What do you think?
Rate this book
The Knox College Lincoln Studies Center Series
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text
The seven debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held during the Illinois senatorial race of 1858 are among the most important statements in American political history, dramatic struggles over the issues that would tear apart the nation in the Civil War: the virtues of a republic and the evils of slavery. In this acclaimed book, Holzer brings us as close as possible to what Lincoln and Douglas actually said, Using transcripts of Lincoln's speeches as recorded by the pro-Douglas newspaper, and vice-versa, he offers the most reliable, unedited record available of the debates. Also included are background on the sites, crowd comments, and a new introduction. "A vivid, boisterous picture of politics during our most divisive period...This fresh, fascinating examination.... deserves a place in all American history collection."-Library Journal
422 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1899
79 people are currently reading
577 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
January 4, 2013
Just wow. I have been familiar with the fact of the Lincoln-Douglas debates for as long as I can remember. In high school, I spent three years participating in the forensic event called “Lincoln-Douglas Debate.” I knew that Lincoln and Douglas argued with each other a lot when they were both running for the Illinois Senate in 1858. But until I read them for myself—as research for a book that I am writing about effective strategies for civil political discourse—I had no idea what a true treasure they were. I will try to organize some of my thoughts about these debates here.
First, though I assumed that slavery would be a large part of the debate, I did not realize that it would be the only topic of debate, but it very clearly was. By 1858, it seems, there were no other political issues even worth mentioning in passing . The Lincoln-Douglas Debates consisted of 7 three-hour debates (21 hours of discussion) about the slavery issue and nothing else.
Second, and along the same lines, I was surprised by just how many different, clearly defined positions one could hold in 1858. This was no simple “for-or-against” political issue. In the course of the debates, I detected at least eight separate positions on slavery, which don’t quite fit into a spectrum (and which often mixed together in single people’s minds), but I am going to pretend for a moment that they are discrete categories.
1. Full-Equality Abolitionists: This is the position taken by some Northern abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas. It held that slaves should be freed immediately and given full citizenship rights, because people of all races are equal and entitled to the same fundamental human and civil rights. It is the position that (I would hope) any reasonable human being takes in 2012, but it was considered quite extreme in 1858—extreme enough that Lincoln spent much of the time in the debates denying Douglas’s assertions that he believed it.
2. Free Soil Abolitionists: The Northern free-soliers were usually motivated by economic, rather than moral arguments. They saw slavery as a degradation of labor and wanted to end or contain it, but more in the name of free white labor and not because of any real sense of the humanness of slaves. This was the position of William Seward and the late Martin Van Buren.
3. Gradual/Compensated Abolitionists: Whether motivated by human rights or economics concerns, a large number of people wanted to end slavery gradually, either by compensating slave owners for their emancipated slaves or by containing the spread of slavery so that it would die out eventually without producing the social shock that would be produced by millions of suddenly-free slaves.
4. Anti-Kansas-Nebraska-Act-ians: Perhaps the largest contingency in Illinois in 1858, this contingency wanted slavery strictly contained in the areas that already had it, set largely by Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise in 1820. When Stephen Douglas sponsored legislation in 1854 that opened up the possibility of slavery in the new territories (Kansas and Nebraska), a large number of people across the country felt threatened by the prospect of slaver labor coming in and rendering their labor obsolete. This was followed in 1855 by the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled that the federal government did not have the right to prohibit slavery in the territories, which made people feel—not entirely unreasonably—that a Democrat Court and a Democratic President would soon nationalize slavery by making it illegal to prevent it in the states. Lincoln largely inhabits this position in the debates, though he moves skillfully through positions 2, 3, and 4 depending on the audience he is addressing.
5. Popular sovereignty: This is the creation, trademark, and very consistent argument of Stephan A. Douglas: that each state and each territory have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they will permit slavery in their borders. Douglas saw this as the only way to “solve” the slavery question, and he built much of his senatorial career on crafting legislation to repeal previous compromises and make slavery only a state/territorial issue.
6. Slavery in All Territories: Very few people in the South wanted (or at least admitted to wanting) a national mandate requiring all states to be slave states. That would have worked against the notion of states’ rights that most of them held. But, as the United States was acquiring new territories very rapidly at this time (Texas, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Utah, etc.), the felt that these federally administered territories should not be permitted to prohibit slavery until such time as the territories became states and crafted their own constitutions. the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision essentially constitutionalized this position.
7. National Slavery: Some few people in the South demanded that slavery be acknowledged as, not only a good thing, but the only correct way for the races to interact in the United States which should, therefore, be permitted (and actively encouraged) in every state. This was also the Republican bugaboo that Lincoln often presented as the end of the slippery slope that the Kansas-Nebraska Act set us upon.
8. Secession: By 1858, many Southerners had come to the conclusion that the slavery issue was unsolvable and that the only solution was to do what, just a few years later, they did. Both Lincoln and Douglas were strong union supporters, however, who viewed disunion as something like an ultimate evil.
It is interesting to watch Lincoln and Douglas maneuver through these various positions (and scare their audiences with arguments about #1 and #7). I would say that, for the first four debates, the debate is largely one between Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty (#5) and Lincoln’s often inconsistent amalgamation of positions #3, #4, and #5). In the fifth debate, however, Lincoln hits a stride that, in my humble opinion, became the most consequential argument of the 19th century. It is not so much a new argument as it is a clarification of things that he kinda-sorta said in the earlier debates and in his “House Divided” speech at the convention that nominated him.
The position that coalesces (for me) in the fifth debate is simply this: that it wrong to treat slavery as a morally neutral enterprise. It is therefore not possible to say (as Douglas says in every debate) that one does not care whether freedom or slavery prevails in a state. One can recognize the difficulties of eradicating an entrenched institution, and one can even say that eliminating slavery where it exists produces evils that offset the good of elimination. But it is irrational and immoral to say that slavery and freedom should exist in our political hearts as morally equal options. In the last three debates, Lincoln hones this argument into a surgically precise instrument.
Douglas won the election (which was held in the Illinois legislature, not among the general population), but Lincoln appears to have convinced the masses—and positioned himself to bear the Republican standard in 1860. From all that I read, he maintained this position until his death. And I can only admire the way that, through a process of debate and disagreement, Lincoln fine-tuned what began as a largely pragmatic argument into a moral imperative that sustained him—and the Union—through the most difficult days either of them had ever seen.
First, though I assumed that slavery would be a large part of the debate, I did not realize that it would be the only topic of debate, but it very clearly was. By 1858, it seems, there were no other political issues even worth mentioning in passing . The Lincoln-Douglas Debates consisted of 7 three-hour debates (21 hours of discussion) about the slavery issue and nothing else.
Second, and along the same lines, I was surprised by just how many different, clearly defined positions one could hold in 1858. This was no simple “for-or-against” political issue. In the course of the debates, I detected at least eight separate positions on slavery, which don’t quite fit into a spectrum (and which often mixed together in single people’s minds), but I am going to pretend for a moment that they are discrete categories.
1. Full-Equality Abolitionists: This is the position taken by some Northern abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas. It held that slaves should be freed immediately and given full citizenship rights, because people of all races are equal and entitled to the same fundamental human and civil rights. It is the position that (I would hope) any reasonable human being takes in 2012, but it was considered quite extreme in 1858—extreme enough that Lincoln spent much of the time in the debates denying Douglas’s assertions that he believed it.
2. Free Soil Abolitionists: The Northern free-soliers were usually motivated by economic, rather than moral arguments. They saw slavery as a degradation of labor and wanted to end or contain it, but more in the name of free white labor and not because of any real sense of the humanness of slaves. This was the position of William Seward and the late Martin Van Buren.
3. Gradual/Compensated Abolitionists: Whether motivated by human rights or economics concerns, a large number of people wanted to end slavery gradually, either by compensating slave owners for their emancipated slaves or by containing the spread of slavery so that it would die out eventually without producing the social shock that would be produced by millions of suddenly-free slaves.
4. Anti-Kansas-Nebraska-Act-ians: Perhaps the largest contingency in Illinois in 1858, this contingency wanted slavery strictly contained in the areas that already had it, set largely by Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise in 1820. When Stephen Douglas sponsored legislation in 1854 that opened up the possibility of slavery in the new territories (Kansas and Nebraska), a large number of people across the country felt threatened by the prospect of slaver labor coming in and rendering their labor obsolete. This was followed in 1855 by the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled that the federal government did not have the right to prohibit slavery in the territories, which made people feel—not entirely unreasonably—that a Democrat Court and a Democratic President would soon nationalize slavery by making it illegal to prevent it in the states. Lincoln largely inhabits this position in the debates, though he moves skillfully through positions 2, 3, and 4 depending on the audience he is addressing.
5. Popular sovereignty: This is the creation, trademark, and very consistent argument of Stephan A. Douglas: that each state and each territory have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they will permit slavery in their borders. Douglas saw this as the only way to “solve” the slavery question, and he built much of his senatorial career on crafting legislation to repeal previous compromises and make slavery only a state/territorial issue.
6. Slavery in All Territories: Very few people in the South wanted (or at least admitted to wanting) a national mandate requiring all states to be slave states. That would have worked against the notion of states’ rights that most of them held. But, as the United States was acquiring new territories very rapidly at this time (Texas, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Utah, etc.), the felt that these federally administered territories should not be permitted to prohibit slavery until such time as the territories became states and crafted their own constitutions. the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision essentially constitutionalized this position.
7. National Slavery: Some few people in the South demanded that slavery be acknowledged as, not only a good thing, but the only correct way for the races to interact in the United States which should, therefore, be permitted (and actively encouraged) in every state. This was also the Republican bugaboo that Lincoln often presented as the end of the slippery slope that the Kansas-Nebraska Act set us upon.
8. Secession: By 1858, many Southerners had come to the conclusion that the slavery issue was unsolvable and that the only solution was to do what, just a few years later, they did. Both Lincoln and Douglas were strong union supporters, however, who viewed disunion as something like an ultimate evil.
It is interesting to watch Lincoln and Douglas maneuver through these various positions (and scare their audiences with arguments about #1 and #7). I would say that, for the first four debates, the debate is largely one between Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty (#5) and Lincoln’s often inconsistent amalgamation of positions #3, #4, and #5). In the fifth debate, however, Lincoln hits a stride that, in my humble opinion, became the most consequential argument of the 19th century. It is not so much a new argument as it is a clarification of things that he kinda-sorta said in the earlier debates and in his “House Divided” speech at the convention that nominated him.
The position that coalesces (for me) in the fifth debate is simply this: that it wrong to treat slavery as a morally neutral enterprise. It is therefore not possible to say (as Douglas says in every debate) that one does not care whether freedom or slavery prevails in a state. One can recognize the difficulties of eradicating an entrenched institution, and one can even say that eliminating slavery where it exists produces evils that offset the good of elimination. But it is irrational and immoral to say that slavery and freedom should exist in our political hearts as morally equal options. In the last three debates, Lincoln hones this argument into a surgically precise instrument.
Douglas won the election (which was held in the Illinois legislature, not among the general population), but Lincoln appears to have convinced the masses—and positioned himself to bear the Republican standard in 1860. From all that I read, he maintained this position until his death. And I can only admire the way that, through a process of debate and disagreement, Lincoln fine-tuned what began as a largely pragmatic argument into a moral imperative that sustained him—and the Union—through the most difficult days either of them had ever seen.
June 23, 2017
I've listened to these debates too many times to count on my daily commute, at home, and many other places. If you are a history nerd like me, this is manna from heaven. Listening to David Strathairn as Abraham Lincoln and Richard Dreyfuss as "the little giant" Stephen Douglas, you almost feel transported back to 1858 as these two political giants trade barbs and debate the most monumental issue of the day, slavery. So fascinating, and yes, so much fun!
August 3, 2015
Any one who had a decent US history teacher had some encounter with the debates that took place between the incumbent Senator from Illinois (Stephen A Douglas - the Little Giant) and the candidate Abraham Lincoln in 1858. They were 7 structured encounters that took place during that election which allowed the first speaker one hour to speak, then the opponent took one and a half hours and then the original speaker took a half hour to rebut. I had never taken the time to read all seven debates - and I would argue that this format is much more accessible than reading dry words on the page.
A lot of what was said in those debates is now obscure - many of the names mentioned, especially by Douglas, are unknown. But the issues then discussed were and are important. They discussed both Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law. Lincoln both supported and was criticized for his "house divided" speech.
One could listen to the rhetoric and get something out of the presentation - Douglas was somewhat of a wonk and insider. Richard Dryfuss who does Douglas does a great job of recreating how I think Douglas actually sounded.
But there is also the benefit of understanding the skills of each orator in creating arguments. Douglas kept hammering at one main point - the states and territories should have the right to determine how they felt about slavery. Lincoln makes a couple of arguments including one which suggests that the founders used odd constructions in forming the Constitution because they envisaged that slavery would eventually die away (for example he ties the 1808 clause to that notion). Lincoln criticizes Douglas for being unwilling to recognize the immorality of slavery.
From my perspective Lincoln is at his finest in debates 5,6, and 7 - where he demolishes Douglas.
Ultimately Douglas won in 1858. But the last few years of his life were in turmoil. He ran for President in 1860 and the democrats split (with the Southerners going for John C Breckinridge). He worked hard to try to keep the south in the Union after Lincoln's election but then died of Typhoid fever in June 1861.
This is well worth your time.
A lot of what was said in those debates is now obscure - many of the names mentioned, especially by Douglas, are unknown. But the issues then discussed were and are important. They discussed both Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law. Lincoln both supported and was criticized for his "house divided" speech.
One could listen to the rhetoric and get something out of the presentation - Douglas was somewhat of a wonk and insider. Richard Dryfuss who does Douglas does a great job of recreating how I think Douglas actually sounded.
But there is also the benefit of understanding the skills of each orator in creating arguments. Douglas kept hammering at one main point - the states and territories should have the right to determine how they felt about slavery. Lincoln makes a couple of arguments including one which suggests that the founders used odd constructions in forming the Constitution because they envisaged that slavery would eventually die away (for example he ties the 1808 clause to that notion). Lincoln criticizes Douglas for being unwilling to recognize the immorality of slavery.
From my perspective Lincoln is at his finest in debates 5,6, and 7 - where he demolishes Douglas.
Ultimately Douglas won in 1858. But the last few years of his life were in turmoil. He ran for President in 1860 and the democrats split (with the Southerners going for John C Breckinridge). He worked hard to try to keep the south in the Union after Lincoln's election but then died of Typhoid fever in June 1861.
This is well worth your time.
June 26, 2009
This book is a verbatim transcript of the 14 debates that Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephen Douglas had during the hot summer and early fall of 1858. Douglas, the Democrat, tries to paint Lincoln as a "Black Republican" abolitionist, while Lincoln denies this but steadfastly holds true to his conviction that slavery must not be extended to the territories, (while conceding that the government cannot alter slavery where it already existed). These debates took place in a country that was on the brink of disintegration, and although Douglas would win the election for senator, Lincoln won the moral ground and later defeated Douglas in 1860 for the presidency. For hardcore political fans.
November 27, 2019
A 19th century internet argument.
As schoolchildren, we're taught about how seminal the Lincoln-Douglas debates were. And from a historical perspective, this is true. This was Lincoln's first real shot at national prominence (Senators being generally more powerful than Congressmen) and he was trying to unseat the very influential Douglas.
But what comes across in the debates themselves is like reading an internet flame-war between two people at 2AM. This is less a debate than two people talking at each other. There are some amazingly petty and pedantic exchanges between Lincoln and Douglas about who said what to which reporter, who was quoted accurately/inaccurately in which speech and SO MUCH back and forth about "I answered the question" // "No you didn't." // "Yes I did." One example illustrates this pettiness where Lincoln is asked whether he would pledge to vote against admission of a slave state and the response is of a "Well I wouldn't *pledge* to do it" sort.
It's a little exhausting reading it all at once because of the fruitless back and forth, the repeated charges of obfuscation and lying by both sides, some of the goofier conspiracy theories advanced by both, and the utter pedantic and petty nature of so much of the "debate." Lincoln and Douglas repeat whole sections of earlier speeches that it also becomes a little tedious.
Otherwise, based on his performance in the debates, Lincoln deserved to lose. Douglas repeatedly calls out Lincoln and the Republicans for duplicity in how they're trying to portray themselves as abolitionists demanding black equality in some portions of the state and as defenders of popular sovereignty (nee slavery) in other parts of the state. Lincoln's responses to these various (and repeated) charges is never convincing because well, he WAS duplicitous (though morally right). Douglas presents a more consistent argument for popular sovereignty that is obviously hampered by the contemporary racism of the time but in nearly every exchange, Lincoln comes across as slippery.
Despite Douglas' victory, it's easy to see why incumbents don't open themselves to debates of this sort anymore. While there are some rhetorical flourishes, this was far less edifying than I was expecting.
As schoolchildren, we're taught about how seminal the Lincoln-Douglas debates were. And from a historical perspective, this is true. This was Lincoln's first real shot at national prominence (Senators being generally more powerful than Congressmen) and he was trying to unseat the very influential Douglas.
But what comes across in the debates themselves is like reading an internet flame-war between two people at 2AM. This is less a debate than two people talking at each other. There are some amazingly petty and pedantic exchanges between Lincoln and Douglas about who said what to which reporter, who was quoted accurately/inaccurately in which speech and SO MUCH back and forth about "I answered the question" // "No you didn't." // "Yes I did." One example illustrates this pettiness where Lincoln is asked whether he would pledge to vote against admission of a slave state and the response is of a "Well I wouldn't *pledge* to do it" sort.
It's a little exhausting reading it all at once because of the fruitless back and forth, the repeated charges of obfuscation and lying by both sides, some of the goofier conspiracy theories advanced by both, and the utter pedantic and petty nature of so much of the "debate." Lincoln and Douglas repeat whole sections of earlier speeches that it also becomes a little tedious.
Otherwise, based on his performance in the debates, Lincoln deserved to lose. Douglas repeatedly calls out Lincoln and the Republicans for duplicity in how they're trying to portray themselves as abolitionists demanding black equality in some portions of the state and as defenders of popular sovereignty (nee slavery) in other parts of the state. Lincoln's responses to these various (and repeated) charges is never convincing because well, he WAS duplicitous (though morally right). Douglas presents a more consistent argument for popular sovereignty that is obviously hampered by the contemporary racism of the time but in nearly every exchange, Lincoln comes across as slippery.
Despite Douglas' victory, it's easy to see why incumbents don't open themselves to debates of this sort anymore. While there are some rhetorical flourishes, this was far less edifying than I was expecting.
October 14, 2025
This is a valuable book for historians and for young men and women with a profound interest in the pre Civil War years, in Abraham Lincoln or Stephen Douglas, the issue of slavery, the Dred Scott decision and the climate of the country, especially Illinois, in the 1850's.
That being said, I would not recommend it for a casual reader. There is much repetition from one debate to the other; reading the same arguments through seven debates can be quite a chore.
It has often been said in criticizing the television coverage of presidential speeches and/or debates that the commentators spend much time telling their viewers what has already been said in the speech or debate. The opposite is true here; Harold Holzer, without using the words of Lincoln or Douglas, tells his readers what they will be reading in the following pages of the chapters dedicated to each debate. While there is value in reading the transcripts, (even if it just to say that you did read them), I sometimes thought the pre-transcript summaries were more worth reading. In other words, read Holzer; skip Douglas and Lincoln.
We should also keep in mind that Holzer's words are in a 20th Century English language far more understandable to the modern reader than the language of the mid 19th Century.
I have inserted a couple of highlights (with and without comments) in the Kindle edition. If I recall correctly, they reflect contemporary political problems and issues that were addressed more than a hundred and fifty years ago.
Two stars waxing
That being said, I would not recommend it for a casual reader. There is much repetition from one debate to the other; reading the same arguments through seven debates can be quite a chore.
It has often been said in criticizing the television coverage of presidential speeches and/or debates that the commentators spend much time telling their viewers what has already been said in the speech or debate. The opposite is true here; Harold Holzer, without using the words of Lincoln or Douglas, tells his readers what they will be reading in the following pages of the chapters dedicated to each debate. While there is value in reading the transcripts, (even if it just to say that you did read them), I sometimes thought the pre-transcript summaries were more worth reading. In other words, read Holzer; skip Douglas and Lincoln.
We should also keep in mind that Holzer's words are in a 20th Century English language far more understandable to the modern reader than the language of the mid 19th Century.
I have inserted a couple of highlights (with and without comments) in the Kindle edition. If I recall correctly, they reflect contemporary political problems and issues that were addressed more than a hundred and fifty years ago.
Two stars waxing
April 24, 2023
Read for grad school (Masters of American History and Government)
Interesting. Great teaching resource as primary documents.
Interesting. Great teaching resource as primary documents.
October 20, 2014
I listened to an audiobook of the entire series of debates as read by Richard Dreyfuss (as Stephen A. Douglas) and David Strathairn as Abraham Lincoln.
I won't be able to do justice to the audiobook (recorded in 2008), which I highly recommend to anybody who thinks reading these debates might be a daunting task. But here is a link to David Frum's positive review of the audiobook:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
And now, I (Fred Wemyss), have this to say about the debates themselves:
What strikes me about the debates is that Lincoln did very little yarn-spinning in them. We know him as a teller of tales with morals and pointed jokes, but what he does here, for the most part (but not for the most important part) is react to Douglas, swatting Douglas's attacks as if they were flies. In other words, Lincoln is actually on the defensive a lot of the time, while Douglas simply keeps repeating that Lincoln has made deals with abolitionists. Finally, though, in one of the last debates, Lincoln lays down moral law in an absolutely universal way. In these debates, Lincoln lost the immediate battle, Douglas beating him in a race for the Illinois senate. But, the telegraph having been invented by then, the debates were published word-for-word in newspapers in every major city in America, usually within two or three days of each debate. This means Lincoln and Douglas were, essentially, household words across the United States for almost the entire year of 1858. People read these debates aloud to their friends and families as soon as they got the latest newspaper. Their were etchings of the candidates accompanying the text. In short, Abraham Lincoln was able to get his message across to a wide spectrum of people a good two years before his run for President. Stephen A. Douglas, who was as powerful then as Newt Gingrich was in the 1990's, ran against Lincoln for President in 1860 and would have probably won if his party hadn't been split between Douglas and several other candidates. The South considered Douglas too anti-slavery. This will be hard for 21st-century readers to believe, given Douglas's proud (if that's the adjective) racism. But Douglas was a backroom politician par excellence and he had finessed himself into a corner after years of sneaking pro-slavery policies into various expansionist bills. In order to promote slavery he had disguised his objectives as choices given to future territories and states. The South wanted no ambiguity about slavery, or, if I may be less ambiguous about it, they wanted the government to permit it everywhere. It is almost impossible to tell whether Douglas really thought slavery was right or not. He keeps saying, in these debates, that as a senator from Illinois he is proud of his state's decision not to have slavery; but he always points out that, had his state chosen slavery, he'd have supported it there. Lincoln simply reiterates that the entire country was either going to allow slavery in every corner or abolish it. Douglas keeps saying the U.S. has long been "half slave and half free" and that there's no reason to believe, as Lincoln does, that the country can't survive with that status. This is where one's head spins. Lincoln worked, into the Gettysburg Address, five years after these debates, the famous words, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Douglas points out that Lincoln is misusing the Bible here. Who, in 2014, can even think that anyone back then thought Lincoln was twisting Scripture to base purposes in applying the concept to the rift which caused the most massive carnage in American history?
It is interesting to note that, after Lincoln defeated Douglas for the Presidency, he sent Douglas to the Border states as an ambassador of sorts, in the hope of keeping them in the Union. Douglas, for all his divisiveness leading up to the war, hated the notion of Secession. His last days were spent in a frantic tour of the most combustible part of the country, hoping to patch it together. He died of typhoid contracted on his tour, not two months after the start of the war. I think, in the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was perhaps addressing the ghost of his rival. It may be what made it the most powerful speech he'd ever deliver.
I won't be able to do justice to the audiobook (recorded in 2008), which I highly recommend to anybody who thinks reading these debates might be a daunting task. But here is a link to David Frum's positive review of the audiobook:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
And now, I (Fred Wemyss), have this to say about the debates themselves:
What strikes me about the debates is that Lincoln did very little yarn-spinning in them. We know him as a teller of tales with morals and pointed jokes, but what he does here, for the most part (but not for the most important part) is react to Douglas, swatting Douglas's attacks as if they were flies. In other words, Lincoln is actually on the defensive a lot of the time, while Douglas simply keeps repeating that Lincoln has made deals with abolitionists. Finally, though, in one of the last debates, Lincoln lays down moral law in an absolutely universal way. In these debates, Lincoln lost the immediate battle, Douglas beating him in a race for the Illinois senate. But, the telegraph having been invented by then, the debates were published word-for-word in newspapers in every major city in America, usually within two or three days of each debate. This means Lincoln and Douglas were, essentially, household words across the United States for almost the entire year of 1858. People read these debates aloud to their friends and families as soon as they got the latest newspaper. Their were etchings of the candidates accompanying the text. In short, Abraham Lincoln was able to get his message across to a wide spectrum of people a good two years before his run for President. Stephen A. Douglas, who was as powerful then as Newt Gingrich was in the 1990's, ran against Lincoln for President in 1860 and would have probably won if his party hadn't been split between Douglas and several other candidates. The South considered Douglas too anti-slavery. This will be hard for 21st-century readers to believe, given Douglas's proud (if that's the adjective) racism. But Douglas was a backroom politician par excellence and he had finessed himself into a corner after years of sneaking pro-slavery policies into various expansionist bills. In order to promote slavery he had disguised his objectives as choices given to future territories and states. The South wanted no ambiguity about slavery, or, if I may be less ambiguous about it, they wanted the government to permit it everywhere. It is almost impossible to tell whether Douglas really thought slavery was right or not. He keeps saying, in these debates, that as a senator from Illinois he is proud of his state's decision not to have slavery; but he always points out that, had his state chosen slavery, he'd have supported it there. Lincoln simply reiterates that the entire country was either going to allow slavery in every corner or abolish it. Douglas keeps saying the U.S. has long been "half slave and half free" and that there's no reason to believe, as Lincoln does, that the country can't survive with that status. This is where one's head spins. Lincoln worked, into the Gettysburg Address, five years after these debates, the famous words, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Douglas points out that Lincoln is misusing the Bible here. Who, in 2014, can even think that anyone back then thought Lincoln was twisting Scripture to base purposes in applying the concept to the rift which caused the most massive carnage in American history?
It is interesting to note that, after Lincoln defeated Douglas for the Presidency, he sent Douglas to the Border states as an ambassador of sorts, in the hope of keeping them in the Union. Douglas, for all his divisiveness leading up to the war, hated the notion of Secession. His last days were spent in a frantic tour of the most combustible part of the country, hoping to patch it together. He died of typhoid contracted on his tour, not two months after the start of the war. I think, in the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was perhaps addressing the ghost of his rival. It may be what made it the most powerful speech he'd ever deliver.
January 28, 2016
I am very glad I listened to the audio version of the debates, with David Strathairn and Richard Dreyfus performing. If I hadn’t listened to the debates in their entirety, I don’t think I would have really appreciated the masterful jobs both Lincoln and Douglas did with strategizing their arguments. You can see many of the things we see in today’s politics – the kowtowing to political correctness, the name calling (here liar and forger are the bad ones), acting badly to create an impression, nuancing a previous questionable statement, dredging up decades old news stories, showing perverse researching skills, storytelling like a local, and more. Lincoln did all these things, Douglas did most if not all. In the end, it felt like Douglas always felt he was in the right, never changed his story, but Lincoln really modified his “attack” from a legal to a moral perspective, which really only surfaced in the last debates. I found the debate topics interesting, the strategies employed intriguing, and the performances on audio really matched what I would expect those speakers sounded like, Dreyfus as Douglas having a little Foghorn Leghorn in him. I even followed on in text for a while to see if I was missing things. So well done that after 16 hours of audio, I’d be willing to read more on the same topic…
December 17, 2024
So good! Each debate was three hours, first person talks for an hour, next person responds for an hour and a half, then the first speaker has 30 minutes to finish it off. I was surprised about Lincoln’s epic troll energy, he makes fun of Stephen Douglas in the same way that Trump trolls and makes fun of his political opponents. It was cool to see how they talk to each other and the ways they structured their arguments. Very wild to hear the kind of things their theories encompassed at that time, surprising. I feel like ppl always talking about Lincoln, nice to hear his own ideas straight from the horses mouth! Gave me new ideas about Lincoln’s childhood in Kentucky, the split up of the Whig party, the laws governing territories and how that would affect people moving there, stuff like that. It’s cool to learn about the pre civil war history, as someone with an interest in the civil war.
July 14, 2017
Glad I read this before the election this year. Things are different now for sure. Regardless of who you align yourself with, Lincoln or Douglas, one must admit that no one debates like this any more. The way they presented and defended their stance was commendable. Attacking or questioning each other was interesting as well. Neither let the other get by with a less than adequate answer. If politicians would still debate in this format AND the American people actually cared, we would not be stuck with the likes of the last several presidents. Both Lincoln and Douglas referred to Thomas Jefferson as being on their side. These comments lead me to get a book about Jefferson. If you have any interest in politics or how our country continues to change, I would recommend this book.
February 26, 2020
Very interesting audiobook, well suited to the medium given the nature of the content. Some works of the English language are meant to be read, or like a speech, listened to. These seminal debates between the master orators Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas fall into the works of the great works of rhetoric for the English Language. They can and should be digested as an Audio, and these narrators are truly fantastic in the roles they play.
Effectively, this is two highly intelligent, politically savvy, and strongly principled individuals hashing out the defining issue of the 19th century, Slavery. Stephen Douglas, the "Little Giant" stands atop the mountain of Popular Sovereignty and defends it til the last with remarkable consistency. Abraham Lincoln fluctuates between the positions of gradual emancipation, Anti-Kansas Nebraska Act, and Popular Sovereignty, as well explained by the review by Michael Austin listed on this Good reads page.
Both speakers have their highs and lows, either expertly describing the political history of both parties that lead to the current climate and discussion, or staking out the morale argument for their point, or attacking the opposing side. There is also a GREAT deal of quibbling and squabbling back and forth on who said what, when, where, and why. Douglas is effectively trying to pin either radical or conservative positions on Lincoln, depending on the audience, with solid success. Both speakers fight to inherit the legacies of the Founding Fathers through their invoking of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and of the legendary figures of their day like Henry Clay. Both speakers demonstrate clear strengths and weaknesses. Stephen Douglas with his strong consistency is nearly invincible until Abraham Lincoln hits his stride and clarifies his morale arguments to an absolute awe inspiring cutting edge during the 5th debate and onwards. His conclusions in the 6th and 7th debates are some of the strongest and most powerful ideas I have ever heard.
What strikes me is that this is no forgone conclusion, this is two men trying to hash out the biggest problem to ever face the country, and both believe strongly in their principles. Stephen Douglas's arguments are just as pressing and urgent as Lincolns, and likely was seen as the more moderate position of the day. Another thing that really stood out to me is the dynamism of Federalism at play, and if the Federal Government should have any role in the expansion of slavery. They try to hash out what is the role of the Federal Government on this important question, and it made me wonder what is the role of the Federal Government in the pressing issues of our day, like Healthcare. After all, it is self evident that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....
Effectively, this is two highly intelligent, politically savvy, and strongly principled individuals hashing out the defining issue of the 19th century, Slavery. Stephen Douglas, the "Little Giant" stands atop the mountain of Popular Sovereignty and defends it til the last with remarkable consistency. Abraham Lincoln fluctuates between the positions of gradual emancipation, Anti-Kansas Nebraska Act, and Popular Sovereignty, as well explained by the review by Michael Austin listed on this Good reads page.
Both speakers have their highs and lows, either expertly describing the political history of both parties that lead to the current climate and discussion, or staking out the morale argument for their point, or attacking the opposing side. There is also a GREAT deal of quibbling and squabbling back and forth on who said what, when, where, and why. Douglas is effectively trying to pin either radical or conservative positions on Lincoln, depending on the audience, with solid success. Both speakers fight to inherit the legacies of the Founding Fathers through their invoking of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and of the legendary figures of their day like Henry Clay. Both speakers demonstrate clear strengths and weaknesses. Stephen Douglas with his strong consistency is nearly invincible until Abraham Lincoln hits his stride and clarifies his morale arguments to an absolute awe inspiring cutting edge during the 5th debate and onwards. His conclusions in the 6th and 7th debates are some of the strongest and most powerful ideas I have ever heard.
What strikes me is that this is no forgone conclusion, this is two men trying to hash out the biggest problem to ever face the country, and both believe strongly in their principles. Stephen Douglas's arguments are just as pressing and urgent as Lincolns, and likely was seen as the more moderate position of the day. Another thing that really stood out to me is the dynamism of Federalism at play, and if the Federal Government should have any role in the expansion of slavery. They try to hash out what is the role of the Federal Government on this important question, and it made me wonder what is the role of the Federal Government in the pressing issues of our day, like Healthcare. After all, it is self evident that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....
Read
January 12, 2022Debate 1:
Lincoln and Douglas debate slavery. Both accuse the other of a national conspiracy. Douglas is accused of wishing for universal slavery; Lincoln is accused of wishing for universal abolition. Much of this debate revolves around whether Abraham Lincoln agrees with the Republican party platform concerning the equality of blacks, the end of slavery, and the lengths which one might take to reach these ends; another aspect is the appeal to Popular Sovereignty as an excuse for the continuance (or discontinuance) of slavery. Contrary to how many view Lincoln today, he expresses a somewhat disenchanting view on the equality of blacks, thinking that, although they have a right--just as anyone--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are (perhaps) inferior. Lincoln goes so far as to concede to Douglas that he would wish blacks to have less political power than whites, for the very reason that they are inferior. Douglas is far more affirmative in this, of course; he believes that blacks are inferior, ought not have political power, and should be treated as one might treat them as a dependent. His rhetoric in calling Republicans "black Republicans" for their pro-Abolitionist platform is also quite jarring. Certainly, Douglas would not have been able to get away with a lot of what he said in the modern day, and for good reason, too. The questions posed by Douglas, although evasively answered (imo) by Lincoln, were not fully answered; the next debate is where Lincoln fleshes his views out more. Stephen A. Douglas seems a far less capable rhetorician than Lincoln.
Debate 2:
Lincoln answers Douglas' seven questions. Most of his answers simply state that he had not been pledged to any of the Republican party platform; afterwards, he discusses his views as to the substance of that platform, suggesting, for example, that he believes there is a need to reform the Fugitive Slave act, that, if pressed, he would vote for a slave State to be added to the union, that the he would be willing to endeavor to de-slave the District of Columbia if 1) it was gradually done, 2) it was voted upon, and 3) those unwilling for their slaves to be freed were compensated, and such like this. Lincoln frames 4 following questions for Douglas, the most dramatic of which is this: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question?" Douglas responds that he would be willing to bring in either type of State. Most of the debate is a miscellany concerning whether Lincoln was obliged to act in accordance with the Republican party platform, whether he was involved in the creation thereof, and such like, and charges of conspiracy being lobbied at Douglas, as well. Once again, I found the more defensive and tentative Lincoln to be more rhetorically appealing than Douglas. Douglas, moreover, seems to mistake much of what Lincoln said, in favor of his own pet theories about the man.
Lincoln and Douglas debate slavery. Both accuse the other of a national conspiracy. Douglas is accused of wishing for universal slavery; Lincoln is accused of wishing for universal abolition. Much of this debate revolves around whether Abraham Lincoln agrees with the Republican party platform concerning the equality of blacks, the end of slavery, and the lengths which one might take to reach these ends; another aspect is the appeal to Popular Sovereignty as an excuse for the continuance (or discontinuance) of slavery. Contrary to how many view Lincoln today, he expresses a somewhat disenchanting view on the equality of blacks, thinking that, although they have a right--just as anyone--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are (perhaps) inferior. Lincoln goes so far as to concede to Douglas that he would wish blacks to have less political power than whites, for the very reason that they are inferior. Douglas is far more affirmative in this, of course; he believes that blacks are inferior, ought not have political power, and should be treated as one might treat them as a dependent. His rhetoric in calling Republicans "black Republicans" for their pro-Abolitionist platform is also quite jarring. Certainly, Douglas would not have been able to get away with a lot of what he said in the modern day, and for good reason, too. The questions posed by Douglas, although evasively answered (imo) by Lincoln, were not fully answered; the next debate is where Lincoln fleshes his views out more. Stephen A. Douglas seems a far less capable rhetorician than Lincoln.
Debate 2:
Lincoln answers Douglas' seven questions. Most of his answers simply state that he had not been pledged to any of the Republican party platform; afterwards, he discusses his views as to the substance of that platform, suggesting, for example, that he believes there is a need to reform the Fugitive Slave act, that, if pressed, he would vote for a slave State to be added to the union, that the he would be willing to endeavor to de-slave the District of Columbia if 1) it was gradually done, 2) it was voted upon, and 3) those unwilling for their slaves to be freed were compensated, and such like this. Lincoln frames 4 following questions for Douglas, the most dramatic of which is this: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question?" Douglas responds that he would be willing to bring in either type of State. Most of the debate is a miscellany concerning whether Lincoln was obliged to act in accordance with the Republican party platform, whether he was involved in the creation thereof, and such like, and charges of conspiracy being lobbied at Douglas, as well. Once again, I found the more defensive and tentative Lincoln to be more rhetorically appealing than Douglas. Douglas, moreover, seems to mistake much of what Lincoln said, in favor of his own pet theories about the man.
June 27, 2023
Abe Lincoln DESTROYS Judge Douglas on 'popular sovereignty'
A quick way to get richly acquainted with the political and cultural milieu of pre-Civil War America. This record will be fascinating to the modern reader who might have a simplified notion of Lincoln's views or the monstrous political problem U.S. slavery had developed into by this time. The then-urgent relevance of events that we might remember half-learning about in classrooms and textbooks (Dred Scott, Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc) is brought into dynamic relation via Lincoln and Douglas' intense and spirited exchange. The recorded jeers from the crowd, as well as Douglas and Lincoln's improvised replies to these jeers, place us vividly among the unbroken attention of immense outdoor crowds doing their best to stay silent. Throughout the debates, we feel tensions rise as a result of Lincoln's stubborn calmness, which provokes Douglas into greater vexation and unruliness. We laugh at the few times the debates devolve into personal jabs (my favorite being Lincoln's calm and measured conclusion, after serious "philosophical contemplation," that Douglas is "crazy.")
The most beautiful moment is Lincoln's demonstration of the flaw in Douglas' "moderate" policy of popular sovereignty, something Douglas never fully addresses or recovers from. Accepting the idea that the Dred Scott decision, like other Supreme Court decisions, is now "affirmed in the Constitution," Lincoln lays out a syllogism:
Lincoln is something to behold not just for his reasoning but for his meek and humble manner. And though he does an excellent job proving that Douglas' policy would only serve to expand slavery indefinitely, rather than make it a free choice for each new state, Douglas is right to press him on his lack of an alternative solution, and his apparently firm stance against abolition. Lincoln's refusal to call himself an abolitionist, his insistence that he did not believe it was within the president's power to end slavery altogether--despite speaking on behalf of the Republican party and repeatedly defending his statement that "a house divided cannot stand"--makes complete sense of the intense controversy surrounding this man in the lead up to the 1860 election (not to mention how much worse this all made him appear to his detractors during the war).
A quick way to get richly acquainted with the political and cultural milieu of pre-Civil War America. This record will be fascinating to the modern reader who might have a simplified notion of Lincoln's views or the monstrous political problem U.S. slavery had developed into by this time. The then-urgent relevance of events that we might remember half-learning about in classrooms and textbooks (Dred Scott, Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc) is brought into dynamic relation via Lincoln and Douglas' intense and spirited exchange. The recorded jeers from the crowd, as well as Douglas and Lincoln's improvised replies to these jeers, place us vividly among the unbroken attention of immense outdoor crowds doing their best to stay silent. Throughout the debates, we feel tensions rise as a result of Lincoln's stubborn calmness, which provokes Douglas into greater vexation and unruliness. We laugh at the few times the debates devolve into personal jabs (my favorite being Lincoln's calm and measured conclusion, after serious "philosophical contemplation," that Douglas is "crazy.")
The most beautiful moment is Lincoln's demonstration of the flaw in Douglas' "moderate" policy of popular sovereignty, something Douglas never fully addresses or recovers from. Accepting the idea that the Dred Scott decision, like other Supreme Court decisions, is now "affirmed in the Constitution," Lincoln lays out a syllogism:
(1) Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States.
(2) The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States.
(3) Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave.
Lincoln is something to behold not just for his reasoning but for his meek and humble manner. And though he does an excellent job proving that Douglas' policy would only serve to expand slavery indefinitely, rather than make it a free choice for each new state, Douglas is right to press him on his lack of an alternative solution, and his apparently firm stance against abolition. Lincoln's refusal to call himself an abolitionist, his insistence that he did not believe it was within the president's power to end slavery altogether--despite speaking on behalf of the Republican party and repeatedly defending his statement that "a house divided cannot stand"--makes complete sense of the intense controversy surrounding this man in the lead up to the 1860 election (not to mention how much worse this all made him appear to his detractors during the war).
October 30, 2024
A series of seven political debates that are refreshing to the soul! Every time I thought Douglas had Lincoln on the ropes, he came back swinging and with some very impressive arguments! I can see why tens of thousands showed up to these events and also why Lincoln wanted their transcripts printed when he ran against Douglas in the presidential election of 1860!
The debates cover issues that people still raise about American history today - was the Constitution designed by the white man, for the white man? Did the Declaration of Independence mean to include blacks in its self-evident truth that “all men are created equal”? Douglas even accuses Lincoln of micro-targeting his message to make it more palatable to different demographics: north, center and south, something I didn’t think was really a political bone of contention til the past decade!
My Civil War professor and historian Allen C. Guelzo, frames this debate quite memorably in the brilliant audiobook rendition featuring David Strathairn as Lincoln and Richard Dreyfuss as Douglas:
Is democracy an end in itself? Should a government be formed purely based on the principle of majority rule or must it reckon with questions of moral right and wrong as well? Is democracy ONLY about popular sovereignty? Or is it about persuading the majority to choose what is naturally right? This fundamental question at the heart of our democracy remains; only the issues have changed.
The debates cover issues that people still raise about American history today - was the Constitution designed by the white man, for the white man? Did the Declaration of Independence mean to include blacks in its self-evident truth that “all men are created equal”? Douglas even accuses Lincoln of micro-targeting his message to make it more palatable to different demographics: north, center and south, something I didn’t think was really a political bone of contention til the past decade!
My Civil War professor and historian Allen C. Guelzo, frames this debate quite memorably in the brilliant audiobook rendition featuring David Strathairn as Lincoln and Richard Dreyfuss as Douglas:
Is democracy an end in itself? Should a government be formed purely based on the principle of majority rule or must it reckon with questions of moral right and wrong as well? Is democracy ONLY about popular sovereignty? Or is it about persuading the majority to choose what is naturally right? This fundamental question at the heart of our democracy remains; only the issues have changed.
December 5, 2018
Excellent audio rendering by Strathairn and Dreyfuss of the Debates.
A few notes:
- Neither (Andrew) Jackson nor T. Jefferson did not believe in the binding force of judicial (esp. SCOTUS) decisions other than as applied to that case specifically (speaking on Dred Scott).
- Lincoln thought that the Founders did not make the country part-slave and part-free, rather, they found the existence of slavery and left it in place for the time being because "they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time." The Founders cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave trade and restricted it to where it existed at the time and placed it where all understood that slavery would be in the course of ultimate extinction. But they did not see the coming of the cotton gin, which led to the necessity of slavery.
- Lincoln thought that Whites and Blacks were created equal as to certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He didn't think that they were necessarily equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity.
- Ultimately, thought Lincoln, the struggle of slavery is the struggle between right and wrong, the struggle from the beginning.
A few notes:
- Neither (Andrew) Jackson nor T. Jefferson did not believe in the binding force of judicial (esp. SCOTUS) decisions other than as applied to that case specifically (speaking on Dred Scott).
- Lincoln thought that the Founders did not make the country part-slave and part-free, rather, they found the existence of slavery and left it in place for the time being because "they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time." The Founders cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave trade and restricted it to where it existed at the time and placed it where all understood that slavery would be in the course of ultimate extinction. But they did not see the coming of the cotton gin, which led to the necessity of slavery.
- Lincoln thought that Whites and Blacks were created equal as to certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He didn't think that they were necessarily equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity.
- Ultimately, thought Lincoln, the struggle of slavery is the struggle between right and wrong, the struggle from the beginning.
July 23, 2018
Great debates and speeches, what remarkably eloquent speakers both were. I initially assumed this would be Lincoln towering with his serene oratory above an unknown and a vile opponent. But alas, I was disappointed. Douglas is at least just as eloquent as Lincoln, and can seem deceptively logical t times. Lincoln was younger, Douglas was at the height of his career. The arguments he comes up with -racist,unjust, and plainly evil as they were- are not as easy to refute as I assumed; It is a very uncomfortable read to put it mildly, especially if the issue at hand (slavery, citizens rights for black people) is one about which one is not entirely disinterested.
One start is missing because they do go on a bit. Also, while the introduction does explain the background, it berries the essential facts in a heap of boring meandering chitchat we come to know and expect from introductions. I had to stop halfway through to read the background of the supreme court decision and the nullification issue on my own.
One start is missing because they do go on a bit. Also, while the introduction does explain the background, it berries the essential facts in a heap of boring meandering chitchat we come to know and expect from introductions. I had to stop halfway through to read the background of the supreme court decision and the nullification issue on my own.
May 24, 2017
I've read pieces of these debates over the years, and I'm glad I finally listened to this - one of the most famous debates in American history!
What surprised me is that the ENTIRE debate is about slavery. I thought most of it would be since that was the key issue at the time, but I was surprised it was the ONLY thing debated. The setup was interesting too - one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, the other for 90 then the first candidate for 30. They alternated speaking first.
One thing that tripped me up a little was David Strathairn speaking for Lincoln because I've watched the movie Lincoln so many times that I associate his voice with William Seward now. But he and Richard Dreyfuss both were excellent.
This was really amazing to listen to and I'd like to come back to it someday and listen to it again. I'm not quite as familiar with a lot of things they were mentioning such as previous speeches, debates, acts, compromises, etc. as I wish I was.
What surprised me is that the ENTIRE debate is about slavery. I thought most of it would be since that was the key issue at the time, but I was surprised it was the ONLY thing debated. The setup was interesting too - one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, the other for 90 then the first candidate for 30. They alternated speaking first.
One thing that tripped me up a little was David Strathairn speaking for Lincoln because I've watched the movie Lincoln so many times that I associate his voice with William Seward now. But he and Richard Dreyfuss both were excellent.
This was really amazing to listen to and I'd like to come back to it someday and listen to it again. I'm not quite as familiar with a lot of things they were mentioning such as previous speeches, debates, acts, compromises, etc. as I wish I was.
May 30, 2022
If accurate, or at least most accurate than ever before presented, these speeches are some fantastic stuff. Gentle mudslinging and questionable factual statements turns into direct accusations and repetitious statements of questionable factuality.
Back in the day these people could complain to a crowd for three or more hours. It was the highlight of people's seasons. That used to impress and flabbergast me. But now I realize the man at the 19th century podium probably only ever had about ten bullet points and would just go off in every direction ranting about every newspaper article he could get his hands on.
The subject matter of these debates was repeated again and again all throughout early Autumn 1858. Nobody ever really made a new point or got a message across. Lincoln just wanted to rail on Douglas in front of thousands of people.
But anyway. Douglas was much better spoken than Lincoln, and I believe the right man was selected to the Senate.
Back in the day these people could complain to a crowd for three or more hours. It was the highlight of people's seasons. That used to impress and flabbergast me. But now I realize the man at the 19th century podium probably only ever had about ten bullet points and would just go off in every direction ranting about every newspaper article he could get his hands on.
The subject matter of these debates was repeated again and again all throughout early Autumn 1858. Nobody ever really made a new point or got a message across. Lincoln just wanted to rail on Douglas in front of thousands of people.
But anyway. Douglas was much better spoken than Lincoln, and I believe the right man was selected to the Senate.
August 4, 2018
In my opinion, the benefit of revisiting these debates is not rehashing Lincoln's arguments, which most of us know and agree with, but understanding how plausible and understandable Stephen Douglas's arguments were when and where they occurred. Lincoln and Douglas's positions were much more similar then commonly remembered, as both Lincoln and Douglas were happy to leave the question of slavery to the democratic processes. The central dispute was whether the Supreme Court had made democratic choice on the question impossible and what, if anything, could be done about it. Lincoln was clearly correct that the court had made democratic choice impossible, though Douglas denied it. Douglas was clearly correct that the cost of defying the court would be war, though Lincoln denied it.
March 12, 2017
Riveting debates. This is not my typical style of literature but I could not stop listening. Tensions are high in this discussion of "state's right to choose" vs "does any state have the right to legislate that which is not moral?" Abraham Lincoln presses for slavery to trod the road that leads to its ultimate extinction while Douglas champion's limiting the federal government's reach (an interesting fact about early Democrat ideology). I wish modern debate took this form and engaged the American people the way the debates of our forefathers occured.
August 12, 2018
I enjoyed listening to these famous debates as performed by Richard Dreyfus and David Strathairn. Stephen Douglas said that Lincoln was the best lawyer he ever saw. But they disagreed on how the slavery issue should be dealt with. Douglas believed that each state should freely decide for itself. But the way he speaks about blacks would be viewed as racist today. Lincoln's highest priority was to save the Union. He evolved on the issue of slavery. He hoped it would go away on its own. But he obviously finally decided that it had to be eliminated.
July 13, 2019
I'm 2/3rds through The Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Richard Dreyfus and Davis Straithairn are great as Douglas and Lincoln, respectively. These debates beg to be acted out. Lincoln and Douglas trades zingers, which is most fun. Douglas’s comments would be viewed as extremely racist today. And some of Lincoln’s arguments were crafted more for the judicial bench than the average citizen. Indeed, some of his arguments hinge in subtle legal ideas and elements of the law, which require real knowledge of the issues of the times. These are mostly high-level debates about ideas, with Douglas given more to stirring (negative) emotions, while Lincoln takes the reasoned, cerebral, high-road.
January 9, 2020
It was exciting for me to read the words of Lincoln-Douglas as they were most likely spoken. I struggled with keeping the flow of the speeches because the author included reactions of the crowd from the the partisan presses that were there. I stopped including the crowds reactions while reading the speeches. That made the speeches flow a lot better. I did have a hard time following and understanding a bit of Lincoln’s speeches. It seemed to me that Douglas was able to better explain his positions.
March 2, 2020
Wonderful historical document with talented actors providing a reading that adds some drama to the proceeding.
It seems that ole' Abe kind of mops the floor with Stephen Douglas, at least in the last debate but it's interesting to wonder if that's only because we know he ultimately won...literally everything.
It seems that ole' Abe kind of mops the floor with Stephen Douglas, at least in the last debate but it's interesting to wonder if that's only because we know he ultimately won...literally everything.
June 10, 2021
Incredible! You actually get to hear a decent argument against the famous house divided speech of Lincoln. You also get a chance to see the wit and humour and immense intellect of Abraham Lincoln that is so often not highlighted when people talk about his attributes and skill as a commander in chief.
November 9, 2023
Well worth reading for the long introduction alone, wherein Holzer explains the biases of other versions of the debates and how he put together this "Unexpurgated" version. Couldn't make it through all the speeches but I got the gist of Lincoln's arguments and could see growth in the speeches as time went on.
October 20, 2025
I hope most readers find much of this hard to read with modern sensibilities. I find it interesting that so many people talk about these debates and how brilliant they are, but leave out a lot of stuff that is really offensive. I understand why many people only share the highlights, and it's not just because this is a very long read.
July 31, 2020
Why isn't this required reading in schools? If the young insurrectionists of the BLM movement had read this, they might not be so quick to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln. Americans have a serious lack of knowledge of their own history.
September 21, 2024
This had been on my shelf for awhile. It’s amazing how in reading this you saw the same vague accusations back in the 1850’s that you see today - only in person and real time allow the other candidate to refute them. The parts of these debates that I found interesting was how hard Lincoln tried to corner Douglas on his views on slavery. Douglas always reverted back to popular sovereignty of the states as his crutch. Lincoln performed admirably - but as much as I hate to admit it - he was vague whenever he was confronted about his messaging in different parts of the state - some more abolition friendly parts he was adamant in his defense of abolition but hesitant to admit the same in the southern part of the state. It was still refreshing to see an actual debate on substance.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews