Wisdom of History

The Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln: Overcoming Stephen Douglas

In every great novel, the protagonist must prove his greatness by fighting and overcoming a powerful antagonist. In the life of Abraham Lincoln, this antagonist was Stephen Douglas. . . . In 1858, they engaged in a series of debates that attracted huge crowds and lasted for hours. These events are remembered as “The Lincoln/Douglas Debates”. In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, it’s good to remember that Lincoln and Douglas DEBATED each other. They didn’t SHOOT each other. When the traitors and rebels of the Confederacy resorted to violence by bombarding Fort Sumter with its Star-Spangled Banner, Stephen Douglas raced to the White House [where his old political rival, Abraham Lincoln, was President]. He pledged his support—and the support of all Democrats—to join with the Republicans to save the Union.

In my book Visions of America, I showed how Lincoln established that liberty and the Union are one and inseparable, now and forever, by overcoming three men with different visions of America: Stephen Douglas, George McClellan, and Robert E. Lee.

—Stephen Douglas was willing to sacrifice the liberty of people of color to maintain the Union.

—George McClellan was willing to sacrifice the liberty of people of color to maintain the Union; and

—Robert E. Lee was willing to sacrifice the Union in order to maintain the liberty of white people.

At first, Abraham Lincoln was willing to sacrifice the liberty of people of color in order to maintain the Union. But eventually, he realized that the only way to save the Union or liberty, was to establish both the Union and liberty for ALL people.

Therefore, Lincoln had to overcome Douglas, McClellan and Lee.

In this blog, I show how Lincoln overcame Douglas. As I wrote in my book Visions of America, at page 68-70:

In every great novel, the protagonist must prove his greatness by fighting and overcoming a powerful antagonist. In the life of Abraham Lincoln, this antagonist was Stephen Douglas. . . .

Lincoln and Douglas courted the same woman, Mary Todd. . . . [S]he “flirted outrageously” with Douglas, but she married Lincoln. Years later, when someone dared to compare her husband unfavorably to Douglas, she shot back: “Mr. Lincoln may not be as handsome a figure . . . but the people are perhaps not aware that his heart is as large as his arms are long.”

[I]n startlingly contrast to the setbacks and ill fortune that seemed to haunt Lincoln’s life, Douglas quickly became admired and powerful. This must have irked Lincoln more than any other difference between the two men.

. . . Within a few years, Douglas became a United States Senator. Within a few more years, Douglas became the most powerful man in the Senate.

By comparison to such triumphs, Lincoln’s mundane political career was a disappointing mediocrity. He served about a decade in the Illinois legislature. Like a typical politician, he passed legislation that helped his supporters’ economic interests—such as banks and railroads. And, like a typical politician, he helped his supporters get government jobs.

Lincoln then served one term in Congress, doing nothing noteworthy. Worse yet, he alienated many of the voters back home by criticizing the way that President Polk manipulated events to start a war with Mexico in 1846.

President Polk’s war with Mexico ended in a stunning United States victory that forced Mexico to transfer about half of its territory, including California, to the United States. Elated voters and returning veterans did not want their consciences pricked by arguments that the United States was morally wrong for provoking the war. So Lincoln quietly retired from Congress and devoted himself to making money as a successful trial attorney. . . .

Then the furor over slavery transformed the life of Abraham Lincoln. (page 70).

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas continued to battle each other—steel against steel.

During the campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1858, they engaged in a series of debates that attracted huge crowds and lasted for hours. These events are remembered as “The Lincoln/Douglas Debates”. (pages 75-76).

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, it’s good to remember that Lincoln and Douglas debated each other. They didn’t shoot each other.

They stood for hours in front of vast crowds. In that culture, most everyone owned a gun and knew how to use it. But no one took a shot at either Douglas or Lincoln.

Their debates were resolved by elections.

Unfortunately, in the American Civil War, people eventually resorted to violence to resolve their disagreements. This violence is estimated to have killed or wounded 1.5 million people of whom about 700,000 people were killed.

There is no better argument for resolving differences through debates and elections, instead of through violence:

—700,000 people dead!

—1,000,000 more people wounded!

—Lincoln assassinated while sitting with his wife.

Such violence must be renounced by all Americans. By all of us who love both Liberty and the Union. By all of us who love the Star-Spangled Banner.

Stephen Douglas showed us this American Way.

When the traitors and rebels of the Confederacy resorted to violence by bombarding Fort Sumter with its Star-Spangled Banner:

Stephen Douglas raced to the White House [where his old political rival, Abraham Lincoln, was President]. He pledged his support—and the support of all Democrats—to join with the Republicans to save the Union. Yet, at that very moment, Stephen Douglas was dying. To save the Union, he spent the last months of his life making speeches that rallied the North to fight for the Union that Abraham Lincoln and he both loved.

(Visions of America, at page 82).

In this American Civil War, Americans learned the hard way that we must not resolve our differences through violence.

Americans learned the hard way—after killing 700,000 people and wounding almost a million more people—that we must resolve our differences solely by debates and elections, NEVER by violence.

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

Do you judge people by how good-looking they are? Or by how large their heart is? Why? Why not?

Do you judge people by the color of their skin? Or by the content of their character? Why? Why not?

Do you resolve disagreements by debates? Or by violence? Why? Why not?

Do you want to decide who leads America by elections? Or by violence? Why? Why not?

READ MORE

For related ideas, please read my blogs  Civilizations and Governments: Seeing, Hearing and Understanding Wisely” and “Building Houses on Rock: Mission Impossible?”.