“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Lincoln argued of the “rock” upon which American democracy rests (pg. 21). Speaking of the same democratic “rock” from a more abstract, dynamic and volatile perspective, Ralph Ellison stated, “it is in the name of these same principles that we ceaselessly contend, affirming our ideals even as we do them violence” (pg. 17).

The “rock” is the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Lincoln has strategically built his argument on religious symbolism. Lincoln sought to tie the stability and perpetuity of Christianity to American democracy. These documents are the foundation of American liberty and government according to both Lincoln (pg. 21) and Ellison (pg. 17). Conversely, these documents are also the source of tension and conflict in American society.

Lincoln himself captures the paradox of stability and turmoil in his summation of rights afforded by the Constitution. Lincoln asserts that the Constitution is so explicit in its enumeration of rights that “controversies never arise” (pg. 288). Yet, in the same breath, Lincoln goes on to say that, “no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration” (pg. 289).

Lincoln’s apparent contradiction was a reflection of the contrast between the unrealized idealism of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the present day political reality he faced. An emerging America was still growing into the collective ideals promulgated by the documents of the Revolution. Rather than acknowledge the unrealized principles in the journey and evolution of American democracy, many of Lincoln’s day sought to justify and rationalize their current philosophies through inventive interpretations of the Constitution. Though the policies of Lincoln’s day are not longer sources of contention, diverse interpretations of Constitution still lead to tension and conflict today. The pluralistic nature of our society will always have as its byproduct tension and Constitutional conflict.

The perpetuation of American democratic institutions, Lincoln argued, is based on the willingness of society address grievances and requests of government through the legally designated channels. Lincoln believed this so strongly that he declared, “continue to execute all the express provisions of our national constitution, and the union will endure forever – it being impossible to destroy it” (pg. 286).

Ideally, Lincoln’s statement would be correct. During Lincoln’s day three different interpretations of the Constitution existed. The divergent lenses arose out of issues of slavery and equality.

The first interpretation is the literal, forward looking vision yet unrealized. Lincoln was among the few that acknowledged its existence. Speaking the claim of universal equality proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence (though this analysis of forward looking equality could just as well be applied to the Constitution) Lincoln stated that, “…it was placed in the Declaration…for future use. It’s authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism” (pg. 121). Though Lincoln’s comments seem to be in reference to potential regression of the evolution of democracy, it could be argued from our modern perspective that the institution of slavery itself was despotic. It could then be reasoned that universal equality would pose itself, through the “rock”, as a “stumbling block” to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery.

The second view is that the “stumbling block” had been partially overcome. This position was held by many of the Republicans of Lincoln’s day. Though advocates of abolition, they were hardly in favor of sharing social and political equality with African Americans. They maintained a fear of a social amalgamation with African Americans. Lincoln himself advocated colonizing ex-slaves to their “native clime” (pg. 121). He openly advanced the interpretation that slaves fell under the umbrella of universal equality. However, Lincoln also believed “[The founders] did not intend all men equal in all respects” (pg. 120).

The third interpretation contends that universal equality was never intended to include slaves. This was the position of the Dred Scott decision (a decision incidentally authored by a Southerner). Lincoln argued that the intention of this argument was to preserve the viability and advancement of the institution of slavery (pg. 134). Advocates of the third rock supported the continued slave trade within the United States, but opposed reopening the market to the importation of slaves. When debating Stephen Douglas, Lincoln blasts the inconsistency of this argument. If the slave issue is to be approached by analyzing it in terms of property rights, as Douglas had proposed, then banning the importation of slaves is illogical. Economically, it would be cheaper to expand the supply of slaves through importation, argues Lincoln (pg. 138). Lincoln was calling on the advocates of slavery to take one consistent position or another. He viewed them as strategically vacillating between civil rights and property rights in their position. He would later in his career use this same tactic challenging slavery advocates to take a definite position.

Lincoln’s allusion of American institutional stability in the 19th century to Christianity offers some intriguing parallels. Both have one set of source documents, or holy writ, intended to perpetuate the institutions indefinitely. In both instances divergent interpretations of the source documents lead to institutional fragmentation and violence.

These different interpretations of the Constitution placed Lincoln in a precarious situation upon his inauguration. He promised to execute and defend the Constitution as well as preserve the Union (pg. 287). These two promises may or may not be compatible, depending upon which constitutional perspective taken. Those who looked upon slavery as a property rights issue would certainly have considered Lincoln’s position on slavery as inconsistent with the Constitution.

Lincoln realized that the inconsistency between the principle of equality and the institution of slavery. One had to be chosen, but both could not continue together simultaneously. Lincoln again utilizes the theme of American institutions as Christianity when he references the biblical passage on religious unity. Lincoln quoted, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (pg. 131, Matthew 12:25).

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln seems to be challenging the south to confront the ideological inconsistency of slavery. In political maneuvering reminiscent of the Lincoln-Douglas debates he calls for the south to take a firm ideological position. He promises that the conflict over slavery will not become violent, but then qualifies that statement by promising that the government will not initiate violence (pg. 287). This is a tactful maneuver. It indicates Lincoln’s preference for diplomacy to resolve the matter, but also his total commitment to his position if provoked by violence. In returning to the “House Divided” speech we see that Lincoln believes that the matter will be resolved peacefully (pg. 131). Once again, the political reality is much different than Lincoln’s ideas. Lincoln continuously cites the sanctity of inheriting the blessings of the Revolution in arguing for diplomacy. However, these same sentiments are the driving force of those who will secede! They believe that their democratic inheritance is being squandered and therefore violent reaction is only in defense of liberty!

If one combines the constitutional perspective of the south with the criteria Lincoln gives at his inauguration for a justified revolution succession is logical. “If…a majority should deprive a minority of any…constitutional right...it might…justify revolution – certainly would if such rights were a vital one” (pg. 288).

Lincoln reiterates his unwillingness to be pressured by potential military insurrection. “If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or government must cease…the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible” (pg. 289).

Lincoln continued his challenge to the south by absolving himself personally of potential conflict. He tells the citizens he has sworn to keep the Union together, and will at all costs, while they have sworn nothing in regards to taking it apart (pg. 239).

Lincoln had the difficult challenge of persevering the Union while ridding it of the irreconcilable ideology of slavery. He effectively did this by calling upon slavery advocates to take a firm position- a position he knew could not be held. Lincoln had hoped for peaceful resolution, but it appears that he may have doubted its feasibility. Slavery was an issue that had been deferred over the years, unresolved. Lincoln sought to resolve the problem rather than continue to defer it. The first inaugural address is peppered with bold statements. Lincoln created a “political religion” with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence serving as the “rock” and foundation. His concerted frequent use of Christian themes sanctified and galvanized his cause in anticipation of the tremendous buffetings that followed.