36 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates and the Nature of America, February 12, 2008
This review is from: Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America (Hardcover)
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 American, 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, wuch 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
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Very Good Book (but it could have been better), March 5, 2008
This review is from: Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America (Hardcover)
I thoroughly enjoyed Allen Guelzo's latest offering, "Lincoln and Douglas." He does an excellent job of recreating the most turbulent era in our nation's history and immersing the reader in the lives and controversies of the participants. You can almost hear the hecklers at the debates and smell the smoke each time Douglas fires his "little giant" canon from the back of his campaign train. However, I think the book could have been a bit better.
First, I would like to have seen more critical analyses of the positions the two candidates advanced during the campaigns. The little chart the author provides at the conclusion of his summary of each debate--a chart that notes the points made and rejoinders offered by Lincoln and Douglas--was not enlightening.
Second, Mr. Guelzo is quick to underscore the flaws in Douglas' "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine and his defense of the Dred Scott decision, but all too often he gives Lincoln a pass, glossing over his missteps and ignoring the flaws in his arguments. Some examples:
--He frequently accuses Douglas of playing the "race card" (which, of course, Douglas did), but attempts to explain Lincoln's opening remarks at the Charleston debate--where Lincoln expressly states that the black race is inferior and can never enjoy the same civil liberties as white people--as a "carefully calculated statement."
--He conveys the impression that the decision of the prominent Whig politician, John Crittenden, to publicly voice his opposition to Lincoln's candidacy during the final week of the campaign was a Douglas dirty trick, his "October surprise." But Mr. Crittenden's views were not the product of Douglas' nefariousness; rather, they had their genesis in Crittenden's visceral reaction to Lincoln's "House Divided" speech at the Republican convention--a speech that all the major Republican leaders advised him in advance to tone down, but Lincoln refused.
--He fails to explore the inherent inconsistencies in Lincoln's notion that blacks enjoy natural rights, which prevent their enslavement, but can never enjoy the same civil rights as white people, which means the best they can hope for is second-class citizenship.
--Lincoln's reliance on the Declaration of Independence lacked any credible legal foundation, and his assertion that the Founding Fathers clearly intended to confine slavery to the south and set it on a course of ultimate extinction was a bit of a stretch. Even Lincoln privately acknowledged at the end of the campaign that he was making a moral, not a legal, argument and that the Declaration of Independence imposes no legal obligations on anyone. And if the founders had truly devised a system to contain and eventually exterminate slavery, it would not have been necessary to amend the Constitution and spill the blood of 620,000 Americans.
I do not mean to diminish what Lincoln accomplished during this campaign, and he truly was our greatest president (George Washington, however, was the greatest American; there is a difference). But we do ourselves and our history a disservice when we fail to critically assess the words and deeds of our saints as well as our sinners.
One final word: don't just read this book; read the debates themselves. I promise you that you will profit from the exercise and that you will find yourself disagreeing with Mr. Guelzo on several points (though, as I noted above, he has written a terrific book).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The simple fact that everythings different doesnt mean anyhting's changed., February 15, 2008
This review is from: Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America (Hardcover)
This book stands as a testament to Wavy Gravy's sage observation that the simple fact that everything has changed doesn't mean that anything is different. We my be more than 100 years removed from the Lincoln-Douglas debates but in many ways the core issues haven't changed much, from the moral and ethical dilemmas that we face, the concerns about how our institutions function to the vestiges of the class struggle in America and how those struggles affect it's citizens ability to make their way in the world.
At their core the debates were about slavery as an institution. As is so often the case the pyrotechnics revolved around more technical issues--the correctness of the Dred Scott ruling by the supreme court, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the procedural process of "Democratizing" the spread of slavery and so on. But I reality the debates were about whether America as a nation had lost its way, its soul, its connection with the values that drove its emergence in the first place.
America was a deeply divided and frustrated nation in the antebellum period, not unlike today. And the debates were framed between two men who reflected some of the same societal divisions that mark today' political process--a true "man of the people" in Lincoln, the--let's face it--mainly poor self made man who saw the debate from one very distinct perspective and Douglas, the wealthy and pampered man of power and privilege, who saw it from a decidedly different vantage point.
This fascinating, compact and enlightening read gives us a wealth of insights--into the men, into the issues, into the debates and into the fundamental issues that always have and no doubt always will fracture this nation. It is an incredibly timely and providential gift to us at a time where we must once again navigate between the diatribes of the extremes to try to find a path towards truth and national salvation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
