What do you think?
Rate this book
Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln was known as a successful Illinois lawyer who had achieved some prominence in state politics as a leader in the new Republican Party. Two years later, he was elected president and was on his way to becoming the greatest chief executive in American history. What carried this one-term congressman from obscurity to fame was the campaign he mounted for the United States Senate against the country's most formidable politician, Stephen A. Douglas, in the summer and fall of 1858. Lincoln challenged Douglas directly in one of his greatest speeches -- "A house divided against itself cannot stand" -- and confronted Douglas on the questions of slavery and the inviolability of the Union in seven fierce debates. As this brilliant narrative by the prize-winning Lincoln scholar Allen Guelzo dramatizes, Lincoln would emerge a predominant national figure, the leader of his party, the man who would bear the burden of the national confrontation.
Of course, the great issue between Lincoln and Douglas was slavery. Douglas was the champion of "popular sovereignty," of letting states and territories decide for themselves whether to legalize slavery. Lincoln drew a moral line, arguing that slavery was a violation both of natural law and of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. No majority could ever make slavery right, he argued.
Lincoln lost that Senate race to Douglas, though he came close to toppling the "Little Giant," whom almost everyone thought was unbeatable. Guelzo's Lincoln and Douglas brings alive their debates and this whole year of campaigns and underscores their centrality in the greatest conflict in American history.
The encounters between Lincoln and Douglas engage a key question in American political life: What is democracy's purpose? Is it to satisfy the desires of the majority? Or is it to achieve a just and moral public order? These were the real questions in 1858 that led to the Civil War. They remain questions for Americans today.
Of course, the great issue between Lincoln and Douglas was slavery. Douglas was the champion of "popular sovereignty," of letting states and territories decide for themselves whether to legalize slavery. Lincoln drew a moral line, arguing that slavery was a violation both of natural law and of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. No majority could ever make slavery right, he argued.
Lincoln lost that Senate race to Douglas, though he came close to toppling the "Little Giant," whom almost everyone thought was unbeatable. Guelzo's Lincoln and Douglas brings alive their debates and this whole year of campaigns and underscores their centrality in the greatest conflict in American history.
The encounters between Lincoln and Douglas engage a key question in American political life: What is democracy's purpose? Is it to satisfy the desires of the majority? Or is it to achieve a just and moral public order? These were the real questions in 1858 that led to the Civil War. They remain questions for Americans today.
383 pages, Unknown Binding
First published February 5, 2008
30 people are currently reading
1164 people want to read
About the author
Allen C. Guelzo
56 books275 followersAllen Carl Guelzo (born 1953) is the Henry R. Luce III Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College, where he serves as Director of the Civil War Era Studies Program.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
June 11, 2024
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates And The Nature of America
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 administration of President Buchanan, furious with Douglas for his desertion over Lecompton, took away has patronage appointments in Illinois and worked against him in the campaign. With his famous question to Douglas during the second debate at Freeport, Lincoln pinned down Douglas on the doctrine of popular sovereignty, thus both confirming his alienation from Southern Democrats and also taking any hope away that Douglas could be considered a viable Republican candidate in 1860.
Guelzo offers revealing detail of the grueling nature of the campaign -- with portraits of each Illinois town in which the debate took place, its leading citizens, and the political considerations that shaped each candidate's presentation. While the candidates offered their competing visions for America, the debates were on far from a high plane, as both candidates catered to racism, innuendo and insult. Particularly in the southern sections of Illinois known as "Egypt," Lincoln made comments to his audience that many today would regard as racist. Admirers of Lincoln frequently struggle, with questionable success, to interpret or explain away these comments. Guelzo, as do many scholars, distinguishes between the "natural rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, found in John Locke and in the Declaration of Independence, and "civil rights" which are more local in character and dependent upon the values of a community. Lincoln opposed slavery as the violation of natural rights but was less firm than many would be today on the question of civil or political rights. The story is complicated and gains in depth with the telling.
The debates, for Guelzo, ultimately reflect two views of America. Lincoln's view places moral value at the center of what democracy and the United States is about. Slavery was morally wrong and repugnant to the Declaration of Independence even though its existence was acquiesced in by the Framers in the Constitution. For moral reasons, Lincoln believed, the expansion of slavery could not be tolerated. Douglas, in contrast, represented a processual view of the United States and of freedom. He wanted to defuse conflict over the slavery issue, to avoid the making of value judgments on the matter, and to allow each community, in essence, to set its own rules. As Guelzo summarizes the difference between Lincoln and Douglas (at 311):
"At the deepest level, what Lincoln defended in the debates was the possibility that there could be a moral core to a democracy. The fundamental premise of Douglas's popular sovereignty was that democratic decision-making, in order to be free, has to be unencumbered by the weight of factors which are nonpolitical in nature, such as kinship, ethnic identity or moral and religious obligations. The purpose of politics is not to lead 'the good life' or to pursue what is good and true by to ensure fair play, toleration, and personal autonomy."
Lincoln and Douglas thus presented alternatives that our nation faces, in some form today: "what was the American experiment about? Finding space to be free, or finding an opportunity to do right? ... Enlightened self-interest or beloved community? And was there a way to hold on to one without entirely losing a grip on the other?" p. 314
In reading Guelzo's study, I was reminded of an earlier book on the debates by Harry Jaffa, "The Crisis of the House Divided" which has less historical information that Guelzo's book but which raises essentially similar philosophical issues about American democracy.
In this time of elections and national debate, Guelzo has written an outstanding book to help Americans understand their past and to understand the directions in which they wish to go.
Robin Friedman
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 administration of President Buchanan, furious with Douglas for his desertion over Lecompton, took away has patronage appointments in Illinois and worked against him in the campaign. With his famous question to Douglas during the second debate at Freeport, Lincoln pinned down Douglas on the doctrine of popular sovereignty, thus both confirming his alienation from Southern Democrats and also taking any hope away that Douglas could be considered a viable Republican candidate in 1860.
Guelzo offers revealing detail of the grueling nature of the campaign -- with portraits of each Illinois town in which the debate took place, its leading citizens, and the political considerations that shaped each candidate's presentation. While the candidates offered their competing visions for America, the debates were on far from a high plane, as both candidates catered to racism, innuendo and insult. Particularly in the southern sections of Illinois known as "Egypt," Lincoln made comments to his audience that many today would regard as racist. Admirers of Lincoln frequently struggle, with questionable success, to interpret or explain away these comments. Guelzo, as do many scholars, distinguishes between the "natural rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, found in John Locke and in the Declaration of Independence, and "civil rights" which are more local in character and dependent upon the values of a community. Lincoln opposed slavery as the violation of natural rights but was less firm than many would be today on the question of civil or political rights. The story is complicated and gains in depth with the telling.
The debates, for Guelzo, ultimately reflect two views of America. Lincoln's view places moral value at the center of what democracy and the United States is about. Slavery was morally wrong and repugnant to the Declaration of Independence even though its existence was acquiesced in by the Framers in the Constitution. For moral reasons, Lincoln believed, the expansion of slavery could not be tolerated. Douglas, in contrast, represented a processual view of the United States and of freedom. He wanted to defuse conflict over the slavery issue, to avoid the making of value judgments on the matter, and to allow each community, in essence, to set its own rules. As Guelzo summarizes the difference between Lincoln and Douglas (at 311):
"At the deepest level, what Lincoln defended in the debates was the possibility that there could be a moral core to a democracy. The fundamental premise of Douglas's popular sovereignty was that democratic decision-making, in order to be free, has to be unencumbered by the weight of factors which are nonpolitical in nature, such as kinship, ethnic identity or moral and religious obligations. The purpose of politics is not to lead 'the good life' or to pursue what is good and true by to ensure fair play, toleration, and personal autonomy."
Lincoln and Douglas thus presented alternatives that our nation faces, in some form today: "what was the American experiment about? Finding space to be free, or finding an opportunity to do right? ... Enlightened self-interest or beloved community? And was there a way to hold on to one without entirely losing a grip on the other?" p. 314
In reading Guelzo's study, I was reminded of an earlier book on the debates by Harry Jaffa, "The Crisis of the House Divided" which has less historical information that Guelzo's book but which raises essentially similar philosophical issues about American democracy.
In this time of elections and national debate, Guelzo has written an outstanding book to help Americans understand their past and to understand the directions in which they wish to go.
Robin Friedman
September 23, 2015
Lincoln scholar Guelzo undertakes an in-depth analysis of the now-classic 1858 debates between the future president, and Illinois Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas. Guelzo begins with brief, helpful biography of Douglas (he being the lesser-known of the two; of course, pretty much anyone next to Lincoln would be lesser-known). He examines Douglas' positions throughout his time in Congress, specifically his collaboration with Henry Clay on the Compromise of 1850 and then the ill-fated Kansas-Nebraska Act, which helped accelerate the pace towards Civil War.
Next, he discusses the current state of Illinois politics and also of the beginning of the disintegration of the Democratic party into sectional factions: North and South. Throughout the book, Guelzo describes the balancing act that Douglas had to try to attempt in order to appease both sides. Ultimately, while not detrimental to his re-appointment as Senator (Senators were then chosen by the state legislatures; so, whichever party controlled the legislature in effect chose the next Senator), he was unable to reconcile the two sides as the Southern Democrats were 100% for slavery, while the Northern Democrats just wanted to leave it alone and rely on Douglas' frequently offered reasoning of popular sovereignty to keep the issue from exploding.
It's difficult to believe now, but at the time Lincoln was considered a loser: a one-term Congressman, defeated in his pursuit of the Senate in 1855, a successful enough lawyer but politically he appeared to be finished. He had his share of backers, but really struggled to drum up support for his campaign. Almost in a desperation move, he challenged Douglas to a series of debates. Against his advisers' better judgment, Douglas accepted. He had much more to lose than Lincoln; by agreeing to the debates, he in effect elevated Lincoln's status significantly.
Guelzo then traces the candidate's respective paths leading up to and in between each debate. Maps of their travels across Illinois are helpfully interspersed throughout this part of the book. The seven debate sites were all chosen by Douglas. The two switched places each debate re: who went first. The format was each candidate spoke for an hour, with the one leading off getting a final half-hour for rebuttal. While neither technically "won" the debates, on the whole, Lincoln clearly had the better of Douglas. Lincoln, obviously, had the stronger argument and was able to present it in terms that people could understand. Douglas, still trying to ride the fence between the competing factions of the Democratic Party, became angry at Lincoln's refusal to go away. Douglas did not help himself by drinking heavily. This, coupled with him contracting bronchitis, definitely hindered his latter performances.
While the Republicans did not gain control of the legislature, they did make some inroads in the elections that year - enough so that Lincoln's profile began to be enhanced. This continued straight into 1860. So, while he was not appointed Senator, these debates really served as a springboard towards his eventual victory in 1860. Guelzo concludes with a nice chapter about the above-mentioned boon for Lincoln, and also about Douglas' decline, struggles, and then early death in 1861. This is a great piece of scholarship on an important event in America's past, and Guelzo makes it interesting and exciting to read.
Grade: A
Next, he discusses the current state of Illinois politics and also of the beginning of the disintegration of the Democratic party into sectional factions: North and South. Throughout the book, Guelzo describes the balancing act that Douglas had to try to attempt in order to appease both sides. Ultimately, while not detrimental to his re-appointment as Senator (Senators were then chosen by the state legislatures; so, whichever party controlled the legislature in effect chose the next Senator), he was unable to reconcile the two sides as the Southern Democrats were 100% for slavery, while the Northern Democrats just wanted to leave it alone and rely on Douglas' frequently offered reasoning of popular sovereignty to keep the issue from exploding.
It's difficult to believe now, but at the time Lincoln was considered a loser: a one-term Congressman, defeated in his pursuit of the Senate in 1855, a successful enough lawyer but politically he appeared to be finished. He had his share of backers, but really struggled to drum up support for his campaign. Almost in a desperation move, he challenged Douglas to a series of debates. Against his advisers' better judgment, Douglas accepted. He had much more to lose than Lincoln; by agreeing to the debates, he in effect elevated Lincoln's status significantly.
Guelzo then traces the candidate's respective paths leading up to and in between each debate. Maps of their travels across Illinois are helpfully interspersed throughout this part of the book. The seven debate sites were all chosen by Douglas. The two switched places each debate re: who went first. The format was each candidate spoke for an hour, with the one leading off getting a final half-hour for rebuttal. While neither technically "won" the debates, on the whole, Lincoln clearly had the better of Douglas. Lincoln, obviously, had the stronger argument and was able to present it in terms that people could understand. Douglas, still trying to ride the fence between the competing factions of the Democratic Party, became angry at Lincoln's refusal to go away. Douglas did not help himself by drinking heavily. This, coupled with him contracting bronchitis, definitely hindered his latter performances.
While the Republicans did not gain control of the legislature, they did make some inroads in the elections that year - enough so that Lincoln's profile began to be enhanced. This continued straight into 1860. So, while he was not appointed Senator, these debates really served as a springboard towards his eventual victory in 1860. Guelzo concludes with a nice chapter about the above-mentioned boon for Lincoln, and also about Douglas' decline, struggles, and then early death in 1861. This is a great piece of scholarship on an important event in America's past, and Guelzo makes it interesting and exciting to read.
Grade: A
August 14, 2013
This book is an excellent one. Dr. Guelzo certainly knows his stuff.
Rather than focusing the book primarily on the seven debates between Lincoln and Douglas, Guelzo expands the picture and examines in detail the entire political campaigns of 1858 in order to give the debates context. "Lincoln and Douglas" taught me much I didn't know about Lincoln as a man and as a politician (sometimes we forget that in addition to being one of the greatest U.S. presidents in history, he also had to maneuver the political scene of his day - and boy, could he maneuver).
One star off for a lot of political jargon (which, being quite young in the world of elections and voting, I didn't quite understand) and for not printing the full texts of the debates in the book. Still, I recommend it highly.
On a side note, I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Guelzo speak at my college last week, and he is a wonderfully knowledgable historian and the most eloquent speaker I've ever listened to. If you ever have a chance to hear him present on CIvil War topics, go with a notebook, pen, and high expectations.
Rather than focusing the book primarily on the seven debates between Lincoln and Douglas, Guelzo expands the picture and examines in detail the entire political campaigns of 1858 in order to give the debates context. "Lincoln and Douglas" taught me much I didn't know about Lincoln as a man and as a politician (sometimes we forget that in addition to being one of the greatest U.S. presidents in history, he also had to maneuver the political scene of his day - and boy, could he maneuver).
One star off for a lot of political jargon (which, being quite young in the world of elections and voting, I didn't quite understand) and for not printing the full texts of the debates in the book. Still, I recommend it highly.
On a side note, I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Guelzo speak at my college last week, and he is a wonderfully knowledgable historian and the most eloquent speaker I've ever listened to. If you ever have a chance to hear him present on CIvil War topics, go with a notebook, pen, and high expectations.
May 13, 2008
I put this book on the history shelf, but it might as well be in current events. The great debates of Lincoln and Douglas point out either how far we've come, how far we've fallen, or that the dirt and meanness of contemporary politics are nothing new.
This book puts the 1858 debates in the context of the entire senate campaign. Did you know that if we had direct election of senators at that time, Lincoln would have won?
In the end, the author puts the central conflict of American democracy between Douglas' fundamental premise that politics is not about leading "the good life" but to ensure "fair play, toleration, and personal autonomy" and Lincoln's conviction that a "liberal democracy had a high purpose, which was the realization of a morally right political order."
And whether you agree with the current state of world affairs, that might be exactly the American debate going on now about Iraq, in the elections in Palestine and Lebanon, and in all circumstances where the majority of the electorate chooses the "wrong" (morally corrupt) politician.
This book puts the 1858 debates in the context of the entire senate campaign. Did you know that if we had direct election of senators at that time, Lincoln would have won?
In the end, the author puts the central conflict of American democracy between Douglas' fundamental premise that politics is not about leading "the good life" but to ensure "fair play, toleration, and personal autonomy" and Lincoln's conviction that a "liberal democracy had a high purpose, which was the realization of a morally right political order."
And whether you agree with the current state of world affairs, that might be exactly the American debate going on now about Iraq, in the elections in Palestine and Lebanon, and in all circumstances where the majority of the electorate chooses the "wrong" (morally corrupt) politician.
July 28, 2018
Very good account of the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas for the Illinois Senate race of 1858. The book details the debates themselves, but also gives an account of how they were viewed/received by the politics of the time, both locally in Illinois, as well as across the country. Interesting analysis of how Lincoln on most accounts won the debates (at least most of them - there were 7 in total), still lost the election, but how it also propelled him to prominence, and the Presidency in 1860.
September 7, 2013
Guelzo's recent book on Gettysburg led me to this work, which impressed me equally. For such a careful historian Guelzo is a remarkably gripping author. He shouldn't be able to make Lincoln's seven debates with Douglas so dramatically compelling but he does, while also connecting their campaign elegantly to the other political developments leading the country to civil war. This is as fun and edifying as history gets. Highly recommended.
November 3, 2017
Although this is a very excellent book written by a notable Lincoln Prize-winning author, there are at least a couple of issues with the title. For one, the author states that one of the deliberate aims of this book (and a successful one) is to expand the focus beyond the debates to the comparative campaign histories of both Lincoln and Douglas in 1858, placed in a series of larger contexts, of course, relating to the history of both men and the importance of both men in contemporary political philosophy. For another, in a strict sense, as the author reminds the reader several times, Lincoln and Douglas did not strictly engage in debates, but in serial speeches in which the speakers could choose to answer the comments of the other speaker or not. Neither were the debates scored on points, although the author does his best to use a chart form to categorize the claims and counterclaims and rebuttals in all seven of the debates, and does his own admittedly personal scoring of the debates to give Lincoln a slight 3-2-2 edge among the seven debates, but coming out considerably stronger in the end as a result of the widespread expectation that Douglas would be a far stronger debater given his much higher political profile. This is a worthy and technical history, combining rhetorical analysis with a deft handling of the tactical and strategic elements of the campaign on both Lincoln’s and Douglas’ side, which ought to satisfy any political junkie who happens to be interested in the slavery issue and its relevance to the start of the Civil War, and also the relevance of Lincoln and Douglas to our contemporary societal and civilization-wide malaise.
In terms of its organization, the book is straightforward and chronological. The book introduces its subject (and finishes the book) by bracketing the main story in the context of how Lincoln and Douglas and their debates have been viewed by different generations, most notably in the 1960 presidential debates between Nixon and Kennedy, and noting that despite the fact that they have been mined for worthwhile political philosophy by able men such as Professor Jaffa [1], the Illinois Senate campaign of 1858 has rarely been examined as a whole. The author then spends over 300 pages doing just this, with vivid detail about dirty tricks, evenhanded commentary on the use of pretty girls to send a political message, the alcoholism of Douglas, Lincoln’s sordid but sadly necessary task of pandering to the prejudices of the decisive Whig belt in the center of the state, and the bungling errors of Buchanan to attempt to defeat Douglas that ended up leaving Douglas shaken but still in the Senate after the long campaign. The author also comments on how two little-recognized elements dramatically shaped the campaign and its aftermath, first, how Douglas used a letter from Kentucky Whig Crittenden (most famous in history as the author of the doomed Crittenden Compromise after the 1860 Presidential Election) endorsing him over Lincoln to win critical support among the Whigs of Central Illinois, and the second, how little support Lincoln got from some important Republicans and former Whigs within Illinois. This book presents the debates not in isolation, but in part of a larger context, a larger context both in terms of the presidential aspirations of both Lincoln and Douglas, and how the debates themselves became best remembered because of their value as good print material for a voracious reading audience, and also how Lincoln and Douglas addressed matters at the core of the Western republican/democratic political order.
It is these larger questions that are of the most relevance to contemporary readers. To praise Lincoln accurately means to believe that the survival of our Republic, and others, depends on a people being in possession of republican virtue, understanding that no one has a right to do what is wrong, no matter what the majority of the people or the courts. In this case, votes are a means to an end, namely the end of the good life, a life as free of moral and political corruption as possible. For those who praise Douglas, though, there is no higher thought beyond individual rights, no moral compass, no core principles on which our society depends, no moral chest to resist the pull of corruption and decadence. Often, Lincoln’s moral stature is admired but not emulated by the political culture of our time, for it is easier to praise virtue than to practice it by far. Douglas, for all of his obvious moral trimming and inconsistency, is a man clearly more of our times, with his boozing and womanizing and his focus only on the present campaign without a larger political philosophy to guide him. Lincoln sits carved in marble, but Douglas makes on us fewer demands, and so we practice politics as he does, focused on the present, rather than thinking about what sort of society it is that we want to encourage and build up. This book performs a notable and worthwhile task in putting the debates in their proper place and in tying them to a greater context, in such a way as to satisfy both the political junkie and the moral philosopher among its reading audience.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
Share this:
In terms of its organization, the book is straightforward and chronological. The book introduces its subject (and finishes the book) by bracketing the main story in the context of how Lincoln and Douglas and their debates have been viewed by different generations, most notably in the 1960 presidential debates between Nixon and Kennedy, and noting that despite the fact that they have been mined for worthwhile political philosophy by able men such as Professor Jaffa [1], the Illinois Senate campaign of 1858 has rarely been examined as a whole. The author then spends over 300 pages doing just this, with vivid detail about dirty tricks, evenhanded commentary on the use of pretty girls to send a political message, the alcoholism of Douglas, Lincoln’s sordid but sadly necessary task of pandering to the prejudices of the decisive Whig belt in the center of the state, and the bungling errors of Buchanan to attempt to defeat Douglas that ended up leaving Douglas shaken but still in the Senate after the long campaign. The author also comments on how two little-recognized elements dramatically shaped the campaign and its aftermath, first, how Douglas used a letter from Kentucky Whig Crittenden (most famous in history as the author of the doomed Crittenden Compromise after the 1860 Presidential Election) endorsing him over Lincoln to win critical support among the Whigs of Central Illinois, and the second, how little support Lincoln got from some important Republicans and former Whigs within Illinois. This book presents the debates not in isolation, but in part of a larger context, a larger context both in terms of the presidential aspirations of both Lincoln and Douglas, and how the debates themselves became best remembered because of their value as good print material for a voracious reading audience, and also how Lincoln and Douglas addressed matters at the core of the Western republican/democratic political order.
It is these larger questions that are of the most relevance to contemporary readers. To praise Lincoln accurately means to believe that the survival of our Republic, and others, depends on a people being in possession of republican virtue, understanding that no one has a right to do what is wrong, no matter what the majority of the people or the courts. In this case, votes are a means to an end, namely the end of the good life, a life as free of moral and political corruption as possible. For those who praise Douglas, though, there is no higher thought beyond individual rights, no moral compass, no core principles on which our society depends, no moral chest to resist the pull of corruption and decadence. Often, Lincoln’s moral stature is admired but not emulated by the political culture of our time, for it is easier to praise virtue than to practice it by far. Douglas, for all of his obvious moral trimming and inconsistency, is a man clearly more of our times, with his boozing and womanizing and his focus only on the present campaign without a larger political philosophy to guide him. Lincoln sits carved in marble, but Douglas makes on us fewer demands, and so we practice politics as he does, focused on the present, rather than thinking about what sort of society it is that we want to encourage and build up. This book performs a notable and worthwhile task in putting the debates in their proper place and in tying them to a greater context, in such a way as to satisfy both the political junkie and the moral philosopher among its reading audience.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
Share this:
May 9, 2018
This book gave me added insight into the most famous and important debates in the country’s history. In addition to learning about Douglas, I also enjoyed seeing Lincoln evolve as he traveled around Illinois in 1858. There are a lot of seeds taking root in his speeches that would bloom into his Right Makes Might address at Cooper Union. Very intriguing commentary at the end as well that shows how relevant the Lincoln/Douglas debates remain today.
September 10, 2019
Review title: Which America do we want to be?
The Lincoln and Douglas debates during the 1858 elections truly defined America. They were for a US Senate seat that wasn't even elected by the popular vote at the time, so the debates could only indirectly effect the outcome of the election by effecting the makeup of the Illinois legislature that would vote for the position. They were held between a career politician with a national reputation and a little-known rough-hewn lawyer. They debated issues that were of vital moral and political importance. They were captured verbatim by shorthand reporters and published nationally within days via the New telegraph network.
In the end, Lincoln was no longer unknown and that country lawyer had shown voters then (and now) the clear decision Americans had to make. As Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence applied universally to all men of all colors, one of Douglas's standard formulations from the platform was: "I hold that this government was made on the white basis, by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others" (p. 175). While it is crystal clear where Douglas stood on race and slavery, his arguments focused on the process of furthering or abolishing slavery based on the wishes of popular sovereignty; Lincoln argued that "Slavery was a question of morals and whether democracy rested on moral basis, not a discussion about the mechanisms of process." (p. 227).
Here was the crux of the matter, not that I am applying today's standards to Douglas's statement and condemning him as racist, but that he highlights in stark reality the debate about who we are as a nation defined by the Declaration, and the answer that we gave over five bloody years of civil war and the 150 years since that the Lincoln proposition was the nation we wanted to be.
The rough-hewn log-cabin Lincoln was staking high and deep philosophical ground--he understood he and Douglas really were defining America. He argued that majority votes can't nullify the equality of all men which the Declaration declared inalienable--they can't be taken or given away ( P. 198). In the final debate in the Mississippi River town of Alton, he rested his case:
Lincoln was arguing with precision and clarity on the fault line between the republic which the Constitution founded and the popular democracy America was trending toward. Today we are so entrenched in the assumption and expectation of pure popular voting that moves to eliminate the Electoral College stand a good chance of being voted by a Congress and accepted by a voting populace that have lost the line in the sand. Today we demand the right to do wrong, armed by the power of the polls. Abraham Lincoln and Steven Douglas were well aware of the distinction; the debates were part of the campaign for Douglas's 1858 US senate seat--which would be decided not by direct popular vote, but by the vote of the Illinois state legislature. Lincoln would prove willing to sacrifice his life and jeopardize the country to preserve the distinction and define America by the Declaration of Independence and not the tyranny of racial hatred.
Knowing history matters, never more than now. Around the world western democracies, the US first among them, are being directed by popular votes from citizens who, ignorant of their history and of the philosophical and spiritual basis of western democracy as documented in the Declaration, have taken the right to do wrong and elected leaders to implement violently xenophobic, racist, and protectionist policies. Now, as the US president moves to block immigration from countries of color and refers to those countries as "shit holes", I realize that the debate going on in American politics is just as stark as in 1858, and that a substantial portion of our voting population, and the politicians and political party who cater to them, want to define America by Douglas's platform.
This is why we need voters who know our history, so that the choices before us and the decisions we make about the nation we are and want to be are made with wisdom. In the recent US presidential elections I have refused to vote for either major candidate because of their lack of competence and integrity. I will now and always vote only for candidates who understand they have no right to do wrong even if their political party and the voters who supported them gave them that mandate. Lincoln was right then and is still today; our house divided in support of wrong cannot stand.
The Lincoln and Douglas debates during the 1858 elections truly defined America. They were for a US Senate seat that wasn't even elected by the popular vote at the time, so the debates could only indirectly effect the outcome of the election by effecting the makeup of the Illinois legislature that would vote for the position. They were held between a career politician with a national reputation and a little-known rough-hewn lawyer. They debated issues that were of vital moral and political importance. They were captured verbatim by shorthand reporters and published nationally within days via the New telegraph network.
In the end, Lincoln was no longer unknown and that country lawyer had shown voters then (and now) the clear decision Americans had to make. As Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence applied universally to all men of all colors, one of Douglas's standard formulations from the platform was: "I hold that this government was made on the white basis, by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others" (p. 175). While it is crystal clear where Douglas stood on race and slavery, his arguments focused on the process of furthering or abolishing slavery based on the wishes of popular sovereignty; Lincoln argued that "Slavery was a question of morals and whether democracy rested on moral basis, not a discussion about the mechanisms of process." (p. 227).
Here was the crux of the matter, not that I am applying today's standards to Douglas's statement and condemning him as racist, but that he highlights in stark reality the debate about who we are as a nation defined by the Declaration, and the answer that we gave over five bloody years of civil war and the 150 years since that the Lincoln proposition was the nation we wanted to be.
The rough-hewn log-cabin Lincoln was staking high and deep philosophical ground--he understood he and Douglas really were defining America. He argued that majority votes can't nullify the equality of all men which the Declaration declared inalienable--they can't be taken or given away ( P. 198). In the final debate in the Mississippi River town of Alton, he rested his case:
Lincoln had no objection to popular sovereignty. What he objected to was the notion that popular sovereignty provided the same authority to enslave other human beings as it provided to pass cranberry [i.e. Insignificant regulatory] laws. . . . Douglas "contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them" on the basis of popular sovereignty. But--and here the hammer fell--if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong.
And what made slavery wrong, and put it beyond the pale of even popular demand? Just this: slavery is nothing else but the reversal of the American Revolution and the overthrow of natural law in favor of "the divine right of kings." (p. 264-266)
Lincoln was arguing with precision and clarity on the fault line between the republic which the Constitution founded and the popular democracy America was trending toward. Today we are so entrenched in the assumption and expectation of pure popular voting that moves to eliminate the Electoral College stand a good chance of being voted by a Congress and accepted by a voting populace that have lost the line in the sand. Today we demand the right to do wrong, armed by the power of the polls. Abraham Lincoln and Steven Douglas were well aware of the distinction; the debates were part of the campaign for Douglas's 1858 US senate seat--which would be decided not by direct popular vote, but by the vote of the Illinois state legislature. Lincoln would prove willing to sacrifice his life and jeopardize the country to preserve the distinction and define America by the Declaration of Independence and not the tyranny of racial hatred.
Knowing history matters, never more than now. Around the world western democracies, the US first among them, are being directed by popular votes from citizens who, ignorant of their history and of the philosophical and spiritual basis of western democracy as documented in the Declaration, have taken the right to do wrong and elected leaders to implement violently xenophobic, racist, and protectionist policies. Now, as the US president moves to block immigration from countries of color and refers to those countries as "shit holes", I realize that the debate going on in American politics is just as stark as in 1858, and that a substantial portion of our voting population, and the politicians and political party who cater to them, want to define America by Douglas's platform.
This is why we need voters who know our history, so that the choices before us and the decisions we make about the nation we are and want to be are made with wisdom. In the recent US presidential elections I have refused to vote for either major candidate because of their lack of competence and integrity. I will now and always vote only for candidates who understand they have no right to do wrong even if their political party and the voters who supported them gave them that mandate. Lincoln was right then and is still today; our house divided in support of wrong cannot stand.
February 29, 2012
Absolutely must read for anyone interested in American History or Political History. In these 7 debates Abraham Lincoln (a no name 1 term former congressman) challenged the 3-time elected Stephen Douglas for his Senate seat of Illinois. Judge Douglas was the leading political man of the age known as 'The Little Giant'.
These debates are considered the birth of the modern politics and were the first set of debates captured word-for-word by journalists and published nation-wide. The debates would vault Lincoln on to the national stage. And while he would lose the Senate battle to Judge Douglas, he would ultimately have the final word when he defeated Judge Douglas for President of the United States. His victory would launch the Civil War and the rest is history with Lincoln becoming our greatest president.
We may think our politics of today are the most divided of all time. That is not true. Today's political debates are simply the most VISIBLE because of the horror of the 24-hour news cycle. Our most vicious debates in Congress today revolve around the percentage of taxes we pay and the whether certain medical procedures should be legal. In these debates between Lincoln and Douglas the candidates are debating whether the black population were closer to cows or fellow human beings. Now that is a true 'house divided which cannot stand'.
As many of you know I am an audiobook fanatic. This is a great opportunity for you to try out an audiobook for the first time. These were speeches and the whole perception is different when you hear it spoken. Plus they star David Strathairn as Abraham Lincoln and Richard Dreyfuss as Stephen Douglas, which is wonderful casting.
These debates are considered the birth of the modern politics and were the first set of debates captured word-for-word by journalists and published nation-wide. The debates would vault Lincoln on to the national stage. And while he would lose the Senate battle to Judge Douglas, he would ultimately have the final word when he defeated Judge Douglas for President of the United States. His victory would launch the Civil War and the rest is history with Lincoln becoming our greatest president.
We may think our politics of today are the most divided of all time. That is not true. Today's political debates are simply the most VISIBLE because of the horror of the 24-hour news cycle. Our most vicious debates in Congress today revolve around the percentage of taxes we pay and the whether certain medical procedures should be legal. In these debates between Lincoln and Douglas the candidates are debating whether the black population were closer to cows or fellow human beings. Now that is a true 'house divided which cannot stand'.
As many of you know I am an audiobook fanatic. This is a great opportunity for you to try out an audiobook for the first time. These were speeches and the whole perception is different when you hear it spoken. Plus they star David Strathairn as Abraham Lincoln and Richard Dreyfuss as Stephen Douglas, which is wonderful casting.
March 11, 2012
An enlightening description of the background and environment of the debates. I had tried reading the debates themselves, earlier, but could not really make sense of them and so gave up. With the historical background given by this book leading up to the debates, by the time I got to and read the first debate, I then understood what they were talking about. There are a lot of ways to compare the issues with things that are going on today, such as the morality of something (slavery) vs "states rights". Such as race baiting. Such as attacking the speaker instead of addressing the issues. Then as now, "states rights" means you can't tell me what to do, but I can tell you what to do. ;-) It looks like the political parties have flipped, though. The Republicans today are acting like the Democrats did back then. This book reveals a lot about the situation leading up the Civil War, and afterwards. The book does not contain transcripts of the debates, just summaries, but the transcripts are readily available online.
December 19, 2020
This book is more about the Lincoln and Douglas campaigns for Senate in 1858 than the debates themselves. The debates are examined in the way that historians often examine them: As novel parts of an American campaign machine that is interesting because of these mild variants.
This is not a critique of Guelzo's research or writing. Both are superb and the book is a great account of the set up of the debates, the day or two before each one, the debate itself as it was remembered by audience members and reported in the newspapers, and what happened the night and day after the debates.
The most interesting historical perspective here is the fret that Lincoln and the Illinois Republicans had over voter fraud. Many letters and conversations were had about how the major railroad company in Illinois - which existed thanks to Senator Douglas's work in Washington - was bringing in illegal Irish immigrants to cast votes in the race for Douglas in key counties. Although the party did not pursue court challenges, there were cases in some rural areas of hundreds of people being accused of perjury for swearing they were residents and voting but not being from the area. The quick increase of population to Illinois mid-century made this tracking more difficult, in addition to the lack of any party rolls, membership, or register for voting officials to track who was voting and if they were eligible. Mostly, if you were a white man who swore you lived there you could hand in your ballot, often pre-printed from the newspaper you prefer, funded and backed by one of the major parties.
Lincoln backed his whole campaign on the idea of being able to move the politically homeless Whigs in the south of the state to vote for him because of his association with Henry Clay and with serving as a Whig congressman. This was all for naught: Although the debates gave Lincoln a huge boost since the powerful incumbent couldn't totally shut him down in the debates, a published letter from the admired Whig Crittenden shut down the possibility of moving Whig loyalists away from supporting Douglas, who had taken a stand in the senate against slavery expansionist James Buchannan and his administration.
The hero of the book is not Lincoln, but Stephen Douglas and his ability to power through a campaign that he should have lost. Faced by internal party saboteurs loyal to Buchannan, and the growing influence of the Republicans, Douglas, even as an incumbent, was fighting against two powerful opponents the whole time. This comes out well in Guezlo's accounting, although we all know that the 1858 Senate campaign catapulted Lincoln into the national political conversation.
Guelzo misses the importance of debates as debates - he cites oratory instruction books of the time and connects them to the reasons why Lincoln and Douglas spoke the way they did, missing entirely that such books face a chicken and egg dilemma in rhetoric pedagogy: Did the books suggest these ways of speaking because they were effective, or were they seen as effective, and therefore included in the books? He also misses the connection between Hugh Blair (who he cites twice) and the elocutionary movement that dominated most public education in the 19th century in terms of oratory shaping audience expectations that both men could violate as a means of attracting attention, highlighting points, or dismissing concerns of others. Although heckling is included quite a bit in the book, there's no discussion of how heckling may have interacted with the larger, multi-layered national debate on slavery occurring outside this race. Guelzo does suggest that Lincoln's speaking style was more motivated by the debate as it was happening in the national papers, Douglas attending more to the immediate audiences, but there's no sustained discussion of this connected with the well-established political tradition of Democrats in particular of making sure floor speeches were carefully edited when printed in newspapers. This was vital to Democrats like Douglas, who walked a fine line of having to compromise daily with Southern Democrats on slavery issues in Washington, but appear to be anti-slavery in their districts back home to secure a majority of votes. It was not that novel for a politician to speak with multiple audiences in mind in the 19th century, but it was novel for Douglas to seem to ignore the newspaper debates happening nationally and focus just on the audience before him. Guelzo seems to argue the opposite, but this practice was well established by orators in Congress in the 19th century, at least since the War of 1812.
The charts that Guelzo uses to account for the debates are strange - they seem to take the worn out position that we can chart the "distilled" point of each argument and see how the other debater responds and determine if someone "won" the debate. I find this odd given Guelzos hand-wringing at the start of the book about how poorly organized the debates were. Perhaps debates are not formed in order to count points to see who wins, but in order to provide a mode of reconsideration for observers of their own points, finding new ways to back up belief, or new beliefs to back up using the materials that speakers provide in the debates? Either way, a thin conception of the debates from the Republicans (who suggested the events to Lincoln, who then asked Douglas for them) is not enough of a warrant for these strange charts. It would have been better to look at how the speakers constructed particular repeating arguments over the course of the debates, and what that says about their imagined audiences for the debates.
A good book worth reading, but mistitled. The debates are not the star; the Douglas campaign's amazing recovery is. It's worth reading for that, and for Guelzo's great research into the hour-by-hour account of the debate setup and the after-parties. For a more direct treatment of the debates themselves, I suggest Lionel Crocker's compilation of essays and treatments as well as David Zarefsky's book on the debates.
This is not a critique of Guelzo's research or writing. Both are superb and the book is a great account of the set up of the debates, the day or two before each one, the debate itself as it was remembered by audience members and reported in the newspapers, and what happened the night and day after the debates.
The most interesting historical perspective here is the fret that Lincoln and the Illinois Republicans had over voter fraud. Many letters and conversations were had about how the major railroad company in Illinois - which existed thanks to Senator Douglas's work in Washington - was bringing in illegal Irish immigrants to cast votes in the race for Douglas in key counties. Although the party did not pursue court challenges, there were cases in some rural areas of hundreds of people being accused of perjury for swearing they were residents and voting but not being from the area. The quick increase of population to Illinois mid-century made this tracking more difficult, in addition to the lack of any party rolls, membership, or register for voting officials to track who was voting and if they were eligible. Mostly, if you were a white man who swore you lived there you could hand in your ballot, often pre-printed from the newspaper you prefer, funded and backed by one of the major parties.
Lincoln backed his whole campaign on the idea of being able to move the politically homeless Whigs in the south of the state to vote for him because of his association with Henry Clay and with serving as a Whig congressman. This was all for naught: Although the debates gave Lincoln a huge boost since the powerful incumbent couldn't totally shut him down in the debates, a published letter from the admired Whig Crittenden shut down the possibility of moving Whig loyalists away from supporting Douglas, who had taken a stand in the senate against slavery expansionist James Buchannan and his administration.
The hero of the book is not Lincoln, but Stephen Douglas and his ability to power through a campaign that he should have lost. Faced by internal party saboteurs loyal to Buchannan, and the growing influence of the Republicans, Douglas, even as an incumbent, was fighting against two powerful opponents the whole time. This comes out well in Guezlo's accounting, although we all know that the 1858 Senate campaign catapulted Lincoln into the national political conversation.
Guelzo misses the importance of debates as debates - he cites oratory instruction books of the time and connects them to the reasons why Lincoln and Douglas spoke the way they did, missing entirely that such books face a chicken and egg dilemma in rhetoric pedagogy: Did the books suggest these ways of speaking because they were effective, or were they seen as effective, and therefore included in the books? He also misses the connection between Hugh Blair (who he cites twice) and the elocutionary movement that dominated most public education in the 19th century in terms of oratory shaping audience expectations that both men could violate as a means of attracting attention, highlighting points, or dismissing concerns of others. Although heckling is included quite a bit in the book, there's no discussion of how heckling may have interacted with the larger, multi-layered national debate on slavery occurring outside this race. Guelzo does suggest that Lincoln's speaking style was more motivated by the debate as it was happening in the national papers, Douglas attending more to the immediate audiences, but there's no sustained discussion of this connected with the well-established political tradition of Democrats in particular of making sure floor speeches were carefully edited when printed in newspapers. This was vital to Democrats like Douglas, who walked a fine line of having to compromise daily with Southern Democrats on slavery issues in Washington, but appear to be anti-slavery in their districts back home to secure a majority of votes. It was not that novel for a politician to speak with multiple audiences in mind in the 19th century, but it was novel for Douglas to seem to ignore the newspaper debates happening nationally and focus just on the audience before him. Guelzo seems to argue the opposite, but this practice was well established by orators in Congress in the 19th century, at least since the War of 1812.
The charts that Guelzo uses to account for the debates are strange - they seem to take the worn out position that we can chart the "distilled" point of each argument and see how the other debater responds and determine if someone "won" the debate. I find this odd given Guelzos hand-wringing at the start of the book about how poorly organized the debates were. Perhaps debates are not formed in order to count points to see who wins, but in order to provide a mode of reconsideration for observers of their own points, finding new ways to back up belief, or new beliefs to back up using the materials that speakers provide in the debates? Either way, a thin conception of the debates from the Republicans (who suggested the events to Lincoln, who then asked Douglas for them) is not enough of a warrant for these strange charts. It would have been better to look at how the speakers constructed particular repeating arguments over the course of the debates, and what that says about their imagined audiences for the debates.
A good book worth reading, but mistitled. The debates are not the star; the Douglas campaign's amazing recovery is. It's worth reading for that, and for Guelzo's great research into the hour-by-hour account of the debate setup and the after-parties. For a more direct treatment of the debates themselves, I suggest Lionel Crocker's compilation of essays and treatments as well as David Zarefsky's book on the debates.
February 6, 2011
This is a great read about the famous Lincoln Douglas debates for the 1858 Illinois election. The book follows the path of both candidates and their debates. There is so much background, behind the scenes issues from this campaign that come to light. Lincoln's feud with George McClellan dated back to the fact that McCellan ran the Illinois Rail Road and always gave Douglas (a fellow Democrat) the best rail cars/routes. Three years later Lincoln is President and McClellan is running the Union army--the grudge remained. Lincoln lost to Douglas, but set the stage to win the Presidency two years later. It's hard to see this happening, but the book does a great job presenting that Lincoln was on the right side of the issues ultimately, and he was a bit too early to the party in 1858. The Freeport question, and the role of the constitution and slavery lived on, even after the debates.
March 30, 2009
The headline is, this is kind of a journeyman-quality narrative. It is both thorough and complete, but rarely embellished with a catching turn of a phrase or the sort of literary flourish that can make prose truly memorable.
Yet as a reference, it is truly handy. First, the narrative is broader than most earlier works on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Most of the other books written on the subject look only at the debates themselves. This is very easy as they were transcribed in both Democratic and Republican papers, and thus have kind of a built-in bias detector on the transcription. What they don't do is provide much of the political context to the debates. After all, these were not just preludes to the election of 1960, these were debates about a Senate seat. The "debaters" were talking to an audience and that audience had prejudices and local concerns just like in every other speech made on a campaign trail. So Mr. Guelzo ably puts the debates in their proper context.
Secondarily, at the end of every debate, he provides what we used to call a "flow" in competitive debate. By that I mean a summary of points made by each debater, and notations on whether or not a debate point was repeated and/or rebutted. Thus, at the end of a narrative, you can quickly asses what Lincoln and Douglas were emphasizing, and what they were avoiding.
Though the text itself was not too riveting, I learned quite a bit from this book. I lived in Illinois for many years, and even worked at the legislature in Springfield. I always found it odd that outside the capitol building, there were two large statutes -- one of Lincoln and the other of Douglas. If anything, the "Little Giant's" (as the diminutive, but rotund Douglas was known) statute was larger.
I had also been to a couple of the debate sites -- Jonesboro and Alton. But, other than that, my knowledge was limited. Here I learned quite a bit about the origins of the Republican party -- how it was built on the remains of the Whigs and the anti-slavery Democrats. There were great insights on Douglas' relationship with Buchanan and the national Democratic party. I also did not know that this was Lincoln's second "run" for the Senate. He had narrowly lost in 1856.
Of course, one bit of context I was aware of was that in 1858, no one elected senators. They were chosen by the state legislature. So consider this, the most famous debates between two candidates in American history, did not involve an election. So, the debates really set two precedents. First, these were really the first public debates for federal office in American history. It would set a precedent for all levels of government that would be followed up to the present day. Secondly, for the first time ever, candidates would run for Senate. In this case, they were running indirectly. They had been "chosen" by their parties through resolutions at the party conventions. Then, effectively, they were campaigning for their respective parties to elect the most delegates to the state legislature.
Northern Illinois was locked up for Lincoln. Southern Illinois was locked up for Douglas. Central Illinois was known as the Whig belt. The remnants of the Whig party were still there, and they would basically decide the election. The Whigs were the party of Henry Clay. They believed in the "American System" meaning a strong central government that contributed to economic growth through national infrastructure projects. They also liked tariffs to promote domestic manufactures. They opposed the Mexican American War, however, and Lincoln as a former Whig provided Douglas with some fodder on this front.
In general they sat right in the middle on the great question of the day. The Whigs did not, as a whole, like slavery. However, they also were terrified of the prospect of Civil War. So abolition was a dirty word in Whig quarters. As you can imagine, the debates then, focused on persuading these voters. Interestingly, and again a revelation I only received from this book, the House Divided speech was a political disaster that almost cost Lincoln the election right from the start. Douglas would hit on it again and again. Basically, for Whig voters, the House Divided speech sounded a lot like a promise of Civil War. Also interestingly, I have heard for years about Lincoln's own racism and view's reflective of the times.
I now believe that this is a serious misjudgment of Lincoln. I believe that he was truly an advocate of full equality of the races. While he hedged a bit by implying that the declaration promised freedom to the slaves, and not social equality, it is also clear that he would not rule that out either. It is also true that as a result of his broader statements of equality of the races, he was forced by political circumstance to step away from his words a bit. Some of this is sadly ugly. But, he never stayed there, and by the end of the campaign, he seems to have returned to his soaring rhetoric about equality.
Of course, the other odd fact about the Lincoln-Douglas debates is that he loses. Two years later, by-in-large thanks to the telegraph and the coverage of the election throughout the nation, Lincoln would be elected President. There is no doubt that the seed for Douglas' demise and the splintering of the Democratic party was planted during this campaign. There is also little doubt that the seed for Lincoln's greatness also found root here. He might have gone on like so many other politicians -- a one term Congressman who failed to reach the Senate twice. That's usually a recipe for retirement. But in Lincoln's case, the power of his argument and his words would allow him to be a dark horse candidate in 1860, and the rest, as they say, is history.
For me, this was a fine follow-up to Team of Rivals. It filled in a lot of blank pages in my knowledge of Lincoln. For true Lincolnologists, there may not be that much new here, but for the budding devotee, it was a valuable read.
Yet as a reference, it is truly handy. First, the narrative is broader than most earlier works on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Most of the other books written on the subject look only at the debates themselves. This is very easy as they were transcribed in both Democratic and Republican papers, and thus have kind of a built-in bias detector on the transcription. What they don't do is provide much of the political context to the debates. After all, these were not just preludes to the election of 1960, these were debates about a Senate seat. The "debaters" were talking to an audience and that audience had prejudices and local concerns just like in every other speech made on a campaign trail. So Mr. Guelzo ably puts the debates in their proper context.
Secondarily, at the end of every debate, he provides what we used to call a "flow" in competitive debate. By that I mean a summary of points made by each debater, and notations on whether or not a debate point was repeated and/or rebutted. Thus, at the end of a narrative, you can quickly asses what Lincoln and Douglas were emphasizing, and what they were avoiding.
Though the text itself was not too riveting, I learned quite a bit from this book. I lived in Illinois for many years, and even worked at the legislature in Springfield. I always found it odd that outside the capitol building, there were two large statutes -- one of Lincoln and the other of Douglas. If anything, the "Little Giant's" (as the diminutive, but rotund Douglas was known) statute was larger.
I had also been to a couple of the debate sites -- Jonesboro and Alton. But, other than that, my knowledge was limited. Here I learned quite a bit about the origins of the Republican party -- how it was built on the remains of the Whigs and the anti-slavery Democrats. There were great insights on Douglas' relationship with Buchanan and the national Democratic party. I also did not know that this was Lincoln's second "run" for the Senate. He had narrowly lost in 1856.
Of course, one bit of context I was aware of was that in 1858, no one elected senators. They were chosen by the state legislature. So consider this, the most famous debates between two candidates in American history, did not involve an election. So, the debates really set two precedents. First, these were really the first public debates for federal office in American history. It would set a precedent for all levels of government that would be followed up to the present day. Secondly, for the first time ever, candidates would run for Senate. In this case, they were running indirectly. They had been "chosen" by their parties through resolutions at the party conventions. Then, effectively, they were campaigning for their respective parties to elect the most delegates to the state legislature.
Northern Illinois was locked up for Lincoln. Southern Illinois was locked up for Douglas. Central Illinois was known as the Whig belt. The remnants of the Whig party were still there, and they would basically decide the election. The Whigs were the party of Henry Clay. They believed in the "American System" meaning a strong central government that contributed to economic growth through national infrastructure projects. They also liked tariffs to promote domestic manufactures. They opposed the Mexican American War, however, and Lincoln as a former Whig provided Douglas with some fodder on this front.
In general they sat right in the middle on the great question of the day. The Whigs did not, as a whole, like slavery. However, they also were terrified of the prospect of Civil War. So abolition was a dirty word in Whig quarters. As you can imagine, the debates then, focused on persuading these voters. Interestingly, and again a revelation I only received from this book, the House Divided speech was a political disaster that almost cost Lincoln the election right from the start. Douglas would hit on it again and again. Basically, for Whig voters, the House Divided speech sounded a lot like a promise of Civil War. Also interestingly, I have heard for years about Lincoln's own racism and view's reflective of the times.
I now believe that this is a serious misjudgment of Lincoln. I believe that he was truly an advocate of full equality of the races. While he hedged a bit by implying that the declaration promised freedom to the slaves, and not social equality, it is also clear that he would not rule that out either. It is also true that as a result of his broader statements of equality of the races, he was forced by political circumstance to step away from his words a bit. Some of this is sadly ugly. But, he never stayed there, and by the end of the campaign, he seems to have returned to his soaring rhetoric about equality.
Of course, the other odd fact about the Lincoln-Douglas debates is that he loses. Two years later, by-in-large thanks to the telegraph and the coverage of the election throughout the nation, Lincoln would be elected President. There is no doubt that the seed for Douglas' demise and the splintering of the Democratic party was planted during this campaign. There is also little doubt that the seed for Lincoln's greatness also found root here. He might have gone on like so many other politicians -- a one term Congressman who failed to reach the Senate twice. That's usually a recipe for retirement. But in Lincoln's case, the power of his argument and his words would allow him to be a dark horse candidate in 1860, and the rest, as they say, is history.
For me, this was a fine follow-up to Team of Rivals. It filled in a lot of blank pages in my knowledge of Lincoln. For true Lincolnologists, there may not be that much new here, but for the budding devotee, it was a valuable read.
November 28, 2020
Parts of this book were 3 stars and part 5 stars. The 3 part sections for me involved the inherent repetition in many of the debate points, as Lincoln and Douglas, like all politicians, tended to repeat talking points. The 5 star sections were the author’s analysis of the debates and their long-term impact on the candidates and the nation. As I sit here in November, 2020, what’s also interesting for me is that, in 1858, there were complaints about apportionment of districts and voter fraud. Politics has always been the same . . .
I especially liked how the author summarized the debate arguments and counter-arguments in tabular form, to allow the reader to see the main points each candidate made.
This is a good, relatively quick read on perhaps the best known debates in our history.
I especially liked how the author summarized the debate arguments and counter-arguments in tabular form, to allow the reader to see the main points each candidate made.
This is a good, relatively quick read on perhaps the best known debates in our history.
December 19, 2022
This was a good book on Lincoln's 1858 run for US Senate. The focus is his 7 debates with Stephen Douglas, but also addresses other aspects of their campaigns.
Guelzo gives a good recounting of events and in summing up the debates in an easily digestible way. He also examined the themes and through-lines that each candidate returned to. Each debate also has a handy grid chart to recap what was covered. He also notes the larger tactics of each campaign: Douglas' conception of the debates as individual speeches and agitation of racial fear and hatred; Lincoln's conception of the debates as an ongoing document and his tightrope walk between natural rights and civil rights.
Overall, a good treatment, especially as a microcosm of the final shift in politics that led to the Civil War.
Guelzo gives a good recounting of events and in summing up the debates in an easily digestible way. He also examined the themes and through-lines that each candidate returned to. Each debate also has a handy grid chart to recap what was covered. He also notes the larger tactics of each campaign: Douglas' conception of the debates as individual speeches and agitation of racial fear and hatred; Lincoln's conception of the debates as an ongoing document and his tightrope walk between natural rights and civil rights.
Overall, a good treatment, especially as a microcosm of the final shift in politics that led to the Civil War.
March 12, 2019
Reading about the Lincoln and Douglas debates, I was struck by how little has changed. Race baiting, apportionment/popular vote controversy, immigrant voter fraud horror stories, it all happened ... in 1858. It was very interesting to be reminded of the connection between the election and the eventual secession that started the Civil War. The book itself is somewhat dry, but does what it can. By keeping the story short, the author makes the subject matter more accessible.
February 26, 2025
Terrific book! It's not a transcript of the debates, it's the story of all the politics surrounding the debates and circumstances going on the lives of Lincoln and Douglass. Of course the debates are the central story but it's told in a very readable way. This author really knows this period in history.
December 15, 2022
A very fine history and how important themes, popular sovereignty by Douglas and the moral core of anti-slavery by Lincoln shaped the events leading up to the Civil War. This book merits a more thorough re-read in 2023!
December 1, 2023
outstanding
A detailed, well written and easy to read description of the debates. It is easy to see from Lincoln’s speeches that it still applies to day to different issues and the author points this out in his epilogue. I highly recommend this book.
A detailed, well written and easy to read description of the debates. It is easy to see from Lincoln’s speeches that it still applies to day to different issues and the author points this out in his epilogue. I highly recommend this book.
November 2, 2023
Well written, detailed and evocative of the age and politics of the time. I learned a lot about this pivotal time in American History.
Read
January 31, 2017Dr Allen Carl Guelzo, Historian is a noted Civil War era Scholar.
It is 1858. He lays the background- Open air debates consisted of a sequence of speeches. About 161 newspapers in Illinois were the mouthpieces for the Political Parties and other current events. There were Democratic-swayed newspapers and Republican-swayed newspapers. No neutral newspapers! The people of the State were actually voting for Republican and Democratic State Representatives; and also State Senators. They were not voting directly for Lincoln nor Douglas. United States Senators were not directly elected by the people of the State until 1912.
Some of the author's comments that intrigued me:
Douglas' big baritone voice that wears out pretty quickly and Lincoln who was concerned about looking normal, whatever normal was; looked like a tall scarecrow, (known as Long Abe) according to author Guelzo, with a high pitched and penetrating voice that could be heard by very large crowds across very large distances and he did it with little effort.
Abraham Lincoln, born 1809 and assassinated 1865, 16th U. S. President 1861-1865, was a deeply committed Whig; Stephen A Douglas, Father of Popular Sovreignty, drank heavily during his campaign and he was a racist, bombastic, fierce and a fervent Jacksonian democrat. (Andrew Jackson was the 7th president, 1829-1837. Born 1767, Died 1845) Remember this is 1858.
They attacked each other for 'the most ridiculous things'. The debates were focused on weakening the opponent through diversionary tactics. Very familiar tactics.
"Douglas is the least man I ever saw." said Lincoln.
Douglas: Yes I know Abraham Lincoln. He used to sell liquor.
Lincoln: Yes, I ran a grocery store and if I sold liquor, Douglas would have been my best customer.
Taking a human being and deciding whether that person deserved the Right to Life; Right to Liberty; Right to Happiness is wrong said Lincoln in response to Douglas' position on slavery.
The Spirit of Liberty!
Guelzo says that after 150 years since the debates of 1858, all of us are invited to come up on the platform and join Lincoln and Douglas in an ongoing debate.
One of my references was Harold Holzer, editor of another book, The Lincoln-Douglas debates, written in 1993.
It is 1858. He lays the background- Open air debates consisted of a sequence of speeches. About 161 newspapers in Illinois were the mouthpieces for the Political Parties and other current events. There were Democratic-swayed newspapers and Republican-swayed newspapers. No neutral newspapers! The people of the State were actually voting for Republican and Democratic State Representatives; and also State Senators. They were not voting directly for Lincoln nor Douglas. United States Senators were not directly elected by the people of the State until 1912.
Some of the author's comments that intrigued me:
Douglas' big baritone voice that wears out pretty quickly and Lincoln who was concerned about looking normal, whatever normal was; looked like a tall scarecrow, (known as Long Abe) according to author Guelzo, with a high pitched and penetrating voice that could be heard by very large crowds across very large distances and he did it with little effort.
Abraham Lincoln, born 1809 and assassinated 1865, 16th U. S. President 1861-1865, was a deeply committed Whig; Stephen A Douglas, Father of Popular Sovreignty, drank heavily during his campaign and he was a racist, bombastic, fierce and a fervent Jacksonian democrat. (Andrew Jackson was the 7th president, 1829-1837. Born 1767, Died 1845) Remember this is 1858.
They attacked each other for 'the most ridiculous things'. The debates were focused on weakening the opponent through diversionary tactics. Very familiar tactics.
"Douglas is the least man I ever saw." said Lincoln.
Douglas: Yes I know Abraham Lincoln. He used to sell liquor.
Lincoln: Yes, I ran a grocery store and if I sold liquor, Douglas would have been my best customer.
Taking a human being and deciding whether that person deserved the Right to Life; Right to Liberty; Right to Happiness is wrong said Lincoln in response to Douglas' position on slavery.
The Spirit of Liberty!
Guelzo says that after 150 years since the debates of 1858, all of us are invited to come up on the platform and join Lincoln and Douglas in an ongoing debate.
One of my references was Harold Holzer, editor of another book, The Lincoln-Douglas debates, written in 1993.
June 7, 2009
Political opponents with presidential aspirations square off. A vote against war resurfaces as a campaign issue. The candidates take the low road to appeal to their audiences’ baser instincts. The candidates’ physical appearance becomes the subject of idle chatter. Campaigns poll potential voters. Charges of election fraud, dirty tricks and backroom deals are hurled. Citizens are polarized on a central issue. The heart and soul of the nation is on the line.
The presidential campaign of 2008? No, the Illinois senatorial campaign of 1858 as described by award-winning author Allen C. Guelzo. Guelzo follows the campaigns of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen L. Douglas with a novelist’s eye for color and detail. He analyzes the ever-changing political calculus surrounding the campaign, providing context to the seven historic debates. Guelzo leaves the impression that the politics of today is not all that different from the way it used to be.
The fundamental difference was the widespread interest in the race. Throngs in the thousands, or even tens of thousands, turned out for campaign stops and most of the open-air debates. “Audience participation” was routine. And the speechifying would continue long after the main event had ended. Politics passed for entertainment in many small towns on the frontier. But as Guelzo describes it, the shopkeepers, teachers, preachers and farmers of the prairie were eager to get involved in what they understood would be a turning point in the decades-long struggle over the defining issue of the age.
Lincoln and Douglas is a comprehensive, thoroughly researched and skillfully written account of a campaign Guelzo aptly describes as “an overture to a violent opera.”
(This review first appeared in Kentucky Monthly magazine.)
The presidential campaign of 2008? No, the Illinois senatorial campaign of 1858 as described by award-winning author Allen C. Guelzo. Guelzo follows the campaigns of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen L. Douglas with a novelist’s eye for color and detail. He analyzes the ever-changing political calculus surrounding the campaign, providing context to the seven historic debates. Guelzo leaves the impression that the politics of today is not all that different from the way it used to be.
The fundamental difference was the widespread interest in the race. Throngs in the thousands, or even tens of thousands, turned out for campaign stops and most of the open-air debates. “Audience participation” was routine. And the speechifying would continue long after the main event had ended. Politics passed for entertainment in many small towns on the frontier. But as Guelzo describes it, the shopkeepers, teachers, preachers and farmers of the prairie were eager to get involved in what they understood would be a turning point in the decades-long struggle over the defining issue of the age.
Lincoln and Douglas is a comprehensive, thoroughly researched and skillfully written account of a campaign Guelzo aptly describes as “an overture to a violent opera.”
(This review first appeared in Kentucky Monthly magazine.)
May 1, 2008
Fabulous book! I have never read the text of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, and I likely never will, but I think this is better if you're not some serious history professor.
A hundred pages or more pass before they even get close to debating, and that sets up all of what is happening in the different political parties and the nation so you can make sense of the speeches. I wouldn't have understood a lot of the references to the infighting among the Democrats, the whigs, Henry Clay, and various votes and amendments without the context from the book. And this is where you began to see Lincoln's nobility as he usually refuses to be too moderate (for the time) and denounces slavery as inherently wrong. You also see his negative attitudes about black people in context and when he said a couple negative quotes I had read before.
I just highly, highly recommend this to give a lot of life and meaning to the bare fact we learned in high school that Lincoln had some important debates. It was especially good after reading The Case of Abraham Lincoln: A Story of Adultery, Murder, and the Making of a Great President and seeing some of the politics over the course of a couple years.
A hundred pages or more pass before they even get close to debating, and that sets up all of what is happening in the different political parties and the nation so you can make sense of the speeches. I wouldn't have understood a lot of the references to the infighting among the Democrats, the whigs, Henry Clay, and various votes and amendments without the context from the book. And this is where you began to see Lincoln's nobility as he usually refuses to be too moderate (for the time) and denounces slavery as inherently wrong. You also see his negative attitudes about black people in context and when he said a couple negative quotes I had read before.
I just highly, highly recommend this to give a lot of life and meaning to the bare fact we learned in high school that Lincoln had some important debates. It was especially good after reading The Case of Abraham Lincoln: A Story of Adultery, Murder, and the Making of a Great President and seeing some of the politics over the course of a couple years.
March 8, 2011
At the heart of the Lincoln/Douglas debates was a question that we are still arguing today: what is the role of the federal government in securing and safeguarding the rights of minorities? Douglas looked on the issue of slavery with dispassion and argued that it was a matter for the states to decide for themselves by majority vote. Lincoln argued that there are some rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution that can not be taken away by a vote of the majority. Lincoln lost the battle, as he was defeated by Douglas in the Illinois Senate race that the debates lead up to, but he ultimately won the argument - for a time, anyway.
Guelzo does a good job at keeping the material engaging and provides the crucial context necessary to really understand not just the content of the debates, but the reasoning behind the arguments presented and what their impact was. Highly recommended.
Guelzo does a good job at keeping the material engaging and provides the crucial context necessary to really understand not just the content of the debates, but the reasoning behind the arguments presented and what their impact was. Highly recommended.
December 29, 2024
Disappointed by this book and the missed opportunity. I would have lacked better structure and focus to the story and background but I generally found it slow to start and repetitive as it gets into the debates. The author’s voice is also always there on the side of Lincoln and judging Stephen’s arguments negatively. I do like the summary table of the argument for each part of the debates and some of the background description of before and after each debate though it gets repetitive after a while and the author I feel failed to hook me to the drama. I had also read the debates before reading the book and I didn’t find too much more insights in the authors summary. Overall I was expecting much better historical skillset than what was deployed here.
March 24, 2008
Excellent examination of the debates up close and personal. The historian tries to put himself in the times to explain why Lincoln didn't come out with a rousing denunciation of racism. Actually, for his time, Lincoln was quite bold in saying that blacks had natural rights, including the right to freedom. This book also gives you the details of the debates themselves instead of glossing over them. And tells you of the Senatorial election that followed, breaking it down into the numbers. Excellent.
February 2, 2017
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were very important and Guelzo does a good job portraying the lead up to and the impacts of the debates. I just had a tough time with his writing style personally. Substance was great -- too much minute details which don't pertain to the overall narrative included. I understand the delicate balance with detailing the historical fact and the scope of the book but I don't think the specific numbers of the congressional seats available in the Illinois senate is necessarily pertinent or germain to the main point of the impact of the debates.
August 19, 2011
Back in the days when Americans still named their children, Icabod, and other historical nuances pepper this account of the country's significant soul-searching over the slavery's future in an expanding nation. If you really want to know what the "Dredd Scott decision" and other compelling aspects of America's challenges to keep from being "a house divided" were, it will be an easier read than your high school paragraph on the same.
Read
February 10, 2010The October Surprise was John Crittenden's (he, like Lincoln, a former Whig) endorsement of Douglas.
All the nasty things Lincoln is quoted as saying about black people he says in this campaign, largely in response to Douglas's race baiting. Is this like Obama saying he wanted to reevaluate NAFTA?
All the nasty things Lincoln is quoted as saying about black people he says in this campaign, largely in response to Douglas's race baiting. Is this like Obama saying he wanted to reevaluate NAFTA?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews