The Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Saw 'The Rivalry' at the Irish Repertory Theatre this afternoon. It is a short (2-act) dramatization of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in August-October, 1858. The whole play lasted just less than 2 hours including the intermission; the debates lasted 3 hours: the first man spoke for an hour, the second man spoke for 90 minutes, then the first man spoke for 30 minutes. The whole country has developed a severe attention deficit disorder since then.

The Republican party was newly formed, and the men were running for senator from Illinois. The contest was for control of the legislature, which elected the senator. There were seven debates, on slavery. In the end, the Democrats retained control of the legislature, and Douglas was re-elected to the senate.

This was apparently the first political campaign with national press coverage, the first that had a press entourage. It would seem that 2 technologically revolutionary things permitted this: the railroad and the telegraph. I imagine that these technologies fired imagination as much as the PC and Internet have.

The debates were recorded stenographically by reporters, and sent around the country, and later edicted into a book by Lincoln. This publicity led to these two men running for president two years later. Lincoln won because the Democratic party split in the South.

The play's value was in giving a feeling for personal sensibilities of the times. I think it downplayed the clear sense that both men had for the inferiority of the negro. The debates were especially interesting in reviving the 'states-rights' argument. I can recall this still being an important issue politically in the early 1960's, but not since then. The Federalists have finally won the day.

My dad, descendant of slave-holding plantation owners, often said when I was a child that the Civil War was about states' rights. Formally, this is correct. The Southern states held that this is a Republic of independent states; the Northern states held that this is a Union in which states' rights are subordinate to the principle of union. But I realized when reviewing the debates, inspired by this play, that in fact the casus belli was slavery. This was the reason that the nation tuned in to the Lincoln-Douglas debates so attentively; the willingness of these two men to take the opposite positions in the debate made each a spokesman and led to them later running for president against each other.

The country was clearly preoccupied with the question of slavery. It seems that the argument was clear: inferior men could be enslaved; or no man should be enslaved even though inferior. (The inferiority of the non-European races was assumed.)

Before we sneer too quickly about racial inferiority, we should understand that scientific evidence for the equivalence of the races has actually been hard to come by. For one thing, our own culture seems superior to all others, no matter what is our culture. It's normal human egocentrism. For another, the culture and arts of Europe have since the enlightenment been superior to all others in some sense.

The logic is that this superior scientific (technological and academic) and artistic culture could not have developed unless the people had the ability, corporately and individually, to develop and sustain it. The illogic is the implicit claim that since other races did not develop the same culture independently and simultaneously, that they are of lower native ability. This claim was thoroughly explored after the development of psychological testing, and because it is impossible to test ability without using the intellectual tools of the culture, it's extremely difficult actually to answer the question. It has been much more useful to presume that all humans are, on the average, of the same ability, and to explore the nuances.

In any case, there may very well be genetic (racial) difference in brain function as there are in skin color, body habitus, and coordination. But this does not imply moral or political exploitation or unfairness is right. And so the Civil War was fought justly against human oppression.

In our Civil War, millions of white men died to make black men free. Men who thought themselves essentially superior nevertheless died to give their inferiors political and personal liberty. This altruistic sacrifice is not mentioned; it has been overwhelmed by the horrors of post-bellum racism.

And it is true that the negro and the Indian *were* inferior (functionally): they had not the tradition of education or experience or culture that automatically imbued whites of lesser native ability with superior skills. It has taken decades of scientific research to establish clearly this truth.

The war did settle the states' rights question regarding secession at least. The Federalists, in this regard, won a final victory. When one thinks about it, Federalism is inevitable in the long run, if the union be not dissolved: Federalism is augmented each time a national law is passed, or a nationally -funded project is undertaken. More importantly, states-rights is inherently divisive, as having 50 idiosyncratic positions on any issue ineluctably fosters division.

The play showed clearly that both men had benign intent and strong convictions and differing presuppositions and priorities. Both wanted the union preserved; Douglas intended to do it through accommodation; Lincoln wanted it, but was not willing to permit extension of slavery, which seemed to him unjust.

Lincoln was elected president against Douglas; after the election Douglas toured the South trying to persuade against secession. We know he failed. He died at age 48 in 1861. Lincoln outlived him by only 4 years, and died at 56.