Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate by David ZarefskyReview by: Kenneth CmielThe American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Apr., 1992), p. 617Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2165872 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 07:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.91 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:33:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

United States 617

Massacre. Brigadier General Thomas Ewing, Jr., is- sued an order for civilians to evacuate the border counties, which then were looted and virtually de- stroyed by Union soldiers.

There is much else of interest: the patronage of the American Art-Union, the distribution of the images through prints and photographs, the relationship between regional and national subject matter, and the differing perceptions of eastern and midwestern crit- ics. One could wish that the book began with fewer mixed metaphors and less hype, and that its chronol- ogy were clearer so that the reader immediately had the grasp of the subject that comes only with patient reading. The author convincingly elucidates both Bingham's politics and paintings and provides an interesting and unusual instance of the relationship between the two. The book should be of interest to students of American history, American studies, and art history.

MARLENE PARK

JohnJay College of CriminalJustice

DAVID ZAREFSKY. Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press. 1990. Pp. xiv, 309. $34.95.

This book by David Zarefsky, a professor of speech communications, is a thoughtful and stimulating ex- ploration of the argumentative strategies of the de- bates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. He argues that Lincoln and Douglas de- ployed four strains of argument. They both claimed conspiracy-Douglas thought Lincoln was plotting to bring abolition to the major political parties while Lincoln believed Douglas secretly hoped to spread slavery throughout the whole nation. Both also devel- oped complicated legal claims that moved from the specifics of Dred Scott to the question of judicial review and on to the issue of states' rights. History was a third source of contention. Douglas portrayed Lincoln's "House Divided" speech as a dangerous assault on past practice. The founders, Douglas as- serted, wanted the nation to survive half slave and half free. Lincoln, however, had his own historical claim, asserting that Douglas's notion of popular sovereignty in the 1850s subverted the great message of freedom in the Declaration of Independence. Finally, both made moral arguments. Douglas's mo- rality was procedural, residing in the practice of local self-government. Lincoln's morality was substantive, grounded in a firm belief that slavery was morally wrong.

The level of analysis is not done justice by this brief summary. Zarefsky's parsing of the four strands is careful, precise, and always persuasive. Even more ingenious is how Zarefsky sees these arguments relat- ing to each other. Explicit moral claims were danger- ous, he notes, because there was no common ground to mediate them. As a consequence, both debaters

shied away from overt discussion of basic values. Instead, because both men revered the constitution and nation, legal and historical arguments came to the fore, serving as "surrogates" for the deeper ethical disagreements. One of the most important lessons to learn from the debates, according to Zaref- sky, is how such "surrogate" debates allow discussion to continue despite incommensurable moral disagree- ments. When faced with sharply divergent moral positions (on abortion, for example), substantive de- bate can occur when framed around something that both sides accept (that the constitution should be the law of the land).

I have one quibble with this generally excellent work. Zarefsky rightly sees argument as the middle ground between scientism and irrationalism. But his careful dissection of the debates robs them of their excitement. In Zarefsky's hands the debates become bloodless, a calculated set of claims and counter- claims. The famous exchanges of 1858 wind up sounding very much like what I was taught to do in high school debate. This misses the public drama, the aesthetic, indeed sensual delight in the sound of words that was available to nineteenth-century speak- ers and audiences. The Little Giant was a party pol, given to hard words and plain speaking. Lincoln was a high romantic, with flights of language that were as much a part of his speech as the logic-chopping strategies that Zarefsky uncovers. Zarefsky misses the blur of instrumental and expressive aspects of rheto- ric, emphasizing the former and ignoring the latter.

This small point aside, Zarefsky's book is a wonder- ful addition to the scholarship. If you believe that debate is an important value in and of itself (as opposed to simply believing your side should win in whatever way possible), then Zarefsky has said some- thing useful about democratic theory as much as the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

KENNETH CMIEL

University of Iowa

JANET SHARP HERMANN. Joseph E. Davis: Pioneer Patri- arch. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. 1990. Pp. xii, 196. $22.95.

This biography of the older brother of Jefferson Davis begins with justifications for its writing. For historians not deeply interested in the personal life of the Confederate president those justifications may seem inadequate. Janet Sharp Hermann's study does contain an interesting account of how abundant money and superb political connections cushioned the shocks of Civil War for an aging, strong-willed patriarch. But her contention that Joseph E. Davis's influence on his younger brother warrants a biogra- phy is not supported by the study she has done. And her insistence that Davis's patriarchy-real enough- was the result of his genuine affection for others is largely unpersuasive. His life may have been, as she

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW APRIL 1992

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.91 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:33:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions