Sesquicentennial Moments
Occasional Notes for the Virginia Commission on the
Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
Richard E. Hickman
September 26, 2008

One hundred and fifty years ago, Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debated how America should resolve the issue of slavery. Over nine weeks, from August 21 to October 15, 1858, they engaged in a series of seven debates in their campaign for the United States Senate. Douglas, 45, was the well-known, two-term Democratic incumbent; Lincoln, 49, the “new” Republican and former Whig, had served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1845-47. They were trying to persuade their Illinois constituents to vote for their party tickets in the upcoming state legislative elections. Until 1913, when the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, the people did not elect their U.S. Senators directly. Their state legislators did.

They came from miles around. They came on foot, on horseback, in horse-drawn carriages and covered wagons, and on trains and boats. Young and old, they came out by the thousands, farmers, shopkeepers, men, women, and children, to hear the candidates speak in towns across the prairie, in the blazing hot August sun and in the cool, rainy mist of October. And at the end of the seven debates, these two men had spoken to audiences greater than any before in our nation’s history, in both size and eagerness to hear. Yet Lincoln and Douglas also spoke to the nation, as the main points of their debates reached millions of readers, and newspapers in the larger cities reprinted the debates in full.¹

The Lincoln-Douglas debates represented “one of the most important intellectual discussions of the slavery question that occurred in almost three decades of almost continuous controversy.”² Slavery, in fact, was the only significant topic that was discussed in the debates. There were certainly other important issues facing the voters of Illinois as the nation emerged from the Panic of 1857, including tariffs, immigration, banking regulation, free land for homesteading, and federal financing for internal improvements.³ These other subjects might have been addressed, but Lincoln and Douglas were in agreement on many of these economic issues, including homesteading and internal improvements, and neither was very much interested in the tariff. Slavery, however, was the critical issue that helped both candidates hold together the different elements of their respective parties, and slavery was “the burning topic of the hour.”⁴ Both the candidates and the voters in Illinois agreed “the major concern of the country was the present condition and the future prospects of the institution of slavery.”⁵

With the focus on slavery, it was to be expected that Lincoln and Douglas would exaggerate their differences. Yet, there was much that they agreed on. They both disliked slavery (Douglas in private and Lincoln more openly). They both opposed the Lecompton constitution, and both believed Kansas should be admitted as a free state (see Sesquicentennial Moments #1). And, both were opposed to extending slavery into the free states.⁶

What, then, was the context in which these two men challenged each other across Illinois that year? President James Buchanan had just that previous winter and spring lobbied for admission of Kansas as a slave state under the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution, and had even said that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision of 1857, Kansas would have to be a slave state. Dred Scott, in effect, banned the territorial governments from abolishing slavery. Senator Douglas could not agree, but he was caught between his Free Soil constituents in Illinois and the pro-slavery position of the Buchanan Administration.6 In order to resolve this dilemma, Douglas held fast to his philosophy of Popular Sovereignty, the right of the people of a territory to decide whether or not to permit slavery. In so doing, he was attempting to reshape the Democratic Party, to adapt it to the growing anti-slavery sentiments in the Northern states, and especially in the rapidly growing Northwest. From Douglas’ perspective, as he prepared to run for President in 1860, the Southern Democrats would either have to go along with his views, or become a sectional, minority party.⁷

As it become clear that the voters in Kansas would reject Lecompton on August 2, 1858, the issue of expanding slavery seemed to recede. Many of the leaders of the Republican Party in the eastern states thought Douglas should not be opposed for reelection, and that he might even be brought into the Republican fold.⁸ Illinois Republicans, however, thought differently, and they nominated Abraham Lincoln to oppose Douglas. On June 16, 1858, Lincoln addressed the state Republican convention as its candidate, in his “House Divided” speech:

“We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed – ‘A House divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.”⁹

Lincoln’s anti-slavery program was broad and general enough to satisfy the wide range of opinion in the Republican Party, from outright abolitionism to simple non-extension. He raised the issue to the level of a fundamental conflict between right and wrong, but there were obvious contradictions in his position. He was against Dred Scott for stating that African-Americans could not be citizens, but he was not in favor of citizenship. He was for equal rights for all, but against social and political equality for African-Americans. Furthermore, he called for moral opposition to (and “ultimate extinction” of) slavery, but proposed no practical steps to eliminate it.¹⁰

Lincoln’s objective in this campaign, however, was only to show the basic inconsistency between contemporary Western moral opinion and the current thinking in the Democratic Party. He forced Douglas into the untenable position of supporting the Dred Scott decision while simultaneously arguing that the territories could exclude slavery through unfriendly legislation. And, he made Douglas appear indifferent to the great moral issue of the day.¹¹ Douglas was on record as stating that he did not care whether Kansas allowed slavery or not, only that there be a fair vote. Lincoln countered that this policy would open the door for expansion of slavery, and the only way to stop that expansion was to elect Republicans who “consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong,” and who “will oppose the modern Democratic idea that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent.”

In response, Douglas called Lincoln a Black Republican whose policies would destroy the Union and bring huge numbers of African-Americans into Illinois.¹² In Chicago in July, he accused Lincoln of fomenting war: “Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the free States against the slave States – a war of extermination – to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all the States shall either become free or become slave.”¹³ At Springfield in July, Douglas said that Lincoln “believes that the Almighty made the Negro equal to the white man … He thinks that the Negro is his brother. I do not think that the Negro is any kin of mine at all … This government … was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity, to be executed and managed by white men.”¹⁴

There was evidence that Douglas, in his private thinking, was opposed to slavery, and believed that Popular Sovereignty was a useful mechanism to restrict it without creating unnecessary political battles in Congress. Ultimately, however, Douglas believed “the integrity of the Union was more important than the solution of the slavery question, but that the two were not incompatible in any case, for the slavery question could be taken out of national politics and could be resolved at the level of local self-government.”¹⁵

Thus were the battle lines drawn. In a July 24 letter, Lincoln proposed seven debates, and Douglas agreed. Each debate would last for three hours. The first candidate would speak for one hour, then the second candidate would follow for an hour and a half, then the first candidate would have the final half hour for rebuttal. The debates were held at Ottowa (August 21), Freeport (August 27), Jonesboro (September 15), Charleston (September 18), Galesburg (October 7), Quincy (October 13), and Alton (October 15).

Over 12,000 people came to hear the first debate at Ottawa. Douglas spoke first, charging that Lincoln was an abolitionist and raising the question of what to do with the free African-Americans. Lincoln had no satisfactory answer: “If all earthly power were given to me, I should not know what to do.” Then Lincoln went on to say: “I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”¹⁶ Lincoln then stated his belief in “a physical difference between the white and black races” which would “forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” Accordingly, “While they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” ¹⁷ Lincoln faced the difficult task of reconciling the concept of subordination with his belief in equality. He would not grant the African-American the right to vote, hold public office, serve as juror, intermarry with whites, or be granted citizenship in Illinois. But he did believe the African-American was “entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness … In the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.” ¹⁸

In the second debate, at Freeport, Lincoln posed a question to Douglas: Is there any lawful means by which the people of a territory could ban slavery if that were their wish? Lincoln wanted to expose the contradiction between Dred Scott and Popular Sovereignty. If Douglas answered no, he would lose the Senatorial election in Illinois. If he answered yes, he would lose the votes of Southern Democrats in the Presidential election in 1860. But Lincoln knew how Douglas would respond, because the Senator had already addressed this question in earlier speeches. Douglas’ answer on August 27 became known as the Freeport Doctrine: that slavery could not exist in any territory without protective laws, and conversely, that a territorial legislature could effectively exclude slavery through unfriendly legislation. Douglas’ response went right to the heart of Lincoln’s “House Divided” metaphor. He asked why the nation could not continue to “exist divided into free and slave states?” The founding fathers had intended that each state be free to do as it wished on the subject of slavery, and if not, war would be the inevitable result.¹⁹

Douglas charged that if Lincoln was not in favor of outlawing slavery in states where it already existed, “how does he expect to bring slavery in a course of ultimate extinction?” Lincoln responded: “I do not mean … it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at the least; but that it will occur in the best way for both races in God’s good time, I have no doubt.”²⁰

Lincoln recognized he had to get elected in the first place, and he knew most voters in Illinois were strongly anti-African-American. He did talk about equality in very different terms, depending on whether he was speaking to up-state or down-state voters.²¹ In the end, Douglas did not believe in human slavery any more than Lincoln believed in the complete social and political equality of the races.²² However, a key difference between the two candidates was that Douglas, while opposed to slavery, did not feel a kinship with the African-American, while Lincoln, even though he was not in favor of full equality, nevertheless felt a human bond with the African-American that led him to believe in the ultimate necessity to abolish slavery, even if he was unable to offer any specific program detailing how to accomplish that end.²³ For Douglas, slavery was a practical question, not a great moral dilemma. For Lincoln, it was both a moral issue and a dilemma. “Douglas made it quite clear that he would be satisfied, permanently, with the Negro’s inferior status, while that status tortured Lincoln’s conscience. Unlike Douglas, Lincoln looked forward to a time when slavery would no longer stain American democracy and when the Negro would at least have an equal chance to advance to the limits of his capabilities.”²⁴

In the final debate on October 15, at Alton, Lincoln gave what was probably the most compelling statement in the entire series:

“The real issue in this controversy … “ is the conflict “on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong … That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.”²⁵

But the fundamental issue for Douglas in the debates was not right and wrong, but self-government – the right of the people in their own states or territories to choose their own particular form of government and to determine their own social institutions – including slavery. At the end of the final debate, he was explicit: “I care more for the great principal of self-government, the right of the people to rule … than I do for all the negroes in Christendom.”²⁶

In the broadest sense, the debates represented the enduring conflict between majority rule and minority rights:

“… what was at stake was not just a choice between two candidates or political parties; it was a choice between two fundamentally opposed views of the meaning of the American experience. One way to formulate that difference was to see Douglas as the advocate of majority rule and Lincoln as the defender of minority rights. In Douglas’ view there were virtually no limits on what the majority of the people of a state or a territory could do – including, if they so chose – holding black-skinned inhabitants in slavery. While Lincoln also valued self-government … he felt passionately that no majority should have the power to limit the most fundamental rights of a minority to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”²⁷

On November 2, 1858, the voters of Illinois cast their ballots and the result was a plurality for the Republican ticket. There were over 125,000 votes for the Republican legislative ticket, over 121,000 for the Douglas Democrats, and over 5,000 for the Buchanan (or National) Democrats. The Democrats won 51 of the 54 southern counties, while the Republicans carried 42 of the 48 northern counties. In the statehouse, however, there were 13 incumbent state senators who were not up for re-election that year, and eight of them were Democrats. As a result, the Democratic Party controlled the next joint session of the state legislature by a majority of 54-46, and re-elected Senator Douglas on January 5, 1859.²⁸

The debates represented a triumph for both candidates. Douglas was returned to the Senate as the leader of the Northern Democrats and the leading Presidential candidate for 1860.²⁹ However, even though the election was a brilliant victory for him, it came at a high cost – he was exhausted, close to financial ruin, and he had made new enemies, especially among Southern Democrats.³⁰ The Democratic party would split in 1860 into northern and southern factions (ensuring Lincoln’s election as President) and Douglas would die at the early age of 48 on June 3, 1861. Douglas’ re-election was also a bitter defeat for President Buchanan and the National Democrats.³¹

For Abraham Lincoln, “the election was a victory in defeat. He had battled the famous Douglas on at least even terms, clarified the issues between Republicans and Northern Democrats more sharply than ever, and emerged as a Republican spokesman of national stature.”³² And, on a more symbolic level, he was transformed into a national spokesman for the common man on his moral convictions, without demanding any specific course of action for change.³³

End Notes

1. Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and The War Years, p. 140.
2. Potter, The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861, p. 331.
3. Donald, Lincoln, p. 225; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, p. 182; and, Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln: Douglas, Buchanan, and Party Chaos: 1857-1859, p. 331.
4. Nevins, op. cit., p. 391.
5. Donald, op. cit., pp. 225-226.
6. Craven, The Coming of the Civil War, p. 388.
7. Craven, op. cit., p. 398.
8. Craven, op. cit., pp. 389-90.
9. Angle, Created Equal?, pp. 1-2; and, Craven, op. cit., p. 391.
10. Craven, op. cit., pp. 391-392; and Potter, op. cit., p. 344.
11. Craven, op. cit., pp. 392-393.
12. McPherson, op. cit., pp. 181-182.
13. Sandburg, op. cit., p. 139; and, Angle, op. cit., p. 18.
14. McPherson, op. cit., pp. 182; and Angle, op. cit., pp 60, 62, and 65.
15. Potter, op. cit., pp. 329-330.
16. Potter, op. cit., p. 344; Nevins, op. cit., pp. 376-380; and Angle, op. cit., p. 116.
17. Potter, op. cit., p. 344; Donald, op. cit., p. 221; and, Angle, op. cit., p. 117.
18. Potter, op. cit., pp. 344-345; Donald, op. cit., pp. 220-221; and, Nevins, op. cit., p. 386.
19. McPherson, op. cit., pp. 183-184; Nevins, op. cit., pp. 380-82; and Angle, op. cit., pp. 143, 144, 152, 167, and 168.
20. McPherson, op. cit., pp. 186-187.
21. Potter, op. cit., p. 346.
22. Potter, op. cit., p. 354.
23. Potter, op. cit., pp. 352-354.
24. Potter, op. cit., p. 342; and Angle, op. cit., p. xxix.
25. Donald, op. cit., p. 224; Nevins, op. cit., pp. 390-391; and Angle, op. cit., pp. 390, 393.
26. Donald, op. cit., p. 226; and Angle, op. cit., p. 400.
27. Donald, op. cit., pp. 226-227.
28. Donald, op. cit., pp. 227-228; McPherson, op. cit., pp. 187-188; Nevins, op. cit., pp. 396-398; Potter, op. cit., pp. 354-355; and, Angle, op. cit., p. xxx.
29. McPherson, op. cit., pp. 188.
30. Nevins, op. cit., p. 398.
31. Potter, op. cit., p. 355.
32. McPherson, op. cit., pp. 188.
33. Craven, op. cit., p. 393.

References

Angle, Paul M. Created Equal?: The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 1958.

Craven, Avery O. The Coming of the Civil War. New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1942.

Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. London, Jonathan Cape, Random House. 1995.

Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion, Volume II. Secessionists Triumphant: 1854-1861. New York, Oxford University Press. 2007.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. (The Oxford History of the United States.) New York, Oxford University Press. 1988.

Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Douglas, Buchanan, and Party Chaos: 1857-1859. New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1950.

Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861. (The New American Nation Series.) New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1976.

Sandburg, Carl. Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years. One-Volume Edition. New York, Harcourt Brace and Company. 1954.