abraham lincoln scholar's michael berlin gate, noah feldman and diana shaw talked about the 16 president speeches and what they revealed about his views on the constitution. the national constitution center in philadelphia is the host of this event. of abraham lincoln, and the two volume abraham lincoln, a life. as well as his new book which he will be discussing tonight, the black man's president abraham lincoln, african

americans, and the pursuit of racial equality. noah feldman is the chair of society fellows and founding director of the jewelers illiterate program on jewish israeli law at harvard university. he's the author of nine books, including three lives of james madison, genius president, and the latest book which we will be discussing tonight. the broken constitution, lincoln, slavery in the re-founding of america. diana shaub is a professor you leila university. and a fellow at the university -- she is the author of several books, including what so proudly we hail the american soul and story speech and song. her new book is, his greatest speeches. how lincoln move the nation. welcome noah feldman and diana

schaub. michael burlingame let us begin with you. tell our friends why you argue in your new book that lincoln was the black man's president. you have several speeches of frederick douglass that you begin with, including in 1865, the eulogy on lincoln. he said no class of people has a better reason for lamenting the death of lincoln then have the colored people. what is the significance of that speech? why do you hold that lincoln was the black man's president? >> thank you very much for your kind introduction. thank you very much for inviting me. i feel a little out of place because the central theme of my book is, let's not focus on lincoln's speeches writings and the like, let's focus on lincoln's interactions with black people both in lincoln and washington. the title of the book comes from a eulogy from frederick douglass from june 1st in 1865 from cooper's union. the premier cited the country to give a major speech. it was covered widely in the new york press. it has been on

accountability ignored by historians in anthropologist of douglas's speeches. in this remarkable speech he says that abraham lincoln was pre eminently the white man's president. the first president to bow the prejudices of his time and the country. to invite me a black man to the white house. by that gesture abraham lincoln was saying he is the president of the black man as well as the white man, i mean to honor their rights as men and citizens. it is a striking contrast to the speech that is very well-known -- commented on regularly which is a speech he gave 11 years later at the dedication of a statue of the emancipation memorial in washington. he said that abraham lincoln was pretty eminently the white man's president. i remember when i first encountered that speech in the douglass papers and manuscripts. i was astounded! surely i would have seen this speech in the fine volume

addition of douglas's speech is that the yell press published, or the for volume study that philip foner had -- i went back to the sources in those was not included it got me thinking about lincoln and race in general and then kate--. very fine and published an article recently on the white house reception and black peoples perception of white house perceptions my 2000-page biography had a little bit to say about that but i thought, jeepers, how did i miss so much of this get information that she has on earth? i decided to plunge deeper into that subject which led me deeper and deeper into lincoln's interactions with black people back in springfield and in washington. lots of people know about lincoln's interaction with frederick douglass, because

douglas would describe them in his autobiographies to some detail, little have been down about lincoln's interaction with other black people. thanks to the enormous utility of modern word searchable newspaper databases, i was able to dig up a lot of information. everything in print needs to be updated thanks to these databases! thanks -- what i found was both in springfield and in washington, lincoln interacted with a large number of black people. all of whom commented on how respectful he was. how kind and generous, it wasn't just courtesy. it was gestures, and actions, based on appeals that they made. it indicates to my way of thinking that lincoln was and instinctive racial egalitarian. >> fascinating, thank you so much for that. thank you for calling our attention to the

tremendous significance of digitize primary text. it has indeed transformed historic resort and indeed aren't standing of lincoln. well noah feldman, you argue so powerfully in your book that the original constitution of 1787 was broken. as you put it in the new york times, lincoln fatally injured the constitution of 1787. he constantly and willingly violated elements in the court institution not nearly understood by most americans in that time. by those actions he effectively broke the constitution of 1787, paving the way for something very different to replace it. tell us more about your thesis in the broken constitution. >> thank you jeff, it is an honor to be here with these distinguished scholars. i am a constitution person rather than a lincoln person, i came to this from the constitution itself. among us who work on the founding in 1787, for the most part, there may be one or two exceptions, commonly accepted the constitution was a compromise document where one of the central compromises was

the compromise over slavery. we have the three fifth compromise, famously. the guarantee that the international slave trade remain for at least 20 years. we also have the fugitive slave cause. requiring the states that did not recognize slavery on their own to acknowledge and then recognize slavery in itself. that is the setting for the way the constitution functions from that time up until the civil war. there were moments when the constitutional compromised seemed near breaking but congress, for the most part, managed to re-inscribed that compromise with new reiterations. the missouri compromise being the most famous example of this. lincoln very much supported that structure of compromise throughout his political career. because we are mentioning speeches of lincoln, i will mention in this context, that diana has written very extensively. diana's -- the -- in springfield of 1838. lincoln

was actively defending the constitution, lincoln statement there that we should be aware of people like alexander the great or ceasar, or like napoleon who in their seeking of greatness would be willing to enslaved freeman, or to free and slave people. that is an act that would be extraordinary and outside of the bounds of constitutional norms, which be wrongful. he would be clearly against this! that is because the constitution and that then existed legally mandated the continued existence of slavery in those states that chose to have slavery. that's lincoln's view. once he becomes president he confronts the reality that there have been succession by at least 7 states. he has to decide what to do about that. of course that secession is a fundamental breaking of the constitution. lincoln responded by himself breaking the constitution which i argue in three ways. i will mention each very briefly. the first is sort

of surprising. we don't necessarily think of it is breaking the constitution. the decision to go to war unilaterally. to obligate the succeeding states to return to the union not under a -- authority of the president or the whole government. the buchanan administration and the attorney general embraced by buchanan in his address, although secession was revolution the president, congress, no part of the federal government had no authority to force the states back into the union. nothing in the constitution explicitly authorized. it also the principle of consent of the govern. the southerners in those states had chosen to no longer give their consent to be governed. it violated that right to courts and back in. lincoln unilaterally, eventually with the support of congress, took up arms to force them back in. the second was the suspension of habeas corpus. the right that says if the government grab what we have to appear in court, give a reason, put you on trial, if

you are not convicted let you go. lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus early in the war. he kept that suspension in place even after the supreme court, via the chief justice, or at least the supreme court justice raja tani reggie to decision saying this with unconstitutional. only congress has the ability to suspend--. that is still the view of almost all constitutional scholars. the supreme court after the wall also repudiated the world that without a suspension by congress that martial law could be applied within the united states, or no war was going on. lincoln did, that he did it extensively. he imprisoned between 15 and 40,000 people, there is a lot of debate of how many, over the course of the war without trial and without the opportunity to appear in court. this is the largest suppression of free expression in american history by a huge margin! last but not least, much more uplifting lincoln also broke the constitution as he understood it when he issued

the emancipation proclamation. formally freeing enslaved people in areas that were under confederate control. lincoln himself when the war began reiterated his commitment to the idea that slavery was constitutionally protected. i think we will talk a little bit tonight about his second inaugural address, the gettysburg address, the two you see when you walk into the lincoln memorial. the enshrinement, lincoln as a god. based on the ian temple. we never hear the first inaugural address. it opens with him saying that he has neither the will nor the inclination or the constitutional power to change slavery, which he says is protected by the constitution. lincoln, overtime, shifted in his view. in my book we spent a lot of detail time trying to show that shift, and he came to believe that it was somehow in his authority as commander in chief at that time to break the guarantee of property rights,

break the fugitive slave clause. quite literally would have said anyone who escapes would have had to be returned to slavery under the conditions of the war, lincoln in the emancipation proclamation said people who would escape would not be returned and become in fact permanently free. that is a morally good breaking on the constitution in my view but a breaking of it, nonetheless. >> thank you so much, for that wonderful summary of your book and for calling our attention to the first inaugural. diana schaub, i'm going to do something which may or may not work, which is to screen share. because it's a wonderful to have the text in front of us. did that work? for the address? i think that everyone can see it, unless anyone objects. your project is so inspiring to really do close readings of the light see him address and the address in the second inaugural. there's so much here, we can't parse the whole thing but the thing that you mention about the rule of law and

reason impassioned jumps out. but there may be other aspects of it that you want to call our attention to. so, tell us about how we should read the lyceum address. >> maybe i can, for a minute, just say something about the overall thesis of the book. and then turn to the lies he. so, yeah, the book, holding it here. we've got books, out we should show them. is a close reading, i believe in close and careful reading, of three lincoln speeches. first, the lie see him address, the speech he gave as a young man. and then the two most famous presidential addresses. the lyceum address in the second inaugural. actually, when i'm struck by is how often lincoln anchored his speeches in dates, insignificant dates. so, the lyceum address begins with the constitution and the

date of 1787. the gettysburg address, as everyone knows, four score and seven years ago but, takes us to 70 76. the declaration of independence, that's what the lyceum address is anchored in. and then the second inaugural, i don't think this has maybe been noted enough, but it is actually anchored in 1619. if you do the math, the reference to 250 years of the slaves unrequited toil, that takes you to 1615. he's of course rounding the number off. so, lincoln is aware of the origin date of slavery on the american continent. so, i argue that lincoln really tells the story of america and helps us understand america through

these three significant dates, those two texts and the relationship between those texts and slavery in the united states. so, i think the second inaugural really deserves to be known as the original and actually better 1619 project. so, but to go to the lyceum address, the speech that he gives as a very young man. i think it's a remarkable address, it's a diagnosis of the dangers that lincoln sees abroad in the land at the time. and a more general diagnosis of the problems that democracy is always prone to. so, one of lincoln's notes is the growing prevalence of mob rule throughout the nation. so, there's this breakdown of law and order. this breakdown is, triggered he is not talking about looting and rioting. he's talking about vigilante justice, acts of vigilantism. so, these

vigilantes are driven by their passion for justice, but they are running roughshod over the due process and rule of law. so, lincoln highlights this danger, he gives this diagnosis and then he proposes a solution. and his solution is reverence for the constitution and laws. so, his recommendation is law abidingness and not simply law-abiding-ness, but a particular attitude in which one obey the laws. this attitude of reverence. so, that's his diagnosis of the present danger. but the second half of the speech is not about the present danger, but about future dangers. this is where lincoln's analysis of passion

is really developed. here he goes back to a famous distinction that the ancient political philosophers always used, the distinction between the few and the many. so lincoln says, what happens if a person of the founding type springs up after the founding? what is that person going to do, what outlet for their vast ambition will be available? this is where he gives for his warning against the alexanders the caesars and the napoleons, those who won't be content to be the 41st or the 42nd or the 43rd president of the united states. they're not content to be a custodian in the house of the fathers. this ambition is presented as morally neutral. if there are good avenues to pursue, like the freeing of the slaves, that might be done. if the avenues of the good have already been trod, they will set boldly forth enslaving free men. so, there's this problem

of inordinate ambition and there's also a problem on the part of the many. and that is these negative passions of human nature. jealousy, envy, hatred, revenge. lincoln says at the time of the founding, those passions were able to be harnessed toward good ends. you could hate the british and achieve liberty for yourself. but now and in the future, those passions will be dangerous. ao, his denunciation of passion is very strong. passion may have helped us by can do so no more. in the future, passion will be our enemy. i think it is significant to note, though, that lincoln always means by passion the negative passions. so, for instance, he doesn't mean bonds of affection, he doesn't mean friendship. you can look at, actually, the first inaugural, which also says passion is the problem. think of that last paragraph,

you know, passion may have strained the bounds of affection, but we don't want it to separate us. so, his solution then for this future danger is reason. he's got a double diagnosis. mob rule, the present danger. future danger, this problem of the passions, and then a double solution. the solution to the problem of mob rule is reverence for the constitution and laws. the solution to these dangers ahead of inordinate ambition and runaway passion is reason. i should probably stop there, but i try to explain how these two solutions could perhaps fit together. how can you recommend both reverence and reason. >> that was wonderful! thank you so much for that, and it's so fascinating to read it closely with you. and you've helped me understand how deep that classical influence was.

because these vices of hate and avarice, and envy are indeed the classical ones. he talks about the ruling passion, which is from cicero and aristotle, it's always negative. and reason has to constrain it. and that we see, as you say, the ambition manifested by caesar and alexander are negative examples. so, thank you. i wasn't sure whether the screen sharing would work, but you always learn so much when you read closely, and thanks for inspiring us to do that. now, for this next round, we're going to use the gettysburg address as a jumping off point but i don't want to constrain us to close reading. but it is the anniversary in november, of the address, and it would be wonderful to hear all of your thoughts on it. so as i call it up, michael, how does the gettysburg address fit into your thesis that lincoln was the black man's president, and what do you want to tell us

about the gettysburg address? sorry, i think you're muted. >> it's been argued by some, including fine commentators, that it's striking that the gettysburg address doesn't say anything about slavery. the word slave, slavery doesn't appear. but it appears clear to me that the new birth of freedom that lincoln refers to in the gettysburg address is a direct allusion to emancipation and, presumably, beyond that, of first class citizenship. so, even though the address doesn't have a great deal to say about race and the like, but the implication of a new birth of freedom does seem to herald not just the complete emancipation extended not just to the confederate states but throughout the country, which happens with the 13th amendment,

but also by implication of the 14th amendment in the 15th amendment, establishing civil rights for blacks and voting rights for blacks, is implicit in that notion of a new birth of freedom. lincoln's support for black voting rights, for example, which wasn't articulated publicly until i his last public address, which of course he didn't know it is going to be his last public address, on april 11th, 1865, in which he, called for the first-time, for blacks voting rights, at least limited black voting rights. that is to say, those who had served in the armed forces and those who are very intelligent, by which we assume he meant literate. now, he had privately recommended that to the governor of louisiana, which was the model

in lincoln's mind for reconstruction, what can the north expect the south to do to rehabilitate itself politically, after the war? and louisiana, he had worked very hard to get something like black civil rights or voting rights included, working behind the scenes. and then he writes a letter upon having been visited by two black gentleman from new orleans bearing a petition signed by roughly 1000 men in new orleans who said, look, we are literate, we are property owners, we are taxpayers and we would like the right to vote. and lincoln tells them, well, under our constitution, the eligibility requirements for voting or established by states and not the federal government. so, i'm very sympathetic but you really have to get this constitutional convention, which is about to meet in louisiana, to agree to do that. and so, he says that to these gentlemen, but then he takes it a step further. he writes a letter to the governor, newly elected governor of louisiana, saying, i suggested in the ew

constitution that is going to be drawn up, you include voting rights at least for the veterans of the union army and the very intelligent. and the fact that lincoln then, as part of this new birth of freedom, publicly announces that, two days after robert e. lee surrenders, is noteworthy because it means he is shifting away from a rather moderate position on reconstruction to a much more radical position. and frederick douglass said that i was in that audience that day, april 11th, 1865, and i was disappointed in the scope of the recommendation for black voting rights, because it was so limited, just to the veterans of the armed forces and the very intelligent. but we should've recognized, and many of my abolitionist friends were also disappointed, but we should recognize that that was an extremely important speech, because abraham lincoln learned

his statesmanship in the school of rail splitting. to split a rail, you take a wedge. you insert the thin edge of the wedge into the log and you drive a home with a big hammer, a maul. we should've known that, once abraham lincoln inserted the thin edge of the wedge publicly, that you could count on him to drive home the thick end of the wedge. there was one gentleman in the audience who did appreciated significance, and that was john works booth. and he said that means and word citizenship, that's the last speech he's going to, gave i'm going to run it through. three days, later murdered lincoln. not because of the emancipation proclamation, which is here a mai tai. and not because he supported the 13th amendment, but because he called for black voting rights. therefore, i think it's appropriate for us in the 21st century to regard lincoln as a martyr to black civil rights, as much as martin luther king or medgar evers or any of those other people who are murdered in the 1960s that they champion the civil rights revolution of that time. >> thank you very much, indeed, for that. noah feldman, you write that the use of biblical imagery in the gettysburg address marked a big change for

lincoln, who is a non religious rationalist. and he cannot describe the aims of the war and constitution in new, moralized terms. you very provocatively argued that the idea of new birth and teaching of rebirth in christ. tell us about the fascinating reading of the gettysburg address, and what else you want our friends to learn about the gettysburg address. and you can introduce any other speeches that you think are important to help us understand the thesis of your book. >> thanks, jeff. let me start by saying that plenty of people have looked at the gettysburg address and seen classical greek overtones, and those are unquestionably there. gary wells famously drew attention to those, very actively to this. the speech is also suffused with biblical language and a biblical ideal of

morality. it's the beginning, in my view, of lincoln articulating his own moral vision of the entire history of the united states. in the second inaugural address, which maybe we will come to in our next round of conversation, he is most explicit about doing that. in my view he's starting to do that in the gettysburg address. the three score and to the americans of the 19 seven is self consciously century, almost all of whom double sizing, it's biblical. were protestants, biblical language meant general morality. 19th century americans believed that reality was derivative of the bible. they were, as i said, heavily protestant, and protestant said that you should read the bible and through the bible you would get access directly to morality. lincoln could not interpret the united states in these moral terms, or the constitution in these moral terms. so long of the constitution and try and slavery, which he knew to be a moral wrong. so, up into the emancipation proclamation he was committed to the constitution under the rule of law principles that dana was talking about. but that means he was committed to a compromise that included a compromise with a morality, and that put him in a contradictory situation. after emancipation, he was now able to describe the constitution has fundamentally moral. so, when he said that the country was not only conceived in liberty but

dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, he could not have said that about the constitution until he broke the constitution. because the constitution wasn't dedicated to that proposition, because the constitution enshrined slavery. once emancipation was an established fact by lincoln, he could reconceptualize the country in these terms. this is where the new birth of freedom part comes in. i've talked about this with peter wagner, who i think is in the audience, one of the early readers of my book. new birth is a very resonant phrase for 19th century american protestant christians, all of whom, i think, would've recognized immediately the idea of new birth and christ. now, i'm not arguing here that lincoln was making a consciously christian argument. what i'm saying is he was drawing upon a common thread of protestant moral thought, which was derivative of christian ideas, to express a new idea. and the idea here was that, just as the old testament had be superseded by christian liberty in the new testament, so the new birth of freedom

would supersede the slavery present in the original constitution. so that the country would then be reborn, and he flashes out this more fully in the second inaugural address, as a moral country. one that, therefore, could be in proper or fulfillment of the ideals of morality that were present in the original declaration of independence, on likens reading. but we're not president a constitution. that, i think, is the explanation for why lincoln was able to use this kind of religious language, both in the gettysburg address and ultimately in the second inaugural. because he was freed up to do so by emancipation, which ended the and moral qualities of the constitutional compromise and open the possibility of a moral accounting. of course, that was very appropriate at a funeral. what was, after, all in a way, a commemorative funeral oration for people who have died. eventually, in the second inaugural, lincoln would give

specific, sacral meaning to the deaths of the people who died fighting in the civil war. >> thank you very much for that. diana schaub, i'm not even going to call the gettysburg address up because it short and we almost know it by heart. but what should we know that the gettysburg address? >> i just want to maybe begin by saying that i agree with noah, about the presence of the biblical language in the gettysburg address. and of course even more so in the second inaugural. but i don't think that's new. in fact, i think that's present in his rhetoric from the beginning. you see it at the very end of the lyceum address, where he quotes from the bible. the gates of hell should not prevail against. it draws a connection between the only greater institution, the church, and the united states. you see it in the dred scott speech, where he put the united states in the position of pharaoh and the enslaved blacks in the position of the enslaved

hebrew. you see it in the has divided speech. that itself is a biblical phrase, a house divided itself cannot stand. i think i've always been present in his rhetoric. maybe just a word about the relationship between lincoln's thinking about the constitution and the declaration. so, i argue that the lyceum address is anchored in the constitution, and i think that lincoln is a dedicated constitutionalist. and, unlike noah, i believe he remains a dedicated constitutionalist. nonetheless, it's true that, as the crisis over the house divided develops, lincoln's attention in the speeches of the 1850s shift from the constitution to the declaration of independence. it's actually beginning in 1852, with the eulogy to henry clay. he begins that speech by saying, on the 4th of july, 1776. in

every one of the great speeches that he delivered throughout the 1850s, he returns to the declaration. i think the reason that he has to do that, in other, words the reason that is textual horizon shifts, is because americans in the 1850s are getting to repudiate. the self evident truths of the declaration. they're doing this in an outright manner, and people like calhoun and his followers who have taken to calling the self evident truth self evident lies. they're also doing it in more evident, weighs more insidiously. folks like stephen douglas and roger b tani. i think, as those repudiate's of the principle of liberty for all become stronger, lincoln has to demonstrate their error. and so, throughout the 18 50s, he appeals to the declaration in speech after speech. not just appeals to, it but gives explication's of the

declaration. what, properly understood, it does mean. it's only by readopt in but that coloration that the challenge posed by slavery and slavery's extension can be met. i've got his decade of reflection on the meaning of it reaches its culmination in the gettysburg address. really, that 30 word sentence with which he begins the gettysburg address. and it's quite remarkable that, post gettysburg, lincoln does not again record of a declaration. it says of his thought about it had achieved its final form. and that's the statement that he wants to remain, and that he wants all americans to memorize. maybe just one other point about the new birth of freedom. i agree that it makes sense to read the new birth of freedom as a

reference to emancipation and the steps that will follow emancipation. but i also believe that, perhaps, the more fundamental meaning of the new birth of freedom is that, if the union is victorious, then the heretical suggestion of secession, that argument that was made for secession, will be refuted. and that refutation itself constitutes a new birth of freedom. another, words that's what's necessary to return to the original meaning of the founding charters. so, i don't know that that's the usual way of reading it, but i think it fits with what lincoln

says about the meaning of the war in other places. where he says, the real meaning of the war is so that americans will have the proper understanding of the relationship between ballots and bullets. once you agree to be bound by ballots, you don't get to have recourse back to bullets. it's basically a lesson in democratic theory. >> thank you, very much. for that. well, our last text is the second inaugural. i'm going to give myself the great pleasure, which i haven't gotten to do as moderator, of reading the famous last sentence. which we all do know, and then i'll ask you to give your thoughts on the speech. his weaker, with malice toward none. with charity for all, with firmness in the right as god gives us to see the right. let us drive on to finish the work we are in. to bind up the nations wounds. take care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan. to do all which may

achieve and share cherish the just and lasting peace among ourselves, in all nations. michael burlingame, what do we know about the second inaugural? >> the second paragraph, of course, is the one that people know best. but frederick douglass, in that remarkable speech i mentioned earlier, the eulogy of june 1st, 1965, is the more remarkable paragraph as one the immediately proceeds. in which lincoln starts off by quoting jesus. low until the world because of defenses, for when it needs to be the defense has come. but well until that man for whom the defenses commit. he goes on to say, if we should suppose that american slavery is one of those offenses, which, in the providence of god, must needs come? as gone there is appointed time, he comes now to move. he goes to both north and south this terrible war, as the

lowdown on to them by whom the offense came. should we discern there in any departure from those divine attributes which the believers and the living god have always described to him? fondly do we hold, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily passed away. but, if god wills that it continue until all the wealth pile by the bondsmen 250 years of unrequited toil should be sunk, and although blood torn by the last should be another torn by the sword, so it must be said i was was said 3000 years ago. the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. and frederick douglass said, this is a truly remarkable notion. that's reveals the depth of lincoln's commitment to racial justice and racial equality. that, to say, on an occasion like the second inaugural address of a president, something to the

effect that god has punish white people for having enslaved black people. end of the war has gone on so long because the scales have to be balanced, there have been 250 years of unrequited toil. a lot of income was generated by that and it has to be an amount of white property equal to the back wages that were denied the slaves, it has to be destroyed. the notion that, for all the blood. we have to, remember this war was incredibly bloody. the total number of deaths was roughly 750,000. on a population base that's one tenth of the population base -- imagine if we lost seven and a half million men in the war against terror, the scope of the bloodshed was extraordinary. for frederick douglass to say, for lincoln to say that, impressed frederick douglass very profoundly. as

well it might. it wouldn't have sounded out of place in the mouth of a presbyterian minister, say, reflecting on the nations ordeal of the war. but for a president to say that, it's truly extraordinary. i think that douglas's understanding of that and how radical it was and how deep it was and how much it reflected his sense of justice and his compassion for blacks, i think is truly remarkable. therefore that paragraph deserves to be more carefully scrutinized than the more famous final paragraph that immediately follows it. >> thank you, for calling our attention to it. and thank you for reading it. noah feldman, the second inaugural? >> i strongly agree with my colleagues emphasis on that paragraph. i would say that that paragraph amounts to what we would call the political

theology of the united states. a political theology is the use of religious ideas, distinctively religious ideals, to explain political events and give the meaning. i think that what lincoln is doing here is offering a version, i wouldn't call it secularized because god is in it, but a version of the united states that is heavily dependent on protestant christian ideas about liberation forums. so, in this picture, slavery is the original sin that lincoln describes. which is an offense, but it's an inevitable offense, something that had to happen. much as originals and have seen an early protestant theology has an inevitable reality that was, nevertheless, fundamentally evil and sinful. the only thing that can cleanse original sin is the sacrifice of christ, through his blood. and here, the blood of the civil war dead is used by lincoln as a substitute for

christ's blood. it's passionate, it's a technical, sense it's christ passion or suffering that forgives original sin. and that's what's going on here. the blood of the civil war dead were themselves martyrs, it's being used theologically to cleanse the united states of the original sin of slavery. and what emerges from this is a new world where it is possible to view the entire picture as, in some sense, righteous in the eyes of god. because it is a judgment. because there has been sin, and the sin has been purged. i think it's, true, as michael mentioned earlier, that since he himself was assassinated he came to function in our theology as devised, as a martyr of the process of emancipation and liberation. then, because of the failure of reconstruction

and the imposition of segregation and disenfranchisement of black people, it was necessary for the civil rights movement to come around and bring about a further redemption of the constitutional guarantee of freedom. here, it was martin luther king junior who played that central role. it's not an accident that is most famous speech took place in front of the lincoln memorial. and then he too was assassinated, becoming a further martyr of this political theology of the constitution. in which a price is being paid, a price of blood and sacrifice is being paid, to try and cleanse us of the sins of slavery and of racism. so, that is a political theology that i think is still with us and deepened and made even more powerful by the civil rights movement and by martin luther king's own martyrdom and sacrifice. that's why we have a martin luther king day today, as well. it's part of our official or unofficial, both official and unofficial,

american theology. now, i just want to add to that the it might be some listeners who feel troubled by the idea that our political theology is so derivative of christian stories and ideology. after all, we do have an establishment clause in our constitution, a free exercise clause. lots of us would like to believe that we have a separation of church and state, although not everyone agrees that's the way it should formulated. i believe it is a good way to formulate. i think the key to recognize when it comes to making of narratives, narratives are made, including national narratives, by the people making the decisions in the country according to their own more instincts and judgments. at the time that lincoln was speaking the united states was descriptively and practically a christian country. there is very few muslims, very few jews it was overwhelmingly a protestant country. as a consequence we have -- secretary secularized

is so much that we can't even recall and realized the christian images of that so much so that we can't even quite recall or realize the christian origins of these types of christian. cards on the table i'm jewish, i was raised jewish, i am still very committed to the jewish tradition but as an american the idea that this president is the alternative spoke in a more language that most americans of the time held, and that more language was in the sense christian. i don't think that makes it any less capable of being honored, any less capable of being respected, or any less capable of being embraced by americas today. because we are capable of updating and changing our beliefs and of keeping our narratives and making them more increase of over time. and we have to believe that because if we didn't believe that we would have to think not with lincoln, but unlike lincoln, that because of the racism and slavery that existed in our origins, we are doomed forever as a country to be just that same group of people. and i don't think we are so doomed. we are capable of change. we are capable of expansion.

we are capable of movement. we don't always do it we, don't always do it right, we don't always move forward. i thinking said that the arc of the universe tends towards justice. we want that to be true but it is not always in the straight line. we do make mistakes, we do sometimes go backwards. we are capable of going forward. i think that enables us to be more expansive and more open. >> thank you very much, indeed for that close reading. diana schaub, the last word on the second inaugural is to you. >> i think it is great that we read aloud both the fourth paragraph and a substantial part of the third paragraph. i think really the question of the speech is what is the relationship between that third paragraph and that fourth paragraph. his aim is obviously to get to the fourth paragraph, to make that call to act without malice but to charity with all and to set the task

ahead. so i think that the theological interpretation makes possible, it opens up the space for human charity. i don't think i would actually call it a political theology. i think it is real theology with a political purpose. but i think it is important to know that the theological interpretation of the meaning of the civil war is not presented as a certainty. it is presented by lincoln as a supposition. if we shall suppose that, and if god wills, so it is a supposition or hypothesis. and i think that is part of what's protects it from being some kind of crossing of the line between church and state or religion and politics. it also prevents it from being used for purposes of fanaticism. it is clear actually that the theological interpretation is intended to induce humility on the part of human beings. i think that the

message on that third paragraph is very specifically targeted to three different audiences. lincoln is trying to avert the danger of northern arrogance, northern persecution of the south after the war, blaming them as the traitors who started the war, even though they were the traitors that started the war [laughs] though that kind of blame won't be helpful after the war! he is also trying to address the problem of southern recalcitrance. i think by calling it american slavery, not southern slavery, not african slavery, but american slavery, by all americans, all white americans being able to share in that blame, he hopes to do what he can to induce the south to admit the fault. and then i think that last sentence of the third paragraph, the one that frederick douglass always

quoted whenever he referred to lincoln, i think this is true in every reference after the war where frederick douglass made reference to lincoln, he always quoted that divine reparations sentence, the one about the 200 years of unrequited toil every drop of blood withdrawn with a lash being repaid by another from the sword. i think that is repayment being offered to african americans. it is an admission of the nation's guilt. it is at acknowledgment that god was all along on the side of the slave. it is a kind of vision of divine reparations. and the fact that frederick douglass so latched on to that passage, i think, is an indication that he understood what lincoln was doing there with that line.

>> thank you very much, indeed, for that, and thanks you to all of you for this wonderful parsing of these essentially important speeches. so meaningful to learn with all three of you. we have just seven minutes left. our only constitution -- to end on time. i think that is enough time for a question for each of you, and some very brief clothing thoughts. michael asked, how did lincoln react to the seneca falls convention for voting rights for black women as well as white women? was he the friend of black women as well as black men? what other clothing thoughts you have to share with our friends? >> we have no direct illusion

to what lincoln wrote to the senator, wrote about in the senate a fall convention. he was as i argue in my book, he was sort of a proto-feminist. he was opposed to the sexual double standard of a home violating the marriage vows the rice and every white to do so. he does, in one of his speeches, running for reelection to the state legislator say that he believed that all folks who pay taxes should be, or serve in the militia, should be able to vote, not excluding females! sometimes people sneered that. no females pay taxes in those days, but widows certainly did! he also refused to gossip about women. he was famous, all the men were forever telling stories about the lack of virtue of this woman or that woman, but lincoln refused to have anything to do with that. he also as president, was very reluctant to execute or sign the execution orders for any

soldiers who have been sentenced to death by any court martial, unless he had been convicted of rape. then he showed no hesitation in signing that. he took vigilante action, actually, this opponent of vigilantism he actually acted as a vigilante in punishing a wife beater. a fellow in springfield had been beating his wife. lincoln and his friends told him to stop it, he didn't stop it, so they went and hauled him out and gave his wife a belt and said, lay into him. i think lincoln was by temperament a fair minded man who sympathized with the notions of feminism. and then as for black women, during the war a question arose whether widows of black soldiers, the women who had been in effect wives of black soldiers should get a pension even if they hadn't been formally married. lincoln said yes, yes they should be given some! he did sympathize with black women in that particular context. i think in general he was sympathetic to the ideas and ideals that were enunciated at seneca falls. >> thank you very much, indeed

for that. noah feldman, several questions about the constitutional arguments against secession and whether or not lincoln was correct to argue that it was unconstitutional. and your closing thoughts as well? >> thank you. the articles of confederation said that the union was perpetual. the constitution did not say that the union was perpetual, but it did say that it would be more perfect, and perfect in the technical sense, not in that contemporary sense the way that president obama like to use it. perfect in the sense of complete. the argument on lincoln's side was the articles of confederation made the union perpetual and the constitution made that more perfect, it was to be just as perpetual or more perpetual and therefore there was no way out. i think the most honest and sophisticated answer is to say that in any political union that doesn't include a specific inclusion

for withdrawal, if some group of people choose to withdraw and others think they shouldn't withdraw, it is very hard to give an objective answer as to whether they are permitted or not but the effect of it is revolutionary. and remember, to the framers generation there was nothing wrong with being revolutionary. this was also true of lincoln's generation. a revolution was just something that people did. and in fact, lincoln, when he was in his one term of congress gave a speech, he was actually speaking about the mexican american war and he was referring to the texan revolution. he embraced the idea that any group of people no matter where they were at a fundamental right to, as he put it, revolutionize. so i think the best way to put it was it was a revolutionary act. the people debated if it was a legitimate revolution or illegitimate revolution. as from lincoln's perspective as the person who was actually running the country he did not think he had the option of accepting this as a just revolution. the way he described it was to say that congress could decide it if they wanted to but he on his own did not have the authority to say if it was just. he felt

he needed to execute the laws and the laws were not being executed in those states. therefore he felt it was his obligation based on the oath registered in heaven, as he put it in his first inaugural, to go out and do what it took to enforce those laws. i think those who want to argue that secession was somehow legitimate can argue that it was legitimate in that it was an act of revolution anticipated by the political theory of the declaration. on the other side who want to insist it was definitively not legitimate also have something to rely on. that was why there was a war! that is why we fought a war over this. that leaves the question of whether the outcome of the war tells you that one side is right or wrong. that's the might makes right theory of history. it may or may not be true descriptively, it's probably not true morally and

normatively. my concluding thought on all of this is it is amazing to me how much we, as americans, still care about these questions. i think this is why we have a national constitution center. it's why we struggle to get constitutional questions right today. it is because these issues are central to who we are as a people. and that's the best thing you can say about our constitution. it gives us a mechanism for arguing about who we are that is better than fighting. although we did fight on one occasion, we ought not to on the future. the work of the national constitution center is to contribute to our not fighting each other. >> thank you for those kind words ande thank you for contributing so well to that inspiring mission which i know we all share. diana schaub, the last word is to you. our friend colin thibeault says some of lincoln speeches are famous for being very short. was that intentional and does that impact his rhetorical intention on constitutional ideas? your thoughts on his shortness as we close this wonderful program.

>> yes, and i think i don't have much time left to answer this. i will try to be as brief as lincoln. yes, he acquires this gift for brevity and you see it especially in the gettysburg and the second inaugural. i think it is very deliberate on his part. and part of it, especially in the gettysburg address, i think is he hoped it would be memorized by americans. so my suggestion is we all commit both the gettysburg address and the second inaugural to memory. >> what a wonderful challenge, and friends, let's take up diana schaub's challenge, and if you succeed in memorizing either the gettysburg address or the second inaugural then write to me at jayrosen at constitutional center dot org and let me know! i will send you a congratulations. we will let diana, know, and michael know about it. i'm sure they will be as pleased as i am that

this deep, civil, rigorous and learned discussion will have inspired you to commit these sacred words to memory. michael burlingame, noah feldman, and diana schaub, for constitutional conversation in the highest possible tradition, thank you so much! and thank you friends for joining us i'm looking forward to seeing you all again soon. thanks, goodnight.

>> i am pleased to announce a special mini-series of six lectures entitled great presidential lives. this series is particularly attractive for two main reasons. the first being its timeliness. as we