This is substantially all of his reply. While he offers a summary of each debate and a mix of quotations and paraphrases from the text, he is not particularly concerned with the internal workings of the text or the patterns of the debaters' argumentative and stylistic choices.
Could Congress go beyond the Constitution of the country?In the midth century, Senator Stephen Douglas seemed to be the nation's greatest hope for keeping the peace through the slavery crisis, and he was hoping to become president. When the whole matter turns out as it does, and when we consider who Judge Douglas is—that he is a distinguished Senator of the United States—that he has served nearly twelve years as such—that his character is not at all limited as an ordinary Senator of the United States, but that his name has become of world-wide renown—it is most extraordinary that he should so far forget all the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of that which the slightest investigation would have shown him to be wholly false. This is an inference I draw from the fact that, though he took part in the debate, his name does not appear in the ayes and noes. While summarizing each of the seven debates, Guelzo does not analyze the arguments in detail, nor does he trace the development of specific arguments across the series of debates presumably, activities that he regards as "technical rhetorical analysis". Senate seat from Illinois. Start your free trial today. Douglas attacked Lincoln on the House Divided speech and emphasized his belief in the democracy of popular sovereignty. But the specific institution of slavery has historically always been a source of disunion and discord. By foregrounding the campaign context, he de-emphasizes what is happening in the text. Yet as a member of Congress, I should not with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions: First, that the abolition should be gradual. What more could Mr.
I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the question of slavery, and when we have acquired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as they prefer.
In an effort to secure their own appointments to the U. Except for the brief disclaimer of racial equality, the bill occupied the entirety of his opening speech, and yet there is virtually no mention of it in any of the other debates.
First, Guelzo adds texture to our understanding of Douglas's political position after he broke with President James Buchanan over the Lecompton Constitution.
Lincoln thinks blacks and whites should be equal!
Are you [addressing Mr. Turner violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. You will find that this is a strict party vote, between the Democrats on the one hand, and the Black Republicans on the other.
When you say that we have to be all slave or all free, why, thems' fightin' words!
By analyzing the returns district by district, Guelzo discovered that of the total votes cast for House seats,were cast for Republicans, againstfor Democrats.
He believed in colonization, but admitted that it was impractical. Even before they began, Lincoln delivered his famous House Divided speech, in which he claimed that the nation could not continue to be half slave and half free, a point that his opponent continued to ridicule throughout most of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.