America's Testament
Mortimer J. Adler
[Originally published by the Center for the Study of
Great Ideas, 4 July, 2001]
As individual celebrants of
this occasion, the personal obligation of every citizen of the
United States is to understand as well as possible the three
documents that are our American testament -- words that should
be piously revered even though they are not in a strict sense
this country's holy scriptures. This understanding occurs as a
private accomplishment, not a public event. It is something done
in the quiet of one's own mind, with the solemnity of sober
reflection. -- Mortimer Adler
|
Of the three great documents in the history of the United States--the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg
Address -- there is a closer affinity between the Declaration and the
Gettysburg Address than there is between those two documents and the
Constitution. I wish not only to call attention to this fact, but in
the light of it to say why I think Abraham Lincoln is unique among the
presidents of the United States.
In taking the oath of office, presidents, Lincoln among them, swear
to uphold the Constitution of the United States. All the others do
that willingly and without reservation, but not Lincoln. In my
judgment, Lincoln is the only president who did that with some
unspoken reservations, for he would have much preferred to pledge
himself to uphold the principles of American government stated in the
magnificent second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. (He
is also the only true genius, like Shakespeare and Mozart, among our
presidents.)
Why do I make this claim for Lincoln's uniqueness? It partly rests
upon the words of the Gettysburg Address: "this nation conceived
in liberty"; and "dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal." It partly rests on the extraordinary
statement in the Gettysburg Address that this nation came into being
four score and seven years ago-in 1776-when it is so obvious that the
colonies which rebelled in 1776 and sought to dissolve the bonds that
tied them to Great Britain finally became the United States after the
Constitution was drafted in 1787, after it was ratified in 1788, and
only when George Washington took the oath of office as its first
president in I789.
Lincoln knew all these historical facts. Why then did he date the
birth of this nation--its sovereign statehood--in 1776? That birth
date was not something taken for granted by Lincoln, nor perfunctory
for him. In his years of argument against the extension of slavery to
new territories, Lincoln repeatedly appealed to the Declaration of
Independence. His opponents resorted to the Constitution, with its
covert references to the institution of slavery, as decisive for
issues of policy regarding the extension of slavery. In effect, they
took the adoption of the Constitution as the juridical birth date of
the nation. Even that is incorrect, for it was not merely with the
adoption of the Constitution that this nation came into being, but
rather with its beginning to function in 1789 when Washington occupied
the presidency and Congress assembled.
That the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the
Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address be regarded as the American
Testament arose from the following considerations. To an astonishing
and unprecedented degree, the United States was born out of sustained
argument and grave political deliberation which committed this nation
to a coherent political doctrine. That doctrine is set forth with an
inspired brevity in a few momentous state papers--the first occurring
at the moment of this country's resolution for independence, the
second at the moment of the new government's formation, and the third
at the moment of the major crisis in our national history. Direct and
concentrated inquiry into the truth of that doctrine should be a
steady part of the American experience, and the basic propositions in
it should be the object of sustained, disciplined public discussion,
not only during the bicentennial celebration, but at all times.
To regard the three documents chosen for this purpose as constituting
a testament attributes to them a character that calls for a special
mode of interpretation--the kind of interpretation that the faithful
give to scriptures they look upon as sacred. The assumption underlying
the way in which Muslims read the Koran, Jews the Old Testament, and
Christians the New Testament is that the text they are reading
contains truths which they should make the most strenuous effort to
discover by patient and careful exegesis. Such a reading is called "exegetical"
because it tries "to lead out of" the text the truth assumed
to be in it.
To approach the three documents that constitute the American
Testament in this way does not require us to regard them as sacred
scriptures or as revealed truth, nor indeed as the basis for any sort
of "civil religion." There is a long tradition of commentary
on secular writings in which the approach to the text being
interpreted is analogous to the approach of the faithful to sacred
texts. Medieval commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle--by
Arabic Jewish, and Christian teachers--can be cited as examples of
this method of reading a text for the purpose of discovering the truth
it is supposed to contain. Modern examples are to be found in the
extensive commentaries on the writings of Immanuel Kant or Karl Marx.
With some variation in style, what is common to all these examples of
exegetical reading, whether of secular texts or of texts regarded as
sacred, is a method of interpretation that concentrates on the meaning
of words, phrases, and sentences, and on the relation between one
element in the discourse and another, while paying little or no
attention to contextual considerations or to psychological and
sociological factors that may or may not have been responsible for the
genesis of the texts being interpreted. An exegetical reading is
concerned with philological aspects of the text, with the biography of
its author, or with the historical circumstances under which it
appeared only to the extent that these considerations contribute to an
understanding of the text, not as affecting judgments about the truth
of what is being said.
In sharp contrast to the exegetical method of reading a text is
another method of commentary, which was called "the higher
criticism" when, in the nineteenth century, it was first applied
to the Old and the New Testaments. This method of interpretation is
widely prevalent today, especially in the reading of political
documents such as the ones chosen to be components of the American
Testament. It makes little or no effort to get at the truth that the
text being commented on may contain; it may almost be said to have no
concern with the truth or falsity of what is being said in the
document under consideration. Instead, the truth with which it is
concerned is the truth about the document in question. To this end, it
concentrates on the historical circumstances, the sociological
influences, and the psychological motivations that are thought to have
determined its content.
These two methods of interpreting and commenting on the written word
are thus seen to differ radically with respect to the truth with which
they are concerned--the one with the truth in the document, the other
with the truth about the document. This book offers its readers one
approach to the three documents that are the subject of its three
commentaries--the approach that has been called an exegetical reading
of them. This by no means precludes the other approach, but it does
require the reader to accept, even if only provisionally, the
assumption underlying the approach made here; namely, that the three
documents under consideration contain basic truths to be ferreted out
by the most careful explication of the meaning implicit in the words
of the text. On this assumption, the effort of the commentator-and of
the reader as well-should be to arrive at as clear and explicit a
statement of these truths as can be found.
EPILOGUE
There is an absence in our society today of statesmen or persons in
public life of a caliber comparable to those who assembled in
Philadelphia in 1787. Why, it may be asked, can we not find in a
population so many times larger than the population of the thirteen
original states a relatively small number who would be as qualified
for the task as their predecessors?
I cannot give a satisfactory answer to this question except to say
that the best minds in our much larger population do not go into
politics as they did in the eighteenth century. Perhaps the much
larger number of citizens in our present population are not nearly as
well educated. Their minds are not as well cultivated and their
characters not as well formed.
Even if a second constitutional convention were to assemble statesmen
of a character comparable to those who met in Philadelphia in 1787,
and even if that second convention could be conducted under
circumstances favorable to a good result, the resulting constitution
would not find a receptive and sympathetic audience among our present
citizenry, to whom it would have to be submitted for adoption.
They would not have the kind of schooling that enabled them to
understand its provisions and to appraise their worth. The vast
majority would not even be able to read intelligently and critically
the kind of arguments in favor of adopting the new constitution that
were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, and
published in current periodicals in the years 1787 and 1788.
A radical reform of basic schooling in the United States would have
to precede any attempt by whatever means to improve our system of
government through improving its Constitution.
That is also an indispensable prerequisite for making the degree of
democracy we have so far achieved prosper, work better, or, perhaps,
even survive.
We are, indeed, a nation at risk, and nothing but radical reform of
our schools can save us from impending disaster. Whatever the price we
must pay in money and effort to do this, the price we will pay for not
doing it will be much greater.
|