Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates

by Harry V. Jaffa

Crisis of the House Divided is the standard historiography of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Harry Jaffa provides the definitive analysis of the political principles that guided Lincoln from his re-entry into politics in 1854 through his Senate campaign against Douglas in 1858.

" Crisis of the House Divided has shaped the thought of a generation of Abraham Lincoln and Civil War scholars."—Mark E. Needly, Jr., Civil War History

"An important book about one of the great episodes in the history of the sectional controversy. It breaks new ground and opens a new view of Lincoln's significance as a political thinker."—T. Harry Williams, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences

"A searching and provocative analysis of the issues confronted and the ideas expounded in the great debates. . . . A book which displays such learning and insight that it cannot fail to excite the admiration even of scholars who disagree with its major arguments and conclusions."—D. E. Fehrenbacher, American Historical Review

Genres: History, Politics, American History, Civil War, Nonfiction, American Civil War, Philosophy

460 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1973

About the author

A graduate of Yale University, Harry Victor Jaffa taught at Queens College, the City College of New York and at the University of Chicago before earning his doctorate in 1951 at the New School for Social Research in New York. A student of Leo Strauss, Jaffa taught at Ohio State University from 1951-64, and over the next 25 years was on the faculties of Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate School in Claremont, Calif. He was the Henry Salvatori research professor of political philosophy from 1971-89, when he became professor emeritus and a distinguished fellow at the Claremont Institute.

Reviews

[Gary Inbinder · Rating 5 out of 5]

The ultimate guide to the Lincoln-Douglas debates and a must-read for anyone interested in U.S. history.

[Gavin · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely rich, but dense look at the Lincoln-Douglas debates by Harry Jaffa. Not something to rip through, which I did not, it took me nine months of definitions, notes, and rabbit holes. I'm glad that I stuck with it and the highest praise that I could make is that I'm ready to start it all over. That being said, there are other books on this subject that I wish to hit before I come back to it.

Originally published in 1959 that seems a world away, almost as far as the debates themselves. Apparently the big thought of that era was Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War and Jaffa develops both sides of this line of thinking. To my mind, and I'm no expert here, Jaffa comes down as Douglas and his supporters by not acting and by avoiding dealing with the moral question end up causing the war.

A few examples of my view:

'When Senator Foote of Mississippi had in 1948 invited Senator Hale of New Hampshire to visit Mississippi and grace the highest tree in the forest there (which earned him the sobriquet of Hangman Foote), Hale responded by inviting Foote to New Hampshire, where he assured him a respectful hearing in every town and hamlet.' p 334

'In his Chicago speech of July 10, 1858, Lincoln sounded a theme which echoed through the debates. He spoke of the annual celebration of independence, as he always loved to do, in terms which suggest nothing so much as the Feast of the Passover, celebrating the deliverance of the Hebrew people from Pharaoh's Egypt, or of Easter, celebrating the deliverance of the world from original sin.' p. 359-360

"Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a save himself." ~Lincoln p. 337

'We would say that opinion in Illinois in 1858 was probably about as favorable to Negro citizenship as opinion in Arkansas today is favorable to public school integration.' p. 382

Douglas tends to try and dodge and weave his way through avoiding the slavery question. When Lincoln ask Douglas if he would support the Supreme Court ruling that slavery was wrong Douglas doesn't answer the question, but attempts to hide behind a statement that no justice would be so insane and that to do so would go against the Constitution.

All in all, a book well worth reading, but take care you either will love it or drop it. I look forward to Jaffa's sequel A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM.

[WaldenOgre · Rating 4 out of 5]

至少对我来讲，这本书是不太容易读的。

首先是翻译的问题。这个翻译肯定是有瑕疵的。虽然大体上可以理解，但时不时有些句子乃至段落读着就是有种磕磕绊绊的感觉。在本已极度耗费脑力的前提下，这些小障碍并非无足轻重。

另一个则是阅读门槛的问题。作者雅法预设本书的读者对美国内战前夕的一系列历史和政策演变会有充分的认知，因此他便是在这一基础上，继续展开更细致精微的剖析的。可对我这样的非专业读者而言，大量的注释会显得极有益处，但译者和编辑在这方面提供的帮助却少之又少。

然而，撇开这些不谈，本书将林肯和道格拉斯的辩论置于当时的历史环境和政治气候中来考量。于是，奴隶制存废这个在我们此刻看来在道德上几乎毫无争议的问题，便显现出了它极度复杂的剖面，以及政治哲学中某些永恒的张力。在理性和激情、平等和敬畏、道德诉求和民主认同、内心信仰和政治表述之间，卓越的政治家必须要能找到一个折中的落脚点，然后利用这个脆弱的支点去努力推进公共善。这是一种专属于政治家的创造性任务。要完成它，除了政治智慧之外，没有任何现成方法可资利用。

同时，如雅法所言，“首先是尽可能像历史理解自身那样去理解历史，然后再试图以不同或更好的方式去理解历史。”在我们这个高度极化的时代里，这是尤其稀缺、因此也是尤其可贵的品质了。

[David Montgomery · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book of superb legal and philosophic analysis, though reading it today one is put off by the degree to which it is fixated on historiographic disputes of the 1950s. Jaffa undertakes a thorough but mostly fair defense of Abraham Lincoln, pre-presidency, against historians of his day who were taking the side of Stephen Douglas and his "popular sovereignty" doctrine.

Lincoln's star has risen somewhat since this work's original publication — perhaps in no small part BECAUSE of this work's publication. But its careful reading and contextualization of Lincoln's speeches, as well as a shorter preceding explication of Douglas's point of view, remains sharp and still relevant today.

The book does presume a fairly hefty preknowledge of the life and career of Abraham Lincoln and the major political controversies of the 1850s — not merely a basic understanding of "popular sovereignty," "Bleeding Kansas" and "Dred Scott" but details of particular speeches and the exact path certain laws took through Congress. The book is still readable with a moderate historical background, but the occasional omission of important context combines with its already intricate political philosophy to make this a pretty tough slog, though always fascinating.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my first introduction to Harry Jaffa and his political thinking some two decades or so ago and it remains a book I enjoy reading from time to time, although I have not read or reviewed it for more than a decade and so I thought it worthwhile to do so as part of my quarantine reading project to catch up on the late thinker's writings as a whole.  The influence that Jaffa has had on my own political thinking has been considerable, not least because it offered a deeply conservative viewpoint that had a very high view of virtue, a high view of charitable and sympathetic reading of political thinkers and other writers in general, as well as a high degree of respect and regard for the importance of egalitarianism to the American and biblical traditions which I hold so near and dear.  This particular book was also greatly influential to me because of its structure in the way that it sets up a case for Douglas' thinking as sympathetically as possible and then shows how Lincoln answers the challenges of his revisionist critics for his pre-Civil War behavior and remains an example for us today.

This book consists of four parts that last for more than 400 pages.  After acknowledgements and a preface the book contains an introduction that looks at 1958 as being a crisis in historical judgment that viewed the Lincoln-Douglas debates as unimportant (1) as well as the alternatives present in Illinois between Lincoln and Douglas in 1858 (2).  The second part of the book then consists of Jaffa making the best case for Douglas by discussing slavery (3), manifest destiny (4), the legal power and practical impotence of federal prohibitions of slavery in the territories (5), the question of the the superseding of the Missouri Compromise by the Compromise of 1850 (6), the intentions of Douglas in passing the Kansas-Nebraska act (7), and the tragedy of the extremism that resulted (8).  After that the author discusses the political education of Abraham Lincoln (III) by giving a detailed discussion of his views on political salvation in the Lyceum speech (9) and on political moderation in the temperance address (10).  The book then ends with Jaffa's tour de force case for Lincoln (IV) with chapters on the legal (11) and political (12) tendencies towards the expansion of slavery, the intrinsic evil of repealing the Missouri compromise (13), the universal meaning of the Declaration of Independence (14), the form and substance of political freedom in the modern world (15), what was true and false about popular sovereignty (16), the abstract and political meanings of equality (17), the natural limits of slavery expansion (18), the Republican fidelity to Lincoln's principles after 1860 (19), and the end of manifest destiny (20), after which there are two appendices that discuss some historical background to the debates (i) as well as some notes on the Dred Scott decision (ii) before an index.

It is remarkable that in 1858 that ordinary people in Illinois were willing to sit out for three hours of political speeches from two political candidates where instead of being promised various aspects of aid and assistance for the government there was a detailed policy discussion of issues of the spread of slavery in the Union and how it related to the policy of the three branches of government.  It is hard to imagine very many contemporary politicians on any level that would be capable of focusing their attention on matters of basic philosophical importance or an audience that would be able to listen attentively to such matters without finding it to be too wonkish and boring.  That said, we are all the better for having had such debates recorded for us to read and for having Professor Jaffa speak so eloquently about what is at stake to remind us that the questions of liberty and the legitimacy of popular regimes and the morality that legitimizes such regimes are questions that remain with us today and that we would do well to think more about in such times as we now experience where faith in ourselves is so unwarranted and faith in our institutions is so imperiled.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is said that more books have been written about Abraham Lincoln than about any other person with the exception of Jesus. I'd suggest that if you want to read one book about Lincoln's thought, this should be the one.

Stephen Douglas, the most powerful member of the Senate and a likely Democratic candidate for president, authored the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, repealing the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln, whose public career was seemingly at an end, emerged as the leading opponent of the Act in Illinois. After his celebrated debates against Douglas in the Senate campaign of 1858, he was the intellectual leader of the anti-Kansas-Nebraska forces nationally. Lincoln maintained that the Missouri Compromise, by controlling the spread of slavery in the territories gave assurance that slavery was on an "ultimate course of extinction." The repeal of the Compromise, in his view, compounded by the Dred Scott decision of 1857 raised the horrifying prospect that slavery might spread to the nation as a whole and become permanently established.

When Jaffa wrote this book, the prevailaing opinion among historians was that Lincoln's fervent opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unnecessary. Slavery would never have spread to Kansas, according to the historians, regardless of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln stirred up the nation to such conflict for his own political gain that an unnecessary Civil War became inevitable.

Jaffa's book opposed that view. Jaffa maintained that the historians make complacent assumptions about the likelihood of the spread of slavery that are doubtful at best, and that Lincoln's position was deeply rooted in correct principles.

Following an introduction setting forth the terms of the debate, Jaffa first presents in extended form the case for Douglas. He treats Douglas with respect and shows Douglas to have had a serious, responsible position. Because Douglas was not as articulate as Lincoln, Jaffa has to tease Douglas' position out of the stances Douglas took on numerous specific issues. As a result, these chapters are historically dense and will be difficult reading for anyone not pretty conversant with American history from 1846-1860. But stay with it. You will be able to get the gist, and the payoff that will follow will be well worth the trouble.

Next come two long chapters analyzing two of Lincoln's early speeches, the Lyceum Address and the Temperance Address. The speeches are short and you will want to read them before reading these chapters. Jaffa's analyses, though occasionally a bit over the top, are brilliant.

Then comes the high point of the book, the chapters setting forth Lincoln's position in his struggle with Douglas in the 1850s. They are as good a statement of Lincoln's views as you will find. In spots they rise to magnificent eloquence.

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-written history of the Lincoln-Douglas debates that looks at the underlying assumptions of both sides. The author assumes that the reader already has a great deal of familiarity with the issues surrounding the debates, and he often references other scholars on the topic. Therefore, I would not recommend this to the general reader, but would whole-heartedly recommend it to the 19th century American history/Civil War buff.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite simply the finest work of American political science in the 20th century. Jaffa does not hesitate to deploy his enormous erudition and compositional talent against various dominant schools of historical and philosophical thought; several do not survive the encounter. Lincoln emerges in all his glory.

One warning: Jaffa is a bold writer of great power and subtlety. The reader would do well to maintain a certain detachment from his pedagogic charms, lest he be carried away.

[John Minster · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly dense, well-researched book that covers the Lincoln-Douglas debates in a truly full manner. Jaffa does an excellent job explaining the thought of and differences between both men, while providing a work which thoroughly covers not just the debates, but all the major divisions of the pre-war era.

[Thomas Mackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Early counter attack against the Bumbling Generation and needless war themes in Civil War studies. It still has a strong case. Though it is old it is important reading for serious Lincoln studies and a counter to the mythic anti-Lincoln bashing still common in very conservative circles.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jaffa wrote this in 1959, examining the philosophies and fundamental beliefs – and the irreducible consequences – of Lincoln and Stephen Douglas over the course of their historically critical series of debates in 1858. Douglas was a political giant of his time, driving political issues of the day, with a virulent dedication to an expansive and aggressive policy of manifest destiny and a determination to save the Union in the face of the looming national conflict over slavery and its extension outside the South. His solution, aggressively promoted, was “popular sovereignty” coupled with a personal indifference to slavery. Douglas’ doctrine of popular sovereignty meant nothing more than that – in a democracy, justice is the interest of the majority – strength makes right.

On the other hand, Lincoln insisted that the case for popular government depended upon a fundamental standard of right and wrong independent of mere opinion thus one not justified by merely counting votes. Lincoln lauded Jefferson for incorporating in the Declaration an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, that all men are created equal. This abstract truth transcended time and history. Douglas denied any such thing, and yet, as Lincoln showed, if the natural rights are meaningless (as would be so under popular sovereignty) then it is equally meaningless to tackle issues that abstract truth would address, such as whether slavery is good or bad, whether the cause of the Union was just, or, as the author points out, whether Churchill or Hitler were right or wrong in their respective causes.

Jaffa explains, and interprets, both men’s arguments and underlying philosophies and the crushing effect Lincoln had in the end. Lincoln not only destroyed Douglas’ standing with critical political elements such as the ‘Free-soil’ North, but also the pro-slavery Southern wing of the Democrat Party, reducing him to a minority candidate when he ran for President in 1860... and elevating Lincoln to his successful election. Jaffa delves deeply into the underlying principles and beliefs of both men. In the process, he also destroys the revisionist historical argument that took hold in the first half of the 20th Century as an outgrowth of the “noble lost cause” argument for the South that ignored slavery as a factor in the war. Remember, this was written in 1959 and represents a devastating rebuttal of the revisionists then holding influence with their arguments that slavery was dying out and Lincoln’s case against it was manufactured for political gain. Nothing could be more false, as Jaffa lays out convincingly.

Lincoln was a master of the language, a deep and inciteful thinker and a forceful true believer in greater truths as the basis for just and honest government. He was the first to identify and correlate the abstract and irreducible natural rights of the Declaration as the fundamental basis for the creation of our republican form of government with the implementation of the Constitution. His historical stature only continues to grow. Jaffa does him great justice.

[Jdb · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

A disappointing read. A deep (and I do mean DEEP) dive into political, philosophical, and legal motivations of Douglas & Lincoln leading to their famous 1858 debates over the extension of slavery into the territories.

Written in 1959, Professor Jaffa sets out to refute previous comments by historians Allan Nevins and James Randall. He mounts strong case for consistency & logic of Douglas’ approach as well as Lincoln’s.

Unfortunately, it is Jaffa’s writing that detracts. If 5 words would suffice, Jaffa uses 10; if 10, he uses 20 and so on.

To be sure, there are numerous great insights here, and Jaffa is certainly successful in describing the nuances and complexities of the slavery issue and why the major political players thought and acted as they did on the subject.

For the prospective readers out there, Jaffa himself concisely summarizes the book when he says “Douglas took a practical approach which he believed would result in the extinction of slavery without breaking the Union. Lincoln took a moral approach (“if slavery is not evil, nothing is evil”) while tip toeing along the principle that the Constitution prohibits interfering with slavery in the states where it existed but not in the territories.”

In the end Jaffa comes down on Lincoln’s side, emphasizing his criticism of Douglas ‘ ‘popular sovereignty’ concept as antithesis to theme of equality expressed in the Declaration of Independence. How could people vote to enslave others if all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights? The Declaration would be meaningless in such an absurdity, said Lincoln.

[Joe Johns · Rating 5 out of 5]

Harry V. Jaffa is perhaps the most thoughtful and intelligent political philosopher that I have ever read. In this riveting book, Jaffa engages in serious intellectual history that presents both sides in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Far from casting aside Douglas as an ignorant racist, Jaffa spends over one hundred pages presenting his views in the most persuasive light possible. He argues that Douglas wasn't a lover of slavery and thought the institution would naturally cease to exist with the growth of the Union.
After this analysis, Jaffa transitions to Lincoln, whom he places in the broader context of the American Founding. He analyzes both Lincoln's political intelligence and his firm belief in a natural law which should guide all republics.
In addition to providing an entertaining historical account of one of the most important debates in U.S. history Jaffa also brings forth moral and political principles that should be used by anyone who wishes to preserve and perpetuate a free society.
A republic, he argues, is synonymous with virtue. Citizens must be virtuous and adhere to the principles of natural right or they will not remain free for long. These principles which promote virtue and natural right must be perpetuated and expanded by successive statesmen who work for freedom and justice.
Anyone who is interested in history or politics should buy this book today. Jaffa profoundly shaped both our understanding of the past and the future of our country. He will not soon be forgotten by those who are inclined towards scholarship and a love of mankind.

[Richard · Rating 1 out of 5]

Harry Jaffa, founder of the Claremont Institute, offers an in-depth analysis of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, focusing on the differing approaches of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas to addressing the issue of slavery. Rather than merely recounting the debates, Jaffa engages with the underlying philosophies that informed each speaker's position. Douglas championed the concept of popular sovereignty, which holds that the power to govern is derived from the consent of the people. Conversely, Lincoln firmly opposed the expansion of slavery, grounding his arguments in the principle articulated in the Declaration of Independence that all individuals are created equal under the law. But Jaffa, in a fit of misguided interpretation, suggests that Lincoln merely "corrected" the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers. Really? Lincoln refined and corrected the principles established by the Founding Fathers? No, Lincoln's expansive reinterpretation of the notion of equality under the law mistakenly goes where the Founders never intended in an attempt to justify Lincoln's coerced union. Jaffa holds up Lincoln as if he were some divine statesman, a poet, and a philosopher, implying he somehow built a sturdier foundation for the nation than what the Founders originally established. This assertion lacks justification and Lincoln was not divine instead, he was a calculating politician whose primary aim was the expansion of federal power. Read carefully, as Jaffa's misleading conclusions are off base and could potentially undermine a proper understanding of history.

[Ryan Fazio · Rating 5 out of 5]

A complex and worthwhile examination of Lincoln's political thought

Jaffa's deep dive into the political thought of Lincoln and Douglass is critical, giving both sides their due, and thus informing the reader to the maximum extent. The full examination vindicates Lincoln, not sentimentally, but seriously and accurately as the rightful heir to the founders and savior of the republic during its greatest crisis.

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

A magnificent and magisterial analysis and vindication of Lincoln's political philosophy, as rooted in the Declaration's emphasis on the fundamental equality of all. The contest between his philosophy and Douglas' amoral "popular sovereignty" was the most important debate in American history. It is also vital for modern Americans to understand if we are ever to come to grips with the legacy of slavery and racism.

[Lucas Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

This rating is for my read of the book, not the book importance. Jaffa made an undeniable contribution to Lincoln studies at a crucial time in the historiography, but his book 50+ years later is a real slog to get through. Despite some beautiful passages, I'm not sure I'm convinced by Straussian analysis in this instance. Sometimes there is a lot of talking and then a conclusion that doesn't seem to follow. It's still an essential book on an underrated aspect of Lincoln's career.

[Josh Craddock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once you read this book, you’ll never look at the Lincoln-Douglas debates the same way again. Jaffa’s explication of the issues is incomparable. The highlight of the book, however, is his interpretation of the Lyceum Address, which contextualizes Lincoln’s understanding of the Declaration and his later role in preserving the American experiment in self-government.

[John Stults · Rating 5 out of 5]

detailed review of Lincoln and Douglas up to the civil war

Not a light read, but very good explanation of the politics and philosophy of slavery leading up to the civil war. Good explanation of the views of both Douglas and Lincoln. Well documented and I highly recommend this book.

[Joseph Harder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jaffa's masterpiece is one of the most profoud contributions to American self understanding. It broke new ground by taking the political hoght of Abraham Lincoln-and stephen Douglas-seriously.

[Abdullah Mirza · Rating 4 out of 5]

This could be required reading for anyone interested in American history. Overlong and undershort; some of the vocabulary hasn’t aged super well in fifty years. Whoever said this is the greatest Lincoln book ever is right, but it is probably a bit more than that.

[Mike Denk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Experiencing the Times…

Jaffa’s journey of the Lincoln-Douglas debates enables readers to experience these debates, and the tensions surrounding their topics, as if they were their themselves…

[Melissa]

Claremont influence Vance

[David Goldman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This scholarly book delves deeply into the differences between Lincoln and Douglas's political philosophy. The book provides many amazing insights on both a micro and macro level and sets forth the differences in a way that still reverberate in today's political environment. (Douglas sounds a lot like the non-crazy version of very conservative republicans and Lincoln, well he's Lincoln).

Jaffa does the reader a favor by taking Douglas' arguments seriously, saving him from the 1850's version of George Wallace. Douglas, Jaffe argued, was truly dedicated to the theory of local rule. He thought anything requirement from the federal government on slavery would amount to the tyranny that the founders fought to escape. For Douglas, "we the people" was the founding and ultimate principle. His noncommittal attitude toward slavery made sense given his official position - if people should decide why should Douglas care. Yet, Jaffe indicates that Douglas did think that his method would eliminate slavery. Most recent new states were non-slavery and the proportion of slave states was much less than when the union started.

This raises the question were both Lincoln and Douglass shooting for the same aim of eliminating slavery through different means, with Douglass having the better (or at least as reasonable good argument). Well, no. First Jaffe discounts Douglass arguments saying that the new non-slave states were influenced by the fact that federal gov did prohibit slavery.

Yet, in the end the real debate is about the proper role of government particularly the federal government. For Douglass, we the people - democracy was an end to itself. Not so for Lincoln. For him, it was “all men are created equal” that had to be the guide that democracy strove toward. While Lincoln was true to the spirit of the original meaning, yet expanded the meaning. Jaffa argues that Lincoln expands the spirit. The original intent of the declaration was in line with Locke’s negative rights - the minimalist amount of rights needed to be free from a dictator. Lincoln sets the declaration as an aspiration something that can never quite be reach but must always be striven to. Lincoln understands that democracy qua democracy was not an organizing principle to hold a union together of people to govern themselves.

The book is written for academia and gets into a level of detail that most readers don’t need. Jaffa is also engaging in arguments with other academics that is not really all that interesting. Yet, the parts that are relevant are brilliant. For those interested in political philosophy and the role of government - this is a must read.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting, dense book which analyzed not the actual Lincoln Douglas debates for the US Senate in 1858, but the issues on which the debate revolved. Published originally in 1959, it looked to over turn the then-current historiography which down played the importance of the debates. Jaffa more of a political philosopher than a historian, really parses the arguments of each man, calling forth the larger political and philosophical questions embedded within. He easily calls forth Aristotle, Locke, classical thinkers, and then modern political philosophies. Jaffa often pulled his analysis into the modern issues that swirled around the time of his writing. His observations are sharp, as well as his writing.

I have to admit, however, that being so dense, at times it was hard to keep focused on the text. I admit I wasn't able to get through all of it and skipped parts (especially the four chapters on the Missouri Compromise, as well as some of the chapters on Lincoln. I think he is very fair with Douglas, who is too easily dismissed for his stance. He comes across as a caring, patriotic politician who was trying to save the nation of deep fracture, however flawed his arguments were. Lincoln comes across as thoughtful and strategic.

I would consider reading it again, but when I go, it will be with a pen and notepad (or laptop), something to take noes and make comments. I needed something to sort and make sense of everything that was coming my way as a reader.

[Mac · Rating 5 out of 5]

Henry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided is a different kind of book than I anticipated. Instead of a history or retelling of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, it is an analysis of Lincoln and Douglas's arguments as political philosophy. The debates are treated not as events of the summer of 1858, but as timeless dialogues. Jaffa goes back to earlier speeches by both men to reconstruct their positions, tying them into a philosophical family tree extending back to Plato and Aristotle.

I doubt that Jaffa and I would agree on much politically (he was an advisor to Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign), but he is an outstanding thinker and writer. He makes the best possible case for Stephen A. Douglas's position on popular sovereignty, along with its weaknesses. Similarly, he points out occasional inconsistencies in Lincoln's arguments without denigrating his greatness.

This is a great book that will appeal to anyone interested in politics.

[Lance Greenlee · Rating 4 out of 5]

His exhaustive thoroughness is sometimes exhausting - and sometimes repetitive. Just how many times did the Mexican origin to New Mexico's anti-slave laws need to be discussed? Still, I am certainly more knowledgeable now. Finished Douglas; back for Lincoln after some lighter reading.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most important books on Lincoln (technically the Linc-Doug Debates) of the last 65 years.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important philosophical look at the issues for political scientists, but it's dated and high-handedly boring at times.