Assess the validity of the following statement: "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates presented the main arguments separating North and South and were a verbal rehearsal for the violent disputes which would break out in civil war three years later."
I think that the statement is not entirely valid. The first point would be that main arguments were presented in the Lincoln- Douglas debates regarding the role of slavery in the nation's future. However, the debates were very nuanced regarding the political logistics of slavery. Issues such as popular sovereignty, Constitutional intent, and the idea of how to appropriate reality in the face of the Dred Scott decision were freely debated. There was little absolutist discussion of Southern secession nor was there articulation that really spoke to the South. The issue of slavery and its future were discussed and debated in nuanced and politically logistic terms, language that was far removed from the Southern claims of secession and absolute rejection of the Union.
Another challenging area that the statement yields lies in the foretelling of the Civil War. Lincoln and Douglas disagreed, but their disagreements were verbal in nature and always revisited through discourse. Putting aside the violence in the Civil War, the fundamental rift between North and South could not be resolved through any reasonable notion. The North held the conviction that slavery was wrong or that the Union should remain intact. The South held the conviction that secession was the only answer to preserve cultural identity. In both convictions, there can be no debate or discussion. There was no room for nuanced discussion. The Lincoln- Douglas debates featured policy discussion and intricate analysis of legislative logistics. This was not the timbre or force of the Civil War disagreements that kept North and South on the different sides of the battlefield.