The True Test of the Soundness of Doctrine

I have long advocated for the destruction of the modern “debate” system used in our political campaigns. First, we do not have “debates” today. We have zinger contests and sound bite festivals.

Even as a Talk Radio Show host, I refused to watch the debates because there is literally zero actual substance at all. Remember the famous Lloyd Bentsen “I knew Jack Kennedy and Senator, You’re no Jack Kennedy” zinger from 1988?

Of course, you do. But the real question is: to what point was the remark made in response?

Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

Did Bentsen’s famous put down of Dan Quayle address the point that Quayle was making (and, by the by, Quayle was correct)? That’s the kind of discourse to which our political debates have been reduced. And believe me, it’s only gotten worse since 1988.

I would support actual debates, but it would never work. Today’s politicians are utterly incapable of making any kind of cogent point that exceeds one hundred and forty characters or fifteen seconds of TV time.

The bigger problem is today politicians don’t have any actual positions. They have become waffles who are careful not to say anything that might offend or alienate anybody without committing to anything that they might have to actually support (or possibly oppose) later on. There will be nothing of any substance in the 2024 debates for any office, from President on down to our local Port of Brownsville seat.

Which is just sad, because once upon a time, when Americans had backbones and attention spans, debates were marvelous exercises in democracy and rhetoric. And it was today, August 21, in 1858, that the greatest of all these dialectics began.

It would be a series of seven debates, and even today they resonate across time. The Lincoln-Douglas debates remind us that men who hold hardline positions can be engaged in debate and not flame wars. To be certain, they will score “cheap debate points” along the way, but over the course of these debates, the voters would learn the deepest nuances of each of their positions. There would be an opportunity to gain insights and decide based not on physical appearances or popularity, but rather a complete understanding of exactly where each man stood.

The general assumption in history is that Lincoln “won” the debates. Ultimately his positions would become fulfilled, but not for almost another decade. Lincoln would lose the actual campaign, and Stephen A. Douglas re-elected as the Senator from Illinois.

In 1860, he would be the overwhelming choice of the Democratic Party (in those days known as “the Democracy”) to run for President. In that race, he would face Lincoln again. And the positions that he would stake out in the 1858 debates would be his undoing, costing him the support of the South, and consequently the Presidency.

On August 21, 1858, in the town of Ottawa, Illinois, history was made. The political atmosphere of the United States was rife with tension, and two men, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, faced off in what would be the first of seven debates. These debates, now legendary, would profoundly influence the trajectory of American politics. Today, we delve deep into the first of these encounters.

These debates were not for a presidential election; they were part of the Illinois Senatorial campaign of 1858. Douglas was the incumbent Democratic senator, and Lincoln was the Republican challenger. In a time before the mass media we’re accustomed to today, public debates were essential for candidates to share their viewpoints with the populace.

In Ottawa, a crowd of around 10,000 people (almost twice the town’s population) gathered. Each debate followed a format: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, the other for 90 minutes, and then the first speaker had a 30-minute rejoinder.

Douglas, having won the coin toss, chose to go first.

Douglas’s main platform was built around the doctrine of “Popular Sovereignty.” He argued that territories should decide for themselves whether to enter the Union as free or slave states. This, Douglas believed, was the most democratic approach. He also took this opportunity to accuse Lincoln of being an abolitionist and claimed that Lincoln’s views would disrupt the Union.

Douglas said, “I hold that the people of a territory can, by lawful means…exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state constitution.”

He also emphasized the Dred Scott decision, stating that territories had no right to exclude slavery, and essentially argued that regardless of personal views, citizens should respect the Supreme Court’s rulings.

Lincoln began his speech by clarifying that he was not an outright abolitionist, stating, “I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that; because I do not want a black woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife.”

However, he fundamentally opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories. He contended that America’s founders intended to place slavery on “the course of ultimate extinction.” Lincoln argued against the principle of popular sovereignty as advocated by Douglas, especially in the light of the Dred Scott decision. If territories had no right to exclude slavery as the decision stated, Douglas’s doctrine would be moot.

Lincoln also pointed out Douglas’s inconsistency. He asked how Douglas reconciled his support for popular sovereignty with the Dred Scott decision, which asserted that citizens had the right to take their property (including slaves) into the territories.

While no clear “winner” was declared in this first debate, it set the stage for the subsequent debates and spotlighted the deep divisions in the country over the issue of slavery. Both men articulated their arguments eloquently, representing the broader divisions within the nation.

This debate was not just about a Senate seat; it was a reflection of the ideological battle that would culminate in the Civil War. The Lincoln-Douglas debates remain a testament to the power of public discourse in shaping the nation’s destiny.