Conversations about nationalism are seemingly everywhere. Ever since Donald Trump declared he was a nationalist, the term — as well as its usefulness, meaning, and morality — has been litigated tirelessly. Church leaders, intellectuals, politicians, and telemedia personalities all apparently have a lot to say about the debate. Conservatives seem particularly confused over the relationship between federalism and nationalism and whether the latter is even an appropriate mantle for US conservatives to claim.
We haven’t always struggled to reconcile nationalism with conservatism or even liberalism for that matter. Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech—delivered 165 years ago today—proposed that the United States could no longer allow certain moral issues to be left to the whims of individual states. Slavery was such a grave concern that it was a national issue, so it had to be addressed by national power. Michael Knox Beran noted that although Lincoln flirted with romantic nationalism” ala Bismarck, Cavour, and other European nationalists, he never embraced it to the same extent. Lincolnian nationalism, as rendered in the House Divided speech, remained constitutional, federalist, and liberal. This Lincolnian nationalism has served the United States well for 160 years and still can serve the United States.
