Jefferson or Lincoln? It is an important question.

Garry Wills wrote a book Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America. It won a Pulitzer Prize. It is a very stimulating book. Wills argues that Lincoln hijacked the meaning that Thomas Jefferson found in the Declaration of Independence and placed it as the founding document of the American nation; the Constitution is a secondary document, according to Wills's reading of Lincoln, and is only as authentic in so far as the Declaration breathes life into it. Quite a provocative statement particularly because the Constitution is the foundation of American government. The Constitution is also a pro-slavery document that outlines a pro-slavery government. In other words, if the U.S. had not reformed the constitution with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, the U.S. would probably still have slaves. So Lincoln's Gettysburg Address asks for a new birth of freedom and sets the intellectual argument for the need for the three amendments mentioned above. The real American revolution was not in 1776, nor 1789, but in 1863 at the Gettysburg Address....at least the intellectual revolution. By privileging the Declaration and its idea that all men are created equal, the slavery clauses in the Constitution had to be wiped out.

Constructivists who want to interpret the Constitution as "the founding father's intended" have difficulty with this revolution. Because if the U.S. interprets the Constitution literally, that means that slavery etc. should be part of the American landscape. However, the rub for the constructivists is not the 13th amendment....they are likely to agree with the freeing of slaves....it is the 14th amendment which makes all Americans legal citizens and they have to be treated equally under the law and (here is the rub) any states cannot create laws to violate this amendment. If they do, federal troops will be set in to enforce federal law. In other words, the states right argument is permanently subordinated by this amendment. Radical Republicans from the North (hardly any senators from the South) pushed this amendment through because Southerners, particularly in Mississippi, but throughout the South, had created Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, and segregationist policies that created a de-facto slave state even though slavery was outlawed. This created quite a legacy for the unfolding of American history because all sorts of issues from integration of schools in the 60s, to abortion policies in the 70s, to separation of church and state are created out of the understanding of the 14th amendment's clause on state's rights government. So Supreme Court nominee Bork, Vice President Cheney, President Bush, etc. have significant problems with the 14th amendment. The thing is, the 14th is intrinsically tied to the 13th and the 15th. So a constructivist interpretation of the Constitution is someone who is willing to view these amendments as problematic. Which is why their argument is problematic. Wills argues that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is the intellectual beginning of this whole argument. I do not believe that he is on solid ground here historically speaking....but I would say that Lincoln's address is probably the first "official" articulation of this argument. Regardless, it poses difficult problems for someone like President Bush who is trying to practice the spirit of Lincoln in the Middle East but ends up practicing the spirit of Jefferson in domestic America. The irony the President Bush is trying to push a stronger federal government in Iraq (to solve local issues that "the surge" has failed to accomplish) while trying to de-center the federal government in the U.S. with faith-based charities and anti-abortion policies is kind of funny if it wasn't so sad. President Bush faces a split personality when it comes to the Gettysburg Address. That isn't to say that the Democrats are much better as they also feel this split personality. As a nation, do we want to be Jeffersonian, which includes the acceptance of racial hierarchy and even slavery but allows states to do whatever they want or do we want to be Lincolnian which means multi-culturalism, federalism, and equal rights. The implication of this decision in the twenty-first century includes immigration issues and women's rights issues. In America at the moment, interestingly, there is no Equal Rights Amendment, nor is there a fair and just immigration policy. Jefferson did not want to treat women equally nor did he really favor immigration outside of the coerced from Africa (in fact he didn't favor the slave trade nor slavery that much either) and the voluntary by Anglo-Saxons.

I'll stop rambling now. I would be curious to know what people thought considering the Constitution and the Declaration. Which one is the founding document of the U.S.?