Talk:Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NOT to protect slave owners?

This doesn't make sense. Why would Douglas, who is supporting the South's views, not want to protect slave owners? If the person who wrote this article would come forth and explain this, I would be very thankful. If I was a Southerner and Congress was trying to pass a law that protected slave owners from being prosecuted in the North and protected slave owners from having their slaves taken away while in the North, I would definately support it. (Just so you know, I don't support slavery) --CherryT 00:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may, it seems that Douglas was not hardline enough or them. Douglas favored popular sovereignty, even over the outcome of the Dred Scott Decision. The Southerners felt that this was not good enough, becuase the states would likely then become free, or more free than slave, and the tipping of the Senate out of their favor would be irreversable. It seems that Douglas really didn't care one way or the other about slavery, infuriating both to abolitionists and proslavery Southerners. Douglas believed in Democratic ideals of majority rule, not slavery or abolition, just whatever the people wanted. Was he wrong from a moral standpoint? I think we can agree that he was, but he certainly wasn't trying to protect slavery or to destroy it. Basically, Douglas wasn't supporting Southern views, he was supporting the general stance of the then still national Democratic party. The party split in 1860 precisely becuase the South thought he wasn't sufficiently pro-South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.134.134 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure Details

I need some confirmation on some original research before considering adding it: My Great-Grandfather attended one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but no one recalls exactly which one it was. It would have been the closest to Southern IL, so I'm thinking maybe Alton. He reported that, as there was no PA system, Lincoln and Douglas stood atop hay bales in a hay wagon, and the audience sat on the slope of a hill in front of them. The crowd was large, so Lincoln and Douglas spoke in very short sentences. After each sentence, "callers" in the crowd would shout their words back into the crowd, to be picked up by another caller, until the sentence reached the back of the audience. Not to be too irreverent here, but it does remind me of the system used in Python's Life of Brian, and leads me to wonder if some voters in the back of the audience voted on the basis of "Blessed are the Cheesemakers" or similar ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a Major Re-edit?

It seems to me this article is need of some serious revision by someone with a more profound knowledge of the subject (which excludes me!). As it stands, certain parts are unclear and vague and there are spelling and grammatical errors.Brutus cassius 09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) forshizzle it should be labeled for needing cleanup, i've seen some articles labeled as such. how do we do that? i'm just typing it in for now, but that doesn't help it get found by cleaner-uppers easily or tag it for clean-up....idk.-thedrtaylor 05:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added missing sentence to Lincoln quote.

The paragraph quoted from Lincoln's speeh, as originally cited, showed only Lincoln's disclaimer of racial equality: a necessary concession to the feelings of the audience. It omitted the peroration, in which Lincoln eloquently proclaimed the right of negroes to be free, not slaves exploited for the benefit of others - to be in that respect "the equal of every living man."


I have added that sentence, taking the text from http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debate1.htm, the National Park Service's website for the "Lincoln Home". --Rich Rostrom 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Replaced or rewrote sketchy material.)

This article was a mess. Several errors, and the discussion of the fifth debate was a sketchy garble.

I replaced it; also rewrote the Intro and the Results section.

The internal entry for the second debate was misssing.

--Rich Rostrom 07:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some weird wording...

It says (as of 4.26.2007 at least) that "Practically the only issue discussed was slavery." (opening para.) "Practically?" That's ok for a blog or chatting online, but not in an article. "The main issue discussed in all seven debates was slavery" is much more precise (though not necessarily more accurate, i really don't know anything about history). i don't think that's the only problem of that sort, either. sorry, but i'm REALLY anal about grammar and such. thedrtaylor 05:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As Lincoln said?

Why in the debate section does it repeatedly and too frequently mention quotes and viewpoints from Lincoln while including very little quotes from Stephen Douglas? It seems to me that this whole section is just a quote bank for Lincoln in the debates. I'm not arguing with what Lincoln said. I'm arguing that there is not an equal balance between Lincoln and Douglas quotes. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think it's better now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery in the Territories

"Lincoln said that ending the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in Kansas and Nebraska was the first step in this direction, and that the Dred Scott decision was another step in the direction of spreading slavery into Northern states and territories...." with footnote 4.

I think that Lincoln said Douglas, by abolishing the Missouri compromise, had already spread slavery into to territories. In the debate at Ottawa and in other places he said that while Popular Soverignity allowed a territory to vote to allow slavery there was no way a territory could vote to exclude slavery. At Freeport Douglar rebutted this by saying that a territorial legislature could exclude slavery regarless of the Dred Scott decision by simply refusing to pass necessary policing laws which slavery required in order to exist. Lincoln responded by observing that a territorial legislature is legally obligated to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of the United States and could not legally refuse to pass laws needed to protect slave owners rights. He further argued that with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise Stephen Douglas had made slavery legal in all parts of the country except for the free states.

David Herbert Donald is cited for the original passage and I am not a distinguished historian as he is; in fact I'm not a historian at all but just a guy who knows how to type. However I wonder if Professor Donald really says this because my version of the debates, Harold Holzer's book "The Lincoln Douglas Debates," gives a text Holzer believes to be accurate and the above sectiion seems at variances with Lincoln's and Douglas' own words. 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)John Rydberg

At the Ottawa debate Lincoln said that the Dred Scott decision might prepare the way for spreading slavery into free states as well as territories. He expressed the same opinion in his House Divided speech.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on slavery in the territories.

I think AL did more than suggest popular soverignity might open the territories to slavery. At Ottawa he said: "Popular soverignity, applied to the question of slavery, and as now applied, does allow the people of a territory, to have slavery if they want it, and it don't allow them not to have it if they don't want it." (Holzer p 66)

At Freeport SD stated his position: "If the people of the Territory are opposed to slavery they will elect to the legislature who will adope unfriendly legislation to it. If they are for it they will adopt the legislative measures friendly to slavery. Hence, no matter what may be the decision of the Supreme Court on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make it a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln will deem my answer satisfactory on this point." 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)John Rydberg

Popular sovereignty made slavery an option in Kansas. Dred Scott made it more than optional. Kansas-Nebraska replaced the Missouri Compromise with popular sovereignty, and Dred Scott replaced popular sovereignty. Douglas' Freeport Doctrine was an attempt to salvage popular sovereignty from the Dred Scott decision.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Douglas was trying to salvage more than popular soverignity. In November, 1856 the Northern Democratic Senators standing for re-election who voted for Nebraska were all defeated. The center of gravity of the Democratic Party was now with the Southern Democrats who would maintain their control of the party for over a century. Douglas was trying to reach out, especially to the Free Soilers and resist Lincoln's suggestion that he was part of a plan to nationalize slavery. 01:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.230.132 (talk)

[edit] "Douglas defeated a southern attempt to use vote fraud to have Kansas admitted as a slave state."

This statement, taken from the prelude, I think is innaccurate.

Sean Wilentz in "The Rise of American Democracy from Jefferson to Lincoln" argues that Kansas anti slavery people refused to participate when the Lecpmpton Constitution was voted on. As a result pro slavery people won. There were some fraudulent votes but they were thrown out. Logically Stephen Douglas as a Democrat should have accepted the outcome of the LeComption vote. Instead he opposed the outcome and opposed the Democratic position of the Buchanan Administration by crossing the aisle and organizing the Republicans to reject it. The Senate accepted the LeCompton Constitution. Douglas them went to the House and did the same thing. He was successful there and LeCompton was rejected by the House of Representatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.32 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC) PS. I forgot to sign. 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

I think "attempt" is the key word. Massive vote fraud by pro-slavery border ruffians did occur, and most of the Kansas population was anti-slavery. The majority boycotted an election because they thought the previous election was unfair.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would only add that even with the fraudulent votes there was a clear anti slavery majority which, as Jim says, "Boycotted the election." to approve the LeCompton Constitution.19:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.31 (talk)

[edit] "There were partisan remarks, such as Douglas' accusations that members of the "Black Republican" party, such as Lincoln, were abolitionists. Douglas cited as proof Lincoln's House Divided speech"

At Ottawa Douglas cited the "House Divided" speech to accuse Lincoln of formenting civil war. As evidence that Lincoln was an abolitionist Douglas read a section of the Charter of the Illinios Republican Party when that party was formed at a meeting in Springfiled. In reply Lincoln said he was amused by the gross misrepresentation of his position and that he not only had no hand in writing that Charter but also he was not even in Springfield on the day the meeting was held but ws at a meeting in Tazewell Court. He allowed that "Judge Douglas" was not dishonest but that was not quite satisfactory since the Judge was making a false allegation. He then went on to accuse "Judge" Douglas of being joined in a conspiracy with Chief Justice Taney, among others, to make slavery perpetual and universal. Senator Douglas was outraged by this allegation. In his final half hour rebuttal he called it "a lie" and accused Lincoln of having "not character enough for integrity and truth" for bringing a charge of moral turpentine against against him. 71.168.230.132 (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg Edited for accuracy and spelling.199.173.224.31 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

[edit] "Douglas alienated Southerners with this Freeport Doctrine, which damaged his chances of winning the Presidency in 1860."

This accurately portrays one aspect of the Freeport Doctrine. Within the Congress, of course, Southerners were already as alienated as they could possibly be by Douglas' defeat of the LeCompton Constitution. However the debates were widely reported in the newspapers and now a great many more people, North and South, knew about Douglas' position.

However Lincoln's goal was to reach Eastern Republicans who in fact opposed him and wanted Douglas to keep his seat in the Senate. Many Eastern Republicans (notably Horace Greeley) saw Douglas as embracing Republican values because of he fight with the Buchanan administration over LeCompton. Lincoln knew they were mistaken. Stephen Douglas did not oppose slavery; he had said over and over that he didn't care if slavery was voted up or voted down. Douglas had no place in a party that saw slavery as in evil that should not be extended.

Lincoln also was trying to bring the old line Whigs in Central Illinois into the party, at least to the point of voting for him. These Whigs opposed abolitionism because they believed in the rule of law. However they did not support slavery and were sympathetic to the idea the institution should be gradually extinguished. Lincoln wanted them to see that Douglas' Popular Soverignity was in fact a doctrine of nullifying the Constitution by refusing to support an unpopular section of it. If he, a former Whig, could get his neighbors to see that he would win the election and become the next Senator from Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.230.132 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)