Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech had an enticing effect on the public and influenced their opinions drastically. It recognized the hardening lines between northern and southern opinion and the unwillingness to compromise.
In the beginning of Lincoln’s speech, he alludes to the Bible, a source that most colonists devoted their lives to: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This allusion provides Lincoln with credibility (ethos). Lincoln says that the nation will not last if it is divided into two. He argues that for the nation to last, it must be united for or against slavery: “Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.” In providing only two options of how to handle the slavery debate, Lincoln has created a false dilemma.
Lincoln differentiated himself from the Nebraska-Kansas Act and its' creator, Senator Douglas, who had long advocated popular sovereignty under which the settlers in each new territory decided their own status as a slave or free state. He had repeatedly asserted that the proper application of popular sovereignty would end the slavery-induced conflict, and would allow northern and southern states to resume their peaceful coexistence. Lincoln, however, responded that the Dred Scott decision had showed that Douglas's preferred suggestion was a failure and that it left the Union with only two options: the United States would inevitably become either all slave, or all free. Lincoln's premise is that if Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act and popular sovereignty had not opened the door, the winds of slavery would not have become the raging storm that threatens the Union.
In the beginning of Lincoln’s speech, he alludes to the Bible, a source that most colonists devoted their lives to: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This allusion provides Lincoln with credibility (ethos). Lincoln says that the nation will not last if it is divided into two. He argues that for the nation to last, it must be united for or against slavery: “Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.” In providing only two options of how to handle the slavery debate, Lincoln has created a false dilemma.
Lincoln differentiated himself from the Nebraska-Kansas Act and its' creator, Senator Douglas, who had long advocated popular sovereignty under which the settlers in each new territory decided their own status as a slave or free state. He had repeatedly asserted that the proper application of popular sovereignty would end the slavery-induced conflict, and would allow northern and southern states to resume their peaceful coexistence. Lincoln, however, responded that the Dred Scott decision had showed that Douglas's preferred suggestion was a failure and that it left the Union with only two options: the United States would inevitably become either all slave, or all free. Lincoln's premise is that if Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act and popular sovereignty had not opened the door, the winds of slavery would not have become the raging storm that threatens the Union.