Opposing Positions on Slavery in the Lincoln–Douglas Debates

The August heat pressed down on the crowd gathered in Ottawa, Illinois, as Stephen Douglas stepped to the platform and declared that the nation could endure permanently half slave and half free. Abraham Lincoln, waiting his turn, looked out at the thousands who had traveled by wagon and rail to hear two lawyers argue about whether one human being could own another. For three hours that afternoon, and six more times across Illinois that summer and fall, these men presented starkly different answers to the question tearing America apart.

Douglas defended popular sovereignty, the idea that each territory's white settlers should vote on slavery for themselves. Lincoln insisted that slavery was morally wrong and must not spread beyond where it already existed. Their debates drew crowds of up to fifteen thousand people, far more than would vote in the Senate election they contested, because Americans recognized that these opposing positions represented two incompatible visions of their country's future.

The immediate context for these debates was Douglas's reelection campaign for his Illinois Senate seat, with state legislators choosing senators before the Seventeenth Amendment. Douglas had angered fellow Democrats by opposing the Lecommons Constitution, which would have admitted Kansas as a slave state against the will of most settlers there, yet he still believed territories should decide slavery themselves. Lincoln, challenging him as a Republican, had gained national attention the previous year by declaring that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which Douglas had championed, had overturned the Missouri Compromise and opened northern territories to slavery through popular sovereignty. Violence in Kansas between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers had already shown that Douglas's solution settled nothing. By 1858, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision had declared that Congress could not prohibit slavery in territories, contradicting the Republican platform entirely.

Douglas built his position on the principle that local self-government mattered more than any moral judgment about slavery. He argued that the Constitution left each state and territory free to choose its own institutions, and that forcing one region's values on another would destroy the Union. Douglas repeatedly told audiences that he did not care whether slavery was voted up or down, only that white citizens made the choice themselves. This position let him claim he defended democracy while avoiding the moral question of whether slavery was right. He also appealed directly to the racism of white voters, insisting that Republicans wanted racial equality and that popular sovereignty would keep both slavery and Black people out of Illinois and other northern states. Douglas painted himself as the moderate who could preserve the Union by letting the slavery question settle itself territory by territory. His long career in Congress and his role in the Compromise of 1850 gave him credibility as someone who had held the nation together before.

Lincoln rejected popular sovereignty as a dangerous evasion that treated slavery as morally neutral when it was actually a profound evil. He argued that the Founding Fathers had tolerated slavery only where it existed in 1787 and had expected it to eventually die out, noting that the Constitution never used the word "slavery" and that the Northwest Ordinance had banned it from the territories. Lincoln insisted that calling slavery wrong did not mean immediate abolition or racial equality, positions that would have alienated most Illinois voters. Instead, he argued for containing slavery within its current boundaries so it would gradually disappear as the founders intended. At Quincy, he challenged Douglas directly by asking how popular sovereignty could work after Dred Scott said territorial legislatures had no power to exclude slavery. Lincoln also attacked the logic of Douglas's position by pointing out that if popular sovereignty was truly sacred, then states should be able to vote slavery back into existence even in the North. He accused Douglas of conspiracy with Presidents Pierce and Buchanan and Chief Justice Taney to nationalize slavery by making it legal everywhere.

The debates revealed a deeper conflict about what democracy meant when applied to slavery. Douglas's popular sovereignty sounded democratic but gave slaveholders the power to bring their human property into any territory before settlers voted, making a fair vote nearly impossible as Kansas had shown. Lincoln's position seemed to limit democracy by preventing territories from choosing slavery, yet he argued that no majority had the right to enslave another group of people. At Freeport, Lincoln asked whether settlers could lawfully exclude slavery before statehood despite Dred Scott, and Douglas answered yes through unfriendly local legislation. This "Freeport Doctrine" helped Douglas win reelection by reassuring Illinois voters but destroyed his support in the South, splitting the Democratic Party in 1860. The debates also showed how thoroughly racism shaped political possibilities, as Lincoln felt compelled to deny supporting racial equality even while arguing that slavery was wrong. Both men accepted that white supremacy would continue; they disagreed only on whether that justified slavery itself.

Douglas won the 1858 Senate race when Illinois legislators chose him over Lincoln by a narrow margin, but Lincoln's performance made him a national figure and the Republican frontrunner for president. Two years later, the Democratic split over Douglas's Freeport Doctrine gave Lincoln the presidency with only forty percent of the popular vote, and Southern states began seceding. The opposing positions argued in small Illinois towns in 1858 became the opposing armies of 1861. Douglas had believed that avoiding moral judgment would preserve the Union, but Lincoln proved correct that the nation could not remain permanently half slave and half free. The debates mattered because they clarified that no compromise could bridge the gap between treating slavery as a local choice and treating it as a national wrong. Every attempt to find middle ground, from the Missouri Compromise to popular sovereignty to Dred Scott, had only postponed the confrontation and made it more violent when it came.

Did you like this example?

264

11