On July 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln summoned his cabinet. He had reached a momentous decision. He had weighed the practical issues, wrestled with the great moral questions at stake, spent hours in prayer over the arguments on both sides of the matter. Now he was prepared to act.

For reasons that had little to do with practical politics — indeed, such considerations weighed against Lincoln's contemplated action — the president had determined that the slaves then held in the rebellious states should be freed. On that fateful summer day, Lincoln informed the members of his cabinet of his decision to issue a proclamation of the slaves' emancipation.

Lincoln's decision was a bold and risky stroke. A majority of the North still regarded the conflict as a war to preserve the Union, not one to free the slaves. Lincoln himself had only progressively come to the conclusion that the war served a larger moral purpose than the mere preservation of the Union. Indeed he had once famously remarked to New York newspaper editor Horace Greeley that, if he could save the Union without touching slavery, he would do so.

Over the course of time, however, Lincoln had come slowly to recognize the great truth that he later expressed in his second inaugural address: that the war was God's judgment upon the nation and that it would continue “until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid with another drawn by the sword.” Lincoln had arrived at a moral conclusion that had profound political consequences.

So he laid the document upon the table and told his cabinet what he intended to do. The responses were entirely pragmatic. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and Attorney General Edward Bates, abolitionists, pressed Lincoln to issue the proclamation immediately and without further delay. Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase thought the proclamation would unsettle the stock market with unpredictable effect. Postmaster Montgomery Blair noted dryly that it would cost Republicans the fall election.

Lincoln was undaunted by the risk of dire political consequences. He had summoned the cabinet, he said, not to consult its members but to inform them of a decision he had already made. The proclamation would be issued. He awaited only a Union victory on the battlefield. That victory came two months later, on Sept. 17, 1862, on the fields surrounding Antietam Creek near the small Maryland town of Sharpsburg. Five days after the bloodiest single day of the Civil War, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Decisions and Destiny

This supremely moral gesture revolutionized the war and the American nation. It transformed the war into a crusade to preserve and extend America's founding proposition that “all men are created equal.” For the Union, the war became a noble cause grounded in the highest of moral principles. None of this was apparent to Lincoln the day he summoned his cabinet to the White House to inform them of his historic decision. Indeed, at the time, public opinion was against him and the issuance of the proclamation was greeted with mixed reactions at best.

Had Lincoln waited for a popular moral consensus on race relations to emerge in the country before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, he probably never would have taken that historic step. But he understood that an important function of the presidency was to provide moral leadership to the nation — that the office was, as a later Republican president would refer to it, a bully pulpit.

As Lincoln's leadership demonstrates, presidents, by virtue of the office they occupy, have the capability of forging a moral consensus. This is a lesson that our new president could profitably learn.

Earlier this spring, President Bush's top political advisors floated the story to the press that ending abortion, while remaining a “moral priority,” is not a policy priority for the new administration.

“I don't believe he feels that he'll be able to eliminate abortions,” Chief of Staff Andy Card said. “It's a high moral priority for the president, but his public policy priorities are education, tax reform and tax reduction, reforming Social Security, reforming the Medicare system and improving national defense.”

Rich Bond, Republican political consultant and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said President Bush won't push for abortion restrictions because there is no consensus in the country on the issue or the necessary political bloc to push such restrictions through Congress.

The fact is that no such consensus will emerge unless the president exercises the required moral leadership. One can easily imagine Lincoln's political advisers cautioning him against moving on emancipation in the absence of any national consensus on slavery and race. Unless the president commits his personal prestige and the prestige of his office to making the moral case for the sanctity of life, as Lincoln did to free the slaves, the nation's conscience on abortion will remain unformed.

No Time for the Timid

In fairness, President Bush does occasionally mention the sanctity of life, but typically before friendly audiences such as the recent gathering at the Catholic University of America for the dedication of the Pope John Paul II Center.

As welcome as the president's pro-life comments are when delivered to pro-life audiences — and they are very welcome — such declarations are insufficient to begin forging a national consensus in favor of life and against the culture of death.

This requires sustained, persistent leadership. Mr. Bush needs to talk about reverence for life in a multitude of settings and before a wide range of audiences. He needs to begin the process of teaching Americans how to think about the life issue, of defining the terms of debate and establishing the moral context for a national dialogue on the issue.

If a national consensus regarding the sanctity of life is wanting, then it is partly because Americans have not had a president since Ronald Reagan speak to them seriously about reverence for life, about the far-reaching consequences of the culture of death which Roe v. Wade unleashed on the country's families, and why they should care about ending abortion. President Bush seems to be a man of genuine modesty and some humility, just the qualities of character required in a great leader and precisely those most associated with Lincoln.

Lincoln undertook to lead his countrymen into a deeper understanding of the horrible Civil War in which they were then engaged. He did not simply bow to prevailing public opinion, but led Americans into a new way of thinking about the devastating conflict that was daily killing and maiming their husbands, fathers and sons. This transformation of leadership can be seen in Lincoln's public utterances and policy initiatives in the year between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address, by which time he was summoning the nation to “a new birth of freedom.”

Moral leadership requires taking political risks, making the arguments and marshalling the resources to accomplish the objective. President Bush can be a leader who is content to “nibble around the abortion topic,” as some political consultants advise, or he can provide moral leadership that offers the American people a vision of a country that truly lives up to its founding ideal that all are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life.

If he would take up that mantle, the president and his political advisors might be surprised at the number of people who are prepared to follow his lead.

Kenneth L. Connor is president of Family Research Council, a Washington-based public policy organization.