Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 50th Anniversary Edition

This book is a most profound examination of the thinking of both Sen. Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln concerning all of the issues associated with slavery up to the Civil War. Jaffa wants to set the record straight as far as any number of contentions by well-known historians of his era, known as revisionists. Most importantly, he flatly disputes the notion that the thinking and actions of Douglas (the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854) endorsing popular sovereignty were essentially equivalent to the principled stand of Lincoln based on the equality of all men in their long-term ramifications for slavery. Those revisionist historians contend that Lincoln and the Republicans should have accepted Douglas' solution to the slavery crisis, thus not precipitating the Civil War. Another claim against Lincoln that Jaffa thoroughly discredits is that Lincoln, in fact, did not hold Negroes as equals, and simply used the issue for personal political gain regardless of the consequences for the Union. But Lincoln understood that politics is the art of the possible. The author makes clear that Lincoln held an intense respect for the principles of the Declaration of Independence, including the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all, including Negroes. It was one thing for the Union to be formed with the taint of slavery, but the contention that Southerners came to that slavery was a "positive good" was felt by Lincoln to have the potential to completely undermine the basis of the US. Perhaps it could even be justified to enslave a group of "inferior" whites. Lincoln felt compelled to move the nation back to its core principles without alienating those who did not have the same clarity as to what was at stake. The book is a challenging read. The issue of permitting slavery in territories became and remained contentious from 1820 on. The arguments for and against slavery in territories are quite subtle involving constitutionality, Congressional acts, territorial legislative bodies, and court decisions. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 disallowing restrictions on taking property (slaves) into territories is examined. Lincoln and the Republicans, rightfully so, were very apprehensive as to the long term ramifications of that decision. It was hardly a stretch to see where free states could become a thing of the past. The book is only indirectly concerned with the Lincoln-Douglas debates. They are randomly referred to throughout the text, but earlier writings and speeches receive far more attention. Douglas' words concerning the Mexican territories and the Kansas-Nebraska Act are well covered. The author devotes a large segment to examining Lincoln's speech to the Young Men's Lyceum in 1938, where his thinking on major issues had already crystallized. Lincoln's address on temperance receives much attention. The author is a disciple of Leo Strauss, the natural rights theorist. He does regard Lincoln as a preeminent natural rights thinker. Ther

Professor Harry V. Jaffa's "Crisis of the House Divided" is an extremely important book. In it, he succeeds in turning back the revisionist historians of the mid-Twentieth Century who sought to devalue Abraham Lincoln's commitment to the proposition that "All men are created equal." This tide of revisionism took two general forms; partisans for the South who placed the full blame on Mr. Lincoln for sparking the "War of Northern Aggression"; and modern historians, skeptical of any higher motives and virtues in statesmen of the past, who claimed that there were really no substantial policy differences between Mr. Lincoln and Senator Stephen A. Douglas. If the latter class of historian could prove that Lincoln didn't really believe in freedom for slaves and that his rhetoric against slavery was irresponsible (knowing how it offended Southern sensibilities) while Douglas' "Popular Sovereignty" policy would have eventually led to the limitation and elimination of slavery, then Lincoln's legacy as President could be shown to be the largely accidental. Fortunately, Professor Jaffa's work demolishes the corrosive contentions of the revisionists, showing, beyond any doubt, that Mr. Lincoln believed America was founded on the principle of human equality as much as it was founded on the idea of democracy. That democracy and equality were the twin pillars of the American Republic and were in tension was something Mr. Lincoln well understood while Judge Douglas honored only democracy. Hence, Douglas' "Popular Sovereignty" led to the concept that the majority could decide slavery was not only legal, but also moral. In opposition, Mr. Lincoln argued that a majority did not have the right to sanction the enslavement of other men, regardless of their alleged inferiority, because "All men are created equal." Professor Jaffa shows that Mr. Lincoln built upon the Founders' thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and urged their maturation towards the ideal. Lincoln saw how the Founders invoked passion, hatred and revenge in support of the cause of independence from Britain but how these passions were no longer adequate to the task of preserving the Union from the dangers of mobocracy or dictatorship - dangers made more immediate by the revolutionary birth of America and the tendency of unrestrained democracy to disdainful the rule of law. Instead, Lincoln recommended virtuous reason to lift the United States up, to show the world that it was truly capable of lasting self-governance. Of course, the cornerstone of this reason was the thinking through in the body politic, the practical consequences of the principle, "All men are created equal." Professor Jaffa's book is a gift to America and the world. Were more people in office aware of the fundamental issues debated by Judge Douglas and Mr. Lincoln in 1858 during their remarkable campaign for the Illinois Senate, and their implications for policies even today, our nation would be stronger and our

If you want to read one book about Lincoln's thought, this is the one to read. The first part of the book, which takes Douglas seriously and states the strongest case for him, is historically dense and may be difficult for most readers. But keep going, because the payoff will be great. There follow chapters on two of Lincoln's early speeches. Jaffa's analysis here is brilliant, though perhaps a bit far-fetched. In the final part of the book, Jaffa states the case for Lincoln against Douglas. This part is rich in its ideas, rigorous in its reasoning, and eloquent to the point of being inspirational. (By the way, if you want to read one biography of Lincoln, I'd recommend the one by Lord Charnwood. Though written almost a century ago and therefore not up to date on all the details of historical scholarship, it is judicious throughout and beautifully written.)

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Jaffa is that he wrote Goldwater's famous "moderation in the defense of freedom is no virtue" speech. If you go back and read the speech (and it is on the web, of course), it echoes both the Old Testament ("our fathers") and Lincoln. I suspect he would agree with the man who told me that Lincoln is the greatest prose stylish in the English language. As for the book, Jaffa interprets the civil war as the second, and genuine, founding of the American republic, and precisely because the principle of the Declaration, equality, was written not in ink but blood (Jaffa has his own brand of Lincolnian Christianity). Lincoln, by this reading, belongs to the "tribe of the eagle and the lion" and was neither Caesar nor Brutus but possessed the best qualities of both. To understand that part of Jaffa's interpretation, you would have to read his treatment of Shakespeare. As for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Jaffa stages Douglas as Thrasymachus and Lincoln--surprise, surprise--as Socrates.

Jaffa's work on "The Crisis of the House Divided" is amazing. The breakdown of the very essence of what the debates were about is made crystal clear. Elegant arguments is made for the views held by Lincold AND Douglas regarding the issue of slavery and the very nature of what the American Republic's ideals and virtues are: freedom for all. Never have I read a book that so clearly and intelligently presents the differing views on the nature of freedom. It is a must read for all those who are poltical science, history or law students.