Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America by Allen C. Guelzo

I'm a huge history buff. My bookshelves are lined with history and it is what I read the most. The American Civil War has always fascinated me but lately I've been more interested in the lead up to the war. Last Christmas, my son gave me this book. It finally made it to the top of the stack and I've just finished it. I have to say it is one of the better books I've read in awhile. I gained a whole new insight on the civil war and Lincoln.

I grew up in the south. One thing you always hear, as a southerner, is that the civil war was not about slavery. It was about states rights, or property rights, or north/south economics, or any number of other excuses. All of which seemed counter- intuitive to me. I don't think any of those issues would have ever led to war. It may have been about all of the above, but the heart of the matter was slavery. This book makes this very obvious.

Never has it been made so clear to me that Lincoln truly believed slavery was evil; slavery was morally wrong. Nor that Douglas' sole concern was to save the union at any cost, even allowing some men to enslave others. The doctrine of popular sovereignty would save the union, thought Douglas. People (at least white men) would be able to choose whether they wanted slavery within the borders of their state or territory. The founders had designed the constitution to skirt the issue because they knew it would destroy us.

Lincoln believed that slavery was opposed to the very idea of natural rights in the founders declaration. Slavery was a throwback to the age of absolute, divine kings. Douglas surely understood Lincoln's distinction between natural and civil rights, but used fear tactics to paint Lincoln as willing to permit freed blacks (not the word he used) to vote and worse, wed white women.

How many times have we heard that Lincoln said (and I'm paraphrasing here) if, to save the union, he would free all slaves, or no slaves. He may have said that, but he didn't really believe it. The house divided speech became a point for Douglas to hammer on during the debates. Lincoln would destroy the union rather than permit slavery. In the end, that is what happened. The election of Lincoln caused the union to dissolve. Lincoln did not want it to happen, but that was the result.

In the end, Douglas won the Illinois senate seat in 1858, although it was more a matter of the strange allocation of legislators than an actual majority of votes. But the damage had been done. Lincoln's ability to enunciate the abolitionist cause, disseminated by the publication of the debate transcripts, made him the advance front runner for the Republican nomination in 1860. The damage done by the split between the northern and southern democrats, whom Douglas alienated by the same popular sovereignty stance, ensured Lincoln would win the north and the election.

The issue of slavery, which the south had tried so hard to silence since the revolution, was out of the bag. The only solution was war.

I recently went on vacation with my girlfriend, Kathy. We went to Memphis and then to the Chattanooga area, touring the Chickamauga battlefield. Kathy is a smart woman but her interests don't necessarily revolve around history or the civil war. I was more interested in the ebb and flow of battle but she seemed to need a basic understanding of the cause. Oh sure, she knew it was about slavery, but why couldn't we just talk it out. She is a liberal sort of person and believes that people should always be able to solve their differences without resorting to violence. Is that naive? Maybe. I'd like to think it's possible, too.

In Memphis, we went to the National Civil Rights Museum at the location of the Lorraine Motel, where Martin Luther King was killed. The museum was a timeline of the struggle for civil rights in this country. What struck me was that the violence, at least the organized violence, was on the part of the whites resistant to change. MLK led the blacks in peaceful protest, taking the blows and letting the immorality of the oppression and persecution become obvious to all. So, it is possible to work change peacefully, even when violence is being perpetrated.

In the case of America in the early nineteenth century, it was different. The south had used secession as a block to any discussion of the end of slavery. In the early days of the Republic, discussion of slavery was banned from Congress. The subject could not even be brought up. I think the founders, particularly those like Adams, Franklin, and even the slaveholder Jefferson, realized the danger and thought it best to have unity while the young nation gained it's balance. They knew it was unsustainable. It was hoped, perhaps beyond reason, that a peaceful solution could be arrived at in the future. It was not to be. The south would not accept change and the longer it was put off, the worse it was to become.

Perhaps the founders were a bit delusional in this regard. I've always been fascinated by the what-ifs of history. It is unlikely the states would have ever agreed to the constitution if there had been a firm date for emancipation embedded in the document. It had been a divisive compromise to outlaw the importation of slaves past 1808. Outright abolition at that stage probably would have guaranteed continuation of the Articles of Confederation. I wonder if slavery would have flourished longer under the Articles or withered away? Without the constitution, there would have been no union to fight over. However, there would have been no check on states ability to continue importing slaves or abolishing slavery.

What is more evil? War or slavery? By and large, free people seem to believe the latter.