If people could not elect senators in 1856 why did Lincoln and Douglas debate in front of the public?

Answer 1

Prior to 1913 and the passage of the 17th Amendment ordinary males over age 21 (excluding Native Americans) COULD vote for president and state representatives but not for Senators. But back in 1858, as in all other local elections, a lot of influence was exerted by candidates on the general populace in hopes they would elect state representatives that would in turn elect certain senators.

As Lincoln and Douglas held their series of debates in October 1858 they were hoping to accomplish two things:

1. Drum up support among Illinois state representatives to vote for them for senator.

2. To draw attention to their platforms in hopes of securing the presidency in 1860. This worked very well for Lincoln but for Douglas his Freeport Doctrine ended up alienating southern voters and he did poorly in the 1860 presidential election.

And there you have it.

Answer 2

The public did not directly vote for U.S. senators in Illinois and in other states at this time. But they did vote for the state legislators, who then would vote for the Senate.

Therefore, Lincoln and Douglas debated throughout Illinois. If the Republicans had won a majority of seats, Lincoln would have become senator. However, the Democrats won the majority, and elected Douglas senator.

AS AN ASIDE, if you had added up the population of each legislative district, Lincoln would have gotten more popular votes. But it was not decided by popular vote, but by the votes of the individual state legislators.

Therefore, the debates were important and had a great impact on the election of the Illinois legislature.

Answer 3

The debates weren't a complete waste of time. It's true that prior to 1913 U.S. senators were elected by state legislatures. But the members of those legislatures were themselves up for election every two or four years. In theory, therefore, a candidate for U.S. Senate might attempt to affect the outcome of the vote in the legislature by (a) securing his party's nomination, and then (b) convincing the public to elect his party's candidates to seats in the state house and senate.

Answer 4

Unlike today, politicians and the educated were often called upon to discuss their opinions in public settings in the past. In fact, debates were quite common in the 1800's, as scientists, lawyers, politicians and the like would wax philosophic, debate, or just plain argue to the amusement and interest of the audience. In a time where many were still illiterate, debates were a source of becoming informed on issues that were commonly only written about. Also, debating was a good means of getting your message spread to many people as opposed to writing a book, seeing as many of those who would arrive to watch your debate hadn't ever seen a book aside from the Bible.

A lot of what we view on television today, in regards to political posturing, liberal and conservative "spin" debates, and scientific inquiry, used to be primetime viewing for the 19th century public as well. Lincoln and Douglass debated in public, like many of their time, to discuss the problems and possible solutions of slavery and reunification in front of the common people. In doing so, they allowed what would now be considered "back room conversation" to take place right in the face of the people, who could form their own opinions over what was said.

Now let me make this perfectly clear: these were not the debates we are used to seeing. Unlike modern presidential debates, which are more about being a sycophant and bow to your donors, these were REAL discussions. Very little was taboo in a debate, as the fellow across the stage might bring up just about anything. As such, it paid to be a brilliant individual. I would wager most debaters of that time would still talk circles around the people we consider eloquent now.

If you can ever get a copy of the transcripts of these debates, get it. You'll get an interesting insight into how issues that at the time were as devisive and controversial as terrorism and gay marriage are now, being talked about plainly and honestly. It's rather refreshing nowadays.