Abraham Lincoln: “House Divided” Speech

Questions for Further Study

• 1. In the “House Divided” Speech, Lincoln outlined a conspiracy to spread slavery throughout the United States. Douglas ridiculed the conspiracy theory in his response, and even Lincoln admitted he could not prove that a conspiracy existed. Do you think Lincoln used the idea of conspiracy as a rhetorical device to persuade and move his audience as he would summarize a case in a courtroom or that he really believed there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to infer the existence of a conspiracy?
• 2. Lincoln held that the Union could not remain divided and would eventually become either all slave or all free. He insisted that he never suggested that slavery could be abolished by government action. When Douglas asked Lincoln how he proposed to prevent the spread of slavery after the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln answered that he did not know. Was Lincoln sincere, or was he staking out a political position? In other words, do you think that Lincoln was prepared for the possibility of a secession crisis and possible civil war?
• 3. Lincoln has been cast as an inveterate foe of slavery and the “Great Emancipator” of black people. Conversely, he has been seen as a cynical politician who actually cared nothing about slaves and merely used the issue for his own purposes. Considering what you know of Lincoln from his speeches, actions, and personal history, evaluate these two views.
• 4. Assume that rather than issuing a call for troops after the fall of Fort Sumter and going to war to preserve the Union, Lincoln had simply let the seven states of the Deep South secede. In your opinion, what would have been the result? For instance, consider the fate of the eight slave states of the Upper South. What about the future of the Confederate States of America?
• 5. Before the Civil War, it was said that “the United States are”; after the war it was said that “the United States is.” This refers to the triumph of a national meaning of federalism over a “states’ rights” meaning. The states’ rights interpretation of federalism held that individual states were sovereign powers that could reject or nullify federal laws they deemed to be unconstitutional. To what extent was the sectional crisis of the 1850s a reflection of these conflicting philosophies? That is, was the sectional crisis more about slavery and freedom and less about the nature of the Union or vice versa?