The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1891-04-25
Lincoln and DAVIS.

A~S~@s~AA~ ~S~N ~ AsAA % OOAOA 0OA4
Davis ought to be read by every
young American, and read in con-
nection with the best obtainable BIZ
ography of Abraham Lincoln--that
of his friend and law partner, Hern-
don, if possible.
1t is the duty of this generation
of Americans to lay aside prejudg-
ments of these two men and exam
inc them carefully, conscientiously
and as impartially as if the COM
parison were between Caesar and
Pompey.
Under such a critical comparison
it is surprising how little difference
of fundamental political principle
will be found between them. Both
belonged to the same political school
that which magnifes the Govern
ment and minimizes the individual.
Neither entertained the idea of the
sovereignty of the freeman. One
held for the absolute sovereignty of
a federated State; the other for the
absolute sovereignty of the single
State. Each alike considered men
as the tools of statecraft, to be used
at the discretion of the Government
for the purposes of maintaining and
extending the power of government.
The question at issue between them
as statesmen was whether the Fed
eral Government or the single State
government should be the absolute
sovereign of the individual citizen.
And to both the individuals, the
men who are the all-important units
of the mass were mere counters in
the game of statecraft.
Neither of these two men was
ever governed by the essential idea
of American Democracy-that of
individual sovereignty; of the free
dom of the citizen to do everything
but deprive another citizen of his
rights through violence or fraud.
Mr.. Lincoln entertained this idea,
but was never governed by it. Mr..
Davis refused or failed to entertain
it. Mr.. Lincoln stood for the sove-
reignty of the Union state at any
price; Mr.. Davis for the sovereignty
of the Unit state, no matter what
the sacrifice. In the North Stephen
A. Douglas, in the South Alexander
H. Stephens approximated more
nearly to American Democracy than
either Mr.. Lincoln or Mr.. Davis.
The extent to which the govern
ing ideas Of these two great advo-
Gates of unchecked governmental
sovereignty neutralized each other
as result of the Civil War is most
striking. The idea of State abso-
lutism failed with Mr.. Davis. The
idea of Federal absolutism did not
prevail with Mr.. Lincoln. Great as
the two men were, they were not
great enough to change the issue OF
modern civilization, in which the
question is between individual sove-
reignty and governmental absolut-
ism. Never at any time was there
such an issue between Mr.. Lincoln
and Mr.. Davis. As between the
freedom of the individual and the
absolute sovereignty of government,
both were on the side of the absolute
sovereignty of government. Could
we imagine the two men with Eu-
rope instead of America as the field
of their activities, the same act OF
imagination would make a Social
ist of Mr.. Lincoln and an Aristo-
crat of Mr.. Davis.
The American Democrat can be
neither socialist nor aristocrat. He
believes that God made man free
and that the men make governments
oppressive. He believes that the
freedom of the individual; the re-
cognition Of his absolute sovereign
ty over himself, and Of his absolute
lack of sovereignty over all Others
except by their free consent, is the
divine law of progress and justice.
He believes that the sole purpose OF
just government is to prevent indi-
viduals from depressing each other,
leaving them otherwise free to reg
ulate their own pursuits of industry
and improvement"
Neither Mr.. Davis nor Mr.. Lin
coin believed in this first law of
liberty. Mr.. Davis believed in q
government Of sahjugation in the
Unit state. There was no issue OF
principle between them; no issue
at all except Of policy and tempo.
rary convenience. AS they and the
policies they represented pass away
= l. =