Again on Lincoln

In his critique (NR, Sept. 21, 1965) of my discussion of Abraham Lincoln (NR, Aug. 24, 1965), Professor Harry Jaffa makes two major points. The first is that I am wrong in my interpretation of the American Constitution as establishing a government of sharply limited and radically divided powers with sovereignty settled in no single center. The second is that I have failed to understand that the concept of equality is central in the American tradition, and with this, that I have ignored Lincoln’s role in the eradication of slavery. To this second indictment I plead guilty, and I shall return to a defense of my position after first considering Professor Jaffa’s other major point.

What is at stake between us here is the 175-year-old dispute between the “loose constructionist” and the “strict constructionist” interpretations of the Constitution. Professor Jaffa is, of course, entitled to his loose-constructionist position; he has distinguished company, men so different in other respects as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. It does seem rather odd to me, however, that, considering the honored antiquity of both positions, Professor Jaffa should imply that all constitutional tradition is on his side of the argument. Perhaps because (before a rather checkered political career) I was raised by an old-time strict-constructionist, tariff – for – revenue – only Democratic father, I had rather supposed that until the days of Franklin Roosevelt the strict – constructionist theory predominated in the tradition —although battered from time to time by the power grabs of an Andrew Jackson or an Abraham Lincoln.

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

Frank S. Meyer was a senior editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

Constitutional Government

In his critique (NR, Sept. 21, 1965) of my discussion of Abraham Lincoln (NR, Aug. 24, 1965), Professor Harry Jaffa makes two major points. The first is that I am wrong in my interpretation of the American Constitution as establishing a government of sharply limited and radically divided powers with sovereignty settled in no single center. The second is that I have failed to understand that the concept of equality is central in the American tradition, and with this, that I have ignored Lincoln’s role in the eradication of slavery. To this second indictment I plead guilty, and I shall return to a defense of my position after first considering Professor Jaffa’s other major point.

What is at stake between us here is the 175-year-old dispute between the “loose constructionist” and the “strict constructionist” interpretations of the Constitution. Professor Jaffa is, of course, entitled to his loose-constructionist position; he has distinguished company, men so different in other respects as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. It does seem rather odd to me, however, that, considering the honored antiquity of both positions, Professor Jaffa should imply that all constitutional tradition is on his side of the argument. Perhaps because (before a rather checkered political career) I was raised by an old-time strict-constructionist, tariff – for – revenue – only Democratic father, I had rather supposed that until the days of Franklin Roosevelt the strict – constructionist theory predominated in the tradition —although battered from time to time by the power grabs of an Andrew Jackson or an Abraham Lincoln.