Cuomo Praises Lincoln But Sounds Like Douglas

Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York and, according to his publisher, “a gifted political philosopher,” has a new book out, Why Lincoln Matters: Today More Than Ever. According to the publisher’s synopsis and accompanying blurbs, the book sounds like it is simply an occasion for some additional Bush-bashing. (“Cuomo draws a devastating comparison between Lincoln’s vision of the American democracy and that of the George W. Bush administration,” opined noted Lincoln scholar Walter Cronkite in a typical blurb.)

I haven’t read the book and, life being short, may well not. I have, however, read, and just now re-read, Cuomo’s most widely known and highly regarded work, his September 13, 1984, speech at Notre Dame on “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective.” This speech was widely regarded as the profound last word on how Catholic politicians should treat the issue of abortion, and by implication on how the public should regard Catholic politicians as they grappled with this issue.

I thought at the time, and still think, that that speech did not deserve the lavish praise it received (although re-reading it just now one line in the beginning did strike me as just and true: “I do not speak as a philosopher; to suggest that I would, would be to set a new record for false pride.” Harcourt, take note.) I write now, however, not to give you my evaluation of the speech, and certainly not to give my opinion (if I have one) as to how Catholic politicians, or anyone else, should deal with the abortion issue. My point here is that, for better or worse, the whole tone and thrust and substance of Cuomo’s speech can be read — in fact, should be read — as a restatement of the stance Lincoln’s great opponent, Stephen A. Douglas, took on the issue of slavery. Nothing in the publisher’s blurb on Why Lincoln Matters: Today More Than Ever suggests awareness of this irony, confirmed by a text search of the book on Amazon that finds no occurrence of “Douglas.”

Essentially, Cuomo argued at Notre Dame that he agreed with and accepted his Church’s teaching that abortion is wrong, but that in a pluralistic democracy he did not believe he had the right to force his belief on others. He said this, of course, at much greater length, but that’s the essence of what he said.

Some representative excerpts:

Must I, having heard the Pope renew the Church’s ban on birth control devices, veto the funding of contraceptive programs for non-Catholics or dissenting Catholics in my State? I accept the Church’s teaching on abortion. Must I insist you do?….

As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created, and we never have. We thought Church doctrine was clear on this, and — more than that — both of us felt it in full agreement with what our hearts and our consciences told us. For me, life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine Justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That — to my less subtle mind — by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed — reverence.

But not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda….

Our public morality, then — the moral standards we maintain for everyone, not just the ones we insist on in our private lives — depends on a consensus view of right and wrong. The values derived from religious belief will not — and should not — be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large, by consensus….

Cuomo’s position, in short, is eerily similar to Stephen A. Douglas’s notion of “popular sovereignty.” As historian Robert W. Johannsen has written,

Slavery, [Douglas] believed, must be treated impartially as a question of public policy, although he privately thought it was wrong and hoped it would be eliminated some day.

At one point Cuomo made specific reference to the issue of slavery, and in terms very similar to Douglas’s.

But the truth of the matter is, few if any Catholic bishops spoke for abolition in the years before the Civil War. It wasn’t, I believe, that the bishops endorsed the idea of some humans owning and exploiting other humans; Pope Gregory XVI, in 1940, had condemned the slave trade. [This is a typo, or something. Pope Gregory XVI condemned slavery on Dec. 3, 1839 — jsr] Instead it was a practical political judgment that the bishops made. They weren’t hypocrites; they were realists. At the time, Catholics were a small minority, mostly immigrants, despised by much of the population, often vilified and the object of sporadic violence. In the face of a public controversy that aroused tremendous passions and threatened to break the country apart, the bishops made a pragmatic decision. They believe their opinion would not change people’s minds. Moreover they knew that there were southern Catholics, even some priests, who owned slaves. They concluded that under the circumstances, arguing for a constitutional amendment against slavery would do more harm than good, so they were silent. As they have been, generally, in recent years, on the question of birth control. And as the Church has been on even more controversial issues in the past, even ones that dealt with life and death.

What is relevant to this discussion is that the bishops were making judgments about translating Catholic teachings into public policy, not about the moral validity of the teachings. In so doing they grappled with the unique political complexities of their time. The decision they made to remain silent on a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery or on the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t a mark of their moral indifference; it was a measured attempt to balance moral truths against political realities. Their decision reflected their sense of complexity, not their diffidence. As history reveals, Lincoln behaved with similar discretion.

That last sentence, alas, could hardly be more wrong. Douglas repeated that he didn’t care whether slavery was voted up or down, only that the (white) people had a right to decide. In his last debate with Douglas (at Alton, Illinois, 15 October 1858) Lincoln replied: “Douglas doesn’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down, but God cares, and humanity cares, and I care; and with God’s help I shall not fail. I may not see the end; but it will come and I shall be vindicated.” Lincoln, unlike Douglas/Cuomo, was quite willing to “impose his views” on the the voters — even a majority —  in the territories to keep slavery from spreading.

If in fact Lincoln’s approach had been similar to Douglas’s and Cuomo’s, Kansas, Nebraska, and the rest of the territories would have been free to introduce slavery if they so chose, and it is safe to assume slavery would have spread. The Civil War would have been avoided, delayed, or at least have been far different from what actually happened.

Perhaps Cuomo should write a sequel: Stephen A. Douglas: Today More Than Ever.

Say What? (15)

  1. KRM April 30, 2004 at 5:24 pm | | Reply

    Orwellian Newspeak thinking at play in the D Party.

  2. Laura April 30, 2004 at 8:50 pm | | Reply

    I’ve long been struck by the parallels between slavery and abortion. Here are some bumper stickers you might have seen 150 years ago:

    Against slavery? Don’t own one.

    Pro Black Pro Choice

    My Cotton Field My Choice

  3. Alex Bensky April 30, 2004 at 8:51 pm | | Reply

    The National Council of Churches had a full page ad in the New York Times a few days ago, giving religious reasons for opposing the administration’s environmental policies.

    Curiously, I do not detect any groundswell of protest that this is imposing a religious viewpoint on public policy.

  4. Richard Nieporent May 1, 2004 at 11:21 am | | Reply

    “Cuomo draws a devastating comparison between Lincoln’s vision of the American democracy and that of the George W. Bush administration,” opined noted Lincoln scholar Walter Cronkite in a typical blurb.

    I guess that great Lincoln scholar, Walter Cronkite, forgot about Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

  5. Gyp May 1, 2004 at 1:55 pm | | Reply

    “I’ve long been struck by the parallels between slavery and abortion.”

    They are there because the practices have a great similarity. Blacks had no rights under slavery. Fetuses (or is it Feti?) have no rights when abortion is allowed.

  6. Mary May 1, 2004 at 2:41 pm | | Reply

    Laura,

    Love the bumper sticker ideas. They remind me of two stickers I once saw side-by-side on the same car:

    “Pro-choice and Proud of it”

    and

    “Love animals, don’t eat them”

    Go figure.

  7. Margaret May 3, 2004 at 4:35 am | | Reply

    Pro-Lifers noticed this parallel quite awhile ago, actually… I was at MIT and active in the campus PL group from 1989-93. When our turn came up for bulletin board space, one display we used fairly regularly ran parallel dialogues from the L/D debates and abortion-related debates. It really upset people. :-)

  8. Robert Wenson May 3, 2004 at 6:52 am | | Reply

    Richard Nieporent:

    Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States reads, in part,

    “The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    So far as I know, every time that Lincoln suspended the writ, he was authorized to do so by Congress.

  9. Curtis Crawford May 5, 2004 at 4:47 pm | | Reply

    Robert Wenson:

    Lincoln’s first suspension of habeas corpus was in a letter to Gen Winfield Scott, April 27, 1861. Congress was not in session and conveniently not called until July. In Lincoln’s Message to the Congress (on July 4th, no less), he addresses the fact that Congress had not authorized the call, and sets forth powerful reasons for suspending, nevertheless.

    John Rosenberg:

    Beautiful, your moving Cuomo from Lincoln’s side of the board to Douglas’s! As a good Democrat, Cuomo should be reconciled to that. Although Douglas privately indicated his disapproval of slavery, I think not publicly. If Cuomo during his political career publicly condemned abortion (though not demanding its prohibition), that would differentiate him somewhat from Douglas.

  10. Curtis Crawford May 5, 2004 at 10:58 pm | | Reply

    John, I joined your characterization of Cuomo more completely than I should have. You quote him, in his 1984 Notre Dame speech, describing the position of American Catholic bishops in the 1850s: “The decision they made to remain silent on a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery or on the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t a mark of their moral indifference; it was a measured attempt to balance moral truths against political realities. Their decision reflected their sense of complexity, not their diffidence. As history reveals, Lincoln behaved with similar discretion.”

    You then say: “That last sentence, alas, misses the mark. If in fact Lincoln’s approach had been similar to Douglas’s and Cuomo’s, Kansas, Nebraska, and the rest of the territories would have been free to introduce slavery if they so chose, and it is safe to assume slavery would have spread. The Civil War would have been avoided, delayed, or at least have been far different from what actually happened.”

    But Cuomo’s point here is that Lincoln’s approach was similar to that of the Catholic bishops on the two examples he gives. Indeed, it was even more conciliatory toward slavery. He favored guarantees not to seek a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, and supported the Fugitive Slave Law as good-faith compliance with the Compromise of 1850. Perhaps in other aspects of slavery as a public issue, the bishops were less like Lincoln and more like Douglas. For example, I don’t know where the bishops stood on extension of slavery to the territories, or whether they repeatedly, publicly, condemned slavery as morally wrong.

    In one respect, Lincoln and Cuomo are similar. Lincoln’s position on slavery harmonized well with the political party he co-founded and led to national power. Cuomo’s position on abortion harmonized with the political party he led in New York state.

  11. John Rosenberg May 6, 2004 at 9:54 am | | Reply

    Curtis,

    First, I agree with you about Lincoln and the Republicans more than you may think. In fact, the foundation of my academic career, way back when, was an article, “Toward A New Civil War Revisionism,” in THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR in the late 60s [38 AM. SCHOLAR 250 (1969], i.e., right after the earth cooled, arguing that everyone should have stayed home. It made the same points you made about Lincoln’s placing saving the union over and above ending slavery, stressed the compromises he made and was willing to make, etc., etc. (A follow-up, making the same points and more, in response to a critic, appeared in CIVIL WAR HISTORY several years later: “The American Civil War and the Problem of “Presentism”: A Reply to Phillip S. Paludan.” Civil War History 21, no. 3 (1975) I’ll show them to you if you’re a masochist.

    But second, your first instinct, agreeing with my placing Cuomo more in Douglas’s than Lincoln’s camp — was sounder than your second thoughts. Lincoln never wavered or temporized on the fact that slavery was wrong. He felt that he couldn’t do anything about it where it already existed by law, but he refused to compromise on letting it spread beyond where it already was. Douglas also claimed to believe that slavery was wrong, but he was perfectly willing to acceded to the preferences of the largest number of (white) voters in the territories as to whether slavery could be introduced there. Insofar as Cuomo’s moralizing speech should be interpreted as meaning no more than that the Catholic bishops et. al. were justified in not pressing for a constitutional amendment, he’s resting his argument on a red herring. A Con amendment banning slavery was not even conceivable, was not on the table, was not debated politically, etc. It was a non-starting non-issue. The issue of the day was the expansion of slavery into the territories, and on that issue Lincoln was willing to impose his own morality, or if you prefer his own sense of what a decent union required, on territorial majorities who probably would have disagreed with him, at least in some places. He was willing to, and did, go to war over that issue. Douglas wasn’t.

    You’re right that Lincoln and his party were anti-slavery without being abolitionist. But you’re wrong, I think, to analogize that to Cuomo also being at one with his party over abortion. The Democratic party today is divided between those who think abortion is a positive good and those who think it may be an unfortunate choice but is a choice nevertheless that should be absolutely protected. Cuomo, on the other hand, claims to believe that it is immoral, evil, a sin, although he believes politicians should refrain from imposing that view on those who disagree. Cuomo’s position is similar to the stance Lincoln took toward slavery in the south, but not in territories — which is where the rubber hit the road.

  12. Curtis Crawford May 6, 2004 at 2:20 pm | | Reply

    “First, I agree with you about Lincoln and the Republicans more than you may think. In fact, the foundation of my academic career, way back when, was an article, “Toward A New Civil War Revisionism,” in THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR in the late 60s [38 AM. SCHOLAR 250 (1969)], i.e., right after the earth cooled, arguing that everyone should have stayed home. It made the same points you made about Lincoln’s placing saving the union over and above ending slavery, stressed the compromises he made and was willing to make, etc., etc. (A follow-up, making the same points and more, in response to a critic, appeared in CIVIL WAR HISTORY several years later – [Civil War History 21, no. 3 (1975)]. I’ll show them to you if you’re a masochist.”

    John, I’d love to read the articles, at least the second, if it makes “the same points and more.”

    You also write [my comments added in brackets]: “Lincoln never wavered or temporized on the fact that slavery was wrong. [Agreed] He felt that he couldn’t [and shouldn’t try to] do anything about it where it already existed by [state] law, but he refused to compromise on letting it spread beyond where it already was. [Agreed]

    “Douglas also claimed [publicly? certainly not as public as Cuomo’s disapproval of abortion] to believe that slavery was wrong, but he was perfectly willing to accede to the preferences of the largest number of (white) voters in the territories as to whether slavery could be introduced there. [Agreed re territorial policy]

    “Insofar as Cuomo’s moralizing speech should be interpreted as meaning no more than that the Catholic bishops et. al. were justified in not pressing for a constitutional amendment, he’s resting his argument on a red herring. A Con amendment banning slavery was not even conceivable, was not on the table, was not debated politically, etc. It was a non-starting non-issue. [Agreed, it was not a current public issue, therefore an unlikely topic for a bishops’ initiative. By not pressing for a constitutional amendment, the bishops were aligned with practically everyone else. But was an amendment inconceivable to Southern leaders, a future result of the multiplication of free states? Lincoln’s promises of non-interference seem designed to reassure the South in this respect.]

    “The issue of the day was the expansion of slavery into the territories, [you ignore Cuomo’s point on the Fugitive Slave Act, which Lincoln accepted as or more strongly than the bishops] and on that issue Lincoln was willing to impose his own morality, or if you prefer his own sense of what a decent union required, on territorial majorities who probably would have disagreed with him, at least in some places. [Yes, but he argues convincingly that when slavery is banned by Congress ab initio, there won’t be territorial majorities who disagree.]

    “He was willing to, and did, go to war over that issue. Douglas wasn’t. [I think not quite. Before Lincoln’s election, though Douglas urged the danger of war, Lincoln pooh-poohed it. Confronted with secession, Douglas supported and Lincoln refused compromises that in his view would have undone the election and the Republican party.]

    “You’re right that Lincoln and [many in] his party were anti-slavery without being abolitionist. But you’re wrong, I think, to analogize that to Cuomo also being at one with his party over abortion. [I said that the views of both were in harmony with their party, I didn’t claim they were both singing the melody.] The Democratic party today is divided between those who think abortion is a positive good and those who think it may be an unfortunate choice but is a choice nevertheless that should be absolutely protected. [The reason that Cuomo’s views harmonized well with his party in New York state in the 1980s was his firm support of Roe v Wade, coupled with his potential for keeping and increasing the proportion of Catholic and other abortion opponents in the Democratic party.]

    “Cuomo, on the other hand, claims to believe that it is immoral, evil, a sin, although he believes politicians should refrain from imposing that view on those who disagree. [Worse yet, he is happy to have the Supremes impose the view that abortion is lawful, without Lincoln’s justification for upholding the Fugitive Slave Law or the constitutional rights of Southern slaveholders.] Cuomo’s position is similar to the stance Lincoln took toward slavery in the south, but not in the territories — which is where the rubber hit the road.”

  13. […] version of the “personal” opposition to abortion of Catholic Democrats who in fact never actually opposed any pro-abortion policies or court […]

  14. Liberal Catholics October 17, 2012 at 10:00 pm |

    […] Cuomo Praises Lincoln But Sounds Like Douglas […]

  15. […] Now for the hypothetical: Mario Cuomo has been mentioned more than once as a potential Democratic nominee to the Court. He has been quite articulate in stating that he personally agrees with the Catholic Church’s position on abortion (as I discussed here): […]

Leave a Reply to Curtis Crawford Click here to cancel reply.