Lincoln Shows His Stuff: The Freeport Doctrine

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
On August 27, 1858, in the second Lincoln-Douglas debate at Freeport, IL, Stephen A. Douglas declared that, contrary to the Dred Scott decision of The Supreme Court, the people of a territory did indeed have the power to allow or prohibit slavery in their territory prior to statehood. In saying this, Douglas managed to alienate people on both sides of the slavery issue (particularly pro-slavery folks) and the statement would contribute to his loss of the presidency in 1860. Douglas would not have had an easy road to victory regardless of his stance on slavery in the territories because he had built up a reputation on both sides of the Mason Dixon line for being luke warm about the slavery issue in general. His sticking to his "popular sovereignty" philosophy, though principled, was the main factor in his undoing. Voters on both sides apparently wanted their candidate to take one side or the other on the slavery question and Douglas kept his feet firmly planted smack in the middle.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
One of the interesting things about the Freeport Doctrine was the hook that Lincoln stuck Douglas with by asking a question. During the debate, Lincoln asked Douglas how he could reconcile "popular sovereignty" with the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision - i.e., owners are allowed to take their slaves into the territories whether the people of the territory liked it or not. If Douglas backed down on popular sovereignty and supported the Dred Scott decision he would make the south happy. But if he stuck to his popular sovereignty guns, he would completely alienate the south. Douglas' answer was an unsuccessful attempt to please everybody. The people who later underestimated Lincoln's political acumen should have studied these debates more carefully.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
What? That (slavemaster) Douglas statue hasn't been vandalized or removed yet?

Stand by.
Well, Lincoln didn't debate himself. Couldn't get rid of Douglas without tossing Abe as well.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Well, Lincoln didn't debate himself. Couldn't get rid of Douglas without tossing Abe as well.
Or, a remaining statue of a debating Lincoln remains entirely valid. Ditching the Douglas statue doesn't void the occasion of the debate at all.

I'm not for removing anything, but Freeport is a diverse community and the civic leaders there are beholden to their constituents. From a black person's perspective: "A statue of a slavemaster that my children pass by in a public park in my town? Nah."

I'm just sayin' -- Stand by.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Or, a remaining statue of a debating Lincoln remains entirely valid. Ditching the Douglas statue doesn't void the occasion of the debate at all.

I'm not for removing anything, but Freeport is a diverse community and the civic leaders there are beholden to their constituents. From a black person's perspective: "A statue of a slavemaster that my children pass by in a public park in my town? Nah."

I'm just sayin' -- Stand by.
Except that statue commemorates the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln spoke in response to Douglas' questions and vice versa. There is no context with just a statue of Lincoln.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Except that statue commemorates the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln spoke in response to Douglas' questions and vice versa. There is no context with just a statue of Lincoln.
Or, had there only ever been a statue of a debating Lincoln no one would assume missing context. It still commemorates the event.

In Illinois there are many statues depicting particular modes for Lincoln -- splitting rails, reading a book, making a legal presentation etc. A statue of Lincoln in debating mode stands on its own merit just like any of those other poses. (Nobody would assume missing context in his splitting rails, his reading a book, or in his making a legal presentation. Likewise, no apparent missing context in a statue of Lincoln in debating mode).

That you, in hindsight of having seen the set of statues, feel that something would be amiss if the Douglas one was gone is fair enough, but it's not any kind of master rule of statuary. Unless I lived there I'd refrain from pushing what Freeport can or can't do with their symbols in their town.

btw, what if it was the Lincoln figure removed? Would anyone see anything amiss in a debating Douglas figure if they hadn't ever seen the set? No.
 
Last edited:

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Or, had there only ever been a statue of a debating Lincoln no one would assume missing context. It still commemorates the event.

In Illinois there are many statues depicting particular modes for Lincoln -- splitting rails, reading a book, making a legal presentation etc. A statue of Lincoln in debating mode stands on its own merit just like any of those other poses. (Nobody would assume missing context in his splitting rails, his reading a book, or in his making a legal presentation. Likewise, no apparent missing context in a statue of Lincoln in debating mode).

That you, in hindsight of having seen the set of statues, feel that something would be amiss if the Douglas one was gone is fair enough, but it's not any kind of master rule of statuary. Unless I lived there I'd refrain from pushing what Freeport can or can't do with their symbols in their town.

btw, what if it was the Lincoln figure removed? Would anyone see anything amiss in a debating Douglas figure if they hadn't ever seen the set? No.
Yes. And if frogs had wings . . . Why would there ever have NOT have been statues of both men? And Freeport DID do with their symbols in their town. They put up the statue of which I posted the picture to which you grossly overreacted.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Yes. And if frogs had wings . . . Why would there ever have NOT have been statues of both men? And Freeport DID do with their symbols in their town. They put up the statue of which I posted the picture to which you grossly overreacted.
...and now they could take out one of the statues, no great earth-shattering consequence to it. The event remains commemorated as always - the plaque needn't go away.

Calm observations. Let's allow Freeport to react or not.
 
Last edited:

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
...and now they could take out one of the statues, no great earth-shattering consequence to it. The event remains commemorated as always - the plaque needn't go away.

Calm observations. Let's allow Freeport to react or not.
Seems you are the one who wants the statue altered. You have turned a thread about the Freeport Doctrine into a one-man referendum on a statue. Let's get back to the thread theme, please.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Seems you are the one who wants the statue altered...
or,
...I'm not for removing anything...
I'm ok with getting back to the thread theme, not that discussing statues commemorating one of the events at which the Freeport Doctine was famously enunciated was so far off-topic.
 
Last edited:
Top