House Divided Speech

There are several major forms of irony, but one of the most common is situational irony, in which circumstances contradict expectation, often in a manner that is humorous but concerning.

While the tone of “A House Divided” varies from an objective relation of the status quo to an uneasiness with the impending crisis to outright indignation and fear, it is full of irony at every turn. Specifically, Lincoln wants his audience to realize that Senator Douglas’s supposed respect for democracy is entirely contradicted by his “care not” policy as well as his eager endorsement of the Dred Scott decision, by which “the perfect freedom of the people [is discovered to be] no freedom at all” (emphasis in original) (430).

Another apt use of irony lies in Lincoln’s observation that language in both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Justice Nelson’s concurring opinion in Dred Scott claims that states are to be left “perfectly free” to govern the practice of slavery “subject only to the Constitution” (431) or that, “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction” (432). What Lincoln points out is that while the language in each case touts the perfect freedom or supremacy of the people or State, this expectation is undermined by the fact that the political will of both are tacitly undermined by an interpretation of the Constitution that prevents the exclusion of slavery.

A rhetorical question is a question, not intended to be directly answered, which a speaker uses to make a point or create an effect or an emotional response in the audience. Lincoln uses rhetorical questions throughout “A House Divided” with increased frequency as the speech progresses. The first rhetorical question comes as Lincoln transitions from the opening quotation of the speech into an articulation of his primary argument. “Have we no tendency to the latter condition?” asks Lincoln (426), that is, the condition of slavery. Lincoln does not use this technique again until after he has objectively laid out his arguments as to the current state of affairs. He then poses questions to demonstrate that a number of circumstances suggesting a hidden agenda cannot be overlooked.

Lincoln also uses a series of rhetorical questions to draw attention to the fact that the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which only applied to territories, oddly mentions states. Lincoln begs the convention to consider how the Republicans and other anti-slavery allies might best oppose the countervailing political will. “This is what we have to do. But how can we best do it?” he asks (432). He continues by questioning whether Douglas is really, as even some Republicans believe, the best man for the job: “[C]an we, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?” (433).

Finally, Lincoln asks whether the party will be just as brave now as it was in the last presidential contest. He asks, “Did we brave all then, to falter now?—now—when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent?” (434). The rhetorical questions throughout the speech help develop the building sense of urgency within it as well as the transition from the objective description of a crisis to a call to action.