1776: The Ideas that Made the Modern World, Part 4: Equality, Slavery and the Founding

Episode Topic: Equality, Slavery and the Founding

How can we grapple with the profound tensions of the American experiment in today's world? Confront the harrowing paradox of liberty and bondage as the Union expands. Navigate the intellectual struggle between popular sovereignty and natural rights during the rise of the cotton gin. Reclaim the moral clarity necessary for self-government in this vital historical inquiry.

Featured Speakers:

• Vincent Phillip Muñoz, University of Notre Dame

Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/90908a.

This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled 1776: The Ideas that Made the Modern World. 

Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.

• Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.
• Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

Transcript

Class Announcements

1 0:14

All right. Welcome everyone. All right. A couple, a couple of announcements. some students came by and they said, Hey, the class is so big. Can we, can we do a, a discussion, session, which I think is great. now here's the thing. The best time to do it is right after class. So we have a room tonight, right after class. Come if you want. You don't, you don't have to. but right after class, I gotta go be a dad and pick up my son from, his robotics class. And he is kicked out at eight 15, which means he's usually out in the cold for about 10 minutes. So I've gotta leave. and we shouldn't put that on C oh, CPS is gonna show up for me, so I gotta leave right after class. but, Eddie Campbell, where'd you go, Eddie? Who's a terrific graduate student. we have a room, Mendoza 2 0 3. So if you're interested in anything you wanna talk about, anything you wanna criticize me, feel free. Mendoza 2 0 3 go for like half hour or so. no obligation if you want. It's just a chance, to talk. Okay. And so 2 0 3 in Mendoza. two other announcements. Uh, I, I run, as most of you know, the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government. We have, we run these, uh, student discussion colloquia. They're weekend discussion colloquia. And the idea behind them is, we give you some reading. We have an interesting topic, about 15, 16 students. We feed you and you read some things ahead of time. And then it's a hundred percent student discussion. And we've been doing this for probably, I don't know, seven, eight years. And the response we get after almost everyone is, oh, wow. I thought this was what college was going to be like. All right. The whole purpose is for you to engage with their fellow students. So we have two of these seminars coming up. the one, the first one we haven't done before. It's on February 27 and 28. So it's a Friday and Saturday, I think. You come in Friday and four o'clock you have a session. We feed you dinner. You have another session, two one hour sessions, you're done by seven 30 or eight. Um, the topic is American Society in the Place of Fiction, and honestly, I'm not even sure what we're reading on that one. The second one is March 20 and 21st, it's on Frederick Douglass, on Frederick Douglass, on politics, slavery in the founding, and I've led that one myself, which the reasons are extraordinary. So if you're interested in either of those subjects or interested in, you know, if you can't make those dates interested in doing one of these student discussion seminars, come talk to me or email Tyler Castle. You can find his information on the center, uh, the CCCG website. It's cons studies.nd.edu. Okay. One other announcement for the students who are just in class, your pre-class posts, there's a lot of summary of the material in them. Uh, and I'm guessing you're communicating to me that you've done the reading. You don't need to summarize anything. I've done the reading too. and I, I know you're gonna do it as well. Give me your take on it, right? Or gimme your questions. Or if you don't have a take or you don't have questions or you don't have thoughts about it, explain to me why you thought I asi all the things I could have assigned. Why those readings? Right. there was, Steve. Oh, Steve, the last name begins with the VI just can't remember it. Who's that in here, Steve? Anyone? He's not gonna, yeah, so it was very, I just, I'm sorry, I just can't remember the name. Look for Steve with last name begins with the V his post, which, which I think is a hundred percent wrong. Phenomenally interesting. And he was just giving his take on the reading. I, you don't have to agree with me. I, I, it's indifferent whether you agree with me or not. I'm indifferent to whether you agree with me or not. I just want you to think about the readings and then use the, post as a way to, give your take or what you thought or questions you have. It's a, it's a vehicle by which for you to communicate with me and your classmates. Hey, these are things I'd like to address in class. Okay? But there's no need to summarize the reading or try to show that you've done it right. Right. The readings aren't that hard. or if they are that hard, it's not worth your time to summarize them in, in a handful of words. Okay? Okay. Okay. So let's do a quick review since it's been a couple weeks, and then we have a lot to lot to do today. What did I hope you enjoyed? Last week's, uh, lecture. There's actually one of the posts. I believe the gentleman here. Yep. Tell me your name again. Jock. Jock. Very critical of the lecture and you should read his post. It was quite interesting, I thought. Quite thoughtful. and you know, you don't have to do as much as he did, but, it certainly caught my attention. That was interesting. It, okay. What did we do two weeks ago? we started off with the idea that the found the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal. Equal, in what sense? Well, from the James Wilson, from the Thomas Jefferson letter to Roger Waitman, they both say the same thing. Equal, everyone is born by human nature with the right to exercise dominion over his or her own life. Right. Why are we, why do we have the right of natural liberty that right to run our own lives? And James Wilson. Remember that passage from James Wilson? We read because we were born with those capacities, we were endowed with our, by our creator with certain natural rights. Okay? Everyone with me? Okay? But the natural right to liberty doesn't mean you can do anything,

Speaker 2 5:57

right?

1 5:58

The natural right to liberty means you're free to do what you want within the bounds of what this point is. A fundamental importance. What does Wilson say within the bounds of the law of nature, the moral law of nature, right? How do we know the more what is the moral law of nature or what CS Lewis calls the the law of right and wrong, right? How do we know that through our reasoning, the author of the Moral Law of Nature, or the Law of Nature is the creator? And we understand or discern the law right and wrong by, by our use of reasoning. Okay? So, you know, it's wrong to steal from take something that's not yours to steal, to run away in battle, right? To harm an innocent child. There are certain things that are wrong by nature. It's wrong to drive on the left side of the road via convention, right? We just decide, look, everyone's got to drive on the right or the left, and so you can't drive on the left. That's wrong. But we could have had everyone drive on the left right, as they do in England, and then it would be wrong to drive on the right, right? So it's wrong simply because of the law, but it's simply wrong to strike an innocent child, a baby. Aside from whether the law, positive law makes it right or wrong, right? That's what the law of nature is. So your natural right to liberty isn't a right to do anything. It's a right to do anything within the bounds of the law of nature. And most people say, well, that's just common sense. Right? Okay. That's what the founders meant by the right of natural liberty. Okay? Now, because we're all free, but because we're not all good and because we need coordination, we need a community, a political society. But we're, if we're all free, how is government instituted or how do we, how do some people get to rule? And that's, we said consent. Consent follows from equality. And this is the point we left off, right at the very end, right? We said, well, when do we consent? I mean, in 1776 you consented'cause you fought and you stayed, and you. But, but how do we consent? If you're an American citizen selective service? Well, one of the, you, you stay and enjoy the benefits and privileges and protections of the law. And for men, at least we make you sign up for the draft. Right Now. The the theory is, and I think we still hold this to be true, if you were born here and said, I don't want to be a part of this political community for, for whatever reason, I like this, this country is not for me, I want to leave. The theory is, at the age of maturity, 1821, sometimes your generation 32, whatever it is, at the age of maturity, you have a right to leave. and I used the example of the Berlin Wall to c communicate that.'cause in East Germany when they built the Berlin wall, it was to keep people in. That is, you cannot leave. If you're an East German citizen, you cannot leave. And that's why we said it was a tyranny. And if you, this is somewhat abstract and it's tacit consent in the literature, but a real life example. Imagine you're in Ukraine right now and you're 17, or your younger brother is 17 and is about to turn 18. Uh, this is all hypothetical. I don't know anything about the laws of Ukraine or anything. Just, just to be clear, I'm making this up. Okay. But imagine your 17 or your little brother is 17 and is about to turn 18 and. At the age of 18, you're s sent to war, and that means you're sent to the front and that means what?

Speaker 3 10:29

Well,

1 10:30

good chance you're gonna die. The theory of natural liberty, natural equality is, look at that point, you can decide to join that society or not. You can leave now. There's no right to come back, but you get to leave. And if you stay, you take in the obligations. Take on the obligations of being a citizen. Now, we might say, well, you should. You should stay and fight for your country, and maybe you should. But think about now that you're not in your little brother's, not in Ukraine, but your little brother's in Moscow and he's about to turn 18 and he turns 18. He's sent to the front. And you think it's an unjust war, should he have the right to leave? And the founder's philosophy would say yes. Right? Just because you're born in a regime in a country doesn't mean you have to stay there. Now you have to find someplace to go, but that's what consent means. Okay. And it's a abstract, philosophical issue, except when it's not. And there are real places right now where it's not. Okay. That's what we've, that, that, that's hopefully what you got two weeks ago. That's for review. Okay. Our next subject, our subject for tonight, is, we have to talk about slavery. And there's two ways I like to do this. And I chose one way and not the other. And I kind of regret right now that I didn't choose the other. Here's what the path we're not taking and if, if the, we had an additional class is what we do. the, the best way I think to, to think about f the founders on race and slavery is to read what they said about race and slavery. At least start there. And in my, full semester class, I have a bunch of documents and I emailed those to you this morning. Obviously you don't have to read them, but if you, that's at least where we should start. And then there's like 20 documents, but they're very short letters and short and things. And, if you wanna pursue the question, that's, that's the place I'd have you start, see what they said themselves. And it's interesting and complicated and you know, you have to interpret the documents and, but I'd say make your own judgments.

Speaker 4 13:13

Okay.

Lincoln Douglas Readings

Mexican War And Texas

1 13:15

Uh, another place. This isn't the second place. Another place we could start, is with the famous case, Dred Scott versus Sanford. And that's where Chief Justice Roger Tani made his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence vis-a-vis slavery. But the greatest debate in American history about race and slavery actually occurs between Lincoln and Douglas. And because our time is short, I thought we'd use Lincoln and Douglas to get at this question. And it also gets at the question of what do we mean by democracy or self-government? It is, it's a political debate. And, and you know, they're both running for senate in 1858, and that's the context of the immediate Lincoln Douglas debates is the Senate race in 1858. But it's more than just a political contest, a Senate race. It's a philosophical debate about the nature of. Republican government about the nature of democracy or how many of you have read the, uh, first book, uh, the Plato's Republic? Oh, good, good, fair number of you. The debate between Lincoln and Douglas is the same debate between Socrates and Thor Amicus in the first book of the Republic. And I see a bunch of heads nodding, right? It's the exact same issue. So that's why I only get you for four classes. That's why we're doing these two readings tonight. Okay? The two readings, let me situate them. There are just two speeches, a speech that Douglas gave, Steven Douglas gave in 1858. So it's not even, we're not even reading the Lincoln Douglas debates, but these, these two speeches are the most efficient ways I know of to get the core arguments. So the speech by Douglas and then Lincoln's famous 1854 Peoria address. And it it, I use these speeches. If we read the Lincoln Douglas debates, you'd see the same material. They use the same, they say the same thing in the Lincoln Douglas debates. It's not all they say, but the core arguments. Okay. Okay. In Lincoln's speech, he gives a long political history. Right. And I, I thought we'd start with that, and I'm just gonna kind of cover some of the issues that, that Lincoln covers and, some of you probably know a lot of this, but, uh, it's helpful to set the context. Okay. So I wanna start with, just some facts about, uh, slavery in the revolution. First of all, in 1776, before the revolution, slavery is legal throughout the colonies. Right? this map is, I think the percentage of slaves in every, colony at the time where Lillian, Lillian actually helped is that. In 1770. Okay. Alright. And now these are estimates that scholars make. They're not my own estimates that scholars make, you know, about 30 to 40%, of the south as a whole. The southern states further south, it's more, uh, only about 5% of the slaves, uh, population of slaves in the, in the north. And for those watching at home, these slides are on the, on the webpage too. You can download them. Okay. What happens immediately after the revolution in the north? We have the first abolition movement, right? pretty quickly there's a movement for ab abolition in some of the northern states, and you have to go state by state. Um, there's policies like, okay, uh, upon the age of 18. someone born into slavery or raised in slavery becomes free In Massachusetts. The Massachusetts, the highest court of Massachusetts declared slavery, illegal in the state. Uh, in, I think the decision was 1780, and by 1790, I might be wrong on that, but by 1790, there's no slaves in the state. Vermont, of course, Vermont is not a original 13 state of the 13 states, but Vermont's 1777 Constitution. So they drafted a constitution for the territory of Vermont. Before it was a state abolished slavery in the South, of course, slavery remains. Um, there's a man, uh, manumission law in Virginia in 1782, which allows for the legal emancipation of slaves without, a certain procedure approval of the state legislature. It, it wasn't so simple to, it wasn't just like you could free your slaves. Every state's laws, were different. Okay. And then we get the Northwest Ordinance first of 1785, and then it's 1787. Um, this covers where we are today. The Northwest Ordinance is Ohio. The Northwest Territory is Ohio, Indiana, uh, parts of Minnesota. the, the, the upper Midwest. And in the, those federal territories, slavery is banned. And Jefferson is the Jefferson whose governor of Virginia, was instrumental in the Northwest ordinance being adopted. Okay. So there is something of an emancipation movement after revolution, at least in the north and in the Northwest or now the Midwest. Okay. Slavery in the Constitution. I mean, we could go on and on about this. some basic points. Slavery is protected in the federal Constitution. Right. There's no provision that says that. Right. But clearly the Constitution anticipates that slavery will exist. I think, uh, the best interpreter of what the founders were trying to do is actually a former Notre Dame professor, professor Michael Zucker, just retired a few years ago. And I'm gonna follow his interpretation'cause, just'cause I think it's right. He, he argues that what the founders were trying to do with slavery at the federal convention was make it a state question that is federalism. There is going, there's not going to be a union. If the country as a whole has to decide, has to become all slave and all free. The North is not going to accept a union that's all free. The South is not going to accept a union that's all slave. Those are J South is not gonna slip a union that's all free. Those are just the priors, and there's no effort for one side to try to persuade the other. At the Constitutional convention, everyone agrees the only way we're gonna have one union is if every state controls its own domestic institutions, and by that they mean slavery. Okay? If you read the Federalist papers, which I'm sure everyone here has read, some of them, if you, if you read the papers that most people don't read at the beginning, the very first set of arguments in the Federalist papers, Federalist two and three, and four, and five, they're an argument why we should stay together as one country because there's real talk. Why don't we just split up? It's kinda like Europe in a way right now, right? Why should we keep the EU or not? Why not just split up in two or three confederations, maybe a southern, a southern and northern, maybe a Mid-Atlantic kind of people that's so diverse actually live together in as in one nation. And the answer to that question is, no, we should stay together.'cause if we don't, we're gonna fight and we're gonna get countries from Europe trying to come in and divide us. So we need to stay together and the only way we're gonna stay together is if we agree to disagree about slavery. Okay, so the fugitive slave. Now, if your aim is federalism, how do you keep slavery as a state issue? And the biggest issue, at least from the southern point of view, is the runaway slaves, right? If, if you are trying to control, if you're South Carolina or Virginia or whoever. And you say, look, we get to control our state's policy on slavery. If the North does not return runaway slaves, is Virginia or North Carolina or whatever state, are they gonna be able to control their own slave policy? The answer is no. Right? And so the fugitive slave clause, that is, it's not actually clear who in the Constitution is responsible for returning slaves. But the idea is slave owners in the South have a legal claim, a legal right to have their runaway slaves returned. And that's, that's in the Constitution. And it's to enforce the idea that every state controls its own policy on slavery. I think that is the strongest argument, definitive evidence in my view, that the Constitution clearly anticipates the existence of slavery. It's not to say that the Constitution is pro-slavery. Constitution itself is federalism in slave in terms of slavery. Okay? Now there is, there is some argument that the Constitution in some ways, and the way that Professor Zucker puts it, and I think it's pretty, pretty accurate, is the, the aim of the Constitution was to recognize that slavery was going to be legitimate. I'm sorry slavery was going to be legal in some states, but it wasn't legitimate. Now, how do we get the not legitimate? They intentionally kept the word slavery out of the Constitution and when, and they talked about why and they said, because we don't want to solely the document in Federalist 54 Federalist Papers, right? Federalist papers are a defense of the constitution. Federalist 54 is on the three-fifths clause in slavery more generally. And it's worth going just to look at. Look at the beginning. James Madison writes that paper and he says, how would, how would someone defend the three-fifths clause and the compromises on slavery in the Constitution? And he says, one of our southern brethren might defend it in the following way. And then he has a quotation that is, Madison won't defend slavery in the Constitution under his own name. Madison a slave owner, but he won't defend it. And we know from his other writings, he, he thought slavery was unjust. He's still a slave owner, but he thought it was unjust. Okay, one other thing, I'm just to mention the, IM the, uh, slave importation clause. The context here is who has authority over, commerce with foreign nations? Who has that power? I mean, who's exercising that power all the time right now? Right? Terrorists. What are terrorists? The regulations of commerce with foreign nations? Who's exercising that power president? Well, the president, it's not clear that he has it, but the federal government has it, not the states, right? That meant the federal government could, because through the power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, the national government had the power to ban the importation of slaves. And the compromise here is in the Constitution it says Federal government cannot use that power until 1808. Now it doesn't say that. Slavery. The foreign slave trade has to be banned in 1808, but it can't be banned until 1808. In fact, it was banned on January 1st, 1808. Now, is the banning an anti-slavery provision? Well, obviously in the one sense, yes, but what that provision did is it insured a supply of slavery, right? And of course, if you ban imports of a, if you ban the importation of a good, what happens to the price of that? Good? It goes up. So if you had a lot of slaves, and in those slaves, you intend to produce more slaves. Banning the importation is good for the slave owner. Okay, I just mentioned one other thing here. article four, section three gives power to the congress to reg, to regulate the territories, right? So who, who has authority over the territories? The gover, the, the land that, that we own, that's not a state and it's given to Congress and we'll see that becomes a central issue in the Lincoln Douglas debates. Okay. Alright. If anyone has any questions on this, this is a sort of background, oh, sorry. This was what I was just talking about on, legal but not legitimate. Okay. And federalism. Okay. Let's jump up to, uh, 1820 Missouri Compromise. anyone remember the provisions of the Missouri Compromise? Missouri Compromise involves what? Two states? I assume you can get the first one. Missouri and what? And Maine. Missouri and Maine wanna both become states. Make sure I get my facts right here. 1817 Missouri applies for state. 18, 18 and 18 90 19 fierce debate in Congress on whether Congress has the power to prohibit slavery in the territories. 1819 Maine applies for statehood 1820. You get the, uh, Missouri compromise, what's in the Missouri Compromise. Maine becomes a free state. Missouri becomes a slave state. And then what else? Anyone else know, you know where Missouri is? Right? Where's Missouri on this picture? So someone from California's from California. Okay. Where's Missouri on there? Missouri. Just left of Mississippi River there just, okay. Just left of the Mississippi River. It's green. It's green. Okay. What's the line That's kind of red. That's below to the south of Missouri. It's a 36 30 parallel. Why is that important in the Missouri Co? Okay, so we have all this land from Louisiana purchase, which is sort of the, the orange, not all the orange, but the, I'm just trusting, you know, the land we got in the Louisiana purchase right? Starts in Louisiana and kind of goes northwest. And then there's a question, what are we gonna do with all that land, right? And the Missouri Co. Is it gonna become slave or gonna become free? And the deal is, okay, Maine is free Missouri slave. Everything above the 36 30 parallel in the Louisiana purchase will be free. Notice that the, the south gets Missouri, which is above the 36 30 parallel as a slave state. And what's below the 36 30 parallel Arkansas, Oklahoma. Eventually, the Missouri Compromise doesn't say anything about it, but it's presumed that will be slave. Everyone get the details of that? Okay? What happens between 1820 and 1850 or next map?

Speaker 2 29:08

Next American war?

1 29:09

Mexican American war, right? Texas. Right? Texas is its own thing and then it's wants to become part of the U and then it's go back and forth, right? This is, I've just lived in, is the Texas Club of Notre Dame. Is anyone anyone here from Texas? Oh, this is just a small, Texans are very proud of being Texan, right? Because they had this moment of independence, right? So.

Speaker 2 29:36

Country.

Cotton Gin and Slavery Boom

Democracy as Peace Plan

1 29:36

Country before state. Yeah, that's right. what happens in 1849? Why are the San Francisco 49 ERs who are not playing in the Super Bowl? I'm at might add because the Seattle Seahawks, my team, I'm from Seattle, are playing in the Super Bowl. I might add, why are the San Francisco 49 ERs called the San Francisco 49 ERs? The gold Rush, the, the gold Rush Gold is discovered in California when 48, 18 48. Everyone's going out to California in 1849, hence the 49 ERs 1850. So we have text all this land acquired to the west of the Louisiana purchase territory. We have Texas. What's in the compromise of 1850? This one's a little harder. One no. Yep. Tive Slave Act. Fugitive Slave Act. Okay, what about it? like a federal provision, the, the South gets a stronger fugitive slave clause. enforcement of the fugitive slave clause. Okay. That was the main thing the South wanted. Yep. California gets to be a free state. California comes in as a free state, and then the territories that they took from Mexico, so Utah, New Mexico, Utah, and New Mexico, they become open to slavery. They become open to slavery, and the presumption is the people of Utah. And, now New Mexico, Arizona will decide for themselves. Okay. But do you know this history? Yes. No. Gimme I don't know. I don't know what you know. Little bit. Some of you. Okay. Okay. Kansas Nebraska Act 1854. Steven Douglas proposes the Kansas Nebraska Act. What does Steven, what? What does Steven Douglas propose? And it becomes law. What does he propose? Kansas and Nebraska. Now, where are they? They're above the 36 30 parallel and part of the Louisiana purchase. What did they decide about Kansas and Nebraska? What did we decide as about Kansas and Nebraska? In 1820? They would be what they free and Stephen Douglas says they should be. What should Kansas and Nebraska wanna be? States, should they be free or slave? And what does Steven Douglas say? Let them choose for themselves. They'll come in under the guise, what he calls popular sovereignty. Everyone see it? That's a change. Everyone just with me on the facts right now. Okay, I wanna pause here. Just one other set of facts and I didn't make a slide. What, what do you know about the cotton gin? Do you know anything about it? And why would I bring that up right now? The, the cotton In was a technology that made for our purposes, that made slavery far more profitable than it had been. And how do you measure this? Well, lemme just give you these statistics. In 1790, the US produced 3000 ba, no whole country, 3000 bales of cotton in 1810. So 20 years later, 18,000 bales of cotton in 1858, 4 million bales of cotton. The si, the scope, size, and profitability of slavery skyrocketed in ways no one ever anticipated in 1787. So I wanna pause here and just follow me here, here for a second. Okay. how many of you think you're going to get a single dollar of Social Security? Okay. Pam Bradley, who's already collecting Social Security, thinks she will. Few others. Jim, maybe Jim's pretty old. He probably will. How many of you think you're gonna get Social security? I see no student hands up. None of you think you're gonna get Social Security yet you're not, not out on the street. So you just think older people are fleecing you. Lots of heads nodding. This is the most enthusiastic response I've had in all my lectures. Tell me how, how do you solve so you clearly think it's an issue, it's a problem. How do you solve it? It is not that hard, right? You just like lower benefits, raise retirement age, right? You can probably put in Jet GBT and just so, and, and then you just index retirement age and the benefits to how many workers there are stuff, right? Some formula, some that, that would be the technical solution, something like that, right? Yeah. I, I speak as a arts and letters faculty member. Why don't we do that? Is it even an issue in Congress right now? Why not way in the back? Old people don't want their benefits taken away. Our distinguished elder citizens don't want their benefits taken away. Right? So what? It seems like you guys want their benefits taken away. Why is it not an issue? Like what's the political reality? Go ahead, just yell it out. Why? It's just impossible. Right? Those who vote don't wanna see. It changed in the, the number of politicians out there. What would happen if politicians implemented the technical change I just mentioned? What would happen to them? They're out, right? They don't even bring it up. Okay. I just presented you a problem, which is a real problem for you. At least you think it's a problem and I presented you a relatively simple answer and no one is gonna do anything about it. So I want you to be put yourself in 1854. I presume you're all against slavery and you think it's terrible. Tell, tell me how you're gonna solve that problem. What's your policy to solve problem of slavery in 1854? And there is no easy technical solution in the way of life of half. The country depends on it, and they're willing to fight. So how do you solve that problem? You may know what's right or know the outcome you want, but tell me how you're gonna get there. I, because I saw no awareness of that issue in your pre-class posts, could you imagine a problem more difficult? I mean, do you realize right now, what, what would you, what would you say the single most, the single biggest problem facing our country or the nation, or, I'm sorry, the world or what would you say? Just throw, throw some things out. Ai. Okay. All right. Artificial intelligence. What do we do about that? Or biotechnology, what do we do about the climate? If you think that's a problem. I mean, these are not easy to know what to do, right? And whatever your problem is, I guarantee you it dwarfs in comparison to what Lincoln and Douglas faced in 1854. And that's the context in which you need to read the Lincoln Douglas debates. And I'm gonna say something and you're gonna deny it, but I bet I actually think it's true. Most everyone in this room, and if not you, your parents probably would've been in favor of Douglas in 1854 Douglas's position. I'm gonna get in trouble for saying this. We would've brought him to Notre Dame. To be our graduation speaker. And why? Because Douglas is offering the sensible middle position. And here's Douglas's. We'll go through what he says, but this is the context of what he says. You tell me how we're gonna get along as a people. What's your solution? That's a significant number of people in the south, in the Mid-Atlantic, in the west and in the north would agree to, if you wanna use fancy recent terms, what's your overlapping consensus? And Douglas says, I have a proposition for you. And not only do I have a proposition for you, this is what we've done. We've been divided about slavery from the very beginning, from day one. Founders didn't figure out a way to solve this problem. So what did we do in 1820? We compromised. What did we do in 1850? We compromised. What do I, what am I proposing now in 1854 will a compromise. But those compromise have a principle behind them. And what is the principle? The principle is democracy. I mean, don't we have a democracy initiative right now? Isn't that what we're dedicated to? And who's in favor? Who's more in favor of democracy than Stephen Douglas? Because what's his principle? The people want slavery. Let'em have it. The people don't want slavery. They don't have to have it. Let every state and territory judge for itself, okay, you think slavery's wrong, it's fine. Don't vote for it. But they think you are wrong, at least in some parts of the country. Right? This is on page 22, right? If there is one principle dear and more sacred than all others in free government, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free people to form and adopt their own institutions. Or this is page 27 of your readings. The great principle and right of the community is to judge and decide for itself. And one more on page 28, and this is what he would say to you. It's no answer to this argument, the argument he's making about popular sovereignty. It's no answer to this argument to say that slavery is evil and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow a people to decide for themselves whether they desire a main liquor law. Anyone know what that is? Main Liquor law, prohibition, Maine started prohibition, right? You allow them to decide for themselves what kind of common schools they will have, what system of banking they adopt, or whether they will adopt one at all. You allow them to decide for themselves that the relations between husband and wife, parent and child guardian and the ward, in fact, you allow them to decide for themselves all other questions and why not upon this question. When you put a limitation on the right of the people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self-government isn't self-government rule by the people, which means rule by the majority. That's what democracy is, isn't it? Sorry, I skipped ahead. Okay, so he says this is the, Stephen Douglas is the first pro-choice politician. Let the people choose for themselves. Who's to decide whether it's right or wrong? And if we disagree, let every state and territory decide for itself. And you know what the benefit of that is? Know Civil War. Because if I say manifest destiny, does that make any how? F what's the southern border of the United States going to be? What, what? In 1854, do we know where, where it's gonna be? How far south are we gonna go? If you're against slavery, look, we just took Texas. How much further are we gonna go? Or are we gonna take Canada? I mean, every American today thinks if we want it, we can just take it right. Greenland, like we don't know where our borders are gonna be. The country's expanding, and how are we gonna decide? Are we going to like be at the brink of civil war? Every time there's an expansion. So he's saying, America, I'm offering you democracy, and I'm offering a way for peace, right? I can see the video on the jumbotron now. Fighting for democracy. And if you like stability, you like peace. How many of you have been to war? Because war is hell. If you don't want to go to war and you wanna embrace democracy, this is the path. You don't think Notre Dame would've bought that in 1854? Lemme pause. Questions? Thoughts please, sir.

Speaker 2 46:51

Chance you claim that he was kicking the can down the road and passing the buck.

Saving a Worthy Union

1 46:56

Okay. The question was, was he just kicking the can down the road and passing the buck? But he, he would say, well, no. I am giving you a way to resolve every future dispute. People of each, each state and territory will decide for themselves. Right? So here is a procedure which will end all our future disputes. It's the rules of the game. And not only are they good rules, there's the fundamental principle of self-government. He had to present a new process because Nebraska supposedly the question was settled. Right? And it was settled by the Missouri Compromise. Right? So he's destabilizing the status quo, but he's saying. This is the right principle. This is how we should decide these questions. Okay? I don't know if we can do Lincoln in 10 minutes. Probably not, but we should try. Um, how many of you have read Lincoln? Do, do you still have to memorize the Gettysburg address in eighth grade? How many of you might memorize the Gettysburg address in eighth grade? Okay. Fair number of you? Good, right? All Americans I think used to me, at least in the North, memorize the Gettysburg address. I dunno, not sure about the south, right? Used to be an American thing. You did. Okay. You can, Lincoln is worth your attention and study. Uh, a few biographical facts. Um, I dunno if you know anything about Lincoln. You know, he spent some time here in Indiana. he had about. Historians say somewhere between three to nine months of formal education. He, studied, uh, the Bible and Shakespeare. And if you know Shakespeare, you can see all sorts of Shakespearean, uh, references in his speeches. And Euclid extraordinarily carefully. Uh, the PLS students like to think he was, he would've been a PLS major, right? He, I mean, he was really a self-made man came from nothing, was a one turn congressman. he didn't lose, but they sort of had a, a rotated out at the wig party and he, so he did his time in Congress. He was a, a lawyer. He was outta politics. And he comes back into politics in 1854. He is basically a no one. And he comes back into politics in 1854, and he gives this speech and, and according to Lincoln, what he sees, he actually says, Steven Douglas is proposing to the American people. Same thing that the serpent proposed to Eve and Lincoln's goal is to make America worth saving. And the apple is this idea of popular sovereignty. So Lincoln's task, as he understands it, is he has to explain to the American people why this proposal, this offer by Douglas. Is a betrayal. Okay? Now this speech is long and complicated, and if we were to really do it properly, one, we do it in a group of like 15 students and we'd read it carefully and we go through all the different arguments and there are various arguments. Now, Lincoln says some things, uh, people don't, people don't like to hear, right? He says, look, I am whatever about equality. I'm not for political equality, right? I want you at least to keep in mind, this is not a disquisition. He's not writing a dissertation. He's making political arguments that have a political intention to move a people from one place to the next place. And here's where you have to think. What are the arguments you would make if you were trying to save Social security? What is your or reform social security. You only have a certain window in which you can operate. Right. Everyone following me here? And Lincoln points to this, right? He points to popular opinion. The politician can only operate within the realm of acceptable, popular opinion if you actually want to govern. Okay. You have to keep that in mind. You have to keep that in mind with Douglas too. Right? Okay. Anyone wanna try to summarize the key of Lincoln's argument against Douglas? Because Lincoln says Douglas gets popular government. Exactly wrong. Anyone wanna take a stab at it? I didn't see anyone do it in the pre-class. Plus, go ahead. Yeah. He talks about the consent of the government. Talks about the consent of the govern. Yeah. That's part of it. That, um, the masters aren't, slaves aren't giving consent to their masters. Okay. Slaves aren't participating. Slaves haven't given their consent. That's part of it. Good. Let me find the quote. This is on page 10 and 11 of the handout. I'm gonna read part of it. He says, I trust and I understand and truly estimate the right of self-government, my faith in that proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all, which is exclusively his own lies in the foundation of the sense of justice there is within me. Remember that James Madison reading on property Madison says almost the exact same thing in that 1792 essay. Okay. I extend the principle to communities of men as well to individuals because it's politically wise and naturally just. Okay. The doctrine of self-government is right, absolutely. And eternally right, but has no just application as here attempted, or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends on whether the Negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why? In that case, he who is a man may at a may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with them. But if the Negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself when the white man governs himself that is self-government. But when he governs himself and also governs another man that is more than self-government, that is despotism, the Negro is a man. Why? Then my ancient faith teaches me that all men are created equal. And that there can be no moral right in connection with one man making a slave of another. That is a key passage. Anyone want to try to articulate it? What's he saying? What does Douglas get wrong? Douglas's premise is the country's made for white people. True. That's correct. That's But if, but if the slaves were given the vote and then the white majority voted for slavery, would it then be legal or just, is it simply that the slaves haven't participated? Lincoln would say that would be unjust too. Right? It's not just a matter of participation. It is not just that the slaves haven't consented and had the chance to voice their opposition to their own enslavement. Let's go back to the beginning of class. What is the nat? What is the right of natural liberty? It's the right to do what? To direct your own lives. Life trajectory. Our own life within natural law, within the bounds of the natural moral law. What is the right of a people acting as a community? The right of the people is to govern their own lives of community through law, through laws. Subject to what? Subject to the natural moral law. Why do the, why does a majority. Why should a majority rule? Why does a majority get to rule? What's the foundation of Majority Rule? It's like the argument, it's the advantage of the strawberry. That's Douglas's argument, isn't it? It's the argument of their smic. I, but why? Why do we say majorities get to rule, right? If you're about to go out to dinner with five of your friends and no one's paying and right, and I don't know, three of you wanna go to Chipotle and two wanna go to five guys, but you're all committed to going together, where are you gonna go? Well, presumably to Chipotle, but why does everyone get one vote? Because you're all equal. The foundation and majority rule is equality because we're all equal. Now, where do we get equality from? Where does our equality come from? Are we equal? Because we said we were equal? It's, it's endowed to us by in, endowed by our creator that all men are created equal equality. Human equality is the foundation of rule by the majority, but that means there are some things majorities can't do. Legitimately, just like an individual in their natural liberty cannot violate legitimately the rights of others. The natural moral law, what Lincoln is saying, actually majority rule is not our foundational principle. What is our foundational principle? All men are created equal, and this is the problem with Steven Douglas. Gimme two more minutes. He would destroy our attachment to the Declaration of Independence that he would, he would destroy the moral foundation of the country. I right. He says this, Lincoln says this at the beginning and at the end, and let, just for the sake of time, let me go on again. You can find these slides online. Our Republican robe is so this is at the end. Towards the end, our Republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us re purify. Let us turn and wash it white in the spirit, if not the blood of the revolution. Let us turn slavery from the claims of a moral right back upon to its existing legal rights, the arguments of necessity. Now, why would Lincoln say this? Lincoln believed if the country. Stayed true to the principle that all men are created equal, that would necessarily put slavery on the course, what he said over and over on the road to ultimate extinction. But the American people had to believe it was morally wrong. That is slavery was morally wrong. Look at the very end. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the union, but we shall have. So saved it as to make and keep it for wor, forever worthy of the saving. Douglas promises you peace Lincoln says, but it's premised on injustice. Our aim is not simply to save the union, but to make it worthy of saving. And that raises the question, what is the fund? What is it we are saving? What is the fundamental principle of the union? And what's Lincoln's answer? All men black as well as white are created equal. Okay. Thanks for letting me go over Mendoza 2 0 3. If you wanna keep on talking.