33 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Book That Could Change Your Life, September 9, 2009
This review is from: Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 50th Anniversary Edition (Paperback)
Harry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided is a tour de force in Lincoln scholarship. Indeed, it is the best tome on Lincoln that has ever been written -- except, perhaps, for Jaffa's sequel to Crisis, A New Birth of Freedom. Crisis is more than an interpretation of an event in American political history, however, and readers should be forewarned that this is a book that could fundamentally change their way of thinking about politics and ethics. It could even create a kind of crisis of perspective for those readers who accept the predominant easy going relativism of our time, for it is difficult to be easy going about the most important human questions after a confrontation with the author's supreme skill in argumentation, not to mention lucidity and elegance of written expression.
Let me offer one example: It is not uncommon today to hear someone in a debate say, "Well, you have your opinion and I have mine, and who's to say what is right or wrong." As Jaffa shows via Lincoln's responses to Douglas in their debates (which were perhaps a bit more elevated than most contemporary debates), the "who's to say" attempt at concluding an argument is at best vacuous (that is, if it's not even worse -- mere cowardice). When Douglas refused to say what -- human slavery or human freedom -- is right or wrong, Lincoln took him to task, demonstrating that the very meaning of America is grounded in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which teaches that all men (and women) are created equal, and thus slavery is by nature wrong. Lincoln further taught his fellow citizens that if they were really to take rights seriously, the first thing they had to recognize is that there is no right to do wrong.
This is a perspective on the meaning of human rights that is very different than the one most Americans accept today. What would it mean if we applied this perspective to the most important and controversial issues of our day? What might we learn if we see that in the debate between Lincoln and Douglas over slavery that it is an error of reasoning to think that all opinions (rather than all human beings) are created equal? I believe we would learn very quickly to leave behind the empty relativism and meaningless conception of tolerance that once made us proud to think of ourselves as supremely humane, and instead adopt a spiritedness that emanates from the very core of our humanity.
In Jaffa's book -- and Lincoln's philosophy -- we discover not only an American ethos that needs to be rediscovered if we are not to be a land of virtual slaves, but we are also compelled to come to terms with our own humanity, and what is required to own up to it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fantastic Book About The Issue Of Slavery In The American Revolution Era, February 12, 2011
This review is from: Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 50th Anniversary Edition (Paperback)
Harry V. Jaffa's "Crisis of the House Divided" is an extremely important book. It is a tour de force in Lincoln scholarship. Indeed, it is the best tome on Lincoln and his views that have ever been written apart from, possibly, Jaffa's sequel to "Crisis of the House Divided", "A New Birth of Freedom."
In it, he succeeds in turning back the pragmatic historians of the mid-twentieth century who sought to undervalue Abraham Lincoln's commitment to the proposal that "All men are created equal." This tide of revisionism took two general forms. One of them were the supporters for the South who placed the full blame on Mr. Lincoln for sparking the "War of Northern Aggression"; and the other were the modern historians who claimed that there were really no substantial policy differences between Mr. Lincoln and Senator Stephen A. Douglas. If the latter class of historian could prove that Lincoln didn't really believe in freedom for slaves and that his rhetoric against slavery was irresponsible, knowing how it offended Southern sensibilities while Douglas' "Popular Sovereignty" policy would have eventually led to the limitation and elimination of slavery, then Lincoln's legacy as President could be shown to be the largely accidental.
Fortunately, Jaffa's work annihilates the eroding contentions of the revisionists and showing, beyond any doubt, that Mr. Lincoln believed America was founded on the principle of human equality as much as it was founded on the idea of democracy. That democracy and equality were the twin pillars of the American Republic and were in tension was something Mr. Lincoln well understood while Judge Douglas honored only democracy. Hence, Douglas' "Popular Sovereignty" led to the concept that the majority could decide slavery was not only legal, but also moral. In opposition, Mr. Lincoln argued that a majority did not have the right to sanction the enslavement of other men, regardless of their alleged inferiority, because "All men are created equal." Jaffa shows that Mr. Lincoln built upon the Founding Fathers' thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and urged their maturation towards the ideal. Lincoln saw how the Founding Fathers' invoked desire, hatred and vengeance in support of the cause of freedom from Britain but how these passions were no longer adequate to the task of preserving the Union from the dangers that were made more immediate by the revolutionary birth of America and the tendency of unrestrained democracy to sneering the rule of law. Instead, Lincoln recommended virtuous reason to lift the United States up, to show the world that it was truly capable of lasting self-governance. Of course, the keystone of this reason was the thinking through in the body politic, the practical consequences of the principle, "All men are created equal."
The book is a very challenging and a tremendous read. The issue of permitting slavery in territories became and remained contentious from 1820 onwards. The arguments for and against slavery in territories are quite subtle involving constitutionality, Congressional acts, territorial legislative bodies, and court decisions. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 disallowing restrictions on taking property (slaves) into territories was examined. Lincoln and the Republicans, rightfully so, were very apprehensive as to the long term ramifications of that decision. Jaffa's work on "The Crisis of the House Divided" is amazing. The breakdown of the very essence of what the debates were about is made crystal clear. Elegant arguments is made for the views held by Lincoln and Douglas regarding the issue of slavery and the very nature of what the American Republic's ideals and virtues are: freedom for all.
Personally, I have never read a book that so clearly and intelligently presents the differing views on the nature of freedom. In this book -- and Lincoln's philosophy - the readers discover not only an American ethos that needs to be rediscovered, defended and lived for. This book, decades after its publication, cannot be ignored for understanding Lincoln and the slavery issue around the American Civil War period. It is a must read for all those who are political science, history or law students.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Crisis of House Divided Reviewed, April 23, 2010
This review is from: Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 50th Anniversary Edition (Paperback)
The book is excellent though a bit pedantic. It delves into arguments long forgotten by the present Civil War fans. Jaffa seems intent on proving some of his long forgotten academic rivals wrong on their interpretation of the Lincoln Douglas debates. To do so he delves into Lincoln's psyche and in all probability puts words in Lincoln's mouth that were never there. For the specialist the book is recommended but not for the general run-of-the-mill Civil War fan.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
