Summary of Harry V. Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided

By IRB Media

Please note: This is a companion version & not the original book. Book Preview:

#1 The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a clash of champions, but in reality, they were just two people arguing before a popular audience. The real worth of the debates cannot be judged just by popular tradition, which today is largely the tradition of the descendants of Lincoln’s camp.

#2 The consensus of more recent opinion contrasts sharply with the folklore surrounding Lincoln’s campaign speeches. Lord Chamwood, who wrote a famous memoir a generation after Rhodes, said that Lincoln had performed a work of intellectual merit beyond the scope of any American statesman since Hamilton.

#3 The work of revision is characterized by Randall in the preface to his masterpiece, the multi-volumed Lincoln the President, as follows: If sources are diligently re-examined, then by the same token the product may become revisionist.

#4 The impression is strong that the severe judgment on the merits of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, after generations had looked upon them as an intellectual and moral contest of the highest order, is a result of the rise and application of scientific historical method.

• Language: English
• Publisher: IRB Media
• Release date: Jun 13, 2022
• ISBN: 9798822539891

IRB Media

With IRB books, you can get the key takeaways and analysis of a book in 15 minutes. We read every chapter, identify the key takeaways and analyze them for your convenience.

Book preview

Insights on Harry V. Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided

Contents

Insights from Chapter 1

Insights from Chapter 2

Insights from Chapter 3

Insights from Chapter 4

Insights from Chapter 1

#1

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a clash of champions, but in reality, they were just two people arguing before a popular audience. The real worth of the debates cannot be judged just by popular tradition, which today is largely the tradition of the descendants of Lincoln’s camp.

#2

The consensus of more recent opinion contrasts sharply with the folklore surrounding Lincoln’s campaign speeches. Lord Chamwood, who wrote a famous memoir a generation after Rhodes, said that Lincoln had performed a work of intellectual merit beyond the scope of any American statesman since Hamilton.

#3

The work of revision is characterized by Randall in the preface to his masterpiece, the multi-volumed Lincoln the President, as follows: If sources are diligently re-examined, then by the same token the product may become revisionist.

#4

The impression is strong that the severe judgment on the merits of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, after generations had looked upon them as an intellectual and moral contest of the highest order, is a result of the rise and application of scientific historical method.

#5

The debate between Lincoln and Douglas was a crucial moment in the history of America, as it was the first time the nation was forced to choose between becoming all free or all slave. If Lincoln had accepted Greeley’s advice and the Illinois Republicans had supported Douglass’s return to the Senate, the nation might have gone down the path of civil war.

#6

Had Douglas led a new free-soil party in 1860, including Douglas Democrats as well as all the other principal ingredients of the combination that supported Lincoln in 1860, he might have won a much broader base of support than Lincoln did in the next presidential campaign.

#7

If the free-soil candidate of 1860 had won, it would have taken much more courage for the South to secede. The fact that a large minority voted against Lincoln in the free states helped convince the South that the North would never force them to remain in the Union.

#8

Lincoln was responsible for the split in the Democratic party, which led to the election of a Republican president in 1860. He also helped create the situation in which fanaticism and agitation could do their deadly work.

#9

The conclusion that Lincoln was not as different from Douglas as we have been taught is extremely harsh, but we can’t argue with the premises. We must ask whether there was any substantial difference between Lincoln’s policy and Douglas’s at the time of the debates.

#10

The distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental motives is a distinction that is made by historians to explain the past. But it is strange that Randall, who believes that the past should be viewed in the light of the opinions of a later and different age, makes this distinction.

#11

The difference between Lincoln and Douglas was not a small one, and it was immensely important for the form of the government in the territories to be in accordance with their respective beliefs about free political institutions.

#12

Lincoln believed that free government was, in principle, incompatible with chattel slavery. He argued that every concession made to Negro slavery weakened the attachment of white men to the charter of their own freedom, and prepared them to be subjects of the first tyrant who arose among them.

#13

Lincoln and Douglas both argued that the African Americans should not be given equal rights, but Douglas argued that they should be given rights equal to those of the white man, and that these rights should be decided by the states themselves.

#14

Douglas believed that the essence of free government lay in the ability of decision by free men on matters of vital importance to themselves. To deprive communities of free men of their power of decision over grave matters simply because they were grave was to attack the main ground of justification of both federalism and democracy.

#15

Lincoln argued that the issue of slavery was not about what laws were best for Negroes, but about whether or not slavery should exist at all in new territories.

#16

Lincoln was against popular sovereignty, which was the idea that the settlers in a newly acquired territory should decide whether or not they wanted slavery. He believed that this was an injustice, as