The Only True Sovereign of a Free People? Lincoln and Majority Rule

Abstract

Abraham Lincoln considered the Civil War a test, not only of the proposition that “all men are created equal,” but also of the moral authority of majority rule. Slave states seceded rather than accept the results of a fair election. Lincoln argued that rule by a deliberate, constitutionally-checked majority was “the only true sovereign of a free people.” Popular government can survive only if those who lose elections refrain from armed resistance and instead trust to “time, discussion, and the ballot box” to settle disputes.

The essay argues that Lincoln’s defense of majority rule, though concise, is carefully considered and recognizes that majorities can act unjustly. Lincoln’s commitment to majority rule is distinguishable from, though connected with, his faith in natural right, his opposition to slavery, and his nationalism. Lincoln’s argument for majority rule is contrasted with John C. Calhoun’s critique. Calhoun believed majority rule over a large territory would create entrenched, sectionally-concentrated majorities oppressively governing numerically weaker regions of the country. Lincoln denied that sectional majorities were inherently unjust. The essay notes the tragic dimension of Lincoln’s defense of majority rule: his argument failed to persuade the South peacefully to return to the Union.

The American Civil War settled the moral and constitutional question of slavery. But the legitimacy of majority rule, and how much it should be checked, remains contested, in the United States and elsewhere. Lincoln’s argument invites us to explore the possibilities and limits of majority rule for resolving unusually deep social and political conflicts.

Keywords: Abraham Lincoln, Majority Rule, Democracy, U.S. Civil War, Slavery, John C. Calhoun