The History Book Club discussion
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
5. A. LINCOLN ~ CHAPTERS 12 - 13 (223 - 291) (11/30/09 - 12/06/09) ~ No spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
Chapter 12 is where White describes Lincoln’s defense of Duff Armstrong, the son of his old wrestling partner, Jack Armstrong in a murder trial in 1858. This might be a good place for James to describe what information he has gathered about his ancestor, Jefferson Dugger, and how Lincoln defended him. We are looking forward to hearing about what you have discovered, James.Here's a link to some limited information on the case:
http://www.thelincolnlog.org/view/185...
I would also like to discuss the Dred Scott Case and Lincoln’s House Divided Speech as well. Chapter 13 goes into the Lincoln Douglas debates, and I would like to especially spend some time with them as well.
Dred Scott Case: the Supreme Court decision 1857"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."
Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction."
Complete text of the decision:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2...
Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2...
Lincoln’s House Divided Speech at the Republican Convention, Springfield, Illinois - June 16, 1858“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.
Have we no tendency to the latter condition?”
Source:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creati...
Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858The Lincoln-Douglas debates basically came about because both Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were both campaigning for the same U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. Since Douglas was the author and one of the main supporters of the newly enacted Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln had a platform to not only debate Douglas on the merits of the act, but also to convince the public to join him in opposition.
"The debates were held in seven towns in the state of Illinois: Ottawa on August 21, Freeport on August 27, Jonesboro on September 15, Charleston on September 18, Galesburg on October 7, Quincy on October 13, and Alton on October 15."
It is generally understood that Lincoln ended up losing the debates because he lost the election. Also, because of the debates, Lincoln was seen as a rising national Republican Party leader. And, because Lincoln lost the election, he had the free time to pursue a bid for the Presidency in 1860. Lincoln also took from what he learned from debating Douglas to help prepare for his pre-Presidential speeches that are to follow.
I find the debates themselves extremely interesting because they outline the basic principles the country was facing before the start of the Civil War. If we have time, I would like to outline and discuss with everyone here the debates and compare how Lincoln and Douglas made their arguments in support and defence of their respective sides of the slavery issue.
I have recently acquired a very good book about the debates, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The Lincoln Studies Center Edition. Also, these debates are another example of the unforeseen consequences of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Douglas L. Wilson
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%...
For me... these are the chapters that just scream out that a Civil War is coming, Its all about domination of the one area of the country over the other based on a different set of values. How can the south expect to survive if there are no more slave states to grow into. Westward expansion was about prosperity .... your either a part of it or you lose a major opportunity. To have some one like Lincoln stating that slavery stops here was just a non-starter with the south. What is amazing is that Lincoln thought that what he was doing would be acceptable when in reality it was unthinkable for southerners with slaves. With all this going on Lincoln takes on a local case. The case was filed on March 18, 1858 in Illinois. Jefferson Dugger (an ancestor of mine) and Lorenzo Hamilton enter into a contract with John Hickey to purchase hogs for resale. They were the "middle man" in the deal. Hickey sued Hamilton and Dugger for breach of contract since they failed to purchase the hogs for $550. Lincoln defended Dugger and Hamilton pleading that the contract was conditional on securing the buyer for the resale. Lincoln won the case and I think Jefferson became indebted to Lincoln. Jefferson was quite the character and had been dabbling in law himself. In early 1859 Jefferson joins forces with Lincoln and they defend one farmer being sued by another for rent on land. This was settled out of court. Soon after this Jefferson decides that there are too many good lawyers in Illinois and he moves to Kansas to begin a new practice and start a newspaper. Well, Kansas is in the middle of the slavery fight... more on Jefferson's interaction with Lincoln in the next set of chapters.
James wrote: "For me... these are the chapters that just scream out that a Civil War is coming, Its all about domination of the one area of the country over the other based on a different set of values. How can ..."Amazing, James. It's quite exceptional that we can personally relate to being helped, even indirectly, by Abraham Lincoln himself.
James wrote: "How can the south expect to survive if there are no more slave states to grow into. Westward expansion was about prosperity .... your either a part of it or you lose a major opportunity. To have some one like Lincoln stating that slavery stops here was just a non-starter with the south. What is amazing is that Lincoln thought that what he was doing would be acceptable when in reality it was unthinkable for southerners with slaves."For the South, it was a way of life. They knew no other way. It's easy to understand why they tried to defend their livelihood. And with Lincoln, among many others, preaching against your way of life must have been extremely disturbing.
More on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates“Lincoln had to discredit the idea that he was a radical abolitionist, whereas Douglas had to deny that he was a pro-Southern defender of slavery. …the focus was almost exclusively on slavery. The debaters and the audiences agreed that this was the most important issue facing the nation.” pg 286
Lincoln’s basic theme on his side of the debate was to evoke the principle in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” and by extending inequality by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Acts was moving the country in the wrong direction. Lincoln argued that national policy was historically of the view to not allow the extension of slavery beyond where it was originally allowed. He used his famous "house divided" analogy to support that argument. And Douglas basically argued that it was best for states and territories to locally decide whether or not to extend slavery (popular sovereignty) across their borders. Douglas argued that most believed in popular sovereignty and that the Compromise of 1850 was an example of this.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%...
White included Lincoln’s summary of Douglas’ views in page 279. “But there is a larger issue than the mere question of whether the spread of negro slavery shall or shall not be prohibited by Congress.” … the doctrine of equality in the Declaration of Independence was “a self-evident lie.” As for Senator Douglas, Lincoln said he “regularly argues against the doctrine of the equality of men.” Lincoln concluded that the “common object” of Douglas and his allies was to subvert the clear avowal in the Declaration of Independence and “to assert the natural, moral, and religious right of one class to enslave another.” Pg 279
“There was a great deal of repetition in the debates, often with each debater reading long quotations from previous speeches. Douglas stuck to his theme of self-government. Lincoln invoked the Declaration of Independence again and again. Douglas began strong and put Lincoln on the defensive with his attacks and questions. Lincoln gathered momentum in the final three debates, …both in physical presence and his decision to focus on the moral dimension of slavery. Douglas, when under stress, resorted to anger and sarcasm. Lincoln, when pushed, reflexively responded with humor, a lighter touch that created a bond of trust with audiences.” pg 286
How would you summarize the Lincoln-Douglas debates?
Why are the debates considered so important today?
Mod
Mod
Mod
“Lincoln had to discredit the idea that he was a radical abolitionist, whereas Douglas had to deny that he was a pro-Southern defender of slavery. …the focus wa..."
_________________________________________________________
From the standpoint of Lincoln...these debates and the publishing of a book of the debates resulted in Abe getting the nomination for president. I doubt he would have gotten it otherwise; or at least then.
However, I think the debates gave a national voice to the issue of slavery and brought the discussion to the people.
These debates did this in a way that made the people feel that they could understand and discuss these interactions and the arguments for and against slavery among themselves way after the debates were over. It became their debate and their arguments whether they were for slavery or against it. These debates took on a life of their own.
Lincoln and Douglas made slavery a lasting issue for discussion; that was now not going away. It helped the people think about this issue in a rationale deliberate maner. I think these debates were to emancipation what the Federalist papers were to ratifying the constitution.
Here is a quote which I think sums up the importance of the debates and their main issues:
Slavery was the focus of the debates at Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy and Alton.
But underlying that incendiary theme was the ultimate question of democracy's purpose - whether it's about majority rule or right and wrong, said Allen Guelzo of Gettysburg College, author of "Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America.''
"Americans regard democracy as something more transcendent, something more sacred than just counting noses,'' Guelzo said. "Americans at base want to know that their politics is about what is right. And if a majority wants to do what is wrong, people just don't roll over.''
Douglas wanted to push permission for slavery out of Congress and let states decide. To Lincoln, slavery itself was the issue. Blacks were people, not property.
Lincoln wasn't alone in that belief, but it was radical to give it a national voice.
"Just that very basic principle of recognizing the humanity of blacks was huge,'' Illinois state historian Thomas Schwartz said.
Source - 150 Years Later - Lincoln, Douglas debates still carry importance
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/articl...
Mod
http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/lincolndou...
C-Span: (A Debate Re-enactment)
http://strongmail.real.com:80/track?t...
Panel of Debates:
ttp://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/280194-1
Bentley wrote: "Why do you think Lincoln got so caught up in politics again and really turned his back on his old party?"I think the Kansas-Nebraska Act, along with the Dred Scott case, fired up the North and Lincoln (among with many others) didn't want the country to start going in the wrong direction.
Didn't the Whig party fundamentally break apart because of the sectionalism taking over throughout the whole country? The South all shifted to the Democratic party, and the Northern non-Democrats needed to regroup to combat Southern political victories. I need to look into this further, but I thought that the Republican party was born out of the necessity to combat southern sectionalism.
How and why was the Republican Party formed is a very good topic to discuss.
Mod
That is why I was curious. Did he jump ship like Arlen S. or did the ship leave him.
Or did the party just go away. I agree about this being a good topic and was confused myself about what happened.
Bentley wrote: "I am not sure about what happened to the Whig party; I got a book which deals with parties; but have not picked it up yet. That is why I was curious. Did he jump ship like Arlen S. or did the ..."
I think the Whig party disintegrated out from underneath him. I have an inkling that the slavery issue broke the Whig party up, and the Republican party was created to combat Southern victories, but that's just my educated guess. Also, the Democratic party was pretty well divided as well. It was much more complicated than just having Northern and Southern Democrats. If the Democrats got their act together, and managed to unite, they would have beaten the Republicans in 1860.
It is also my impression that the Whigs disintegrated. Then the former ones spent several years looking for parties (Hello, Know-Nothings! Goodbye, Know-Nothings!), and were then one of the factions making up the new Republican Party.Yeah, the Democratic Conventions of 1860 were a nightmare.
Susanna wrote: "It is also my impression that the Whigs disintegrated. Then the former ones spent several years looking for parties (Hello, Know-Nothings! Goodbye, Know-Nothings!), and were then one of the facti..."Thank-you for your post, Susanna.
I think I'll wait till next week to post some details that I have gathered on what happened with the Democratic Conventions in 1860. But, we can all pretty well guess for ourselves that it was nothing but utter turmoil.
Political Parties Snapshot - Civil War EraDemocratic Party
The Democratic-Republican Party was led by Andrew Jackson. Supporters favored a limited national government and were opposed to an economic aristocracy. Eventually, this party changed its name to the Democratic Party, which is now the oldest political party in the United States.
Whig Party
Led by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, the Whigs supported an expanded national government, increased commercial development, and cautious westward expansion.
Free Soil Party
Free Soilers supported the Wilmot Proviso, which proposed to prohibit slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico.
Know Nothing Party
Also known as the American Party. Supporters were former Democrats who objected to the wave of Catholic immigrants entering the United States.
Republican Party
The Whigs and Free-Soilers joined to form the Republican Party, which strongly supported the abolition of slavery. Some Republicans believed in freedom for blacks, while others merely believed slavery would keep white men from available labor and create laziness.
My source is quite interesting, so please take a look because it lays out a timeline for all political parties.
Source:
http://www.edgate.com/elections/inact...
The Republican Party - A Short History"The Republican Party originated in 1854 as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This piece of legislation split Whig Party members along regional lines and illustrated that the party could no longer function as a single entity. Former Northern Whigs united with the Free Soil Party and the American Party to create the Republican Party.
The first person elected President of the United States from the Republican Party was Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860. Many white Southerners believed that Lincoln was an abolitionist and that he intended to end slavery as soon as he took office. Lincoln endorsed the official Republican philosophy that opposed slavery, but he, like the majority of other Republicans, firmly believed that the federal government could not end slavery where it already existed. The federal government could exclude slavery from any new states or territories. Many white Southerners did not believe Lincoln and his fellow Republicans, and seven Southern states seceded from the Union, quickly followed by four additional ones. The Southern states leaving the Union resulted in the American Civil War.
The North triumphed in the Civil War, and the Republican Party emerged as the dominant political force in the United States for the next fifty years. Between 1860 and 1912, Republicans won every presidential election except for two. Northerners overwhelmingly supported the Republican Party. In the South, a majority of African Americans supported the Republican Party, while only a small percentage of whites did so. Most white Southerners objected to the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which granted African Americans their freedom, equal protection under the law, and the right to vote to black men. Republicans were the ones to amend the Constitution. As a result of this, most white Southerners joined the Democratic Party. They could not support the Republican Party, since it was the Republicans who had ended slavery and had led the North to victory over the South in the Civil War."
Source:
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ent...
Mod
Bentley wrote: "I think what is confusing is that the Jeffersonian Democratic Republican party is different from the above (just Republican party) and vastly different from the Republican party of today. "Well, it was the ancestor of the modern Democratic Party. Which has big Jefferson-Jackson dinners every year, I believe.
Mod
Not to say that there is anything wrong with either of today's parties.
Oh, it can definitely be confusing!
Mod
"The Republican Party originated in 1854 as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This piece of legislation split Whig Party members along regional lines and ..."
And interestingly enough...most of the Southern states lean Republican today..talk about confusing.
Bentley wrote: "The Republican Party originated in 1854 as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This piece of legislation split Whig Party members along regiona..."I find it fascinating how a large group in society, like the US, is affected by their beliefs and traditions over time, and how those changes affect the fundamental principles in government and political affiliation. We can only wonder what the next decade or two will bring in this regard. The past seems to only suggest they we will be caught totally off-guard with whatever those changes might be.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "I just hope that the group respects the past and what the founding fathers accomplished with the Constitution and our charters. I personally do not want any tinkering to take place."Are there any amendments that shouldn't have been added?
Prohibition was a bad one but was repealed. Those who would amend the constitution to get their views enshrined in the Constitution should look back at Prohibition and realize what a mistake it was.
Bentley wrote: "I just hope that the group respects the past and what the founding fathers accomplished with the Constitution and our charters. I personally do not want any tinkering to take place."So, how many votes does it take to amend the Constitution? Let me look that up...
"The constitution may be amended by the "votes" of three fourths of the legislatures or conventions of the individual states."
Bentley, do you think that 3/4 is enough?
Mod
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam...
I do not have any problem with the process outlined by the founding fathers...I am not sure I would have given 18 year olds the right to vote; but then again I have not given that a lot of thought. The slogan I guess at the time was Old enough to fight..old enough to vote...and I guess this was the result of FDR lowering the draft age.
Of course, prohibition is one that was cited in message 28 which was a donnybrook.
Prohibition was a dumb amendment, and I have problems with the one limiting the Presidency to 2 terms.
Mod
Susanna wrote: "Prohibition was a dumb amendment, and I have problems with the one limiting the Presidency to 2 terms. "I'd never thought about that before.
What term limits do is make the second term a "Lame Duck" exercise unless the President has an overwhelming majority in Congress.
When people discuss why President Obama is trying to do so much, I point out that whatever doesn't get done in the first two years of his Presidency is unlikely to get done at all.
In some cases term limits are a good thing - "Throw the rascals out". However, maybe in terms of the Presidency, it might be a good thing for the President to have that possibility as a strategy to get stuff done during the second term.
Highly unlikely there will be any change, though.
One aspect of Lincoln shown in these chapters that's especially fascinating to me (since I'm a lawyer this won't be surprising) is the description of how he approached the railroad/river lawsuit. His meticulous attention to detail and his analytical skills that address every element of the liability theory are something every civil litigator can relate to today.I also did not know that Lincoln was a criminal defense lawyer (or that he at least took on criminal defense cases from time to time). I'm not aware of many if any other presidents who spent any part of their career doing criminal defense work. Many politicians today start their careers as prosecutors. There are few better ways to give political opponents fodder to tear you down than by defending criminals, as a lawyer.
The other interesting note about the murder case he defended is that his closing argument contained statements that would be clearly ruled inadmissible today. Lincoln appealed to his own, personal connection to the defendant's family and his own belief in the defendant's character as a person to sway the jury. This would not be permitted under modern rules of evidence, on grounds of relevance and unfairly prejudicing the jury on extraneous matters (Rule 403). I can't help but ponder with amusement the fact that he won this trial in an unfair manner. (Fair and legal under 1850s standards, but I submit those standards were themselves unfair.)
Very interesting, Neil.Would it be an accurate assumption to say that lawyers back in Lincoln's day worked on many different types of cases and were not as specialised as today?
Mod
Yes Neil..you are so correct...homespun lawyering is what I called it; in fact...Lincoln studied for the law in his spare time...this was common in those days.
Some of the standards in 1850 could not possibly be used today.
Joe wrote: "Very interesting, Neil.Would it be an accurate assumption to say that lawyers back in Lincoln's day worked on many different types of cases and were not as specialised as today?"
That's an interesting point too, regarding the similarities between legal life then and now. While a prominent lawyer in Illinois, Lincoln was still at his core a small town lawyer. He was also part of a small firm his entire legal career, when he was not practicing solo. Today, lawyers who are either solo practitioners or who work in small towns have careers very much like Lincoln's: they become general practitioners, and occasional criminal defense work can be a part of their case load.
Mod
I realize that you were responding to Joe. But I think you make a very good point; there is a difference between a small town lawyer and even one in a mid sized town or city.
There, most if not all attorneys, are specialized. Of course in the large cities, like NYC, they all are. Criminal defense work is a highly specialized field as it should be since the consequences for not knowing what you are doing are great for the client.
I agree. I think in the larger towns and cities, you found a lot of maritime/trade law. Martin Van Buren in the 1820s saw this. He became a small town lawyer in New York, but refused to go to New York City because he had to practice maritime law, which did not interest him.Railroads changed this a little, I think, because the railroad left the water town/cities and went inward, so there were more opportunities for lawyers to pick up cases.
Especially today, there has been an enormous amount of effort put into gathering Lincoln's law papers to make conclusions on what kind of lawyer he was, etc. This also reflects upon himself personally as well. A very interesting topic to dive into.
Joe wrote: "Dred Scott Case: the Supreme Court decision 1857"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were..."
Iknow that
Ed wrote: "Susanna wrote: "Prohibition was a dumb amendment, and I have problems with the one limiting the Presidency to 2 terms. "I'd never thought about that before.
What term limits do is make the seco..."
Just a comment on amendments and second terms and the lame duck situation - of course is the president cannot run for re election and has a strong legislative support he/she can try to legislate without having to hold personal vote getting ability for future elections
also on the 3/4 of the states that is probably enough but not too small to amend - just look at the Senator form
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (other topics)A. Lincoln (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Douglas L. Wilson (other topics)Ronald C. White Jr. (other topics)
Chapters 12 - 13: (pages 223 - 291)
Hello Everyone,
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers.
This book was kicked off on November 1st.
We look forward to your participation. Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.
Since we only started this book on November 1st, there is still time remaining to obtain the book and get started.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
Ronald C. White Jr.