Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had a series of debates during the senatorial elections of Illinois in 1858.  These debates were extremely popular and catapulted Abraham Lincoln into a national level politician.  He may have lost the battle for senator, but he won the war of ideas and was elected president in 1860.  There were many subjects up for debate, but let me discuss the main issues of slavery and popular government.  Author David Donald wrote an excellent book called Lincoln.   Let’s start with quoting for Donald’s book.

One way to formulate that difference was to see Douglas as the advocate of majority rule and Lincoln as the defender of minority rights.  In Douglas view there were virtually no limits on what the majority of the people of a state or a territory could do—including, if they so chose, holding black-skinned inhabitants in slavery.  While Lincoln also valued self-government and would make no attempt to end diversity on, say, cranberry laws in Indiana and Illinois, he felt passionately that no majority should have the power to limit the most fundamental rights of a minority to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is a powerful paragraph and filled with meaning that has importance in the modern world.  Stephen Douglas was arguing from the law of the land and holding as his highest principle the right of people to vote in a government of their choice.  Abraham Lincoln believed in this principle, but held a higher principle.  The higher principle was tied back to his Biblical beliefs that all men were created equal before an Almighty God.  This is the essence of wisdom—to build a hierarchy of beliefs for which you stand.  All beliefs cannot be equal.  For example, I believe in representative government and the rights for people to vote for their representatives.  But if the people voted by a 51% margin to perform euthanasia on anyone over 80 to reduce taxes should we go along with this?  If we objected, by what principle would we object?  Lincoln objected to the law of the land by a higher law, an absolute law derived from Biblical teaching.   In our government, one person with the truth can back down a majority.  Majorities can be wrong and we must follow the rule of law if it conflicts with the law of the land. 

What makes the Civil War so tragic to me is good people on both sides, neglected higher principles and attempted to settle the dispute on lower principles.  I believe the person who throws the first punch has shifted from reason to emotion.  As a country we must let reason and let principles rule our choices.   Both Lincoln and Douglas were holding on to different aspects of truth.  Lincoln had a higher truth and if reasonable men would have discussed the issues, a Civil War could have been avoided.  Instead passion ruled the day and honorable men and women on both sides were hurt.  Both sides used force to settle the discussion and force is a terrible principle to use to settle a disagreement.  Douglas used reason, but had a myopic vision of the world as it was.  Lincoln used reason, but with a larger vision, he saw the world of absolutes and the hierarchy of principles.  The mass of people used passion and war resulted with terrible losses for everyone.  Every truly great leader must be a person of principle.  They must be willing to go against the majority, company, state or even country if the majority is violating an absolute principle.  Lincoln was great leader and had both sides come to the table and reasoned together the posterity of many men and women would be alive today. 

Do you believe there are absolutes even above majority rule?  If you do, where did you get those absolutes?  Every country must have a rule of law that the people agree to or chaos will ensue.  If the majority of you club, organization, state, or country are going against the absolute principles—will you make a stand?  Lincoln made a stand and history remembers him.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

“Give me liberty or give me death!” proclaimed Patrick Henry in his most memorable phrase.  Patrick Henry was acknowledged to be the best public speaker of all the revolutionary war leaders.  After reading George Willison’s excellent biography on Patrick Henry, I realized this was not his most influential act as a leader.  There is a story from history that needs to be remembered as an example of a man and his principles.  On May 29, 1765 a young 29 year old Patrick Henry walked into the Hall of the House of Burgesses.  Only 39 of the 116 members were in the hall as many had left assuming nothing great would be accomplished in the last few days of the session.  In hindsight, nothing could have been further from the facts. 

The explosion of truth and courage displayed by Patrick Henry on this day would reverberate throughout the known world.  More evidence that individual moral acts matter in God’s eyes.  England had recently passed the infamous Stamp Act and Virginia leaders were upset at the obvious power play by the English leaders.  Virginia had always appropriated the taxes and “tyranny” was frowned upon by these freedom loving people.    As Thomas Jefferson was later to say, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”   A direct tax on the people was a new policy employed by the British.  Virginians believed it violated their rights and privileges they had enjoyed since the founding of the colony.  Although many members of the House were speaking behind the scenes—no one seemed to have the courage to go public with the complaints the Virginians had with the English taxes.   In walked Patrick Henry to fill that leadership gap and expose the hypocrisy of the English position. 

The more conservative members of the house agreed the Stamp Act was wrong in policy and in implementation, but stressed an obeisance tone to the English leaders.  Patrick Henry believed if Virginia had constitutional and inalienable rights then let’s assert those rights—not grovel for them on bended knee at the whim of King George.  Let me quote directly from Mr. Willison’s book:

In pioneer communities where people lived by hard toil and most men were their own masters, a new equalitarian society was evolving—one in which there were no marked distinctions in wealth and social status.  Depending on his energy and abilities, one man was as good as the other, and none was disposed to bow to the pretensions and obiter dicta of their self styled “betters.”

I translate this to mean, “When you are right you better stand, because to not stand for truth does not make you a peacemaker, but a coward."  The Henry family had not raised a coward and he believed strongly in his God given rights.

I will continue this historical essay tomorrow.  Here are some questions to ponder before tomorrow’s leadership lesson.  If you were part of the House and saw the English trouncing on the liberties of the colonies what would you do?  Would you gripe behind the scenes and complain about those silly Englishmen and yet do nothing when you have a chance to speak in public?  Too many would be leaders know what is right, but they lack the character to stand for truth when they believe it may hurt.  What kind of leadership ducks and runs the moment things get tough?   What do you think Patrick Henry will do when he has his moment to speak to the House of Burgess?   History is so fascinating to me because you can learn from the moral stands made or not made.  Where would our land be today had we not had a group willing to stand for truth regardless of the personal cost?  You must use your own moral imagination to place yourself as a member of the House of Burgess and determine where you would be in the early conflict that set off the Revolutionary War.   History remembers the names of the courageous few who stood for truth and relegates to the dustbin of history the cowardice majority who fawn obedience to policies they know to be wrong.   Tomorrow we will learn what a courageous leader does when confronted with truth and tyranny.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

I am reading a great book for the second time!  It is titled, “The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom.  There is a chapter on books that will make you think about the importance of reading in a person’s life.  Mr. Bloom has watched a decline in good reading from his students.  His thesis is without good reading the soul is shallow and has a reduced capacity to process heroic virtues.  The pop culture does not recognize virtuous behavior, but recognizes bizarre behaviors.   Classic books give people examples of heroic virtue and helps us draw on the strength of our past when we go through our own struggles.  When you have a friend that is hurting you can draw on the loyalty of Achilles to his friend.  When you need to make a moral stand, you can draw on Daniel willing to be thrown to the lions for what he believed.   When you are oppressed by tyranny you can read about Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty of give me death!”   How would you process these thoughts without reference to the great men and women of the past?   I encourage everyone to read more and read better books.  Just as there is junk food there is also junk reading.  To be virtuous you need to have examples of virtuous behavior and model this behavior in your own life.  No excuses about your past or how you were raised!  It is your life and you have the power to choose to read, listen and grow.  Leadership is a choice and a life well lived is the reward!   Let me give you a couple of Mr. Blooms thoughts:

“I began to ask students who their heroes are.  Again, there is usually silence, and most frequently nothing follows.  Why should anyone have heroes?”

“In us the contempt for the heroic is only an extension of the perversion of the democratic principle that denies greatness and wants everyone to feel comfortable in his skin without having to suffer unpleasant comparisons.”

“One can only pity young people without admirations they can respect or avow, who are artificially restrained from the enthusiasm for great virtue.”

“Idealism as it is commonly conceived should have primacy in an education, for man is a being who must take his orientation by his possible perfection.  To attempt to suppress this most natural of all inclinations because of possible abuses is, almost literally, to throw out the baby with the bath.”

“But deprived of literary guidance, they no longer have any image of a perfect soul, and hence do not long to have one.  They do not even imagine that there is such a thing……Thus the most common student view lacks an awareness of the depths as well of the heights, and lacks gravity.”

I will be recommending good books to improve your life and leadership on this blog.  Drink deeply of the classics and watch your perspective choices widen as you draw on the knowledge gained from great books.   You will enjoy Mr. Bloom’s thought provoking book.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward