When Lincoln’s Morality Met Politics

To the Editor:

I thank John Herron for his helpful and informative summary of my book Lincoln’s Ethics (“Lincoln the Political Operator,” December 11). However, I disagree with two of Herron’s criticisms.

1. Herron writes, “When the Whigs dissolved, he joined cause with the Republicans but also a loose confederation of pro-Union Democrats. He did so because they shared not his ethics but his understanding of politics.” But the Republican Party was an antislavery party, and Lincoln’s bitter opposition to slavery was a central reason why he joined the party. He re-entered politics in the mid-1850s because he was “roused as never before” by the Kansas-Nebraska Act and his fear that it would lead to the expansion and perpetuation of slavery. Lincoln opposed slavery because he thought that it was morally wrong and a “monstrous injustice.”

2. I am very puzzled by Herron’s assertion that “Carson’s ethical Lincoln occupies a special position outside the messy world of traditional politics. But reinterpreting ordinary political operations as idealism not only skews our understanding of history but also distorts our view of workable party politics.” Nothing I say in the book implies that Lincoln was outside “the messy world of traditional politics.” Indeed, I stress his willingness to make morally fraught political compromises, his use of deception and bribery to help pass the 13th Amendment, his willingness to pander to the voters’ racial prejudices, and his great reluctance to push for policies that lacked popular political support.

Lincoln was a master politician and a very ambitious one. But his political activities and political ambitions served a higher moral purpose. As he said of himself, he sought to acquire the esteem of others by rendering himself worthy of their esteem, and he wanted to be remembered for doing things that redounded to the interest of humanity. Lincoln’s own utilitarian moral ideals sanctioned entering into the messy world of politics and sometimes sanctioned choosing the lesser of two evils and using dubious means in order to best promote the general welfare. On this point, Herron misinterprets utilitarianism.

Thomas L. Carson
Professor of Philosophy
Loyola University Chicago