Catch Hold Of Crisis Of The House Divided: An Interpretation Of The Issues In The Lincoln-Douglas Debates Engineered By Harry V. Jaffa Provided As Volume
on Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates
wrote this in, examining the philosophies and fundamental beliefs and the irreducible consequences of Lincoln and Stephen Douglas over the course of their historically critical series of debates in.
Douglas was a political giant of his time, driving political issues of the day, with a virulent dedication to an expansive and aggressive policy of manifest destiny and a determination to save the Union in the face of the looming national conflict over slavery and its extension outside the South.
His solution, aggressively promoted, was “popular sovereignty” coupled with a personal indifference to slavery, Douglas doctrine of popular sovereignty meant nothing more than that in a democracy, justice is the interest of the majority strength makes right.
On the other hand, Lincoln insisted that the case for popular government depended upon a fundamental standard of right and wrong independent of mere opinion thus one not justified by merely counting votes.
Lincoln lauded Jefferson for incorporating in the Declaration an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, that all men are created equal.
This abstract truth transcended time and history, Douglas denied any such thing, and yet, as Lincoln showed, if the natural rights are meaningless as would be so under popular sovereignty then it is equally meaningless to tackle issues that abstract truth would address, such as whether slavery is good or bad, whether the cause of the Union was just, or, as the author points out, whether Churchill or Hitler were right or wrong in their respective causes.
Jaffa explains, and interprets, both mens arguments and underlying philosophies and the crushing effect Lincoln had in the end.
Lincoln not only destroyed Douglas standing with critical political elements such as the Freesoil North, but also the proslavery Southern wing of the Democrat Party, reducing him to a minority candidate when he ran for President in.
. . and elevating Lincoln to his successful election, Jaffa delves deeply into the underlying principles and beliefs of both men, In the process, he also destroys the revisionist historical argument that took hold in the first half of theth Century as an outgrowth of the “noble lost cause” argument for the South that ignored slavery as a factor in the war.
Remember, this was written inand represents a devastating rebuttal of the revisionists then holding influence with their arguments that slavery was dying out and Lincolns case against it was manufactured for political gain.
Nothing could be more false, as Jaffa lays out convincingly,
Lincoln was a master of the language, a deep and inciteful thinker and a forceful true believer in greater truths as the basis for just and honest government.
He was the first to identify and correlate the abstract and irreducible natural rights of the Declaration as the fundamental basis for the creation of our republican form of government with the implementation of the Constitution.
His historical stature only continues to grow, Jaffa does him great justice, An important philosophical look at the issues for political scientists, but it's dated and highhandedly boring at times, A book of superb legal and philosophic analysis, though reading it today one is put off by the degree to which it is fixated on historiographic disputes of thes.
Jaffa undertakes a thorough but mostly fair defense of Abraham Lincoln, prepresidency, against historians of his day who were taking the side of Stephen Douglas and his "popular sovereignty" doctrine.
Lincoln's star has risen somewhat since this work's original publication perhaps in no small part BECAUSE of this work's publication.
But its careful reading and contextualization of Lincoln's speeches, as well as a shorter preceding explication of Douglas's point of view, remains sharp and still relevant today.
The book does presume a fairly hefty preknowledge of the life and career of Abraham Lincoln and the major political controversies of thes not merely a basic understanding of "popular sovereignty," "Bleeding Kansas" and "Dred Scott" but details of particular speeches and the exact path certain laws took through Congress.
The book is still readable with a moderate historical background, but the occasional omission of important context combines with its already intricate political philosophy to make this a pretty tough slog, though always fascinating.
This scholarly book delves deeply into the differences between Lincoln and Douglas's political philosophy, The book provides many amazing insights on both a micro and macro level and sets forth the differences in a way that still reverberate in today's political environment.
Douglas sounds a lot like the noncrazy version of very conservative republicans and Lincoln, well he's Lincoln,
Jaffa does the reader a favor by taking Douglas' arguments seriously, saving him from the's version of George Wallace.
Douglas, Jaffe argued, was truly dedicated to the theory of local rule, He thought anything requirement from the federal government on slavery would amount to the tyranny that the founders fought to escape.
For Douglas, "we the people" was the founding and ultimate principle, His noncommittal attitude toward slavery made sense given his official position if people should decide why should Douglas care, Yet, Jaffe indicates that Douglas did think that his method would eliminate slavery, Most recent new states were nonslavery and the proportion of slave states was much less than when the union started.
This raises the question were both Lincoln and Douglass shooting for the same aim of eliminating slavery through different means, with Douglass having the better or at least as reasonable good argument.
Well, no. First Jaffe discounts Douglass arguments saying that the new nonslave states were influenced by the fact that federal gov did prohibit slavery.
Yet, in the end the real debate is about the proper role of government particularly the federal government.
For Douglass, we the people democracy was an end to itself, Not so for Lincoln. For him, it was “all men are created equal” that had to be the guide that democracy strove toward, While Lincoln was true to the spirit of the original meaning, yet expanded the meaning, Jaffa argues that Lincoln expands the spirit, The original intent of the declaration was in line with Lockes negative rights the minimalist amount of rights needed to be free from a dictator.
Lincoln sets the declaration as an aspiration something that can never quite be reach but must always be striven to.
Lincoln understands that democracy qua democracy was not an organizing principle to hold a union together of people to govern themselves.
The book is written for academia and gets into a level of detail that most readers dont need.
Jaffa is also engaging in arguments with other academics that is not really all that interesting, Yet, the parts that are relevant are brilliant, For those interested in political philosophy and the role of government this is a must read, The ultimate guide to the LincolnDouglas debates and a mustread for anyone interested in U, S. history. An extremely rich, but dense look at the LincolnDouglas debates by Harry Jaffa, Not something to rip through, which I did not, it took me nine months of definitions, notes, and rabbit holes.
I'm glad that I stuck with it and the highest praise that I could make is that I'm ready to start it all over.
That being said, there are other books on this subject that I wish to hit before I come back to it.
Originally published inthat seems a world away, almost as far as the debates themselves, Apparently the big thought of that era was Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War and Jaffa develops both sides of this line of thinking.
To my mind, and I'm no expert here, Jaffa comes down as Douglas and his supporters by not acting and by avoiding dealing with the moral question end up causing the war.
A few examples of my view:
'When Senator Foote of Mississippi had ininvited Senator Hale of New Hampshire to visit Mississippi and grace the highest tree in the forest there which earned him the sobriquet of Hangman Foote, Hale responded by inviting Foote to New Hampshire, where he assured him a respectful hearing in every town and hamlet.
' p
'In his Chicago speech of July,, Lincoln sounded a theme which echoed through the debates, He spoke of the annual celebration of independence, as he always loved to do, in terms which suggest nothing so much as the Feast of the Passover, celebrating the deliverance of the Hebrew people from Pharaoh's Egypt, or of Easter, celebrating the deliverance of the world from original sin.
' p.
"Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a save himself.
" Lincoln p.
'We would say that opinion in Illinois inwas probably about as favorable to Negro citizenship as opinion in Arkansas today is favorable to public school integration.
' p.
Douglas tends to try and dodge and weave his way through avoiding the slavery question, When Lincoln ask Douglas if he would support the Supreme Court ruling that slavery was wrong Douglas doesn't answer the question, but attempts to hide behind a statement that no justice would be so insane and that to do so would go against the Constitution.
All in all, a book well worth reading, but take care you either will love it or drop it.
I look forward to Jaffa's sequel A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM, An incredibly dense, wellresearched book that covers the LincolnDouglas debates in a truly full manner, Jaffa does an excellent job explaining the thought of and differences between both men, while providing a work which thoroughly covers not just the debates, but all the major divisions of the prewar era.
His exhaustive thoroughness is sometimes exhausting and sometimes repetitive, Just how many times did the Mexican origin to New Mexico's antislave laws need to be discussed Still, I am certainly more knowledgeable now.
Finished Douglas back for Lincoln after some lighter reading, Early counter attack against the Bumbling Generation and needless war themes in Civil War studies, It still has a strong case, Though it is old it is important reading for serious Lincoln studies and a counter to the mythic antiLincoln bashing still common in very conservative circles.
One of the most important books on Lincoln technically the LincDoug Debates of the lastyears, Quite simply the finest work of American political science in theth century, Jaffa does not hesitate to deploy his enormous erudition and compositional talent against various dominant schools of historical and philosophical thought several do not survive the encounter.
Lincoln emerges in all his glory,
One warning: Jaffa is a bold writer of great power and subtlety, The reader would do well to maintain a certain detachment from his pedagogic charms, lest he be carried away, Once you read this book, youll never look at the LincolnDouglas debates the same way again, Jaffas explication of the issues is incomparable, The highlight of the book, however, is his interpretation of the Lyceum Address, which contextualizes Lincolns understanding of the Declaration and his later role in preserving the American experiment in selfgovernment.
This could be required reading for anyone interested in American history, Overlong and undershort some of the vocabulary hasnt aged super well in fifty years, Whoever said this is the greatest Lincoln book ever is right, but it is probably a bit more than that.
The influence that Jaffa has had on my own political thinking has been considerable, not least because it offered a deeply conservative viewpoint that had a very high view of virtue, a high view of charitable and sympathetic reading of political thinkers and other writers in general, as well as a high degree of respect and regard for the importance of egalitarianism to the American and biblical traditions which I hold so near and dear.
This particular book was also greatly influential to me because of its structure in the way that it sets up a case for Douglas' thinking as sympathetically as possible and then shows how Lincoln answers the challenges of his revisionist critics for his preCivil War behavior and remains an example for us today.
This book consists of four parts that last for more thanpages, After acknowledgements and a preface the book contains an introduction that looks atas being a crisis in historical judgment that viewed the LincolnDouglas debates as unimportantas well as the alternatives present in Illinois between Lincoln and Douglas in.
The second part of the book then consists of Jaffa making the best case for Douglas by discussing slavery, manifest destiny, the legal power and practical impotence of federal prohibitions of slavery in the territories, the question of the the superseding of the Missouri Compromise by the Compromise of, the intentions of Douglas in passing the KansasNebraska act, and the tragedy of the extremism that resulted.
After that the author discusses the political education of Abraham Lincoln III by giving a detailed discussion of his views on political salvation in the Lyceum speechand on political moderation in the temperance address.
The book then ends with Jaffa's tour de force case for Lincoln IV with chapters on the legaland politicaltendencies towards the expansion of slavery, the intrinsic evil of repealing the Missouri compromise, the universal meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the form and substance of political freedom in the modern world, what was true and false about popular sovereignty, the abstract and political meanings of equality, the natural limits of slavery expansion, the Republican fidelity to Lincoln's principles after, and the end of manifest destiny, after which there are two appendices that discuss some historical background to the debates i as well as some notes on the Dred Scott decision ii before an index.
It is remarkable that inthat ordinary people in Illinois were willing to sit out for three hours of political speeches from two political candidates where instead of being promised various aspects of aid and assistance for the government there was a detailed policy discussion of issues of the spread of slavery in the Union and how it related to the policy of the three branches of government.
It is hard to imagine very many contemporary politicians on any level that would be capable of focusing their attention on matters of basic philosophical importance or an audience that would be able to listen attentively to such matters without finding it to be too wonkish and boring.
That said, we are all the better for having had such debates recorded for us to read and for having Professor Jaffa speak so eloquently about what is at stake to remind us that the questions of liberty and the legitimacy of popular regimes and the morality that legitimizes such regimes are questions that remain with us today and that we would do well to think more about in such times as we now experience where faith in ourselves is so unwarranted and faith in our institutions is so imperiled.
.
Douglas was a political giant of his time, driving political issues of the day, with a virulent dedication to an expansive and aggressive policy of manifest destiny and a determination to save the Union in the face of the looming national conflict over slavery and its extension outside the South.
His solution, aggressively promoted, was “popular sovereignty” coupled with a personal indifference to slavery, Douglas doctrine of popular sovereignty meant nothing more than that in a democracy, justice is the interest of the majority strength makes right.
On the other hand, Lincoln insisted that the case for popular government depended upon a fundamental standard of right and wrong independent of mere opinion thus one not justified by merely counting votes.
Lincoln lauded Jefferson for incorporating in the Declaration an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, that all men are created equal.
This abstract truth transcended time and history, Douglas denied any such thing, and yet, as Lincoln showed, if the natural rights are meaningless as would be so under popular sovereignty then it is equally meaningless to tackle issues that abstract truth would address, such as whether slavery is good or bad, whether the cause of the Union was just, or, as the author points out, whether Churchill or Hitler were right or wrong in their respective causes.
Jaffa explains, and interprets, both mens arguments and underlying philosophies and the crushing effect Lincoln had in the end.
Lincoln not only destroyed Douglas standing with critical political elements such as the Freesoil North, but also the proslavery Southern wing of the Democrat Party, reducing him to a minority candidate when he ran for President in.
. . and elevating Lincoln to his successful election, Jaffa delves deeply into the underlying principles and beliefs of both men, In the process, he also destroys the revisionist historical argument that took hold in the first half of theth Century as an outgrowth of the “noble lost cause” argument for the South that ignored slavery as a factor in the war.
Remember, this was written inand represents a devastating rebuttal of the revisionists then holding influence with their arguments that slavery was dying out and Lincolns case against it was manufactured for political gain.
Nothing could be more false, as Jaffa lays out convincingly,
Lincoln was a master of the language, a deep and inciteful thinker and a forceful true believer in greater truths as the basis for just and honest government.
He was the first to identify and correlate the abstract and irreducible natural rights of the Declaration as the fundamental basis for the creation of our republican form of government with the implementation of the Constitution.
His historical stature only continues to grow, Jaffa does him great justice, An important philosophical look at the issues for political scientists, but it's dated and highhandedly boring at times, A book of superb legal and philosophic analysis, though reading it today one is put off by the degree to which it is fixated on historiographic disputes of thes.
Jaffa undertakes a thorough but mostly fair defense of Abraham Lincoln, prepresidency, against historians of his day who were taking the side of Stephen Douglas and his "popular sovereignty" doctrine.
Lincoln's star has risen somewhat since this work's original publication perhaps in no small part BECAUSE of this work's publication.
But its careful reading and contextualization of Lincoln's speeches, as well as a shorter preceding explication of Douglas's point of view, remains sharp and still relevant today.
The book does presume a fairly hefty preknowledge of the life and career of Abraham Lincoln and the major political controversies of thes not merely a basic understanding of "popular sovereignty," "Bleeding Kansas" and "Dred Scott" but details of particular speeches and the exact path certain laws took through Congress.
The book is still readable with a moderate historical background, but the occasional omission of important context combines with its already intricate political philosophy to make this a pretty tough slog, though always fascinating.
This scholarly book delves deeply into the differences between Lincoln and Douglas's political philosophy, The book provides many amazing insights on both a micro and macro level and sets forth the differences in a way that still reverberate in today's political environment.
Douglas sounds a lot like the noncrazy version of very conservative republicans and Lincoln, well he's Lincoln,
Jaffa does the reader a favor by taking Douglas' arguments seriously, saving him from the's version of George Wallace.
Douglas, Jaffe argued, was truly dedicated to the theory of local rule, He thought anything requirement from the federal government on slavery would amount to the tyranny that the founders fought to escape.
For Douglas, "we the people" was the founding and ultimate principle, His noncommittal attitude toward slavery made sense given his official position if people should decide why should Douglas care, Yet, Jaffe indicates that Douglas did think that his method would eliminate slavery, Most recent new states were nonslavery and the proportion of slave states was much less than when the union started.
This raises the question were both Lincoln and Douglass shooting for the same aim of eliminating slavery through different means, with Douglass having the better or at least as reasonable good argument.
Well, no. First Jaffe discounts Douglass arguments saying that the new nonslave states were influenced by the fact that federal gov did prohibit slavery.
Yet, in the end the real debate is about the proper role of government particularly the federal government.
For Douglass, we the people democracy was an end to itself, Not so for Lincoln. For him, it was “all men are created equal” that had to be the guide that democracy strove toward, While Lincoln was true to the spirit of the original meaning, yet expanded the meaning, Jaffa argues that Lincoln expands the spirit, The original intent of the declaration was in line with Lockes negative rights the minimalist amount of rights needed to be free from a dictator.
Lincoln sets the declaration as an aspiration something that can never quite be reach but must always be striven to.
Lincoln understands that democracy qua democracy was not an organizing principle to hold a union together of people to govern themselves.
The book is written for academia and gets into a level of detail that most readers dont need.
Jaffa is also engaging in arguments with other academics that is not really all that interesting, Yet, the parts that are relevant are brilliant, For those interested in political philosophy and the role of government this is a must read, The ultimate guide to the LincolnDouglas debates and a mustread for anyone interested in U, S. history. An extremely rich, but dense look at the LincolnDouglas debates by Harry Jaffa, Not something to rip through, which I did not, it took me nine months of definitions, notes, and rabbit holes.
I'm glad that I stuck with it and the highest praise that I could make is that I'm ready to start it all over.
That being said, there are other books on this subject that I wish to hit before I come back to it.
Originally published inthat seems a world away, almost as far as the debates themselves, Apparently the big thought of that era was Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War and Jaffa develops both sides of this line of thinking.
To my mind, and I'm no expert here, Jaffa comes down as Douglas and his supporters by not acting and by avoiding dealing with the moral question end up causing the war.
A few examples of my view:
'When Senator Foote of Mississippi had ininvited Senator Hale of New Hampshire to visit Mississippi and grace the highest tree in the forest there which earned him the sobriquet of Hangman Foote, Hale responded by inviting Foote to New Hampshire, where he assured him a respectful hearing in every town and hamlet.
' p
'In his Chicago speech of July,, Lincoln sounded a theme which echoed through the debates, He spoke of the annual celebration of independence, as he always loved to do, in terms which suggest nothing so much as the Feast of the Passover, celebrating the deliverance of the Hebrew people from Pharaoh's Egypt, or of Easter, celebrating the deliverance of the world from original sin.
' p.
"Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a save himself.
" Lincoln p.
'We would say that opinion in Illinois inwas probably about as favorable to Negro citizenship as opinion in Arkansas today is favorable to public school integration.
' p.
Douglas tends to try and dodge and weave his way through avoiding the slavery question, When Lincoln ask Douglas if he would support the Supreme Court ruling that slavery was wrong Douglas doesn't answer the question, but attempts to hide behind a statement that no justice would be so insane and that to do so would go against the Constitution.
All in all, a book well worth reading, but take care you either will love it or drop it.
I look forward to Jaffa's sequel A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM, An incredibly dense, wellresearched book that covers the LincolnDouglas debates in a truly full manner, Jaffa does an excellent job explaining the thought of and differences between both men, while providing a work which thoroughly covers not just the debates, but all the major divisions of the prewar era.
His exhaustive thoroughness is sometimes exhausting and sometimes repetitive, Just how many times did the Mexican origin to New Mexico's antislave laws need to be discussed Still, I am certainly more knowledgeable now.
Finished Douglas back for Lincoln after some lighter reading, Early counter attack against the Bumbling Generation and needless war themes in Civil War studies, It still has a strong case, Though it is old it is important reading for serious Lincoln studies and a counter to the mythic antiLincoln bashing still common in very conservative circles.
One of the most important books on Lincoln technically the LincDoug Debates of the lastyears, Quite simply the finest work of American political science in theth century, Jaffa does not hesitate to deploy his enormous erudition and compositional talent against various dominant schools of historical and philosophical thought several do not survive the encounter.
Lincoln emerges in all his glory,
One warning: Jaffa is a bold writer of great power and subtlety, The reader would do well to maintain a certain detachment from his pedagogic charms, lest he be carried away, Once you read this book, youll never look at the LincolnDouglas debates the same way again, Jaffas explication of the issues is incomparable, The highlight of the book, however, is his interpretation of the Lyceum Address, which contextualizes Lincolns understanding of the Declaration and his later role in preserving the American experiment in selfgovernment.
This could be required reading for anyone interested in American history, Overlong and undershort some of the vocabulary hasnt aged super well in fifty years, Whoever said this is the greatest Lincoln book ever is right, but it is probably a bit more than that.
Crisis of the House Divided is the standard historiography of the LincolnDouglas debates, Harry Jaffa provides the definitive analysis of the political principles that guided Lincoln from his reentry into politics inthrough his Senate campaign against Douglas in.
To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the original publication, Jaffa has provided a new introduction,
"Crisis of the House Divided has shaped the thought of a generation of Abraham Lincoln and Civil War scholars.
"Mark E. Needly, Jr. , Civil War History
"An important book about one of the great episodes in the history of the sectional controversy.
It breaks new ground and opens a new view of Lincoln's significance as a political thinker, "T. Harry Williams, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences
"A searching and provocative analysis of the issues confronted and the ideas expounded in the great debates.
A book which displays such learning and insight that it cannot fail to excite the admiration even of scholars who disagree with its major arguments
and conclusions.
"D. E. Fehrenbacher, American Historical
The influence that Jaffa has had on my own political thinking has been considerable, not least because it offered a deeply conservative viewpoint that had a very high view of virtue, a high view of charitable and sympathetic reading of political thinkers and other writers in general, as well as a high degree of respect and regard for the importance of egalitarianism to the American and biblical traditions which I hold so near and dear.
This particular book was also greatly influential to me because of its structure in the way that it sets up a case for Douglas' thinking as sympathetically as possible and then shows how Lincoln answers the challenges of his revisionist critics for his preCivil War behavior and remains an example for us today.
This book consists of four parts that last for more thanpages, After acknowledgements and a preface the book contains an introduction that looks atas being a crisis in historical judgment that viewed the LincolnDouglas debates as unimportantas well as the alternatives present in Illinois between Lincoln and Douglas in.
The second part of the book then consists of Jaffa making the best case for Douglas by discussing slavery, manifest destiny, the legal power and practical impotence of federal prohibitions of slavery in the territories, the question of the the superseding of the Missouri Compromise by the Compromise of, the intentions of Douglas in passing the KansasNebraska act, and the tragedy of the extremism that resulted.
After that the author discusses the political education of Abraham Lincoln III by giving a detailed discussion of his views on political salvation in the Lyceum speechand on political moderation in the temperance address.
The book then ends with Jaffa's tour de force case for Lincoln IV with chapters on the legaland politicaltendencies towards the expansion of slavery, the intrinsic evil of repealing the Missouri compromise, the universal meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the form and substance of political freedom in the modern world, what was true and false about popular sovereignty, the abstract and political meanings of equality, the natural limits of slavery expansion, the Republican fidelity to Lincoln's principles after, and the end of manifest destiny, after which there are two appendices that discuss some historical background to the debates i as well as some notes on the Dred Scott decision ii before an index.
It is remarkable that inthat ordinary people in Illinois were willing to sit out for three hours of political speeches from two political candidates where instead of being promised various aspects of aid and assistance for the government there was a detailed policy discussion of issues of the spread of slavery in the Union and how it related to the policy of the three branches of government.
It is hard to imagine very many contemporary politicians on any level that would be capable of focusing their attention on matters of basic philosophical importance or an audience that would be able to listen attentively to such matters without finding it to be too wonkish and boring.
That said, we are all the better for having had such debates recorded for us to read and for having Professor Jaffa speak so eloquently about what is at stake to remind us that the questions of liberty and the legitimacy of popular regimes and the morality that legitimizes such regimes are questions that remain with us today and that we would do well to think more about in such times as we now experience where faith in ourselves is so unwarranted and faith in our institutions is so imperiled.
.