Two 'Calls for Action'

The first, assertive yet moderate and proactive in its approach; the second, sounding the alarm bells and calling “all hands aboard.”

When Abraham Lincoln gave his first Inaugural Address on a March afternoon in 1861, the newly-installed President employed some poetic language in his call for reconciliation

“The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature,”

The reality he faced was that 11 Southern states had already seceded from the Union with others preparing to make the move. He had also been whisked into nation’s capital in secrecy and under the cloak of darkness due to a feared assassination plot—hardly the image of confident leadership taking the reins of government in a time of crisis he might have preferred.

His song of moderation and shared history, as we know, did not change the hearts and minds of the Confederate leaders. The firebrands had taken control of the situation, forcing the radical action of secession, and so were singing from a different hymnal.

The Republican Party that now controlled the national government and which Lincoln headed, meanwhile, was a mix of former Democrats who were pro-Union, the remnants of the Whig Party, and Abolitionists.

For the latter group, centered mainly in the northeastern states, slavery was not a matter of moral relativism. While the new President and many others in the party as well as much of the North were willing to allow slavery in existing states (but not the territories) in their negotiations to preserve the Union, for the latter group there was an uncompromising view that slavery was an evil and needed to be abolished.

For the two sides—the Southern firebrands wishing to preserve that region’s way-of-life and economic model and expand it outwards and the Northen Abolitionists striving for a nation where everyone was free—a middle ground did not exist.

In hindsight, at least as it’s now viewed, slavery was a moral wrong that needed to end and the system of enforced human bondage was the underlying cause of the Civil War that ensued; a conflict that resulted in an enormous loss of blood and treasure.

Lincoln said as much in his second Inaugural Address four years later—with the war nearly ended and Union victory in sight. During those intervening years he had issued the Emancipation Proclamation which changed the nature of the battle and had helped shepherd the 13^th Amendment through Congress that, once ratified by enough states, would abolish slavery.

Nor, despite his initial overtures of conciliation, had he flinched from waging the war nor, from his words and actions, considered any other course than a reunified nation.

Yet, true to his gentle nature, he also spoke those famous words in the second address “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in…”

He had told others in conversation that he wanted to “let the South up easy” rather than pursue a path retribution, forsaking the imprisonment of the Rebel leaders or hanging a few for treason.

This call to the “better angels”, however, did not mean returning to ‘the good old days’ of an economy powered by forced labor. Jefferson’s vision of American democracy and prosperity built on the foundation of yeoman farmers would become the model for all the nation, albeit with the addition of storekeepers, professionals, factory workers, and entrepreneurs—each and all free before the eyes of the law and free to pursue their dreams and ambitions. I should add this has been an ideal, as the record shows, that’s not always embraced or realized.

Malice, of course, is not so easily dismissed, or the hand of generosity returned in kind.

In the South, despite the outcome of the war, ‘Black Codes’ were passed with the purpose of keeping the newly-emancipated blacks under the thump of white power, the Klu Klux Klan was formed to battle Reconstruction by using terror as a weapon, sharecropping (another form of servitude) would evolve into the new agricultural model, and eventually the myth of the ‘Lost Cause’ would take hold that downplayed the issue of slavery.

Correspondingly, Southern whites who embraced Lincoln’s call for reconciliation were ostracized, including a few former Confederate officials and a renowned Civil War general.

In the North, for a time, there was a hard reaction to this effort to keep blacks in a second-class status. The 14^th and 15^th Amendments were passed, granting the former slaves the right of citizenship and then the right to vote, with all this encompassed, and Union troops used as a means to protect blacks in their exercise of civil liberties and creation of social and economic opportunities.

But the patience did not last. While there would eventually be a form of national reunification, it came with Jim Crow Laws in the South that legalized segregation, coupled with the use of intimidating and (on occasion) lethal violence, and defacto segregation and more subtle forms of discrimination in the North.

It took the ‘dream’ and courage of a Civil Rights Movement a hundred years after the Civil War and Lincoln’s words to reverse many of those practices, but that ‘prize’ of equality—the fruit of human compassion—as we’ve seen and are seeing, can remain elusive and the gains taken away,

* * *

The purpose of history, the small yet significant slice I’ve attempted to convey—besides being entertaining and thought provoking as well as exasperating—is to hopefully aid and abet our understanding of current situations and better inform the decisions we make.

Michigan’s U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin last week gave what she called “a major address” before an audience at the Center for Progress. She touched on a number of topics, but a couple of key points were her call for Democrats to be more proactive and purposeful in putting forth a vision for America’s future rather than simply reacting to the Trump Administration’s myriad of proposals and deeds.

To quote from the ABC News report on her remarks, “Slotkin pushed her party to focus their priorities on Americans who are suffering the most. A shrinking middle class is the “single greatest security threat to the U.S.,” she said.

“I believe deep in my bones that if we lose our middle class and by association, the American Dream, we will lose our democracy and eventually our country,” Slotkin said.

In her speech, meant to present “A New Vision for the Democratic Party”, Slotkin laid out a plan to focus on affordability and ‘pocketbook issues. During her speech, she said the Democrats needed to “get back to the basics,” which included creating more and better jobs, affordable options and building more housing.

Slotkin also advised her colleagues that adequate border security needs to be part of any immigration reform proposal.

Another key component in her speech was an assessment on the party’s current direction, or lack thereof, with her noting that “continued infighting keeps it from adopting a clear, cohesive strategy.”

Slotkin said the party is “like a solar system with no sun,” adding that “We don’t act as a team, and when we don’t’ work as a team, we turn our guns on each other, and it’s so, so, so fruitless.”

She characterized the fighting as mainly between those who feel that Trump is “an existential treat to democracy” and needs to be fought on every front versus those who feel the current situation is “survivable” as was Trump’s first administration and the party should focus on the midterms and that ‘politics as normal’ is the more prudent course.

Senator Slotkin, who has built her legislative career on bipartisanship, might be described as offering a ‘third way’ which is to speak out against the possible ‘threats to democracy’ while also being a champion for the working-class and their concerns.

As she might put it, “We can chew gum and walk at the same time.”

To employ a football analogy, the Senator was telling her party and its allies that you need a good offense along with a solid defense—or put another way, you need to tell Americans what you, as a governmental leader or political party or social-policy advocate, stand for, not just what you are against. And if this what you stand for, be energetic in your actions.

Her stance might be characterized as ‘moderate’ given the current partisan extremes that dominate the landscape. That’s, of course, the kind of shorthand the media and others like to use to simplify complex and nuanced proposals.

Moderate implies the ‘middle ground’ and to make it viable you need others willing to join you in this political location. But the ‘rub’ is a middle ground needs to be, or should be, more than splitting the differences. To be effective and have meaning, it needs to offer something concrete and tangible beyond that of serving as a negotiator between the partisan diehards.

Whether Slotkin’s proposed ‘third way’ gains traction depends, in part, on unfolding events and how people react to them, but also whether people can find shared interests or feel it’s even worth the effort.

* * *

‘Moderation’ would not be the word used to describe a recent ‘call for action’ put forth by former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney who has been and remains a fierce critic of President Trump and his agenda.

In a letter sent to Democrats, she blasted them for sending out emails designed to raise campaign funds, a business-as-usual approach, rather than taking aggressive measures to combat what’s happening with the current Administration, the Republican-controlled Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court majority’s supportive rulings in what she calls an “authoritarian machine.”

Cheney gave a list of actions the party and its leaders, along with other Americans, should take, telling them to “organize, strategize, resist, and think outside the box” in their actions, stating that “the other side is fighting to erase the damn Constitution.”

“They (Trump and his followers) are threatening to disappear AMERICANS,” she continued. “And your biggest move can’t be another strongly worded email. We don’t want your urgently fundraising subject lines. We want backbone.”

She ends by telling them that “You still have a chance to do something historic. To be remembered for courage, not caution. To go down as a party that didn’t just watch the fall—but fought the hell back with everything they had. But the clock is ticking. And the deportation busses are idling.”

It goes without saying, her intent is to prevail, not lose.

* * *

So, there you have it, two ‘calls for action’ on what the Democratic Party and its supporters should do, and by extension all Americans of like mind—the first being assertive yet moderate and proactive in its approach; the second, sounding the alarm bells and calling “all hands aboard.”

Of course, we also have the agenda being put forth by the Trump Administration that is supported by a wide swath of Americans; some who echo Slotkin in her tone and preference for policy debates, others who take a more apocalyptic view similar to the urgency expressed by Cheney.

Here on the eve of the nation’s birthday—249 years since the Declaration of Independence was adopted—those words still matter'; still inform our choices on what the nation and ‘we the people’ ought to stand for… “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Nothing ambivalent about the meaning in my view… ‘Freedom for all of us, not some’ as well as ‘Equal treatment for each and everyone, not a select few.’

Words and meaning that appeal to “the better angels of our nature,” not the darker sentiments of ‘malice and division’.

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist and commentator.

hortonnotebook@gmail.com