LincolnandtheProblemof“ToweringGenius”

JoeGillis:“You’reNormaDesmond.Youusedtobeinsilentpictures.Youusedto

bebig.”

NormaDesmond:“Iambig.It’sthepicturesthatgotsmall.”

--SunsetBoulevard

Mythemeispoliticalambition.Thisisatopicthathasfallenonhardtimes.i

Thismayseemanodd,evenacounter-intuitive,claim.Theworldisfullof

ambitiouspeople,especiallyyoungmenandwomen,seekingtomakenamesfor

themselves.Theproblemisnotthatwedonothaveambition,butthatwedonot

understanditandbecausewedonotunderstandit,wearelikelytomisidentifyit

whenweseeit.Therearetworeasonsforourmisunderstanding.

Themostobviousmisconceptionistheconfusionofambitionwithwhatthe

psychologistOrvilleGilbertBrimhascalledthe“lookatme”phenomenon.iiSurveys

haveshownthatafullthirtyonepercentofAmericanteenagers–almostathird--

expecttobefamousoneday,thusappearingtosupportAndyWarhol’sprediction

thatinthefutureeveryonewillbefamousforfifteenminutes.Ambitionis

connectedheretoreputationorrecognitionwhetheritismeritedornot,aversion

oftheKardashianphenomenon.DanielBoorstinwasperhapsthefirsttoidentifyto

thedistinctionbetweenaheroicandacelebrityculturewherepeoplearefamousfor

nootherreasonthanthattheyarefamous.iiiYetwhilethedesireforfameand

2

recognitionmaybeinseparablefromambition,theyarenotthesamething.

Ambitiouspeopledesirenotonlytoberecognizedbuttobedeemedworthyof

recognition.

Second,theconceptofambitionisinvariablytiedtorelatednotionsofhonor

anddeference.Todaythesetermshaveanobsoletesound.“Honor,”asPeterBerger

haswritten,“occupiesaboutthesameplaceincontemporaryusageaschastity,”that

is,as“ideologicalleftoversintheconsciousnessofobsoleteclasses,suchasmilitary

officersorethnicgrandmothers.”ivThisisaslight–butonlyaslight–exaggeration.

While“affairsofhonor,”astheyarequaintlycalled,seemtobelongtoadistantand

benightedpast,therearestillorganizationslikethemilitaryandmilitaryacademies

thattakehonorquiteseriously.Manycollegesanduniversitiesstillabidebyan

“honorcode”–Yaleisnotoneofthem--butBergerisrighttonotethatmotivesof

honornolongerhavestandinginAmericancourtsoflawwhereconceptslike“loss

offace”seemincreasinglyarchaic.v

Thereare,ofcourse,goodreasonsforthedeclineorobsolescenceofgrand

ambition.Alloftheseterms–fame,glory,renown–havetraditionallybeen

associatedwitharistocraticsocietieswheretitlesandprivilegesarehandeddown.

Actsofbravery,heroism,andself-abnegationwereoftenlinkedtoaperson’srolein

asocialhierarchy.Thesehierarchiesareinturncomposedofhighlycompetitive

superachievers.Thereiscertainlyazerosumqualitytotermslikehonorand

ambition.Theyarediminishediftheyareshared.Hobbes,whounderstoodthe

3

aristocraticethosofhonorbetterthanmost,sawitasinseparablefromasociety

basedonordersandranks.“Gloryislikehonor,”hewroteinDeCive,“ifallmenhave

it,nomanhathit.”vi

Moreover,thethemeofgreatambitionisinvariablyrelatedtothestudyof

heroesorindividualsofextraordinaryaccomplishment.Thereis,ofcourse,agenre

ofpopularhistoryandbiographythatcelebratestheaccomplishments–forgoodor

bad--ofcertainoutsizedindividuals.viiYetthestudyofheroesseemstohave

somethingold-fashioned,ifnotelitistaboutit.Itistoooftenconnectednotjustwith

heroesbutwithheroworship.Modernhistoryandsocialsciencetendtobe

increasinglyquantitativeanddata-driven,dealingmorewiththeaveragethanwith

outsizedindividuals.Politicalscientistsfocusmostoftheirattentionontracking

thatrestivenobodycalledthe“medianvoter.”Furthermore,wearemoreaptto

explaineventsintermsofgeneralcauses–thinkofthetriadofclass,race,and

gender--ratherthanlooktotheexceptionalqualitiesofcertainrareindividuals.

Whenweturntothestudyofheroes,itismoreoftenwithasubversiveintent..“No

manisaherotohisvalet”theproverbsays.Today,itshouldbeadded,weareall

valets.

TheLoveofFame

Theconceptofambition–andrelatedtermslikeglory,fame,andhonor–

wereonceatthecoreofthestudyofpolitics.Ancientpoliticaltheoryhadarich

4

moralandpsychologicalvocabularyforthestudyofthesephenomena.TheGreek

termthymos–oftentranslatedas“spiritedness”–wasdeemedthecentralpolitical

quality.Theman–andtheywerealwaysmen–whopossessedthisqualitywas

likelytodisplayastrongdesiretoexcel,tobefirstintheraceoflife,afierceloyalty

tofriends,andalongingforimmortalfame.viii

TheoriginalofallworksofthisgenreisHomer’sIliad.Thefirstwordsofthe

epic–“Sing,goddess,theangerofPeleus’sonAchilleus”–suggestthatthereisa

connectionbetweenrageandthedesireforimmortality.Fromthebeginningofthe

story,Achillesknowsthathehasachoicebetweenashortlifebutagloriousoneif

hegoestoTroyoralongundistinguishedlifeifheremainsathomewithhisfamily.

Achilles’choiceoftheformeristheonlychoicebefittingahero.TheIliadisaworld

whoseleadingfigureseat,drink,andliveforfame(kleos).Thewordherooriginally

appliedtotheoffspringofgodswhohadcoupledwithmortals.ixThesefigures

retainedsomeofthedivinelongingforimmortalitythatcanonlybeachieved

throughconflictandwar.Waralonecanconferimmortality,atleastthroughthe

songsandpoemswrittenaboutit.Whatdistinguishesaherois,aboveallelse,the

desireforfame,thatis,whatissaidaboutusafterwearegone.Aperson’skleosis

hisreputation.Itistheclosestthingtoimmortalitythatoneisallowedinthe

Homericuniverse.

Thequestioniswhetherthekindofrageandloveoffameexpressedby

Achillescanbesomehowtransformedortransmutedsothatitcanbeputintothe

5

serviceofthecommunity.Thiswas–verybroadlyspeaking–thetasksetoutby

SocratesinPlato’sRepublicwherethisHomericqualityofthymosisenlistedintothe

preservationanddefenseofthecity.ThecharacterofGlauconwhopossessesthis

qualityinspadesisessentialforthefoundingofSocrates’cityinspeech.Thymosis

turnedintooneofthethreeaspectsofthesoulservingasthemiddletermbetween

reasonandappetite.Thequestionthebookasksiswhetherthymoscanbemadean

allyofreason.Canthethymoticpassionslikeanger,honor,moralindignation,

shame,anddisgustthatareespeciallyheightenedduringtimesofwarbemadeto

servethepublicgood?CantheAchilleanwarriorbetransformedintoa

conscientiouscitizen,loyaltofriendsandfiercetoenemies?Tobesure,thisisa

questionthatPlatoneversucceedsinanswering.x

Theideathatthymoscouldbedomesticatedandturnedintoapublic-minded

guardianofthecityformedthebasisofwhatcouldbecalledthemoralcodeofthe

Greekgentleman(kaloskagathos).xiThiscodewascanonizedinAristotle’s

NicomacheanEthicsinwhichhepresentsalistofqualitiesormoralexcellencesthat

areahalfwaypointbetweenthedemoticvirtuesofthecitizenandtheintellectual

virtuesofthephilosopher.Thepeakofmoralexcellenceisdescribedasgreatnessof

soul(megalopsychia)preciselybecauseitdealswithmattersofpersonalhonor.

Aristotleevendescribesitasthe“crown”(kosmos)ofthevirtuesbecauseitcontains

alltheothervirtuestoasuperlativedegree.Inhispride–hisperpetuallooking

down–theperfectgentlemanhassomethingakintothephilosopherwhois

similarlyawareofhisownexcellence.Thegentlemanconsiders“virtuetoward

6

oneself”asofahigherstatuseventhanjusticeor“virtuetowardothers.”Tobea

personofgreatsoulistobeconcernednotjustwithhonor,butaboveallwithbeing

deservingofhonor,withknowinghowmuchtoclaimforyourself.Likeallthe

virtues,greatnessofsoulisameanbetweentheextremesoftoo-muchandtoo-little.

Apersonclaimingtoolittleforthemselvesismodest(somethingAristotleregarded

asafault)andclaimingtoomuchisvain.Thegreat-souledmanwillknowjusthow

muchhonorishisdue.xii

Aristotlegivesanextraordinarylistofthepsychologicalandevenphysical

characteristicsnecessaryforapersonofgreatsoul.Hemakesclearthatthe

gentleman,unlikethephilosopher,isamanofsomeinheritedwealth,chieflylanded

property,althoughhiswayoflifewillbeurban.xiiiSuchapersonexhibitsalofty

detachmenttothemoreorlesspettythingsthatweighmostofusdown.Heisslow

toact,unlesssomethingofgreatimportanceisatstake.Herepaysfavorswith

interestsoasnottobeunderanyobligationtoothers.Thegentlemanspeakshis

mindwithoutfearorfavorbecausetodissemblewouldbebeneathhim,except

whenhespeaks“withirony”tothevulgar.Hemayoccasionallyhurtothers,but

neveroutofdeliberatecruelty.Inaddition,thegreat-souledmanpossesses

“beautifulbutuselessthings,”suggestingnotonlythepossessionofwealth,buta

cultivatedaestheticsense.Andasifthiswerenotenough,thegentlemanmustbe

tall,walkslowlybecausetohurryisundignified,andspeakinadeepvoice.

7

Aristotle’sidealofthegentlemanremained–andtosomedegreestill

remains–theidealoftheChristianWest.Theheroicethicreceiveditscanonical

expressioningreatethicaltreatisesofGreekandRomanantiquityandina

Christianizedformitbecamethebasisforthefamousmedievalchivalriccodeof

honor.ThiscodewasgivenexpressioninsuchmedievalromancesastheChanson

deRolandandtheSongofElCid.Theseweregreatepicpoems–chansonsdegeste–

storiesofheroicdeedsandwerethefirsttoappearintheWestafterVirgil’sAeneid.

Theseepicsexpressedacodeofhonorthatwouldlatercometobeparodiedinthe

firstgreatnovelofEuropeanliterature,Cervantes’DonQuixote.KarlMarx,whose

skillasaliterarycritichasoftenbeennoted,wrote:“DonQuixotelongagopaidthe

penaltyforwronglyimaginingthatknighterrantrywascompatiblewithall

economicformsofsociety.”xivInotherwords,Marxunderstoodthebooklessasa

satireonthemedievalcodeofchivalrichonorthanasastatementofits

obsolescence,thatideasofchivalryandhonorwereappropriateforcertainkindsof

societywithcertainkindsofeconomicrelations,butthattheseideaswerebeing

maderedundantbyanewkindofsocietythathecalledcapitalistsocietyorthatwe

mightcallmarketsociety.

TheTransformationoftheHonorCode

Thedeclineinthestatusofhonorandambitionisrelatedtofundamental

changesinourmoralandpoliticalvocabularybeginningaroundthesixteenth

century.(Itisarguablethatthecritiqueofambitionactuallygoesbacktoearly

8

Christianity,butthatisaproblemIdonotwishtoaddresshere).xvThesechanges

wereinseparablefromthetransitionfromthemedievalworldbasedonhierarchy,

status,andhonortoanewbourgeoisorcommercialworldbasedonequality,

contract,andinterest.Thistransitionhasbeendescribedinanumberofways.

Marxcalleditthetransitionfromfeudalismtocapitalism;HenryMainecalleditthe

transitionfromstatustocontract;Tocquevillecalleditthetransitionfromtheageof

aristocracytotheageofdemocracy,butnooneprovidedamorepowerful

descriptionthantheeconomistandintellectualhistorianAlbertO.Hirschmaninhis

bookThePassionsandtheInterests.xvi

Inthisbrilliantstudy,Hirschmanshowedhowtheargumentsforthe

commercialsocietywerefirstmadepossibleonlyafterthedestructionofthe

ancientheroicidealthathadmadeareturnduringtheRenaissancewithits

rediscoveryoftheGreekandRomancelebrationofglory.Awholeseriesofwriters

beginningwithHobbes,butincludingMontaigne,Bacon,Mandeville,Montesquieu,

Hume,andKantturnedtheircollectiveeyeonthediscreditingtheideaofthehero

asnothingbutaspeciesofvanityandvaingloriousambition.xviiInplaceofthe

heroicidealwithitspursuitofglory,thesewriterspositedanalternativeconception

ofhumannaturebasedonthebenefitsofcommerceandself-interestedbehavior.

Hirschmanmadetwoimportantpointsinthisbook.Thefirstisthatthe

transitiontocapitalismwasonlymadepossibleduetotheprioremergenceof

certainideasandarguments.Marketsarenotsimplynaturalformsofhuman

9

associationastoday’slibertariansoftenbelieve,butareembeddedinadensewebof

moralargumentationinwhichthepursuitofinterest–solongconsideredadeadly

sinwithintheChristianmoraluniverse–cametobeseenasavirtueforcontaining

thedestructivepassionsforfameandhonor.Themarketsocietywasanideabefore

itbecameareality.

Theseconddiscoverywastoshowthattheconceptofself-interestisnota

universalkeyforunderstandingallhumanbehaviorasthisissooftenclaimedby

economistsandsocialscientiststoday.Rathertheideaofself-interestemergedasa

strategytocounteractthedominanceofcertainpassions,especiallythekindsof

desiresassociatedwithfame,honor,andheroicimmortality.Thepursuitofinterest

wasdeemedtoexerciseatranquilizingaffectonsocietyandonhumanbehavior

generally.Thepassionswereseenaswildandirrational,whileinterestswere

thoughttobecalm,gentle,evenplacid.Asocietydevotedtomoneymaking,as

opposedtoaristocraticpracticeslikewar,wasdescribedbysuchmetaphorsas

“polishing,”“refining,”and“softening”morals.Asocietydominatedbythepursuit

ofinterestcouldbecounteduponasbeinglessgrand,noble,andheroic,butmore

peaceful,prosperous,andsecure.

TheideaofamoderncommercialordercametofruitioninAmerica.Itisno

coincidence–astheysay–thatthesigningoftheDeclarationofIndependence

occurredthesameyearasthepublicationofAdamSmith’sWealthofNations,the

firstgreattreatiseofmarketeconomics.Theadvocatesofthecommercialsociety

10

fromBenjaminFranklintoThomasJeffersonandJohnAdamsallregardedanethic

ofself-interestrightlyunderstoodasasaneandsensiblealternativetovisionsof

moralperfectionbeyondthereachofallbutafew,disdainforthecommonuseful,

andmundaneemployments,andmostofallaworldpreoccupied–toadegreethat

wecanscarcelyimagine–withintangiblegoalslikehonorandglory.xviii

Andyettheefforttotransformthecompetitionforhonorandgloryintothe

bourgeoisstrivingforcommercialsuccesswasnevercomplete.Theancientand

medievalcodesofhonornevercompletelydisappeared,evenintheNewWorld.

DouglassAdairhasnotedthatPlutarch’sLivesremainedawidelyreadandimitated

bookduringthefoundinggeneration.xixThisneo-classicalloveoffamesurvived

throughouttheearlyrepublic.ThesignersoftheDeclarationofIndependence

pledgednotonlytheirlivesandlibertybuttheir“sacredhonor”tothecauseto

whichtheyaffixedtheirnames.TheauthorsoftheFederalistPaperstookthepen

nameofPubliusafteroneofthefoundersoftheRomanrepublic.AndGeorge

WashingtonwasregularlyreferredtoasamoderndayCincinnatusfortheRoman

farmerwholefthisplowtoservetherepublicandthenreturnedtohisfields,

relinquishingpower.xx

Nooneamongthefounder’sgenerationembodiedthecharacteristicsof

Aristotle’smegalopsychosmorefullythanWashington.Hecombinedeffortlesslythe

qualitiesofrank,authority,andthecapacitytocommandthatimmediatelycompel

respect.ThequalityofWashington’shauteuriscapturedbrilliantlyinananecdote

11

relatedinJamesMadison’snotesontheconstitutionalconvention.Duringthe

convention,itwasWashington’scustomtoopenhishomeforareceptionforsome

ofthoseattending.AlexanderHamilton,whoknewWashingtonwell,mentionedto

GouverneurMorristhatWashingtonwas“reservedandaristocraticeventohis

intimatefriends.”Morrissuggestedthatthiswasamerefaçade,soHamiltonbet

himadinnerwithwineforadozenpeopleifontheirnextmeetinghewouldappear

totreatWashingtonashisequal.Thedarewasaccepted:

Ontheeveningappointed,alargenumberattended;andatanearlyhour

GouverneurMorrisentered,bowed,shookhands,laidhislefthandon

Washington’sshoulder,andsaid,“MydearGeneral,Iamveryhappytosee

youlooksowell!”Washingtonwithdrewhishand,steppedsuddenlyback,

fixedhiseyeonMorrisforseveralminuteswithanangryfrown,untilthe

latterretreatedabashed,andsoughtrefugeinthecrowd.Thecompany

lookedoninsilence.Atthesupper,whichwasprovidedbyHamilton,Morris

said,“Ihavewonthebet,butpaiddearlyforit,andnothingcouldinduceme

torepeatit.”xxi

Washingtonmayhaveexemplifiedthearistocraticethos,butnoonethought

aboutitmoreprofoundlythanJohnAdams.Tobesure,theimageoffoundinga

nationconjuredinthemindsoftherevolutionarygenerationtheimagesofclassical

antiquity’sgreatestlawgivers.ThenamesofLycurgus,Solon,andTheseuswere

neverfarfromtheirminds.Therevolutionmadeitpossibletorelivethedeedsof

12

thesemythicalheroes.InhisDiscoursesonDavila,Adamsdiscussedtheloveoffame

anddivideditintothreeparts.Creditisonthelowestrungsupportedbymerchants

andtradesmen;reputationwascherishedbygentlemen;butglorywasthehighest

speciesoffameandwasreservedforthegreatactionsoflawgiversandthefirst

officersofthestate.Adamswasfollowingalongtraditioninrankingthelawgiveror

legislatorasstandingatoptheladderoffame.xxii

Anotherexampleofthisneo-classicalmodeloffamecanbefoundwith

AlexanderHamilton.HamiltonwasaprotégéofWashingtonandevensomethingof

anadoptedson.HisheroeswerealldrawnfromPlutarchaswerethevarious

pseudonymsthatheadoptedinhiswritings.AparticularincidenttoldbyAdairis

revealing.InaletterwrittentoBenjaminRushofJanuary16,1811,Jefferson

recalledadramaticincidenttwentyyearsbefore.InApril1791,ameetingwas

convenedwithJefferson,thenSecretaryofState,Adams,theVicePresident,and

Hamilton,theSecretaryoftheTreasury.Theroomwashungwithacollectionof

portraitsandHamiltoninquiredwhotheywhere.JeffersonnamedthemasBacon,

Locke,andNewton,adding“thethreegreatestmentheworldhadproduced.”

Hamiltontookexception,saying:“ThegreatestmanthateverlivedwasJulius

Caesar.”xxiiiJeffersondrewfromthisconversationthelessonthatHamiltonfavored

theoverthrowofthenewrepublicbyanaspiringmonarchjustasCaesarhad

overthrowntheRomanrepublic.ButIthinkanotherlessoncanbedrawn.

Jefferson’smodelsofgreatnessweredrawnfromtherealmsofphilosophyand

science.Hamilton’sexpressessomethingclosertotheclassicalmodelofthe

13

statesmanorpoliticalfounderastheideal.Thisseemsentirelyappropriatetotheir

characters.

PerpetuationandtheDangersofMobocracy

ThisbringsustotheeveningofJanuary27,1838.Onthateveningan

aspiringWhiglawyernamedAbrahamLincolngaveaspeechtotheYoungMen’s

LyceuminSpringfieldIllinoistitled“OnthePerpetuationofOurPolitical

Institutions.”xxivTheLyceumAddressorPerpetuationSpeech,asitisusuallycalled,

wasgivenwhenLincolnwasjustafewweeksshortofhistwentyninthbirthdayand

stillseveralyearsremovedfromanationalpoliticalcareer.Mostreadersagreethat

thiswasLincoln’sfirstmajorspeechnotforwhatitsaysaboutsuchstandardWhig

tropesaslibertyandunionbutforwhatitrevealsaboutLincoln’sownambitions.

InterestinthespeechdatestoEdmundWilson’sunsympathetictreatmentofitin

PatrioticGorethatarguedthatLincolnwasprojectinghimselfontotheveryrole–

thecharismatictyrant--againstwhichhewaswarninghisaudience.xxvAtthecore

ofLincoln’sspeechisanexaminationofthethemeofpoliticalambition,bothwhatit

isandthedangersitposestotheperpetuationofconstitutionalgovernment.

ThePerpetuationSpeechhasthreemainparts.Thefirstdealswiththe

dangersoflawlessnessposedbymobrule;theseconddealswiththeproblemposed

bythe“toweringgenius”oraspiringtyrantwhomayseizetheopportunitycreated

bylawlessnesstoestablishatyranny;andthethird,mostlyforgottentheme,deals

14

withthelossofcollectivememorythatcomesfromthefadingrecollectionofthe

revolutionandthefoundingperiod.Lincoln’sspeechcouldbeparsedasfollows:

I. TheDangerstoConstitutionalGovernment(1-12)

a. Theblessingsofliberty(2)

b. Examplesofmobjustice(5-8)

c. The“mobocraticspirit”(9)

d. “Thepoliticalreligionofthenation”(12)

II. TheObstaclestoPerpetuation(17-19)

a. An“undecidedexperiment”(17)

b. “Toweringgenius”(17)

c. Thequestfordistinction(18)

III. TheProblemofHistoricalMemory(20-24)

a. Thedangerofthepassions(20-21)

b. “Thesilentartilleryoftime”(22)

c. “Thesolidquarryofsoberreason”(23)

Lincoln’sspeechbeginswithanannouncementofitstheme,namely,“the

perpetuationofourpoliticalinstitutions”(1).Afterfirstcongratulatinghimselfand

hisaudienceforlivingunderasystemoflaws“conducingmoreessentiallytoward

totheendsofcivilreligiousliberty,thanofwhichthehistoryofformertimestells

15

us,”hewarmstothethemeoftheevening(2).Theproblemisthatthese

institutionswereestablished“byaoncehardy,brave,andpatriotic,butnow

lamentedanddepartedraceofancestors”(2).Howwillthepresentgeneration,

muchlessthefutureones,beabletopreserveandperpetuatethoseinstitutionsand

whataretheobstaclesthatstandintheway?ThisisthequestionLincolnsetfor

himselfandhisaudience.

Thelongestsectionofthespeechdealswiththeproblemofviolenceandmob

rule.HereLincolnisspeakingthestandardlanguageoftheWhigoppositionto

Jacksoniandemocracythatisalwaysidentifiedwithunrulypassionsandthe

dangersofmobviolence.xxviHeisnotaddressinganypoliticalgrouporpartybut

the“mobocraticspirit”thatisallegedtobenowabroadintheland.ForLincolnand

hisWhigassociates,politicallegitimacyisconferrednotthroughdirectexpression

ofthepopularwillbutthroughtheruleoflawandrepresentativeinstitutions.

Lincolnclaimsthatexamplesoflawlessnesshavebecomepervasivefrom“the

pleasurehuntingmastersofSouthernslaves[to]theorderlovingcitizensofthe

landofsteadyhabits”(5).Hethenselectstwoexamples–onefromMississippi,the

otherfromMissouri–bothslavestatestoillustratehiscase.Althoughslaveryisnot

anexplicitthemeofthePerpetuationSpeech,ifonereadscloselyitisclearthat

slaveryisinbothcasesaproximatecauseofmobviolence.TheMississippicase

beganwiththelynchingofriverboatgamblersandthenproceededtoincludeslaves

suspectedofplottinginsurrection,whitemenwhowerethoughttobeinleaguewith

them,andfinallytostrangerswhoweresimplymindingtheirownbusiness.This

16

processcontinued,Lincolnalleges,until“deadmenwereseenliterallydangling

fromtheboughsoftreesuponeveryroadside”almostas“adraperyoftheforest”

(6).

Thesecondcaseofmobviolencecutsclosertohisaudience.Lincoln

discussesthecaseofafreemannamedMcIntoshwhowasthevictimofaSaintLouis

lynchmob.Incomparisontotheriverboatgamblerswhohedescribesas“worse

thanuselessinanycommunity,”hecallsthelynchingofMcIntosh“perhapsthemost

highlytragic,ofanythingofitslength,thathaseverbeenwitnessedinreallife”(7).

Yetbehindthiscaseisanother,scarcelyalludedto,themurderoftheabolitionist

newspapereditor,ElijahLovejoyinAltonIllinois,justtwomonthsbeforeLincoln’s

speechattheSpringfieldLyceum.Abolitionismwasscarcelyapopularcausein

centralIllinoisandLovejoy’sdefenseofMcIntoshcausedhimtohavetomovehis

newspaperfromSaintLouistoAlton.Lovejoywas–nexttoWilliamLloydGarrison

–probablythemostfamousabolitionistofhisgeneration.Lincoln’sreferenceto

mobswho“throwprintingpressesintorivers[and]shooteditors”couldscarcely

havebeenlostonhisaudience(9).

“TheDenoftheLionandtheTribeoftheEagle”

Afterdevotinghimselftothefairlyconventionalthemesoflawlessnessand

mobviolence,LincolnturnstothesecondandwhatIbelieveisthemajorthemeof

hisspeech,namely,theproblemofvaultingpoliticalambition.The“towering

17

genius”--atermwithromanticByronicovertones–mayseemstrangeforasmall

townlawyerwhohadoncerunageneralstore,butwasinfactanimportantmotifof

Lincoln’sthought.Thethemeoftheheroorgeniusrunsthroughoutthenineteenth

centuryfromCarlyle’sOnHeroes,Hero-Worship,andtheHeroicinHistory(1841),to

Emerson’RepresentativeMen(1850),toFlaubert’sSentimentalEducationthat

examinesthedesperationandennuiofanentiregenerationcomeofageinthe

generationafterNapoleon.xxvii

ThethemeofambitionwasfirstalludedtoinLincoln’sbriefaddresstothe

peopleofSangamonCountyinhisabortiverunforelection:“Everymanissaidto

havehispeculiarambition,”hewrote.“Whetheritbetrueornot,Icansayforone

thatIhavenoothersogreatasthatofbeingesteemedbymyfellowmen,by

renderingmyselfworthyoftheiresteem.HowfarIshallsucceedingratifyingthis

ambitionisyettobedeveloped.”xxviiiLincolnreturnedtothisthemeintheyear

priortohisnominationfortheSenateseatfromIllinoiswhenhereflected

mournfullyonthefailureofhisambitions:“TwentytwoyearsagoJudgeDouglas

andIfirstbecameacquainted.Wewerebothyoungthen;heatrifleyoungerthanI.

Eventhen,werebothambitious;I,perhaps,moresothanhe.Withme,theraceof

ambitionhasbeenafailure–aflatfailure;withhimithasbeenoneofsplendid

success.”xxixWilliamHerndon,Lincoln’slawpartnerandbiographer,famously

calledLincoln’sambition“alittleenginethatknewnorest.”xxx

18

Lincolnintroduceshisthemebydistinguishingbetweentheambitionsofthe

foundinggenerationandthoseofthepost-heroicworldinwhichhefindshimself.

Thefoundersinvestedalloftheirmoralenergiesinattemptingtoestablisha

republicanformofgovernment.Thiswasboundupwiththequestforfameand

celebrity:“Theirallwasstakeduponit:--theirdestinywasinseparablylinkedwith

it.Theirambitionaspiredtodisplaybeforeanadmiringworld,apractical

demonstrationofthetruthofaproposition,whichhadhithertobeenconsidered,at

bestnobetter,thanproblematical,namelythecapabilityofapeopletogovern

themselves”(17).Theexperimentinrepublicanismwasbynomeansaforegone

conclusion.“Iftheysucceeded,”hewrites,“theyweretobeimmortalized;their

namesweretobetransferredtocountiesandcities,andriversandmountains;and

tobereveredandsung,andtoastedthroughalltime.Iftheyfailed,thereweretobe

calledknavesandfools,andfanaticsforafleetinghour;thentosinkandbe

forgotten”(17).

Lincoln’sconcernwaswiththedangerofanaspiringCaesar-likedictator,

whowillusetheoccasionoflawlessnessandinsecuritytoimposeaformofone-

manrule.Thedangeroftyrannygrowsnotfromthefailureofrepublicanismbut

fromitssuccess.Theverysuccessofthefounders’experimenthasbredresentment

ofit.Lincoln’saccountofambitiousdemagoguesandtyrantshaslongprecedentin

thehistoryofpoliticaltheory.PlatoanalyzedthetyrannicalsoulinBookIXofthe

Republic.Thetyrant,asPlatodescribedhim,isapersonofunrestraineddesires

whoprojectshisexcessivelongings–hiseros–ontopoliciesofwar,conquest,and

19

empire.Tyrannyisultimatelyapsychologicalderangementofthesoulforwhich

Platosoughtaremedyinphilosophy.OrtotakeanotherimagefromPlato’sGorgias,

thetyrantiscomparedtoasievewhosedesiresandappetitesperpetuallyevadehis

capacityforself-control.xxxi

Lincoln’saccountofthetyrantnotonlydrawsonthePlatonictradition,but

ontheanalysisofambitionintheFederalistPapers.xxxiiItmaynotbeimmediately

obvious,buttheproblemofambitioniswrittenallovertheFederalist.Asearlyas

Federalist10,Madisonisconcernedwiththecausesoffactionandtracesitto

(amongotherthings)theproblemofambition:

Azealfordifferentopinionsconcerningreligion,concerninggovernment,

andmanyotherpointsaswellofspeculationasofpractice;anattachmentto

differentleadersambitiouslycontendingforpre-eminenceandpower;orto

personsofotherdescriptionswhosefortuneshavebeeninterestingto

humanpassionshaveinturndividedmankindintoparties,inflamedthem

withmutualanimosityandrenderedthemmuchmoredisposedtovexand

oppresseachotherthantoco-operateforthecommongood.xxxiii

ThestrategyoftheFederalistauthorswasnottoattempttoeliminate

ambition,buttocontrolitandeventoredirectittowardpublicpurposes.In

Federalist72,Hamiltonspokeaboutthe“loveoffame”beingthe“rulingpassionof

thenoblestminds.”xxxivThiswasHamilton’sformulaforthoseofhighambitionwho

20

wouldseekoutthepresidentialoffice.Akeyargumentforextendedtermswasthe

dangerthatsuchindividualsmightposetoarepubliciftheyweremade

constitutionallyineligibleforthehighestoffice.YettheFederalistauthorsbelieved

theyhadananswertotheever-presentdangerofpoliticalambition.InFederalist

51,Madisonwrote:“Ambitionmustbemadetocounteractambition.Theinterests

ofthemanmustbeconnectedwiththeconstitutionalrightsoftheplace.”xxxvIn

otherwords,bycheckingpowerwithpower,ambitioncouldbecontrolledand

limitedbytheinstitutionsoftheSenate,theCourt,andpopularrepresentation.

WhatMadisoncalled“thegeniusofrepublicanliberty”wasitsabilitytodemocratize

ambition.Bymakingallofficesopentoelection,itencouragesambitiouspersonsof

alltypestoenterthefrayofpubliccompetitionandtestthemselvesagainst

others.xxxvi

OfcoursethetreatmentofambitionclosesttoLincoln’sheartwasin

Shakespeare’sJuliusCaesar.xxxviiEveryonewillrememberAntony’sfamousfuneral

speechwhereheremindstheaudiencethatCaesar“thrice”rejectedthekingly

crownandthenasksrhetorically“wasthisambition?”Caesar’srefusalissupposed

todemonstratehishumility,butthefactisherejectedthelesserforagreatertitle.

OnlyauniversalempirecouldfulfillCaesareanambitions.Itwashalfacenturylater

thatCaesar’sgrand-nephew,GaiusOctavius,tookthenameCaesarAugustusand

declaredhimselfemperorofRome.ThenameCaesaranditslatervariantslike

“Kaiser”and“Czar”wouldbecomethetitleforanewkindofpoliticalleaderfor

whichclassicalpoliticalphilosophyhadnopreciseequivalent.Caesarismisaform

21

ofpost-constitutionalrulecombiningelementsoftraditionalkingshipwithpopulist

demagogueryandcharismaticleadership.xxxviii

Lincoln’sanalysisofthecharismatictyrantbuildsonthesetreatments,buthe

addshisowndistinctivevoicetothishistory.Itisfairtosay,Ithink,thatLincoln

thoughttheFramerstobeoverlysanguineintheirbeliefthattheproblemof

ambitioncouldbesolvedsimplythroughaninstitutionalfix,byarranging

institutionsthatwouldconstrainambitioustyrants.TheFramersseemedblindto

theproblemthatfuturegenerationsmaywellproducepeoplelikethemselves,not

contenttoliveunderaninheritedsystemofgovernment,butwhowouldwishto

createnewmodesandordersasatestimonytotheirowngreatness.Withthe

AmericanRevolutionsuccessfullycompleted,thequestionthatconcernedLincoln

waswhatcouldbedonetobuildonthesuccessofthefoundinggeneration.Inthe

keypassageofthePerpetuationSpeech,Lincolngivesanin-depthpsychological

portraitofgreatambitioncitingthethreestandardexamplesofNapoleon,Caesar,

andAlexander.Iquotetherelevantpassageatlength:

Butthegameiscaught;andIbelieveitistruethatwiththecatching,endthe

pleasuresofthechase.Thefieldofgloryisharvested,andthecropisalready

appropriated.Butnewreaperswillarise,andtheytoowillseekafield.Itis

todenywhatthehistoryoftheworldtellsusistrue,tosupposethatmenof

ambitionandtalentswillnotcontinuetospringupamongstus.Andwhen

theydo,theywillasnaturallyseekthegratificationoftheirrulingpassionsas

22

othershavesodonebeforethem.Thequestion,then,iscanthatgratification

befoundinsupportingandmaintaininganedificethathasbeenerectedby

others?Mostcertainlyitcannot.Manygreatandgoodmensufficiently

qualifiedforanytasktheyshouldundertake,mayeverbefound,whose

ambitionwouldaspiretonothingbeyondasseatinCongress,agubernatorial

orapresidentialchair;butsuchbelongnottothefamilyofthelionorthetribe

oftheeagle.What!ThinkyoutheseplaceswouldsatisfyanAlexander,a

Caesar,oraNapoleon?Never!Toweringgeniusdisdainsabeatenpath.It

seeksregionshithertounexplored.Itseesnodistinctioninaddingstoryto

storyuponthemonumentsoffameerectedtothememoryofothers.It

deniesthatitisgloryenoughtoserveunderanychief.Itscornstotreadin

thefootstepsofanypredecessor,howeverillustrious.Itthirstsandburnsfor

distinction;andifpossible,itwillhaveit,whetherattheexpenseof

emancipatingslavesorenslavingfreemen.Isitunreasonablethentoexpect

somemanofpossessedoftheloftiestgeniuscoupledwithambitionsufficient

topushhimtotheutmoststretch,willatsometimespringupamongus

(17)?

Theabovepassagecouldhavecomedirectlyoutoftheromanticcultofthe

genius.ThisideawasgivenphilosophicalexpressionbyKantforwhomtheideaof

geniuswasirrevocablytiedtotheworkofart.xxxixKanthelpedtovalorizetheartist

asthemodelofthecreativelife.Theworkofartwasnolongerregardedsimplyas

animitationofnaturebutastheexpressionofthecreativeindividualwhobrings

23

intobeingsomethingthathasneverexistedbefore.“Genius,”hewritesinthe

CritiqueofJudgment,“isthetalent(naturalendowment)whichgivestheruleto

art.”xlKantcontrastsgeniuswiththespiritofimitation.Imitationisthecapacityto

followrules;geniusisthetalenttocreatetherules.ForKant,themysteryofthe

creativeprocesswasalwaysgreater–moresublime–thantheproductsofthat

process.ThegeniusofMozartwasmoreadmirablethananyofhisworks.Theidea

ofthesublime–connectedbyBurketotheexperienceofaweandterror–cameto

beregardedasbeyondthelimitsofreasonorthat“incomparisonwithwhichall

elseissmall.”xli

Thehumanincarnationofthesublime–thegenius--wasthepersonwitha

mission,acalling,oradestiny,whatHegelwouldcalla“world-historicalindividual,”

thefigureofaCaesaroraNapoleon.Thistypeofpersoncannotbejudgedbythe

standardsofordinarymoralitybutstands,sotospeak,beyondgoodandevil.The

politicalandmilitarygeniuswasregardedasanartistwhocreatedaccordingtohis

ownpatternandfollowedhisownlaws.Thehero,Emersonwroteinhisessayon

“Heroism,”wasakindofwarrior-poet,acombinationofthepoeticgeniusofGoethe

withthemilitaryaudacityofNapoleon.xliiTheherowouldbecharacterizedbyboth

asingle-mindedbentagainsthisenemies(“amilitaryattitudeofsoul”)anda

confidenceintherightnessofhiscause.“Heroism,”hewrites,“feelsandnever

reasonsandthereforeisalwaysright.”Suchapersonis“notopentothecensureof

philosophersanddivines”andmustevenwork“contradictiontothevoiceof

mankind,andincontradiction,foratime,tothevoiceofthegreatandthegood.”

24

Heroismisvindicatedbecausetheheroobeys“asecretimpulseofanindividual’s

character”thatstandsapartfromthegoodopinionofsociety.Forthisreason,the

heromustact,ifnecessary,asamartyrforhiscausetrustingonlyhimselfand

followingonlyhisinnervoice.xliii

ThemostobviousreadingofthePerpetuationSpeechisasawarningabout

theemergenceoftheromanticheroinpolitics.Lincoln’sreferencetothosewould

achievegreatnessthroughemancipatingslavesisanunmistakablereferencetothe

kindofradicalconsciencepoliticsthatwasanoffshootofNewEngland

transcendentalism.Initssecularizedform,thiscarriedovertheolderPuritanidea

ofseeingindividualsasunderthegraceofconscience,emancipatedfromthelower

orderobligationstolawandsocietycombinedwiththeromanticthemeofthe

creativegenius.Lincolnclearlyregardedtheabolitionisttemperamentasthemost

vividexpressionofthiskindofantinomianism–puttingtheindividualabovethe

law–whosegoalwastopurifytheworldfromsin,byviolenceifnecessary,andto

createanewcommunityofsaints.Itwasthis“abolitionistimagination,”asAndrew

Delbancoasrecentlydescribedit,andthefanaticismitimpliedthatisequallyat

homeinthepoliticsofJohnBrownasinthelanguageoftheholywarthathasbeen

appropriatedbybothjihadistsabroadandtheChristianright.xlivInthedebate–still

ongoing–betweenanethicofconvictionandanethicofresponsibility,Lincoln

seemstocomeoutunequivocallyonthesideofthelatter.LikeWeberinthenext

25

century,heregardedpoliticalidealsbornofpassionandconvictionasathreatto

politicalinstitutions.xlv

YetaminorityviewhasheldthatLincolncarriedmoreofthishigherlaw

politicsthanhecaredtoadmit,anattitudecharacteristicofthesecondgeneration

seekingtofreethemselvesfromthegripofthe“fathers.”Thesentenceabout

emancipatingslavescaughttheattentionofLincolnophobeslikeEdmundWilson

whoarguedthat“Lincolnhadprojectedhimselfintotheroleagainstwhichheis

warning”hisaudience.xlviHisdescriptionofthepersonoftoweringgeniusjust

seemstocutalittletooclosetoLincoln’sownambitionforusnottothinkofitasa

pieceofself-analysis.OnWilson’saccount,Lincolneventuallyembracedthis“heroic

role”aswartimeleaderandas“theprophetofthecauseofrighteousness.”xlviiFor

Wilsonandhisprotégés–considerGoreVidal’sLincoln--Lincolnwasthecreatorof

theAmericannationalstateakintoBismarck’sGermanyandLenin’sRussia.xlviii

Psychoanalyticreaders,notablyDwightAndersonandGeorgeForgie,have

suggestedthatLincolnwasthinkingofhimselfaspreciselysucharevolutionary

usurper.xlixAccordingtothisaccount,LincolnwasengagedinacomplexOedipal

strugglewiththefoundersandfearedthattheiraccomplishmentswouldputall

subsequentgenerationsintheshade,aclassicexampleinthepoliticalworldofwhat

theliterarycriticHaroldBloomcalled“theanxietyofinfluence.”lLincoln’sreference

toemancipatingslavesorenslavingfreemensuggeststhemorallyneutralformof

thiskindofgreatambition.Itcanbeusedtoachievefreedomaswellasnewforms

26

ofdomination.ThedescriptionisfrighteninglyprescientofNietzsche’s

Ubermensch.li

Lincoln’spersonoftoweringgeniusisfarfromthemoreprosaictypeof

usurperfearedbytheconventionalWhigpoliticiansofhisday.Hisconceptionis

closertotheromanticimageofdemonicevil,thatis,someonenotonlyincapableof

contributingtothegreatnessofothers,butresentfuloftheveryexistenceofaworld

thatisnotofhisowncreation.Thereisalreadyanincarnationofthiskindofhuman

beingintheworkofMilton:thefigureofLucifer.WhatisespeciallyMiltonicabout

Lincoln’styrant,asJohnBurthasnoted,ishisresentmentataworldthatdoesnot

oweitscreationtohim.Suchapersoncannotstandtheideaofplayingasmallpart

inalargedramathatisatributetoanotherperson’sgreatness.liiLucifer’smottois

NonServiam–Iwillnotserve.Hisisarevoltnotagainstanunjustorderbutagainst

anyorderofwhichheisnottheauthor.Inthisrespectheistheprecursornotonly

ofKantandNietzschebutofallthoselaterantinomianfigureswhocannotaccept

authorityexceptasanemanationoftheirownwill.Furthermore,Lincolndoesnot

believethatsuchpersonsoftoweringandambitioncanbetamedordomesticated,

fittedforlifeinarepublic.Theyrepresentaperennialthreattothepossibilityof

constitutionalgovernment.Thequestionheleavesuswithiswhattodo.

PoliticalTheology

27

Beforeprovidingananswer,Lincolnoffersathirddangertothefutureof

constitutionalgovernment.Thisisperhapstheleastnotedaspectofthespeechand

concernsthedangersofhistoricaltime.Inthepast,thedangersofamilitary

usurperoftheCaesarianorBonapartisttypehadbeenoffsetbythepassionsofthe

peoplethathadbeendirectedtowardprotectingwhatthefoundershadestablished.

Butthepassageoftimehasnowturnedthesepassionsinaverydifferentdirection

towardlawlessnessanddisorder.Popularpassionshadpreviouslybeendirected

towardmaintainingthegainsoftherevolutionandpreservingtheConstitution,but

nowthesesamepassionsarebeingusedtounderminethefoundationsofself-

government.Thefeelingsthatonceunitedapeopleintheirstruggleforliberty

havenowdissipatedalongwiththecircumstancesthatgaverisetothem(20-21).

ThosewithanylivingattachmenttotheAmericanfounding–nowhalf-a-centuryin

thepast–haveallbutdisappeared.Theresulthasbeentheriseofagenerationwith

nolivingmemorytoattachthemtoourpoliticalinstitutions.Thequestionnow

confrontingLincolnandhisaudienceishowtoreattachthefeelingsandsentiments

ofcitizenstoaformofgovernmentoncetheoldpillarsandpropsthatsustainedit

are“decayedandcrumbledaway.”

TheproblemthatLincolndiagnosesisthelossofhistoricalmemoryorwhat

hecallsinperhapsthemostmemorablephrasefromthespeech,“thesilentartillery

oftime.”Henotesthatwhile“thescenesoftherevolutionare[not]noworeverwill

beentirelyforgotten,butthatlikeeverythingelse,theymustfadeuponthememory

oftheworld,andgrowmoreandmoredimbythelapseoftime”(22).Likeall

28

purelyhistoricalmemories,theywillincreasinglylackalivingorvitalconnectionto

thepresent.Theywill,inshort,becomehistory.Suchhistorieswill,ofcourse,

continuetoberead,butlikemosthistoriestheywillceasetoinvigoratethepresent

ortosupplyidealsandbeliefs.Historyisasmuchanenemyasafriend.What,then,

canbedonetoarrestorreversethecorrosivepowerofhistory?

Lincoln’sshortspeechisamasterpieceofanalysisoftheproblems

confrontingtheperpetuationofconstitutionalgovernment.Hisanalysismoves

fromthegeneralproblemoflawlessnessandthedangerofmobrule,tothedangers

ofvaultingpoliticalambition,andfinallytothecorrosiveaffectsofhistoryandthe

lossofcollectivememory.Lincoln’sonesolution–infacttheonlyconcreteproposal

toappearinthespeech–isthecalltoturntheConstitutionintotheobjectofa

politicalreligion.liiiBymakingtheConstitutionanditslawanobjectofpatriotic

reverence,Lincolnhopedtogivethemasanctitythattimeandtraditioncouldnot

confer.TheGodofLincoln–atleasttheyoungLincoln–wasnotthemysterious

deityoftheSecondInauguralwhodispensesjusticetoNorthandSouthalike,butis

closertothegodofthecivilreligionswiththeirdedicationtothecultoflapatrie.

HereagainImustquotetherelevantpassageatsomelength:

LeteveryAmerican,everyloverofliberty,everywellwishertohisposterity

swearbythebloodoftheRevolution,nevertoviolateintheleastparticular,

thelawsofthecountry;andnevertotoleratetheirviolationbyothers.As

29

thepatriotsof’76didtothesupportoftheDeclarationofIndependence,so

tothesupportoftheConstitutionanditslaws,leteveryAmericanpledgehis

life,hispropertyandsacredhonor.Leteverymanrememberthattoviolate

thelawistotrampleonthebloodofhisfatherandtotearthecharacterofhis

andhischildren’sliberty.Letreverenceforthelaws,bebreathedbyevery

Americanmothertothelispingbabethatprattlesonherlap–letitbetaught

inschools,inseminaries,andincolleges–letitbewritteninPrimmers,

spellingbooks,andinAlmanacs–letitbepreachedfromthepulpit,

proclaimedinlegislativehalls,andenforcedincourtsofjustice.Andinshort

letitbecomethepoliticalreligionofthenation;andlettheoldandtheyoung,

therichandthepoor,thegraveandthegay,ofallsexesandtongues,and

colorsandconditions,sacrificeunceasinglyuponitsaltars(12).

Thisremarkablepassage–fullofextravaganceandshowingallthesignsof

youthfulrhetoricaloverkill–isalsoonethathasdeeprootsinthephilosophical

tradition.ThecaseforapurelycivilreligionhasmanyantecedentsinPlato’sLaws

andMachiavelli’sDiscourses,butinmodernpoliticalphilosophytheideaismost

famouslyassociatedwiththefinalchapterofRousseau’sSocialContract.livHere

Rousseauofferedhissolutiontotheproblemofreligiousintoleranceandcivil

conflict.Hisideaofacivilreligionwasbasedonafewsimpledogmassuchasthe

existenceofasinglesupremebeing,thebeliefintheworldtocome,andthesanctity

ofthesocialcontractanditslaws.Hisformula–particularlyitsanti-priestly

30

character–wouldlaterbecomethebasisforthevariouscultsofthesupremebeing

duringtheFrenchRevolution.

Rousseau’sdreamforanewpoliticalreligionwasnotconfinedtoFrance.In

1967,RobertBellahrevivedthisdebateinagroundbreakingarticletitled“Civil

ReligioninAmerica.”“Whatwehavefromtheearliestyearsoftherepublic,”Bellah

wrote,“isacollectionofbeliefs,symbols,andritualswithrespecttosacredthings

andinstitutionalizedinacollectivity.Thisreligion–thereseemsnootherwordfor

it–whilenotantitheticaltoandindeedsharingmuchincommonwithChristianity,

wasneithersectariannorinanyspecificsenseChristian.”lvThismightbecalledthe

domesticationofRousseau’sferociousMachiavellianism.Americans,Bellah

claimed,maintainedacivilreligionthatretainedkeyelementsoftheprophetic

traditionbutcombinedthesewithakindofworshipoftheConstitutionand

reverencefortheAmericanframers.“TheAmericancivilreligion,”hecontinued,

“wasneveranticlericalormilitantlysecular.Onthecontrary,itborrowed

selectivelyfromthereligiontraditioninsuchawaythattheaverageAmericansaw

noconflictbetweenthetwo.”lvi

ThePerpetuationSpeechendsbyappealingnottohabitsandsentimentsbut

tothepowerofreason:“Reason,cold,calculating,unimpassionedreason,must

furnishallthematerialsforourfuturesupportanddefense”(23).Inthepast,inthe

struggleforindependenceagainstBritain,thepassionshadcometothesupportof

liberty,butwiththepassageoftimethepassionshavebeenredirectedandhave

31

becomethesourceoflawlessnessanddisorder.“Passionhashelpedusbutcando

sonomore,”hewrites.Todaythesepassionsmustberedirectedagainindefending

thecauseoftheConstitution.“Letthosematerialsbemoldedingeneralintelligence,

soundmoralityandinparticularareverencefortheconstitutionandlaws,”he

contends(23).

ThereseemssomethingfalseoratleastinadequatetoLincoln’scallonthe

powerofreasontoserveasbasisof“reverencefortheconstitutionandlaws.”Is

reasonalone,shornofthepoweroftheaffectsandimagination,withoutthebiblical

imagesofguilt,atonement,repentance,andredemption,uptothistaskofaffirming

theruleoflaw?Lincoln’sappealtotheredemptivepowerofreasonseemsfalse–a

kindofrhetoricalafterthought--tohisbeliefsabouttheimportanceofmemoryand

reverenceasthemoralfoundationsofconstitutionalgovernment.Thetriumphalist

toneoftheperorationwithitsbizarrecalltoawakenWashingtonstandsinmarked

contrasttothesoberanalysisofthecharismatictyrantandthedangersofhistorical

amnesiathatarethemostpowerfulaspectsofthespeech.

TheFateofGreatAmbition

Lincoln’sreflectionsonpoliticalambitioncanbeusefullycomparedwith

anotherfromapproximatelythesametime.AtvirtuallythesametimethatLincoln

wasgivinghisPerpetuationSpeechandsomefourthousandmilesaway,Alexisde

TocquevillewasfinishingthesecondvolumeofDemocracyinAmerica.Inachapter

32

fromneartheendofthebooktitled“WhyOnefindssoManyAmbitiousMeninthe

UnitedStatesandsoFewofGreatAmbitions,”Tocquevillereflectedonthefateof

grandambitioninademocraticage:

ThefirstthingthatstrikesoneintheUnitedStatesistheinnumerable

multitudeofthosewhoseektogetoutoftheiroriginalcondition;andthe

secondisthesmallnumberofgreatambitionsthatmakethemselvesnoticed

inthemidstofthisuniversalmovementofambition.TherearenoAmericans

whodonotshowthattheyaredevouredbythedesiretorise,butoneseems

almostnoneofthemwhoappeartonourishvasthopesortoaimveryhigh.

Allwantconstantlytoacquiregoods,reputation,power;fewenvisionall

thesethingsonagrandscale.lvii

Tocquevilleattributedthedeclineofgreatambitiontothelevelingdownof

thearistocraticfamiliesthatonceheldgreatpowerandwealthandtheriseofthe

bourgeoishabitsofwork,thrift,andindustry,butalsototheChristianvirtueof

humilitythathadmadeambitionappearmorallydisreputable.Hisworkaddresses

thefailingsofthemiddleclassdemocracieswiththeirconstantrestlessness,

materialism,andbeliefinprogress.ForTocqueville,itwasprincipallytheequality

ofconditionsbroughtaboutbymoderndemocracythathascontributedtothe

erosionoflarge-scaleambition:

33

Whataboveallturnsmenofdemocraciesawayfromgreatambitionisnot

thesmallnessoftheirfortune,buttheviolentefforttheymakeeverydayto

betterit.Theycompelthesoultoemployallitsstrengthindoingmediocre

thingswhichcannotfailsoontolimititsviewandcircumscribeitspower.

Theycouldbemuchpoorerandstillbegreater.lviii

“Thefewopulentcitizensfoundwithinademocracyarenoexceptiontothisrule,”

hecontinues.Andinoneofhismostacerbicsentences,hewrites:“Amanwho

raiseshimselfbydegreestowealthandpowercontractshabitsofprudenceand

restraintinthislongworkfromwhichhecannotafterwardsdepart.Onedoesnot

graduallyenlargeone’ssoullikeone’shouse.”lix

Tocquevilledidnotentirelyruleoutthepossibilitythatsuchthingsashigh

ambitionandhonorwouldcontinuetoliveeveninthenewdemocraticregimes,but

theirobjectswouldtakedifferentforms.HonorinwhatTocquevillecalledthe

ancienregime–theoldworldofhierarchyandstatus–wasattachedmainlyto

activitieslikewarandpreservingone’splaceinsociety.Inmoderndemocratic

societies,honorismorespreadout.Itisascribedlargelytocommercialpractices.

“Allthepeacefulvirtuesthattendtofavortrademustbespeciallyhonoredamong

thispeople,”hewrote,“andonecannotneglectthemwithoutfallingintopublic

contempt.”lxHonorisalmostexclusivelyamatterofcommercialenterprise.To

engageincommerce,toriskloss,toweathercompetition,takesaspecialkindof

courage.Itisnotthewarriorbuttheentrepreneurwhoispreparedtoriskallon

34

newundertakings.Commercemaynotbearisktolifeandlimb,itmaynotconfer

statusandrankasintheoldaristocracies,butitstillrequiresakindofboldness,

daring,andinitiativethatseemsappropriatefordemocraticsocieties.

LincolnandTocquevillegavetwoverydifferentaccountsoftheproblemof

greatambition.ForTocqueville,thetransitionfromthearistocratictothe

democraticagerepresentedafundamentalchangeinhumannature.Itisalmostas

iftheserepresented“twodistincthumanities.”lxiAmbitionwould,ofcourse,not

entirelydisappear,butitwouldbecomesmall.Tocquevillefeared,perhaps

unreasonably,thathatredofprivilegewouldshrinktheimaginationleavingno

roomfortheexpressionofindividualgreatness.ForTocqueville,whathaschanged

isnotsomuchthedesirebuttheobjectofambition.Ourambitiousmenandwomen

todayseektofindtheirfameandfortunelessinpolitics,themilitary,orwarthan

throughbusinessandentrepreneurship.Tocquevillehadsomethingofthe

aristocrat’sdisdainfortrade.AlthoughIamloathtocriticize,hemayhavealso

underestimatedthequalitiesofcompetition,risk,andeventhesheerdesirefor

noveltythatareinvolvedincommercialenterprises.Ourambitiousmenarestill

occasionallygeneralsandstatesmen,butaremorelikelytobeentrepreneurs,the

“jobcreators”muchliketheaptlynamedSteveJobsorBillGatesorMark

Zuckerberg.Noonewoulddenytheenormouscontributionsthesemenhavemade

tosocietyintermsofourease,comfort,andsociability–certainlynotI--butare

theseactivitiesthatconfergloryandimmortalfame?

35

ForLincoln,thedangerofambitiousmen–thosedescendedfrom“thedenof

thelionandthetribeoftheeagle”–remainsapermanentchallengetoa

constitutionalorder.Heremainsclosertotheclassicalunderstandingthatregarded

politicsasthetheatre–notmerelyofpowerandinterest(althoughthesecan

certainlyneverbediscounted)–butwherethedesireforfame,glory,honor,and

renownaregivenfreeexpression.ThequalitiesfoundinmenlikeWashington,

Adams,andJeffersonnowrepresentachallengetothepreservationofthevery

regimethattheyestablished.Lincolnwasfacingthesameproblemasallofthose

facingapost-heroicageforwhom“thefieldofglory”hasalreadybeenharvested.He

wasthinkingofthedangersofpotentialusurpers,would-beNapoleonswhohad

transformedarepublicintohisownpersonalempire.WereLincoln’sfears

exaggerated?Notnecessarily.JacksonianismwastheAmericanequivalentof

Bonapartism,thecaseofamilitaryheroonawhitehorseusinghispowerstoattack

thenationalbankandthecourts.InLincoln’sownlifetime,theriseofStephenA.

Douglaswithhispopulistappealsto“popularsovereignty”andofficialpolicyof

“indifference”towhetherslaverywasvotedupordownwouldbeanotherexample

oftheCaesariandangertotheregimeofrightsandconstitutionalgovernment.Is

DonaldTrumpyetanother?Thesearequestionsthatourpoliticalscienceseems

reluctanteventoask.

STEVENB.SMITH

YALEUNIVERSITY

36

37

i Two exceptions to this are Robert Faulkner, The Case for Greatness: Honorable

Ambition and its Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); William Casey

King, Ambition, a History: From Vice to Virtue (New Haven: Yale University Press,

2013).

ii Orville Gilbert Brim, Look at Me! The Fame Motive from Childhood to Death (Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009).

iii Daniel J. Boorstin, “From Hero to Celebrity,” Hidden History: Exploring Our Secret

Past, (New York: Vintage Books, 1961).

iv Peter Berger, “On the Obsolescence of the Concept of Honor,” European Journal of

Sociology 11 (1970): 339; see also Sharon Krause, Liberalism with Honor (Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 2002); and more recently, James Bowman, Honor: A History

(New York: Encounter, 2006).

v See also, Peter Olsthoorn, “Honour, Face and Reputation in Political Theory,”

Euoropean Journal of Political Theory 7 (2008): 472-91.

vi Thomas Hobbes, De Cive: The English Version (Clarendon Edition of the Works of

Thomas Hobbes), ed. Howard Warrender (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), I, 2.

38

vii For a recent reflection on this genre, see David Lebow, “Caro’s Lives: Comparative

Biography as Political Theory,” Review of Politics, 77 (2015): 99-127.

viii See Barbara Koziak, Retrieving Political Emotion: Thumos, Aristotle and Gender

(University Park: Penn State University Press, 2000), 40-80; Bruno Snell, The Discovery

of the Mind in Greek Philosophy and Literature (New York: Dover, 1982), 9-15;

Bernard Williams, Shame and Necessity (Berkeley: University of California Press,

1993), 25-29.

ix Seth Benardete, Achilles and Hector: The Homeric Hero (South Bend: Saint

Augustine Press, 2005), 11-17.

x See Christina Tarnopolsky, “Thumos and Rationality in Plato’s Republic,” Global

Discourse (2015): 1-16; see also, Angela Hobbs, Plato and the Hero: Courage,

Manliness, and the Impersonal Good (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

xi See in particular, Carnes Lord, Education and Culture in the Political Thought of

Aristotle (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 200-02.

xii For some of the best treatments, see Harry V. Jaffa, Thomism and Aristotelianism

(Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979), 116-41; Aristide Tessitore, Reading Aristotle’s

“Ethics”: Virtue, Rhetoric, and Political Philosophy (Albany: SUNY, 1996), 28-35;

Robert Faulkner, The Case for Greatness, 16-57.

39

xiii See Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1971), 142-43.

xiv Karl Marx, Capital, trans. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (London: Lawrence

and Wishart, 1970), 82; see S. S. Prawer, Karl Marx and World Literature (New York:

Oxford, 1976), XXX

xv For the Christian bias against honor, see Bowman, Honor: A History, 45, 47-8. xvi Albert O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Arguments for Capitalism

Before its Triumph (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977).

xvii For the place of Kant whose case – as in so many things – is in a class by itself, see

Susan Meld Shell, “Archimides Revisted: Honor and History in The Conflict of the

Faculties,” Kant and the Limits of Autonomy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

2009), 277-305.

xviii Ralph Lerner, “Commerce and Character,” The Thinking Revolutionary: Principle

and Practice in the New Republic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), 195-221.

xix Douglass Adair, “Fame and the Founding Fathers,” Fame and the Founding Fathers,

ed. Trevor Colbourne (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998), 17-18; for the persistence of

40

classical themes of honor in the early republican period, see also Joanne Freeman, Affairs

of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press,

2001).

xx See Garry Wills, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (Garden

City: Doubleday, 1984); Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an

American Symbol (New York: Free Press, 1987); Lorraine Smith Pangle and Thomas

Pangle, “George Washington and the Life of Honor,” The Noblest Minds, 59-72.

xxi Max Ferrand, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. III (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Appendix A, 85.

xxii See Luke Mayville, The Oligarchic Mind: Wealth and Power in the Political Thought

of John Adams (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming); see also Douglass

Adair, The Spur of Fame: Dialogues of John Adams and Benjamin Rush (San Marino:

The Huntington Library, 1966); the point is also noted by Hannah Arendt, On Revolution

(New York: Viking, 1965), 63-5.

xxiii Adair, “Fame and the Founding Fathers,” 18.

xxiv Abraham Lincoln, “Address to the Young Men’s Lyceum,” Speeches and Writings,

1832-1858, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (New York: Library of America, 1989); references

to this speech will be to paragraph number given in parentheses.

41

xxv Edmund Wilson, Patriotic Gore: Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War

(New York: W. W. Norton, 1962), 99-130; Harry V. Jaffa offered an extensive reply to

an earlier piece by Wilson in Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the

Lincoln-Douglas Debates (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1959), 183-232.

xxvi For the moral language of American Whiggery, see Daniel Walker Howe, The

Political Culture of the American Whigs (Chicago: University of Chicago Pres, 1979).

xxvii For a history of the concept, see Darrin McMahon, Divine Fury: A History of Genius

(New York: Basic Books, 2013); for the Byronic elements in Lincoln, see Richard

Brookhiser, Founder’s Son: A Life of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Basic Books,

2014), 63-4.

xxviii Lincoln, “To the People of Sangamon County,” 5. xxix Lincoln, “On Stephen Douglas,” 384. xxx William H. Herndon, Life of Lincoln, ed. Henry Steele Commanger (New York: Da

Cappo, 1983), 304.

xxxi For Plato’s discussion of the tyrant, see Waller Newell, Tyranny: A New

Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 83-113; for an original

reading of the affinity of Plato with tyranny, see Costin Vlad Alamariu, The Problem of

42

Tyranny and Philosophy in the Thought of Plato and Nietzsche (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale

University, 2015), chap. 3.

xxxii For an excellent account, see David F. Epstein, The Political Theory of “The

Federalist,” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 193-97; see also Harvey C.

Mansfield, Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power (New

York: Free Press, 1989), 247-78.

xxxiii Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist, ed. Jacob Cooke

(Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), no. 10, 58-9 (emphasis added).

xxxiv The Federalist, no. 72, 488. xxxv The Federalist, no. 51, 349. xxxvi The Federalist, no. 37, 234. xxxvii For Lincoln’s use of Shakespeare’s Caesar, see Jaffa, Crisis of the House Divided,

214-16; David Bromwich, “Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Ambition,” Moral Imagination

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 165-67.

xxxviii For some valuable reflections, see Leo Strauss’ response to Eric Voeglin in Leo

Strauss, On Tyranny, ed. Victor Gourevitch and Michael Roth (New York: Free Press,

1991), 178-84.

43

xxxix For a fine treatment of the topic, see John H. Zammito, The Genesis of Kant’s

Critique of Judgment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

xl Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Judgment, trans. James Creed Meredith (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1973), sect. 46.

xli Kant, Critique of Judgment, sect. 25. xlii Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Heroism,” Essays & Poems (New York: Library of America,

1996), 371-81.

xliii Emerson, “Heroism,” 374.

xliv Andrew Delbanco, The Abolitionist Imagination (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 2012), 45.

xlv For some useful connection between Lincoln and Weber, see John P. Diggins, Max

Weber: Politics and the Spirit of Tragedy (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 278-83.

xlvi Wilson, Patriotic Gore, 108.

xlvii Wilson, Patriotic Gore, 108.

44

xlviii For a valuable summary of Wilson’s views see John McKee Barr, Loathing Lincoln:

An American Tradition From the Civil War to the Present (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press, 2014), 241-47, 254-57.

xlix See George B. Forgie, Patricide in the House Divided: A Psychological

Interpretation of Lincoln and his Age (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979); Dwight G.

Anderson, Abraham Lincoln: The Quest for Immortality (New York: Knopf, 1982).

l Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1973).

li Jaffa, Crisis of the House Divided, 183. lii For the role of Miltonic imagery in Lincoln, see John Burt, “Lincoln’s Address to the

Young Men’s Lyceum: A Speculative Essay,” Western Humanities Review 51, 1997:

304-20.

liii On Lincoln’s effort to fashion a civil theology, see Glen Thurow, Abraham Lincoln

and American Political Religion (Albany: SUNY, 1976); Michael Zuckert, “Lincoln and

the Problem of Civil Religion,” Law and Philosophy: The Practice of Theory – Essays in

Honor of George Anastaplo, ed. John Murley, Robert Stone, and William Braithwaite

(Athens: Ohio University Press, 1992), 2: 720-43; John P. Diggins, The Lost Soul of

45

American Politics: Virtue, Self-Interest, and the Foundations of Liberalism (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1984), 306-11.

liv For the best recent study, see Charles L. Griswold, “Liberty and Compulsory Civil

Religion in Rousseau’s Social Contract,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 53

(2015): 271-300.

lv Robert Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” American Civil Religion, ed. Russell

Richey and Donald Jones (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 29.

lvi Bellah, “Civil Religion,” 34-5. lvii Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba

Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), II, iii, 19 (599).

lviii Tocqueville, Democracy in America, II, iii, 19 (601). lix Tocqueville, Democracy in America, II, iii, 19 (601). lx Tocqueville, Democracy in America, II, iii, 18 (594). lxi Tocqueville, Democracy in America, II, iv, 8 (675); Pierre Manent, Tocqueville and the

Nature of Democracy, trans. John Waggoner (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,

1996), xii.