In the category of “things I have heard mentioned zillions of times in my education, but oddly was never expected to read,” there are many items. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates are one of those things. Lincoln and Douglas, in 1858, had seven debates in their campaign for…well, while it is commonly said that they were campaigning for Senate, that isn’t strictly true. This was in the days before popular election of senators. (By the way, in my undergrad class on the US government, I wrote an essay arguing that the 17th amendment should be repealed. I haven’t changed my mind on that. Subject for another blog post someday.) Thus, Lincoln and Douglas were campaigning for the election of members of their party for the State legislature. In the end, Douglas was set back to the Senate, so Lincoln, in a sense, lost the election. But, the debates took on a life of their own.
The first remarkable thing about the debates is the format: First speaker gets an hour; second speaker gets 90 minutes; first speaker gets another 30 minutes. Compare that to the debates of today. Switch minutes to seconds, and that is about right. There is a big difference in a 90 minute replay and a ninety second reply.
The second remarkable thing, which is really only remarkable if you have never read any campaign rhetoric before, is that these debates, these models of debate, are more negative, complete with more name-calling and vicious portrayals of the opponent, than anything in a modern campaign. So, next time someone complains about how modern political debate is so much more negative in the old days, ask if they have ever read the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
The third remarkable thing: these debates are not nearly as high-toned as I would have thought given what I have heard about them. Indeed, most of the debates are mired in details. Who said what on what date? Was Lincoln present when such and such a resolution was passed by such and such an organization? Did Douglas know that a particular newspaper report he had quoted was not accurate? On such matters do these debates dwell long. These debates over details are really just a proxy war for larger questions. Lincoln wants to accuse Douglas of wanting to spread slavery to the whole nation. Douglas wants to accuse Lincoln of wanting to compel all the states to make citizens of the negroes (or, heaven forbid!, allow the whites to marry the negroes (insert shocked gasps))—yeah, the race baiting in these debates is pretty overt, which may explain why my timid history teachers/professors never wanted to expose me to such things (moreover, I suspect those same history teachers of mine would have been deeply afraid to assign an piece of reading in which a particular racial group is called a “negro” instead of the preferred moniker of the day (“Black” when I was in high school/“African-American” when I was in college (by the time I was in college, in fact, using the word “Negro” when repeating what Lincoln and Douglas had said because, well, that is what they said, might have been enough get me accused of committing a hate crime)).) Lincoln repeatedly asserts that just because he doesn’t want to make a negro a slave doesn’t mean he wants one for a wife—yeah, Lincoln’s (let alone Douglas’) views on race would get him in serious trouble with the (unwritten) social honor code at a place like today’s Mount Holyoke.
The fourth remarkable thing: Lincoln doesn’t do so well early on. It takes him a few debates to hit his stride. He gradually moves the debates from the details to the big questions. By the seventh debate, he is on surer footing, turning the debates into a referendum on slavery. Douglas strikes me as the better debater, and so it takes Lincoln a while to figure out how to position him.
The fifth remarkable thing: while these debates are all about the question of slavery (were there no other issues facing the nation at that time?), the underlying questions resonate nicely in a more permanent way. Lincoln is arguing that there are some things that are morally wrong, and that it is the duty of those who recognize a moral wrong to eliminate it as fast as practically possible, but no faster. Douglas is arguing that the Constitution, the letter of the law, trumps the moral question, and thus in the absence of a clear Constitutional mandate to abolish slavery, it must be allowed to continue as long as people want it. Interestingly, he notes that Illinois had abolished slavery, as it had the right to do—but the reason he gives for forbidding slavery in Illinois is always an economic one—it isn’t profitable in Illinois, and thus it makes sense to make it illegal. As an argument, that is striking because the unprofitability of slavery means there is no reason to outlaw it, but using that argument means that Douglas never has to weigh in on the moral question. On the other hand, Lincoln never wants to get around to saying that there should be a national abolition of slavery—he seems perfectly content to let it continue to exist where it is; he just wants to stop its spread. Since he is arguing it is a moral evil, shouldn't he also be arguing for its immediate end? In other words, both Lincoln and Douglas are refusing to be pinned down as moral absolutists—fitting for a politician, obviously.
It’s hard to read the debates as an abstract debate over constitutional or moral questions when one starts off with the belief that Lincoln is right on the Big Question. But, that same starting point also makes it hard to really embrace Lincoln. I’m more of the moral absolutist type than Lincoln (insert shocked gasp). Had I been living at the time, I can image that I would have voted against Lincoln in the Republican primary in favor of someone less squishy—then again, I am always supporting doomed candidates in the Republican primary. In this case, however, I would have been pleasantly surprised by how Lincoln turned out. How come no contemporary politicians ever pleasantly surprise me?
In the end, it was good to finally read these debates. I enjoyed reading them—both Lincoln and Douglas carry you right along with their rhetorical flourishes. That being said, I am not sure to whom I would recommend them.
2 of 6
No comments:
Post a Comment