Author: Noah Cook
On August 21, 1858, a gaunt and soft-spoken Republican from Illinois took center stage in his bid for Senator to debate about the Union’s first existential threat: slavery.
This man was Abraham Lincoln, and he argued against the pre- eminent Stephen A. Douglas over issues like popular sovereignty, free soil doctrines, and the immensely controversial Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision. [1] These debates generated epic spectacles; the telegraph, railroad, and significance of the candidates’ arguments drew crowds of up to 20,000 people. [2] Political polarity over slavery, which had proliferated since the nation’s founding, was galvanized by the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. By pressing the exigent questions regarding American nationhood, Lincoln and Douglas did not forestall the eventual war, but they did force the nation to confront its existential impasse. Lincoln and Douglas approached slavery from their opposing sides with modesty and erudition to create an environment where ideas that were never- theless contentious could be presented to audiences in a clear and direct fashion. It is crucial to examine these debates for what they can teach us about moderate civil discourse in our age where ad hominem retorts, media vitriol, and personality flair are prioritized over substantive argumentation. Civil discourse is at its best when the debate format requires a focus on relevant content and demands personal rather than third party moderation.
At its heart the U.S. Constitution was a compromise between abolitionist and pro-slavery sentiments expressed at the Convention of 1787. [3] But what began as a legal bargain in the late 18th century soon transformed into a perfervid moral debate regarding America’s socio-economic trajectory. The culmination of this tension was pressed through Lincoln and Douglas who argued on behalf of their oppugnant camps. Those in the Illinois crowd watched each debate begin with an hour-long statement from one candidate, an hour and a half-long response from the other, and a half hour rebuttal from the first candidate. [4] There was no moderator and no give-and-take between candidates. [5] Audiences were treated to lengthy, focused, and cohesive monologues. By comparison, the 2024 Republican presidential primary debate provided a candidate “one minute to answer each question” posed by a moderator, and 30 seconds for fol- low-up questions. [6] Structured like argumentative lectures, the Lincoln-Douglas Debates placed an emphasis on substance over style. While the debates were still filled with personal retorts, the time format prevented either candidate from abusing quippy language or belittling accusations and instead demanded coherent, relevant arguments. Ad hominem attacks were averted not just by the orators’ restraint but also by the format of the debates, which Lincoln and Douglas had agreed to beforehand. [7]
While starkly opposed, Lincoln and Douglas were able to find common ground. In Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln stated
that he did “not expect the Union to be dissolved,” but that he expected it would “cease to be divided.” [8] Lincoln here approached slavery with an urgency that acknowledged the country’s divisions; the future Union would inevitably resemble only one of the debaters’ visions of America, but it could not sustainably prolong both. Douglas’ advocacy for popular sovereignty was also grounded in his commitment to maintaining the Union. Douglas espoused the view that the U.S. government was “made on the white basis by white men.” [9] Douglas argued at the Freeport debate that the government was established for the benefit of white men and appealed to a shared understanding of the nation’s more racist principles. Political debates, exemplified by Lincoln-Douglas, should test the strength of contrary ideas regarding the direction of the nation. Lincoln and Douglas were against the Union’s dissolution, but the Union’s survival was contingent on one of their opposing visions triumphing over the other.
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates must be juxtaposed with contemporary political debates to understand how political dis- course has changed, and how we can apply the lessons learned from this comparison. Contemporary political discourse is large- ly influenced by partisan news and social media, both of which circumvent moderation and the articulation of nuanced ideas in exchange for rapid fire identity politics. The 2020 U.S. presidential debates—which are models for televised contemporary debates—between Donald Trump and Joe Biden were characterized by personal attacks and interruptions rather than relevant policy discussions. [10] The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a nonprofit, nonpartisan debate network that hosted the Trump- Biden Debates, framed the debates around fifteen minute segments with two minute answers from each candidate for the first question, and open discussion for the rest of the segment. [11] The deficiencies in this style of debate prevailed during the open discussion; each candidates began to deploy accusations that the opposing candidate was forced to rebut. For example, Biden accused Trump of trying to “generate racist hatred” and “division.” Trump accused Biden of being “a liar,” and inculpated Biden’s family of corruption. [12] The pil- lories bandied between candidates wasted time, were unfocused, and failed to address the moderator’s questions. By focusing on the ruination of an opposing candidate, polarity is inflamed, and it becomes impossible to find the middle ground through civil, argumentative discourse.
Of course, Lincoln and Douglas too were not immune to the allure of ad hominem attacks. In Jonesboro, Illinois, Douglas referred to Lincoln as part of a “bee-hive of abolition- ists” in an attempt to frame Lincoln as radical and out of touch with mainstream society. [13] Douglas also accused Lincoln of inconsistency and dishonesty for not “boldly and openly” saying “whether he is for or against” popular sovereignty. [14] Lincoln too accused Douglas of “blowing out the moral lights around us,” painting Douglas as an enemy of progress and national morality. [15]
Perhaps it is unfair to compare the Lincoln-Douglas Debates to contemporary debates by virtue of the latter’s peripheral technological influences absent in 1858. But the U.S.’s ideological schism in the time of Lincoln-Douglas resembles modern political polarity over a gamut of issues like healthcare, immigration, climate change, abortion, etc. [16] The Lincoln-Doug- las Debates were more effective than modern political debates precisely because of their format. The erudite, well-researched monologues required by the Lincoln-Douglas format demanded cohesive arguments. By comparison, the Trump-Biden Debates provided an atmosphere that encouraged slanderous ripostes; these debates became denigration competitions rather than policy-testing disputes. What the Lincoln-Debates managed to preserve in the spirit of civil discourse is now overshadowed by partisan bickering and ideological echo chambers prevalent in society and reinforced by poorly formatted political debates.
Modern civil discourse is encumbered by failed at- tempts at moderation. Moderation requires a commitment to civility and a willingness to engage with opposing ideas. Exam- ples like the 2020 U.S. presidential debates reveal the limitations of moderation when candidates prioritize personal attacks over substantive discussions. Moderation, as evidenced by Lincoln and Douglas, does not require the installation of a moderator. As a concept, moderation must be reframed in the context of personal restraint rather than moderation by a third party. Lincoln and Douglas, despite some pointed ad hominem attacks,
exercised moderation in criticism. The addition of a moderator at political debates implies that discourse cannot be healthily conducted without external arbitration. This distrust in the inherent civility of debaters restrains candidates from exercising their own moderation and effectively qualifies the polarity of American society. If a moderator is necessary in political de- bates, organizations like the CPD, Fox News, and CNN vindicate the extremism and intemperance of American politics, which reinforces polarity.
Navigating the middle ground in political discourse is difficult, but not impossible. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates underscore the importance of the middle ground and debate struc- ture. To foster moderation and nuanced discussions in political debates, debate format must be institutionally re-engineered to promote restraint of the kind exercised by Lincoln and Doug- las. By embracing civil discourse, we can strive for constructive political dialogues that honor the spirit of moderation exempli- fied by history while meeting the demands of our contemporary political landscape.
Works Cited
[1] The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Lincoln-Douglas Debates | Unit- ed States History,” in Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/event/Lincoln-Douglas-debates.
[2] History.com Editors, “Lincoln-Douglas Debates,” History (A&E Television Networks, August 21, 2018), https://www.history.com/top- ics/19th-century/lincoln-douglas-debates.
[3] See Migration and Importation Clause
[4] History.com Editors, “Lincoln-Douglas Debates.”
[5] “Seven Facts You Should Know about the Lincoln-Douglas Debates,” ThoughtCo, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/seven-facts-about-the-lin- coln-douglas-debates-1773569.
[6] Maggie Astor, “No Opening Statements, One Minute for Answers: The Debate Format,” August 23, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/us/ politics/republican-debate-rules.html.
[7] “Seven Facts You Should Know about the Lincoln-Douglas Debates,”
[8] “‘First Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858’ in ‘the Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, v. 3’ | Northern Illinois University Digital Library,” digital.lib.niu.edu, n.d., https://digital.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu- lincol- n%3A36541, 213.
[9] Ibid., 216.
[10] “CPD: September 29, 2020 Debate Transcript,” www.debates.org, Sep- tember 29, 2020, https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/septem- ber-29-2020-debate-transcript/.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] “‘Third Joint Debate at Jonesboro, Illinois, September 15, 1858’ in ‘the Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, v.4’ | Northern Illinois University Digital Library,” digital.lib.niu.edu, accessed February 20, 2024, https:// digital.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln%3A34931.
[14] “‘Sixth Joint Debate, at Quincy, Illinois, October 13, 1858’ in ‘the Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, v. 4’ |Northern Illinois University Digital Library,” digital.lib.niu.edu, n.d., https://digital.lib.niu.edu/islan- dora/object/niu-lincoln%3A36741.
[15] “‘First Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858’ in ‘the Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, v. 3’ | Northern Illinois University Digital Library,” 256.
[16] Geoffrey Skelley, “3 in 10 Americans Named Political Polarization as a Top Issue Facing the Country,” FiveThirtyEight, June 14, 2022, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/3-in-10-americans-named-political- polarization-as-a-top-issue-facing-the-country/.