Why I read the book: I’m a Lincoln junkie because 1) I’m from Illinois, and he’s accessible, 2) I’ve always been a Civil War fan, and 3) as a writer, I admire his use of the English language.

What the book was about: During the summer and fall of 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, candidates for the U.S. Senate, engaged in a series of seven debates in various congressional districts in Illinois. Their speeches were printed in newspapers around the state and around the country. But the printed speeches weren’t exactly what had been said. The candidates and reporters and editors sympathetic to them corrected and polished their own speeches to make them look better.

Holzer has hit upon the device of printing Lincoln’s speeches as printed in pro-Douglas papers and Douglas’s speeches as printed in pro-Lincoln papers. He argues that this results in texts as close as possible to the originals.

The speeches themselves concentrated on slavery and whether it should be allowed in territories before the become states. From this base, the candidates debated the Dred Scott decision, states’ rights and the founding fathers’ intent regarding Blacks.

Lincoln had the moral high-ground on slavery and Black rights, but not by a great deal. He said that Blacks were not equal to whites but did have certain rights. Douglas held that rights were reserved for Whites alone.

What I liked about the book: It gave a good picture of the political scene in the United States three years before the start of the Civil War. Holzer’s introduction and short sections opening each debate painted a fun picture of life in the mid-1800s. I enjoyed the battle in the debates themselves — two talented, intelligent men sparring for public opinion with arguments much more detailed and thought-provoking than anything seen in presidential debates today.

What I didn’t like about the book: The debates did get boring at times. A lot of the ground covered over and over again can be summarized thusly:

Douglas: Lincoln preaches equal rights for Blacks in the northern part of Illinois, but in the South he sings a different tune.

Lincoln: I do not.

Douglas: Yes you do.

Crowd: Hit him again!

Lincoln: I do not. And besides, your policies will eventually result in slavery spreading into all the states.

Douglas: No they don’t.

Lincoln: Yes they do.

Douglas: No they don’t. And I once saw the Negro Frederick Douglass riding in a carriage with a White man — and the White man’s wife and daughter.

Crowd: Gasp!

The most interesting quotes:

• On Lincoln’s speaking style: His voice was “exceedingly penetrating,” Schurz attested, granting that at best, its tone was “not positively disagreeable.” As for Lincoln’s manner of “enlivening a speech,” — “he would, to give particular emphasis to a point, bend his knees and body with a sudden downward jerk, and then shoot up again with a vehemence” — Schurz remembered that it made him look even “taller than he really was.”

• Lincoln’s stand on Blacks: I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition on this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

• Lincoln’s humor: The fraud having been apparently successful upon that occasion, both Harris and Douglas had more than once been attempting to put it to new uses, as the woman said when her husband’s body was brought home full of eels, and she was asked what should be done with him, she said take the eels out and set him again.

• A banner paraded in favor of Lincoln: Lincoln Not Trotted Out Yet. [?????]

• Some Douglas irony (unintentional): If the people of a territory want slavery they have a right to have it … I hold that there is no principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of freedom than that which says that no institution, no laws, no constitution, should be forced upon an unwilling people contrary to their wishes.

• Douglas’s stand on Blacks: I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to the negro at all, when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean negroes nor the savage Indian, nor the Fejee Islander, nor any other barbarous race — they were speaking of white men. I hold that this government is established on the white basis. It was established by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others.

Recommendation: I gave it an 8, so if you’re a fan of politics or history or Abraham Lincoln, then yes, I’d recommend it. If you want something of a summary of the debates without having to wade through all seven, I’d recommend you read the seventh one, from Alton. If you want to see the two men slugging it out, read the sixth one, from Quincy.

I don’t think it’s necessary to read an unexpurgated (see below) edition. The whole deal about the speeches being a lot cruder and sloppier than the printed versions is, in my opinion, much ado about nothing.

Further Comments: Every time I picked up this book to read, I was distracted by that word in the sub-title — UNEXPURGATED. What a hilarious word. It means “not having material deleted.”
• So EXPURGATED means “having material deleted.”
• I did a Google search, and no definitions were found for PURGATED.

But it got me to wondering:
• If you didn’t delete materials on two separate occasions, would your text be REUNEXPURGATED?
• If you didn’t delete materials but did so incorrectly, would it then be MISUNEXPURGATED?
• If you didn’t delete them but did so incorrectly on purpose, would you be sent to UNEXPURGATORY?