A 'Promise' to Be Kept: How Abraham Lincoln Viewed The Declaration of Independence

 

“Let us readopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it the practices and policy which harmonize with it.” ~ Cooper Union Address (1860) [1]

That’s not just a profound statement—it’s a goal Abraham Lincoln wrestled to fulfill throughout his presidency. The Declaration of Independence lays out timeless ideals: liberty, equality, government by consent. But whether today’s political and social activities jibe with those ideals—or mock them—is a question best answered through Lincoln’s own words.

Let’s see what he had to say.

📜 What the Declaration Says

At its core, the Declaration states:

• All men are created equal
• They are endowed with certain unalienable rights
• Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed
• People have the right to alter or abolish destructive governments

These principles are not policy—they’re philosophical commitments. And they’ve been invoked by abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights leaders, and yes, even politicians—each claiming to defend or restore those ideals.

🔍 Lincoln’s Take

Lincoln saw the Declaration as a moral compass—a "promise" to be kept. In his speech at Springfield, Illinois, on July 17, 1858, during his Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas, he said:

“It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men…” [1]

He believed the Declaration was a standard toward which to strive , not a description of reality. It was not a completed achievement, but a moral commitment that must be fulfilled over time.

He continued in that same speech:

“This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.” [1]

This idea recurs in his later speeches—most famously in the Gettysburg Address, where he speaks of the nation being “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” That phrase, lifted directly from the Declaration, became the moral center of Lincoln’s wartime vision.

📅 Today’s Activities: Jibe or Mock?

Some would argue:

Jibe: When laws expand rights, protect speech, or ensure equal access, they honor the Declaration.

Mock: When power is abused, rights are denied, or truth is manipulated, they betray its spirit.

But through the Lincolnian lens: The Declaration is not a relic—it’s a challenge. Every generation must decide for itself whether it’s living up to the promise or falling short. 

🗽Conclusion

Lincoln didn’t treat the Declaration as a museum piece. He treated it as a living document—a moral North Star. In a time when political discourse often feels unmoored, returning to Lincoln’s framing reminds us: The "promise" of liberty and equality is not self-executing. It must be renewed, defended, lived—and above all, kept.

That’s not just history. 

That’s the American way.

This was another topic from the archives of Abraham Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

📚 Works Cited

[1] Lincoln, Abraham. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Vols. 2 and 3, edited by Roy P. Basler et al., Rutgers University Press, 1953, Vol. 2, pp. 499–500 and Vol. 3, pp. 547-556.

'two and two do NOT make four' - Abe Lincoln and The Art of Debate

 

Millions of viewers watched the 2024 Presidential Debate in June. It was a very poor showing by both people who are running for the Office of the President of the United States. The Republican candidate lied throughout the debate, and the Democratic debater spoke vaguely and appeared lost and confused.

A post about the "art" of debating in the words of one of the most famous Republicans in American history (and a debater himself), Abraham Lincoln, might provide an intriguing retrospective. Although the subject of Lincoln's speech was the expansion of slavery, tucked into the nooks and crannies of it were nuggets of debate strategy, style and warnings.

On Monday, October 16, 1854, then-U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) addressed a large audience at Peoria, Illinois. When he finished, he was cheered; and the band in attendance played a vigorous tune. The crowd then began to call for Abraham Lincoln, who - as Sen. Douglas announced - would answer him.

Lincoln - a practicing, successful attorney in Springfield, Illinois at the time - took the stand and opened with his customary wry humor. While poking fun of himself, Lincoln also revealed a crafty debate strategy - allowing his opponent [Douglas] to speak last:

The Judge has already informed you that he is to have an hour to reply to me. I [don't doubt] you have been a little surprised to learn that I have consented . . .if the Judge was entirely done, you democrats would leave, and not hear me; but by giving him the close, I felt confident you would stay for the fun of hearing him skin me.[1]

As a speaker's strategy, Lincoln regarded the use of disparaging remarks about his opponents as a distraction from the actual subject of the debate.

I wish further to say, that I do not propose to question the patriotism, or to assail the motives of any man, or class of men; but rather to strictly confine myself to the naked merits of the question.[1]

Lincoln also pointed out that when a debater is vague or unclear about any point or position in his argument, it works against him as a candidate:

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction . . . so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me.

But when candidates lie about facts or history, it's a denial of reality:

. . . the Judge's desperate assumption that the Compromises of [1850] had no connection with one another; that Illinois came into the Union as a slave state, and some other similar ones. This is no other than a bold denial of the history of the country. 

In Abraham Lincoln's view, to deny, lie, or misrepresent the factual history of anything by one candidate was to undermine the purpose of a debate in the first place. It destroyed the premise or the assumption of truth that served as the starting point for further reasoning and arguments by the other candidate.

If we do not know that the Compromises of '50 were dependent on each other; if we do not know that Illinois came into the Union as a free state---we do not know any thing. If we do not know these things, we do not know that we ever had a revolutionary war, or such a chief as Washington. To deny these things is to deny our national axioms and it puts an end to all argument. 

Lincoln then gave an very brilliant and succinct example that really resonates in today's political climate:

If a man will stand up and assert, and repeat, and re-assert, that two and two do NOT make four, I know nothing in the power of argument that can stop him.

Lincoln said that if such a candidate stood before him:

I can answer [him] so long as he sticks to the premises; but when he flies from them, I can not work an argument into the consistency of a . . . gag, and actually close his mouth with it. In such a case I can only [leave] him to the [voters].

To create a false picture based on lies, half-truths, and misrepresentation - i.e. rampant crime, failing economy, climate change is a hoax - leaves voters in ignorance of the truth with which to make a fair, rational decision at the ballot box. To Lincoln, political practices like these were a danger to the citizens themselves, to a representative democracy and to our country.

As it turns out, he was right.

Six years later, the South seceded, and the Union was broken asunder.

What will happen this time?

This was another anecdote about Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

Works Cited

1. Lincoln, Abraham. Speech at Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2. pp. 248,283.

JUMP TO SECTION