Lincoln’s Sacred Effort: Defining Religion’s Role in American Self-Government

By Lucas E. Morel (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2000).  Pp 264, $79, ISBN 0-739-10105-6

Review written for lincolnstudies.com, but may be re-printed with reviewer’s consent.

Amidst the scores of literature on Abraham Lincoln’s political and religious life and ideas, Lucas Morel’s book provides his interpretation of the sixteenth president’s use of religion as a political engine. Yet unlike Elton Trueblood’s Theologian of American Anguish and William E. Barton’s The Soul of Abraham Lincoln, Morel claims not to travel down familiar roads into identifying whether or not Lincoln was a religious man and, if so, to what extent. Instead, he states that the investigation of Lincoln as a public figure shows how much religion played into the political discourse in advocating a self-governed society (pp. 1-2).

Like the historians who have gone before him, Morel closely examines some of Lincoln’s most well known speeches, such as the Lyceum address, the Gettysburg Address, and his inaugural speeches. On this methodological point Morel does not stray from the established study of Lincoln. What is also common of this method is that Morel takes license in interpreting Lincoln’s words and placing them in their historical and political context.

Scouring over these texts, Morel identifies all religious allusions and discusses how such allusions attracted the popular attention of his audience. But Morel emphasizes the ways in which religious imagery and allusions served a political end. As is shown in his study of the Lyceum address, Morel argues that Lincoln described a political religion in reverence to the Constitution that demanded the pious devotion of all citizens (pp. 29-30). Thus, in this case, Morel argues that Lincoln preached a gospel not of Christ but of the Constitution. In other instances Lincoln was outspokenly in favor of fostering religious zeal in the American public, for example in calling national days of fasting, thanksgiving, and prayer. To be sure, Morel quickly points out that Lincoln called such holy days for political purposes. Recognizing that religion was an important component in society, Lincoln believed that the government could not and should not impede on citizens’ religious rights (pp. 101-102). In addition, Lincoln allowed popular religion to boost public morale during the trying times of the Civil War (p. 102). Therefore, Morel examines the ways that Lincoln appealed to popularized religion of the people to uphold the republican ideals and to promote civil religion (pp. 86, 108).

The first chapter is a historiographic look into Lincoln as a religious and as a public figure. It is here that Morel seeks to differentiate himself from the biographers that have analyzed Lincoln’s religious beliefs. However, while Morel is clear in stating his thesis and is quite good in presenting it, certain discussions obstruct from his ultimate goal. For example, chapter three analyzes the many ways in which Lincoln respected the religious sensibilities of his constituents (pp. 90, 92). Throughout this analysis, Morel refers to Lincoln’s “eye toward fostering a due dependence on the God who makes nations” and the use of those constituents’ religious language while also making his own beliefs known (pp. 86, 99). The reader wonders if Morel is making an argument for Lincoln’s own personal piety. What are these beliefs that Lincoln makes known to his religious constituents? Here Morel does not further explain. The reader could interpret that Lincoln shared such religious faith and was professing that faith to a religious audience. Of course, such is not necessarily the case, as these beliefs are most likely the doctrines of republican America. Likewise, we must interpret Lincoln’s “eye toward fostering due dependence” again as his means of holding the social morale together.

Chapter two interprets the religious metaphor Lincoln uses in advocating a “political religion.” Morel argues that this creed of American democracy does not present itself in any historiography on Lincoln’s political philosophy (p. 11). Thus, Morel seeks to do just that. While this method is an admirable task, Morel risks boring the reader with exhaustive cataloging of all the instances in which Lincoln modeled after biblical text (pp. 44-47). In chapter four, Morel excels in checking his own enthusiasm for Lincoln’s use of religion by analyzing the Temperance Address of 1842 to discuss how problematic using religion can be in the political sphere. Morel’s fifth and last chapter examines Lincoln’s emphasis on divine providence in his Second Inaugural Address. Yet here again Morel falls into ambiguity with his concluding remarks about Lincoln’s sense of election. The reader interprets “the defense of the American constitutional union as an expression of his [Lincoln’s] faith in God’s purpose for him and his country” more as evidence of Lincoln’s personal belief in Christianity than in civil or political religion (p. 210). Comments such as this are best omitted so as to not confuse the reader.

Another major criticism is the number of comparisons between Lincoln and George Washington. Such comparisons perpetuate the Lincoln myth by tracing the heroic line of the Founding Fathers. The attempt to draw similarities between the two presidents was a posthumous construct. Instead of noting this fact and instead of avoiding the pitfalls of the comparison, Morel further serves in celebrating Lincoln’s heroic qualities. Perhaps Morel would have done better to prove how Lincoln was one of many presidents who used religion for political purposes. Of course, he then would betray his own effort in suggesting Lincoln’s singular importance.

The fresh look at the rhetorical tool religion played in Lincoln’s political philosophy and strategy is Morel’s crowning achievement. Students in a number of fields would benefit from reading this work. Moreover, the method of analysis and interpretation makes the author an impressive exegete of the Lincoln canon.

-  Barton E. Price, Florida State University