Why Harry Jaffa would puke if he saw those in Claremont, CA, who pretend to revere his name; from "Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates"
Brad, you have been on a roll lately with excellent and thoughtful commentary. This is a particularly appropriate choice to demonstrate the stylistic and moral differences between Douglas and Lincoln. I am always amazed at how Douglas wove complex and elegant arguments devoid of decency that withered in the face of Lincoln’s simple logic and moral consistency.
I assumed that slavery would die because it was not economically viable, but I've forgotten the basis for that assumption. What if slavery continued in the US? Would slavery have spurred more aggressive US expansion, which included slavery? The world would indeed be a much worse place.
I hope you will expand on this provocative idea in media with a wider readership.
Why is this expansionist-imperialist program of the antebellum South, and its enablers in the North, so little remembered or remarked upon in public discussions of our history? Certainly the very fact of slavery, and the moral revulsion to it, pretty much occupies the mind, but the Southern plans for conquest were just as revolting, considering what they intended to do with conquered lands. But while I knew of this, I never knew of Douglas' position on conquest, or that he was so dismissive of "mongrels." I'm not an uneducated person, but this is shocking news to me. The parallels to the Nazi program are glaringly and immediately obvious, as is the dreadful affect it would have had on the American experiment, and ultimately upon world history. It also puts into context Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican-American War, and the South's headlong rush to succeed even before Lincoln was inaugurated. Maybe I just slept through class? Maybe its conveniently considered alternate history not worthy of serious study? Maybe we recoil at describing Southerners as proto-Nazis?
This is a data point on a long time question of mine. Why was the South willing to go to war over the legal possibility of the EXPANSION of slavery. And the North that expansion could only be stopped by political and ultimately military force?
Bravo.
Spot on about Lincoln, about Douglas, and about Jaffa. His book is, indeed, both great and crazy.
James Oakes
Brad, you have been on a roll lately with excellent and thoughtful commentary. This is a particularly appropriate choice to demonstrate the stylistic and moral differences between Douglas and Lincoln. I am always amazed at how Douglas wove complex and elegant arguments devoid of decency that withered in the face of Lincoln’s simple logic and moral consistency.
Douglas = Putin?
I wish this rhyming scheme would go away.
And, once again...THIS is why I subscribe to this substack.
I assumed that slavery would die because it was not economically viable, but I've forgotten the basis for that assumption. What if slavery continued in the US? Would slavery have spurred more aggressive US expansion, which included slavery? The world would indeed be a much worse place.
I hope you will expand on this provocative idea in media with a wider readership.
Why is this expansionist-imperialist program of the antebellum South, and its enablers in the North, so little remembered or remarked upon in public discussions of our history? Certainly the very fact of slavery, and the moral revulsion to it, pretty much occupies the mind, but the Southern plans for conquest were just as revolting, considering what they intended to do with conquered lands. But while I knew of this, I never knew of Douglas' position on conquest, or that he was so dismissive of "mongrels." I'm not an uneducated person, but this is shocking news to me. The parallels to the Nazi program are glaringly and immediately obvious, as is the dreadful affect it would have had on the American experiment, and ultimately upon world history. It also puts into context Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican-American War, and the South's headlong rush to succeed even before Lincoln was inaugurated. Maybe I just slept through class? Maybe its conveniently considered alternate history not worthy of serious study? Maybe we recoil at describing Southerners as proto-Nazis?
This is a data point on a long time question of mine. Why was the South willing to go to war over the legal possibility of the EXPANSION of slavery. And the North that expansion could only be stopped by political and ultimately military force?