?
“Let us at the very outset of our meditations, then, admit that there is nothing so natural to man, nothing so insidious, and hidden from our sight, nothing so difficult and dangerous as pride” (Murray, 2001). It is an oversight to conclude that Lincoln was non-other than a statesman; however, it’s true to say that he was human and wrestled with his conscience—which is a completely human experience; yet Lincoln led with high character.
Lincoln didn’t “demonize his opponents” (Liberty University 2014), during the time of running for presidency; he brought them on board to be part of his team as soon as he won. This showed a type of humility and the ability to see talent and leadership in others. These men were “New York senator William H. Seward, Ohio governor Salmon P. Chase, and Missouri’s distinguished elder statesman Edward Bates” (Goodwin, 2005). These men, chosen by Lincoln, “studied law, became distinguished orators, entered politics, and opposed the spread of slavery” (Goodwin, 2005, xv).
Lincoln had experienced family loss during his early life before politics as well as during his presidency. He lost his mother at age 9, a younger brother and older sister during his youth, and his 12-year-old son during his first presidency. Such loss shaped his character and gave him the type of strength and resilience needed to battle difficult life challenges. The four-year war, known as the Civil War, led to the abolishment of slavery in 1865. The issues surrounding the cause and conclusion must be highlighted.
Lincoln sought to preserve the Union, but the war, perceived, would potentially sever this quest. Many families would be torn apart through the casualty of war; not only bloodshed would be inevitable, but the need for reconstruction in American politics. Soon the war would be not only to preserve the Union, but it would be to end the evil of slavery. “The war had answered the question about whether we were still a nation” and it also answered the question of who would be considered a free American (Newell, 2012, p. 57). Lincoln knew he had a strong oath to honor as president; he knew his limits as the president. He was committed to the Constitution; he felt he would not simply interfere with the institution of slavery in the states (p. 63). Thus, the Fugitive Slave Act upheld, was due to Lincoln’s commitment to not override the states. “North returned those who escaped to freedom” (p. 63). In 1862, the Emancipation Proclamation would negotiate with slave owners; those who seceded from the Union would need to release their slaves.
In 1865, the Civil War recruited 200,000 blacks; this, in fact, “transformed for Lincoln into a war to end slavery. . .” (2012, p. 63). The Civil War was “God’s punishment for the institution of slavery. . .” (p. 63). As Lincoln would say, ‘And the war came.’ The war was inevitable. Lincoln faced a challenging situation with the nation falling apart and the moral issue of slavery at stake; however, what we find from Lincoln is that he found the “steel” inside of him. “Great statesmen find the steel inside themselves to navigate them to true leadership” (Liberty University, 2022).
Framework Application and Assessment
Humility, a fear of God, expectancy of moral living in others, wisdom, and living courageously is the foundation one can see in the statesmen of the past. All of these characteristics are essential elements that all of the most profound statesmen lived out. Even though Winston Churchill was not thought to be quite as vocal about theological matters like other leaders of the past, he too believed in the providence of God and knew that God orchestrated his life and led him to such a high place of leadership in government.
One biblical principle lived out by Lincoln was attaining wisdom. This biblical principle could be seen in the rhetoric of Lincoln. The ability to speak forth truth and persuade a community of people is a skill and gift and is essential to communicate action in others. There is a science to language. “It’s methods, goals, and resilient results come from a long tradition of treating language as a natural object—sometimes a social object, sometimes a mental object, sometimes both, but always as something which could be observed, like the stars and the rocks, and sometimes poked, like the animals and the plants.” Just like physics, the science of language is something to be analyzed (Harris, 1993, p. 11).
Tim Goeglein highlights the rhetorical challenges in statesmanship. Even Churchill knew that it was not enough to be clever with words or using mere eloquence to lead a charge. One of Churchill’s greatest “weapons” was the English Language, yet he knew how to use the English language to clearly communicate and affectively move the emotions of a society to action and understanding (Liberty University, 2012). Abraham Lincoln was just as brilliant and could be given this distinction as well. Lincoln was a great orator. Using this skill allowed Lincoln to overcome the challenges of the Civil War. “To be Lincolnian in rhetoric was to be a true Churchillian in rhetoric. This is the highest apogee in our western experience”, states Goeglein. Within the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural are some of the most significant speeches in American history where “the highest pinnacles of the English Language” can be heard (Liberty, 2012). Through the use of language, one can bring forth the truths of God’s word, natural law, and, in the end, a legacy of moral virtue.
“By the end of the century ‘Civil War’ had become the most common public name, and between 1905-1911 Congress made it virtually the official name of the war” (Foster, 2018).
By the late 1860s many believed that there would be a civil war. Lincoln warned of a looming war in his First Inaugural address. He warned of the ‘momentous issue of civil war’ (2018). Some would call this disunity a rebellion—a pull away from the Union. Statesmen, such as Frederick Douglass, would declare this upheaval a ‘slave holder’s rebellion’, or ‘abolition war’ (2018).
When confederates fired on Fort Sumter, this would begin the defense of the states against war. Lincoln would declare it an ‘insurrection.’ It took great prudence to choose the proper term for what was happening amongst the people of the states. Using the wrong term could cast judgment on one group and not the other. Using the term “rebellion” would serve to work for Lincoln for a time because he did not want the South to have legal jurisdiction. Lincoln went from “insurrection” to “rebellion.” He emphasized how it was unconstitutional and illegal to secede from the Union. Rebellion was the word that “encapsulated his and the North’s conception of the conflict. . . (Foster, 2018). With such an accusation against the South, it could be assumed that reunion would be near impossible and anger and rebellion more probable. Thus, Lincoln made the wise choice to define the conflict more clearly, declaring it the Civil War as commonly known (2018). In the Gettysburg Address as well as the Second Inaugural this brought unifying speech; the southerners noticed this change.
Evidence and the Effects of True Statesmanship
Lincoln was motivated by a fear of God and an acknowledgement of His providence and active work in the lives of all people. In the Second Inaugural address this acknowledgement can be heard: “If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses—which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which have continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war. . .” Lincoln trusted the providence of God and was convicted that such a devastating war was due to American slavery being the root issue.
Taking a glimpse at the atmosphere of the times surrounding the Protestant church, one could find that blame was cast towards Christians with strong moral conviction and action. It was said that revolutionaries, such as the monk Martin Luther, had “produced a thoroughly evil fruit. . . (Noll, 2017). The “political preachers” of the North were the main influencers ‘if not the principle causes of the present momentous crisis of the country’. They were considered fanatics—radicals, “labeling slavery as sin” (2017). The opposing view was that slavery was instituted by God. Protestants were accused of not holding to true faith and were blind to the dangers surrounding the Republic. Martin Luther was the culprit in leading a regime and “evil” legacy that only brought about skeptics and thus fanned the flamed of pending war (2017). This was the climate produced in some Catholic publications leading to the end of the war, accusing Protestants of being too over-the-top and bringing religion into politics. They blamed Protestant Christians for the rising opposing view on slavery and felt that peace should be proclaimed instead; however, Lincoln spoke truth and did not shy away from proclaiming that slavery was truly evil. His courage and integrity brought conviction to the people of America.
Lincoln’s plan for the Union was to end slavery as soon as possible. Though concluding the war was essential, Lincoln knew that he needed to implement policy that would change the current issues surrounding Union and slavery. The evil of slavery affected the North and the South and there were consequences. After the war, the constitutional amendment would come to abolish slavery—the Thirteenth Amendment would serve to make slavery illegal and non-existent in the United States. Such success shows the evidence of great leadership and fortitude in Lincoln.
In the face of potential defeat Lincoln desired to do his utmost in securing freedom for American slaves. He desired to “win the war on the North’s terms and to bring as many slaves as possible into Union before newly elected Democratic leaders could shut the door forever” (Goodwin, 2005, p. 648). Lincoln even called on the opportunity to speak to Frederick Douglass. Douglass had openly criticized the president’s “retaliatory measures against the Confederacy for its blatant refusal to treat captured black soldiers as prisoners of war” (p. 649). But it was also known that Douglass respected Lincoln; thus, Douglass was given the opportunity to meet with Lincoln; his heart would now be expressed to the president.
The Emancipation Proclamation would not be enough to send southern slaves over the lines into freedom. Douglass expressed how some slaves were kept away from the truth that they were free. When Lincoln heard about this, he “proposed that the federal government might underwrite an organized ‘band of scouts, composed of colored men. . .’” (2005, p. 649). These scouts would go and carry the news of freedom to the slaves. One main issue Lincoln was struggling with was ending the rebellion and allowing the southerners to keep their slaves; for he could not have a war approved by Congress merely for the purpose of the abolition of slavery. Yet, Lincoln chose to use his power in the Civil War to end slavery. He was committed to his “twin goals of Union and Freedom” (p. 653).
In January of 1865, nothing “engaged Lincoln with greater urgency than the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery” (2005, p. 686). Lincoln met with moderate democrats and unionists to ask them to vote for the amendment. He needed for them to understand the importance of their decision and persuade them to make a moral decision. Lincoln considered the millions of lives at stake—and the unborn–if slavery continued (p. 687). Through the courage and persistence of Abraham Lincoln; through his conviction and influence that changed the hearts of many of his constituents and government leaders, Lincoln’s quest was ratified. “Before the year 1865 was out, the requisite three quarters had spoken putting a dramatic end to the slavery issue that had disturbed the nation’s tranquility from its earliest days” (p. 690). The evidence of a true statesman was clear. Lincoln earned the honorable title.
Summary
Some would say Lincoln’s concern for the Union of the states took president over his desire to end slavery and that he really did not want to end it; however, based on the context and writings of other statesmen, such as Douglass, who worked closely with Lincoln it is evident that Lincoln deeply had compassion for the slaves; through conviction he led American government to abolish the evil of slavery. As the Thirteenth Amendment so states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The character of a great leader walking in humility, the fear of God, wisdom, integrity, and the expectancy of moral virtue in others, moved the hearts of Americans then and continues to be a legacy of honor to the many leaders and patriots of today. Through the leadership of Lincoln and his team, victory was won. “Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory” (English Standard Version, 2008, Proverbs 11:14).
References
Bastiat, Frederic. (2010). The Law. Simon & Brown. (Original work published 1850).
English Standard Version. (2008). Foundation Publications, INC.
Fischer, Khalib. (2014). PPOG 504: Leadership, Statesmanship, and Governance. Week seven, lecture three: Pseudo-Statesmanship-2. Liberty University. https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/202471/pages/watch-pseudo-statesmanship-2?module_item_id=25320475
Foster, Gaines M. (2018). What’s Not in a Name: The Naming of the American Civil War. Journal of the Civil War Era, 8(3), 416-454. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26483634?seq=1
Goeglein, Tim. (2012). PPOG 504: Leadership, Statesmanship, and Governance. Week seven, lecture one: The Uncompromising Statesmanship. Liberty University. https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/202471/pages/watch-the-uncompromising-statesmanship?module_item_id=25320469
Goeglein, Tim. (2012). PPOG 504: Leadership, Statesmanship, and Governance. Week seven, lecture two: Rhetorical Challenges of Democratic Statesmanship. Liberty University. https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/202471/pages/watch-rhetorical-challenges-of-democratic-statesmanship?module_item_id=25320472
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. (2005). Team of Rivals. Simon & Schuster.
Harris, Randy Allen. (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford University Press.
Lewis, C.S. (1974). The Abolition of Man. HarperOne.
Lincoln, A. (1865) Second Inaugural address of the late President Lincoln. Retrieved from the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/t-06044.pdf
Murray, Andrew. (2001). Humility. Bethany House Publishers.
Newell, Terry. (2012). STATESMANSHIP, CHARACTER, and LEADERSHIP in AMERICA. Palgrave Macmillan
Noll, Mark A. (2019). The Catholic Press, the Bible, and Protestant Responsibility for the Civil War. Journal of the Civil War Era, 7(3), 355-376). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26381449?seq=6
U.S. Const. amend. XIII § 1
Vaughan, David H. (2002). Statesman and Saint. Highland Books.
Faith, Family, Dance, and Lemonade 