A Nation Under God?

"Abraham Lincoln" delivering the Gettysburg Address

   Yesterday I had the opportunity of travelling to Gettysburg, PA to attend ceremonies commemorating the 150^th anniversary of the Abraham Lincoln's famous "Gettysburg Address." The event was held in the Soldiers' National Cemetery on part of the battlefield not far from the spot where President Lincoln delivered his original address on November 19, 1863. Thousands were in attendance yesterday, most of us standing through the 1-1/2 hour event. A variety of politicians delivered brief remarks with major speeches by the noted historian James McPherson and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. A reenactor portraying Lincoln read the Gettysburg Address. The U.S. Marine Band played an instrumental arrangement of the old psalm tune "One Hundredth" (which had been played at the original occasion in 1863), and a male vocalist gave a solo rendition of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." Toward the end of the program U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia the oath of allegiance to sixteen immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship.
    Back in 1863 President Lincoln faced a daunting challenge. He had been asked to "formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few appropriate remarks." Lincoln was to follow the principle speaker for the occasion, the renowned orator Edward Everett. Lincoln's task might seem simple enough, until the broader context is taken into consideration. For this was no ordinary dedication ceremony. The cemetery contains the bodies of thousands of union war casualties who had lost their lives in one of the most horrific bloodbaths in American history. Only 4-1/2 months earlier Union and Confederate armies had clashed over three days, leaving 51,000 men killed, wounded, or missing in action. The Union dead were still being transferred from shallow graves to their permanent resting places in the cemetery. The President was faced with the unenviable task of explaining to the grieving nation why the slaughter, for which many held him personally accountable, was necessary. (One of the casualties happened to be my great-grandmother's first husband, who was killed on the second day of the battle. They had only been married a year, and my great-grandmother was a Civil War widow at the age of 20!) Lincoln had to find a moral justification for the war, and he had to do it in just "a few appropriate remarks."
    In a statement that contained only 272 words and only took two minutes or so to deliver, (Everett had spoken for nearly two hours) the President reminded the nation of its founding principles. Echoing the Declaration of Independence he stated that we were a nation that was "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." The Civil War was a test of whether such a nation could survive. He mentioned the soldiers who had given "the last full measure of devotion," and then challenged the audience to dedicate themselves – to dedicate themselves to completing the unfinished task, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
    Interestingly the phrase "under God" was not in Lincoln's original manuscript. He apparently decided to add it later, possibly after conferring with Secretary of State William H. Seward the night before. Seward, it will be remembered, had caused a stir with his "Higher Law" speech of 1850. Originally the stated purpose of the war was to preserve the Union. But since the Emancipation Proclamation, which had gone into effect at the beginning of the year, the war had taken on a higher purpose, the abolition of slavery. But how could one justify overturning an established institution? Lincoln returned to the Abolitionist arguments of the 1850's. But whatever the source of inspiration, the question remains, are we, as a nation, "under God"? Did Lincoln overstate the case?
    According to Lincoln, the foundational principle of American democracy was idea that "all men are created equal." But what makes us "equal"? Many white Americans at the time were not prepared to accept blacks as their equals. The way it is stated in the Declaration of Independence is that "all men are created equal," and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In other words, in the final analysis all human beings are equal because God created us that way. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27; NKJV ). "And He [i.e., God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth . . ." (Acts 17:26). But once we accept the idea of Darwinian evolution, the case for racial equality, and by extension American democracy, collapses. It is ludicrous to suppose that different racial strains which are evolving independently of each other are equally adapted to some imaginary universal ideal prototype. They are just plain different from each other, and some are likely less "fit" than the rest. In a word, get rid of God and you get rid of our distinctive shared humanity and any concept of universal human rights. In the law of the jungle it is the survival of the fittest. To the victor go the spoils!
    So are we a nation "under God"?

See also:
The Higher Law 
One Nation Under God 

One Nation under God

    Today, of course, is Independence Day here in the U.S., the anniversary of the day in 1776 when the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. The past three days have also been historically significant: they marked the 150^th anniversary of the epochal Battle of Gettysburg, the largest battle ever fought in the Western Hemisphere and the turning point in the long and bloody Civil War.
   

 Later that Fall in 1863 President Abraham Lincoln would come to Gettysburg to dedicate the cemetery there and deliver what is probably his most memorable speech. Lincoln began by referring back to the Declaration adopted "four score and seven years" before, and pointed out that the nation was "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." He went on to say that the Civil War was a test of whether "any nation so conceived, and so dedicated can long endure." He noted the sacrifices of the brave men who "gave the last full measure of devotion," and then concluded by challenging those who remained alive to ensure "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
    What did Lincoln mean by the phrase "under God"? Was it a mere rhetorical flourish? Possibly. Lincoln was increasingly prone to embellish his speeches with religious language as the war became a moral crusade to end slavery. But in a speech noted for its brevity and succinctness we can well imagine that Lincoln chose his words carefully. And whether he intended so or not, his words convey an important truth.
    Can a government of the people, by the people, and for the people long endure? That was the question of the hour. If it is true, as Jefferson averred in the Declaration, that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish" their government, then how can such a government exercise any real authority? How can it even long maintain its own existence? This was, in fact, exactly the question posed by the secession of the southern states from the Union.
    Conversely, if the Union is indissoluble, what is the prevent the majority from running roughshod over the rights of the minority? That was the very real fear felt by many Southerners at the time.
    The answer to this dilemma is found in the phrase "under God." All of us as human beings are bound by a higher law – we answer to a higher Authority than any human government. That higher Authority both gives a human government its moral right to govern, and yet limits that right at the same time. And political freedom is possible only where the people exercise self-restraint, and are willing to obey laws as a matter of conscience. Where there is no fear of God the firing squad will have to suffice to maintain order. At the same time the government itself is accountable to God for its actions, and must never be permitted to trespass certain limits.
    As George Washington put it in his Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
    And yet subvert the pillars of human happiness is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court has done. Over the course of the last fifty years the Court has systematically removed morality as the ultimate foundation of law. First abortion, and now homosexuality, have received the endorsement of the Court. Our family structure has already collapsed. It remains to be seen what lies ahead. But if history is any guide we can expect to enter a period of social chaos followed by the introduction of an authoritarian regime.
    Thus came to a tragic end the greatest republic in the history of mankind.


To see last year's Fourth of July blog post, click here.