sisanchez

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.

2023-01-05 19:51