Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America

I'll endorse compliments already expressed and confine new praise to the three features of this book that impressed me most. First, this book does a terrific job of placing the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates within the contexts of their separate campaigns. It reminds us that Lincoln and Douglas were not just campaigning against each other, but also against the Democratic Administration of President James Buchanan (another candidate for worst president ever). Both had to raise money, stage rallies, attract crowds, and rely on allies to publicly declare that they had soundly defeated their opponent. Second, Guelzo shows in detail how Lincoln had to work within the newly formed Republican Party, and maneuver between its powers in Chicago, its national leaders (several of whom became Lincoln's rivals), and his personal advisers, making a series of unpleasant choices between them. The Chicago party leaders arranged for the debates and did their best to control what Lincoln said and didn't say. Lincoln resisted them at his own risk. Third, the book is very well written, thoroughly documented, and carefully focused. It reveals in chapter after chapter how party politics have worked in Illinois and in the United States, how newspapers functioned as their tools, what motives (including white supremacy) fueled anti-slavery voters, and what Lincoln learned from one debate to the next. Lincolnophiles will much appreciate the book for its recognitions of Lincoln's blunders, regrets, recoveries, and growing political skills.

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858 are largely remembered today because they brought an obscure Illinois lawyer and politician, Abraham Lincoln, to national prominence. Yet as this book demonstrates they also illuminate the confused and often contradictory U.S. attitudes towards slavery and race in the turbulent pre-Civil War years. The Republican Party of the 1850's was formed from the imploding Whig Party and disaffected members of the then Democratic Party around a common theme that slavery, the peculiar institution of the South should be contained within the bounds set by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This not surprising in that the compromise was the work of Whig Henry Clay whose memory was still revered by many Whigs, including Lincoln. Under this compromise Missouri entered the U.S. as a slave state, but slavery would be excluded from all portions of the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase above latitude 36 30. Now the Republican Party including Lincoln made it clear repeatedly that they were not abolitionists. They did not want to abolish slavery where it already existed, but only to contain its expansion. They feared being overwhelmed in congress by slave holding states. Conversely, by the 1850's the slave holding states begin to fear that as the territory of purchase started to develop into states, they would be overwhelmed in the congress by non-slave states and slavery itself would be at risk. The Democratic Party of the time not exactly a pro-slavery party, but it was considerably less adamant than the republicans in wanting to contain the growth of slavery. It was seen by most as the party most sympathetic to the slave holding states of the south. Stephan A. Douglas arguably the most prominent member of the party hoped to maintain both party unity and to give the Democrats something like parity with burgeoning Republican Party. He therefore successfully overthrew the Missouri Compromise in favor of allowing each state to determine the status of slavery in that state. This `popular sovereignty' bill infuriated the Republicans and as it turned out failed to satisfy the slave holders. It was this bill more than anything else that persuaded Lincoln to embark on a series of debates with Douglas. The Debates and their back ground make for some fine reading. Yet it is discouraging to read how nobody including Lincoln really considered the African-American, either free or slave, to be equal to what was called the `white man'. Not even the majority of the abolitionists were willing to treat them as equals. Fredrick Douglass who was not only the equal of many white men, but superior to most was virtually ignored, insulted, or at best treated as an aberration. This is the unpleasant part of what is a very good book.

Lincoln and Douglas is a close analysis of the monumental series of debates between Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln and his opponent for the US Senate Stephen Arnold Douglas. Lincoln lost the election since the popular vote for president did not take effect until 1913. The Illinois legislature chose Douglas to remain in office after a brutal, sprited campaign between tne Springfield lawyer and the Little Giant. Lincoln came in as the underdog. He had served a single term as congressman in the 1840s when he strongly opposed the Mexican War. The Kentucky born self-educated Lincoln was a well-to-do lawyer, former Whig and admirer of Henry Clay the great compromiser of the north-south sectional dispute. Stephen Douglas was a Vermonter who had moved west to Ohio and Illinois, He was a good businessman and skilled in political oratory. Douglas had won fame for the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska act overturning the Missouri Compromise on the spread of slavery. Douglas was the chief proponent of "popular sovereignity" in which a territory could vote for or against slavery prior to admission as a state. Lincoln knew this would lead to the spread of chattel slavery and led to conflict. Douglas had split with the Democratic administratio of James Buchanan. Douglas did so since he opposed the Lecompton constitution which was an effort to make that city the capital of a new state where slaveholding would be permitted. Douglas also favored the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision by which a fugitive must by law be returned to the owner regardless of where the slave was residing at the time (Scot fled to free Minnesota but was forced back into his chains). Douglas was a white supremist who was concerned with democratic process by which the majority rules in their best interest. douglas had poor health and was an alcoholic. Lincoln led the new Republican party in Illinois. He believed democracy must obey a moral law calling on the equality of all persons. He did believe that blacks were inferior to whites but argued that the Constitution implied that one day all Americans should be granted citizenship and freedom under just law. Lincoln quoting the Bible insisted that the United States could not exist "half slave and half free " as he declared in his famous "House Divided" speech. The seven debates moved the candidates from northern Illinois to Southern Illinois known as Little Egypt. The debates took place in: Ottowa on August 21, Freeport on August 27, Jonesboro on September 15, Charleston on September 18, Galesburg on September 18 (same day as Charleston), Quincy on October 13 and the final debate at Alton on Oct. 13th. Lincoln and Douglas traveled separately on trains, wagons and logged thousands of miles. The two men had little love for one another. Although Lincoln lost the election he was propelled into the national spotlight through the burgeoning printing of elections in newspapers. He would win the Presidency of the United States in 1860 defeating D

This book stands as a testament to Wavy Gravy's sage observation that the simple fact that everything has changed doesn't mean that anything is different. We my be more than 100 years removed from the Lincoln-Douglas debates but in many ways the core issues haven't changed much, from the moral and ethical dilemmas that we face, the concerns about how our institutions function to the vestiges of the class struggle in America and how those struggles affect it's citizens ability to make their way in the world. At their core the debates were about slavery as an institution. As is so often the case the pyrotechnics revolved around more technical issues--the correctness of the Dred Scott ruling by the supreme court, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the procedural process of "Democratizing" the spread of slavery and so on. But I reality the debates were about whether America as a nation had lost its way, its soul, its connection with the values that drove its emergence in the first place. America was a deeply divided and frustrated nation in the antebellum period, not unlike today. And the debates were framed between two men who reflected some of the same societal divisions that mark today' political process--a true "man of the people" in Lincoln, the--let's face it--mainly poor self made man who saw the debate from one very distinct perspective and Douglas, the wealthy and pampered man of power and privilege, who saw it from a decidedly different vantage point. This fascinating, compact and enlightening read gives us a wealth of insights--into the men, into the issues, into the debates and into the fundamental issues that always have and no doubt always will fracture this nation. It is an incredibly timely and providential gift to us at a time where we must once again navigate between the diatribes of the extremes to try to find a path towards truth and national salvation.

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas engaged in a series of seven debates in a bitterly-fought contest for the United States Senate. The Democratic incumbent, Douglas, was the coauthor of the Compromise of 1850 and of the notorious Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Douglas, however, had broken with the Democrats when he opposed as fraudulent the so-called Lecompton constitution under which Kansas would be admitted to the Union as a slave state. Abraham Lincoln had served a single term in the United States Congress where he had opposed the Mexican War. He had ran for Senate in 1854 and had been narrowly defeated. His initial party affiliation was with the Whigs, but with the demise of the Whigs he joined the newly-formed Republican party. The driving issue in the Lincoln - Douglas debates was slavery. Douglas advocated for a doctrine of popular sovereignty under which the residents of the United States' new western territories, such as Kansas, would decide for themselves whether they wished to be a slave state or a free state. Lincoln and the Republicans opposed vigorously the expansion of slavery to the territories. The debates took place against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's "Dred Scott" decision in which Chief Justice Taney had held that neither Congress nor the territorial governments had the power to exclude slavery. In the contest for the Senate, Douglas narrowly kept his seat, even though Lincoln received more of the popular vote. But the debates brought Lincoln to national prominence, and they emphasized the split that divided Douglas from the Southern Democrats following Douglas's repudiation of the Lecompton Constitution. As a result, the Democratic party was split when Douglas was nominated for the presidency in 1860. The Republicans, of course, won with their dark horse nominee, Abraham Lincoln. In his book, "Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America" (2008), Professor Allen Guelzo explores the debates not only from the standpoint of history and politics, but, more importantly, philosophically -- from the standpoint of what they meant, and what the respective positions of Lincoln and Douglas meant, for their times and for our country's understanding of itself. It is thoughtful, difficult, and inspiring book. Guelzo is a Professor at Gettysburg College and the author of, among other books, a study of "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation" and "Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President" which explores Lincoln's attitude towards religion. Guelzo offers the reader a great deal of background and perspective on the debates. Tellingly, after Douglas had repudiated the Lecompton constitution, he became something of a hero to Eastern republicans many of whom supported him in the Senate race and saw him as a potential Republican nominee in 1860 -- all with the encouragement of Douglas. Thus Lincoln entered the contest without the backing of much of the national party. But Douglas had problems of his own as the a