Prompt: What if Abe Lincoln challenged Henry David Thoreau to a debate? It’s late 1858. Abraham Lincoln has lost the US Senate race to Stephen Douglas but is itching for more debate. He writes Henry David Thoreau to challenge him to a debate over their ideas about American democracy, citizenship, and slavery in the United States. Thoreau accepts.

Your assignment is as follows: 2-3 pages – Writing as either Lincoln or Thoreau (you get to pick), draft a brief opening statement that he would deliver to start the debate, identifying his specific points of disagreement with the other. What ideas of Thoreau’s would Lincoln challenge, or vice versa? How would he explain his own views? Base your knowledge of each man’s views on our assigned readings. Be specific about lines and ideas that your chosen debater would pick out to challenge from his opponent.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is reasonable to suppose why we are gathered here today. Perhaps it is to witness my opening statement or that of my challenger. To preface, an offer was graciously extended to me in order to debate with none other than Abraham Lincoln. Truth be told, I accepted with hesitancy, not because of the topics concerning democracy, citizenship, and slavery that will be argued, but because of the persuasive challenger Lincoln himself.

While I am sure he is a formidable opponent, I do not know the validity of his intentions as some of them “align” with mine. The fact of the matter is that he had a debate similar to this one and lost to the current senator Stephan Douglas. However, I certainly hope Lincoln does not deem me as a comparable rematch.

With great anticipation, I would like to first explain my own views further in comparison to Lincoln’s. My personal views on American democracy are somewhat opposite to his. In my opinion, the individual’s belief is manifested in the government which has not taken place. To illustrate, a representative democracy otherwise known as a republic has the potential to call into power those representing their own agenda versus the will of the people. This defeats the purpose of calling this country democratic if the popular vote can be overthrown by the electoral college. I do not blame any particular person or group but rather the system in and of itself, leading the only way to actively see change is to rebel civilly. 

Second, my challenger believes in the majority rule as in his perspective, it is only fair if the minority does not come into power since they have lost. It is not as simple as creating “victors” and the “defeated” since each individual deserves to exercise their right and freedom in a way that is just and will not cause harm to one another. My question to Lincoln is, since he believes the government has the right to nonconsensually force citizens to participate in something that directly goes against their morality?   

If people continue to fund violent colonialism such as the Mexican-American war, as mentioned in my work, there is no stopping the spread of enslavement and discrimination. 

America has normalized using human beings as machinery in order to build the economy on the exploitation of specifically Black people in this country. I am neither enslaved nor a member of the community to experience their pain, but I am an abolitionist. Our values are to always stand firm on the Declaration of Independence in that all men are created equal. With that said, although our country takes pride in upholding American values, currently the government does hold true to American values. Significant progress has yet to have been made, therefore, I should not be expected to blindly follow the majority if it goes against my personal values. 

In summary, I have always advocated for civil disobedience and never giving into pressure of any kind. If it particularly conflicts with one’s personal beliefs, the best direction to follow is to be a non-violent advocate. Over the years, I proved it not with words but action, even sacrificing my freedom. With a final observation, if Lincoln says for himself to be on the side against slavery then why has he not called himself an abolitionist? Such hesitancy should be called into question.