House Divided according to Shmoop

[Amy L.]

Okay, the vast vast internet has for sure plenty of Lincoln-fodder. I find this page interesting tho. Good for those with College-Prep students, maybe.
Shmoop analysis of the Lincoln-Douglas debates -

On this specific page, questions for discussion of the House Divided Speech :

2. Given Lincoln's audience, why do you think he used [this past event in particular] to convince them of his argument?
3. How accurate was Lincoln's assessment of the progression of events? Was the North really in danger?
4. How does Lincoln use the recent past to illustrate both why the North is in trouble and why there was hope?

https://www.shmoop.com/historical-texts/house-divided-speech/memory-past-theme.html
Should be "Schmoop," says the lady in Austria

[RJNorton]

RE: the House Divided Speech...I think Lincoln thought the opponents of the spread of slavery were getting too complacent, and he tried to rouse them up by saying the pro-slavery forces were actually a conspiracy. I think he felt people feared conspiracies, and his use of that term was meant to force Republicans to do more in their opposition, otherwise slavery would become nationalized and be legal everywhere in the USA. Personally, I doubt there was an actual slave conspiracy trying to nationalize slavery, but Lincoln felt his mentioning this possibility would strike fear into the Republicans' hearts and force them to be more active and united in their opposition to the spread of slavery throughout the country.

[L Verge]

One of my college professors (many years ago) shocked us by saying that Lincoln's whole purpose in those debates was to destroy the political power of Stephen Douglas. Not being a serious student of Lincoln's politics, that pretty much sums up my memories of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates!

However, I understand that a college professor by the name of Harry Jaffa wrote a very good book on the subject, so I went searching. I did not read all of the preview text that is included on this site -- and as a former teacher, I expect any students to do their own research -- but see what you think about this source:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1010...se_Divided

[Amy L.]

Ok, so the point of the speech was perhaps to distinguish Lincoln from Douglas, as any politician does, and was done most excellently here.

Well, I have no proof (have not read enough), but I believe the conspiracy idea came from people like Sumner, and maybe Chase uttered something along those lines...
So maybe there was no Slavocracy conspiracy, but, as with the Abolitionists, there was a pressure and movement in a certain direction which was unfortunately successful.
If the Supreme Court could include a biased agenda in the Dred Scott case, the US could certainly awake up one morning to find slavery legal everywhere.
States'-rights when convenient, Federal power also when convenient. I cannot image how Whigs/Repub again and again acquiesced. ... But I again digress.

I'm surprised in my haphazard reading, that I haven't come across a more aghast response to this conspiracy theory. ...

I shall look into the Jafa book, thank you Verge!
And the Fehrenbacher book is very good, thank you for the suggestion Roger.

[Amy L.]

Here is perhaps an answer to my question (put to Roger Norton), asking - What is Slave Power and the talk of conspiracy in Lincoln's House Divided Speech? -

In reference to Elizabeth Varon's book - ARMIES OF DELIVERANCE: A NEW HISTORY OF THE CIVIL WAR (2019)
From The Nation's / James Oaks' commentary :

"... Varon repeatedly describes the Slave Power as a “conspiracy theory.” It was no such thing. The Slave Power was the name antislavery Northerners gave to something most historians recognize as very real—the disproportionate power exercised by the slaveholders over every branch of the federal government. From 1790 to 1860, nearly every president was either a slaveholder or a proslavery Northerner. The Supreme Court was dominated by proslavery justices. The House of Representatives and the Electoral College were skewed by the Constitution’s three-fifths clause, which enhanced Southern political influence over Congress and the presidency. The foreign-policy apparatus was dominated by imperial-minded slaveholders and their allies. This was the Slave Power, and its opponents had clear and convincing explanations for the source of its strength and compelling reasons for wanting to destroy it."

https://www.thenation.com/article/civil-...ok-review/

[L Verge]

(08-28-2019 05:38 AM)Amy L. Wrote:  Here is perhaps an answer to my question (put to Roger Norton), asking - What is Slave Power and the talk of conspiracy in Lincoln's House Divided Speech? -

In reference to Elizabeth Varon's book - ARMIES OF DELIVERANCE: A NEW HISTORY OF THE CIVIL WAR (2019)
From The Nation's / James Oaks' commentary :

"... Varon repeatedly describes the Slave Power as a “conspiracy theory.” It was no such thing. The Slave Power was the name antislavery Northerners gave to something most historians recognize as very real—the disproportionate power exercised by the slaveholders over every branch of the federal government. From 1790 to 1860, nearly every president was either a slaveholder or a proslavery Northerner. The Supreme Court was dominated by proslavery justices. The House of Representatives and the Electoral College were skewed by the Constitution’s three-fifths clause, which enhanced Southern political influence over Congress and the presidency. The foreign-policy apparatus was dominated by imperial-minded slaveholders and their allies. This was the Slave Power, and its opponents had clear and convincing explanations for the source of its strength and compelling reasons for wanting to destroy it."

https://www.thenation.com/article/civil-...ok-review/

I hope to have time later to read the article you linked to, but it brought one idea to mind. Has anyone considered the early Northern influence on Slave Power, where quite a few became wealthy from slave trade and also using slaves during the 18th and early-19th centuries? Did the "house divide" when one side of the house no longer saw a profit in the venture?

[RJNorton]

Some folks interpreted Lincoln's speech as a call for war. Was this his intent? Was the speech too radical? Any opinions?

[Amy L.]

No. I am of the opinion that Lincoln was consistent, and that the speech was not a call to arms, but an urgent warning, and a case against trusting Douglas.

Might I ask conversely, if possible to give a synopsis, what were the agruments that this 1858 speech were so directly inflammatory? How might Lincoln be blamed for the war?

I was surprised to read yesterday from the book recommended by Verge:
“Lincoln, in the campaign of 1858… formulated [the] body of Republican doctrine…” (“Crisis of the House Divided….” by Harry Jaffa (pg. 20))
That's pretty powerful; I only assumed the doctrine was echoed...

(Thank you for trying to keep the theme going, Roger. I gotta read more...)

[RJNorton]

Amy, I think some people felt Lincoln was telling the North that the South and the "slave conspiracy" forces (led by Douglas) were trying to nationalize slavery. In other words, they were trying to make slavery legal in all states. Lincoln felt the Republicans simply could not allow for this possibility. He said "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free." I think one interpretation of this was that the North may have to fight to ward off the nationalization of slavery. I think Lincoln meant this mainly in political terms, but some folks chose to think he was calling for a war to prevent the expansion of slavery. Even some of Lincoln's friends thought his speech was too radical.

[Amy L.]

I have finished Jaffa's 'Crisis of the House Divided'!

Phew! Sorry, I must congratulate myself, not because I could not follow most of the chapters on the Missouri Compromise, but... it was an effort.
With lots of fascinating insights - Like the religion of Politics for Lincoln, and the battle between those with an affinity for the British (Whigs turned Republican) vs. those with affinities for the Irish (Democrats)...

Alas, I put the book down without a definitive opinion on whether what looked from a distance like "timbers joined together... [to] make the frame of a house" was in fact a conspiracy, EXCEPT in the notes (p. 422) Jaffa quotes " 'While no 'conspiracy' was concocted between [Buchanan] and Taney, he did let key members of the Court know just what kind of decision he wanted, and just why he wanted it...  [Buchanan] had long thought that politics should govern [the Court].' Emergence of Lincoln II [by Curtis and McLean], p 477.  Among the definitions given by Webster [dictionary] of 'conspiracy' is the following: ' Combination of men for a single end; concurrence or general tendency, as of circumstances, to one event; harmonious action.' We believe the candid reader will find sufficient evidence to support Lincoln's conspiracy charge..."

Hey - If I might comment as it relates to who's responsible for the 'irrepressable', inevitable war - If Douglas hadn't run, Dem votes wouldn't have been further divided.

[mbgross]

I always thought Jaffa was a genius.