One of my former students, Will Rhodes, who attends Princeton, gave me this book, signed by his professor and my favorite Lincoln scholar,
Lincoln and Douglas by Allen C. Guelzo. What a delight this book was.
Of course I'm familiar with the Lincoln/Douglas debates. I have read most if not all of them. But this book, following the pair from stop to stop really brought it alive for me.
It begins with Lincoln's frustration at what Douglas was claiming on the campaign trail for senator of Illinois. Lincoln began to follow him and rebut his claims soon after Douglas' speeches. Annoyed, and definitely not in his best interest, Douglas agrees to formally debate Lincoln at each of the seven remaining campaign stops.
Douglas is a very popular politician and his doctrine of "popular sovereignty" is popular as well. The idea that slavery should be voted up or down in a new territory and state appeals to Americans' democratic disposition. But Lincoln sees the end of this argument: slavery will exist, eventually, in every state in the union.
Because the 17th Amendment has not yet been passed, senators are chosen by the state legislators. How this plays out practically is that men, like Douglas, campaign, not for themselves, but for legislative candidates pledged to support his bid for senator. It is, de facto, a popular vote on the senator, using the institutional constraints of the Constitution. While it is technically incorrect to say they are "running" for the Senate, it is arguable that that is exactly what they are doing. Lincoln, however, is a very dark horse in this race. He was a one-term member of the House of Representatives and a local lawyer. He is unknown outside of his home district and is not a national figure, by any means.
These debates will change all that.
With the advent of the new, anti-slavery Republican Party, the political ground was shifting rapidly. Whigs were in disarray and their vote is up for grabs. Henry Clay, the quintessential Whig is Lincoln's political hero, and his only hope is to persuade them that he, and the Republicans, are not rabid abolitionists, but align with the Founders. His opponent must simply seem reasonable. One thing I loved about his book is to discover how the political landscape is not so different from today. We think we are polarized now and mythologize some distant past where politics was civil and gentlemanly. That is a past that never existed and never will. Politics is bloodsport and Lincoln understood that better than most.
In June of 1858, Lincoln was nominated to represents the Republicans in the Illinois Senate race and delivered his "House Divided" speech. Recalling Jesus' admonition that "a house divided against itself cannot stand," Lincoln posited that an America, similarly divided on the question of slavery, could not stand. To his detractors, this sounded like a call for civil war. To his admirers, he was finally asking that the question be answered, not in political or economic terms, but moral terms. Americans must answer whether slavery was right, and should therefore be national, or wrong, and should therefore be put on a path towards extinction. Lincoln believed he stood with the Founders and answer that slavery was immoral. But the intervening years had given way to political solutions and Americans, Lincoln believed, had forgotten the question.
Guelzo does a great job uncovering the political consideration, and they were myriad, that Lincoln faced seeking to upset Douglas. He refers to letters and newspaper articles describing the in-the-weeds political needle Lincoln had to thread. That part is interesting and new to me, but what really fascinated me was the flow of the debates as they moved from town to town. While much was repeated, a new emphasis and nuance was introduced at each stop, culminating in the final, and what I believe to be the crux of the argument, debate.
The first debate took place in Ottawa. While it was friendly territory for Lincoln, Douglas began by describing the Republican Party as a party of rabid abolitionists and challenged Lincoln to defend each of the planks of their Illinois State Convention platform. Of course each was framed to inflame the passions of the audience. Douglas referred back to the "House Divided" speech, implying Lincoln wanted war to settle the issue. In fact, Douglas stated that it was he, not Lincoln, on the side of the Founders. Weren't they the ones who "made this Government divided into free State and slave States, and left each State perfectly free to do as it please don the subject of slavery"? And as for the Declaration's claim that "All men are created equal"? Obviously that meant all white men are created equal. To read it any other way was to say the blacks and whites were equal in every way. This horrified the crowd. What Douglas left out was any mention of the already failed popular sovereignty doctrine in "bleeding" Kansas and the results of the Dred Scott Supreme Court case, which guaranteed slavery free passage anywhere in the nation.
Unfortunately, Lincoln took the bait and proceeded to spend his time defending himself against Douglas' charges rather than make the moral case against slavery. He said he never signed on to the Illinois Republican platform. He did not believe blacks were equal in every sense, just as fellow humans. He did not want to abolish slavery everywhere, but simply keep it where it was. He tried to argue that Dred Scott had effectively made popular sovereignty moot. In fact, Lincoln argued, the decision was all part of a vast conspiracy to extend slavery nationally and, like any good conspiracy theorist, he tried to show that all evidence for or against the conspiracy only pointed to its validity. The crowd wouldn't hear it. They simply heard he was anti-war in the "good" war (Mexican American) and pro-war in the bad one (civil war) and wanted to give black people all the privileges currently given only to whites.
In this debate, it's hard to call a "winner." Douglas went on a rabid attack and Lincoln spent his time on the ropes defending himself. Yet he did defend himself. Against the nation's best debater, that seemed like a win.
The second debate took place at Freeport. Once again the crowds showed up for what promised to be a robust political spectacle. This time Lincoln spoke first. Lincoln began on the defensive, stating all of the queries Douglas had posed at the last debate and answering them all again. In fact, he answered them in such a way that even his admirers felt he had given away the entire Republican doctrine. But as a lawyer, Lincoln understood that it's better to give up what you cannot keep and save one irrefutable argument in your pocket. This was his belief that only Congress had the right to answer the slavery question in the territories. This went directly against popular sovereignty and Dred Scott. Then Lincoln went on the offensive asking Douglas to defend his positions in light of Dred Scott which ruled that any new territories could not lawfully keep out slavery. Lincoln, through a series of questions, walked Douglas through to the only logical conclusion: that Douglas would be ok with all new territories entering the Union as slave territories and that there was nothing to be done about it. This seems to have very much concerned the people of the free state of Illinois. He also made clear that what Douglas claimed to be the platform of the Illinois state Republicans was actually that of another organization and that Douglas had no right to hold him accountable to it. He claimed Douglas was careless in his facts and therefore could not be trusted.
Douglas responded by breezing past Lincoln's question, reiterating his popular sovereignty mantra, once again, as if Dred Scott had not made it moot. He then went on to disparage Lincoln as a "Black Republican," and implied that Lincoln stood for mixing of the races on every level. Again and again, Douglas plays the race card and appeals to the bigotry of his audience.
The most important part of this second debate was Lincoln's second question to Douglas at Freeport, "Can the people of the United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?" The key word is "lawful." Lincoln knew the Dred Scott decision had already answered this question with a "no," since slaves were property and could not be excluded based on the territories' borders. But Douglas could not afford to acknowledge this. He wanted to straddle the fence with his "don't care" philosophy towards the legality of slavery in any particular state. This question would pursue him time and again at subsequent debates. This is Lincoln playing the long game. He knew in 1858 that Douglas' answer might satisfy the people of Illinois, but he knew Douglas had presidential ambitions and that question would destroy any chance he had on the national stage in 1860. Guelzo believes Lincoln was also desperate to deny Douglas a place at the top of the Republican ticket. He could see Douglas believing he could unite northern Democrats with Republicans and win in a landslide. Lincoln saw that as the death of the Republican Party.
The third debate took place in the southern town of Jonesboro. In this very poor and largely illiterate town, Douglas had a hard time connecting and certainly had no energy to feed off of. Although the area definitely leaned pro-slavery, Douglas spent a good deal of time on Republican inter-party weeds before finally getting to his main point about Lincoln's supposed desire to give black people all the civil rights enjoyed by whites. He reiterated that it was he, not Lincoln, upholding the Founders' intentions to let each state decide the slavery question for itself.
Lincoln agreed that the Founders had indeed left slavery up to the states, but disagreed that they intended that situation to prevail. He pointed out evidence that the Founders had always hoped to see slavery on a path to extinction. He also tried, with little success, to tie Douglas to some Democratic positions that sounded on slavery exactly like Lincoln's. Lincoln denied that he was agitating for war, but did remind the people the closest they got to war was the perpetual question of slavery with the addition of each new territory. Lincoln did, however, add a question concerning a federal "slave code" that would ensure the property rights in slavery in any territory. This, like the second Freeport question, was a damned if you do, damned if you don't question. Douglas could not concede any federal right to regulate slavery in the territories, because they could make it legal everywhere. He also could not say the federal government could protect a state in its anti-slavery legislation either. Douglas simply reverted to his magical panacea of "popular sovereignty."
No clear winner emerged from this southern excursion, but Lincoln had little to lose in unfriendly territory anyways.
The fourth debate took place in Charleston, a Whig stronghold. While hating slavery, they also abhorred the idea of equality in civil rights. Lincoln was therefore forced to clarify that he did not believe blacks were equal in any way other than natural human rights. This marks a low point and is the basis for declaring Lincoln a racist. He certainly panders to a racist crowd, trying to thread the needle between full acknowledgment of the humanity of blacks and full social equality.
Douglas responded with his own conspiracy of the ways in which Lincoln and the Republicans were seeking to make the Whigs abolitionists. He knew this to be an anathema. He also rejected Lincolns forceful claims to only want human rights for blacks by saying Lincoln opposed Dred Scott, which made citizenship illegal for blacks. He therefore implied that Lincoln must be for citizenship for blacks and all that entails.
While Lincoln wanted to argue that he opposed Dred Scott because it put the slavery question in the hands of the Supreme Court, arguing for the states to decide on the civil rights of black people edged a little too close to Douglas' popular sovereignty doctrine. He also had to spend time diffusing Douglas conspiracy charges of "abolitioning" the Whig party. But Lincoln scored a few points. He made Douglas look inconsistent on his "don't care" policy regarding slavery by showing Douglas had actually voted against legal provisions that would have helped the anti-slavery movement. He used the morality of slavery as a cudgel against Douglas and reiterated that the best and least harmful path forward was the one the Founders advocated, an inexorable path to extinction. And, most importantly, he stood his ground. The people came to see Lincoln as the equal of the "Little Giant" Douglas when it came to the debates.
The fifth debate took place in Galesburg, friendly territory for Lincoln. Plus Douglas had been wearing himself out physically, battling bronchitis, and was becoming more and more dependent on the bottle. He trotted out his tired arguments on popular sovereignty and tried to hold himself out as a man willing to stand up to both pro- and anti-slavery forces and fight for the will of the people. But he lacked energy and enthusiasm.
Lincoln, in contrast, came out swinging. Lincoln dismissed most of the speech for what it was, simply the same things Douglas had said at every stop. He would focus, however, on the Declaration's claim that "all men are created equal." Lincoln pointed out that one could search in vain for any evidence at all that the Founders only intended it to apply to white people. He pointed out that the author, Jefferson himself, "trembled" when he considered that God is just and that slavery would never gain His favor. Here Lincoln became quite elevated indicating that if slavery is right or wrong based on a majority's opinion, then morality itself is on the ballot. If Douglas continued to willfully blind himself to Lincoln's natural law argument that black and white people are inherently equal as humans, then Douglas would bring down the entire moral edifice of right and wrong. If Douglas persisted in claiming he "don't care" whether slavery is voted up or down, and refused to recognize the moral degeneracy of slavery, then Douglas had no right to speak of "right" and "wrong" in any context. Right and wrong then became entirely dependent on the mood of the electorate. Lincoln ended by saying that the only way to put the immoral practice of slavery on a path to extinction was to elect Republicans.
In his rebuttal, Douglas found his fire. He rabidly called out Lincoln for hypocrisy, literally foaming at the mouth and shaking his fist. He said Lincoln was not for equality in unfriendly territory like Jonesboro but now claimed he was for equality in friendly Galesburg. He angrily defended his honor against Lincoln's charges of lying about the Republican resolution brought up in the first debate. He claimed that Lincoln, with his opposition to Dred Scott, invited mob rule.
The debate ended with a defeated and deflated Douglas, and a Lincoln who could now see a path forward on offense.
The sixth debate took place at Quincy, on the border of slave state Missouri. Lincoln spoke first, coming after Douglas with a vengeance. He called Douglas a liar for continuing to pin resolution on him that Lincoln had not agreed to; he called Douglas a dodger for refusing to see the logic of Dred Scott and the way it demolished his popular sovereignty doctrine; and he called out Douglas for willfully refusing to debate on the moral principle of slavery and obfuscating instead with racial rhetoric. Lincoln made it exceptionally clear that the reason slavery presented a fight every time it came up was because Americans knew it was a moral question: some believed it to be wrong, the Republicans; some believed to be right, the Democrats. Lincoln posited that that was the only question up for consideration. Was slavery right or wrong? Was it a refutation of the Founders and the Natural Law upon which the nation had been founded or was it simply another political position to be left to political institutions? The audience could join with the Republicans and at least acknowledge it as a moral wrong, and leave the "then what" to the future or join with the Democrats and deny even the immorality of the institution.
Douglas, addled in in poor form, continued to deny slavery was a moral issue. He agreed with Lincoln that truly didn't care about the morality of slavery. For him all the agitation that came with the slavery question was promulgated by abolitionist like Lincoln. He continued to claim he was directionally correct in tying Lincoln to the resolutions put forth in the first debate, if not factually correct. He defended his honor against Lincoln's charges of lying and being part of a conspiracy to extend slavery to the whole nation. He seemed genuinely unable to understand Lincoln's point about Dred Scott's protection of slavery in any territory, and by extension, any state. He simply could not see why a territory or state could not disallow slavery as they would any other property, like alcohol.
Lincoln responded that the only question under consideration was, once again, the morality of slavery. ALL opposition to the institution stemmed from moral opposition. The Founders opposed it on moral grounds and put it on a path to extinction. Had not the cotton gin made it economically feasible, it would have remained on that path. It was Douglas, not Lincoln, who departed from the American ideal. To the charge of changing his message to suit his audience, Lincoln offered his notes from each debate and speech he'd given to show that his message remained the same.
The seventh and final debate took place in Alton. Douglas began, looking quite haggard from the exertions and the alcohol. Douglas harkened back to the "House Divided" speech and once again portrayed Lincoln as a war-monger. He continued to paint Lincoln as a man who believed in civil and social equality between the races. He accused Lincoln of slandering the Founders in refusing to accept a permanently half-slave and half-free nation. He pointed out that he had broken with the Democrats over slavery numerous times, but that Lincoln had refused to reject the position of the extreme abolitionists. Lincoln simply listened to the charges he had heard again and again. Lincoln wanted civil war. Lincoln was a n_____ lover. Douglas was the true hero who stood up for the rights of the people.
Lincoln stood and made a joke that watching Douglas distance himself from the pro-slavery aspects of his party was like a battered wife watching her husband fight off a bear: she wasn't sure who to root for.
Then he got down to business. Douglas had claimed that Lincoln refused to acknowledge the authority of the Supreme Court by rejecting the logic of Dred Scott. Lincoln said that was nothing compared to Douglas' willful misrepresentation of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln quoted from the Great Compromiser (and notable Whig) Henry Clay to the effect that all men are created equal, but that does not always imply social and civil equality (i.e. women and children were not civilly and socially equal to men). In opposing the "House Divided" speech, Lincoln put Douglas on the side of satan disparaging the Bible, as it was biblically inspired. Lincoln reiterated the clear evidence that the Founders believed they had put slavery on a path to extinction. Pulling the rug out from Douglas' popular sovereignty argument, Lincoln stated that he no problem with the principle if contained to subjects over which the majority had the right to decide. He simply believed morality fell outside that boundary. And he claimed everyone listening knew that. Finally Lincoln boiled his entire argument down to one statement, "The real issue in this controversy--the one pressing upon every mind--is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong." (p. 265) All practical questions of how to deal with the institution as it existed must be pushed aside until that fundamental question could be answered.
In fact, argued Lincoln, the arguments for slavery were identical to the arguments for a king, rejected by our Founders. Slavery did not just dehumanize black people, it introduced the idea of a hierarchy among people. Worse, according to Douglas, this hierarchy could be determined by a vote! "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, can not long retain it" (p. 267). Thus the apex of his argument was formed. After starting out on the defense, Lincoln had moved solidly into offense.
Douglas was wholly unable to rebut him. He sunk back to his tired arguments of blaming the abolitionists for all the unrest. He deeply resented Lincoln's resort to the question of morality for it implied that Douglas was, himself, immoral. He stood solidly with all those who before him had punted on the question of morality and appealed to the pragmatism of popular sovereignty.
Douglas was a broken and defeated man.
Yet, Lincoln did not win the Senate campaign. By a narrow margin, pro-Douglas legislators were voted into office. It was always a long shot anyways.
But, in 1860, Lincoln won the bigger prize: the presidency. The nation would go to war, which Lincoln vigorously opposed, to settle the slavery question once and for all. Lincoln would be magnanimous in victory as he appealed to the "better angels" of our nature.
I'm so glad I got to dive into the details of each debate from so well-respected a scholar as Allen Guelzo. My appreciation for Lincoln rose tremendously.
*note bene: Guelzo makes a handwritten correction to a typo and signs it on page 238.
