Lincoln Vs Douglass Pros And Cons

It was the summer of 1858 when a series of seven debates between two senatorial candidates in Illinois began on the issue of slavery and the potential for its expansion into new territories. The two candidates, Abraham Lincoln, and Stephan A. Douglas, continuously battled until October of 1858 when the last debate was held in Alton, Illinois. A month later, Lincoln, among other Republican candidates won the popular election by 52% but the democratic-leaning state legislature chose to have Douglas return to the senate instead. These debates heavily influenced the 1858 congressional election. The seven debates between Lincoln and Douglas were heavily complex but one theme remained throughout- was slavery constitutional? Lincoln and Douglas both

Lincoln believed that black people were included in this thought, while Douglas argued that this was “monstrous heresy…The signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to the negro…[Did Thomas Jefferson] intend to say in the Declaration that his negro slaves, which he held and treated as property, were created his equals by Divine law, and that he was violating the law of God every day of his life by holding them as slaves?” (McPherson 184). While Douglas does make a good and convincing argument here, we must look at the constitution to understand where this argument falls flat. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight…”. In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson, whom Douglas uses in his argument, signs into law the banning of the importation and migration of slaves on January 1, 1808. While Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers did own slaves, they tended to follow the same philosophy as

He simply wanted the union to stay as it always had been and for territories to decide if they were to be free states or slave states. This sentiment did work for roughly eighty years at this point, why change it? Well, the evolution of the United States had split the country into a fragmented union with the issue of slavery seeping through the cracks. It was only a matter of time until succession or civil war broke out, and everyone knew it. For example, Succession was threatened by South Carolina since the 1830s over issues with tariffs. Tensions between the states had been slowly growing more and more agitated over time with the Lincoln-Douglas Debate slowly inching closer to its peak. What is truly ironic about Douglas’ argument would have to be how he advocates for the freedom and rights of states while ignoring the freedoms and rights of African-Americans. The people who used the constitution to defend slavery, like Douglas, twist the narrative, ignoring that the only time enslaved people are actually mentioned is when it talks of ending the slave trade. It regards slaves as property, unless they are taking count of the population then they are ⅗ of a person. When regarding the clause that talks of people who are bounded to servitude, it is referring to indentured servants because property can not be bound to servitude. The constitution cannot be pro-slavery or pro-slave state as