* * * * *

+---------------------------------------------------------------+| Transcriber's Note: || ||Original spellings and inconsistent hyphenation have been kept, ||including the earlier spelling variant Douglass. || |+---------------------------------------------------------------+

 * * * * *

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS:

A STUDY IN AMERICAN POLITICS

By ALLEN JOHNSON

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN BOWDOIN COLLEGE;SOMETIME PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN IOWA COLLEGE

New York

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1908

_All rights reserved_

 * * * * *

COPYRIGHT 1908

By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped. Published February 1908

THE MASON-HENRY PRESS SYRACUSE, N. Y. 

 * * * * *

To

PROFESSOR JESSE MACY

whose wisdom and kindliness have inspireda generation of students

PREFACE

To describe the career of a man who is now chiefly remembered as therival of Abraham Lincoln, must seem to many minds a superfluous, ifnot invidious, undertaking. The present generation is prone to forgetthat when the rivals met in joint debate fifty years ago, on theprairies of Illinois, it was Senator Douglas, and not Mr. Lincoln, whowas the cynosure of all observing eyes. Time has steadily lessened theprestige of the great Democratic leader, and just as steadily enhancedthe fame of his Republican opponent. 

The following pages have been written, not as a vindication, but as aninterpretation of a personality whose life spans the controversialepoch before the Civil War. It is due to the chance reader to statethat the writer was born in a New England home, and bred in ananti-slavery atmosphere where the political creed of Douglas could notthrive. If this book reveals a somewhat less sectional outlook thanthis personal allusion suggests, the credit must be given to thosegenerous friends in the great Middle West, who have helped the writerto interpret the spirit of that region which gave both Douglas andLincoln to the nation. 

The material for this study has been brought together from manysources. Through the kindness of Mrs. James W. Patton of Springfield, Illinois, I have had access to a valuable collection of letterswritten by Douglas to her father, Charles H. Lanphier, Esq. , editor ofthe Illinois _State Register_. Judge Robert M. Douglas of NorthCarolina has permitted me to use an autobiographical sketch of hisfather, as well as other papers in the possession of the family. Amongthose who have lightened my labors, either by copies of letters pennedby Douglas or by personal recollections, I would mention withparticular gratitude the late Mrs. L. K. Lippincott ("GraceGreenwood"); Mr. J. H. Roberts and Stephen A. Douglas, Esq. Of Chicago;Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller and the late Hon. Robert E. Hitt ofWashington. With his wonted generosity, Mr. James F. Rhodes has givenme the benefit of his wide acquaintance with the newspapers of theperiod, which have been an invaluable aid in the interpretation ofDouglas's career. Finally, by personal acquaintance and conversationwith men who knew him, I have endeavored to catch the spirit of thosewho made up the great mass of his constituents. 

Brunswick, Maine, November, 1907. 

CONTENTS

 BOOK I. THE CALL OF THE WEST

 CHAPTER I FROM THE GREEN MOUNTAINS TO THE PRAIRIES 3

 CHAPTER II THE RISE OF THE POLITICIAN 18

 CHAPTER III LAW AND POLITICS 51

 CHAPTER IV UNDER THE AEGIS OF ANDREW JACKSON 68

 CHAPTER V MANIFEST DESTINY 84

 CHAPTER VI WAR AND POLITICS 109

 CHAPTER VII THE MEXICAN CESSION 127

 BOOK II. THE DOCTRINE OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

 CHAPTER VIII SENATOR AND CONSTITUENCY 145

 CHAPTER IX MEASURES OF ADJUSTMENT 166

 CHAPTER X YOUNG AMERICA 191

 CHAPTER XI THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT 220

 CHAPTER XII BLACK REPUBLICANISM 260

 CHAPTER XIII THE TESTING OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY 281

 BOOK III. THE IMPENDING CRISIS

 CHAPTER XIV THE PERSONAL EQUATION 309

 CHAPTER XV THE REVOLT OF DOUGLAS 324

 CHAPTER XVI THE JOINT DEBATES WITH LINCOLN 348

 CHAPTER XVII THE AFTERMATH 393

 CHAPTER XVIII THE CAMPAIGN OF 1860 412

 CHAPTER XIX THE MERGING OF THE PARTISAN IN THE PATRIOT 442

 CHAPTER XX THE SUMMONS 475

BOOK I

THE CALL OF THE WEST

CHAPTER I

FROM THE GREEN MOUNTAINS TO THE PRAIRIES

The dramatic moments in the colonizing of coastal New England havepassed into song, story, and sober chronicle; but the farthermigration of the English people, from tide-water to interior, has beentoo prosaic a theme for poets and too diverse a movement forhistorians. Yet when all the factors in our national history shall begiven their full value, none will seem more potent than the greatracial drift from the New England frontier into the heart of thecontinent. The New Englanders who formed a broad belt from Vermont andNew York across the Northwest to Kansas, were a social and politicalforce of incalculable power, in the era which ended with the CivilWar. The New Englander of the Middle West, however, ceased to bealtogether a Yankee. The lake and prairie plains bred a spirit whichcontrasted strongly with the smug provincialism of rock-ribbed andsterile New England. The exultation born of wide, unbroken, horizonlines and broad, teeming, prairie landscapes, found expression in theoften-quoted saying, "Vermont is the most glorious spot on the face ofthis globe for a man to be born in, _provided_ he emigrates when he isvery young. " The career of Stephen Arnold Douglas is intelligible onlyas it is viewed against the background of a New England boyhood, ayoung manhood passed on the prairies of Illinois, and a wedded lifepervaded by the gentle culture of Southern womanhood. 

In America, observed De Tocqueville two generations ago, democracydisposes every man to forget his ancestors. When the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas was once asked to prepare an account of his career for abiographical history of Congress, he chose to omit all but the barestreference to his forefathers. [1] Possibly he preferred to leave thefamily tree naked, that his unaided rise to eminence might the moreimpress the chance reader. Yet the records of the Douglass family arenot uninteresting. [2] The first of the name to cross the ocean wasWilliam Douglass, who was born in Scotland and who wedded Mary Ann, daughter of Thomas Marble of Northampton. Just when this couple leftOld England is not known, but the birth of a son is recorded inBoston, in the year 1645. Soon after this event they removed to NewLondon, preferring, it would seem, to try their luck in an outlyingsettlement, for this region was part of the Pequot country. Somewhatmore than a hundred years later, Benajah Douglass, a descendant ofthis pair and grandfather of the subject of this sketch, pushed stillfarther into the interior, and settled in Rensselaer County, in theprovince of New York. The marriage of Benajah Douglass to MarthaArnold, a descendant of Governor William Arnold of Rhode Island, hasan interest for those who are disposed to find Celtic qualities in thegrandson, for the Arnolds were of Welsh stock, and may be supposed tohave revived the strain in the Douglass blood. 

Tradition has made Benajah Douglass a soldier in the war of theRevolution, but authentic records go no farther back than the year1795, when he removed with his family to Brandon, Vermont. There hepurchased a farm of about four hundred acres, which he must havecultivated with some degree of skill, since it seems to have yieldedan ample competency. He is described as a man of genial, buoyantdisposition, with much self-confidence. He was five times chosenselectman of Brandon; and five times he was elected to represent thetown in the General Assembly. The physical qualities of the grandsonmay well have been a family inheritance, since of Benajah we read thathe was of medium height, with large head and body, short neck, andshort limbs. [3]

The portrait of Benajah's son is far less distinct. He was a graduateof Middlebury College and a physician by profession. He married SallyFisk, the daughter of a well-to-do farmer in Brandon, by whom he hadtwo children, the younger of whom was Stephen Arnold Douglass, bornApril 23, 1813. The promising career of the young doctor was cut shortby a sudden stroke, which overtook him as he held his infant son inhis arms. The plain, little one-and-a-half story house, in which theboy first saw the light, suggests that the young physician had beenunable to provide for more than the bare necessities of his family. [4]

Soon after the death of Dr. Douglass, his widow removed to the farmwhich she and her unmarried brother had inherited from her father. Thechildren grew to love this bachelor uncle with almost filialaffection. Too young to take thought for the morrow, they led thewholesome, natural life of country children. Stephen went to thedistrict school on the Brandon turnpike, and had no reason to bemoanthe fate which left him largely dependent upon his uncle's generosity. An old school-mate recalls young Douglass through the haze of years, as a robust, healthy boy, with generous instincts though tenacious ofhis rights. [5] After school hours work and play alternated. Theregular farm chores were not the least part in the youngster'seducation; he learned to be industrious and not to despise honestlabor. [6]

This bare outline of a commonplace boyhood must be filled in with manydetails drawn from environment. Stephen fell heir to a wealth ofinspiring local traditions. The fresh mountain breezes had also onceblown full upon the anxious faces of heroes and patriots; the quietvalleys had once echoed with the noise of battle; this land of theGreen Mountains was the Wilderness of colonial days, the frontier forrestless New Englanders, where with good axe and stout heart they hadcarved their home plots out of the virgin forest. Many a legend ofadventure, of border warfare, and of personal heroism, was stillcurrent among the Green Mountain folk. Where was the Vermont lad whodid not fight over again the battles of Bennington, Ticonderoga, andPlattsburg?

Other influences were scarcely less formative in the life of thegrowing boy. Vermont was also the land of the town meeting. Whatevermay be said of the efficiency of town government, it was and is aschool of democracy. In Vermont it was the natural politicalexpression of social forces. How else, indeed, could the general willfind fit expression, except through the attrition of many minds? Andwho could know better the needs of the community than the commonalty?Not that men reasoned about the philosophy of their politicalinstitutions: they simply accepted them. And young Douglass grew up inan atmosphere friendly to local self-government of an extreme type. 

Stephen was nearing his fourteenth birthday, when an event occurredwhich interrupted the even current of his life. His uncle, who wascommonly regarded as a confirmed old bachelor, confounded the villagegossips by bringing home a young bride. The birth of a son and heirwas the nephew's undoing. While the uncle regarded Stephen withundiminished affection, he was now much more emphatically _in locoparentis_. An indefinable something had come between them. The subtlechange in relationship was brought home to both when Stephen proposedthat he should go to the academy in Brandon, to prepare for college. That he was to go to college, he seems to have taken for granted. There was a moment of embarrassment, and then the uncle told the lad, frankly but kindly, that he could not provide for his furthereducation. With considerable show of affection, he advised him to giveup the notion of going to college and to remain on the farm, where hewould have an assured competence. In after years the grown man relatedthis incident with a tinge of bitterness, averring that there had beenan understanding in the family that he was to attend college. [7]Momentary disappointment he may have felt, to be sure, but he couldhardly have been led to believe that he could draw indefinitely uponhis uncle's bounty. 

Piqued and somewhat resentful, Stephen made up his mind to live nolonger under his uncle's roof. He would show his spirit by provingthat he was abundantly able to take care of himself. Much against thewishes of his mother, who knew him to be mastered by a boyish whim, heapprenticed himself to Nahum Parker, a cabinet-maker in Middlebury. [8]He put on his apron, went to work sawing table legs from two-inchplanks, and, delighted with the novelty of the occupation andexhilarated by his newly found sense of freedom, believed himself onthe highway to happiness and prosperity. He found plenty of companionswith whom he spent his idle hours, young fellows who had a taste forpolitics and who rapidly kindled in the newcomer a consumingadmiration for Andrew Jackson. He now began to read with avidity suchpolitical works as came to hand. Discussion with his new friends andwith his employer, who was an ardent supporter of Adams and Clay, whetted his appetite for more reading and study. In after years he waswont to say that these were the happiest days of his life. [9]

Toward the end of the year, he became dissatisfied with his employerbecause he was forced to perform "some menial services in thehouse. "[10] He wished his employer to know that he was not a householdservant, but an apprentice. Further difficulties arose, whichterminated his apprenticeship in Middlebury. Returning to Brandon, heentered the shop of Deacon Caleb Knowlton, also a cabinet-maker; butin less than a year he quit this employer on the plea ofill-health. [11] It is quite likely that the confinement and severemanual labor may have overtaxed the strength of the growing boy; butit is equally clear that he had lost his taste for cabinet work. Henever again expressed a wish to follow a trade. He again took up hisabode with his mother; and, the means now coming to hand from somesource, he enrolled as a student in Brandon Academy, with the avowedpurpose of preparing for a professional career. [12] It was a wisechoice. Vermont may have lost a skilled handworker--there are thosewho vouch for the excellence of his handiwork[13]--but the Uniongained a joiner of first-rate ability. 

Wedding bells rang in another change in his fortunes. The marriage ofhis sister to a young New Yorker from Ontario County, was followed bythe marriage of his mother to the father, Gehazi Granger. Both couplestook up their residence on the Granger estate, and thither also wentStephen, with perhaps a sense of loneliness in his boyish heart. [14]He was then but seventeen. This removal to New York State proved to behis first step along a path which Vermonters were wearing toward theWest. 

Happily, his academic course was not long interrupted by thismigration, for Canandaigua Academy, which offered unusual advantages, was within easy reach from his new home. Under the wise instruction ofProfessor Henry Howe, he began the study of Latin and Greek; and byhis own account made "considerable improvement, " though there islittle evidence in his later life of any acquaintance with theclassics. He took an active part in the doings of the literarysocieties of the academy, distinguishing himself by his readiness indebate. His Democratic proclivities were still strong; and he becamean ardent defender of Democracy against the rising tide ofAnti-Masonry, which was threatening to sweep New York from itspolitical moorings. Tradition says that young Douglass mingled muchwith local politicians, learning not a little about the arts anddevices by which the Albany Regency controlled the Democraticorganization in the State. In this school of practical politics he wasbeyond a peradventure an apt pupil. 

A characteristic story is told of Douglass during these school days atCanandaigua. [15] A youngster who occupied a particularly desirableseat at table had been ousted by another lad, who claimed a betterright to the place. Some one suggested that the claimants should havethe case argued by counsel before a board of arbitration. Thedispossessed boy lost his case, because of the superior skill withwhich Douglass presented the claims of his client. "It was the firstassertion of the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, " said the defeatedclaimant, recalling the incident years afterward, when both he andDouglas were in politics. 

Douglass was now maturing rapidly. His ideals were clearer; his nativetastes more pronounced. It is not improbable that already he lookedforward to politics as a career. At all events he took the proximatestep toward that goal by beginning the study of law in the office oflocal attorneys, at the same time continuing his studies begun in theacademy. What marked him off from his comrades even at this period washis lively acquisitiveness. He seemed to learn quite as much byindirection as by persevering application to books. [16]

In the spring of 1833, the same unrest that sent the first Douglassacross the sea to the new world, seized the young man. Against theremonstrances of his mother and his relatives, he started for thegreat West which then spelled opportunity to so many young men. He wasonly twenty years old, and he had not yet finished his academiccourse; but with the impatience of ambition he was reluctant to spendfour more years in study before he could gain admission to the bar. Inthe newer States of the West conditions were easier. Moreover, he wasno longer willing to be a burden to his mother, whose resources werelimited. And so, with purposes only half formed and with only enoughmoney for his immediate needs, he began, not so much a journey, as adrift in a westerly direction, for he had no particular destination inview. [17]

After a short stay in Buffalo and a visit to Niagara Falls and thebattle ground of Chippewa, the boy took a steamboat to Cleveland, where happily he found a friend in Sherlock J. Andrews, Esquire, asuccessful attorney and a man of kindly impulses. Finding the cityattractive and the requirements for the Ohio bar less rigorous, Douglass determined to drop anchor in this pleasant port. Mr. Andrewsencouraged him in this purpose, offering the use of his office andlaw library. In a single year Douglass hoped to gain admission to thebar. With characteristic energy, he began his studies. Fate ruled, however, that his career should not be linked with the WesternReserve. Within a few days he was prostrated by that foe which thenlurked in the marshes and lowlands of the West--foe more dreaded thanthe redman--malarial typhoid. For four weary months he kept his bed, hovering between life and death, until the heat of summer was spentand the first frosts of October came to revive him. Urgent appeals nowcame to him to return home; but pride kept him from yielding. Afterpaying all his bills, he still had forty dollars left. He resolved topush on farther into the interior. [18]

He was far from well when he took the canal boat from Cleveland toPortsmouth on the Ohio river; but he was now in a reckless andadventurous mood. He would test his luck by pressing on to Cincinnati. He had no well-defined purpose: he was in a listless mood, which wasno doubt partly the result of physical exhaustion. From Cincinnati hedrifted on to Louisville, and then to St. Louis. His small funds werenow almost all spent. He must soon find occupation or starve. Hisfirst endeavor was to find a law office where he could earn enough bycopying and other work to pay his expenses while he continued his lawstudies. No such opening fell in his way and he had no letters ofintroduction here to smooth his path. He was now convinced that hemust seek some small country town. Hearing that Jacksonville, Illinois, was a thriving settlement, he resolved to try his luck inthis quarter. With much the same desperation with which a gamblerplays his last stake, he took passage on a river boat up the Illinois, and set foot upon the soil of the great prairie State. [19]

A primitive stage coach plied between the river and Jacksonville. Toofatigued to walk the intervening distance, Douglass mounted thelumbering vehicle and ruefully paid his fare. From this point ofvantage he took in the prairie landscape. Morgan County was then butsparsely populated. Timber fringed the creeks and the river bottoms, while the prairie grass grew rank over soil of unsuspected fertility. Most dwellings were rude structures made of rough-hewn logs anddesigned as makeshifts. Wildcats and wolves prowled through the timberlands in winter, and game of all sorts abounded. [20] As the stageswung lazily along, the lad had ample time to let the first impressionof the prairie landscape sink deep. In the timber, the trees werefestooned with bitter-sweet and with vines bearing wild grapes; in theopen country, nothing but unmeasured stretches of waving grass caughtthe eye. [21] To one born and bred among the hills, this broad horizonand unbroken landscape must have been a revelation. Weak as he was, Douglass drew in the fresh autumnal air with zest, and unconsciouslyborrowed from the face of nature a sense of unbounded capacity. Yearsafterward, when he was famous, he testified, "I found my mindliberalized and my opinions enlarged, when I got on these broadprairies, with only the heavens to bound my vision, instead of havingthem circumscribed by the little ridges that surrounded the valleywhere I was born. "[22] But of all this he was unconscious, when healighted from the stage in Jacksonville. He was simply a wayworn lad, without a friend in the town and with only one dollar and twenty-fivecents in his pocket. [23]

Jacksonville was then hardly more than a crowded village of log cabinson the outposts of civilized Illinois. [24] Comfort was not among thefirst concerns of those who had come to subdue the wilderness. Comfortimplied leisure to enjoy, and leisure was like Heaven, --to be attainedonly after a wearisome earthly pilgrimage. Jacksonville had beenscourged by the cholera during the summer; and those who had escapedthe disease had fled the town for fear of it. [25] By this time, however, the epidemic had spent itself, and the refugees had returned. All told, the town had a population of about one thousand souls, amongwhom were no less than eleven lawyers, or at least those who calledthemselves such. [26]

A day's lodging at the Tavern ate up the remainder of the wanderer'sfunds, so that he was forced to sell a few school books that he hadbrought with him. Meanwhile he left no stone unturned to findemployment to his liking. One of his first acquaintances was MurrayMcConnell, a lawyer, who advised him to go to Pekin, farther up theIllinois River, and open a law office. The young man replied that hehad no license to practice law and no law books. He was assured thata license was a matter of no consequence, since anyone could practicebefore a justice of the peace, and he could procure one at hisleisure. As for books, McConnell, with true Western generosity, offered to loan such as would be of immediate use. So again Douglasstook up his travels. At Meredosia, the nearest landing on the river, he waited a week for the boat upstream. There was no other availableroute to Pekin. Then came the exasperating intelligence, that the onlyboat which plied between these points had blown up at Alton. Aftersettling accounts with the tavern-keeper, he found that he had butfifty cents left. [27]

There was now but one thing to do, since hard manual labor was out ofthe question: he would teach school. But where? Meredosia was aforlorn, thriftless place, and he had no money to travel. Fortunately, a kind-hearted farmer befriended him, lodging him at his house overnight and taking him next morning to Exeter, where there was aprospect of securing a school. Disappointment again awaited him; butWinchester, ten miles away, was said to need a teacher. Taking hiscoat on his arm--he had left his trunk at Meredosia--he set off onfoot for Winchester. [28]

Accident, happily turned to his profit, served to introduce him to thetownspeople of Winchester. The morning after his arrival, he found acrowd in the public square and learned that an auction sale ofpersonal effects was about to take place. Everyone from theadministrator of the estate to the village idler, was eager for thesale to begin. But a clerk to keep record of the sales and to draw thenotes was wanting. The eye of the administrator fell upon Douglass;something in the youth's appearance gave assurance that he could"cipher. ". The impatient bystanders "'lowed that he might do, " so hewas given a trial. Douglass proved fully equal to the task, and in twodays was in possession of five dollars for his pains. [29]

Through the good will of the village storekeeper, who also hailed fromVermont, Douglass was presented to several citizens who wished to seea school opened in town; and by the first Monday in December he had asubscription list of forty scholars, each of whom paid three dollarsfor three months' tuition. [30] Luck was now coming his way. He foundlodgings under the roof of this same friendly compatriot, the villagestorekeeper, who gave him the use of a small room adjoining thestore-room. [31] Here Douglass spent his evenings, devoting some hoursto his law books and perhaps more to comfortable chats with his hostand talkative neighbors around the stove. For diversion he had theweekly meetings of the Lyceum, which had just been formed. [32] He owedmuch to this institution, for the the debates and discussions gave hima chance to convert the traditional leadership which fell to him asvillage schoolmaster, into a real leadership of talent and ready wit. In this Lyceum he made his first political speech, defending AndrewJackson and his attack upon the Bank against Josiah Lamborn, a lawyerfrom Jacksonville. [33] For a young man he proved himself astonishinglywell-informed. If the chronology of his autobiography may be accepted, he had already read the debates in the Constitutional Convention of1787, the _Federalist_, the works of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and the recent debates in Congress. 

Even while he was teaching school, Douglass found time to practice lawin a modest way before the justices of the peace; and when the firstof March came, he closed the schoolhouse door on his career aspedagogue. He at once repaired to Jacksonville and presented himselfbefore a justice of the Supreme Court for license to practice law. After a short examination, which could not have been very searching, he was duly admitted to the bar of Illinois. He still lacked a monthof being twenty-one years of age. [34] Measured by the standard ofolder communities in the East, he knew little law; but there were fewcases in these Western courts which required much more thancommon-sense, ready speech, and acquaintance with legal procedure. _Stare decisis_ was a maxim that did not trouble the average lawyer, for there were few decisions to stand upon. [35] Besides, experiencewould make good any deficiencies of preparation. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: There can be little doubt that he supplied the data forthe sketch in Wheeler's Biographical and Political History ofCongress. ]

[Footnote 2: See Transactions of the Illinois State HistoricalSociety, 1901, pp. 113-114. ]

[Footnote 3: Vermont Historical Gazetteer, III, p. 457. ]

[Footnote 4: Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1901, p. 115. ]

[Footnote 5: Mr. B. F. Field in the _Vermonter_, January, 1897. ]

[Footnote 6: For many facts relating to Douglas's life, I am indebtedto an unpublished autobiographical sketch in the possession of hisson, Judge R. M. Douglas, of Greensboro, North Carolina. ]

[Footnote 7: Wheeler, Biographical History of Congress, p. 61; alsoMS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 8: Troy _Whig_, July 6, 1860. ]

[Footnote 9: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 10: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 11: MS. Autobiography; see Wheeler, Biographical History, p. 62. ]

[Footnote 12: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 13: _Vermonter_, January, 1897. ]

[Footnote 14: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 15: This story was repeated to me by Judge Douglas, on theauthority, I believe, of Senator Lapham of New York. ]

[Footnote 16: This is the impression of all who knew him personally, then and afterward. See Arnold, Reminiscences of the Illinois Bar. ]

[Footnote 17: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 18: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 19: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 20: Kirby, Sketch of Joseph Duncan in Fergus HistoricalSeries No. 29; also Historic Morgan, p. 60. ]

[Footnote 21: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 22: Speech at Jonesboro, in the debate with Lincoln, Sept. 15, 1858. ]

[Footnote 23: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 24: Kirby, Joseph Duncan. ]

[Footnote 25: James S. Anderson in Historic Morgan. ]

[Footnote 26: Peck, _Gazetteer of Illinois_, 1834. ]

[Footnote 27: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 28: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 29: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 30: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 31: Letter of E. G. Miner, January, 1877, in Proceedings ofthe Illinois Association of Sons of Vermont. ]

[Footnote 32: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 33: _Ibid. _; MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 34: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 35: Hon. J. C. Conkling in Fergus Historical Series, No. 22. ]

CHAPTER II

THE RISE OF THE POLITICIAN

The young attorney who opened a law office in the Court House atJacksonville, bore little resemblance to the forlorn lad who hadvainly sought a livelihood there some months earlier. The winter windsof the prairies, so far from racking the frame of the convalescent, had braced and toned his whole system. When spring came, he was in thebest of health and full of animal spirits. He entered upon his newlife with zest. Here was a people after his own heart; a generous, wholesome, optimistic folk. He opened his heart to them, and, ofcourse, hospitable doors opened to him. He took society as he foundit, rude perhaps, but genuine. With plenty of leisure at command, hemingled freely with young people of his own age; he joined theboisterous young fellows in their village sports; he danced with themaidens; and he did not forget to cultivate the good graces of theirelders. Mothers liked his animation and ready gallantry; fathers foundhim equally responsive on more serious matters of conversation. Altogether, he was a very general favorite in a not too fastidioussociety. [36]

Nor was the circle of the young attorney's acquaintances limited toJacksonville. As the county seat and most important town in MorganCounty, Jacksonville was a sort of rural emporium. Thither camefarmers from the country round about, to market their produce and topurchase their supplies. The town had an unwontedly busy aspect onSaturdays. This was the day which drew women to town. While they didtheir shopping, the men loitered on street corners, or around theCourt House, to greet old acquaintances. Douglass was sure to be foundamong them, joining in that most subtle of all social processes, theforming of public opinion. Moving about from group to group, with hispockets stuffed with newspapers, he became a familiar figure. [37]Plain farmers, in clothes soiled with the rich loam of the prairies, enjoyed hearing the young fellow express so pointedly their ownnascent convictions. 

This forum was an excellent school for the future politician. The dustmight accumulate upon his law books: he was learning unwritten law inthe hearts of these countrymen. And yet, even at this time, heexhibited a certain maturity. There seems never to have been a timewhen the arts of the politician were not instinctive in him. He had noboyish illusions to outlive regarding the nature and conditions ofpublic life. His perfect self-possession attested this mentalmaturity. 

One of the first friendships which the young lawyer formed in his newhome was with S. S. Brooks, Esq. , editor of the Jacksonville _News_. While Douglass was still in Winchester, the first issue of this sheethad appeared; and he had written a complimentary letter to Brooks, congratulating him on his enterprise. The grateful editor never forgotthis kindly word of encouragement. [38] The intimacy which followedwas of great value to the younger man, who needed just the advertisingwhich the editor was in a position to give. The bond between them wastheir devotion to the fortunes of Andrew Jackson. Together theylabored to consolidate the Democratic forces of the county, withresults which must have surprised even the sanguine young lawyer. 

The political situation in Morgan County, as the State electionapproached, is not altogether clear. President Jackson's high-handedacts, particularly his attitude toward the National Bank, had alarmedmany men who had supported him in 1832. There were defections in theranks of the Democracy. The State elections would surely turn onnational issues. The Whigs were noisy, assertive, and confident. Largely through the efforts of Brooks and Douglass, the Democrats ofJacksonville were persuaded to call a mass-meeting of all goodDemocrats in the county. It was on this occasion, very soon after hisarrival in town, that Douglass made his début on the political stage. 

It is said that accident brought the young lawyer into prominence atthis meeting. A well-known Democrat who was to have presentedresolutions, demurred, at the last minute, and thrust the copy intoDouglass' hands, bidding him read them. The Court House was full tooverflowing with interested observers of this little by-play. Excitement ran high, for the opposition within the party was vehementin its protest to cut-and-dried resolutions commending Jackson. Anolder man with more discretion and modesty, would have hesitated toface the audience; but Douglass possessed neither retiring modestynor the sobriety which comes with years. He not only read theresolutions, but he defended them with such vigorous logic and withsuch caustic criticism of Whigs and half-hearted Democrats, that hecarried the meeting with him in tumultuous approval of the course ofAndrew Jackson, past and present. [39]

The next issue of the _Patriot_, the local Whig paper, devoted twocolumns to the speech of this young Democratic upstart; and for weeksthereafter the editor flayed him on all possible occasions. The resultwas such an enviable notoriety for the young attorney among Whigs andsuch fame among Democrats, that he received collection demands to theamount of thousands of dollars from persons whom he had never seen orknown. In after years, looking back on these beginnings, he used towonder whether he ought not to have paid the editor of the _Patriot_for his abuse, according to the usual advertising rates. [40] Thepolitical outcome was not in every respect so gratifying. TheDemocratic county ticket was elected and a Democratic congressman fromthe district; but the Whigs elected their candidate for governor. 

A factional quarrel among members of his own party gave Douglass hisreward for services to the cause of Democracy, and his first politicaloffice. Captain John Wyatt nursed a grudge against John J. Hardin, Esq. , who had been elected State's attorney for the district throughhis influence, but who had subsequently proved ungrateful. Wyatt hadbeen re-elected member of the legislature, however, in spite ofHardin's opposition, and now wished to revenge himself, by oustingHardin from his office. With this end in view, Wyatt had Douglassdraft a bill making the State's attorneys elective by the legislature, instead of subject to the governor's appointment. Since the newgovernor was a Whig, he could not be used by the Democrats. The billmet with bitter opposition, for it was alleged that it had no otherpurpose than to vacate Hardin's office for the benefit of Douglass. This was solemnly denied;[41] but when the bill had been declaredunconstitutional by the Council of Revision, Douglass' friends madedesperate exertions to pass the bill over the veto, with the nowopenly avowed purpose to elect him to the office. The bill passed, andon the 10th of February, 1835, the legislature in joint sessionelected the boyish lawyer State's attorney for the first judicialdistrict, by a majority of four votes over an attorney of experienceand recognized merit. It is possible, as Douglass afterward averred, that he neither coveted the office nor believed himself fitted for it;and that his judgment was overruled by his friends. But he acceptedthe office, nevertheless. 

When Douglas, --for he had now begun to drop the superfluous s in thefamily name, for simplicity's sake, [42]--set out on his judicialcircuit, he was not an imposing figure. There was little in his boyishface to command attention, except his dark-blue, lustrous eyes. Hisbig head seemed out of proportion to his stunted figure. He measuredscarcely over five feet and weighed less than a hundred and tenpounds. Astride his horse, he looked still more diminutive. His mountwas a young horse which he had borrowed. He carried under his arm asingle book, also loaned, a copy of the criminal law. [43] His chiefasset was a large fund of Yankee shrewdness and good nature. 

An amusing incident occurred in McLean County at the first court whichDouglas attended. There were many indictments to be drawn, and the newprosecuting attorney, in his haste, misspelled the name of thecounty--M Clean instead of M'Lean. His professional brethren weregreatly amused at this evidence of inexperience; and made merry overthe blunder. Finally, John T. Stuart, subsequently Douglas's politicalrival, moved that all the indictments be quashed. Judge Logan askedthe discomfited youth what he had to say to support the indictments. Smarting under the gibes of Stuart, Douglas replied obstinately thathe had nothing to say, as he supposed the Court would not quash theindictments until the point had been proven. This answer aroused moremerriment; but the Judge decided that the Court could not rule uponthe matter, until the precise spelling in the statute creating thecounty had been ascertained. No one doubted what the result would be;but at least Douglas had the satisfaction of causing his critics someannoyance and two days' delay, for the statutes had to be procuredfrom an adjoining county. To the astonishment of Court and Bar, and ofDouglas himself, it appeared that Douglas had spelled the namecorrectly. To the indescribable chagrin of the learned Stuart, theCourt promptly sustained all the indictments. The young attorney wasin high feather; and he made the most of his triumph. The incidenttaught him a useful lesson: henceforth he would admit nothing, andrequire his opponents to prove everything that bore upon the case inhand. Some time later, upon comparing the printed statute of thecounty with the enrolled bill in the office of the Secretary of State, Douglas found that the printer had made a mistake and that the name ofthe county should have been M'Lean. [44]

On the whole Douglas seems to have discharged his not very onerousduties acceptably. The more his fellow practitioners saw of him, themore respect they had for him. Moreover, they liked him personally. His wholesome frankness disarmed ill-natured opponents; his generositymade them fast friends. There was not an inn or hostelry in thecircuit, which did not welcome the sight of the talkative, companionable, young district attorney. 

Politically as well as socially, Illinois was in a transitional stage. Although political parties existed, they were rather looseassociations of men holding similar political convictions than partiesin the modern sense with permanent organs of control. He who wouldmight stand for office, either announcing his own candidacy in thenewspapers, or if his modesty forbade this course, causing such anannouncement to be made by "many voters. " In benighted districts, where the light of the press did not shine, the candidate offeredhimself in person. Even after the advent of Andrew Jackson in nationalpolitics, allegiance to party was so far subordinated to personalambition, that it was no uncommon occurrence for several candidatesfrom each party to enter the lists. [45] From the point of view ofparty, this practice was strategically faulty, since there was alwaysthe possibility that the opposing party might unite on a singlecandidate. What was needed to insure the success of party was therationale of an army. But organization was abhorrent to people sotenacious of their personal freedom as Illinoisans, becauseorganization necessitated the subordination of the individual to thecentralized authority of the group. To the average man organizationspelled dictation. 

The first step in the effective control of nominations by party inIllinois, was taken by certain Democrats, foremost among whom was S. A. Douglas, Esq. His rise as a politician, indeed, coincides with thisdevelopment of party organization and machinery. The movement begansporadically in several counties. At the instance of Douglas and hisfriend Brooks of the _News_, the Democrats of Morgan County putthemselves on record as favoring a State convention to choosedelegates to the national convention of 1836. [46] County after countyadopted the suggestion, until the movement culminated in awell-attended convention at Vandalia in April, 1835. Not all countieswere represented, to be sure, and no permanent organization waseffected; but provision was made for a second convention in December, to nominate presidential electors. [47] Among the delegates from MorganCounty in this December convention was Douglas, burning with zeal forthe consolidation of his party. Signs were not wanting that he was inleague with other zealots to execute a sort of _coup d'état_ withinthe party. Early in the session, one Ebenezer Peck, recently fromCanada, boldly proposed that the convention should proceed to nominatenot only presidential electors but candidates for State offices aswell. A storm of protests broke upon his head, and for the moment hewas silenced; but on the second day, he and his confidants succeededin precipitating a general discussion of the convention system. Peck--contemptuously styled "the Canadian" by his enemies--secured thefloor and launched upon a vigorous defense of the nominatingconvention as a piece of party machinery. He thought it absurd to talkof a man's having a right to become a candidate for office without theindorsement of his party. He believed it equally irrational to allowmembers of the party to consult personal preferences in voting. Themembers of the party must submit to discipline, if they expected tosecure control of office. Confusion again reigned. The presidingofficer left the chair precipitately, denouncing the notions of Peckas anti-republican. [48]

In the exciting wrangle that followed, Douglas was understood to saythat he had seen the workings of the nominating convention in NewYork, and he knew it to be the only way to manage electionssuccessfully. The opposition had overthrown the great DeWitt Clintononly by organizing and adopting the convention system. Gentlemen weremistaken who feared that the people of the West had enjoyed their ownopinions too long to submit quietly to the wise regulations of aconvention. He knew them better: he had himself had the honor ofintroducing the nominating convention into Morgan County, where it hadalready prostrated one individual high in office. These wiseadmonitions from a mere stripling failed to mollify the conservatives. The meeting broke up in disorder, leaving the party with dividedcounsels. [49]

Successful county and district conventions did much to break down theresistance to the system. During the following months, Morgan County, and the congressional district to which it belonged, became apolitical experiment station. A convention at Jacksonville in Aprilnot only succeeded in nominating one candidate for each electiveoffice, but also in securing the support of the disappointed aspirantsfor office, which under the circumstances was in itself a triumph. [50]Taking their cue from the enemy, the Whigs of Morgan County alsounited upon a ticket for the State offices, at the head of which wasJohn J. Hardin, a formidable campaigner. When the canvass was fairlyunder way, not a man could be found on the Democratic ticket to holdhis own with Hardin on the hustings. The ticket was then reorganizedso as to make a place for Douglas, who was already recognized as oneof the ablest debaters in the county. Just how this transposition waseffected is not clear. Apparently one of the nominees of theconvention for State representative was persuaded to withdraw. [51] TheWhigs promptly pointed out the inconsistency of this performance. "What are good Democrats to do?" asked the Sangamo _Journal_mockingly. Douglas had told them to vote for no man who had not beennominated by a caucus![52]

The Democrats committed also another tactical blunder. The countyconvention had adjourned without appointing delegates to thecongressional district convention, which was to be held at Peoria. Such of the delegates as had remained in town, together with residentDemocrats, were hastily reassembled to make good this omission. [53]Douglas and eight others were accredited to the Peoria convention; butwhen they arrived, they found only four other delegates present, onefrom each of four counties. Nineteen counties were unrepresented. [54]Evidently there was little or no interest in this politicalinnovation. In no wise disheartened, however, these thirteen delegatesdeclared themselves a duly authorized district convention and putcandidates in nomination for the several offices. Again the Whig pressscored their opponents. "Our citizens cannot be led at the dictationof a dozen unauthorized individuals, but will act as freemen, " saidthe Sangamo _Journal_. [55] There were stalwart Democrats, too, whorefused to put on "the Caucus collar. " Douglas and his "Peoria HumbugConvention" were roundly abused on all sides. The young politicianmight have replied, and doubtless did reply, that the rank and filehad not yet become accustomed to the system, and that the bad roadsand inclement weather were largely responsible for the slim attendanceat Peoria. 

The campaign was fought with the inevitable concomitants of anIllinois election. The weapons that slew the adversary were not alwaysforged by logic. In rude regions, where the rougher border elementcongregated, country stores were subsidized by candidates, and liquorliberally dispensed. The candidate who refused to treat was doomed. Hewas the last man to get a hearing, when the crowds gathered onSaturday nights to hear the candidates discuss the questions at issue. To speak from an improvised rostrum--"the stump"--to a boisterousthrong of men who had already accepted the orator's hospitality at thestore, was no light ordeal. This was the school of oratory in whichDouglas was trained. [56]

The election of all but one of the Democratic nominees was hailed as acomplete vindication of the nominating convention as a piece of partymachinery. Douglas shared the elation of his fellow workers, eventhough he was made to feel that his nomination was not due to thismuch-vaunted caucus system. At all events, the value of organizationand discipline had been demonstrated. The day of the professionalpolitician and of the machine was dawning in the frontier State ofIllinois. 

During the campaign there had been much wild talk about internalimprovements. The mania which had taken possession of the people inmost Western States had affected the grangers of Illinois. It amountedto an obsession. The State was called upon to use its resources andunlimited credit to provide a market for their produce, by supplyingtransportation facilities for every aspiring community. ElsewhereState credit was building canals and railroads: why should Illinois, so generously endowed by nature, lag behind? Where crops were spoilingfor a market, farmers were not disposed to inquire into the mysteriesof high finance and the nature of public credit. All doubts were laidto rest by the magic phrase "natural resources. "[57] Mass-meetingshere and there gave propulsion to the movement. [58] Candidates forState office were forced to make the maddest pledges. A granddemonstration was projected at Vandalia just as the legislatureassembled. 

The legislature which met in December, 1836, is one of the mostmemorable, and least creditable, in the annals of Illinois. In fullview of the popular demonstrations at the capital, the members couldnot remained unmoved and indifferent to the demands of theirconstituents, if they wished. Besides, the great majority were alreadycommitted in favor of internal improvements in some form. The subjectdwarfed all others. For a time two sessions a day were held; andspecial committees prolonged their labors far into the night. Petitions from every quarter deluged the assembly. [59]

A plan for internal improvements had already taken shape in the mindof the young representative from Morgan County. [60] He made haste tolay it before his colleagues. First of all, he would have the Statecomplete the Illinois and Michigan canal, and improve the navigationof the Illinois and Wabash rivers. Then he would have two railroadsconstructed which would cross the State from north to south, and fromeast to west. For these purposes he would negotiate a loan, pledgingthe credit of the State, and meet the interest payments by judicioussales of the public lands which had been granted by the Federalgovernment for the construction of the Illinois and Michigan canal. The most creditable feature of these proposals is their moderation. This youth of twenty-three evinced far more conservatism than manycolleagues twice his age. 

There was not the slightest prospect, however, that moderate viewswould prevail. Log-rolling had already begun; the lobby was active;and every member of the legislature who had pledged himself to hisconstituents was solicitous that his section of the State should notbe passed over, in the general scramble for appropriations. In the enda bill was drawn, which proposed to appropriate no less than$10, 230, 000 for public works. A sum of $500, 000 was set aside forriver improvements, but the remainder was to be expended in theconstruction of eight railroads. A sop of $200, 000 was tossed to thosecounties through which no canal or railroad was to pass. [61] What wereprudent men to do? Should they support this bill, which they believedto be thoroughly pernicious, or incur the displeasure of theirconstituents by defeating this, and probably every other, project forthe session? Douglas was put in a peculiarly trying position. He hadopposed this "mammoth bill, " but he knew his constituents favored it. With great reluctance, he voted for the bill. [62] He was not mindedto immolate himself on the altar of public economy at the verythreshold of his career. [63]

Much the same issue was forced upon Douglas in connection with theIllinois and Michigan canal. Unexpected obstacles to the constructionof the canal had been encountered. To allow the waters of LakeMichigan to flow through the projected canal, it was found that a cuteighteen feet deep would have to be made for twenty-eight milesthrough solid rock. The cost of such an undertaking would exceed theentire appropriation. It was then suggested that a shallow cut mightbe made above the level of Lake Michigan which would then permit theCalumet River or the Des Plaines, to be used as a feeder. The problemwas one for expert engineers to solve; but it devolved upon anignorant assembly, which seems to have done its best to reduce theproblem to a political equation. A majority of the House--Douglasamong them--favored a shallow cut, while the Senate voted for the deepcut. The deadlock continued for some weeks, until a conferencecommittee succeeded in agreeing upon the Senate's programme. As amember of the conferring committee, Douglas vigorously opposed thissettlement, but on the final vote in the House he yielded hisconvictions. In after years he took great satisfaction in pointingout--as evidence of his prescience--that the State became financiallyembarrassed and had finally to adopt the shallow cut. [64]

The members of the 10th General Assembly have not been wont to pointwith pride to their record. With a few notable exceptions they hadfallen victims to a credulity which had become epidemic. When theassembly of 1840 repealed this magnificent act for the improvement ofIllinois, they encountered an accumulated indebtedness of over$14, 000, 000. There are other aspects of the assembly of 1836-37 uponwhich it is pleasanter to dwell. 

As chairman of a committee on petitions Douglas rendered a realservice to public morality. The general assembly had been wont uponpetition to grant divorces by special acts. Before the legislature hadbeen in session ten days, no less than four petitions for divorces hadbeen received. It was a custom reflecting little credit upon theState. [65] Reporting for his committee, Douglas contended that thelegislature had no power to grant divorces, but only to enact salutarylaws, which should state the circumstances under which divorces mightbe granted by the courts. The existing practice, he argued, wascontrary to those provisions of the constitution which expresslyseparated the three departments of government. Moreover, everyonerecognized the injustice and unwisdom of dissolving marriage contractsby act of legislature, upon _ex parte_ evidence. [66] Withoutexpressing an opinion on the constitutional questions involved, theassembly accepted the main recommendation of the committee, thathenceforth the legislature should not grant bills of divorce. [67]

One of the recurring questions during this session was whether theState capital should be moved. Vandalia was an insignificant town, difficult of access and rapidly falling far south of the center ofpopulation in the State. Springfield was particularly desirous tobecome the capital, though there were other towns which had claimsequally strong. The Sangamon County delegation was annoyinglyaggressive in behalf of their county seat. They were a conspicuousgroup, not merely because of their stature, which earned for them thenickname of "the Long Nine, " but also because they were men of realability and practical shrewdness. By adroit management, a vote wasfirst secured to move the capital from Vandalia, and then to locate itat Springfield. Unquestionably there was some trading of votes inreturn for special concessions in the Internal Improvements bill. Itis said that Abraham Lincoln was the virtual head of the Sangamondelegation, and the chief promoter of the project. [68]

Soon after the adjournment of the legislature, Douglas resigned hisseat to become Register of the Land Office at Springfield; and when"the Long Nine" returned to their constituents and were fêted andbanqueted by the grateful citizens of Springfield, Douglas sat amongthe guests of honor. [69] It began to be rumored about that the youngman owed his appointment to the Sangamon delegation, whose schemes hehad industriously furthered in the legislature. Finally, the Illinois_Patriot_ made the direct accusation of bargain. [70] Touched to thequick, Douglas wrote a letter to the editor which fairly bristles withrighteous indignation. His circumstantial denial of the charge, --hiswell-known opposition to the removal of the capital and to all theschemes of the Sangamon delegation during the session, --cleared him ofall complicity. Indeed, Douglas was too zealous a partisan to playinto the hands of the Sangamon Whigs. [71]

The advent of the young Register at the Land Office was noted by theSangamo Whig _Journal_ in these words: "The Land Office at this placewas opened on Monday last. We are told the _little man_ from Morganwas perfectly astonished, at finding himself making money at the rateof from one to two hundred dollars a day!"[72] This sarcastic commentis at least good evidence that the office was doing a thrivingbusiness. In two respects Douglas had bettered himself by this changeof occupation. He could not afford to hold his seat in the legislaturewith its small salary. Now he was assured of a competence. Besides, asa resident of Springfield, he could keep in touch with politics at thefuture capital and bide his time until he was again promoted forconspicuous service to his party. 

The educative value of his new office was no small consideration tothe young lawyer. He not only kept the records and plans of surveyswithin his district, but put up each tract at auction, in accordancewith the proclamation of the President, and issued certificates ofsale to all purchasers, describing the land purchased. The duties werenot onerous, but they required considerable familiarity with land lawsand with the practical difficulties arising from imperfect surveys, pre-emption rights, and conflicting claims. [73] Daily contact with thepractical aspects of the public land policy of the country, seems tohave opened his eyes to the significance of the public domain as anational asset. With all his realism, Douglas was gifted with acertain sort of imagination in things political. He not only saw whatwas obvious to the dullest clerk, --the revenue derived from landsales, --but also those intangible and prospective gains which wouldaccrue to State and nation from the occupation and cultivation of thenational domain. He came to believe that, even if not a penny cameinto the treasury, the government would still be richer from havingparcelled out the great uninhabited wastes in the West. Beneath thesoiled and uncomely exterior of the Western pioneer, native orforeigner, Douglas discerned not only a future tax-bearer, but thefounder of Commonwealths. 

Only isolated bits of tradition throw light upon the daily life of theyoung Register of the Land Office. All point to the fact that politicswas his absorbing interest. He had no avocations; he had no privatelife, no esoteric tastes which invite a prying curiosity; he had nosubtle aspects of character and temperament which sometimes make evencommonplace lives dramatic. His life was lived in the open. Lodging atthe American Tavern, he was always seen in company with other men. Diller's drug-store, near the old market, was a familiar rendezvousfor him and his boon companions. Just as he had no strong interestswhich were not political, so his intimates were likely to be hispolitical confrères. He had no literary tastes: if he read at all, heread law or politics. [74] Yet while these characteristics suggestnarrowness, they were perhaps the inevitable outcome of a societypossessing few cultural resources and refinements, but tremendousdirectness of purpose. 

One of the haunts of Douglas in these Springfield days was the officeof the _Republican_, a Democratic journal then edited by the Webers. There he picked up items of political gossip and chatted with thechance comer, or with habitués like himself. He was a welcome visitor, just the man whom a country editor, mauling over hackneyed matter, likes to have stimulate his flagging wits with a jest or a racyanecdote. Now and then Douglas would take up a pen good-naturedly, andscratch off an editorial which would set Springfield politicians bythe ears. The tone of the _Republican_, as indeed of the Western pressgenerally at this time, was low. Editors of rival newspapers heapedabuse upon each other, without much regard to either truth or decency. Feuds were the inevitable product of these editorial amenities. 

On one occasion, the _Republican_ charged the commissioners appointedto supervise the building of the new State House in Springfield, withmisuse of the public funds. The commissioners made an apparentlystraightforward defense of their expenditures. The _Republican_doubted the statement and reiterated the charge in scurrilouslanguage. Then the aggrieved commissioners, accompanied by theirequally exasperated friends, descended upon the office of the_Republican_ to take summary vengeance. It so happened that Douglaswas at the moment comfortably ensconced in the editorial sanctum. Hecould hardly do otherwise than assist in the defense; indeed, it ismore than likely that he had provoked the assault. In the disgracefulbrawl that followed, the attacking party was beaten off with heavylosses. Sheriff Elkins, who seems to have been acting in an unofficialcapacity as a friend of the commissioners, was stabbed, though notfatally, by one of the Weber brothers. [75]

From such unedifying episodes in the career of a rising politician, public attention was diverted by the excitement of a State election. Since the abortive attempts to commit the Democratic party to theconvention system in 1835, party opinion had grown more favorable tothe innovation. Rumors that the Whigs were about to unite upon a Stateticket doubtless hastened the conversion of many Democrats. [76] Whenthe legislature met for a special session in July, the leading spiritsin the reform movement held frequent consultations, the outcome ofwhich was a call for a Democratic State convention in December. Everycounty was invited to send delegates. A State committee of fifteen wasappointed, and each county was urged to form a similar committee. Another committee was also created--the Committee of Thirty--toprepare an address to the voters. Fifth on this latter committee wasthe name of S. A. Douglas of Sangamon. [77] The machinery of the partywas thus created out of hand by a group of unauthorized leaders. Theyawaited the reaction of the insoluble elements in the party, with someanxiety. 

The new organization had no more vigilant defender than Douglas. Fromhis coign of vantage in the Land Office, he watched the trend ofopinion within the party, not forgetting to observe at the same timethe movements of the Whigs. There were certain phrases in the "Addressto the Democratic Republicans of Illinois" which may have been coinedin his mint. The statement that "the Democratic Republicans ofIllinois propose to bring theirs [their candidates] forward by thefull and consentaneous voice of every member of their politicalassociation, " has a familiar, full-mouthed quality. [78] The Democratsof Sangamon called upon him to defend the caucus at a mass-meeting;and when they had heard his eloquent exposition of the new System, they resolved with great gravity that it offered "the only safe andproper way of securing union and victory. "[79] There is somethingamusing in the confident air of this political expert agedtwenty-four; yet there is no disputing the fact that his words carriedweight with men of far wider experience than his own. 

Before many weeks of the campaign had passed, Douglas had ceased to bemerely a consultative specialist on party ailments. Not at allunwillingly, he was drawn into active service. It was commonlysupposed that the Honorable William L. May, who had served a term inCongress acceptably, would again become the nominee of the Democraticparty without opposition. If the old-time practice prevailed, he wouldquietly assume the nomination "at the request of many friends. " Still, consistency required that the nomination should be made in due form bya convention. The Springfield _Republican_ clamored for a convention;and the Jacksonville _News_ echoed the cry. [80] Other Democraticpapers took up the cry, until by general agreement a congressionaldistrict convention was summoned to meet at Peoria. The Jacksonville_News_ was then ready with a list of eligible candidates among whomDouglas was mentioned. At the same time the enterprising Brooksannounced "authoritatively" that _if_ Mr. May concluded to become acandidate, he would submit his claims to the consideration of theconvention. [81] This was the first intimation that the gentleman'sclaims were likely to be contested in the convention. Meantime, goodfriends in Sangamon County saw to it that the county delegation wasmade up of men who were favorably disposed toward Douglas, and boundthem by instructions to act as a unit in the convention. [82]

The history of the district convention has never been written: itneeds no historian. Under the circumstances the outcome was a foregoneconclusion. Not all the counties were represented; some were poorlyrepresented; most of the delegates came without any clearly definedaims; all were unfamiliar with the procedure of conventions. TheSangamon County delegation alone, with the possible exception of thatfrom Morgan County, knew exactly what it wanted. When a ballot wastaken, Douglas received a majority of votes cast, and was declared tobe the regular nominee of the party for Congress. [83]

There was much shaking of heads over this machine-made nomination. Anexperienced public servant had been set aside to gratify the ambitionof a mere stripling. Even Democrats commented freely upon theuntrustworthiness of a device which left nominations to the caprice offorty delegates representing only fourteen counties out ofthirty-five. [84] The Whigs made merry over the folly of theiropponents. "No nomination could suit us better, " declared the Sangamo_Journal_. [85]

The Democratic State convention met at the appointed time, and againnew methods prevailed. In spite of strong opposition, a slate was madeup and proclaimed as the regular ticket of the party. Unhappily, thenominee for governor fell under suspicion as an alleged defaulter tothe government, so that his deposition became imperative. [86] TheDemocrats were in a sorry plight. Defeat stared them in the face. There was but one way to save the situation, and that was to call asecond convention. This was done. On June 5th, a new ticket was put inthe field, without further mention of the discredited nominee of theearlier convention. [87] It so happened that Carlin, the nominee forGovernor, and McRoberts, candidate for Congress from the firstdistrict, were receivers in land offices. This "Land Office Ticket"became a fair mark for wags in the Whig party. [88]

In after years, Douglas made his friends believe that he accepted thenomination with no expectation of success: his only purpose was to"consolidate the party. "[89] If this be true, his buoyant optimismthroughout the canvass is admirable. He was pitted against aformidable opponent in the person of Major John T. Stuart, who hadbeen the candidate of the Whigs two years before. Stuart enjoyed greatpopularity. He was "an old resident" of Springfield, --as Westernpeople then reckoned time. He had earned his title in the Black HawkWar, since which he had practiced law. For the arduous campaign, whichwould range over thirty-four counties, --from Calhoun, Morgan andSangamon on the south to Cook County on the north, --Stuart wasphysically well-equipped. [90]

Douglas was eager to match himself against Stuart. They started offtogether, in friendly rivalry. As they rode from town to town overmuch the same route, they often met in joint debate; and at night, striking a truce, they would on occasion, when inns were few and farbetween, occupy the same quarters. Accommodations were primitive inthe wilderness of the northern counties. An old resident relates howhe was awakened one night by the landlord of the tavern, who insistedthat he and his companion should share their beds with two belatedtravelers. The late arrivals turned out to be Douglas and Stuart. Douglas asked the occupants of the beds what their politics were, andon learning that one was a Whig and the other a Democrat, he said toStuart, "Stuart, you sleep with the Whig, and I'll sleep with theDemocrat. "[91]

Douglas never seemed conscious of the amusing discrepancy betweenhimself and his rival in point of physique. Stuart was fully six feettall and heavily built, so that he towered like a giant above hisboyish competitor. Yet strange to relate, the exposure to all kinds ofweather, the long rides, and the incessant speaking in the open airthrough five weary months, told on the robust Stuart quite as much ason Douglas. In the midst of the canvass Douglas found his way toChicago. He must have been a forlorn object. His horse, his clothes, his boots, and his hat were worn out. His harness was held togetheronly by ropes and strings. Yet he was still plucky. And so his friendsfitted him out again and sent him on his way rejoicing. [92]

The rivals began the canvass good-naturedly, but both gave evidence ofincreasing irritability as the summer wore on. Shortly before theelection, they met in joint debate at Springfield, in front of theMarket House. In the course of his speech, Douglas used language thatoffended his big opponent. Stuart then promptly tucked Douglas's headunder his arm, and carried him _hors de combat_ around the square. Inhis efforts to free himself, Douglas seized Stuart's thumb in hismouth and bit it vigorously, so that Stuart carried a scar, as amemento of the occasion, for many a year. [93]

As the canvass advanced, the assurance of the Whigs gave way toill-disguised alarm. Disquieting rumors of Douglas's popularity amongsome two thousand Irishmen, who were employed on the canal excavation, reached the Whig headquarters. [94] The young man was assiduouslycultivating voters in the most inaccessible quarters. He was a farmore resourceful campaigner than his older rival. 

The election in August was followed by weeks of suspense. Both partiesclaimed the district vociferously. The official count finally gave theelection to Stuart by a majority of thirty-five, in a total vote ofover thirty-six thousand. [95] Possibly Douglas might have successfullycontested the election. [96] There were certain discrepancies in thecounting of the votes; but he declined to vex Congress with thequestion, so he said, because similar cases were pending and he couldnot hope to secure a decision before Congress adjourned. It isdoubtful whether this merciful consideration for Congress wasuppermost in his mind in the year 1838. The fact is, that Douglaswrote to Senator Thomas H. Benton to ascertain the proper procedure insuch cases;[97] and abandoned the notion of carrying his case beforeCongress, when he learned how costly such a contest would be. [98] Hehad resigned his position as Register of the Land Office to enter thecampaign, and he had now no other resources than his profession. 

It was comforting to the wounded pride of the young man to have theplaudits of his own party, at least. He had made a gallant fight; andwhen Democrats from all over the State met at a dinner in honor ofGovernor-elect Carlin, at Quincy, they paid him this generous tribute:"Although so far defeated in the election that the certificate will begiven to another, yet he has the proud gratification of knowing thatthe people are with him. His untiring zeal, his firm integrity, andhigh order of talents, have endeared him to the Democracy of the Stateand they will remember him two years hence. "[99] Meantime there wasnothing left for him to do but to solicit a law practice. He enteredinto partnership with a Springfield attorney by the name of Urquhart. 

By the following spring, Douglas was again dabbling in local politics, and by late fall he was fully immersed in the deeper waters ofnational politics. Preparations for the presidential campaign drew himout of his law office, --where indeed there was nothing to detainhim, --and he was once again active in party conclaves. He presidedover a Democratic county convention, and lent a hand in the draftingof a platform. [100] In November he was summoned to answer CyrusWalker, a Whig who was making havoc of the Democratic programme at amass-meeting in the Court House. In the absence of any reliablerecords, nothing more can be said of Douglas's rejoinder than that itmoved the Whigs in turn to summon reinforcements, in the person of theawkward but clever Lincoln. The debate was prolonged far into thenight; and on which side victory finally folded her wings, no man cantell. [101] Douglas made the stronger impression, though Whigsprofessed entire satisfaction with the performance of theirprotagonist. There were some in the audience who took exception toLincoln's stale anecdotes, and who thought his manner clownish. [102]

Not long after this encounter, Douglas came in for his share of publicridicule. Considering himself insulted by a squib in the Sangamo_Journal_, Douglas undertook to cane the editor. But as Francis waslarge and rotund, and Douglas was not, the affair terminatedunsatisfactorily for the latter. Lincoln described the incident withgreat relish, in a letter to Stuart: "Francis caught him by the hairand jammed him back against a market-cart, where the matter ended byFrancis being pulled away from him. The whole affair was so ludicrousthat Francis and everybody else, Douglas excepted, have been laughingabout it ever since. "[103] The Illinois _State Register_ tried to saveDouglas's dignity by the following account of the rencontre: "Mr. Francis had applied scurrilous language to Mr. Douglas, which could benoticed in no other way. Mr. Douglas, therefore, gave him a soundcaning, which Mr. Francis took with Abolition patience, and is nowpraising God that he was neither killed nor scathed. "

The executive talents of Douglas were much in demand. First he wasmade a member of the Sangamon County delegation to the Stateconvention;[104] then chairman of the State Central Committee; andfinally, virtual manager of the Democratic campaign in Illinois. [105]He was urged to stand for election to the legislature; but he steadilyrefused this nomination. "Considerations of a private nature, " hewrote, "constrain me to decline the nomination, and leave the field tothose whose avocations and private affairs will enable them to devotethe requisite portion of their time to the canvass. "[106] Inasmuch asSangamon County usually sent a Whig delegation to the legislature, this declination could hardly have cost him many hours of painfuldeliberation. [107] At all events his avocations did not prevent himfrom making every effort to carry the State for the Democratic party. 

An unfortunate legal complication had cost the Democrats no end ofworry. Hitherto the party had counted safely on the vote of the aliensin the State; that is, actual inhabitants whether naturalized ornot. [108] The right of unnaturalized aliens to vote had never beencalled in question. But during the campaign, two Whigs of Galenainstituted a collusive suit to test the rights of aliens, hoping, ofcourse, to embarrass their opponents. [109] The Circuit Court hadalready decided the case adversely, when Douglas assumed direction ofthe campaign. If the decision were allowed to stand, the Democraticticket would probably lose some nine thousand votes and consequentlythe election. The case was at once appealed. [110] Douglas and his oldfriend and benefactor, Murray McConnell, were retained as counsel forthe appellant. The opposing counsel were Whigs. The case was argued inthe winter term of the Supreme Court, but was adjourned until thefollowing June, a scant six months before the elections. 

It was regrettable that a case, which from its very nature wascomplicated by political considerations, should have arisen in themidst of a campaign of such unprecedented excitement as that of 1840. It was taken for granted, on all sides, that the judges would followtheir political predilections--and what had Democrats to expect from abench of Whigs? The counsel for the appellant strained every nerve tosecure another postponement. Fortune favored the Democrats. When thecourt met in June, Douglas, prompted by Judge Smith, the only Democraton the bench, called attention to clerical errors in the record, andon this technicality moved that the case be dismissed. Protractedarguments _pro and con_ ensued, so that the whole case finally wasadjourned until the next term of court in November, after theelection. [111] Once more, at all events, the Democrats could count onthe alien vote. Did ever lawyer serve politician so well?

As Chairman of the State Central Committee, Douglas had no perfunctoryposition. The Whigs were displaying unusual aggressiveness. Theirleaders were adroit politicians and had taken a leaf from Democraticexperience in the matter of party organization. The processions, thetorch-light parades, the barbecues and other noisy demonstrations ofthe Whigs, were very disconcerting. Such performances could not belightly dismissed as "Whig Humbuggery, " for they were alarminglyeffective in winning votes. In self-defense, the Democratic managerswere obliged to set on foot counter-demonstrations. On the whole, theDemocrats were less successful in manufacturing enthusiasm. When oneconvention of young Democrats failed, for want of support, Douglassaved the situation only by explaining that hard-working Democratscould not leave their employment to go gadding. They preferred toleave noise and sham to their opponents, knowing that in the end "thequiet but certain influence of truth and correct principles" wouldprevail. [112] And when the Whigs unwittingly held a greatdemonstration for "Tippecanoe and Tyler too, " on the birthday of KingGeorge III, Douglas saw to it that an address was issued to voters, warning them against the chicane of unpatriotic demagogues. As acounter-blast, "All Good Democrats" were summoned to holdmass-meetings in the several counties on the Fourth of July. "Weselect the Fourth of July, " read this pronunciamento, "not todesecrate it with unhallowed shouts . . . But in cool and calm devotionto our country, to renew upon the altars of its liberties, a sacredoath of fidelity to its principles. "[113]

Both parties now drew upon their reserves. Douglas went to the frontwhenever and wherever there was hard fighting to be done. [114] Heseemed indefatigable. Once again he met Major Stuart on theplatform. [115] He was pitted against experienced campaigners likeex-Governor Duncan and General Ewing of Indiana. Douglas made afearless defence of Democratic principles in a joint debate with boththese Whig champions at Springfield. [116] The discussion continued farinto the night. In his anxiety to let no point escape, Douglas had hissupper brought to him; and it is the testimony of an old Whig whoheard the debate, that Duncan was "the worst used-up man" he eversaw. [117] Whether Douglas took the field as on this occasion, ordirected the campaign from headquarters, he was cool, collected, andresourceful. If the sobriquet of "the Little Giant" had not alreadybeen fastened upon him, it was surely earned in this memorablecampaign of 1840. The victory of Van Buren over Harrison in Illinoiswas little less than a personal triumph for Douglas, for Democraticreverses elsewhere emphasized the already conspicuous fact thatIllinois had been saved only by superior organization and leadership. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 36: Joseph Wallace in a letter to the Illinois _StateRegister_, April 30, 1899. ]

[Footnote 37: Illinois _State Register_, April 30, 1899. ]

[Footnote 38: Sheahan, Life of Douglas, pp. 16-17. ]

[Footnote 39: Sheahan's account of this incident (pp. 18-20) isconfused. The episode is told very differently in the MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 40: MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 41: In the Autobiography, Douglas makes a vigorous defenseof his connection with the whole affair. ]

[Footnote 42: Just when he dropped the final s, I am unable to say. Joseph Wallace thinks that he did so soon after coming to Illinois. See Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1901, p. 114. ]

[Footnote 43: Joseph Wallace in the Illinois _State Register_, April30, 1899. ]

[Footnote 44: Douglas tells the story with great relish in hisautobiography. The title of the act reads "An Act creating M'LeanCounty, " but the body of the act gives the name as McLean. Douglas hadused the exact letters of the name, though he had twisted the capitalletters, writing a capital C for a capital L. ]

[Footnote 45: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 285-286; see contemporarynewspapers. ]

[Footnote 46: Illinois _Advocate_, May 4, 1835. ]

[Footnote 47: _Ibid. _, May 6, 1835. ]

[Footnote 48: Illinois _Advocate_, Dec. 17, 1835; Sangamo _Journal_, Feb. 6, 1836. ]

[Footnote 49: Sangamo _Journal_, February 6, 1836. ]

[Footnote 50: There was one exception, see Sheahan, Douglas, p. 26. ]

[Footnote 51: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 26; Wheeler, Biographical History, p. 67; Sangamo _Journal_, May 7, 1836. ]

[Footnote 52: Sangamo _Journal_, May 7, 1836. ]

[Footnote 53: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 54: _Ibid. _, May 14, 1836. ]

[Footnote 55: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 56: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 103-105. ]

[Footnote 57: See letter of "M--" in the Illinois _State Register_, July 29, 1836. ]

[Footnote 58: Illinois _State Register_, October 28, 1836. ]

[Footnote 59: _Ibid. _, December 8, 1836. ]

[Footnote 60: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 29; MS. Autobiography. ]

[Footnote 61: Act of February 27, 1837. ]

[Footnote 62: In his Autobiography Douglas says that the friends ofthe bill persuaded his constituents to instruct him to vote for thebill; hence his affirmative vote was the vote of his constituents. ]

[Footnote 63: Douglas was in good company at all events. AbrahamLincoln was one of those who voted for the bill. ]

[Footnote 64: See Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, Chapter 40;Wheeler, Biographical History, pp. 68-70; Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 32-33. ]

[Footnote 65: But it was no worse than the English custom before theAct of 1857. ]

[Footnote 66: House Journal, p. 62. ]

[Footnote 67: The assembly substituted the word "inexpedient" for"unconstitutional, " in the resolution submitted by Douglas. HouseJournal, p. 62. ]

[Footnote 68: Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, I, pp. 137-138. ]

[Footnote 69: _Ibid. _, p. 139. ]

[Footnote 70: Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1901, p. 111. ]

[Footnote 71: Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1901, pp. 111-112. The Sangamo _Journal_, August 5, 1837, says thatDouglas owed his appointment to the efforts of Senator Young in hisbehalf. ]

[Footnote 72: Sangamo _Journal_, August 29, 1837. ]

[Footnote 73: Douglas describes his duties in Cutts, Const. And PartyQuestions, pp. 160 ff. ]

[Footnote 74: Conversation with Charles A. Keyes, Esq. , ofSpringfield, and with Dr. A. W. French, also of Springfield, Illinois. ]

[Footnote 75: Sangamo _Journal_, July 1, 1837. The newspaper accountsof this affair are confusing; but they are in substantial agreement asto the causes and outcome of the attack upon the office of the_Republican_. ]

[Footnote 76: Illinois _State Register_, July 22, 1837. ]

[Footnote 77: Illinois _State Register_, July 22, 1837. ]

[Footnote 78: _Ibid. _, November 4, 1837. ]

[Footnote 79: _Ibid. _, October 27, 1837. ]

[Footnote 80: Illinois _State Register_, October 13, 1837. ]

[Footnote 81: Jacksonville _News_, quoted by Illinois _StateRegister_, Oct. 13, 1837. ]

[Footnote 82: Illinois _State Register_, October 27, 1837. ]

[Footnote 83: Illinois _State Register_, December 9, 1837; Sangamo_Journal_, November 25, 1837. ]

[Footnote 84: Sangamo _Journal_, November 25, 1837; but see alsoPeoria _Register_, November 25, 1837. ]

[Footnote 85: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 86: See Illinois _State Register_, May 11, 1838. ]

[Footnote 87: Illinois _State Register_, June 8, 1838. ]

[Footnote 88: Sangamo _Journal_, July 21, 1838. ]

[Footnote 89: Wheeler, Biographical History of Congress I, pp. 72-73;Sheahan, Douglas, p. 36. ]

[Footnote 90: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 36-37; Transactions of theIllinois State Historical Society, 1902, pp. 109 ff; Peoria_Register_, May 19, 1838. ]

[Footnote 91: Palmer, Personal Recollections, p. 24. ]

[Footnote 92: Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, II, p. 180. ]

[Footnote 93: Transactions of the Illinois Historical Society, 1902, p. 110. ]

[Footnote 94: Sangamo _Journal_, August 25, 1838; Peoria _Register_, August 11, 1838. ]

[Footnote 95: Election returns in the Office of the Secretary ofState. ]

[Footnote 96: See Sheahan, Douglas, p. 37; also Illinois _StateRegister_, October 12, 1838. ]

[Footnote 97: MS. Letter, Benton to Douglas, October 27, 1838. ]

[Footnote 98: For correspondence between Douglas and Stuart, seeIllinois _State Register_, April 5, 1839. ]

[Footnote 99: Illinois _State Register_, October 26, 1838. ]

[Footnote 100: _Ibid. _, April 5, 1839. ]

[Footnote 101: Illinois _State Register_, November 23, 1839. ]

[Footnote 102: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 103: Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, I, p. 181. ]

[Footnote 104: Illinois _State Register_, November 23, 1839. ]

[Footnote 105: _Ibid. _, February 21, 1840. ]

[Footnote 106: _Ibid. _, April 24, 1840. ]

[Footnote 107: See Illinois _State Register_, August 7, 1840. ]

[Footnote 108: The Constitution of 1819 bestowed the suffrage uponevery white male "inhabitant" twenty-one years of age. ]

[Footnote 109: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 44-45. ]

[Footnote 110: The title of the case was Thomas Spraggins, appellant_vs. _ Horace H. Houghton, appellee. ]

[Footnote 111: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 45-46; Wheeler, BiographicalHistory of Congress, p. 76. ]

[Footnote 112: Illinois _State Register_, May 15, 1840. ]

[Footnote 113: _Ibid. _, June 12, 1840. ]

[Footnote 114: Illinois _State Register_, July 10, 1840; Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, II, p. 180. ]

[Footnote 115: _Ibid. _, September 4, 1840. ]

[Footnote 116: _Ibid. _, October 2, 1840. ]

[Footnote 117: Letter of J. H. Roberts, Esq. , of Chicago, to thewriter; see also Illinois _State Register_, October 2, 1840. ]

CHAPTER III

LAW AND POLITICS

The years were passing rapidly during which Douglas should have laidbroad and deep the foundations of his professional career, if indeedlaw was to be more than a convenient avocation. These were formativeyears in the young man's life; but as yet he had developed neither theinclination nor the capacity to apply himself to the study of the moreintricate and abstruse phases of jurisprudence. To be sure, he hadpicked up much practical information in the courts, but it was not ofthe sort which makes great jurists. Besides, his law practice hadbeen, and was always destined to be, the handmaid of his politicalambition. In such a school, a naturally ardent, impulsive temperamentdoes not acquire judicial poise and gravity. After all, he was only asoldier of political fortune, awaiting his turn for promotion. Areversal in the fortunes of his party might leave him without hope ofpreferment, and bind him to a profession which is a jealous mistress, and to which he had been none too constant. Happily, his party was nowin power, and he was entitled to first consideration in thedistribution of the spoils. Under somewhat exceptional circumstancesthe office of Secretary of State fell vacant in the autumn of 1840, and the chairman of the Democratic Central Committee entered into hisreward. 

When Governor Carlin took office in 1838, he sent to the Senate thenomination of John A. McClernand as Secretary of State, assuming thatthe office had been vacated and that a new Governor might choose hisadvisers. [118] Precedent, it is true, militated against this theory, for Secretary Field had held office under three successive governors;but now that parties had become more sharply defined, it was deemedimportant that the Secretary of State should be of the same politicalpersuasion as the Governor, --and Field was a Whig. The Senate refusedto indorse this new theory. Whereupon the Governor waited until thelegislature adjourned, and renewed his appointment of McClernand, whopromptly brought action against the tenacious Field to obtainpossession of the office. The case was argued in the Circuit Courtbefore Judge Breese, who gave a decision in favor of McClernand. Thecase was then appealed. Among the legal talent arrayed on the side ofthe claimant, when the case appeared on the docket of the SupremeCourt, was Douglas--as a matter of course. Everyone knew that this wasnot so much a case at law as an issue in politics. The decision of theSupreme Court reversing the judgment of the lower court was received, therefore, as a partisan move to protect a Whig office-holder. [119]

For a time the Democrats, in control elsewhere, found themselvesobliged to tolerate a dissident in their political family; but theDemocratic majority in the new legislature came promptly to the aid ofthe Governor's household. Measures were set on foot to terminateSecretary Field's tenure of office by legislative enactment. Just atthis juncture that gentleman prudently resigned; and Stephen A. Douglas was appointed to the office which he had done his best tovacate. [120]

This appointment was a boon to the impecunious young attorney. Hecould now count on a salary which would free him from any concernabout his financial liabilities, --if indeed they ever gave him morethan momentary concern. Besides, as custodian of the State Library, hehad access to the best collection of law books in the State. Theduties of his office were not so exacting but that he could stillcarry on his law studies, and manage such incidental business as camehis way. These were the obvious and tangible advantages which Douglasemphasized in the mellow light of recollection. [121] Yet there wereother, less obvious, advantages which he omitted to mention. 

The current newspapers of this date make frequent mention of aninstitution popularly dubbed "the Third House, " or "Lord Coke'sAssembly. "[122] The archives of state do not explain this uniqueinstitution. Its location was in the lobby of the State House. Likemany another extra-legal body it kept no records of its proceedings;yet it wielded a potent influence. It was attended regularly by thoseofficials who made the lobby a rendezvous; irregularly, by politicianswho came to the Capitol on business; and on pressing occasions, bymembers of the legislature who wished to catch the undertone of partyopinion. The debates in this Third House often surpassed in interestthe formal proceedings behind closed doors across the corridor. Members of this house were not held to rigid account for what theysaid. Many a political _coup_ was plotted in the lobby. The gristwhich came out of the legislative mill was often ground byirresponsible politicians out of hearing of the Speaker of the House. The chance comer was quite as likely to find the Secretary of State inthe lobby as in his office among his books. 

The lobby was a busy place in this winter session of 1840-41. It waswell known that Democratic leaders had planned an aggressivereorganization of the Supreme Court, in anticipation of an adversedecision in the famous Galena alien case. The Democratic programme wasembodied in a bill which proposed to abolish the existing CircuitCourts, and to enlarge the Supreme Court by the addition of fivejudges. Circuit Courts were to be held by the nine judges of theSupreme Court. [123] Subsequent explanations did not, and could not, disguise the real purpose of this chaste reform. [124]

While this revolutionary measure was under fire in the legislature andin the Third House, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in thealien case. To the amazement of the reformers, the decision did nottouch the broad, constitutional question of the right of aliens tovote, but simply the concrete, particular question arising under theElection Law of 1829. [125] Judge Smith alone dissented and argued thelarger issue. The admirable self-restraint of the Court, so far fromstopping the mouths of detractors, only excited more unfavorablecomment. The suspicion of partisanship, sedulously fed by angryDemocrats, could not be easily eradicated. The Court was now condemnedfor its contemptible evasion of the real question at issue. 

Douglas made an impassioned speech to the lobby, charging the Courtwith having deliberately suppressed its decision on the paramountissue, in order to disarm criticism and to avert the impendingreorganization of the bench. [126] He called loudly for the passage ofthe bill before the legislature; and the lobby echoed his sentiments. McClernand in the House corroborated this charge by stating, "underauthorization, " that the judges had withdrawn the opinion which theyhad prepared in June. [127] Thereupon four of the five judges made anunqualified denial of the charge. [128] McClernand fell back helplesslyupon the word of Douglas. Pushed into a corner, Douglas then statedpublicly, that he had made his charges against the Court on theexplicit information given to him privately by Judge Smith. Six otherstestified that they had been similarly informed, or misinformed, bythe same high authority. [129] At all events, the mischief had beendone. Under the party whip the bill to reorganize the Supreme Courtwas driven through both houses of the legislature, and unofficiallyratified by Lord Coke's Assembly in the lobby. 

Already it was noised abroad that Douglas was "slated" for one of thenewly created judgeships. The Whig press ridiculed the suggestion butstill frankly admitted, that if party services were to qualify forsuch an appointment, the "Generalessimo of the Loco-focos of Illinois"was entitled to consideration. When rumor passed into fact, andDouglas was nominated by the Governor, even Democrats demurred. Itrequired no little generosity on the part of older men who hadbefriended the young man, to permit him to pass over their heads inthis fashion. [130] Besides, what legal qualifications could this youngman of twenty-seven possess for so important a post?

The new judges entered upon their duties under a cloud. Almost theirfirst act was to vacate the clerkship of the court, for the benefit ofthat arch-politician, Ebenezer Peck; and that, too, --so mensaid, --without consulting their Whig associates on the bench. It wascommonly reported that Peck had changed his vote in the House justwhen one more vote was needed to pass the Judiciary Bill. [131] Verylikely this rumor was circulated by some malicious newsmonger, but theappointment of Peck certainly did not inspire confidence in the newlyorganized court. 

Was it to make his ambition seem less odious, that Douglas sought togive the impression that he accepted the appointment with reluctanceand at a "pecuniary sacrifice"; or was he, as Whigs maintained, forcedout of the Secretaryship of State to make way for one of theGovernor's favorites?[132] He could not have been perfectly sincere, at all events, when he afterward declared that he supposed he wastaking leave of political life forever. [133] No one knew better thanhe, that a popular judge is a potential candidate for almost anyoffice in the gift of the people. 

Before starting out on his circuit Douglas gave conspicuous proof ofhis influence in the lobby, and incidentally, as it happened, castbread upon the waters. The Mormons who had recently settled in Nauvoo, in Hancock County, had petitioned the legislature for actsincorporating the new city and certain of its peculiar institutions. Their sufferings in Missouri had touched the people of Illinois, whowelcomed them as a persecuted sect. For quite different reasons, Mormon agents were cordially received at the Capitol. Here theirreligious tenets were less carefully scrutinized than their politicalaffiliations. The Mormons found little trouble in securing lobbyistsfrom both parties. Bills were drawn to meet their wishes and presentedto the legislature, where parties vied with each other in befriendingthe unfortunate refugees from Missouri. [134]

Chance--or was it design?--assigned Judge Douglas to the Quincycircuit, within which lay Hancock County and the city of Nauvoo. Theappointment was highly satisfactory to the Mormons, for while theyenjoyed a large measure of local autonomy by virtue of their newcharter, they deemed it advantageous to have the court of the vicinagepresided over by one who had proved himself a friend. Douglas at onceconfirmed this good impression. He appointed the commander of theNauvoo Legion a master in chancery; and when a case came before himwhich involved interpretation of the act incorporating this peculiarbody of militia, he gave a constructive interpretation which left theMormons independent of State officers in military affairs. [135]Whatever may be said of this decision in point of law, it was at leastgood politics; and the dividing line between law and politics was nonetoo sharply drawn in the Fifth Judicial District. 

Politicians were now figuring on the Mormon vote in the approachingcongressional election. The Whigs had rather the better chance ofwinning their support, if the election of 1840 afforded any basis forcalculation, for the Mormons had then voted _en bloc_ for Harrison andTyler. [136] Stuart was a candidate for re-election. It was generallybelieved that Ralston, whom the Democrats pitted against him, hadsmall chance of success. Still, Judge Douglas could be counted on touse his influence to procure the Mormon vote. 

Undeterred by his position on the bench, Douglas paid a friendly visitto the Mormon city in the course of the campaign; and thereencountered his old Whig opponent, Cyrus Walker, Esq. , who was also ona mission. Both made public addresses of a flattering description. TheProphet, Joseph Smith, was greatly impressed with Judge Douglas'sfriendliness. "Judge Douglas, " he wrote to the Faithful, "has everproved himself friendly to this people; and interested himself toobtain for us our several charters, holding at the same time theoffice of Secretary of State. " But what particularly flattered theMormon leader, was the edifying spectacle of representatives fromboth parties laying aside all partisan motives to mingle with theSaints, as "brothers, citizens, and friends. "[137] This touchingaccount would do for Mormon readers, but Gentiles remained somewhatskeptical. 

In spite of this coquetting with the Saints, the Democratic candidatesuffered defeat. It was observed with alarm that the Mormons held thebalance of power in the district, and might even become a makeweightin the State elections, should they continue to increase innumbers. [138] The Democrats braced themselves for a new trial ofstrength in the gubernatorial contest. The call for a State conventionwas obeyed with alacrity;[139] and the outcome justified the highexpectations which were entertained of this body. The conventionnominated for governor, Adam W. Snyder, whose peculiar availabilityconsisted in his having fathered the Judiciary Bill and the severalacts which had been passed in aid of the Mormons. The practical wisdomof this nomination was proved by a communication of Joseph Smith tothe official newspaper of Nauvoo. The pertinent portion of thisremarkable manifesto read as follows: "The partisans in this countywho expected to divide the friends of humanity and equal rights willfind themselves mistaken, --we care not a fig for _Whig or Democrat_:they are both alike to us; but we shall go for our _friends_, ourTRIED FRIENDS, and the cause of _human liberty_ which is the cause ofGod. . . . DOUGLASS is a _Master Spirit_, and _his friends are ourfriends_--we are willing to cast our banners on the air, and fight byhis side in the cause of humanity, and equal rights--the cause ofliberty and the law. SNYDER and MOORE, are _his_ friends--they are_ours_. . . . Snyder, and Moore, are _known_ to be our friends; theirfriendship is _vouched_ for by those whom we have tried. We will neverbe justly charged with the sin of ingratitude--they _have_ served us, and we _will_ serve them. "[140]

This was a discomfiting revelation to the Whigs, who had certainlylabored as industriously as the Democrats, to placate the Saints ofNauvoo. From this moment the Whigs began a crusade against theMormons, who were already, it is true, exhibiting the characteristicswhich had made them odious to the people of Missouri. [141] Rightly orwrongly, public opinion was veering; and the shrewd Duncan, who headedthe Whig ticket, openly charged Douglas with bargaining for the Mormonvote. [142] The Whigs hoped that their opponents, having sowed thewind, would reap the whirlwind. 

Only three months before the August elections of 1844, the Democratswere thrown into consternation by the death of Snyder, theirstandard-bearer. Here was an emergency to which the convention systemwas not equal, in the days of poor roads and slow stage-coaches. Whathappened was this, to borrow the account of the chief Democraticorgan, "A large number of Democratic citizens from almost all parts ofthe State of Illinois met together by a general and public call"--andnominated Judge Thomas Ford for governor. [143] It adds significance tothis record to note that this numerous body of citizens met in thesnug office of the _State Register_. Democrats in distant parts of theState were disposed to resent this action on the part of "theSpringfield clique"; but the onset of the enemy quelled mutiny. In oneway the nomination of Ford was opportune. It could not be said of himthat he had showed any particular solicitude for the welfare of thefollowers of Joseph Smith. [144] The ticket could now be made to faceboth ways. Ford could assure hesitating Democrats who disliked theMormons, that he had not hobnobbed with the Mormon leaders, whileDouglas and his crew could still demonstrate to the Prophet that thecause of human liberty, for which he stood so conspicuously, was safein Democratic hands. The game was played adroitly. Ford carriedHancock County by a handsome majority and was elected governor. [145]

It has already been remarked that as judge, Douglas was potentially acandidate for almost any public office. He still kept in touch withSpringfield politicians, planning with them the moves andcounter-moves on the checker-board of Illinois politics. There wasmore than a grain of truth in the reiterated charges of the Whigpress, that the Democratic party was dominated by an arbitraryclique. [146] It was a matter of common observation, that beforeDemocratic candidates put to sea in the troubled waters of Statepolitics, they took their dead-reckoning from the office of the _StateRegister_. It was noised abroad in the late fall that Douglas wouldnot refuse a positive call from his party to enter national politics;and before the year closed, his Springfield intimates were activelypromoting his candidacy for the United States Senate, to succeedSenator Young. This was an audacious move, since even if Young werepassed over, there were older men far more justly entitled toconsideration. Nevertheless, Douglas secured in some way the supportof several delegations in the legislature, so that on the first ballotin the Democratic caucus he stood second, receiving only nine votesless than Young. A protracted contest followed. Nineteen ballots weretaken. Douglas's chief competitor proved to be, not Young, but Breese, who finally secured the nomination of the caucus by a majority of fivevotes. [147] The ambition of Judge Douglas had overshot the mark. 

In view of the young man's absorbing interest in politics, his slenderlegal equipment, and the circumstances under which he received hisappointment, one wonders whether the courts he held could have beenanything but travesties on justice. But the universal testimony ofthose whose memories go back so far, is that justice was on the wholefaithfully administered. [148] The conditions of life in Illinois werestill comparatively simple. The suits instituted at law were not suchas to demand profound knowledge of jurisprudence. The wide-spreadfinancial distress which followed the crisis of 1837, gave rise tomany processes to collect debts and to set aside fraudulentconveyances. "Actions of slander and trespass for assault and battery, engendered by the state of feeling incident to pecuniaryembarrassment, were frequent. "[149]

The courts were in keeping with the meagre legal attainments of thosewho frequented them. Rude frame, or log houses served the purposes ofbench and bar. The judge sat usually upon a platform with a plaintable, or pine board, for a desk. A larger table below accommodatedthe attorneys who followed the judge in his circuit from county tocounty. "The relations between the Bench and the Bar were free andeasy, and flashes of wit and humor and personal repartee wereconstantly passing from one to the other. The court rooms in thosedays were always crowded. To go to court and listen to the witnessesand lawyers was among the chief amusements of the frontiersettlements. "[150] In this little world, popular reputations were madeand unmade. 

Judge Douglas was thoroughly at home in this primitive environment. His freedom from affectation and false dignity recommended him to thelaity, while his fairness and good-nature put him in quick sympathywith his legal brethren and their clients. Long years afterward, menrecalled the picture of the young judge as he mingled with the crowdduring a recess. "It was not unusual to see him come off the bench, orleave his chair at the bar, and take a seat on the knee of a friend, and with one arm thrown familiarly around a friend's neck, have afriendly talk, or a legal or political discussion. "[151] An attorneyrecently from the East witnessed this familiarity with dismay. "Thejudge of our circuit, " he wrote, "is S. A. Douglas, a youth of 28. . . . He is a Vermonter, a man of considerable talent, and, in the way ofdespatching business, is a perfect 'steam engine in breeches. ' . . . Heis the most democratic judge I ever knew. . . . I have often thought weshould cut a queer figure if one of our Suffolk bar shouldaccidentally drop in. "[152]

Meantime, changes were taking place in the political map of Illinois, which did not escape the watchful eye of Judge Douglas. By the censusof 1840, the State was entitled to seven, instead of fourrepresentatives in Congress. [153] A reapportionment act was thereforeto be expected from the next legislature. Democrats were already atwork plotting seven Democratic districts on paper, for, with amajority in the legislature, they could redistrict the State at will. A gerrymander was the outcome. [154] If Douglas did not have a hand inthe reapportionment, at least his friends saw to it that a desirabledistrict was carved out, which included the most populous counties inhis circuit. Who would be a likelier candidate for Congress in thisDemocratic constituency than the popular judge of the Fifth CircuitCourt?

Seven of the ten counties composing the Fifth Congressional Districtwere within the so-called "military tract, " between the Mississippiand Illinois rivers; three counties lay to the east on the lowercourse of the Illinois. Into this frontier region population began toflow in the twenties, from the Sangamo country; and the organizationof county after county attested the rapid expansion northward. Likethe people of southern Illinois, the first settlers were of Southernextraction; but they were followed by Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, andNew Englanders. In the later thirties, the Northern immigration, towhich Douglas belonged, gave a somewhat different complexion toPeoria, Fulton, and other adjoining counties. Yet there were diverseelements in the district: Peoria had a cosmopolitan population ofIrish, English, Scotch, and German immigrants; Quincy became a city ofrefuge for "Young Germany, " after the revolutionary disturbances of1830 in Europe. [155]

No sooner had the reapportionment act passed than certain members ofthe legislature, together with Democrats who held no office, took itupon themselves to call a nominating convention, on a basis ofrepresentation determined in an equally arbitrary fashion. [156] Thesummons was obeyed nevertheless. Forty "respectable Democats"assembled at Griggsville, in Pike County, on June 5, 1843. It was amost satisfactory body. The delegates did nothing but what wasexpected of them. On the second ballot, a majority cast their votesfor Douglas as the candidate of the party for Congress. The otheraspirants then graciously withdrew their claims, and pledged theircordial support to the regular nominee of the convention. [157] Suchmachine-like precision warmed the hearts of Democratic politicians. The editor of the _People's Advocate_ declared the integrity ofDouglas to be "as unspotted as the vestal's fame--as untarnished andas pure as the driven snow. "

The Griggsville convention also supplied the requisite machinery forthe campaign: vigilant precinct committees; county committees; adistrict corresponding committee; a central district committee. Theparty now pinned its faith to the efficiency of its organization, aswell as to the popularity of its candidate. 

Douglas made a show of declining the nomination on the score ofill-health, but yielded to the urgent solicitations of friends, whowould fain have him believe that he was the only Democrat who couldcarry the district. [158] Secretly pleased to be overruled, Douglasburned his bridges behind him by resigning his office, and plungedinto the thick of the battle. His opponent was O. H. Browning, aKentuckian by birth and a Whig by choice. It was Kentucky againstVermont, South against North, for neither was unwilling to appeal tosectional prejudice. Time has obscured the political issues which theydebated from Peoria to Macoupin and back; but history has probablysuffered no great loss. Men, not measures, were at stake in thiscampaign, for on the only national issue which they seemed to havediscussed--Oregon--they were in practical agreement. [159] Bothcultivated the little arts which relieve the tedium of politics. Douglas talked in heart to heart fashion with his "esteemedfellow-citizens, " inquired for the health of their families, expressedgrief when he learned that John had the measles and that Sally wasdown with the chills and fever. [160] And if Browning was lesssuccessful in this gentle method of wooing voters, it was because hehad less genuine interest in the plain common people, not because hedespised the petty arts of the politician. 

The canvass was short but exhausting. Douglas addressed publicgatherings for forty successive days; and when election day came, hewas prostrated by a fever from which he did not fully recover formonths. [161] Those who gerrymandered the State did their work well. Only one district failed to elect a Democratic Congressman. Douglashad a majority over Browning of four hundred and sixty-one votes. [162]This cheering news hastened his convalescence, so that by November hewas able to visit his mother in Canandaigua. Member of Congress at theage of thirty! He had every reason to be well satisfied with himself. He was fully conscious that he had begun a new chapter in his career. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 118: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 213-214. ]

[Footnote 119: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 454-455. ]

[Footnote 120: Why McClernand was passed over is not clear. Douglasentered upon the duties of his office November 30, 1840. ]

[Footnote 121: Wheeler, Biographical History of Congress, p. 74. ]

[Footnote 122: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 43. ]

[Footnote 123: Ford, History of Illinois, p. 217. ]

[Footnote 124: _Ibid. _, pp. 212-222. ]

[Footnote 125: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, p. 456. ]

[Footnote 126: Illinois _State Register_, January 29, 1841; Ford, History of Illinois, p. 220. ]

[Footnote 127: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 457-458. ]

[Footnote 128: _Ibid. _, pp. 457-458. ]

[Footnote 129: Illinois _State Register_, February 5, 1841. JudgeSmith is put in an unenviable light by contemporary historians. Thereseems to be no reason to doubt that he misinformed Douglas and others. See Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 458-459. ]

[Footnote 130: Chicago _American_, February 18, 1841. ]

[Footnote 131: Sangamo _Journal_, March 19, 1841. ]

[Footnote 132: Chicago _American_, February 18, 1841. ]

[Footnote 133: Wheeler, Biographical History of Congress, p. 74. ]

[Footnote 134: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 263-265; Linn, Story ofthe Mormons, pp. 236-237. ]

[Footnote 135: Linn, Story of the Mormons, pp. 237-238. ]

[Footnote 136: _Ibid. _, p. 244. ]

[Footnote 137: _Times and Seasons_, II, p. 414. ]

[Footnote 138: Illinois _State Register_, August 13, 1841. ]

[Footnote 139: _Ibid. _, September 24, 1841. ]

[Footnote 140: _Times and Seasons_, III, p. 651. ]

[Footnote 141: Ford, History of Illinois, p. 269. ]

[Footnote 142: Illinois _State Register_, June 17, 1842. Douglasreplied in a speech of equal tartness. See _Register_, July 1, 1842. ]

[Footnote 143: Illinois _State Register_, June 10, 1842. ]

[Footnote 144: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 277-278. ]

[Footnote 145: Gregg, History of Hancock County, p. 419. ]

[Footnote 146: Illinois _State Register_, November 4, 1842. ]

[Footnote 147: Illinois _State Register_, December 23, 1842. ]

[Footnote 148: Conkling, Recollections of the Bench and Bar, FergusHistorical Series, No. 22. ]

[Footnote 149: Conkling, Recollections of the Bench and Bar, FergusHistorical Series, No. 22]

[Footnote 150: Arnold, Reminiscences of the Illinois Bar, FergusHistorical Series, No. 22. ]

[Footnote 151: Arnold, Reminiscences of the Illinois Bar. ]

[Footnote 152: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, p. 698. ]

[Footnote 153: Statute of June 25, 1842. ]

[Footnote 154: A sheet called _The Gerrymander_ was published in March1843, which contained a series of cartoons exhibiting themonstrosities of this apportionment. The Fifth District is called "theNondescript. "]

[Footnote 155: Patterson, Early Society in Southern Illinois, FergusHistorical Series No. 14; Körner, Das deutsche Element in denVereinigten Staaten, pp. 245, 277; Baker, America as the PoliticalUtopia of Young Germany; Peoria _Register_, June 30, 1838; Ballance, History of Peoria, pp. 201-202. ]

[Footnote 156: Illinois _State Register_, March 10, 1843. ]

[Footnote 157: Illinois _State Register_, June 16, 1843. ]

[Footnote 158: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 55; Wheeler, Biographical Historyof Congress, p. 75. ]

[Footnote 159: _Globe_, 28 Cong. 1 Sess. App. Pp. 598 ff. ]

[Footnote 160: Alton _Telegraph_, July 20, 1843. ]

[Footnote 161: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 56; Wheeler, Biographical Historyof Congress, p. 75; Alton _Telegraph_, August 26, 1843. ]

[Footnote 162: According to the returns in the office of the Secretaryof State. The _Whig Almanac_ gives 451 as Douglas's majority. ]

CHAPTER IV

UNDER THE AEGIS OF ANDREW JACKSON

In his own constituency a member of the national House ofRepresentatives may be a marked man; but his office confers noparticular distinction at the national capital. He must achievedistinction either by native talent or through fortuitouscircumstance; rarely is greatness thrust upon him. A newly electedmember labors under a peculiar and immediate necessity to acquireimportance, since the time of his probation is very brief. Therepresentative who takes his seat in December of the odd year, muststand for re-election in the following year. Between these termini, lies only a single session. During his absence eager rivals may beundermining his influence at home, and the very possession of officemay weaken his chances among those disposed to consider rotation inoffice a cardinal principle of democracy. If a newly electedcongressman wishes to continue in office, he is condemned to dosomething great. 

What qualities had Douglas which would single him out from the crowdand impress his constituents with a sense of his capacity for publicservice? What had he to offset his youth, his rawness, and hislegislative inexperience? None of his colleagues cared a fig about hisrecord in the Illinois Legislature and on the Bench. In Congress, asthen constituted, every man had to stand on his own feet, unsupportedby the dubious props of a local reputation. 

There was certainly nothing commanding in the figure of the gentlemanfrom Illinois. "He had a herculean frame, " writes a contemporary, "with the exception of his lower limbs, which were short and small, dwarfing what otherwise would have been a conspicuous figure. . . . Hislarge round head surmounted a massive neck, and his features weresymmetrical, although his small nose deprived them of dignity. "[163]It was his massive forehead, indeed, that redeemed his appearance fromthe commonplace. Beneath his brow were deep-set, dark eyes that alsochallenged attention. [164] It was not a graceful nor an attractiveexterior surely, but it was the very embodiment of force. Moreover, the Little Giant had qualities of mind and heart that made men forgethis physical shortcomings. His ready wit, his suavity, and hisheartiness made him a general favorite almost at once. [165] He wassoon able to demonstrate his intellectual power. 

The House was considering a bill to remit the fine imposed uponGeneral Andrew Jackson at New Orleans for contempt of court. It was ahackneyed theme. No new, extenuating circumstances could be adduced toclear the old warrior of high-handed conduct; but a presidentialelection was approaching and there was political capital to be made bydefending "Old Hickory. " From boyhood Douglas had idolized AndrewJackson. With much the same boyish indignation which led him to teardown the coffin handbills in old Brandon, he now sprang to the defenseof his hero. The case had been well threshed already. Jackson hadbeen defended eloquently, and sometimes truthfully. A man of lessaudacity would have hesitated to swell this tide of eloquence, and atfirst, it seemed as though Douglas had little but vehemence to add tothe eulogies already pronounced. There was nothing novel in theassertion that Jackson had neither violated the Constitution bydeclaring martial law at New Orleans, nor assumed any authority whichwas not "fully authorized and legalized by his position, his duty, andthe unavoidable necessity of the case. " The House was used to thesedogmatic reiterations. But Douglas struck into untrodden ways when hecontended, that even if Jackson had violated the laws and theConstitution, his condemnation for contempt of court was "unjust, irregular and illegal. " Every unlawful act is not necessarily acontempt of court, he argued. "The doctrine of contempts only appliesto those acts which obstruct the proceedings of the court, and againstwhich the general laws of the land do not afford adequateprotection. . . . It is incumbent upon those who defend and applaud theconduct of the judge to point out the specific act done by GeneralJackson which constituted a contempt of court. The mere declaration ofmartial law is not of that character. . . . It was a matter over whichthe civil tribunals had no jurisdiction, and with which they had noconcern, unless some specific crime had been committed or injury done;and not even then until it was brought before them according to theforms of law. "[166]

The old hero had never had a more adroit counsel. Like a good lawyer, Douglas seemed to feel himself in duty bound to spar for everytechnical advantage, and to construe the law, wherever possible, infavor of his client. At the same time he did not forget that the Housewas the jury in this case, and capable of human emotions upon which hemight play. At times he became declamatory beyond the point of goodtaste. In voice and manner he betrayed the school in which he had beentrained. "When I hear gentlemen, " he cried in strident tones, "attempting to justify this unrighteous fine upon General Jackson uponthe ground of non-compliance with rules of court and mere formalities, I must confess that I cannot appreciate the force of the argument. Incases of war and desolation, in times of peril and disaster, we shouldlook at the substance and not the shadow of things. I envy not thefeelings of the man who can reason coolly and calmly about the forceof precedents and the tendency of examples in the fury of the war-cry, when 'booty and beauty' is the watchword. Talk not to me about rulesand forms in court when the enemy's cannon are pointed at the door, and the flames encircle the cupola! The man whose stoicism wouldenable him to philosophize coolly under these circumstances wouldfiddle while the Capitol was burning, and laugh at the horror andanguish that surrounded him in the midst of the conflagration! I claimnot the possession of these remarkable feelings. I concede them all tothose who think that the savior of New Orleans ought to be treatedlike a criminal for not possessing them in a higher degree. Theircourse in this debate has proved them worthy disciples of the doctrinethey profess. Let them receive all the encomiums which such sentimentsare calculated to inspire. "[167]

His closing words were marked with much the same perfervid rhetoric, only less objectionable because they were charged with genuineemotion: "Can gentlemen see nothing to admire, nothing to commend, inthe closing scenes, when, fresh from the battlefield, the victoriousgeneral--the idol of his army and the acknowledged savior of hiscountrymen--stood before Judge Hall, and quelled the tumult andindignant murmurs of the multitude by telling him that 'the same armwhich had defended the city from the ravages of a foreign enemy shouldprotect him in the discharge of his duty?' Is this the conduct of alawless desperado, who delights in trampling upon Constitution, andlaw, and right? Is there no reverence for the supremacy of the lawsand the civil institutions of the country displayed on this occasion?If such acts of heroism and moderation, of chivalry and submission, have no charms to excite the admiration or soften the animosities ofgentlemen in the Opposition, I have no desire to see them vote forthis bill. The character of the hero of New Orleans requires noendorsement from such a source. They wish to fix a mark, a stigma ofreproach, upon his character, and send him to his grave branded as acriminal. His stern, inflexible adherence to Democratic principles, his unwavering devotion to his country, and his intrepid opposition toher enemies, have so long thwarted their unhallowed schemes ofambition and power, that they fear the potency of his name on earth, even after his spirit shall have ascended to heaven. "

"An eloquent, sophistical speech, prodigiously admired by the slaveDemocracy of the House, " was the comment of John Quincy Adams; wordsof high praise, for the veteran statesman had little patience withthe style of oratory affected by this "homunculus. "[168] Acorrespondent of a Richmond newspaper wrote that this effort had givenDouglas high rank as a debater. [169] Evidence on every hand confirmsthe impression that by a single, happy stroke the young Illinoisan hadachieved enviable distinction; but whether he had qualities whichwould secure an enduring reputation, was still open to question. 

In the long run, the confidence of party associates is the surestpassport to real influence in the House. It might easily happen, indeed, that Douglas, with all his rough eloquence, would remain animpotent legislator. The history of Congress is strewn with oratoricalderelicts, who have often edified their auditors, but quite as oftenblocked the course of legislation. No one knew better than Douglas, that only as he served his party, could he hope to see his wishescrystallize into laws, and his ambitions assume the guise of reality. His opportunity to render effective service came also in this firstsession. 

Four States had neglected to comply with the recent act of Congressreapportioning representation, having elected their twenty-one membersby general ticket. The language of the statute was explicit: "In everycase where a State is entitled to more than one Representative, thenumber to which each State shall be entitled under this apportionmentshall be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal innumber to the number of Representatives, to which said State may beentitled, no one district electing more than one Representative. "[170]Now all but two of these twenty-one Representatives were Democrats. Would a Democratic majority punish this flagrant transgression ofFederal law by unseating the offenders?

In self-respect the Democratic members of the House could not do lessthan appoint a committee to investigate whether the representatives inquestion had been elected "in conformity to the Constitution and thelaw. "[171] Thereupon it devolved upon the six Democratic members ofthis committee of nine to construct a theory, by which they might seattheir party associates under cover of legality. Not that they held_any_ such explicit mandate from the party, nor that they deliberatelywent to work to pervert the law; they were simply under psychologicalpressure from which only men of the severest impartiality could freethemselves. The work of drafting the majority report (it was aforegone conclusion that the committee would divide), fell to Douglas. It pronounced the law of 1842 "not a _law_ made in pursuance of theConstitution of the United States, and valid, operative, and bindingupon the States. " Accordingly, the representatives of the four Statesin question were entitled to their seats. 

By what process of reasoning had Douglas reached this conclusion? Thereport directed its criticism chiefly against the second section ofthe Act of 1842, which substituted the district for the general ticketin congressional elections. The Constitution provides that "the Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators andRepresentatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislaturethereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter suchRegulations. " But by the law of 1842, contended the report, Congresshad only partially exercised its power, and had attempted "to subvertthe entire system of legislation adopted by the several States of theUnion, and to compel them to conform to certain rules established byCongress for their government. " Congress "may" make or alter suchregulations, but "the right to change State laws or to enact otherswhich shall suspend them, does not imply the right to compel the Statelegislatures to make such change or new enactments. " Congress mayexercise the privilege of making such regulations, only when the Statelegislatures refuse to act, or act in a way to subvert theConstitution. If Congress acts at all in fixing times, places, andmanner of elections, it must act exhaustively, leaving nothing for theState legislatures to do. The Act of 1842 was general in its nature, and inoperative without State legislation. The history of theConstitutional Convention of 1787 was cited to prove that it wasgenerally understood that Congress would exercise this power only in afew specified cases. [172]

Replying to the attacks which this report evoked, Douglas took stillhigher ground. He was ready to affirm that Congress had no power todistrict the States. To concede to Congress so great a power was todeny those reserved rights of the States, without which theirsovereignty would be an empty title. "Congress may alter, but itcannot supersede these regulations [of the States] till it suppliesothers in their places, so as to leave the right of representationperfect. "[173]

The argument of the report was bold and ingenious, if not convincing. The minority were ready to admit that the case had been cleverlystated, although hardly a man doubted that political considerationshad weighed most heavily with the chairman of the committee. Douglasresented the suggestion with such warmth, however, that it ischaritable to suppose he was not conscious of the bias under which hehad labored. 

Upon one auditor, who to be sure was inexpressibly bored by the wholediscussion of the "everlasting general ticket elections, " Douglas madean unhappy impression. John Quincy Adams recorded in his diary, --thatdiary which was becoming a sort of Rogues' Gallery: "He now raved outhis hour in abusive invectives upon the members who had pointed outits slanders and upon the Whig party. His face was convulsed, hisgesticulation frantic, and he lashed himself into such a heat that ifhis body had been made of combustible matter, it would have burnt out. In the midst of his roaring, to save himself from choking, he strippedoff and cast away his cravat, and unbuttoned his waist-coat, and hadthe air and aspect of a half-naked pugilist. And this man comes from ajudicial bench, and passes for an eloquent orator. "[174]

No one will mistake this for an impartial description. Nearly everyDemocrat who spoke upon this tedious question, according to Adams, either "raved" or "foamed at the mouth. " The old gentleman was toowearied and disgusted with the affair to be a fair reporter. But as acaricature, this picture of the young man from Illinois certainly hitsoff the style which he affected, in common with most Western orators. 

Notwithstanding his very substantial services to his party, Douglashad sooner or later to face his constituents with an answer to thecrucial question, "What have you done for us?" It is a hard, brutalquestion, which has blighted many a promising career in Americanpolitics. The interest which Douglas exhibited in the Western Harborsbill was due, in part at least, to his desire to propitiate those byvirtue of whose suffrages he was a member of the House ofRepresentatives. At the same time, he was no doubt sincerely devotedto the measure, because he believed profoundly in its nationalcharacter. Local and national interests were so inseparable in hismind, that he could urge the improvement of the Illinois River as atruly national undertaking. "Through this channel, and this alone, " hedeclared all aglow with enthusiasm, "we have a connected anduninterrupted navigation for steamboats and large vessels from theAtlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, to all the northern lakes. "Considerations of war and defense, as well as of peace and commerce, counselled the proposed expenditure. "We have no fleet upon the lakes;we have no navy-yard there at which we could construct one, and nochannel through which we could introduce our vessels from thesea-board. In times of war, those lakes must be defended, if defendedat all, by a fleet from the naval depot and a yard on the MississippiRiver. " After the State of Illinois had expended millions on theIllinois and Michigan canal, was Congress to begrudge a few thousandsto remove the sand-bars which impeded navigation in this "nationalhighway by an irrevocable ordinance"?[175]

This special plea for the Illinois River was prefaced by a lengthyexposition of Democratic doctrine respecting internal improvements, for it was incumbent upon every good Democrat to explain a measurewhich seemed to countenance a broad construction of the powers of theFederal government. Douglas was at particular pains to show that thebill did not depart from the principles laid down in PresidentJackson's famous Maysville Road veto-message. [176] To him Jacksonincarnated the party faith; and his public documents were a veritable, political testament. In the art of reading consistency into his own, or the conduct of another, Douglas had no equal. To the end of hisdays he possessed in an extraordinary degree the subtle power ofredistributing emphasis so as to produce a desired effect. It was themost effective and the most insidious of his many natural gifts, forit often won immediate ends at the permanent sacrifice of hisreputation for candor and veracity. The immediate result of this essayin interpretation of Jacksonian principles, was to bring down uponDouglas's devoted head the withering charge, peculiarly blighting to abudding statesman, that he was conjuring with names to the exclusionof arguments. With biting sarcasm, Representative Holmes drewattention to the gentleman's disposition, after the fashion of littlemen, to advance to the fray under the seven-fold shield of theTelamon Ajax--a classical allusion which was altogether lost on theyoung man from Illinois. 

The appropriation for the Illinois River was stricken from the WesternHarbors bill much to Douglas's regret. [177] Still, he had evinced agenuine concern for the interests of his constituents and his rewardwas even now at hand. Early in the year the Peoria _Press_ hadrecommended a Democratic convention to nominate a candidate forCongress. [178] The _State Register_, and other journals friendly toDouglas, took up the cry, giving the movement thus all the marks ofspontaneity. The Democratic organization was found to be intact; theconvention was held early in May at Pittsfield; and the HonorableStephen A. Douglas was unanimously re-nominated for Representative toCongress from the Fifth Congressional District. [179]

Soon after this well-ordered convention in the little Western town ofPittsfield, came the national convention of the Democratic party atBaltimore, where the unexpected happened. To Douglas, as to the rankand file of the party, the selection of Polk must have come as asurprise; but whatever predilections he may have had for anothercandidate, were speedily suppressed. [180] With the platform, at least, he found himself in hearty accord; and before the end of the sessionhe convinced his associates on the Democratic side of the House, thathe was no lukewarm supporter of the ticket. 

While the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriations bill was underdiscussion in the House, a desultory debate occurred on the politicsof Colonel Polk. Such digressions were not unusual on the eve of apresidential election. Seizing the opportunity, Douglas obtainedrecognition from the Speaker and launched into a turgid speech indefence of Polk, "the standard-bearer of Democracy and freedom. " Ithad been charged that Colonel Polk was "the industrious follower ofAndrew Jackson. " Douglas turned the thrust neatly by asserting, "He isemphatically a Young Hickory--the unwavering friend of Old Hickory inall his trials--his bosom companion--his supporter and defender on alloccasions, in public and private, from his early boyhood until thepresent moment. No man living possessed General Jackson's confidencein a greater degree. . . . That he has been the industrious follower ofGeneral Jackson in those glorious contests for the defence of hiscountry's rights, will not be deemed the unpardonable sin by theAmerican people, so long as their hearts beat and swell with gratitudeto their great benefactor. He is the very man for the times--a 'chipof the old block'--of the true hickory stump. The people want a manwhose patriotism, honesty, ability, and devotion to democraticprinciples, have been tested and tried in the most stormy times of therepublic, and never found wanting. That man is James K. Polk ofTennessee. "[181]

There could be no better evidence that Douglas felt sure of his ownfences, than his willingness to assist in the general campaign outsideof his own district and State. He not only addressed a mass-meeting ofdelegates from many Western States at Nashville, Tennessee, [182] butjourneyed to St. Louis and back again, in the service of theDemocratic Central Committee, speaking at numerous points along theway with gratifying success, if we may judge from the grateful wordsof appreciation in the Democratic press. [183] It was while he was inattendance on the convention in Nashville that he was brought face toface with Andrew Jackson. The old hero was then living in retirementat the Hermitage. Thither, as to a Mecca, all good Democrats turnedtheir faces after the convention. Douglas received from the old man agreeting which warmed the cockles of his heart, and which, dulyreported by the editor of the Illinois _State Register_, who was hiscompanion, was worth many votes at the cross-roads of Illinois. Thescene was described as follows:

"Governor Clay, of Alabama, was near General Jackson, who was himselfsitting on a sofa in the hall, and as each person entered, thegovernor introduced him to the hero and he passed along. When JudgeDouglas was thus introduced, General Jackson raised his stillbrilliant eyes and gazed for a moment in the countenance of the judge, still retaining his hand. 'Are you the Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, whodelivered a speech last session on the subject of the fine imposed onme for declaring martial law at New Orleans?'" asked General Jackson. 

"'I have delivered a speech in the House of Representatives upon thatsubject, ' was the modest reply of our friend. 

"'Then stop, ' said General Jackson; 'sit down here beside me. I desireto return you my thanks for that speech. You are the first man thathas ever relieved my mind on a subject which has rested upon it forthirty years. My enemies have always charged me with violating theConstitution of my country by declaring martial law at New Orleans, and my friends have always admitted the violation, but have contendedthat circumstances justified me in that violation. I never couldunderstand how it was that the performance of a solemn duty to mycountry--a duty which, if I had neglected, would have made me atraitor in the sight of God and man, could properly be pronounced aviolation of the Constitution. I felt convinced in my own mind that Iwas not guilty of such a heinous offense; but I could never make out alegal justification of my course, nor has it ever been done, sir, until you, on the floor of Congress, at the late session, establishedit beyond the possibility of cavil or doubt. I thank you, sir, forthat speech. It has relieved my mind from the only circumstance thatrested painfully upon it. Throughout my whole life I never performedan official act which I viewed as a violation of the Constitution ofmy country; and I can now go down to the grave in peace, with theperfect consciousness that I have not broken, at any period of mylife, the Constitution or laws of my country. '

"Thus spoke the old hero, his countenance brightened by emotions whichit is impossible for us to describe. We turned to look at Douglas--hewas speechless. He could not reply, but convulsively shaking the agedveteran's hand, he rose and left the hall. Certainly General Jacksonhad paid him the highest compliment he could have bestowed on anyindividual. "[184]

When the August elections had come and gone, Douglas found himselfre-elected by a majority of fourteen hundred votes and by a pluralityover his Whig opponent of more than seventeen hundred. [185] He was tohave another opportunity to serve his constituents; but the questionwas still open, whether his talents were only those of an adroitpolitician intent upon his own advancement, or those of a statesman, capable of conceiving generous national policies which would effacethe eager ambitions of the individual and the grosser ends of party. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 163: Poore, Reminiscences, I, pp. 316-317. ]

[Footnote 164: Joseph Wallace in the Illinois _State Register_, April19, 1885. ]

[Footnote 165: Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, 1, p. 146. ]

[Footnote 166: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 44. ]

[Footnote 167: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 45. ]

[Footnote 168: J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, XI, p. 478. ]

[Footnote 169: Richmond _Enquirer_, Jan. 6, 1844. ]

[Footnote 170: Act of June 25, 1842; United States Statutes at Large, V, p. 491. ]

[Footnote 171: December 14, 1843. _Globe_, 28 Cong. I Sess. P. 36. ]

[Footnote 172: Niles' _Register_, Vol. 65, pp. 393-396. ]

[Footnote 173: _Globe_, 28 Cong. I Sess. Pp. 276-277. ]

[Footnote 174: J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, XI, p. 510. ]

[Footnote 175: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 549-550. For the trendof public opinion in the district which Douglas represented, seePeoria _Register, _ September 21, 1839. ]

[Footnote 176: _Globe, _28 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 527-528]

[Footnote 177: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 534. ]

[Footnote 178: Illinois _State Register_, February 9, 1844. ]

[Footnote 179: _Ibid. _, May 17, 1844. ]

[Footnote 180: It was intimated that he had at first aided Tyler inhis forlorn hope of a second term. ]

[Footnote 181: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 598 ff. ]

[Footnote 182: Illinois _State Register_, August 30, 1844. ]

[Footnote 183: _Ibid. _, September 27, 1844. ]

[Footnote 184: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 70-71. ]

[Footnote 185: Official returns in the office of the Secretary ofState. ]

CHAPTER V

MANIFEST DESTINY

The defeat of President Tyler's treaty in June, 1844, just on the eveof the presidential campaign, gave the Texas question an importancewhich the Democrats in convention had not foreseen, when they insertedthe re-annexation plank in the platform. The hostile attitude of Whigsenators and of Clay himself toward annexation, helped to make Texas aparty issue. While it cannot be said that Polk was elected on thisissue alone, there was some plausibility in the statement of PresidentTyler, that "a controlling majority of the people, and a majority ofthe States, have declared in favor of immediate annexation. " At allevents, when Congress reassembled, President Tyler promptly acted onthis supposition. In his annual message, and again in a specialmessage a fortnight later, he urged "prompt and immediate action onthe subject of annexation. " Since the two governments had alreadyagreed on terms of annexation, he recommended their adoption byCongress "in the form of a joint resolution, or act, to be perfectedand made binding on the two countries, when adopted in like manner bythe government of Texas. "[186] A policy which had not been able tosecure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate was now to be endorsedby a majority of both houses. In short, a legislative treaty was to beenacted by Congress. 

The Hon. Stephen A. Douglas had taken his seat in the House withaugmented self-assurance. He had not only secured his re-election andthe success of his party in Illinois, but he had served mostacceptably as a campaign speaker in Polk's own State. Surely he wasentitled to some consideration in the councils of his party. In theappointment of standing committees, he could hardly hope for achairmanship. It was reward enough to be made a member of theCommittee of Elections and of the Committee on the Judiciary. On theparamount question before this Congress, he entertained strongconvictions, which he had no hesitation in setting forth in a seriesof resolutions, while older members were still feeling their way. Thepreamble of these "Joint Resolutions for the annexation of Texas" wasin itself a little stump speech: "Whereas the treaty of 1803 hadprovided that the people of Texas should be incorporated into theUnion and admitted as soon as possible to citizenship, and whereas thepresent inhabitants have signified their willingness to be re-annexed;therefore". . . . Particular interest attaches to the Eighth Resolutionwhich proposed to extend the Missouri Compromise line through Texas, "inasmuch as the compromise had been made prior to the treaty of 1819, by which Texas was ceded to Spain. "[187] The resolutions nevercommanded any support worth mentioning, attention being drawn to thejoint resolution of the Committee on Foreign Affairs which was knownto have the sanction of the President. The proposal of Douglas tosettle the matter of slavery in Texas in the act of annexation itself, was perhaps his only contribution to the discussion of ways andmeans. An aggressive Southern group of representatives readily caughtup the suggestion. 

The debate upon the joint resolution was well under way before Douglassecured recognition from the Speaker. The opposition was led byWinthrop of Massachusetts and motived by reluctance to admit slaveterritory, as well as by constitutional scruples regarding the processof annexation by joint resolution. Douglas spoke largely in rejoinderto Winthrop. A clever retort to Winthrop's reference to "this odiousmeasure devised for sinister purposes by a President not elected bythe people, " won for Douglas the good-natured attention of the House. It was President Adams and not President Tyler, Douglas remonstrated, who had first opened negotiations for annexation; but perhaps thegentleman from Massachusetts intended to designate his colleague, Mr. Adams, when he referred to "a president not elected by thepeople"![188] Moreover, it was Mr. Adams, who as Secretary of Statehad urged our claims to all the country as far as the Rio del Norte, under the Treaty of 1803. In spite of these just boundary claims andour solemn promise to admit the inhabitants of the Louisiana purchaseto citizenship, we had violated that pledge by ceding Texas to Spainin 1819. These people had protested against this separation, only afew months after the signing of the treaty; they now asked us toredeem our ancient pledge. Honor and violated faith required theimmediate annexation of Texas. [189] Had Douglas known, or taken painsto ascertain, who these people were, who protested against the treatyof 1819, he would hardly have wasted his commiseration upon them. Enough: the argument served his immediate purpose. 

To those who contended that Congress had no power to annex territorywith a view to admitting new States, Douglas replied that theConstitution not only grants specific powers to Congress, but alsogeneral power to pass acts necessary and proper to carry out thespecific powers. Congress may admit new States, but in the presentinstance Congress cannot exercise that power without annexingterritory. "The annexation of Texas is a prerequisite without theperformance of which Texas cannot be admitted. "[190] The Constitutiondoes not state that the President and Senate may admit new States, northat they shall make laws for the acquisition of territory in order toenable Congress to admit new States. The Constitution declaresexplicitly, "_Congress_ may admit new States. " "When the grant ofpower is to Congress, the authority to pass all laws necessary to itsexecution is also in Congress; and the treaty-making power is to beconfined to those cases where the power is not located elsewhere bythe Constitution. "[191]

With those weaklings who feared lest the extension of the nationaldomain should react unfavorably upon our institutions, and whoapprehended war with Mexico, Douglas had no patience. The States ofthe Union were already drawn closer together than the thirteenoriginal States in the first years of the Union, because of theimproved means of communication. Transportation facilities were nowmultiplying more rapidly than population. "Our federal system, " heexclaimed, with a burst of jingoism that won a round of applause fromWestern Democrats as he resumed his seat, "Our federal system isadmirably adapted to the whole continent; and, while I would notviolate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in anymanner tarnish the national honor, I would exert all legal andhonorable means to drive Great Britain and the last vestiges of royalauthority from the continent of North America, and extend the limitsof the republic from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-boundrepublic, and have no more disputes about boundaries, or 'red lines'upon the maps. "[192]

In this speech there was one notable omission. The slavery questionwas not once touched upon. Those who have eyes only to see plotshatched by the slave power in national politics, are sure to construethis silence as part of an ignoble game. It is possible that Douglaspurposely evaded this question; but it does not by any means followthat he was deliberately playing into the hands of Southern leaders. The simple truth is, that it was quite possible in the early fortiesfor men, in all honesty, to ignore slavery, because they regarded iteither as a side issue or as no issue at all. It was quite possible tothink on large national policies without confusing them with slavery. Men who shared with Douglas the pulsating life of the Northwest wantedTexas as a "theater for enterprise and industry. " As an Ohiorepresentative said, they desired "a West for their sons and daughterswhere they would be free from family influences, from associatedwealth and from those thousand things which in the old settled countryhave the tendency of keeping down the efforts and enterprises ofyoung people. " The hearts of those who, like Douglas, had carved outtheir fortunes in the new States, responded to that sentiment in a waywhich neither a John Quincy Adams nor a Winthrop could understand. 

Yet the question of slavery in the proposed State of Texas was thrustupon the attention of Congress by the persistent tactics of AlexanderH. Stephens and a group of Southern associates. They refused to acceptall terms of annexation which did not secure the right of Statesformed south of the Missouri Compromise line to come into the Unionwith slavery, if they desired to do so. [193] Douglas met thisopposition with the suggestion that not more than three States besidesTexas should be created out of the new State, but that such Statesshould be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as thepeople of each should determine, at the time of their application toCongress for admission. As the germ of the doctrine of PopularSovereignty, this resolution has both a personal and a historicinterest. While it failed to pass, [194] it suggested to Stephens andhis friends a mode of adjustment which might satisfy all sides. It wasat his suggestion that Milton Brown of Tennessee proposed resolutionsproviding for the admission of not more than four States besidesTexas, out of the territory acquired. If these States should be formedsouth of the Missouri Compromise line, they were to be admitted withor without slavery, as the people of each should determine. Northernmen demurred, but Douglas saved the situation by offering as anamendment, "And in such States as shall be formed north of saidMissouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except forcrime, shall be prohibited. "[195] The amendment was accepted, and thusamended, the joint resolution passed by an ample margin of votes. Inview of later developments, this extension of the Missouri Compromiseline is a point of great significance in the career of Douglas. 

Not long after Douglas had voiced his vision of "an ocean-boundrepublic, " he was called upon to assist one of the most remarkableemigrations westward, from his own State. The Mormons in HancockCounty had become the most undesirable of neighbors to hisconstituents. Once the allies of the Democrats, they were now held indetestation by all Gentiles of adjoining counties, irrespective ofpolitical affiliations. The announcement of the doctrine of polygamyby the Prophet Smith had been accompanied by acts of defiance andfollowed by depredations, which, while not altogether unprovoked, aroused the non-Mormons to a dangerous pitch of excitement. In themidst of general disorder in Hancock County, Joseph Smith wasmurdered. Every deed of violence was now attributed to the Danites, asthe members of the militant order of the Mormon Church styledthemselves. Early in the year 1845, the Nauvoo Charter was repealed;and Governor Ford warned his quondam friends confidentially that theyhad better betake themselves westward, suggesting California as "afield for the prettiest enterprise that has been undertaken in moderntimes. " Disgraceful outrages filled the summer months of 1845 inHancock County. A band of Mormon-haters ravaged the county, burninghouses, barns, and grain stacks, and driving unprotected Mormonsettlers into Nauvoo. To put an end to this state of affairs, GovernorFord sent Judge Douglas and Attorney-General McDougal, with a force ofmilitia under the command of General Hardin, into Hancock County. Public meetings in all the adjoining counties were now demanding theexpulsion of the Mormons in menacing language. [196] While GeneralHardin issued a proclamation bidding Mormons and anti-Mormons todesist from further violence, and promised that his scanty force offour hundred would enforce the laws impartially, the commissionersentered into negotiations with the Mormon authorities. On the pressingdemand of the commissioners and of a deputation from the town ofQuincy, Brigham Young announced that the Mormons purposed to leaveIllinois in the spring, "for some point so remote that there will notneed to be a difficulty with the people and ourselves. "

There can be little doubt that Douglas's advice weighed heavily withthe Mormons. As a judge, he had administered the law impartiallybetween Mormon and non-Mormon; and this was none too common in thecivic history of the Mormon Church. As an aspirant for office, he hadfrankly courted their suffrages; but times had changed. The reply ofthe commissioners, though not unkindly worded, contained somewholesome advice. "We think that steps should be taken by you to makeit apparent that you are actually preparing to remove in the spring. By carrying out, in good faith, your proposition to remove, assubmitted to us, we think you should be, and will be, permitted todepart peaceably next spring for your destination, west of the RockyMountains. . . . We recommend to you to place every possible restraint inyour power over the members of your church, to prevent them fromcommitting acts of aggression or retaliation on any citizens of theState, as a contrary course may, and most probably will, bring about acollision which will subvert all efforts to maintain the peace in thiscounty; and we propose making a similar request of your opponents inthis and the surrounding counties. "[197]

Announcing the result of their negotiations to the anti-Mormon peopleof Hancock County, the commissioners gave equally good advice:"Remember, whatever may be the aggression against you, the sympathy ofthe public may be forfeited. It cannot be denied that the burning ofthe houses of the Mormons . . . Was an act criminal in itself, anddisgraceful to its perpetrators. . . . A resort to, or persistence in, such a course under existing circumstances will make you forfeit allthe respect and sympathy of the community. "

Unhappily this advice was not long heeded by either side. WhileDouglas was giving his vote for men and money for the Mexican War andthe gallant Hardin was serving his country in command of a regiment, "the last Mormon war" broke out, which culminated in the siege andevacuation of Nauvoo. Passing westward into No-man's-land, the Mormonsbecame eventually the founders of one of the Territories by whichDouglas sought to span the continent. 

It was only in the Northwest that the cry for the re-occupation ofOregon had the ring of sincerity; elsewhere it had been thought of asa response to the re-annexation of Texas, --more or less of avote-catching device. The sentiment in Douglas's constituency wasstrongly in favor of an aggressive policy in Oregon. The first band ofAmericans to go thither, for the single purpose of settlement andoccupation, set out from Peoria. [198] These were "young men of theright sort, " in whom the eternal _Wanderlust_ of the race had beenkindled by tales of returned missionaries. Public exercises were heldon their departure, and the community sanctioned this outflow of itsyouthful strength. Dwellers in the older communities of the East hadlittle sympathy with this enterprise. It was ill-timed, many hundredyears in advance of the times. Why emigrate from a region but justreclaimed from barbarism, where good land was still abundant?[199]Perhaps it was in reply to such doubts that an Illinois rhymester badehis New England brother

 "Scan the opening glories of the West, Her boundless prairies and her thousand streams, The swarming millions who will crowd her breast, 'Mid scenes enchanting as a poet's dreams: And then bethink you of your own stern land, Where ceaseless toil will scarce a pittance earn, And gather quickly to a hopeful band, -- Say parting words, --and to the westward turn. "[200]

Douglas tingled to his fingers' ends with the sentiment expressed inthese lines. The prospect of forfeiting this Oregon country, --thisgreater Northwest, --to Great Britain, stirred all the belligerentblood in his veins. Had it fallen to him to word the Democraticplatform, he would not have been able to choose a better phrase than"re-occupation of Oregon. " The elemental jealousy and hatred of theWestern pioneer for the claim-jumper found its counterpart in hishostile attitude toward Great Britain. He was equally fearful lest alow estimate of the value of Oregon should make Congress indifferentto its future. He had endeavored to have Congress purchase copies ofGreenhow's _History of the Northwest Coast of North America_, so thathis colleagues might inform themselves about this El Dorado. [201]

There was, indeed, much ignorance about Oregon, in Congress and out. To the popular mind Oregon was the country drained by the ColumbiaRiver, a vast region on the northwest coast. As defined by theauthority whom Douglas summoned to the aid of his colleagues, Oregonwas the territory west of the Rocky Mountains between the parallels of42° and 54° 40' north latitude. [202] Treaties between Russia and GreatBritain, and between Russia and the United States, had fixed thesouthern boundary of Russian territory on the continent at 54° 40'; atreaty between the United States and Spain had given the forty-secondparallel as the northern boundary of the Spanish possessions; and ajoint treaty of occupation between Great Britain and the United Statesin 1818, --renewed in 1827, --had established a _modus vivendi_ betweenthe rival claimants, which might be terminated by either party ontwelve months' notice. Meantime Great Britain and the United Stateswere silent competitors for exclusive ownership of the mainland andislands between Spanish and Russian America. Whether the technicalquestions involved in these treaties were so easily dismissed, wassomething that did not concern the resolute expansionist. It wasenough for him that, irrespective of title derived from priority ofdiscovery, the United States had, as Greenhow expressed it, a stronger"national right, " by virtue of the process by which their people weresettling the Mississippi Valley and the great West. This was butanother way of stating the theory of manifest destiny. 

No one knew better than Douglas that paper claims lost half theirforce unless followed up by vigorous action. Priority of occupationwas a far better claim than priority of discovery. Hence, thegovernment must encourage actual settlement on the Oregon. Twoisolated bills that Douglas submitted to Congress are full ofsuggestion, when connected by this thought: one provided for theestablishment of the territory of Nebraska;[203] the other, for theestablishment of military posts in the territories of Nebraska andOregon, to protect the commerce of the United States with New Mexicoand California, as well as emigration to Oregon. [204] Though neitherbill seems to have received serious consideration, both were to beforced upon the attention of Congress in after years by theirpersistent author. 

A bill had already been reported by the Committee on Territories, boldly extending the government of the United States over the wholedisputed area. [205] Conservatives in both parties deprecated suchaction as both hasty and unwise, in view of negotiations then inprogress; but the Hotspurs would listen to no prudentialconsiderations. Sentiments such as those expressed by Morris ofPennsylvania irritated them beyond measure. Why protect this wanderingpopulation in Oregon? he asked. Let them take care of themselves; orif they cannot protect themselves, let the government defend themduring the period of their infancy, and then let them form a republicof their own. He did not wish to imperil the Union by crossingbarriers beyond which nature had intended that we should not go. 

This frank, if not cynical, disregard of the claims of Americanemigrants, --"wandering and unsettled" people, Morris had calledthem, --brought Douglas to his feet. Memories of a lad who had himselfonce been a wanderer from the home of his fathers, spurred him toresent this thinly veiled contempt for Western emigrants and the partwhich they were manfully playing in the development of the West. Thegentleman should say frankly, retorted Douglas, that he is desirous ofdissolving the Union. Consistency should force him to take the groundthat our Union must be dissolved and divided up into various, separaterepublics by the Alleghanies, the Green and the White Mountains. Besides, to cede the territory of Oregon to its inhabitants would betantamount to ceding it to Great Britain. He, for one, would neveryield an inch of Oregon either to Great Britain or any othergovernment. He looked forward to a time when Oregon would become aconsiderable member of the great American family of States. Wait forthe issue of the negotiations now pending? When had negotiations notbeen pending! Every man in his senses knew that there was no hope ofgetting the country by negotiation. He was for erecting a governmenton this side of the Rockies, extending our settlements under militaryprotection, and then establishing the territorial government ofOregon. Facilitate the means of communication across the RockyMountains, and let the people there know and feel that they are a partof the government of the United States, and under its protection; thatwas his policy. 

As for Great Britain: she had already run her network of possessionsand fortifications around the United States. She was intriguing forCalifornia, and for Texas, and she had her eye on Cuba; she wasinsidiously trying to check the growth of republican institutions onthis continent and to ruin our commerce. "It therefore becomes us toput this nation in a state of defense; and when we are told that thiswill lead to war, all I have to say is this, violate no treatystipulations, nor any principle of the law of nations; preserve thehonor and integrity of the country, but, at the same time, assert ourright to the last inch, and then, if war comes, let it come. We mayregret the necessity which produced it, but when it does come, I wouldadminister to our citizens Hannibal's oath of eternal enmity, and notterminate the war until the question was settled forever. I would blotout the lines on the map which now mark our national boundaries onthis continent, and make the area of liberty as broad as the continentitself. I would not suffer petty rival republics to grow up here, engendering jealousy of each other, and interfering with each other'sdomestic affairs, and continually endangering their peace. I do notwish to go beyond the great ocean--beyond those boundaries which theGod of nature has marked out, I would limit myself only by thatboundary which is so clearly defined by nature. "[206]

The vehemence of these words startled the House, although it was notthe only belligerent speech on the Oregon question. Cooler heads, likeJ. Q. Adams, who feared the effect of such imprudent utterances fallingupon British ears, remonstrated at the unseemly haste with which thebill was being "driven through" the House, and counselled with all theweight of years against the puerility of provoking war in thisfashion. But the most that could be accomplished in the way ofmoderation was an amendment, which directed the President to givenotice of the termination of our joint treaty of occupation with GreatBritain. This precaution proved to be unnecessary, as the Senatefailed to act upon the bill. 

No one expected from the new President any masterful leadership of thepeople as a whole or of his party. Few listened with any markedattention, therefore, to his inaugural address. His references toTexas and Oregon were in accord with the professions of the Democraticparty, except possibly at one point, which was not noted at the timebut afterward widely commented upon. "Our title to the country of theOregon, " said he, "is clear and unquestionable. " The text of theBaltimore platform read, "Our title to the _whole_ of the territory ofOregon is clear and unquestionable. " Did President Polk mean to beambiguous at this point? Had he any reason to swerve from the strictletter of the Democratic creed?

In his first message to Congress, President Polk alarmed staunchDemocrats by stating that he had tried to compromise our clear andunquestionable claims, though he assured his party that he had done soonly out of deference to his predecessor in office. Those inheritedpolicies having led to naught, he was now prepared to reassert ourtitle to the whole of Oregon, which was sustained "by irrefragablefacts and arguments. " He would therefore recommend that provision bemade for terminating the joint treaty of occupation, for extending thejurisdiction of the United States over American citizens in Oregon, and for protecting emigrants in transit through the Indian country. These were strong measures. They might lead to war; but the temper ofCongress was warlike; and a group of Democrats in both houses wasready to take up the programme which the President had outlined. "Fifty-four forty or fight" was the cry with which they sought torally the Chauvinists of both parties to their standard. While Cassled the skirmishing line in the Senate, Douglas forged to the fore inthe House. [207]

It is good evidence of the confidence placed in Douglas by hiscolleagues that, when territorial questions of more than ordinaryimportance were pending, he was appointed chairman of the Committee onTerritories. [208] If there was one division of legislative work inwhich he showed both capacity and talent, it was in the organizationof our Western domain and in its preparation for statehood. The visionwhich dazzled his imagination was that of an ocean-bound republic; tothat manifest destiny he had dedicated his talents, not by anyself-conscious surrender, but by the irresistible sweep of hisimagination, always impressed by things in the large and reinforced bycontact with actual Western conditions. Finance, the tariff, andsimilar public questions of a technical nature, he was content toleave to others; but those which directly concerned the making of acontinental republic he mastered with almost jealous eagerness. He hadnow attained a position, which, for fourteen years, was conceded to beindisputably his, for no sooner had he entered the Senate than he wasmade chairman of a similar committee. His career must be measured bythe wisdom of his statesmanship in the peculiar problems which he wascalled upon to solve concerning the public domain. In this sphere helaid claim to expert judgment; from him, therefore, much was required;but it was the fate of nearly every territorial question to be boundup more or less intimately with the slavery question. Upon thisdelicate problem was Douglas also able to bring expert testimony tobear? Time only could tell. Meantime, the House Committee onTerritories had urgent business on hand. 

Texas was now knocking at the door of the Union, and awaited only aformal invitation to become one of the family of States, as thechairman was wont to say cheerily. Ten days after the opening of thesession Douglas reported from his committee a joint resolution forthe admission of Texas, "on an equal footing with the original statesin all respects whatever. "[209] There was a certain pleonasm aboutthis phrasing that revealed the hand of the chairman: the simplestatement must be reinforced both for legal security and forrhetorical effect. Six days later, after but a single speech, theresolution went to a third reading and was passed by a largemajority. [210] Voted upon with equal dispatch by the Senate, andapproved by the President, the joint resolution became law, December29, 1845. 

While the belligerent spirit of Congress had abated somewhat since thelast session, no such change had passed over the gentleman fromIllinois. No sooner had the Texas resolution been dispatched than hebrought in a bill to protect American settlers in Oregon, while thejoint treaty of occupation continued. He now acquiesced, it is true, in the more temperate course of first giving Great Britain twelvemonths' notice before terminating this treaty; but he was just asaverse as ever to compromise and arbitration. "For one, " said he, "Inever will be satisfied with the valley of the Columbia, nor with 49°, nor with 54° 40'; nor will I be, while Great Britain shall holdpossession of one acre on the northwest coast of America. And, Sir, Inever will agree to any arrangement that shall recognize her right toone inch of soil upon the northwest coast; and for this simple reason:Great Britain never did own, she never did have a valid title to oneinch of the country. "[211] He moved that the question of title shouldnot be left to arbitration. [212] His countrymen, he felt sure, wouldnever trust their interests to European arbitrators, prejudiced asthey inevitably would be by their monarchical environment. [213] Thisfeeling was, indeed, shared by the President and his cabinet advisers. 

With somewhat staggering frankness, Douglas laid bare his inmostmotive for unflinching opposition to Great Britain. The value ofOregon was not to be measured by the extent of its seacoast nor by thequality of its soil. "The great point at issue between us and GreatBritain is for the freedom of the Pacific Ocean, for the trade ofChina and Japan, of the East Indies, and for the maritime ascendencyon all these waters. " Oregon held a strategic position on the Pacific, controlling the overland route between the Atlantic and the Orient. Ifthis country were yielded to Great Britain--"this power which holdscontrol over all the balance of the globe, "--it would make hermaritime ascendency complete. [214]

Stripped of its rhetorical garb, Douglas's speech of January 27, 1846, must be acknowledged to have a substratum of good sense and theelements of a true prophecy. When it is recalled that recentdevelopments in the Orient have indeed made the mastery of the Pacificone of the momentous questions of the immediate future, that theUnited States did not then possess either California or Alaska, andthat Oregon included the only available harbors on the coast, --thepleas of Douglas, which rang false in the ears of his own generation, sound prophetic in ours. Yet all that he said was vitiated by afallacy which a glance at a map of the Northwest will expose. The lineof 49° eventually gave to the United States Puget Sound with itsample harbors. 

Perhaps it was the same uncompromising spirit that prompted Douglas'sconstituents in far away Illinois to seize the moment to endorse hiscourse in Congress. Early in January, nineteen delegates, defying theinclemency of the season, met in convention at Rushville, andrenominated Douglas for Congress by acclamation. [215] Historymaintains an impenetrable silence regarding these faithful nineteen;it is enough to know that Douglas had no opposition to encounter inhis own bailiwick. 

When the joint resolution to terminate the treaty of occupation cameto a vote, the intransigeants endeavored to substitute a declarationto the effect that Oregon was no longer a subject for negotiation orcompromise. It was a silly proposition, in view of the circumstances, yet it mustered ten supporters. Among those who passed between thetellers, with cries of "54° 40' forever, " amid the laughter of theHouse, were Stephen A. Douglas and four of his Illinoiscolleagues. [216] Against the substitute, one hundred and forty-sixvotes were recorded, --an emphatic rebuke, if only the ten had chosenso to regard it. 

While the House resolution was under consideration in the Senate, itwas noised abroad that President Polk still considered himself free tocompromise with Great Britain on the line of 49°. Consternation fellupon the Ultras. In the words of Senator Hannegan, they had believedthe President committed to 54° 40' in as strong language as thatwhich makes up the Holy Book. As rumor passed into certainty, thefeelings of Douglas can be imagined, but not described. He hadcommitted himself, and, --so far as in him lay, --his party, to the lineof 54° 40', in full confidence that Polk, party man that he was, wouldstubbornly contest every inch of that territory. He had called on thedogs of war in dauntless fashion, and now to find "the standard-bearerof Democracy, " "Young Hickory, " and many of his party, disposed tocompromise on 49°, --it was all too exasperating for words. In contrastto the soberer counsels that now prevailed, his impetuous advocacy ofthe whole of Oregon seemed decidedly boyish. It was greatly to hiscredit, however, that, while smarting under the humiliation of themoment, he imposed restraint upon his temper and indulged in no bitterlanguage. 

Some weeks later, Douglas intimated that some of his party associateshad proved false to the professions of the Baltimore platform. NoDemocrat, he thought, could consistently accept part of Oregon insteadof the whole. "Does the gentleman, " asked Seddon, drawing him out forthe edification of the House, "hold that the Democratic party ispledged to 54° 40'?" Douglas replied emphatically that he thought theparty was thus solemnly pledged. "Does the gentleman, " persisted hisinterrogator, "understand the President to have violated theDemocratic creed in offering to compromise on 49°?" Douglas repliedthat he did understand Mr. Polk in his inaugural address "as standingup erect to the pledge of the Baltimore Convention. " And if evernegotiations were again opened in violation of that pledge, "soonerlet his tongue cleave to the roof of his mouth than he would defendthat party which should yield one inch of Oregon. "[217] Evidently hehad made up his mind to maintain his ground. Perhaps he had fainthopes that the administration would not compromise our claims. Hestill clung tenaciously to his bill for extending governmentalprotection over American citizens in Oregon and for encouragingemigration to the Pacific coast; and in the end he had the emptysatisfaction of seeing it pass the House. [218]

Meantime a war-cloud had been gathering in the Southwest. On May 11th, President Polk announced that war existed by act of Mexico. From thismoment an amicable settlement with Great Britain was assured. The mostbellicose spirit in Congress dared not offer to prosecute two wars atthe same time. The warlike roar of the fifty-four forty men subsidedinto a murmur of mild disapprobation. Yet Douglas was not among thosewho sulked in their tents. To the surprise of his colleagues, heaccepted the situation, and he was among the first to defend thePresident's course in the Mexico imbroglio. 

A month passed before Douglas had occasion to call at the White House. He was in no genial temper, for aside from personal grievances in theOregon affair, he had been disappointed in the President's recentappointments to office in Illinois. The President marked hisunfriendly air, and suspecting the cause, took pains to justify hiscourse not only in the matter of the appointments, but in the Oregonaffair. If not convinced, Douglas was at least willing to let bygonesbe bygones. Upon taking his departure, he assured the President thathe would continue to support the administration. The Presidentresponded graciously that Mr. Douglas could lead the Democratic partyin the House if he chose to do so. [219]

When President Polk announced to Congress the conclusion of the Oregontreaty with Great Britain, he recommended the organization of aterritorial government for the newly acquired country, at the earliestpracticable moment. Hardly had the President's message been read, whenDouglas offered a bill of this tenor, stating that it had beenprepared before the terms of the treaty had been made public. Hiscommittee had not named the boundaries of the new Territory in thebill, for obvious reasons. He also stated, parenthetically, that hefelt so keenly the humiliation of writing down the boundary of 49°, that he preferred to leave that duty to those who had consented tocompromise our claims. In drafting the bill, he had kept in mind theprovisional government adopted by the people of Oregon: as they had inturn borrowed nearly all the statutes of Iowa, it was to be presumedthat the people knew their own needs better than Congress. [220]

Before the bill passed the House it was amended at one notable point. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should ever exist in theTerritory, following the provision in the Ordinance of 1787 for theNorthwest Territory. Presumably Douglas was not opposed to thisamendment, [221] though he voted against the famous Wilmot Proviso twodays later. Already Douglas showed a disposition to escape the toilsof the slavery question by a _laissez faire_ policy, which wascompounded of indifference to the institution itself and of a strongattachment to states-rights. When Florida applied for admission intothe Union with a constitution that forbade the emancipation of slavesand permitted the exclusion of free negroes, he denied the right ofCongress to refuse to receive the new State. The framers of theFederal Constitution never intended that Congress should pass upon thepropriety or expediency of each clause in the constitutions of Statesapplying for admission. The great diversity of opinion resulting fromdiversity of climate, soil, pursuits, and customs, made uniformityimpossible. The people of each State were to form their constitutionin their own way, subject to the single restriction that it should berepublican in character. "They are subject to the jurisdiction andcontrol of Congress during their infancy, their minority; but whenthey obtain their majority and obtain admission into the Union, theyare free from all restraints . . . Except such as the Constitution ofthe United States has imposed. "[222]

The absorbing interest of Douglas at this point in his career isperfectly clear. To span the continent with States and Territories, tocreate an ocean-bound republic, has often seemed a gross, materialistic ideal. Has a nation no higher destiny than mereterritorial bigness? Must an intensive culture with spiritual aims besacrificed to a vulgar exploitation of physical resources? Yet theends which this strenuous Westerner had in view were not wholly grossand materialistic. To create the body of a great American Commonwealthby removing barriers to its continental expansion, so that the soul ofLiberty might dwell within it, was no vulgar ambition. The conquest ofthe continent must be accounted one of the really great achievementsof the century. In this dramatic exploit Douglas was at times anirresponsible, but never a weak nor a false actor. 

The session ended where it had begun, so far as Oregon was concerned. The Senate failed to act upon the bill to establish a territorialgovernment; the earlier bill to protect American settlers also failedof adoption; and thus American caravans continued to cross the plainsunprotected and ignored. But Congress had annexed a war. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 186: Message of December 3, 1844. ]

[Footnote 187: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 85. ]

[Footnote 188: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 65. ]

[Footnote 189: _Ibid. _, p. 66. ]

[Footnote 190: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 66. ]

[Footnote 191: _Ibid. _, p. 67. ]

[Footnote 192: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 68. ]

[Footnote 193: _American Historical Review_, VIII, pp. 93-94. ]

[Footnote 194: It was voted down 107 to 96; _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2Sess. , p. 192. ]

[Footnote 195: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 193. ]

[Footnote 196: Linn's Story of the Mormons, Chs. 10-20, gives in greatdetail the facts connected with this Mormon emigration. I haveborrowed freely from this account for the following episode. ]

[Footnote 197: Linn, Story of the Mormons, pp. 340-341. ]

[Footnote 198: Lyman, History of Oregon, III, p. 188. ]

[Footnote 199: See the letter of a New England Correspondent in thePeoria _Register_, May, 1839. ]

[Footnote 200: Peoria _Register_, June 8, 1839. ]

[Footnote 201: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 198 and 201. ]

[Footnote 202: Greenhow, Northwest Coast of North America, p. 200. ]

[Footnote 203: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 41. ]

[Footnote 204: _Ibid. _, p. 173. ]

[Footnote 205: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 63. ]

[Footnote 206: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 225-226. ]

[Footnote 207: His capacity for leadership was already recognized. Hiscolleagues conceded that he was "a man of large faculties. " SeeHilliard, Politics and Pen Pictures, p. 129. ]

[Footnote 208: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 25. ]

[Footnote 209: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 39. ]

[Footnote 210: _Ibid. _, p. 65. ]

[Footnote 211: _Ibid. _, p. 259. ]

[Footnote 212: _Ibid. _, p. 86. ]

[Footnote 213: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 260. ]

[Footnote 214: _Ibid. _, pp. 258-259. ]

[Footnote 215: Illinois _State Register_, Jan. 15, 1846. ]

[Footnote 216: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 347; Wheeler, History ofCongress, pp. 114-115. ]

[Footnote 217: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. P. 497. ]

[Footnote 218: _Ibid. _, pp. 85, 189, 395, 690-691. ]

[Footnote 219: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for June 17, 1846. ]

[Footnote 220: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1203. ]

[Footnote 221: He voted for a similar amendment in 1844; see _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 236. ]

[Footnote 222: _Globe_, 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 284. ]

CHAPTER VI

WAR AND POLITICS

A long and involved diplomatic history preceded President Polk'ssimple announcement that "Mexico has passed the boundary of the UnitedStates, has invaded our territory and shed American blood uponAmerican soil. " Rightly to evaluate these words, the reader shouldbear in mind that the mission of John Slidell to Mexico had failed;that the hope of a peaceable adjustment of the Texas boundary and ofAmerican claims against Mexico had vanished; and that General Taylorhad been ordered to the Rio Grande in disregard of Mexican claims tothat region. One should also know that, from the beginning of hisadministration, Polk had hoped to secure from our bankrupt neighborthe cession of California as an indemnity. [223] A motive forforbearance in dealing with the distraught Mexican government was thuswholly absent from the mind of President Polk. 

Such of these facts as were known at the time, supplied the Whigopposition in Congress with an abundance of ammunition against theadministration. Language was used which came dangerously near beingunparliamentary. So the President was willing to sacrifice Oregon toprosecute this "illegal, unrighteous and damnable war" for Texas, sneered Delano. "Where did the gentleman from Illinois stand now? Washe still in favor of 61?" This sally brought Douglas to his feet andelicited one of his cleverest extempore speeches. He believed thatsuch words as the gentleman had uttered could come only from one whodesired defeat for our arms. "All who, after war is declared, condemnthe justice of our cause, are traitors in their hearts. And would toGod that they would commit some overt act for which they could bedealt with according to their deserts. " Patriots might differ as tothe expediency of entering upon war; but duty and honor forbadedivided counsels after American blood had been shed on American soil. Had he foreseen the extraordinary turn of the discussion, he assuredhis auditors, he could have presented "a catalogue of aggressions andinsults; of outrages on our national flag--on persons and property ofour citizens; of the violation of treaty stipulations, and the murder, robbery, and imprisonment of our countrymen. " These were all anteriorto the annexation of Texas, and perhaps alone would have justified adeclaration of war; but "magnanimity and forbearance toward a weak andimbecile neighbor" prevented hostilities. The recent outrages left thecountry no choice but war. The invasion of the country was the last ofthe cumulative causes for war. 

But was the invaded territory properly "our country"? This was the_crux_ of the whole matter. On this point Douglas was equallyconfident and explicit. Waiving the claims which the treaty of SanIldefonso may have given to the boundary of the Rio Grande, he restedthe whole case upon "an immutable principle"--the Republic of Texasheld the country on the left bank of that river by virtue of asuccessful revolution. The United States had received Texas as a Statewith all her territory, and had no right to surrender any portion ofit. [224]

The evidence which Douglas presented to confirm these claims is highlyinteresting. The right of Texas to have and to hold the territory fromthe Nueces to the Rio Grande was, in his opinion, basedincontrovertibly on the treaty made by Santa Anna after the battle ofSan Jacinto, which acknowledged the independence of Texas andrecognized the Rio Grande as its boundary. To an inquiry whether thetreaty was ever ratified by the government of Mexico, Douglas repliedthat he was not aware that it had been ratified by anyone except SantaAnna, for the very good reason that he was the government at the time. "Has not that treaty with Santa Anna been since discarded by theMexican government?" asked the venerable J. Q. Adams. "I presume ithas, " replied Douglas, "for I am not aware of any treaty or compactwhich that government ever entered into that has not either beenviolated or repudiated by them afterwards. " But Santa Anna, asrecognized dictator, was the _de facto_ government, and the acts of a_de facto_ government were binding on the nation as against foreignnations. "It is immaterial, therefore, whether Mexico has or has notsince repudiated Santa Anna's treaty with Texas. It was executed atthe time by competent authority. She availed herself of all itsbenefits. " Forthwith Texas established counties beyond the Nueces, even to the Rio Grande, and extended her jurisdiction over thatregion, while in a later armistice Mexico recognized the Rio Grande asthe boundary. It was in the clear light of these facts that Congresshad passed an act extending the revenue laws of the United Statesover the country between the Rio Grande and the Nueces--the verycountry in which American soldiers had been slain by an invadingforce. 

All things considered, Douglas's line of argument was as wellsustained as any presented by the supporters of the war. The absenceof any citations to substantiate important points was of course due tothe impromptu nature of the speech. Two years later, [225] in acarefully prepared speech constructed on much the same principles, hemade good these omissions, but without adding much, it must beconfessed, to the strength of his argument. The chain of evidence wasin fact no stronger than its weakest link, which was the so-calledtreaty of Santa Anna with the President of the Republic of Texas. Nowhere in the articles, public or secret, is there an expressrecognition of the independence of the Republic, nor of the boundary. Santa Anna simply pledged himself to do his utmost to bring about arecognition of independence, and an acknowledgment of the claims ofTexas to the Rio Grande as a boundary. [226] Did Douglas misinterpretthese articles, or did he chance upon an unauthentic version of them?In the subsequent speech to which reference has been made, he citedspecific articles which supported his contention. These citations donot tally with either the public or secret treaty. It may be doubtedwhether the secret articles were generally known at this time; but theopen treaty had been published in Niles' _Register_ correctly, and hadbeen cited by President Polk. [227] The inference would seem to bethat Douglas unwittingly used an unauthenticated version, and found init a conclusive argument for the claim of Texas to the disputedterritory. 

Mr. John Quincy Adams had followed Douglas with the keenest interest, for with all the vigor which his declining strength permitted, he haddenounced the war as an aggression upon a weaker neighbor. He hadrepeatedly interrupted Douglas, so that the latter almost insensiblyaddressed his remarks to him. They presented a striking contrast: thefeeble, old man and the ardent, young Westerner. When Douglas alludedto the statement of Mr. Adams in 1819, that "our title to the Rio delNorte is as clear as to the island of New Orleans, " the old manreplied testily, "I never said that our title was good to the Rio delNorte from its mouth to its source. " But the gentleman surely didclaim the Rio del Norte in general terms as the boundary under theLouisiana treaty, persisted Douglas. "I have the official evidenceover his own signature. . . . It is his celebrated dispatch to Don Onis, the Spanish minister. " "I wrote that dispatch as Secretary of State, "responded Mr. Adams, somewhat disconcerted by evidence from his ownpen, "and endeavored to make out the best case I could for my owncountry, as it was my duty; but I utterly deny that I claimed the Riodel Norte in its whole extent. I only claimed it as the line a shortdistance up, and then took a line northward, some distance from theriver. " "I have heard of this line to which the gentleman refers, "replied Douglas. "It followed a river near the gorge of the mountains, certainly more than a hundred miles above Matamoras. Consequently, taking the gentleman on his own claim, the position occupied byGeneral Taylor opposite Matamoras, and every inch of the ground uponwhich an American soldier has planted his foot, were clearly withinour own territory as claimed by him in 1819. "[228]

It seemed to an eyewitness of this encounter that the veteranstatesman was decidedly worsted. "The House was divided betweenadmiration for the new actor on the great stage of national affairsand reverence for the retiring chief, " wrote a friend in after years, with more loyalty than accuracy. [229] The Whig side of the chamber wascertainly in no mood to waste admiration on any Democrat who defended"Polk the Mendacious. "

Hardly had the war begun when there was a wild scramble amongDemocrats for military office. It seemed to the distressed Presidentas though every Democratic civilian became an applicant for somecommission. Particularly embarrassing was the passion for office thatseized upon members of Congress. Even Douglas felt the spark ofmilitary genius kindling within him. His friends, too, were convincedthat he possessed qualities which would make him an intrepid leaderand a tactician of no mean order. The entire Illinois delegationunited to urge his appointment as Brigadier Major of the Illinoisvolunteers. Happily for the President, his course in this instance wasclearly marked out by a law, which required him to select onlyofficers already in command of State militia. [230] Douglas was keenlydisappointed. He even presented himself in person to overrule thePresident's objection. The President was kind, but firm. He advisedDouglas to withdraw his application. In his judgment, Mr. Douglascould best serve his country in Congress. Shortly afterward Douglassent a letter to the President, withdrawing his application--"like asensible man, " commented the relieved Executive. [231] It is not likelythat the army lost a great commander by this decision. 

In a State like Illinois, which had been staunchly Democratic for manyyears, elections during a war waged by a Democratic administrationwere not likely to yield any surprises. There was perhaps even lessdoubt of the result of the election in the Fifth CongressionalDistrict. By the admission of his opponents Douglas was stronger thanhe had been before. [232] Moreover, the war was popular in the countiesupon whose support he had counted in other years. He had committed noact for which he desired general oblivion; his warlike utterances onOregon, which had cost him some humiliation at Washington, so far fromforfeiting the confidence of his followers, seem rather to haveenhanced his popularity. Douglas carried every county in his districtbut one, and nearly all by handsome majorities. He had been first sentto Congress by a majority over Browning of less than five hundredvotes; in the following canvass he had tripled his majority; and nowhe was returned to Congress by a majority of over twenty-seven hundredvotes. [233] He had every reason to feel gratified with this showing, even though some of his friends were winning military glory on Mexicanbattlefields. So long as he remained content with his seat in theHouse, there were no clouds in his political firmament. Not even theagitation of Abolitionists and Native Americans need cause him anyanxiety, for the latter were wholly a negligible political quantityand the former practically so. [234] Everywhere but in the SeventhDistrict, from which Lincoln was returned, Democratic Congressmen werechosen; and to make the triumph complete, a Democratic State ticketwas elected and a Democratic General Assembly again assured. 

Early in the fall, on his return from a Southern trip, Douglas calledupon the President in Washington. He was cordially welcomed, and not alittle flattered by Polk's readiness to talk over the politicalsituation before Congress met. [235] Evidently his support wasearnestly desired for the contemplated policies of the administration. It was needed, as events proved. No sooner was Congress assembled thanthe opposition charged Polk with having exceeded his authority inorganizing governments in the territory wrested from Mexico. Douglassprang at once to the President's defense. He would not presume tospeak with authority in the matter, but an examination of theaccessible official papers had convinced him that the course of thePresident and of the commanders of the army was altogether defensible. "In conducting the war, conquest was effected, and the right growingout of conquest was to govern the subdued provinces in a temporary andprovisional manner, until the home government should establish agovernment in another form. "[236] And more to this effect, uttered inthe heated language of righteous indignation. 

For thus throwing himself into the breach, Douglas was rewarded byfurther confidences. Before Polk replied to the resolution of inquirywhich the House had voted, he summoned Douglas and a colleague to theWhite House, to acquaint them with the contents of his message andwith the documents which would accompany it, so "that they might beprepared to meet any attacks. " And again, with four other members ofthe House, Douglas was asked to advise the President in the matter ofappointing Colonel Benton to the office of lieutenant-general incommand of the armies in the field. At the same time, the Presidentlaid before them his project for an appropriation of two millions topurchase peace; _i. E. _ to secure a cession of territory from Mexico. With one accord Douglas and his companions advised the President notto press Benton's appointment, but all agreed that the desiredappropriation should be pushed through Congress with all possiblespeed. [237] Yet all knew that such a bill must run the gauntlet ofamendment by those who had attached the Wilmot Proviso to thetwo-million-dollar bill of the last session. 

While Douglas was thus rising rapidly to the leadership of his partyin the House, the Legislature of his State promoted him to the Senate. For six years he had been a potential candidate for the office, despite his comparative youth. [238] What transpired in the Democraticcaucus which named him as the candidate of the party, history does notrecord. That there was jealousy on the part of older men, muchheart-burning among the younger aspirants, and bargaining on allsides, may be inferred from an incident recorded in Polk's diary. [239]Soon after his election, Douglas repaired to the President's office tourge the appointment of Richard M. Young of Illinois as Commissionerof the General Land Office. This was not the first time that Douglashad urged the appointment, it would seem. The President now inquiredof Senator Breese, who had accompanied Douglas and seconded hisrequest, whether the appointment would be satisfactory to the Illinoisdelegation. Both replied that it would, if Mr. Hoge, a member of thepresent Congress, who had been recommended at the last session, couldnot be appointed. The President repeated his decision not to appointmembers of Congress to office, except in special cases, and suggestedanother candidate. Neither Douglas nor Breese would consent. Polk thenspoke of a diplomatic charge for Young, but they would not hear of it. 

Next morning Douglas returned to the attack, and the President, underpressure, sent the nomination of Young to the Senate; before fiveo'clock of the same day, Polk was surprised to receive a notificationfrom the Secretary of the Senate that the nomination had beenconfirmed. The President was a good deal mystified by this unusualpromptness, until three members of the Illinois delegation called somehours later, in a state of great excitement, saying that Douglas andBreese had taken advantage of them. They had no knowledge that Young'snomination was being pressed, and McClernand in high dudgeon intimatedthat this was all a bargain between Young and the two Senators. Douglas and Breese had sought to prevent Young from contesting theirseats in the Senate, by securing a fat office for him. All this is _exparte_ evidence against Senator Douglas; but there is nothingintrinsically improbable in the story. In these latter days, socomparatively innocent a deal would pass without comment. 

Immediately upon taking his seat in the Senate, Douglas was appointedchairman of the Committee on Territories. It was then a position ofthe utmost importance, for every question of territorial organizationtouched the peculiar interests of the South. The varying currents ofpublic opinion crossed in this committee. Senator Bright of Indiana iswell described by the hackneyed and often misapplied designation, aNorthern Democrat with Southern principles; Butler was Calhoun'scolleague; Clayton of Delaware was a Whig and represented a borderState which was vacillating between slavery and freedom; while Daviswas a Massachusetts Whig. Douglas was placed, as it appeared, in thevery storm center of politics, where his well-known fighting qualitieswould be in demand. It was not so clear to those who knew him, that hepossessed the not less needful qualities of patience and tact foroccasions when battles are not won by fighting. Still, life at thecapital had smoothed his many little asperities of manner. He hadlearned to conform to the requirements of a social etiquette to whichhe had been a stranger; yet without losing the heartiness of mannerand genial companionableness with all men which was, indeed, hisgreatest personal charm. His genuineness and large-hearted regard forhis friends grappled them to him and won respect even from those whowere not of his political faith. [240]

An incident at the very outset of his career in the Senate, betrayedsome little lack of self-restraint. When Senator Cass introduced theso-called Ten Regiments bill, Calhoun asked that its considerationmight be postponed, in order to give him opportunity to discussresolutions on the prospective annexation of Mexico. Cass was disposedto yield for courtesy's sake; but Douglas resented the interruption. He failed to see why public business should be suspended in order todiscuss abstract propositions. He believed that this doctrine ofcourtesy was being carried to great lengths. [241] Evidently the youngSenator, fresh from the brisk atmosphere of the House, was restiveunder the conventional restraints of the more sedate Senate. He hadnot yet become acclimated. 

Douglas made his first formal speech in the Senate on February 1, 1848. Despite his disclaimers, he had evidently made carefulpreparation, for his desk was strewn with books and he referredfrequently to his authorities. The Ten Regiments bill was known to bea measure of the administration; and for this reason, if for no other, it was bitterly opposed. The time seemed opportune for a vindicationof the President's policy. Douglas indignantly repelled the chargethat the war had from the outset been a war of conquest. "It is a warof self-defense, forced upon us by our enemy, and prosecuted on ourpart in vindication of our honor, and the integrity of our territory. The enemy invaded our territory, and we repelled the invasion, anddemanded satisfaction for all our grievances. In order to compelMexico to do us justice, it was necessary to follow her retreatingarmies into her territory . . . And inasmuch as it was certain that shewas unable to make indemnity in money, we must necessarily take it inland. Conquest was not the motive for the prosecution of the war;satisfaction, indemnity, security, was the motive--conquest andterritory the means. "[242]

Once again Douglas reviewed the origin of the war re-arguing the casefor the administration. If the arguments employed were now well-worn, they were repeated with an incisiveness that took away much of theirstaleness. This speech must be understood as complementary to thatwhich he had made in the House at the opening of hostilities. But hehad not changed his point of view, nor moderated his contentions. Timeseemed to have served only to make him surer of his evidence. Douglasexhibited throughout his most conspicuous excellencies and his mostglaring defects. From first to last he was an attorney, making thebest possible defense of his client. Nothing could excel his adroitselection of evidence, and his disposition and massing of tellingtestimony. Form and presentation were admirably calculated to disarmand convince. It goes without saying that Douglas's mental attitudewas the opposite of the scientific and historic spirit. Having aproposition to establish, he cared only for pertinent evidence. Herarely inquired into the character of the authorities from which heculled his data. 

That this attitude of mind and these unscholarly habits often were hisundoing, was inevitable. He was often betrayed by fallacies and hastyinferences. The speech before us illustrates this lamentable mentaldefect. With the utmost assurance Douglas pointed out that Texas hadactually extended her jurisdiction over the debatable land between theNueces and the Rio Grande, fixing by law the times of holding court inthe counties of San Patricio and Bexar. This was in the year 1838. Theconclusion was almost unavoidable that when Texas came into the Union, her actual sovereignty extended to the Rio Grande. But furtherexamination would have shown Douglas, that the only inhabited portionof the so-called counties were the towns on the right bank of theNueces: beyond, lay a waste which was still claimed by Mexico. Was hemisinformed, or had he hastily selected the usable portion of theevidence? Once again, in his eagerness to show that Mexico, sorecently as 1842, had tacitly recognized the Rio Grande as a boundaryin her military operations, he controverted his own argument thatTexas had been in undisturbed possession of the country. Hecorroborated the conviction of those who from the first had assertedthat, in annexing Texas, the United States had annexed a war. Thisfrom the man who had formerly declared that the danger of war wasremote, because there had been no war between Mexico and Texas fornine years!

Before a vote could be reached on the Ten Regiments bill, the draftof the Mexican treaty had been sent to the Senate. What transpired inexecutive session and what part Douglas sustained in the discussion ofthe treaty, may be guessed pretty accurately by his later admissions. He was one of an aggressive minority who stoutly opposed the provisionof the fifth article of the treaty, which was to this effect: "Theboundary-line established by this article shall be religiouslyrespected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever bemade therein except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the general government of each, in conformity withits own Constitution. " This statement was deemed a humiliating avowalthat the United States had wrongfully warred upon Mexico, and a solemnpledge that we would never repeat the offense. The obvious retort wasthat certain consciences now seemed hypersensitive about the war. However that may be, eleven votes were recorded for conscience' sakeagainst the odious article. 

This was not the only ground of complaint. Douglas afterward statedthe feeling of the minority in this way: "It violated a greatprinciple of public policy in relation to this continent. It pledgesthe faith of this Republic that our successors shall not do that whichduty to the interests and honor of the country, in the progress ofevents, may compel them to do. " But he hastened to add that hemeditated no aggression upon Mexico. In short, the Republic, --such washis hardly-concealed thought, --might again fall out with its imbecileneighbor and feel called upon to administer punishment by demandingindemnity. There was no knowing what "the progress of events" mightmake a national necessity. [243]

As yet Douglas had contributed nothing to the solution of the problemwhich lurked behind the Mexican cession; nor had he tried his hand atmaking party opinion on new issues. He seemed to have no concernbeyond the concrete business on the calendar of the Senate. He classedall anticipatory discussion of future issues as idle abstraction. Hadhe no imagination? Had he no eyes to see beyond the object immediatelywithin his field of vision? Had his alert intelligence suddenly becomemyopic?

On the subject of Abolitionism, at least, he had positive convictions, which he did not hesitate to express. An exciting episode in theSenate drew from him a sharp arraignment of the extreme factions Northand South. An acrimonious debate had been precipitated by a billintroduced by that fervid champion of Abolitionism, Senator Hale ofNew Hampshire, which purported to protect property in the District ofColumbia against rioters. A recent attack upon the office of the_National Era_, the organ of Abolitionism, at the capital, as everyoneunderstood, inspired the bill, and inevitably formed the real subjectof debate. [244] It was in the heated colloquy that ensued that SenatorFoote of Mississippi earned his sobriquet of "Hangman, " by invitingHale to visit Mississippi and to "grace one of the tallest trees ofthe forest, with a rope around his neck. " Calhoun, too, was excitedbeyond his wont, declaring that he would as soon argue with a maniacfrom Bedlam as with the Senator from New Hampshire. 

With cool audacity and perfect self-possession, Douglas undertook torecall the Senate to its wonted composure, --a service not likely to begraciously received by the aggrieved parties. Douglas remarkedsarcastically that Southern gentlemen had effected just what theSenator from New Hampshire, as presidential candidate of theAbolitionists, had desired: they had unquestionably doubled his votein the free States. The invitation of the Senator from Mississippialone was worth not less than ten thousand votes to the Senator fromNew Hampshire. "It is the speeches of Southern men, representing slaveStates, going to an extreme, breathing a fanaticism as wild and asreckless as that of the Senator from New Hampshire, which createsAbolitionism in the North. " These were hardly the words of thetraditional peacemaker. Senator Foote was again upon his feetbreathing out imprecations. "I must again congratulate the Senatorfrom New Hampshire, " resumed Douglas, "on the accession of the fivethousand votes!" Again a colloquy ensued. Calhoun declared Douglas'scourse "at least as offensive as that of the Senator from NewHampshire. " Douglas was then permitted to speak uninterruptedly. Heassured his Southern colleagues that, as one not altogetherunacquainted with life in the slave States, he appreciated theirindignation against Abolitionists and shared it; but as he had nosympathy for Abolitionism, he also had none for that extreme course ofSouthern gentlemen which was akin to Abolitionism. "We stand up forall your constitutional rights, in which we will protect you to thelast. . . . But we protest against being made instruments--puppets--inthis slavery excitement, which can operate only to your interest andthe building up of those who wish to put you down. "[245]

Dignified silence, however, was the last thing to be expected from thepeppery gentleman from Mississippi. He must speak "the language ofjust indignation. " He gladly testified to the consideration with whichDouglas was wont to treat the South, but he warned the young Senatorfrom Illinois that the old adage--_"in medio tutissimus ibis"_--mightlead him astray. He might think to reach the goal of his ambitions bykeeping clear of the two leading factions and by identifying himselfwith the masses, but he was grievously mistaken. 

The reply of Douglas was dignified and guarded. He would not speak foror against slavery. The institution was local and sustained by localopinion; by local sentiment it would stand or fall. "In the North itis not expected that we should take the position that slavery is apositive good--a positive blessing. If we did assume such a position, it would be a very pertinent inquiry. Why do you not adopt thisinstitution? We have moulded our institutions at the North as we havethought proper; and now we say to you of the South, if slavery be ablessing, it is your blessing; if it be a curse, it is your curse;enjoy it--on you rest all the responsibility! We are prepared to aidyou in the maintenance of all your constitutional rights; and Iapprehend that no man, South or North, has shown more consistently adisposition to do so than myself. . . . But I claim the privilege ofpointing out to you how you give strength and encouragement to theAbolitionists of the North. "[246]

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 223: See Garrison, Westward Extension, Ch. 14. ]

[Footnote 224: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 815. ]

[Footnote 225: February 1, 1848. ]

[Footnote 226: See Bancroft's History of Mexico, pp. 173-174 note. ]

[Footnote 227: Niles' _Register_, Vol. 50, p. 336. ]

[Footnote 228: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 816-817. ]

[Footnote 229: Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, I, p. 52. ]

[Footnote 230: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for June 22, 1846. ]

[Footnote 231: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for June 23, 1846. ]

[Footnote 232: Even the Alton _Telegraph_, a Whig paper, and in timespast no admirer of Douglas, spoke (May 30, 1846) of the "mostadmirable" speech of Judge Douglas in defense of the Mexican War (May13th). ]

[Footnote 233: The official returns were as follows:

 Douglas 9629 Vandeventer 6864 Wilson 395]

[Footnote 234: The Abolitionist candidate in 1846 showed no markedgain over the candidate in 1844; Native Americanism had no candidatesin the field. ]

[Footnote 235: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for September 4, 1846. ]

[Footnote 236: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 13-14. ]

[Footnote 237: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for December 14, 1846. ]

[Footnote 238: Ford, History of Illinois, p. 390. ]

[Footnote 239: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for January 6, 1847. ]

[Footnote 240: Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, I, pp. 146-147. ]

[Footnote 241: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 92. ]

[Footnote 242: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 222. ]

[Footnote 243: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 172. ]

[Footnote 244: The debate is reported in the _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 1Sess. , App. , pp. 500 ff. ]

[Footnote 245: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 506. ]

[Footnote 246: _Ibid. _, p. 507. ]

CHAPTER VII

THE MEXICAN CESSION

When Douglas entered Washington in the fall of 1847, as junior Senatorfrom Illinois, our troops had occupied the city of Mexico andnegotiations for peace were well under way. Perplexing problemsawaited Congress. President Polk sternly reminded the two Houses thatpeace must bring indemnity for the past and security for the future, and that the only indemnity which Mexico could offer would be acession of territory. Unwittingly, he gave the signal for anotherbitter controversy, for in the state of public opinion at that moment, every accession of territory was bound to raise the question of theextension of slavery. The country was on the eve of anotherpresidential election. Would the administration which had precipitatedthe war, prove itself equal to the legislative burdens imposed by thatwar? Could the party evolve a constructive programme and at the sametime name a candidate that would win another victory at the polls?

It soon transpired that the Democratic party was at loggerheads. Ofall the factions, that headed by the South Carolina delegationpossessed the greatest solidarity. Under the leadership of Calhoun, its attitude toward slavery in the Territories was already clearlystated in almost syllogistic form: the States are co-sovereigns in theTerritories; the general government is only the agent of theco-sovereigns; therefore, the citizens of each State may settle in theTerritories with whatever is recognized as property in their ownState. The corollary of this doctrine was: Congress may not excludeslavery from the Territories. 

At the other pole of political thought, stood the supporters of theWilmot Proviso, who had twice endeavored to attach a prohibition ofslavery to all territory which should be acquired from Mexico, and whohad retarded the organization of Oregon by insisting upon a similarconcession to the principle of slavery-restriction in that Territory. Next to these Ultras were those who doubted the necessity of theWilmot Proviso, believing that slavery was already prohibited in thenew acquisitions by Mexican law. Yet not for an instant did they doubtthe power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories. 

Between these extremes were grouped the followers of Senator Cass ofMichigan, who was perhaps the most conspicuous candidate for theDemocratic nomination. In his famous Nicholson letter of December 24, 1847, he questioned both the expediency and constitutionality of theWilmot Proviso. It seemed to him wiser to confine the authority of thegeneral government to the erection of proper governments for the newcountries, leaving the inhabitants meantime to regulate their internalconcerns in their own way. In all probability neither California norNew Mexico would be adapted to slave labor, because of physical andclimatic conditions. Dickinson of New York carried this doctrine, which was promptly dubbed "Squatter Sovereignty, " to still greaterlengths. Not only by constitutional right, but by "inherent, " "innate"sovereignty, were the people of the Territories vested with the powerto determine their own concerns. 

Beside these well-defined groups there were others which professed nodoctrines and no policies. Probably the rank and file of the partywere content to drift: to be non committal was safer than to bedoctrinaire; besides, it cost less effort. Such was the plight of theDemocratic party on the eve of a presidential election. If harmony wasto proceed out of this diversity, the process must needs beaccelerated. 

The fate of Oregon had been a hard one. Without a territorialgovernment through no fault of their own, the settlers had beenrepeatedly visited by calamities which the prompt action of Congressmight have averted. [247] The Senate had failed to act on oneterritorial bill; twice it had rejected bills which had passed theHouse, and the only excuse for delay was the question of slavery, which everybody admitted could never exist in Oregon. On January 10, 1848, for the fourth time, Douglas presented a bill to provide aterritorial government for Oregon;[248] but before he could urge itsconsideration, he was summoned to the bed-side of his father-in-law. His absence left a dead-lock in the Committee on Territories:Democrats and Whigs could not agree on the clause in the bill whichprohibited slavery in Oregon. What was the true inwardness of thisunwillingness to prohibit slavery where it could never go?

The Senate seemed apathetic; but its apathy was more feigned thanreal. There was, indeed, great interest in the bill, but equally greatreluctance to act upon it. What the South feared was not that Oregonwould be free soil, --that was conceded, --but that an unfavorableprecedent would be established. Were it conceded that Congress mightexclude slavery from Oregon, a similar power could not be deniedCongress in legislating for the newly acquired Territories whereslavery was possible. [249]

As a last resort, a select committee was appointed, of which SenatorClayton became chairman. Within a week, a compromise was reportedwhich embraced not only Oregon, but California and New Mexico as well. The laws of the provisional government of Oregon were to stand untilthe new legislature should alter them, while the legislatures of theprospective Territories of California and New Mexico were forbidden tomake laws touching slavery. The question whether, under existing laws, slaves might or might not be carried into these two Territories, wasleft to the courts with right of appeal to the Supreme Court of theUnited States. [250] The Senate accepted this compromise after aprolonged debate, but the House laid it on the table without so muchas permitting it to be read. [251]

Douglas returned in time to give his vote for the Claytoncompromise, [252] but when this laborious effort to adjust controvertedmatters failed, he again pressed his original bill. [253] Hoping tomake this more palatable, he suggested an amendment to theobjectionable prohibitory clause: "inasmuch as the said territory isnorth of the parallel of 36° 30' of north latitude, usually known asthe Missouri Compromise. " It was the wish of his committee, he toldthe Senate, that "no Senator's vote on the bill should be understoodas committing him on the great question. "[254] In other words, heinvited the Senate to act without creating a precedent; to extend theMissouri Compromise line without raising troublesome constitutionalquestions in the rest of the public domain; to legislate for a specialcase on the basis of an old agreement, without predicating anythingabout the future. When this amendment came to vote, only Douglas andBright supported it. [255]

Douglas then proposed to extend the Missouri Compromised line to thePacific, by an amendment which declared the old agreement "revived . . . And in full force and binding for the future organization of theTerritories of the United States, in the same sense and with the sameunderstanding with which it was originally adopted. "[256] This wasPresident Polk's solution of the question. It commended itself toDouglas less on grounds of equity than of expediency. It was acompromise which then cost him no sacrifice of principle; but thoughthe Senate agreed to the proposal, the House would have none ofit. [257] In the end, after an exhausting session, the Senate gaveway, [258] and the Territory of Oregon was organized with therestrictive clause borrowed from the Ordinance of 1787. All thisturmoil had effected nothing except ill-feeling, for the final act wasidentical with the bill which Douglas had originally introduced in theHouse. 

In the meantime, national party conventions for the nomination ofpresidential candidates had been held. The choice of the Democratsfell upon Cass; but his nomination could not be interpreted as anindorsement of his doctrine of squatter sovereignty. By a decisivevote, the convention rejected Yancey's resolution favoring"non-interference with the rights of property of any portion of thepeople of this confederation, be it in the States or in theTerritories, by any other than the parties interested in them. "[259]The action of the convention made it clear that traditional principlesand habitual modes of political thought and action alone held theparty together. The Whig party had no greater organic unity. Thenomination of General Taylor, who was a doubtful Whig, was aconfession that the party was non-committal on the issues of the hour. There was much opposition to both candidates. Many anti-slavery Whigscould not bring themselves to vote for Taylor, who was a slave-owner;Democrats who had supported the Wilmot Proviso, disliked the evasivedoctrine of Cass. 

The disaffected of both parties finally effected a fusion in theFree-Soil convention, and with other anti-slavery elements nominatedVan Buren as their presidential candidate. With the cry of "Free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men, " the new party threatened toupset the calculations of politicians in many quarters of the country. 

The defeat of the Democratic party in the election of 1848 wasattributed to the war of factions in New York. Had the Barnburnerssupported Cass, he would have secured the electoral vote of the State. They were accused of wrecking the party out of revenge. Certain it isthat the outcome was indecisive, so far as the really vital questionsof the hour were concerned. A Whig general had been sent to the WhiteHouse, but no one knew what policies he would advocate. The Democratswere still in control of the Senate; but thirteen Free-Soilers heldthe balance of power in the House. [260]

Curiosity was excited to know what the moribund administration of thediscredited Polk would do. Douglas shared this inquisitiveness. He hadparted with the President in August rather angrily, owing to a fanciedgrievance. On his return he called at the White House and apologizedhandsomely for his "imprudent language. "[261] The President was morethan glad to patch up the quarrel, for he could ill afford now, inthese waning hours of his administration, to part company with onewhom he regarded as "an ardent and active political supporter andfriend. " Cordial relations resumed, Polk read to Douglasconfidentially such portions of his forthcoming message as related tothe tariff, the veto power, and the establishment of territorialgovernments in California and New Mexico. In the spirit of compromisehe was still willing to approve an extension of the MissouriCompromise line through our new possessions. Should this proveunacceptable, he would give his consent to a bill which would leavethe vexing question of slavery in the new Territories to thejudiciary, as Clayton had proposed. Douglas was now thoroughlydeferential. He gratified the President by giving the message hisunqualified approval. [262]

However, by the time Congress met, Douglas had made out his ownprogramme; and it differed in one respect from anything that thePresident, or for that matter anyone else, had suggested. He proposedto admit both New Mexico and California; _i. E. _ all of the territoryacquired from Mexico, into the Union _as a State_. Some years later, Douglas said that he had introduced his California bill with theapproval of the President;[263] but in this his memory was surely atfault. The full credit for this innovation belongs to Douglas. [264] Hejustified the departure from precedent in this instance, on the scoreof California's astounding growth in population. Besides, aterritorial bill could hardly pass in this short session, "for reasonswhich may be apparent to all of us. " Three bills had already beenrejected. [265]

Now while California had rapidly increased in population, there wereprobably not more than twenty-six thousand souls within its borders, and of these more than a third were foreigners. [266] One wouldnaturally suppose that a period of territorial tutelage would havebeen peculiarly fitting for this distant possession. Obviously, Douglas did not disclose his full thought. What he really proposed, was to avoid raising the spectre of slavery again. If the people ofCalifornia could skip the period of their political minority and leapinto their majority, they might then create their own institutions: noone could gainsay this right, when once California should be a"sovereign State. " This was an application of squatter sovereignty atwhich Calhoun, least of all, could mock. 

The President and his cabinet were taken by surprise. Frequentconsultations were held. Douglas was repeatedly closeted with thePresident. All the members of the cabinet agreed that the plan ofleaving the slavery question to the people of the new State wasingenious; but many objections were raised to a single State. Inrepeated interviews, Polk urged Douglas to draft a separate bill forNew Mexico; but Douglas was obdurate. [267]

To Douglas's chagrin, the California bill was not referred to hiscommittee, but to the Committee on the Judiciary. Perhaps this coursewas in accord with precedent, but it was noted that four out of thefive members of this committee were Southerners, and that the vote torefer was a sectional one. [268] An adverse report was therefore to beexpected. Signs were not wanting that if the people of the newprovince were left to work out their own salvation, they would excludeslavery. [269] The South was acutely sensitive to such signs. Nothingof this bias, however, appeared in the report of the committee. Withgreat cleverness and circumspection they chose another mode of attack. 

The committee professed to discover in the bill a radical departurefrom traditional policy. When had Congress ever created a State out of"an unorganized body of people having no constitution, or laws, orlegitimate bond of union?" California was to be a "sovereign State, "yet the bill provided that Congress should interpose its authority toform new States out of it, and to prescribe rules for elections to aconstitutional convention. What sort of sovereignty was this?Moreover, since Texas claimed a part of New Mexico, endlesslitigations would follow. In the judgment of the committee, it wouldbe far wiser to organize the usual territorial governments forCalifornia and New Mexico. [270]

To these sensible objections, Douglas replied ineffectively. Thequestion of sovereignty, he thought, did not depend upon the size of aState: without doing violence to the sovereignty of California, Congress could surely carve new States out of its territory; but ifthere were doubts on this point, he would move to add the savingclause, "with the consent of the State. " He suggested no expedient forthe other obstacles in the way of State sovereignty. As forprecedents, there were the first three States admitted into theUnion, --Kentucky, Vermont, and Tennessee, --none of which had anyorganized government recognized by Congress. [271] They never furnishedtheir constitutions to Congress for inspection. Here Douglas hit wideof the mark. No one had contended that a State must present a writtenconstitution before being recognized, but only that the people musthave some form of political organization, before they could be treatedas constituting a State in a constitutional sense. [272]

At the same time, halting as this defense was, Douglas gave ampleproof of his disinterestedness in advocating a State government forCalifornia. "I think, Sir, " he said, "that the only issue nowpresented, is whether you will admit California as a State, or whetheryou will leave it without government, exposed to all the horrors ofanarchy and violence. I have no hope of a Territorial government thissession. No man is more willing to adopt such a form of governmentthan I would be; no man would work with more energy and assiduity toaccomplish that object at this session than I would. "[273] Indeed, sofar from questioning his motives, the members of the JudiciaryCommittee quite overwhelmed Douglas by their extreme deference. [274]Senator Butler, the chairman, assured him that the committee wasdisposed to treat the bill with all the respect due to its author; forhis own part, he had always intended to show marked respect to theSenator from Illinois. [275] Douglas responded somewhat grimly that hewas quite at a loss to understand "why these assurances came so thickon this point. "

Most men would have accepted the situation as thoroughly hopeless; butDouglas was nothing if not persistent. In quick succession he framedtwo more bills, one of which provided for a division of California andfor the admission of the western part as a State;[276] and then whenthis failed to win support, he reverted to Folk's suggestion--theadmission of New Mexico and California as two States. [277] But theSenate evinced no enthusiasm for this patch-work legislation. [278]

The difficulty of legislating for California was increased by thedisaffection of the Southern wing of the Democratic party. Calhoun wassuspected of fomenting a conspiracy to break up the Union. [279] Yet inall probability he contemplated only the formation of a distinctlySouthern party based on common economic and political interests. [280]He not only failed in this, because Southern Whigs were not yet readyto break with their Northern associates; but he barely avoidedbreaking up the solidarity of Southern Democrats, and he made itincreasingly difficult for Northern and Southern Democrats to acttogether in matters which did not touch the peculiar institution ofthe South. [281] Thenceforth, harmonious party action was possible onlythrough a deference of Northern Democrats to Southern, which wasperpetually misinterpreted by their opponents. 

Senator Hale thought the course of Northern representatives andsenators pusillanimous and submissive to the last degree; and noconsiderations of taste prevented him from expressing his opinions onall occasions. Nettled by his taunts, and no doubt sensitive to thegrain of truth in the charge, perplexed also by the growingfactionalism in his party, Douglas retorted that the fanaticism ofcertain elements at the North was largely responsible for the growthof sectional rancor. For the first time he was moved to state publiclyhis maturing belief in the efficacy of squatter sovereignty, as asolvent of existing problems in the public domain. 

"Sir, if we wish to settle this question of slavery, let us banishthe agitation from these halls. Let us remove the causes which produceit; let us settle the territories we have acquired, in a manner tosatisfy the honor and respect the feelings of every portion of theUnion. . . . Bring those territories into this Union as States upon anequal footing with the original States. Let the people of such Statessettle the question of slavery within their limits, as they wouldsettle the question of banking, or any other domestic institution, according to their own will. "[282]

And again, he said, "No man advocates the extension of slavery over aterritory now free. On the other hand, they deny the propriety ofCongress interfering to restrain, upon the great fundamental principlethat the people are the source of all power; that from the people mustemanate all government; that the people have the same right in theseterritories to establish a government for themselves that we have tooverthrow our present government and establish another, if we please, or that any other government has to establish one for itself. "[283]

Not the least interesting thing about these utterances, is the factthat even Douglas could not now avoid public reference to the slaveryquestion. He could no longer point to needed legislation quite apartfrom sectional interests; he could no longer treat slavery withassumed indifference; he could no longer affect to rise above suchpetty, local concerns to matters of national importance. He was nowbound to admit that slavery stood squarely in the way of nationalexpansion. This change of attitude was brought about in part, atleast, by external pressure applied by the legislature of Illinois. With no little chagrin, he was forced to present resolutions from hisown State legislature, instructing him and his colleagues in Congressto use their influence to secure the prohibition of slavery in theMexican cession. [284] It was not easy to harmonize these instructionswith the principle of non-interference which he had just enunciated. 

Ten days before the close of the session, the California questionagain came to the fore. Senator Walker of Wisconsin proposed a riderto the appropriations bill, which would extend the Constitution andlaws in such a way as to authorize the President to set up aquasi-territorial government, in the country acquired fromMexico. [285] It was a deliberate hold-up, justified only by theexigencies of the case, as Walker admitted. But could Congress thusextend the Constitution, by this fiat? questioned Webster. TheConstitution extends over newly acquired territory _proprio vigore_, replied Calhoun. [286] Douglas declined to enter into the subtlequestions of constitutional law thus raised. The "metaphysics" of thesubject did not disturb him. If the Senate would not pass hisstatehood bill, he was for the Walker amendment. A fearfulresponsibility rested upon Congress. The sad fate of a family from hisown State, which had moved to California, had brought home to him thefull measure of his responsibility. He was not disposed to quibbleover points of law, while American citizens in California wereexposed to the outrages of desperadoes, and of deserters from our ownarmy and navy. [287]

While the Senate yielded to necessity and passed the appropriationsbill, rider and all, the House stubbornly clung to its bill organizinga territorial government for California, excluding slavery. [288] Thefollowing days were among the most exciting in the history ofCongress. A conference committee was unable to reach any agreement. Then Douglas tried to seize the psychological moment to persuade theSenate to accept the House bill. "I have tried to get up State bills, territorial bills, and all kinds of bills in all shapes, in the hopethat some bill, in some shape, would satisfy the Senate; but thus farI have found their taste in relation to this matter too fastidious formy humble efforts. Now I wish to make another and a final effort onthis bill, to see if the Senate are disposed to do anything towardsgiving a government to the people of California. "[289]

Both Houses continued in session far into the night of March 3d. Sectional feeling ran high. Two fist-fights occurred in the House andat least one in the Senate. [290] It seemed as though Congress wouldadjourn, leaving our civil and diplomatic service penniless. Douglasfrankly announced that for his part he would rather leave ouroffice-holders without salaries, than our citizens without theprotection of law. [291] Inauguration Day was dawning when thedead-lock was broken. The Senate voted the appropriations billwithout the rider, but failed to act on the House bill. [292] Thepeople of California were thus left to their own devices. 

The outcome was disheartening to the chairman of the Committee onTerritories. His programme had miscarried at every important point. Only his bill for the organization of Minnesota became law. [293] Asimilar bill for Nebraska failed to receive consideration. The futureof California remained problematic. Indeed, political changes inIllinois made his own future somewhat problematic. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 247: This was Benton's opinion; see _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 1Sess. , p. 804. ]

[Footnote 248: _Ibid. _, pp. 136, 309. ]

[Footnote 249: See remarks of Mason of Virginia, _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 1Sess. , p. 903. ]

[Footnote 250: _Ibid. _, p. 950. The bill is printed on pp. 1002-1005. ]

[Footnote 251: _Ibid. _, p. 1007. ]

[Footnote 252: _Ibid. _, p. 1002. ]

[Footnote 253: _Ibid. _, p. 1027. ]

[Footnote 254: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1048. ]

[Footnote 255: _Ibid. _, p. 1061. ]

[Footnote 256: _Ibid. _, pp. 1061-1062. ]

[Footnote 257: _Ibid. _, pp. 1062-1063. ]

[Footnote 258: Douglas voted finally to recede from his amendment, _Ibid. _, p. 1078. ]

[Footnote 259: Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 236. ]

[Footnote 260: Garrison, Westward Extension, p. 284. ]

[Footnote 261: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for November 13, 1848. ]

[Footnote 262: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 263: See Douglas's Speech of December 23, 1851. ]

[Footnote 264: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for December 11, 1848. ]

[Footnote 265: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 21. ]

[Footnote 266: Hunt, Genesis of California's First Constitution, inJohns Hopkins University Studies, XIII, pp. 16, 30. ]

[Footnote 267: Polk, MS. Diary, Entries for December 11, 12, 13, 14, 1848. ]

[Footnote 268: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 46-49. ]

[Footnote 269: See the petition of the people of New Mexico, _Ibid. _, p. 33. ]

[Footnote 270: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 190-192. ]

[Footnote 271: _Ibid. _, pp. 192-193. ]

[Footnote 272: _Ibid. _, p. 196; particularly the incisive reply ofWestcott. ]

[Footnote 273: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 193. ]

[Footnote 274: _Ibid. _, p. 196. ]

[Footnote 275: _Ibid. _, p. 194. ]

[Footnote 276: _Ibid. _, p. 262. ]

[Footnote 277: _Ibid. _, p. 381. ]

[Footnote 278: _Ibid. _, pp. 435, 551, 553. ]

[Footnote 279: Von Holst, Constitutional History of the United States, III, p. 418. ]

[Footnote 280: Calhoun, Works, VI, pp. 290-303. ]

[Footnote 281: Von Holst, Const. History, III, pp. 422-423. ]

[Footnote 282: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 208. ]

[Footnote 283: _Ibid. _, p. 314. ]

[Footnote 284: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 394. ]

[Footnote 285: _Ibid. _, p. 561. ]

[Footnote 286: _Ibid. _, App. , pp. 253 ff. The debate summarized by VonHolst, III, pp. 444-451. ]

[Footnote 287: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , pp. 275-276. ]

[Footnote 288: _Ibid. _, pp. 595, 665. ]

[Footnote 289: _Ibid. _, p. 668. ]

[Footnote 290: Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 277. ]

[Footnote 291: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 685. ]

[Footnote 292: _Globe_, 30 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 691-692. ]

[Footnote 293: _Ibid. _, pp. 635-637; p. 693. ]

BOOK II

THE DOCTRINE OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

CHAPTER VIII

SENATOR AND CONSTITUENCY

When Douglas took his seat in Congress for the first time, an unknownman in unfamiliar surroundings, he found as his near neighbor, oneDavid S. Reid, a young lawyer from North Carolina, who was of his ownage, of his own party, and like him, serving a first term. Anacquaintance sprang up between these young Democrats, which, in spiteof their widely different antecedents, deepened into intimacy. It wasa friendship that would have meant much to Douglas, even if it had notled to an interesting romance. Intercourse with this able youngSoutherner[294] opened the eyes of this Western Yankee to the fineraspects of Southern social life, and taught him the quality of thatSouthern aristocracy, which, when all has been said, was the truestaristocracy that America has seen. And when Reid entertained hisfriends and relatives in Washington, Douglas learned also to know thecharm of Southern women. 

Among the most attractive of these visitors was Reid's cousin, MissMartha Denny Martin, daughter of Colonel Robert Martin of RockinghamCounty, North Carolina. Rumor has it that Douglas speedily fellcaptive to the graces of this young woman. She was not only charmingin manner and fair of face, but keen-witted and intelligent. In spiteof the gay badinage with which she treated this young Westerner, sherevealed a depth and positiveness of character, to which indeed herfine, broad forehead bore witness on first acquaintance. In the giveand take of small talk she more than held her own, and occasionallydiscomfited her admirer by sallies which were tipped with wit andreached their mark unerringly. [295] Did she know that just suchtreatment--strange paradox--won, while it at times wounded, the heartof the unromantic Westerner?

Colonel Robert Martin was a typical, western North Carolina planter. He belonged to that stalwart line of Martins whose most famousrepresentative was Alexander, of Revolutionary days, six timesGovernor of the State. On the banks of the upper Dan, Colonel Martinpossessed a goodly plantation of about eight hundred acres, upon whichnegro slaves cultivated cotton and such of the cereals as were neededfor home consumption. [296] Like other planters, he had felt thecompetition of the virgin lands opened up to cotton culture in thegulf plains of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; and like hisfellow planters, he had invested in these Western lands, on the PearlRiver in Mississippi. This Pearl River plantation was worked by aboutone hundred and fifty negroes and was devoted to the raising ofcotton. 

When Douglas accepted Reid's invitation to visit North Carolina, thescene of the romance begun on the Potomac shifted to the banks of theDan. Southern hospitality became more than a conventional phrase onDouglas's lips. He enjoyed a social privilege which grew rarer asNorth and South fell apart. Intercourse like this broke down many ofthose prejudices unconsciously cherished by Northerners. Slavery inthe concrete, on a North Carolina plantation, with a kindly masterlike Colonel Martin, [297] bore none of the marks of a direful tyranny. Whatever may have been his mental reservations as to slavery as asystem of labor, Douglas could not fail to feel the injustice of thetaunts hurled against his Southern friends by the Abolitionist press. As he saw the South, the master was not a monster of cruelty, nor theslave a victim of malevolent violence. 

The romance on the banks of the Dan flowed far more clearly andsmoothly toward its goal than the waters of that turbid stream. OnApril 7, 1847, Miss Martin became the wife of the Honorable StephenArnold Douglas, who had just become Senator from the State ofIllinois. It was in every way a fateful alliance. Next to his Illinoisenvironment, no external circumstance more directly shaped his careerthan his marriage to the daughter of a North Carolina planter. Thesubtle influences of a home and a wife dominated by Southern culture, were now to work upon him. Constant intercourse with Southern men andwomen emancipated him from the narrowness of his hereditaryenvironment. [298] He was bound to acquire an insight into the natureof Southern life; he was compelled to comprehend, by the most tenderand intimate of human relationships, the meaning and responsibilityof a social order reared upon slave labor. 

A year had hardly passed when the death of Colonel Martin left Mrs. Douglas in possession of all his property in North Carolina. It hadbeen his desire to put his Pearl River plantation, the most valuableof his holdings, in the hands of his son-in-law. But Douglas hadrefused to accept the charge, not wishing to hold negroes. Indeed, hehad frankly told Colonel Martin that the family already held moreslaves than was profitable. [299] In his will, therefore, ColonelMartin was constrained to leave his Mississippi plantation and slavesto Mrs. Douglas and her children. It was characteristic of the man andof his class, that his concern for his dependents followed him to thegrave. A codicil to his will provided, that if Mrs. Douglas shouldhave no children, the negroes together with their increase were to besent to Liberia, or to some other colony in Africa. By means of thenet proceeds of the last crop, they would be able to reach Africa andhave a surplus to aid them in beginning planting. "I trust inProvidence, " wrote this kindly master, "she will have children and ifso I wish these negroes to belong to them, as nearly every head of thefamily have expressed to me a desire to belong to you and yourchildren rather than go to Africa; and to set them free where theyare, would entail on them a greater curse, far greater in my opinion, as well as in that of the intelligent among themselves, than to have ahumane master whose duty it would be to see they were properlyprotected . . . And properly provided for in sickness as well as inhealth. "[300]

The legacy of Colonel Martin gave a handle to Douglas's enemies. Itwas easy to believe that he had fallen heir to slave property. Thatthe terms of the bequest were imperfectly known, did not deter theopposition press from malevolent insinuations which stung Douglas tothe quick. It was fatal to his political career to allow them to gounchallenged. In the midsummer of 1850, while Congress was wrestlingwith the measures of compromise, Douglas wrote to his friend, theeditor of the Illinois _State Register_, " It is true that my wife doesown about 150 negroes in Mississippi on a cotton plantation. Myfather-in-law in his lifetime offered them to me and I refused toaccept them. _This fact is stated in his will_, but I do not wish itbrought before the public as the public have no business with myprivate affairs, and besides anybody would see that the informationmust have come from me. My wife has no negroes except those inMississippi. We have other property in North Carolina, but no negroes. It is our intention, however, to remove all our property to Illinoisas soon as possible. "[301] To correct the popular rumor, Douglasenclosed a statement which might be published editorially, orotherwise. 

The dictated statement read as follows: "The Quincy _Whig_ and otherWhig papers are publishing an article purporting to be copied from aMississippi paper abusing Judge Douglas as the owner of 100 slavesand at the same time accusing him of being a Wilmot Free-soiler. Thatthe article originated in this State, and was sent to Mississippi forpublication in order that it might be re-published here we shall notquestion nor take the trouble to prove. The paternity of the article, the malice that prompted it, and the misrepresentations it containsare too obvious to require particular notice. If it had been writtenby a Mississippian he would have known that the statement in regard tothe ownership of the negroes was totally untrue. No one will pretendthat Judge Douglas has any other property in Mississippi than thatwhich was acquired in the right of his wife by inheritance upon thedeath of her father, and anyone who will take the trouble to examinethe statutes of that State in the Secretary's office in this City willfind that by the laws of Mississippi all the property of a marriedwoman, whether acquired by will, gift or otherwise, becomes herseparate and exclusive estate and is not subject to the control ordisposal of her husband nor subject to his debts. We do not pretend toknow whether the father of Mrs. Douglas at the time of his death ownedslaves in Mississippi or not. We have heard the statement made by theWhigs but have not deemed it of sufficient importance to inquire intoits truth. If it should turn out so, in no event could Judge Douglasbecome the owner or have the disposal of or be responsible for them. The laws of the State forbid it, and also forbid slaves under suchcircumstances from being removed without or emancipated within thelimits of the State. "

Born a Yankee, bred a Westerner, wedded to the mistress of a Southernplantation, Douglas represented a Commonwealth whose population wasmade up of elements from all sections. The influences that shaped hiscareer were extraordinarily complex. No account of his subsequentpublic life would be complete, without reference to the peculiarsocial and political characteristics of his constituency. 

The people of early Illinois were drawn southward by the pull ofnatural forces: the Mississippi washes the western border on itsgulf-ward course; and the chief rivers within the State have a generalsoutherly trend. [302] But quite as important historically is theconvergence of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee on thesouthern border of Illinois; for it was by these waterways that theearly settlers reached the Illinois Territory from the States ofKentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. The apex of theirregular, inverted triangle of Illinois, thrust down to the 37thparallel of latitude, brought the first settlers well within thesphere of Southern influence. Two slave States flanked this southernend. Nearly one-half of Illinois lay south of a direct, westwardextension of Mason and Dixon's line. 

In the early days, the possession by the Indians of the northern areasaccentuated the southern connections of Illinois. At the same time theabsence at the North of navigable waterways and passable highwaysbetween East and West, left the Ohio and its tributaries the onlyconnecting lines of travel with the remote northern Atlantic States. Had Illinois been admitted into the Union with the boundaries firstproposed, it would have been, by all those subtle influences which goto make public sentiment, a Southern State. But the extension of thenorthern boundary to 42° 30' gave Illinois a frontage of fifty mileson Lake Michigan, and deflected the whole political and social historyof the Commonwealth. This contact with the great waterways of theNorth brought to the State, in the course of time, an immense share ofthe lake traffic and a momentous connection with the northern centraland northern Atlantic States. The passing of the Indians, the openingup of the great northern prairies to occupation, and the completion ofthe Illinois-Michigan canal made the northern part of Illinois fallowfor New England seeding. Geographically, Illinois became theconnecting link in the slender chain which bound the men of the lakeand prairie plains with the men of the gulf plains. The inevitableinterpenetration of Northern and Southern interests in Illinois, resulting from these contacts, is the most important fact in thesocial and political history of the State. It bred in Illinoisstatesmen a disposition to compromise for the sake of politicalharmony and economic progress, a passionate attachment to the Union asthe _sine qua non_ of State unity, and a glowing nationalism. Illinoiswas in short a microcosm: the larger problems of the nation existedthere in miniature. 

When Illinois was admitted to the Union in 1818, all the organizedcounties lay to the south of the projected national road between TerreHaute and Alton, hence well within the sphere of surrounding Southerninfluences. The society of Illinois was at this time predominantlySouthern in its origin and characteristics. [303] Social life andpolitical thought were shaped by Southern life and Southern thought. Whatever points of contact there were with the outside world were withthe Southern world. The movement to make Illinois a slave State wasmotived by the desire to accelerate immigration from the South. 

But people had already begun to come into the State who were not ofSouthern origin, and who succeeded in deflecting the current ofIllinois politics at this critical juncture. The fertile river bottomsand intervening prairies of southern Illinois no longer sufficed. Thenew comers were impelled toward the great, undulating prairies whichexpand above the 39th parallel. The rise of new counties marks thevolume of this immigration;[304] the attitude of the older settlerstoward it, fixes sufficiently its general social character. This wasthe beginning of the "Yankee" invasion, New York and Pennsylvaniafurnishing the vanguard. 

As the northern prairies became accessible by the lake route and thestage roads, New England and New York poured a steady stream ofhomeseekers into the Commonwealth. By the middle of the century, thisNorthern immigration had begun to inundate the northern counties andto overflow into the interior, where it met and mingled with thecounter-current. These Yankee settlers were viewed with hostility, notunmixed with contempt, by those whose culture and standards of tastehad been formed south of Mason and Dixon's line. [305]

This sectional antagonism was strengthened by the rapid commercialadvance of northern Illinois. Yankee enterprise and thrift workedwonders in a decade. Governor Ford, all of whose earlier associationswere with the people of southern Illinois, writing about the middle ofthe century, admits that although the settlers in the southern part ofthe State were twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years in advance, onthe score of age, they were ten years behind in point of wealth andall the appliances of a higher civilization. [306] The completion ofthe canal between Lake Michigan and the Illinois River, however muchit might contribute to the general welfare of the State, seemed likelyto profit the northern rather than the southern portion. It had beenopposed at the outset by Southerners, who argued soberly that it wouldflood the State with Yankees;[307] and at every stage in its progressit had encountered Southern obstruction, though the grounds for thisopposition were more wisely chosen. 

Political ideals and customs were also a divisive force in Illinoissociety. True to their earlier political training, the Southernsettlers had established the county as a unit of local government. TheConstitution of 1818 put the control of local concerns in the hands ofthree county commissioners, who, though elected by the people, werenot subjected to that scrutiny which selectmen encountered in the NewEngland town meeting. To the democratic New Englander, every systemseemed defective which gave him no opportunity to discuss neighborhoodinterests publicly, and to call local officers to account before anassembly of the vicinage. The new comers in northern Illinois becameprofoundly dissatisfied with the autocratic board of countycommissioners. Since the township might act as a corporate body forschool purposes, why might they not enjoy the full measure of townshipgovernment? Their demands grew more and more insistent, until they wonsubstantial concessions from the convention which framed theConstitution of 1848. But all this agitation involved a more or lessdirect criticism of the system which the people of southern Illinoisthought good enough for Yankees, if it were good enough forthemselves. [308]

In the early history of Illinois, negro slavery was a bone ofcontention between men of Northern and of Southern antecedents. WhenIllinois was admitted as a State, there were over seven hundrednegroes held in servitude. In spite of the Ordinance of 1787, Illinoiswas practically a slave Territory. There were, to be sure, stalwartopponents of slavery even among those who had come from slave-holdingcommunities; but taken in the large, public opinion in the Territorysanctioned negro slavery as it existed under a loose system ofindenture. [309] Even the Constitution of 1818, under which Illinoiscame into the Union as a free State, continued the old system ofindenture with slight modification. [310]

It was in the famous contest over the proposed constitutionalconvention of 1824 that the influence of Northern opinion respectingslavery was first felt. The contest had narrowed down to a strugglebetween those who desired a convention in order to draft aconstitution legalizing slavery and those who, from policy orprinciple, were opposed to slavery in Illinois. Men of Southern birthwere, it is true, among the most aggressive leaders of theanti-convention forces, but the decisive votes against the conventionwere cast in the seven counties recently organized, in which there wasa strong Northern element. [311]

This contest ended, the anti-slavery sentiment evaporated. The "BlackLaws" continued in force. Little or no interest was manifested in thefate of indentured black servants, who were to all intents andpurposes as much slaves as their southern kindred. The leaven ofAbolitionism worked slowly in Illinois society. By an almost unanimousvote, the General Assembly adopted joint resolutions in 1837 whichcondemned Abolitionism as "more productive of evil than of moral andpolitical good. " There were then not a half-dozen anti-slaverysocieties in the State, and these soon learned to confine their laborsto central and northern Illinois, abandoning Egypt as hopelesslyinaccessible to the light. [312]

The issues raised by the Mexican War and the prospective acquisitionof new territory, materially changed the temper of northern Illinois. Moreover, in the later forties a tide of immigration from thenortheastern States, augmented by Germans who came in increasingnumbers after the European agitation of 1848, was filling thenorthernmost counties with men and women who held positive convictionson the question of slavery extension. These transplanted NewEnglanders were outspoken advocates of the Wilmot Proviso. When theywere asked to vote upon that article of the Constitution of 1848 whichproposed to prevent the immigration of free negroes, the fourteennorthern counties voted no, only to find themselves outvoted two toone. [313] A new factor had appeared in Illinois politics. 

Many and diverse circumstances contributed to the growth ofsectionalism in Illinois. The disruptive forces, however, may beeasily overestimated. The unifying forces in Illinois society werejust as varied, and in the long run more potent. As in the nation atlarge so in Illinois, religious, educational, and social organizationsdid much to resist the strain of countervailing forces. But noorganization proved in the end so enduring and effective as thepolitical party. Illinois had by 1840 two well-developed partyorganizations, which enveloped the people of the State, as on a largescale they embraced the nation. These parties came to have anenduring, institutional character. Men were born Democrats and Whigs. Southern and Northern Whigs, Northern and Southern Democrats therewere, of course; but the necessity of harmony for effective actiontended to subordinate individual and group interests to the largergood of the whole. Parties continued to be organized on nationallines, after the churches had been rent in twain by sectional forces. Of the two party organizations in Illinois, the Democratic party wasnumerically the larger, and in point of discipline, the moreefficient. It was older; it had been the first to adopt the system ofState and district nominating conventions; it had the advantage ofprestige and of the possession of office. The Democratic party could"point with pride" to an unbroken series of victories in State andpresidential elections. By successful gerrymanders it had secured thelion's share of congressional districts. Above all it had intelligentleadership. The retirement of Senator Breese left Stephen A. Douglasthe undisputed leader of the party. 

The dual party system in Illinois, as well as in the nation, wasseriously threatened by the appearance of a third politicalorganization with hostility to slavery as its cohesive force. TheLiberty party polled its first vote in Illinois in the campaign of1840, when its candidate for the presidency received 160 votes. [314]Four years later its total vote in Illinois was 3, 469, a notableincrease. [315] The distribution of these votes, however, is morenoteworthy than their number, for in no county did the vote amount tomore than thirty per cent of the total poll of all parties. Theheaviest Liberty vote was in the northern counties. The votes cast inthe central and southern parts of the State were indicative, for themost part, of a Quaker or New England element in the population. [316]As yet the older parties had no reason to fear for their prestige; butin 1848 the Liberty party gave place to the Free-Soil party, whichdeveloped unexpected strength in the presidential vote. It ralliedanti-slavery elements by its cry of "Free Soil, Free Speech, FreeLabor, and Free Men!" and for the first time broke the serried ranksof the older parties. Van Buren, the candidate of the Free-Soilers, received a vote of 15, 774, concentrated in the northeastern counties, but reaching formidable proportions in the counties of the northwestand west. [317] Of the older organizations, the Whig party seemed lessaffected, Taylor having received 53, 047 votes, an increase of 7, 519over the Whig vote of 1844. The Democratic candidate, Cass, receivedonly 56, 300, an absolute decrease of 1, 620. This was both an absoluteand a relative decline, for the total voting population had increasedby 24, 459. Presumptive evidence points to a wholesale desertion of theparty by men of strong anti-slavery convictions. Whither they hadgone--whether into the ranks of Whigs or Free-Soilers, --concernedDemocratic leaders less than the palpable fact that they had gonesomewhere. 

At the close of this eventful year, the political situation inIllinois was without precedent. To offset Democratic losses in thepresidential election, there were, to be sure, the usual Democratictriumphs in State and district elections. But the composition of thelegislature was peculiar. On the vote for Speaker of the House, theDemocrats showed a handsome majority: there was no sign of a thirdparty vote. A few days later the following resolution was carried by avote which threw the Democratic ranks into confusion: "That oursenators in Congress be instructed, and our representatives requested, to use all honorable means in their power, to procure the enactment ofsuch laws by Congress for the government of the countries andterritories of the United States, acquired by the treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement, with the republic of Mexico, concluded February 2, A. D. 1848; as shall contain the expressdeclaration, that there shall be neither slavery, nor involuntaryservitude in said territories, otherwise than for the punishment ofcrimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. "[318]

At least fifteen representatives of what had hitherto been Democraticconstituencies, had combined with the Whigs to embarrass theDemocratic delegation at Washington. [319] Their expectation seems tohave been that they could thus force Senator Douglas to resign hisseat, for he had been an uncompromising opponent of the WilmotProviso. Free-Soilers, Whigs, and Northern Democrats with anti-slaveryleanings had voted for the instructions; only the Democrats from thesouthern counties voted solidly to sustain the Illinois delegation inits opposition to the Proviso. [320] While not a strict sectional vote, it showed plainly enough the rift in the Democratic party. Adisruptive issue had been raised. For the moment a re-alignment ofparties on geographical lines seemed imminent. This was precisely thetrend in national politics at this moment. 

There was a traditional remedy for this sectional malady--compromise. It was an Illinois senator, himself a slave-owner, who had proposedthe original Missouri proviso. Senator Douglas had repeatedly proposedto extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, in the samespirit in which compromise had been offered in 1820, but the essentialconditions for a compromise on this basis were now wanting. 

It was precisely at this time, when the Illinois legislature wasinstructing him to reverse his attitude toward the Wilmot Proviso, that Senator Douglas began to change his policy. Believing that thecombination against him in the legislature was largely accidental andmomentary, he refused to resign. [321] Events amply justified hiscourse; but the crisis was not without its lessons for him. Thefutility of a compromise based on an extension of the MissouriCompromise line was now apparent. Opposition to the extension ofslavery was too strong; and belief in the free status of the acquiredterritory too firmly rooted in the minds of his constituents. Thereremained the possibility of reintegrating the Democratic party throughthe application of the principle of "squatter sovereignty, " Was itpossible to offset the anti-slavery sentiment of his Northernconstituents by an insistent appeal to their belief in localself-government?

The taproot from which squatter sovereignty grew and flourished, wasthe instinctive attachment of the Western American to localgovernment; or to put the matter conversely, his dislike of externalauthority. So far back as the era of the Revolution, intenseindividualism, bold initiative, strong dislike of authority, elementaljealousy of the fruits of labor, and passionate attachment to the soilthat has been cleared for a home, are qualities found in varyingintensity among the colonists from New Hampshire to Georgia. Nowhere, however, were they so marked as along the Western border, wherecentrifugal forces were particularly strong and local attachments wereabnormally developed. Under stress of real or fancied wrongs, it wasnatural for settlers in these frontier regions to meet for jointprotest, or if the occasion were grave enough, to enter into politicalassociation, to resist encroachment upon what they felt to be theirnatural rights. Whenever they felt called upon to justify theircourse, they did so in language that repeated, consciously orunconsciously, the theory of the social contract, with which thepolitical thought of the age was surcharged. In these frontiercommunities was born the political habit that manifested itself onsuccessive frontiers of American advance across the continent, andthat finally in the course of the slavery controversy found aptexpression in the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. [322]

None of the Territories carved out of the original Northwest had showngreater eagerness for separate government than Illinois. The isolationof the original settlements grouped along the Mississippi, theirremoteness from the seat of territorial government on the Wabash, andthe consequent difficulty of obtaining legal protection and efficientgovernment, predisposed the people of Illinois to demand a territorialgovernment of their own, long before Congress listened to theirmemorials. Bitter controversy and even bloodshed attended theirefforts. [323]

A generation later a similar contest occurred for the separation ofthe fourteen northern counties from the State. When Congress changedthe northern boundary of Illinois, it had deviated from the expressprovisions of the Ordinance of 1787, which had drawn the line throughthe southern bend of Lake Michigan. This departure from the MagnaCharta of the Northwest furnished the would-be secessionists with apretext. But an editorial in the _Northwestern Gazette and GalenaAdvertiser_, January 20, 1842, naively disclosed their real motive. Illinois was overwhelmed with debt, while Wisconsin was "young, vigorous, and free from debt. " "Look at the district as it is now, "wrote the editor fervidly, "the _fag end_ of the State ofIllinois--its interest wholly disregarded in State legislation--inshort, treated as a mere _province_--taxed; laid under tribute in theform of taxation for the benefit of the South and Middle. " The rightof the people to determine by vote whether the counties should beannexed to Illinois, was accepted without question. A meeting ofcitizens in Jo Daviess County resolved, that "until the Ordinance of1787 was altered by common consent, the free inhabitants of the regionhad, in common with the free inhabitants of the Territory ofWisconsin, an absolute, vested, indefeasible right to form a permanentconstitution and State government. "[324] This was the burden of manymemorials of similar origin. 

The desire of the people of Illinois to control local interestsextended most naturally to the soil which nourished them. That theFederal Government should without their consent dispose of lands whichthey had brought under cultivation, seemed to verge on tyranny. Itmattered not that the settler had taken up lands to which he had notitle in law. The wilderness belonged to him who subdued it. Therefore land leagues and claim associations figure largely in thehistory of the Northwest. Their object was everywhere the same, toprotect the squatter against the chance bidder at a public land sale. 

The concessions made by the constitutional convention of 1847, in thematter of local government, gave great satisfaction to the Northernelement in the State. The new constitution authorized the legislatureto pass a general law, in accordance with which counties mightorganize by popular vote under a township system. This mode ofsettling a bitter and protracted controversy was thoroughly in accordwith the democratic spirit of northern Illinois. The newspapers of thenorthern counties welcomed the inauguration of the township system asa formal recognition of a familiar principle. Said the _Will CountyTelegraph_:[325] "The great principle on which the new system is basedis this: that except as to those things which pertain to State unityand those which are in their nature common to the whole county, it isright that each small community should regulate its own local matterswithout interference. " It was this sentiment to which popularsovereignty made a cogent appeal. 

No man was more sensitive than Senator Douglas to these subtleinfluences of popular tradition, custom, and current sentiment. Underthe cumulative impression of the events which have been recorded, hisconfidence in popular sovereignty as an integrating force in nationaland local politics increased, and his public utterances became moreassured and positive. [326] By the close of the year 1850, he had thesatisfaction of seeing the collapse of the Free-Soil party inIllinois, and of knowing that the joint resolutions had been repealedwhich had so nearly accomplished his overthrow. A political storm hadbeen weathered. Yet the diverse currents in Illinois society mightagain roil local politics. So long as a bitter commercial rivalrydivided northern and southern Illinois, and social differences heldthe sections apart, misunderstandings dangerous to party and Statealike would inevitably follow. How could these diverse elements befused into a true and enduring union? To this task Douglas set hishand. The ways and means which he employed, form one of the moststriking episodes in his career. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 294: Reid was afterward Governor of North Carolina andUnited States Senator. ]

[Footnote 295: For many of the facts relating to Douglas's courtshipand marriage, I am indebted to his son, Judge Robert Martin Douglas, of North Carolina. ]

[Footnote 296: At the death of Colonel Martin, this plantation wasworked by some seventeen slaves, according to his will. ]

[Footnote 297: This impression is fully confirmed by the terms of hiswill. ]

[Footnote 298: He was himself fully conscious of this influence. Seehis speech at Raleigh, August 30, 1860. ]

[Footnote 299: The facts are so stated in Colonel Martin's will, for atranscript of which I am indebted to Judge R. M. Douglas. ]

[Footnote 300: Extract from the will of Colonel Martin. ]

[Footnote 301: This letter, dated August 3, 1850, is in the possessionof Mrs. James W. Patton of Springfield, Illinois. ]

[Footnote 302: The characteristics of Illinois as a constituency in1850 are set forth in greater detail, in an article by the writer inthe _Iowa Journal of History and Politics_, July, 1905. ]

[Footnote 303: See Patterson, Early Society in Southern Illinois inthe Fergus Historical Series, No. 14. Also Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 38, 279-280; and Greene, Sectional forces in the History ofIllinois--in the Publications of Illinois Historical Library, 1903. ]

[Footnote 304: Between 1818 and 1840, fifty-seven new counties wereorganized, of which fourteen lay in the region given to Illinois bythe shifting of the northern boundary. See Publications of theIllinois Historical Library, No. 8, pp. 79-80. ]

[Footnote 305: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 280-281. ]

[Footnote 306: _Ibid. _, p. 280. ]

[Footnote 307: See Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, Chapter on"State Policy. "]

[Footnote 308: Shaw, Local Government in Illinois, in the JohnsHopkins University Studies, Vol. I; Newell, Township Government inIllinois. ]

[Footnote 309: Harris, Negro Servitude in Illinois, Chapter II. ]

[Footnote 310: _Ibid. _, Chapter III. See Article VI of theConstitution. ]

[Footnote 311: _Ibid. _, Chapter IV. See also Moses, History ofIllinois, Vol. I, p. 324. ]

[Footnote 312: Harris, Negro Servitude, pp. 125, 136-357]

[Footnote 313: Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1847, pp. 453-456. ]

[Footnote 314: _Whig Almanac_, 1841. ]

[Footnote 315: _Ibid. _, 1845. ]

[Footnote 316: Smith, Liberty and Free Soil Parties, pp. 326-327. ]

[Footnote 317: Smith, Liberty and Free Soil Parties, pp. 328-329. ]

[Footnote 318: House Journal, p. 52. ]

[Footnote 319: All these fifteen voted for the Democratic candidatefor Speaker of the House. ]

[Footnote 320: House Journal, p. 52; Senate Journal, p. 44. See alsoHarris, Negro Servitude in Illinois, p. 177. ]

[Footnote 321: See Speech in Senate, December 23, 1851. ]

[Footnote 322: See the writer's article on "The Genesis of PopularSovereignty" in the _Iowa Journal of History and Politics_ forJanuary, 1905. ]

[Footnote 323: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 241-242. ]

[Footnote 324: _Northwestern Gazette_, March 19, 1842. ]

[Footnote 325: September 27, 1849. ]

[Footnote 326: Compare his utterances on the following dates: January10, 1849; January 22, 1849; October 23, 1849 at Springfield, Illinois;February 12, 1850; June 3, 1850. ]

CHAPTER IX

MEASURES OF ADJUSTMENT

When Congress assembled in December, 1849, statesmen of the oldschool, who could agree in nothing else, were of one mind in this: theUnion was in peril. In the impressive words of Webster, "theimprisoned winds were let loose. The East, the North, and the stormySouth combined to throw the whole sea into commotion, to toss itsbillows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. " Clay andCalhoun were equally apprehensive. Yet there were younger men whoshared none of these fears. To be sure, the political atmosphere ofWashington was electric. The House spent weeks wrangling over theSpeakership, so that when the serious work of legislation began, menwere overwrought and excitable. California with a free constitutionwas knocking at the door of the Union. President Taylor gave Congressto understand that at no distant day the people of New Mexico wouldtake similar action. And then, as though he were addressing a body ofimmortals, he urged Congress to await calmly the action of the peopleof the Territories. 

Douglas was among those unimpressionable younger men who would notbelieve the Union to be in danger. Perhaps by his Southern connectionshe knew better than most Northern men, the real temper of the South. Perhaps he did not give way to the prevailing hysteria, because he wasdiverted from the great issues by the pressing, particular interestsof his constituents. At all events, he had this advantage over Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, that when he did turn his attention to schemesof compromise, his vision was fresh, keen, and direct. He escaped thatsubtle distortion of mental perception from which others were likelyto suffer because of long-sustained attention. To such, Douglas musthave seemed unemotional, unsensitive, and lacking in spiritualfineness. 

Illinois with its North and its South was also facing a crisis. To thesocial and political differences that bisected the State, was added akeen commercial rivalry between the sections. While the Statelegislature under northern control was appropriating funds for theIllinois and Michigan canal, it exhibited far less liberality inbuilding railroads, which alone could be the arteries of traffic insouthern Illinois. At a time when railroads were extending their lineswestward from the Atlantic seaboard, and reaching out covetously forthe produce of the Mississippi Valley, Illinois held geographically acommanding position. No roads could reach the great river, north ofthe Ohio at least, without crossing her borders. The avenues ofapproach were given into her keeping. To those who directed Statepolicy, it seemed possible to determine the commercial destinies ofthe Commonwealth by controlling the farther course of the railroadswhich now touched the eastern boundary. Well-directed effort, it wasthought, might utilize these railroads so as to build up greatcommercial cities on the eastern shore of the Mississippi. Statepolicy required that none of these cross-roads should in any eventtouch St. Louis, and thus make it, rather than the Illinois towns nowstruggling toward commercial greatness, the entrepôt between East andWest. With its unrivalled site at the mouth of the Missouri, Alton wasas likely a competitor for the East and West traffic, and for theMississippi commerce, as St. Louis. Alton, then, must be made theterminus of the cross-roads. [327]

The people of southern Illinois thought otherwise. Against thebackground of such distant hopes, they saw a concrete reality. St. Louis was already the market for their produce. From every railroadwhich should cross the State and terminate at St. Louis, theyanticipated tangible profits. They could not see why these very realadvantages should be sacrificed on the altar of northern interests. After the opening of the northern canal, they resented this exclusivepolicy with increased bitterness. 

Upon one point, and only one, the people of northern and southernIllinois were agreed: they believed that every possible encouragementshould be given to the construction of a great central railroad, whichshould cross the State from north to south. Such a railroad had beenprojected as early as 1836 by a private corporation. Subsequently theState took up the project, only to abandon it again to a privatecompany, after the bubble of internal improvements had been pricked. Of this latter corporation, --the Great Western RailroadCompany, --Senator Breese was a director and the accredited agent inCongress. It was in behalf of this corporation that he had petitionedCongress unsuccessfully for pre-emption rights on the publicdomain. [328]

Circumstances enlisted Douglas's interest powerfully in the proposedcentral railroad. These circumstances were partly private andpersonal; partly adventitious and partly of his own making. Thegrowing sectionalism in Illinois gave politicians serious concern. Itwas becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the integrity ofpolitical parties, when sectional issues were thrust into theforeground of political discussion. Yankee and Southerner did not mixreadily in the caldron of State politics. But a central railroad whichboth desired, might promote a mechanical mixture of social andcommercial elements. Might it not also, in the course of time, breakup provincial feeling, cause a transfusion of ideas, and in the endproduce an organic union?

In the summer of 1847, Senator-elect Douglas took up his residence inChicago, and identified himself with its commercial interests byinvesting in real estate. [329] Few men have had a keener instinct forspeculation in land. [330] By a sort of sixth sense, he foresaw thegrowth of the ugly but enterprising city on Lake Michigan. He saw thatcommercially Chicago held a strategic position, commanding both thelake traffic eastward, and the interior waterway gulfward by means ofthe canal. As yet, however, these advantages were far fromrealization. The city was not even included within the route of theproposed central railroad. Influential business men, Easterncapitalists, and shippers along the Great Lakes were not a littleexercised over this neglect. In some way the claims of Chicago must beurged upon the promoters of the railroad. Just here Douglas couldgive invaluable aid. He pointed out that if the railroad were tosecure a land grant, it would need Eastern votes in Congress. The oldCairo-Galena line would seem like a sectional enterprise, likely todraw trade down the Mississippi and away from the Atlantic seaports. But if Chicago were connected with the system, as a terminal at thenorth, the necessary congressional support might be secured. [331]

During the summer, Douglas canvassed the State, speaking repeatedly inbehalf of this larger project. For a time he hoped that Senator Breesewould co-operate with him. Numerous conferences took place both beforeand after Congress had assembled; but Douglas found his colleaguereluctant to abandon his pre-emption plan. Regardless of the memorialswhich poured in upon him from northern Illinois, Breese introduced hisbill for pre-emption rights on the public domain, in behalf of theHolbrook Company, as the Great Western Railway Company was popularlycalled. Thereupon Douglas offered a bill for a donation of publiclands to aid the State of Illinois in the construction of a centralrailroad from Cairo to Galena, with a branch from Centralia toChicago. [332] Though Breese did not actively oppose his colleague, hislack of cordiality no doubt prejudiced Congress against a grant of anydescription. From the outset, Douglas's bill encountered obstacles:the opposition of those who doubted the constitutional power ofCongress to grant lands for internal improvements of this sort; theopposition of landless States, which still viewed the public domainas a national asset from which revenue should be derived; and, finally, the opposition of the old States to the new. Nevertheless, the bill passed the Senate by a good majority. In the House itsuffered defeat, owing to the undisguised opposition of the South andof the landless States both East and West. The Middle States showeddistrust and uncertainty. It was perfectly clear that before such aproject could pass the House, Eastern and Southern representativeswould have to be won over. [333]

After Congress adjourned, Douglas journeyed to the State ofMississippi, ostensibly on a business trip to his children'splantation. In the course of his travels, he found himself in the cityof Mobile--an apparent digression; but by a somewhat remarkablecoincidence he met certain directors of the Mobile Railroad in thecity. Now this corporation was in straits. Funds had failed and theconstruction of the road had been arrested. The directors were castingabout in search of relief. Douglas saw his opportunity. He offered thedistraught officials an alliance. He would include in his IllinoisCentral bill a grant of land for their road; in return, they were tomake sure of the votes of their senators and representatives. [334]Such, at least, is the story told by Douglas; and some such bargainmay well have been made. Subsequent events give the color of veracityto the tale. 

When Douglas renewed his Illinois Central bill in a revised form onJanuary 3, 1850, Senator Breese had been succeeded by Shields, who waswell-disposed toward the project. [335] The fruits of the Mobileconference were at once apparent. Senator King of Alabama offered anamendment, proposing a similar donation of public lands to his Stateand to Mississippi, for the purpose of continuing the projectedcentral railroad from the mouth of the Ohio to the port of Mobile. Douglas afterward said that he had himself drafted this amendment, butthat he had thought best to have Senator King present it. [336] Be thatas it may, the suspicion of collusion between them can hardly beavoided, since the amendment occasioned no surprise to the friends ofthe bill and was adopted without division. 

The project now before Congress was of vastly greater consequence thanthe proposed grant to Illinois. Here was a bill of truly nationalimportance. It spoke for itself; it appealed to the dullestimagination. What this amended bill contemplated, was nothing lessthan a trunk line connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico. Now, indeed, as Douglas well said, "nationality had been imparted tothe project, " At the same time, it offered substantial advantages tothe two landless States which would be traversed by the railroad, aswell as to all the Gulf States. As thus devised, the bill seemedreasonably sure to win votes. 

Yet it must not be inferred that the bill passed smoothly to a thirdreading. There was still much shaking of heads among senators of thestrict construction school. Many were conquered by expediency andthrew logic to the winds; some preferred to be consistent and spoil agood cause. The bill did not sail on untroubled seas, even after ithad been steered clear of constitutional shoals. It narrowly ran foulof that obstinate Western conviction, that the public lands belongedof right to the home-seeker, to whose interests all such grants wereinimical, by reason of the increased price of adjoining sections ofland. [337]

The real battleground, however, was not the Senate, but the House. Asbefore, the bill passed the upper chamber by an ample margin ofvotes. [338] In the lower house, there was no prolonged debate upon thebill. Constitutional scruples do not seem to have been ruffled. Themain difficulty was to rivet the attention of the members. Severaltimes the bill was pushed aside and submerged by the volume of otherbusiness. Finally, on the same day that it passed the last of thecompromise measures, on the 17th of September, 1850, the House passedthe Illinois Central Railroad bill by a vote of 101 to 75. [339]

A comparison of this vote with that on the earlier bill shows a changeof three votes in the Middle States, one in the South, ten in the GulfStates, and five in Tennessee and Kentucky. [340] This was a triumphantvindication of Douglas's sagacity, for whatever may have been theservices of his colleagues in winning Eastern votes, [341] it was hisbid for the vote of the Gulf States and of the landless, interveningStates of Kentucky and Tennessee which had been most effective. Butwas all this anything more than the clever manoeuvering of an adroitpolitician in a characteristic parliamentary game? A central railroadthrough Illinois seemed likely to quell factional and sectionalquarrels in local politics; to merge Northern and Southern interestswithin the Commonwealth; and to add to the fiscal resources of Stateand nation. It was a good cause, but it needed votes in Congress. Douglas became a successful procurator and reaped his reward inincreased popularity. 

There is an aspect of this episode, however, which lifts it above amere log-rolling device to secure an appropriation. Here and there itfired the imagination of men. There is abundant reason to believe thatthe senior Senator from Illinois was not so sordid in his bargainingfor votes as he seemed. Above and apart from the commercial welfare ofthe Lake Region, the Mississippi Valley, and the Gulf Plains, therewas an end subserved, which lay in the background of his consciousnessand which came to expression rarely if ever. Practical men may seevisions and dream dreams which they are reluctant to voice. There wasgenuine emotion beneath the materialism of Senator Walker's remarks(and he was reared in Illinois), when he said: "Anything that improvesthe connection between the North and the South is a great enterprise. To cross parallels of latitude, to enable the man of commerce to makeup his assorted cargo, is infinitely more important than anything youcan propose within the same parallels of latitude. I look upon it as agreat chain to unite North and South. "[342] Senator Shields ofIllinois only voiced the inmost thought of Douglas, when he exclaimed, "The measure is too grand, too magnificent a one to meet with such afate at the hands of Congress. And really, as it is to connect theNorth and South so thoroughly, it may serve to get rid of even theWilmot Proviso, and tie us together so effectually that the idea ofseparation will be impossible. "[343]

The settlement of the West had followed parallels of latitude. The menof the Lake Plains were transplanted New Englanders, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians; the men of the Gulf Plains came from south of Masonand Dixon's line, --pioneers both, aggressive, bold in initiative, butalienated by circumstances of tremendous economic significance. Ifever North should be arrayed against South, the makeweight in thebalance would be these pioneers of the Northwest and Southwest. It wasno mean conception to plan for the "man of commerce" who would crossfrom one region to the other, with his "assorted cargo, "[344] for inthat cargo were the destinies of two sections and his greatestcommerce was to consist in the exchange of imponderable ideas. Theideal which inspired Douglas never found nobler expression, than inthese words with which he replied to Webster's slighting reference tothe West:

"There is a power in this nation greater than either the North or theSouth--a growing, increasing, swelling power, that will be able tospeak the law to this nation, and to execute the law as spoken. Thatpower is the country known as the great West--the Valley of theMississippi, one and indivisible from the gulf to the great lakes, andstretching, on the one side and the other, to the extreme sources ofthe Ohio and Missouri--from the Alleghanies to the Rocky mountains. There, Sir, is the hope of this nation--the resting place of the powerthat is not only to control, but to save, the Union. We furnish thewater that makes the Mississippi, and we intend to follow, navigate, and use it until it loses itself in the briny ocean. So with the St. Lawrence. We intend to keep open and enjoy both of these great outletsto the ocean, and all between them we intend to take under ourespecial protection, and keep and preserve as one free, happy, andunited people. This is the mission of the great Mississippi Valley, the heart and soul of the nation and the continent. "[345]

Meantime Congress was endeavoring to avert the clash of sections byother measures of accommodation. The veteran Clay, in his favoriterôle of peacemaker, had drafted a series of resolutions as a sort oflegislative programme; and with his old-time vigor, was pleading formutual forbearance. All wounds might be healed, he believed, byadmitting California with her free constitution; by organizingterritorial governments without any restriction as to slavery, in theregion acquired from Mexico; by settling the Texas boundary and theTexas debt on a fair basis; by prohibiting the slave trade, but notslavery, in the District of Columbia; and by providing more carefullyfor the rendition of fugitive slaves. Clay, Calhoun, and Webster hadspoken with all the weight of their years upon these propositions, before Douglas was free to address the Senate. 

It was characteristic of Douglas that he chose to speak on theconcrete question raised by the application of California foradmission into the Union. His opening words betrayed no elevation offeeling, no alarmed patriotism transcending party lines, no greatmoral uplift. He made no direct reference to the state of the publicmind. Clay began with an invocation; Webster pleaded for a hearing, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an Americanand as a Senator, with the preservation of the Union as his theme;Douglas sprang at once to the defense of his party. With the brush ofa partisan, he sketched the policy of Northern Democrats in advocatingthe annexation of Texas, repudiating the insinuations of Webster thatTexas had been sought as a slave State. He would not admit that thewhole of Texas was bound to be a slave Territory. By the very terms ofannexation, provision had been made for admitting free States out ofTexas. As for Webster's "law of nature, of physical geography, --thelaw of the formation of the earth, " from which the Senator fromMassachusetts derived so much comfort, it was a pity that he could nothave discovered that law earlier. The "law of nature" surely had notbeen changed materially since the election, when Mr. Webster opposedGeneral Cass, who had already enunciated this general principle. [346]

In his reply to Calhoun, Douglas emancipated himself successfully fromhis gross partisanship. Planting himself firmly upon the nationaltheory of the Federal Union, he hewed away at what he termed Calhoun'sfundamental error--"the error of supposing that his particular sectionhas a right to have a 'due share of the territories' set apart andassigned to it. " Calhoun had said much about Southern rights andNorthern aggressions, citing the Ordinance of 1787 as an instance ofthe unfair exclusion of the South from the public domain. Douglasfound a complete refutation of this error in the early history ofIllinois, where slavery had for a long time existed in spite of theOrdinance. His inference from these facts was bold and suggestive, ifnot altogether convincing. 

"These facts furnish a practical illustration of that great truth, which ought to be familiar to all statesmen and politicians, that alaw passed by the national legislature to operate locally upon apeople not represented, will always remain practically a dead letterupon the statute book, if it be in opposition to the wishes andsupposed interests of those who are to be affected by it, and at thesame time charged with its execution. The Ordinance of 1787 waspractically a dead letter. It did not make the country, to which itapplied, practically free from slavery. The States formed out of theterritory northwest of the Ohio did not become free by virtue of theordinance, nor in consequence of it . . . [but] by virtue of their ownwill. "[347]

Douglas was equally convinced that the Missouri Compromise had had nopractical effect upon slavery. So far from depriving the South of itsshare of the West, that Compromise had simply "allayed an unfortunateexcitement which was alienating the affections of different portionsof the Union. " "Slavery was as effectually excluded from the whole ofthat country, by the laws of nature, of climate, and production, before, as it is now, by act of Congress. "[348] As for the exclusionof the South from the Oregon Territory, the law of 1848 "did nothingmore than re-enact and affirm the law which the people themselves hadpreviously adopted, and rigorously executed, for the period of twelveyears. " The exclusion of slavery was the deliberate act of the peopleof Oregon: "it was done in obedience to that great Democraticprinciple, that it is wiser and better to leave each community todetermine and regulate its own local and domestic affairs in its ownway. "[349]

An amendment to the Constitution to establish a permanent equilibriumbetween slave and free States, Douglas rightly characterized as "amoral and physical impossibility. " The cause of freedom had steadilyadvanced, while slavery had receded. "We all look forward withconfidence to the time when Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and probably North Carolina and Tennessee, will adopt agradual system of emancipation. In the meantime, " said he, with theexultant spirit of the exuberant West, "we have a vast territory, stretching from the Mississippi to the Pacific, which is rapidlyfilling up with a hardy, enterprising, and industrious population, large enough to form at least seventeen new free States, one half ofwhich we may expect to see represented in this body during our day. Ofthese I calculate that four will be formed out of Oregon, five out ofour late acquisition from Mexico, including the present State ofCalifornia, two out of the territory of Minnesota, and the residue outof the country upon the Missouri river, _including Nebraska_. I thinkI am safe in assuming, that each of these will be free territories andfree States whether Congress shall prohibit slavery or not. Now, letme inquire, where are you to find the slave territory with which tobalance these seventeen free territories, or even any one ofthem?"[350] Truer prophecy was never uttered in all the longcontroversy over the extension of slavery. 

With a bit of brag, which was perhaps pardonable tinder thecircumstances, Douglas reminded the Senate of his efforts to securethe admission of California and of his prediction that the people ofthat country would form a free State constitution. A few months hadsufficed to vindicate his position at the last session. And yet, strangely enough, the North was still fearful lest slavery should beextended to New Mexico and Utah. "There is no ground for apprehensionon this point, " he stoutly contended. "If there was one inch ofterritory in the whole of our acquisition from Mexico, where slaverycould exist, it was in the valleys of the Sacramento and San Joaquin, within the limits of the State of California. It should be borne inmind, that climate regulates this matter, and that climate dependsupon the elevation above the sea as much as upon parallels oflatitude. " Why then leave the question open for further agitation?Give the people of California the government to which they areentitled. "The country is now free by law and in fact--it is freeaccording to those laws of nature and of God, to which the Senatorfrom Massachusetts alluded, and must forever remain free. It will befree under any bill you may pass, or without any bill at all. "[351]

Though he did not discuss the compromise resolutions nor commithimself to their support, Douglas paid a noble tribute to the spiritin which they had been offered. He spoke feelingly of "theself-sacrificing spirit which prompted the venerable Senator fromKentucky to exhibit the matchless moral courage of standing undauntedbetween the two great hostile factions, and rebuking the violence andexcesses of each, and pointing out their respective errors, in aspirit of kindness, moderation, and firmness, which made themconscious that he was right. " Clay's example was already, he believed, checking the tide of popular excitement. For his part, he entertainedno fears as to the future. "The Union will not be put in peril;California will be admitted; governments for the territories must beestablished; and thus the controversy will end, and I trust forever. "A cheerful bit of Western optimism to which the country at large wasnot yet ready to subscribe. 

With his wonted aggressiveness Douglas had a batch of bills ready byMarch 25th, covering the controverted question of California and theTerritories. The origin of these bills is a matter of no littleinterest. A group of Southern Whigs in the House, led by Toombs andStephens of Georgia, had taken a determined stand against theadmission of California, until assurances were given that concessionswould be made to the South in the organization of the newTerritories. [352]

With both Toombs and Stephens, Douglas was on friendly terms, despitetheir political differences. Perhaps it was at his suggestion thatMcClernand of Illinois approached these gentlemen with an olivebranch. At all events, a conference was arranged at the Speaker'shouse, at which Douglas was represented by his friends McClernand, Richardson, and Linn Boyd of Kentucky. Boyd was chairman of the HouseCommittee on Territories; and Richardson a member of the committee. McClernand announced that he had consulted with Douglas and that theywere in entire agreement on the points at issue. Douglas had thoughtit better not to be present in person. The Southerners stated theirposition frankly and fully. They would consent to the admission ofCalifornia only upon condition that, in organizing the territorialgovernments, the power should be given to the people to legislate inregard to slavery, and to frame constitutions with or without slavery. Congress was to bind itself to admit them as States, without anyrestrictions upon the subject of slavery. The wording of theterritorial bills, which would compass these ends, was carefullyagreed upon and put in writing. On the basis of this agreement Douglasand McClernand drafted bills for both the Senate and the HouseCommittees. [353]

But the suggestion had already been made and was growing in favor, that a select committee should be intrusted with these and otherdelicate questions, in order to secure a basis of compromise in thespirit of Clay's resolutions. Believing that such a course wouldindefinitely delay, and even put in jeopardy, the measure that laynearest to his heart, --the admission of California, --Douglas resistedthe appointment of such a committee. If it seemed best to join theCalifornia bill with others now pending, he preferred that the Senate, rather than a committee, should decide the conditions. But when he wasoutvoted, Douglas adopted the sensible course of refusing to obstructthe work of the Committee of Thirteen by any instructions. He wasinclined to believe the whole project a farce: well, if it was, thesooner it was over, the better; he was not disposed to wrangle andturn the farce into a tragedy. [354]

Douglas was not chosen a member of the select Committee of Thirteen. He could hardly expect to be; but he contributed not a little to itslabors, if a traditional story be true. In a chance conversation, Clay, who was chairman of the committee, told Douglas that theirreport would recommend the union of his two bills, --the California andthe Territorial bills, --instead of a bill of their own. Clay intimatedthat the committee felt some delicacy about appropriating Douglas'scarefully drawn measures. With a courtesy quite equal to Clay's, Douglas urged him to use the bills if it was deemed wise. For hispart, he did not believe that they could pass the Senate as a singlebill. In that event, he could then urge the original bills separatelyupon the Senate. Then Clay, extending his hand, said, "You are themost generous man living. I _will_ unite the bills and report them;but justice shall nevertheless be done you as the real author of themeasures. " A pretty story, and not altogether improbable. At allevents, the first part of "the Omnibus Bill, " reported by theCommittee of Thirteen, consisted of Douglas's two bills joinedtogether by a wafer. [355]

There was one highly significant change in the territorial billsinside the Omnibus. Douglas's measures had been silent on the slaveryquestion; these forbade the territorial legislatures to pass anymeasure in respect to African slavery, restricting the powers of theterritorial legislatures at a vital point. Now on this questionDouglas's instructions bound him to an affirmative vote. He was in theuncomfortable and hazardous position of one who must choose betweenhis convictions, and the retention of political office. It was asituation all the more embarrassing, because he had so often assertedthe direct responsibility of a representative to his constituents. Heextricated himself from the predicament in characteristic fashion. Hereaffirmed his convictions; sought to ward off the question; butfollowed instructions when he had to give his vote. He obeyed theletter, but violated the spirit of his instructions. 

In the debates on the Omnibus Bill, Douglas reiterated his theory ofnon-interference with the right of the people to legislate forthemselves on the question of slavery. He was now forced to furtherinteresting assertions by some pointed questions from Senator Davis ofMississippi. "The Senator says that the inhabitants of a territoryhave a right to decide what their institutions shall be. When? By whatauthority? How many of them?" Douglas replied: "Without determiningthe precise number, I will assume that the right ought to accrue tothe people at the moment they have enough to constitute agovernment. . . . Your bill concedes that a representative government isnecessary--a government founded upon the principles of popularsovereignty, and the right of the people to enact their own laws; andfor this reason you give them a legislature constituted of twobranches, like the legislatures of the different States andTerritories of the Union; you confer upon them the right to legislateupon all rightful subjects of legislation, except negroes. Why exceptnegroes?"[356] Forced to a further explanation, he added, "I am not, therefore, prepared to say that under the constitution, we have notthe power to pass laws excluding negro slaves from the territories. . . . But I do say that, if left to myself to carry out my own opinions, Iwould leave the whole subject to the people of the territoriesthemselves. . . . I believe it is one of those rights to be conceded tothe territories the moment they have governments and legislaturesestablished for them. "[357] In short, this was a policy dictated byexpediency, and not--as yet--by any constitutional necessity. Douglaswas not yet ready to abandon the high national ground of supreme, Federal control over the Territories. 

But the restrictive clause in the territorial bills satisfied theradical Southerners as little as it pleased Douglas. Berrien wished tomake the clause more precise by forbidding the territoriallegislatures "to establish or prohibit African slavery"; but Hale, with his preternatural keenness for the supposed intrigues of theslave power, believed that even with these restrictions thelegislatures might still recognize slavery as an already establishedinstitution; and he therefore moved to add the word "allow. " Douglasvoted consistently; first against Berrien's amendment, and then, whenit carried, for Hale's, hoping thereby to discredit the former. [358]Douglas's own amendment removing all restrictions, was voteddown. [359] True to his instructions, he voted for Seward's propositionto impose the Wilmot Proviso upon the Territories, but he was happy tofind himself in the minority. [360] And so the battle went on, threatening to end in a draw. 

A motion to abolish and prohibit peon slavery elicited an apparentlyspontaneous and sincere expression of detestation from Douglas of"this revolting system. " Black slavery was not abhorrent to him; but aspecies of slavery not confined to any color or race, which might, because of a trifling debt, condemn the free white man and hisposterity to an endless servitude--this was indeed intolerable. If theSenate was about to abolish black slavery, being unwilling to intrustthe territorial legislature with such measures, surely it ought in allconsistency to abolish also peonage. But the Senate preferred not tobe consistent. [361]

By the last of July, the Omnibus--in the words of Benton--had beenoverturned, and all the inmates but one spilled out. The Utah bill wasthe lucky survivor, but even it was not suffered to pass withoutmaterial alterations. Clay now joined with Douglas to secure theomission of the clause forbidding the territorial legislature to touchthe subject of slavery. In this they finally succeeded. [362] The billwas thus restored to its original form. [363]

Everyone admitted that the compromise scheme had been wrecked. It washighly probable, however, that with some changes the proposals of thecommittee could be adopted, if they were considered separately. Suchwas Douglas's opinion. The eventuality had occurred which he hadforeseen. He was ready for it. He had promptly called up his originalCalifornia bill and had secured its consideration, when the Utah billpassed to a third reading. Then a bill to settle the Texan boundarycontroversy was introduced. The Senate passed many weary daysdiscussing first one and then the other. The Texas question wasdisposed of on August 9th; the California bill, after weathering manystorms, came to port four days later; and two days afterward, NewMexico was organized as a Territory under the same conditions as Utah. That is to say, the Senate handed on these bills with its approval tothe lower house, where all were voted. It remained only to completethe compromise programme piece-meal, by abolishing the slave trade inthe District of Columbia and by providing a more stringent fugitiveslave law. By the middle of September, these measures had become law, and the work of Congress went to its final review before the tribunalof public opinion. 

Douglas voted for all the compromise measures but the Fugitive SlaveLaw. This was an unfortunate omission, for many a Congressman hadsought to dodge the question. [364] The partisan press did not sparehim, though he stated publicly that he would have voted for the bill, had he not been forced to absent himself. Such excuses were common andunconvincing. Irritated by sly thrusts on every side, Douglas at lastresolved to give a detailed account of the circumstances that hadprevented him from putting himself on record in the vote. This publicvindication was made upon the floor of the Senate a year later. [365] A"pecuniary obligation" for nearly four thousand dollars was about tofall due in New York. Arrangements which he had made to pay the notemiscarried, so that he was compelled to go to New York at once, orsuffer the note to be protested. Upon the assurance of his fellowsenators that the discussion of the bill would continue at least aweek, he hastened to New York. While dining with some friends fromIllinois, he was astounded to hear that the bill had been orderedengrossed for a third reading. He immediately left the city forWashington, but arrived too late. He was about to ask permission thento explain his absence, when his colleague dissuaded him. Everyoneknew, said Shields, that he was in favor of the bill; besides, veryprobably the bill would be returned from the House with amendments. 

The circumstantial nature of this defense now seems quite unnecessary. After all, the best refutation of the charge lay in Douglas'sreputation for courageous and manly conduct. He was true to himselfwhen he said, "The dodging of votes--the attempt to avoidresponsibility--is no part of my system of political tactics. "

If it is difficult to distribute the credit--or discredit--of havingpassed the compromise measures, it verges on the impossible to fix theresponsibility on any individual. Clay fathered the scheme ofadjustment; but he did not work out the details, and it was just thismatter of details which aggravated the situation. Clay no longercoveted glory. His dominant feeling was one of thankfulness. "It wasrather a triumph for the Union, for harmony and concord. " Douglasagreed with him: "No man and no party has acquired a triumph, exceptthe party friendly to the Union. " But the younger man did covet honor, and he could not refrain from reminding the Senate that he had played"an humble part in the enactment of all these great measures. "[366]Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis condescended to tickle the vanity ofDouglas by testifying, "If any man has a right to be proud of thesuccess of these measures, it is the Senator from Illinois. "[367]

Both Douglas and Toombs told their constituents that Congress hadagreed upon a great, fundamental principle in dealing with theTerritories. Both spoke with some degree of authority, for the twoterritorial bills had passed in the identical form upon which they hadagreed in conference. But what was this principle? Toombs called itthe principle which the South had unwisely compromised away in1820--the principle of non-interference with slavery by Congress, theright of the people to hold slaves in the common Territories. Douglascalled the great principle, "the right of the people to form andregulate their own internal concerns and domestic institutions intheir own way. "[368] So stated the principle seems direct and simple. But was Toombs willing to concede that the people of a Territory mightexclude slavery? He never said so; while Douglas conceded both thepositive power to exclude, and the negative power to permit, slavery. Here was a discrepancy. [369] And it was probably because they couldnot agree on this point, that a provision was added to the territorialbills, providing that cases involving title to slaves might beappealed to the Supreme Court. Whether the people of Utah and NewMexico might exclude slaves, was to be left to the judiciary. In anycase Congress was not to interfere with slavery in the Territories. 

One other question was raised subsequently. Was it intended thatCongress should act on this principle in organizing futureTerritories? In other words, was the principle, newly recovered, to beapplied retroactively? There was no answer to the question in 1850, for the simple reason that no one thought to ask it. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 327: See the chapter on "State Policy" in Davidson andStuvé, History of Illinois. ]

[Footnote 328: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 573-574;Ackerman, Early Illinois Railroads, in Fergus Historical Series, p. 32. ]

[Footnote 329: Letter of Breese to Douglas, Illinois _State Register_, February 6, 1851. ]

[Footnote 330: Forney, Anecdotes, I, pp. 18-20. ]

[Footnote 331: Letter of Douglas to Breese, _State Register_, January20, 1851. ]

[Footnote 332: _Ibid. _, January 20, 1851. ]

[Footnote 333: Sanborn, Congressional Grants of Land in Aid ofRailways, Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, pp. 27-30. ]

[Footnote 334: Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 193-194. ]

[Footnote 335: Douglas renewed his bill in the short session of1848-1849, but did not secure action upon it. ]

[Footnote 336: Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, p. 195. There is so much brag in this account that one is disposed to distrustthe details. ]

[Footnote 337: Sanborn, Congressional Grants, pp. 31-34. ]

[Footnote 338: _Globe, _31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 904. The vote was 26 to14. ]

[Footnote 339: _Ibid. _, p. 1838. ]

[Footnote 340: Sanborn, Congressional Grants, p. 35. ]

[Footnote 341: John Wentworth, in his _Congressional Reminiscences_, hints at some vote-getting in the East by tariff concessions; butDouglas insisted that it was the Chicago branch, promising to connectwith Eastern roads, which won votes in New York, Pennsylvania and NewEngland. See Illinois _State Register_, March 13, 1851. The subject isdiscussed by Sanborn, Congressional Grants, pp. 35-36. ]

[Footnote 342: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 853. ]

[Footnote 343: _Ibid. _, p. 869. ]

[Footnote 344: The economic significance of the Illinois CentralRailroad appears in a letter of Vice-President McClellan to Douglas in1856. The management was even then planning to bring sugar from Havanadirectly to the Chicago market, and to take the wheat and pork of theNorthwest to the West Indies _via_ New Orleans. ]

[Footnote 345: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 365. ]

[Footnote 346: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 366. ]

[Footnote 347: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 369-370. ]

[Footnote 348: _Globe, _ 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 370. ]

[Footnote 349: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 350: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 371. I haveitalicized one phrase because of its interesting relation to theKansas-Nebraska Act. ]

[Footnote 351: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 373. ]

[Footnote 352: Stephens, Const. View of the War between the States, II, pp. 178 ff. ]

[Footnote 353: For an account of this interesting episode, seeStephens, War Between the States, II, pp. 202-204. Boyd, notMcClernand, was chairman of the House Committee, but the latterintroduced the bills by agreement with Richardson. ]

[Footnote 354: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 662, 757. ]

[Footnote 355: See Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 132-134. See also Douglas'sspeech in the Senate, Dec. 23, 1851, and the testimony of JeffersonDavis, _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1830. ]

[Footnote 356: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1115. ]

[Footnote 357: _Ibid. _, p. 1116. ]

[Footnote 358: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 1134-1135. ]

[Footnote 359: _Ibid. _, p. 1135. ]

[Footnote 360: _Ibid. _, p. 1134. ]

[Footnote 361: _Ibid. _, pp. 1143-1144. ]

[Footnote 362: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 305-306; alsoCutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 80-81. ]

[Footnote 363: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 1480-1481. Rhodes, History of the United States, I, p. 181. ]

[Footnote 364: Rhodes, History of the United States, I, pp. 182-183. ]

[Footnote 365: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 66. ]

[Footnote 366: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 1829-1830. ]

[Footnote 367: _Ibid. _, p. 1830. ]

[Footnote 368: See his speech in Chicago; Sheahan, Douglas, p. 169. ]

[Footnote 369: When Douglas reported the bills, he announced thatthere was a difference of opinion in the committee on some points, inregard to which each member reserved the right of stating his ownopinion and of acting in accordance therewith. See _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 592. ]

CHAPTER X

YOUNG AMERICA

When Douglas reached Chicago, immediately after the adjournment ofCongress, he found the city in an uproar. The strong anti-slaverysentiment of the community had been outraged by the Fugitive SlaveLaw. Reflecting the popular indignation, the Common Council hadadopted resolutions condemning the act as a violation of theConstitution and a transgression of the laws of God. Those senatorsand representatives who voted for the bill, or "who basely sneakedaway from their seats and thereby evaded the question, " werestigmatized as "fit only to be ranked with the traitors, BenedictArnold and Judas Iscariot. " This was indeed a sorry home-coming forone who believed himself entitled to honors. 

Learning that a mass-meeting was about to indorse the action of thecity fathers, Douglas determined to face his detractors and meet theircharges. Entering the hall while the meeting was in progress, hemounted the platform, and announced that on the following evening hewould publicly defend all the measures of adjustment. He was greetedwith hisses and jeers for his pains; but in the end he had thesatisfaction of securing an adjournment until his defense had beenheard. 

It was infinitely to his credit that when he confronted a hostileaudience on the next evening, he stooped to no cheap devices to divertresentment, but sought to approve his course to the soberintelligence of his hearers. [370] It is doubtful if the Fugitive SlaveLaw ever found a more skillful defender. The spirit in which he methis critics was admirably calculated to disarm prejudice. Come and letus reason together, was his plea. Without any attempt to ignore themost obnoxious parts of the act, he passed directly to the discussionof the clauses which apparently denied the writ of _habeas corpus_ andtrial by jury to the fugitive from service. He reminded his hearersthat this act was supplementary to the Act of 1793. No one had foundfault with the earlier act because it had denied these rights. Bothacts, in fact, were silent on these points; yet in neither case wassilence to be construed as a denial of constitutional obligations. Onthe contrary, they must be assumed to continue in full force under theact. Misapprehension arose in these matters, because the recovery ofthe fugitive slave was not viewed as a process of extradition. The actprovided for the return of the alleged slave to the State from whichhe had fled. Trial of the facts by jury would then follow under thelaws of the State, just as the fugitive from justice would be tried inthe State where the alleged crime had been committed. The testimonybefore the original court making the requisition, would necessarily be_ex parte_, as in the case of the escaped criminal; but this did notprevent a fair trial on return of the fugitive. Regarding the questionof establishing the identity of the apprehended person with thefugitive described in the record, Douglas asserted that the terms ofthe act required proof satisfactory to the judge or commissioner, andnot merely the presentment of the record. "Other and further evidence"might be insisted upon. 

At various times Douglas was interrupted by questions which wereobviously contrived to embarrass him. To all such he repliedcourteously and with engaging frankness. "Why was it, " asked one ofthese troublesome questioners, "that the law provided for a fee of tendollars if the commissioner decided in favor of the claimant, and fora fee of only five dollars if he decided otherwise? Was this not inthe nature of an inducement, a bribe?" "I presume, " said Douglas, "that the reason was that he would have more labor to perform. If, after hearing the testimony, the commissioner decided in favor of theclaimant, the law made it his duty to prepare and authenticate thenecessary papers to authorize him to carry the fugitive home; but ifhe decided against him, he had no such labor to perform. "

After all, as Douglas said good-naturedly, all these objections werepredicated on a reluctance to return a slave to his master under anycircumstances. Did his hearers realize, he insisted, that refusal todo so was a violation of the Constitution? And were they willing toshatter the Union because of this feeling? At this point he was againinterrupted by an individual, who wished to know if the provisions ofthe Constitution were not in violation of the law of God. "The divinelaw, " responded Douglas, "does not prescribe the form of governmentunder which we shall live, and the character of our political andcivil institutions. Revelation has not furnished us with aconstitution--a code of international law--and a system of civil andmunicipal jurisprudence. " If this Constitution were to be repudiated, he begged to know, "who is to be the prophet to reveal the will ofGod, and establish a theocracy for us?"

At the conclusion of his speech, Douglas offered a series ofresolutions expressing the obligation of all good citizens to maintainthe Constitution and all laws duly enacted by Congress in pursuance ofthe Constitution. With a remarkable revulsion of feeling, the audienceindorsed these sentiments without a dissenting voice, and subsequentlyrepudiated in express terms the resolutions of the CommonCouncil. [371] The triumph of Douglas was complete. It was one of thoserare instances where the current of popular resentment is not onlydeflected, but actually reversed, by the determination and eloquenceof one man. 

There were two groups of irreconcilables to whom such appeals wereunavailing--radical Abolitionists at the North and Southern Rightsadvocates. Not even the eloquence of Webster could make willingslave-catchers of the anti-slavery folk of Massachusetts. The rescueof the negro Shadrach, an alleged fugitive slave, provoked intenseexcitement, not only in New England but in Washington. The incidentwas deemed sufficiently ominous to warrant a proclamation by thePresident, counseling all good citizens to uphold the law. Southernstatesmen of the radical type saw abundant evidence in this episode ofa deliberate purpose at the North not to enforce the essentialfeatures of the compromise. Both Whig and Democratic leaders, with fewexceptions, roundly denounced all attempts to nullify the FugitiveSlave Law. [372] None was more vehement than Douglas. He could notregard this Boston rescue as a trivial incident. He believed thatthere was an organization in many States to evade the law. It was inthe nature of a conspiracy against the government. The ring-leaderswere Abolitionists, who were exciting the negroes to excesses. He wasutterly at a loss to understand how senators, who had sworn to obeyand defend the Constitution, could countenance these palpableviolations of law. [373]

In spite of similar untoward incidents, the vast majority of people inthe country North and South were acquiescing little by little in thesettlement reached by the compromise measures. There was an evidentdisposition on the part of both Whig and Democratic leaders to dropthe slavery issue. When Senator Sumner proposed a repeal of theFugitive Slave Act, Douglas deprecated any attempt to "fan the flamesof discord that have so recently divided this great people, "[374]intimating that Sumner's speech was intended to "operate upon thepresidential election. " It ill became the Senator from Illinois toindulge in such taunts, for no one, it may safely be said, wascalculating his own political chances more intently. "Things lookwell, " he had written to a friend, referring to his chances ofsecuring the nomination, "and the prospect is brightening every day. All that is necessary now to insure success is that the northwestshould unite and speak out. "[375]

When the Democrats of Illinois proposed Douglas's name for thepresidency in 1848, no one was disposed to take the suggestionseriously, outside the immediate circle of his friends. To graybeardsthere was something almost humorous in the suggestion that five yearsof service in Congress gave a young man of thirty-five a claim toconsideration! Within three short years, however, the situation hadchanged materially. Older aspirants for the chief magistracy wereforced, with no little alarm, to acknowledge the rise of a reallyformidable rival. By midsummer of 1851, competent observers thoughtthat Douglas had the best chance of winning the Democratic nomination. In the judgment of certain Whig editors, he was the strongest man. Itwas significant of his growing favor, that certain Democrats of thecity and county of New York tendered him a banquet, in honor of hisdistinguished services to the party and his devotion to the Unionduring the past two years. 

Politicians of both parties shared the conviction that unless theWhigs could get together, --which was unlikely, --a nomination at thehands of a national Democratic convention was equivalent to anelection. Consequently there were many candidates in the field. Thepreliminary canvass promised to be eager. It was indeed well under waylong before Congress assembled in December, and it continued activelyduring the session. "The business of the session, " wrote one observerin a cynical frame of mind, "will consist mainly in the manoeuvres, intrigues, and competitions for the next Presidency. " Events justifiedthe prediction. "A politician does not sneeze without reference to thePresidency, " observed the same writer, some weeks after the beginningof the session. "Congress does little else but intrigue for therespective candidates. "[376]

Prospective candidates who sat in Congress had at least thisadvantage, over their outside competitors, --they could keep themselvesin the public eye by making themselves conspicuous in debate. But thewisdom of such devices was questionable. Those who could not pointwith confident pride to their record, wisely chose to remainnon-committal on matters of personal history. Douglas was one of thosewho courted publicity. Perhaps as a young man pitted against olderrivals, he felt that he had everything to gain thereby and not much tolose. The irrepressible Foote of Mississippi gave all his colleagues achance to mar their reputations, by injecting into the deliberationsof the Senate a discussion of the finality of the compromisemeasures. [377] It speedily appeared that fidelity to the settlement of1850, from the Southern point of view, consisted in strict adherenceto the Fugitive Slave Act. [378] This was the touchstone by whichSouthern statesmen proposed to test their Northern colleagues. Prudence whispered silence into many an ear; but Douglas for onerefused to heed her admonitions. Within three weeks after the sessionbegan, he was on his feet defending the consistency of his course, with an apparent ingenuousness which carried conviction to the largeraudience who read, but did not hear, his declaration of politicalfaith. 

Two features of this speech commended it to Democrats: itsrecognition of the finality of the compromise, and its insistence uponthe necessity of banishing the slavery question from politics. "TheDemocratic party, " he asseverated, "is as good a Union party as Iwant, and I wish to preserve its principles and its organization, andto triumph upon its old issues. I desire no new tests--nointerpolations into the old creed. "[379] For his part, he was resolvednever to speak again upon the slavery question in the halls ofCongress. 

But this was after all a negative programme. Could a campaign besuccessfully fought without other weapons than the well-wornblunderbusses in the Democratic arsenal? This was a do-nothing policy, difficult to reconcile with the enthusiastic liberalism which YoungAmerica was supposed to cherish. Yet Douglas gauged the situationaccurately. The bulk of the party wished a return to power more thananything else. To this end, they were willing to toot for old issuesand preserve the old party alignment. For four years, the Democraticoffice-hunters had not tasted of the loaves and fishes within the giftof the executive. They expected liberality in conduct, if notliberalism in creed, from their next President. Douglas shared thispolitical hunger. He had always been a believer in rotation in office, and an exponent of that unhappy, American practice of using publicoffice as the spoil of party victory. In this very session, he puthimself on record against permanence in office for the clerks of theSenate, holding that such positions should fall vacant at statedintervals. [380]

But had Douglas no policy peculiarly his own, to qualify him for theleadership of his party? Distrustful Whigs accused him of beingwilling to offer Cuba for the support of the South. [381] Indeed, hemade no secret of his desire to acquire the Pearl of the Antilles. Still, this was not the sort of issue which it was well to drag into apresidential campaign. Like all the other aspirants for thepresidency, Douglas made what capital he could out of the visit ofKossuth and the question of intervention in behalf of Hungary. Whenthe matter fell under discussion in the Senate, Douglas formulatedwhat he considered should be the policy of the government:

"I hold that the principle laid down by Governor Kossuth as the basisof his action--that each State has a right to dispose of her owndestiny, and regulate her internal affairs in her own way, without theintervention of any foreign power--is an axiom in the laws of nationswhich every State ought to recognize and respect. . . . It is equallyclear to my mind, that any violation of this principle by one nation, intervening for the purpose of destroying the liberties of another, issuch an infraction of the international code as would authorize anyState to interpose, which should conceive that it had sufficientinterest in the question to become the vindicator of the laws ofnations. "[382]

Cass had said much the same thing, but with less virility. Douglasscored on his rival in this speech: first, when he declared with a bitof Chauvinism, "I do not deem it material whether the reception ofGovernor Kossuth give offence to the crowned heads of Europe, provided it does not violate the law of nations, and give just _cause_of offence"; and again, scorning the suggestion of an alliance withEngland, "The peculiar position of our country requires that we shouldhave an _American policy_ in our foreign relations, based upon theprinciples of our own government, and adapted to the spirit of theage. "[383] There was a stalwart conviction in these utterances whichgave promise of confident, masterful leadership. These are qualitieswhich the people of this great democracy have always prized, butrarely discovered, in their Presidents. 

It was at this moment in the canvass that the promoters of Douglas'scandidacy made a false move. Taking advantage of the populardemonstration over Kossuth and the momentary diversion of publicattention from the slavery question to foreign politics, they sought tothrust Douglas upon the Democratic party as the exponent of aprogressive foreign policy. They presumed to speak in behalf of "YoungAmerica, " as against "Old Fogyism. " Seizing upon the _DemocraticReview_ as their organ, these progressives launched their boom by asensational article in the January number, entitled "Eighteen-Fifty-Twoand the Presidency. " Beginning with an arraignment of "Webster'sun-American foreign policy, the writer, --or writers, --called uponhonest men to put an end to this "Quaker policy. " "The time has comefor strong, sturdy, clear-headed and honest men to act; and theRepublic must have them, should it be compelled, as the colonies werein 1776, to drag the hero of the time out of a hole in a wild forest, [_sic_] whether in Virginia or the illimitable West. " To inauguratesuch an era, the presidential chair must be filled by a man, not of thelast generation, but of this. He must not be "trammeled with ideasbelonging to an anterior era, or a man of merely local fame and localaffections, but a statesman who can bring young blood, young ideas, andyoung hearts to the councils of the Republic. He must not be a meregeneral, a mere lawyer, a mere wire-puller. "Your beaten horse, whetherhe ran for a previous presidential cup as first or second, " will notdo. He must be 'a tried civilian, not a second and third rate general. '"Withal, a practical statesman, not to be discomfited in argument, orled wild by theory, but one who has already, in the councils andtribunals of the nation, reared his front to the dismay of the shallowconservative, to the exposure of the humanitarian incendiary, and thediscomfiture of the antiquated rhetorician. "

If anyone was so dense as not to recognize the portrait here painted, he had only to turn to an article entitled "Intervention, " to find thename of the hero who was to usher in the new era. The author of thispaper finds his sentiments so nearly identical with those of StephenA. Douglas, that he resorts to copious extracts from his speechdelivered in the Senate on the welcome of Kossuth, "entertaining nodoubt that the American people, the _democracy_ of the country willendorse these doctrines by an overwhelming majority. " Still anotherarticle in this formidable broadside from the editors of the_Democratic Review_, deprecated Foote's efforts to thrust the slaveryissue again upon Congress, and expressed the pious wish that Southerndelegates might join with Northern in the Baltimore convention, tonominate a candidate who would in future "evince the most profoundignorance as to the topographical bearing of that line of discordknown as 'Mason and Dixon's. '"

If all this was really the work of Douglas's friends, --and it is morethan likely, --he had reason to pray to be delivered from them. At bestthe whole manoeuvre was clumsily planned and wretchedly executed; itprobably did him irreparable harm. His strength was not sufficient toconfront all his rivals; yet the almost inevitable consequence of theodious comparisons in the _Review_ was combinations against him. Theleading article gave mortal offense in quarters where he stood most inneed of support. [384] Douglas was quick to detect the blunder andappreciate its dangers to his prospects. His friends now begansedulously to spread the report that the article was a ruse of theenemy, for the especial purpose of spoiling his chances at Baltimore. It was alleged that proof sheets had been found in the possession of agentleman in Washington, who was known to be hostile to Douglas. [385]Few believed this story: the explanation was too far-fetched. Nevertheless, one of Douglas's intimates subsequently declared, on thefloor of the House, that the Judge was not responsible for anythingthat appeared in the _Review_, that he had no interest in or controlover the magazine, and that he knew nothing about the January numberuntil he saw it in print. [386]

In spite of this untoward incident, Douglas made a formidableshowing. [387] He was himself well pleased at the outlook. He wrote toa friend, "Prospects look well and are improving every day. If two orthree western States will speak out in my favor the battle is over. Can anything be done in Iowa and Missouri? That is very important. Ifsome one could go to Iowa, I think the convention in that State wouldinstruct for me. In regard to our own State, I will say a word. OtherStates are appointing a large number of delegates to the convention, . . . Ought not our State to do the same thing so as to ensure theattendance of most of our leading politicians at Baltimore?. . . Thislarge number would exert a great moral influence on the otherdelegates. "[388]

Among the States which had led off in his favor was California; and itwas a representative of California who first sounded the charge forDouglas's cohorts in the House. In any other place and at any othertime, Marshall's exordium would have overshot the mark. Indeed, inindorsing the attack of the _Review_ on the old fogies in the party, he tore open wounds which it were best to let heal; but gauged by theprevailing standard of taste in politics, the speech was acceptable. It so far commended itself to the editors of the much-abused _Review_that it appeared in the April number, under the caption "The Progressof Democracy vs. Old Fogy Retrograder. "

To clear-headed outsiders, there was something factitious in thisparade of enthusiasm for Douglas. "What most surprises one, " wrotethe correspondent of the New York _Tribune_, "is that theseCongressmen, with beards and without; that verdant, flippant, smartdetachment of Young America that has got into the House, propose tomake a candidate for the Baltimore convention without consulting theirmasters, the people. With a few lively fellows in Congress and the aidof the _Democratic Review_, they fancy themselves equal to theachievement of a small job like this. "[389] As the first of Juneapproached, the older, experienced politicians grew confident thatnone of the prominent candidates could command a two-thirds vote inthe convention. Some had foreseen this months beforehand and had beencasting about for a compromise candidate. Their choice fell eventuallyupon General Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire. Friends were active inhis behalf as early as April, and by June they had hatched their plot. It was not their plan to present his name to the convention at theoutset, but to wait until the three prominent candidates (Cass, Douglas, and Buchanan) were disposed of. He was then to be put forwardas an available, compromise candidate. [390]

Was Douglas cognizant of the situation? While his supporters did notabate their noisy demonstrations, there is some ground to believe thathe did not share their optimistic spirit. At all events, in spite ofhis earlier injunctions, only eleven delegates from Illinois attendedthe convention, while Pennsylvania sent fifty-five, Tennesseetwenty-seven, and Indiana thirty-nine. Had Douglas sent home theintimation that the game was up? The first ballot told the story ofhis defeat. Common rumor had predicted that a large part of theNorthwest would support him. Only fifteen of his twenty votes camefrom that quarter, and eleven of these were cast by Illinois. It wassaid that the Indiana delegates would divert their strength to him, when they had cast one ballot for General Lane; but Indiana cast novotes for Douglas. Although his total vote rose to ninety-two and onthe thirty-first ballot he received the highest vote of any of thecandidates, there was never a moment when there was the slightestprospect of his winning the prize. [391]

On the thirty-fifth ballot occurred a diversion. Virginia cast fifteenvotes for Franklin Pierce. The schemers had launched their project. But it was not until the forty-ninth ballot that they started theavalanche. Pierce then received all but six votes. Two Ohio delegatesclung to Douglas to the bitter end. With the frank manliness whichmade men forget his less admirable qualities, Douglas dictated thisdispatch to the convention: "I congratulate the Democratic party uponthe nomination, and Illinois will give Franklin Pierce a largermajority than any other State in the Union, "--a promise which he wasnot able to redeem. 

If Douglas had been disposed to work out his political prospects bymathematical computation, he would have arrived at some interestingconclusions from the balloting in the convention. Indeed, veryprobably he drew some deductions in his own intuitive way, without anyadventitious aid. Of the three rivals, Cass received the most widelydistributed vote, although Douglas received votes from as many States. While they drew votes from twenty-one States, Buchanan received votesfrom only fifteen. Cass and Douglas obtained their highest percentagesof votes from the West; Buchanan found his strongest support in theSouth. Douglas and Cass received least support in the Middle States;Buchanan had no votes from the West. But while Cass had, on hishighest total, thirty per centum of the whole vote of the MiddleStates, Douglas was relatively weak in the Middle States rather thanin the South. On the basis of these figures, it is impossible tojustify the statement that he could expect nothing in future from NewEngland and Pennsylvania, but would look to the South for support forthe presidency. [392] On the contrary, one would say that his strongNew England following would act as an equipoise, preventing too greata dip toward the Southern end of the scales. Besides, Douglas's holdon his own constituents and the West was contingent upon the favor ofthe strong New England element in the Northwest. If this conventiontaught Douglas anything, it must have convinced him that narrow, sectional policies and undue favor to the South would never land himin the White House. To win the prize which he frankly coveted, he mustgrow in the national confidence, and not merely in the favor of asingle section, however powerful. [393]

Pledges aside, Douglas was bound to give vigorous aid to the partycandidates. His term as senator was about to expire. His own fortuneswere inseparably connected with those of his party in Illinois. TheWashington _Union_ printed a list of his campaign engagements, remarking with evident satisfaction that Judge Douglas was "in thefield with his armor on. " His itinerary reached from Virginia toArkansas, and from New York to the interior counties of his own State. Stray items from a speech in Richmond suggest the tenuous quality ofthese campaign utterances. It was quite clear to his mind that GeneralScott's acceptance of the Whig nomination could not have been writtenby that manly soldier, but by _Politician_ Scott under the control of_General_ Seward. Was it wise to convert a good general into a badpresident? Could it be true that Scott had promised the entirepatronage of his administration to the Whigs? Why, "there had neverbeen a Democratic administration in this Union that did not retain atleast one-third of their political opponents in office!"[394] And yet, when Pierce had been elected, Douglas could say publicly, without somuch as a blush, that Democrats must now have the offices. "For everyWhig removed there should be a competent Democrat put in his place . . . The best men should be selected, and everybody knows that the best menvoted for Pierce and King. "[395]

The outcome of the elections in Illinois was gratifying save in oneparticular. In consequence of the redistricting of the State, theWhigs had increased the number of their representatives in Congress. But the re-election of Douglas was assured. [396] His hold upon hisconstituency was unshaken. With right good will he participated in theDemocratic celebration at Washington. As an influential personage inDemocratic councils he was called upon to sketch in broad lines whathe deemed to be sound Democratic policy; but only a casual referenceto Cuba redeemed his speech from the commonplace. "Whenever the peopleof Cuba show themselves worthy of freedom by asserting and maintainingindependence, and apply for annexation, they ought to be annexed;whenever Spain is ready to sell Cuba, with the consent of itsinhabitants, we ought to accept it on fair terms; and if Spain shouldtransfer Cuba to England or any other European power, we should takeand hold Cuba anyhow. "[397]

Ambition and a buoyant optimism seemed likely to make Douglas morethan ever a power in Democratic politics, when a personal bereavementchanged the current of his life. His young wife whom he adored, themother of his two boys, died shortly after the new year. For themoment he was overwhelmed; and when he again took his place in theSenate, his colleagues remarked in him a bitterness and acerbity oftemper which was not wonted. One hostage that he had given to Fortunehad been taken away, and a certain recklessness took possession ofhim. He grew careless in his personal habits, slovenly in his dress, disregardful of his associates, and if possible more vehementlypartisan in his public utterances. 

It was particularly regrettable that, while Douglas was passingthrough this domestic tragedy, he should have been drawn into acontroversy relating to British claims in Central America. It wasrumored that Great Britain, in apparent violation of the terms of theClayton-Bulwer treaty, had taken possession of certain islands in theBay of Honduras and erected them into the colony of "the Bay Islands. "On the heels of this rumor came news that aroused widespreadindignation. A British man-of-war had fired upon an American steamer, which had refused to pay port dues on entering the harbor of Greytown. Over this city, strategically located at the mouth of the San JuanRiver, Great Britain exercised an ill-disguised control as part of theMosquito protectorate. 

In the midst of the excited debate which immediately followed inCongress, Cass astonished everybody by producing the memorandum whichBulwer had given Clayton just before the signing of the treaty. [398]In this remarkable note, the British ambassador stated that hisgovernment did not wish to be understood as renouncing its existingclaims to Her Majesty's settlement at Honduras and "its dependencies. "And Clayton seemed to have admitted the force of this reservation. Forhis part, Cass made haste to say, he wished the Senate distinctly tounderstand that when he had voted for the treaty, he believed GreatBritain was thereby prevented from establishing any such dependency. His object--and he had supposed it to be the object of the treaty--wasto sweep away all British claims to Central America. 

Behind this imbroglio lay an intricate diplomatic history which canbe here only briefly recapitulated. The interest of the United Statesin the Central American States dated from the discovery of gold inCalifornia. The value of the control of the means of transportationacross the isthmus at Nicaragua became increasingly clear, as the goldseekers sought that route to the Pacific coast. In the latter days ofhis administration, President Polk had sent one Elijah Hise tocultivate friendly relations with the Central American States and tooffset the paramount influence of Great Britain in that region. GreatBritain was already in possession of the colony of Belize and wasexercising an ill-defined protectorate over the Mosquito Indians onthe eastern coast of Nicaragua. In his ardor to serve Americaninterests, Hise exceeded his instructions and secured a treaty withNicaragua, which gave to the United States exclusive privileges overthe route of the proposed canal, on condition that the sovereignty ofNicaragua were guaranteed. The incoming Whig administration would havenothing to do with the Hise _entente_, preferring to dispatch its ownagent to Central America. Though Squier succeeded in negotiating amore acceptable treaty, the new Secretary of State, Clayton, wasdisposed to come to an understanding with Great Britain. The outcomeof these prolonged negotiations was the famous Clayton-Bulwer treaty, by which both countries agreed to further the construction of a shipcanal across the isthmus through Nicaragua, and to guarantee itsneutrality. Other countries were invited to join in securing theneutrality of this and other regions where canals might beconstructed. Both Great Britain and the United States explicitlyrenounced any "dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquitocoast or any part of Central America. "[399]

The opposition would have been something less than human, if they hadnot seized upon the occasion to discredit the outgoing administration. Cass had already introduced a resolution reaffirming the terms of thefamous Monroe message respecting European colonization in America, andthus furnishing the pretext for partisan attacks upon Secretary ofState Clayton. But Cass unwittingly exposed his own head to a sidelongblow from his Democratic rival from Illinois, who affected the rôle ofYoung America once more. 

It is impossible to convey in cold print the biting sarcasm, thevindictive bitterness, and the reckless disregard of justice, withwhich Douglas spoke on February 14th. He sneered at this newprofession of the Monroe Doctrine. Why keep repeating this talk abouta policy which the United States has almost invariably repudiated infact? Witness the Oregon treaty! "With an avowed policy, of thirtyyears' standing that no future European colonization is to bepermitted in America--affirmed when there was no opportunity forenforcing it, and abandoned whenever a case was presented for carryingit into practical effect--is it now proposed to beat another retreatunder cover of terrible threats of awful consequences when the offenseshall be repeated? '_Henceforth_' no 'future' European colony is to beplanted in America '_with our consent!_' It is gratifying to learnthat the United States are never going to 'consent' to therepudiation of the Monroe doctrine again. No more Clayton and Bulwertreaties; no more British 'alliances' in Central America, New Granada, or Mexico; no more resolutions of oblivion to protect 'existingrights!' Let England tremble, and Europe take warning, if the offenseis repeated. 'Should the attempt be made, ' says the resolution, 'itwill leave the United States _free to adopt_ such measures as anindependent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights andhonor. ' Are not the United States now _free_ to adopt such measures asan independent nation may _justly adopt_ in defense of its _rights andhonor_? Have we not given the notice? Is not thirty years sufficientnotice?"[400]

He taunted Clayton with having suppressed the Hise treaty, whichsecured exclusive privileges for the United States over the canalroute, in order to form a partnership with England and othermonarchical powers of Europe. "Exclusive privileges" were sacrificedto lay the foundation of an alliance by which European intervention inAmerican affairs was recognized as a right!

It was generally known that Douglas had opposed the Clayton-Bulwertreaty;[401] but the particular ground of his opposition had been onlysurmised. Deeming the injunction of secrecy removed, he nowemphatically registered his protest against the whole policy ofpledging the faith of the Republic, not to do what in the future ourinterests, duty, and even safety, might compel us to do. The timemight come when the United States would wish to possess some portionof Central America. Moreover, the agreement not to fortify any part ofthat region was not reciprocal, so long as Great Britain held Jamaicaand commanded the entrance to the canal. He had always regarded theterms of the British protectorate over the Mosquito coast asequivocal; but the insuperable objection to the treaty was theEuropean partnership to which the United States was pledged. The twoparties not only contracted to extend their protection to any otherpracticable communications across the isthmus, whether by canal orrailway, but invited all other powers to become parties to theseprovisions. What was the purport of this agreement, if it did notrecognize the right of European powers to intervene in Americanaffairs; what then became of the vaunted Monroe Doctrine?

To the undiplomatic mind of Douglas, our proper course was as clear asday. Insist upon the withdrawal of Great Britain from the Bay Islands!"If we act with becoming discretion and firmness, I have noapprehension that the enforcement of our rights will lead tohostilities. " And then let the United States free itself fromentangling alliances by annulling the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. [402]Surely this was simplicity itself. 

The return of Clayton to the Senate, in the special session of March, brought the accused before his accusers. An acrimonious debatefollowed, in the course of which Douglas was forced to state his ownposition more explicitly. He took his stand upon the Hise treaty. Hadthe exclusive control of the canal been given into our hands, and thecanal thrown open to the commerce of all nations upon our own terms, we would have had a right which would have been ample security forevery nation under heaven to keep peace with the United States. "Wecould have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war couldhave closed it against our enemies. " But, suggested Clayton, Europeanpowers would never have consented to such exclusive control. "Well, Sir, " said Douglas, "I do not know that they would have consented: butof one thing I am certain I would never have asked theirconsent. "[403] And such was the temper of Young America that thissledge hammer diplomacy was heartily admired. 

It was in behalf of Young America again, that Douglas gave free reinto his vision of national destiny. Disclaiming any immediate wish fortropical expansion in the direction of either Mexico or CentralAmerica, he yet contended that no man could foresee the limits of theRepublic. "You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter thelimits of this giant Republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture toprescribe. " Why, then, pledge our faith never to annex any more ofMexico or any portion of Central America?[404]

For this characteristic Chauvinism Douglas paid the inevitablepenalty. Clayton promptly ridiculed this attitude. "He is fond ofboasting . . . That we are a _giant_ Republic; and the Senator himselfis said to be a 'little giant;' yes, sir, quite a _giant_, andeverything that he talks about in these latter days is gigantic. Hehas become so magnificent of late, that he cannot consent to enterinto a partnership on equal terms with any nation on earth--not he! Hemust have the exclusive right in himself and our noble selves!"[405]

It was inevitable, too, that Douglas should provoke resentment on hisown side of the chamber. Cass was piqued by his slurs upon Old Fogyismand by his trenchant criticism of the policy of reasserting the MonroeDoctrine. Badger spoke for the other side of the house, when hedeclared that Douglas spoke "with a disregard to justice and fairnesswhich I have seldom seen him exhibit. " It is lamentably true thatDouglas exhibited his least admirable qualities on such occasions. Hatred for Great Britain was bred in his bones. Possibly it was partof his inheritance from that grandfather who had fought the Britishersin the wars of the Revolution. Possibly, too, he had heard as a boy, in his native Vermont village, tales of British perfidy in the recentwar of 1812. At all events, he was utterly incapable of anything butbitter animosity toward Great Britain. This unreasoning prejudiceblinded his judgment in matters of diplomacy, and vitiated hisutterances on questions of foreign policy. 

Replying to Clayton, he said contemptuously, "I do not sympathize withthat feeling which the Senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pityto have a difference with a nation so friendly to us as England. Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship. It is not in the natureof things that she can be our friend. It is impossible that she canlove us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, we have woundedher vanity and humbled her pride. She can never forgive us. "[406]

And when Senator Butler rebuked him for this animosity, reminding himthat England was after all our mother country, to whom we were underdeeper obligations than to any other, Douglas retorted, "She is andever has been a cruel and unnatural mother. " Yes, he remembered theillustrious names of Hampden, Sidney, and others; but he rememberedalso that "the same England which gave them birth, and should havefelt a mother's pride and love in their virtues and services, persecuted her noble sons to the dungeon and the scaffold. " "He speaksin terms of delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshingstreams which English literature and science are pouring into ourcountry and diffusing throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearlyevery English book circulated and read in this country containslurking and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of ourpeople and the institutions and policy of our Government?"[407]

For Europe in general, Douglas had hardly more reverence. With apositiveness which in such matters is sure proof of provincialism, hesaid, "Europe is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on the verge ofdissolution. When you visit her, the objects which enlist your highestadmiration are the relics of past greatness; the broken columnserected to departed power. It is one vast graveyard, where you findhere a tomb indicating the burial of the arts; there a monumentmarking the spot where liberty expired; another to the memory of agreat man, whose place has never been filled. The choicest products ofher classic soil consist in relics, which remain as sad memorials ofdeparted glory and fallen greatness! They bring up the memories ofthe dead, but inspire no hope for the living! Here everything isfresh, blooming, expanding and advancing. "[408]

And yet, soon after Congress adjourned, he set out to visit this vastgraveyard. It was even announced that he proposed to spend five or sixmonths in studying the different governments of Europe. Doubtless heregarded this study as of negative value chiefly. From the observationof relics of departed grandeur, a live American would derive many avaluable lesson. His immediate destination was the country againstwhich he had but just thundered. Small wonder if a cordial welcome didnot await him. His admiring biographer records with pride that he wasnot presented to Queen Victoria, though the opportunity wasafforded. [409] It appears that this stalwart Democrat would not so fardemean himself as to adopt the conventional court dress for theoccasion. He would not stoop even to adopt the compromise costume ofAmbassador Buchanan, and add to the plain dress of an Americancitizen, a short sword which would distinguish him from the courtlackeys. 

At St. Petersburg, his objections to court dress were moresympathetically received. Count Nesselrode, who found thisuncompromising American possessed of redeeming qualities, put himselfto no little trouble to arrange an interview with the Czar. Douglaswas finally put under the escort of Baron Stoeckle, who was a memberof the Russian embassy at Washington, and conducted to the field wherethe Czar was reviewing the army. Mounted upon a charger of hugedimensions, the diminutive Douglas was brought into the presence ofthe Czar of all the Russias. [410] It is said that Douglas was the onlyAmerican who witnessed these manoeuvres; but Douglas afterwardconfessed, with a laugh at his own expense, that the most conspicuousfeature of the occasion for him was the ominous evolutions of hishorse's ears, for he was too short of limb and too inexperienced ahorseman to derive any satisfaction from the military pageant. [411]

We are assured by his devoted biographer, Sheahan, that Douglaspersonally examined _all_ the public institutions of the capitalduring his two weeks' stay in St. Petersburg; and that he sought athorough knowledge of the manners, laws, and government of that cityand the Empire. [412] No doubt, with his nimble perception he saw muchin this brief sojourn, for Russia had always interested him greatly, and he had read its history with more than wonted care. [413] He wasnot content to follow merely the beaten track in central and westernEurope; but he visited also the Southeast where rumors of war wereabroad. From St. Petersburg, he passed by carriage through theinterior to the Crimea and to Sebastopol, soon to be the storm centreof war. In the marts of Syria and Asia Minor, he witnessed the contactof Orient and Occident. In the Balkan peninsula he caught fugitiveglimpses of the rule of the unspeakable Turk. [414]

No man with the quick apperceptive powers of Douglas could remainwholly untouched by the sights and sounds that crowd upon even thecareless traveler in the East; yet such experiences are not formativein the character of a man of forty. Douglas was still Douglas, stillAmerican, still Western to the core, when he set foot on native soilin late October. He was not a larger man either morally orintellectually; but he had acquired a fund of information which madehim a readier, and possibly a wiser, man. And then, too, he wasrefreshed in body and mind. More than ever he was bold, alert, persistent, and resourceful. In his compact, massive frame, werestored indomitable pluck and energy; and in his heart the spirit ofambition stirred mightily. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 370: The speech is given in part by Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 171 ff; and at greater length by Flint, Douglas, App. , pp. 3 ff. ]

[Footnote 371: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 186; Flint, Douglas, App. , p. 30. ]

[Footnote 372: _Globe, _31 Cong. , 2 Sess. , Debate of February 21 and22, 1851. ]

[Footnote 373: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 312. ]

[Footnote 374: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 1120. ]

[Footnote 375: MS. Letter dated December 30, 1851. ]

[Footnote 376: Mann, Life of Horace Mann, pp. 351, 358, 362. ]

[Footnote 377: Senator Foote introduced the subject December 2, 1851, by a resolution pronouncing the compromise measures a "definiteadjustment and settlement. "]

[Footnote 378: Rhodes, History of the United States, 1, p. 230. ]

[Footnote 379: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 68. ]

[Footnote 380: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 63. About this time hewrote to a friend, "I shall act on the rule of giving the offices tothose who fight the battles. "]

[Footnote 381: Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 354. ]

[Footnote 382: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 70. ]

[Footnote 383: _Globe, _32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 70-71. ]

[Footnote 384: See speech by Breckinridge of Kentucky in _Globe_, 32Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 299 ff. ]

[Footnote 385: Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 115. ]

[Footnote 386: Statement by Richardson of Illinois in reply to J. C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, March 3, 1852. _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 302. ]

[Footnote 387: "What with his Irish Organs, his Democratic reviews andan armful of other strings, each industriously pulled, he makes aformidable show. " Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 115. ]

[Footnote 388: MS. Letter, February 25, 1852. ]

[Footnote 389: Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 118. ]

[Footnote 390: Burke-Pierce Correspondence, printed in _AmericanHistorical Review_, X, pp. 110 ff. See also Stanwood, History of thePresidency, p. 248, and Rhodes, History of the United States, I, pp. 251-252. ]

[Footnote 391: Proceedings of Democratic National Convention of 1852. ]

[Footnote 392: See Rhodes, History of the United States, I, pp. 424-425. ]

[Footnote 393: To attribute to Douglas, from this time on, as manywriters have done, a purpose to pander to the South, is not only todiscredit his political foresight, but to misunderstand his positionin the Northwest and to ignore his reiterated assertions. ]

[Footnote 394: Richmond _Enquirer_, quoted in Illinois _Register_, August 3, 1852. ]

[Footnote 395: Illinois _State Register_, December 23, 1852. ]

[Footnote 396: Washington _Union_, November 30, 1852. On a jointballot of the legislature Douglas received 75 out of 95 votes. SeeIllinois _State Register_, January 5, 1853. ]

[Footnote 397: Illinois _State Register_, December 23, 1852. ]

[Footnote 398: Smith, Parties and Slavery, pp. 88-93. ]

[Footnote 399: MacDonald, Select Documents of the History of theUnited States, No. 77. ]

[Footnote 400: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 170. ]

[Footnote 401: Douglas declined to serve on the Senate Committee onForeign Affairs, because he was opposed to the policy of the majority, so he afterward intimated. _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 268. ]

[Footnote 402: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 173. ]

[Footnote 403: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 261. ]

[Footnote 404: _Ibid. _, p. 262. ]

[Footnote 405: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 276. ]

[Footnote 406: _Ibid. _, p. 262. ]

[Footnote 407: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 275. ]

[Footnote 408: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 273. ]

[Footnote 409: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 443-444. ]

[Footnote 410: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 444-445. ]

[Footnote 411: Major McConnell in the Transactions of the IllinoisHistorical Society, IV, p. 48; Linder, Early Bench and Bar ofIllinois, pp. 80-82. ]

[Footnote 412: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 444. ]

[Footnote 413: Conversation with Judge R. M. Douglas. ]

[Footnote 414: Washington _Union_, and Illinois _State Register_, May26 and November 6, 1853. ]

CHAPTER XI

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT

With the occupation of Oregon and of the gold fields of California, American colonization lost temporarily its conservative character. That heel-and-toe process, which had hitherto marked the occupation ofthe Mississippi Valley, seemed too slow and tame; the pace hadlengthened and quickened. Consequently there was a greatwaste--No-man's-land--between the western boundary of Iowa, Missouriand Arkansas, and the scattered communities on the Pacific slope. Itwas a waste broken only by the presence of the Mormons in Utah, ofnomadic tribes of Indians on the plains, and of tribes of more settledhabits on the eastern border. In many cases these lands had been givento Indian tribes in perpetuity, to compensate for the loss of theiroriginal habitat in some of the Eastern States. With strange lack offoresight, the national government had erected a barrier to its owndevelopment. 

As early as 1844, Douglas had proposed a territorial government forthe region of which the Platte, or Nebraska, was the centralstream. [415] The chief trail to Oregon traversed these prairies andplains. If the United States meant to assert and maintain its title toOregon, some sort of government was needed to protect emigrants, andto supply a military basis for such forces as should be required tohold the disputed country. Though the Secretary of War indorsed thisview, [416] Congress was not disposed to anticipate the occupation ofthe prairies. Nebraska became almost a hobby with Douglas. Heintroduced a second bill in 1848, [417] and a third in 1852, [418] alldesigned to prepare the way for settled government. 

The last of these was unique. Its provisions were designed, no doubt, to meet the unusual conditions presented by the overland emigration toCalifornia. Military protection for the emigrant, a telegraph line, and an overland mail were among the ostensible objects. The militaryforce was to be a volunteer corps, which would construct militaryposts and at the same time provide for its own maintenance by tillingthe soil. At the end of three years these military farmers were eachto receive 640 acres along the route, and thus form a sort of militarycolony. [419] Douglas pressed the measure with great warmth; butSoutherners doubted the advisability of "encouraging new swarms toleave the old hives, " not wishing to foster an expansion in which theycould not share, [420] nor forgetting that this was free soil by theterms of the Missouri Compromise. All sorts of objections were trumpedup to discredit the bill. Douglas was visibly irritated. "Sir, " heexclaimed, "it looks to me as if the design was to deprive us ofeverything like protection in that vast region . . . I must remind theSenate again that the pointing out of these objections, and thesuggesting of these large expenditures show us that we are to expectno protection at all; they evince direct, open hostility to thatsection of the country. "[421]

It was the fate of the Nebraska country to be bound up more or lessintimately with the agitation in favor of a Pacific railroad. Allsorts of projects were in the air. Asa Whitney had advocated, inseason and out, a railroad from Lake Michigan to some available harboron the Pacific. Douglas and his Chicago friends were naturallyinterested in this enterprise. Benton, on the other hand, jealous forthe interests of St. Louis, advocated a "National Central Highway"from that city to San Francisco, with branches to other points. TheSouth looked forward to a Pacific railroad which should follow asouthern route. [422] A northern or central route would inevitably opena pathway through the Indian country and force on the settlement andorganization of the territory;[423] the choice of a southern routewould in all likelihood retard the development of Nebraska. 

While Congress was shirking its duty toward Nebraska, the WyandotIndians, a civilized tribe occupying lands in the fork of the Kansasand Missouri rivers, repeatedly memorialized Congress to grant them aterritorial government. [424] Dogged perseverance may be an Indiancharacteristic, but there is reason to believe that outsideinfluences were working upon them. Across the border, in Missouri, they had a staunch friend in ex-Senator Benton, who had reasons of hisown for furthering their petitions. In 1850, the opposition, which hadbeen steadily making headway against him, succeeded in deposing theold parliamentarian and electing a Whig as his successor in theSenate. The _coup d'état_ was effected largely through the efforts ofan aggressive pro-slavery faction led by Senator David E. Atchison. [425] It was while his fortunes were waning in Missouri, thatBenton interested himself in the Central Highway and in the Wyandots. His project, indeed, contemplated grants of land along the route, whenthe Indian title should be extinguished. [426] Possibly it was Benton'spurpose to regain his footing in Missouri politics by advocating thispopular measure; possibly, as his opponents hinted, he looked forwardto residing in the new Territory and some day becoming its firstsenator; at all events, he came to look upon the territorialorganization of Nebraska as an integral part of his larger railroadproject. 

In this wise, Missouri factional quarrels, Indian titles, railroads, territorial government for Nebraska, and land grants had becomehopelessly tangled, when another bill for the organization of Nebraskacame before Congress in February, 1853. [427] The measure was presentedby Willard P. Hall, a representative from Missouri, belonging to theBenton faction. His advocacy of the bill in the House throws a floodof light on the motives actuating both friends and opponents. Representatives from Texas evinced a poignant concern for the rightsof the poor Indian. Had he not been given these lands as a permanenthome, after being driven from the hunting ground of his fathers? To besure, there was a saving clause in the bill which promised to respectIndian claims, but zeal for the Indian still burned hotly in thebreasts of these Texans. Finally, Hall retorted that Texas had foryears been trying to drive the wild tribes from her borders, so as tomake the northern routes unsafe and thus to force the tide ofemigration through Texas. [428] "Why, everybody is talking about arailroad to the Pacific. In the name of God, how is the railroad to bemade, if you will never let people live on the lands through which theroad passes?"[429]

In other words, the concern of the Missourians was less for theunprotected emigrant than for the great central railroad; while theSouth cared less for the Indian than for a southern railroad route. The Nebraska bill passed the House by a vote which suggests thesectional differences involved in it. [430]

It was most significant that, while a bill to organize the Territoryof Washington passed at once to a third reading in the Senate, theNebraska bill hung fire. Douglas made repeated efforts to gainconsideration for it; but the opposition seems to have been motivedhere as it was in the House. [431] On the last day of the session, theSenate entered upon an irregular, desultory debate, without a quorum. Douglas took an unwilling part. He repeated that the measure was "verydear to his heart, " that it involved "a matter of immenseimportance, " that the object in view was "to form a line ofterritorial governments extending from the Mississippi valley to thePacific ocean. " The very existence of the Union seemed to him todepend upon this policy. For eight years he had advocated theorganization of Nebraska; he trusted that the favorable moment hadcome. [432] But his trust was misplaced. The Senate refused to considerthe bill, the South voting almost solidly against it, though Atchison, who had opposed the bill in the earlier part of the session, announcedhis conversion, --for the reason that he saw no prospect of a repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise. The Territory might as well be organized nowas ten years later. [433]

Disappointed by the inaction of Congress, the Wyandots took mattersinto their own hands, and set up a provisional government. [434] Thenensued a contest between the Missouri factions to name the territorialdelegate, --who was to present the claims of the new government to theauthorities at Washington. On November 7, 1853, Thomas Johnson, thenominee of the Atchison faction, was elected. [435] In the meantimeSenator Atchison had again changed his mind: he was now opposed to theorganization of Nebraska, unless the Missouri Compromise wererepealed. [436] The motives which prompted this recantation can only besurmised. Presumably, for some reason, Atchison no longer believed theMissouri Compromise "irremediable. "

The strangely unsettled condition of the great tract whose fate waspending, is no better illustrated than by a second election which washeld on the upper Missouri. One Hadley D. Johnson, sometime member ofthe Iowa legislature, hearing of the proposal of the Wyandots to senda territorial delegate to Congress, invited his friends in westernIowa to cross the river and hold an election. They responded bychoosing their enterprising compatriot for their delegate, whopromptly set out for Washington, bearing their mandate. Arriving atthe capital, he found Thomas Johnson already occupying a seat in theHouse in the capacity of delegate-elect. Not to be outdone, the IowaJohnson somewhat surreptitiously secured his admission to the floor. Subsequently, "the two Johnsons, " as they were styled by the members, were ousted, the House refusing very properly to recognize either. Thomas Johnson exhibited some show of temper, but was placated by thegood sense of his rival, who proposed that they should strike for twoTerritories instead of one. Why not; was not Nebraska large enough forboth?[437]

Under these circumstances, the question of Nebraska seemed likely torecur. Certain Southern newspapers were openly demanding the removalof the slavery restriction in the new Territory. [438] Yet the chairmanof the Senate Committee on Territories, who had just returned fromEurope, seems to have been unaware of the undercurrents whose surfaceindications have been pointed out. He wrote confidentially on November11th:[439] "It [the administration] has difficulties ahead, but itmust meet them boldly and fairly. There is a surplus revenue whichmust be disposed of and the tariff reduced to a legitimate revenuestandard. It will not do to allow the surplus to accumulate in theTreasury and thus create a pecuniary revulsion that would overwhelmthe business arrangements and financial affairs of the country. TheRiver and Harbor question must be met and decided. Now in my opinionis the time to put those great interests on a more substantial andsecure basis by a well devised system of Tonnage duties. I do not knowwhat the administration will do on this question, but I hope they willhave the courage to do what we all feel to be right. The Pacificrailroad will also be a disturbing element. It will never do tocommence making railroads by the federal government under any pretextof necessity. We can grant alternate sections of land as we did forthe Central Road, but not a dollar from the National Treasury. Theseare the main questions and my opinions are foreshadowed as you areentitled to know them. "

In the same letter occurs an interesting personal allusion: "I seemany of the newspapers are holding me up as a candidate for the nextPresidency. I do not wish to occupy that position. I do not think Iwill be willing to have my name used. I think such a state of thingswill exist that I shall not desire the nomination. Yet I do not intendto do any act which will deprive me of the control of my own action. Ishall remain entirely non-committal and hold myself at liberty to dowhatever my duty to my principles and my friends may require when thetime for action arrives. Our first duty is to the cause--the fate ofindividual politicians is of minor consequence. The party is in adistracted condition and it requires all our wisdom, prudence andenergy to consolidate its power and perpetuate its principles. Let usleave the Presidency out of view for at least two years to come. "

These are not the words of a man who is plotting a revolution. HadNebraska and the Missouri Compromise been uppermost in his thoughts, he would have referred to the subject, for the letter was written instrict confidence to friends, from whom he kept no secrets and beforewhom he was not wont to pose. 

Those better informed, however, believed that Congress would have todeal with the territorial question in the near future. The Washington_Union_, commonly regarded as the organ of the administration, predicted that next to pressing foreign affairs, the Pacific railroadand the Territories would occupy the attention of theadministration. [440] And before Congress assembled, or had been long insession, the chairman of the Committee on Territories must have sensedthe situation, for on December 14, 1853, Senator Dodge of Iowaintroduced a bill for the organization of Nebraska, which was identicalwith that of the last session. [441] The bill was promptly referred tothe Committee on Territories, and the Nebraska question entered uponits last phase. Within a week, Douglas's friends of the Illinois State_Register_ were sufficiently well informed of the thoughts and intentsof his mind to hazard this conjecture: "We believe they [the people ofNebraska] may be safely left to act for themselves. . . . The territoriesshould be admitted to exercise, as nearly as practicable, all therights claimed by the States, and to adopt all such politicalregulations and institutions as their wisdom may suggest. "[442] A NewYork correspondent announced on December 30th, that the committee wouldsoon report a bill for three Territories on the basis of New Mexico andUtah; that is, without excluding or admitting slavery. "Climate andnature and the necessary pursuits of the people who are to occupy theterritories, " added the writer complacently, "will settle thequestion--and these will effectually exclude slavery. "[443]

These rumors foreshadowed the report of the committee. The problem wasto find a mode of overcoming the opposition of the South to theorganization of a Territory which would not only add eventually to thenumber of free States, but also open up a northern route to thePacific. The price of concession from the South on the latter pointmust be some apparent concession to the South in the matter ofslavery. The report of January 4, 1854, and the bill which accompaniedit, was Douglas's solution of the problem. [444] The principles of thecompromise measures of 1850 were to be affirmed and carried intopractical operation within the limits of the new Territory ofNebraska. "In the judgment of your committee, " read the report, "thosemeasures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduringeffect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of therecent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed toestablish certain great principles . . . Your committee have deemed ittheir duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures. If any otherconsideration were necessary, to render the propriety of this courseimperative upon the committee, they may be found in the fact that theNebraska country occupies the same relative position to the slaveryquestion, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those Territories wereorganized. "[445]

Just as it was a disputed point, the report argued, whether slaverywas prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico, so it isquestioned whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by_valid_ enactment. "In the opinion of those eminent statesmen, whohold that Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislateupon the subject of slavery in the Territories, the 8th section of theact preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void; whilethe prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains thedoctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to everycitizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories withhis property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoythe same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feelthemselves called upon to enter upon the discussion of thesecontroverted questions. They involve the same grave issues whichproduced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggleof 1850. " And just as Congress deemed it wise in 1850 to refrain fromdeciding the matter in controversy, so "your committee are notprepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on thatmemorable occasion either by affirming or repealing the 8th section ofthe Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of theConstitution in respect to the legal points in dispute. " The essentialfeatures of the Compromise of 1850, which should again be carried intopractical operation, were stated as follows:

"First: That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to thedecision of the people residing therein, by their appropriaterepresentatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose. 

"Second: That 'all cases involving title to slaves, ' and 'questions ofpersonal freedom, ' are referred to the adjudication of the localtribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates. 

"Third: That the provision of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithfulexecution in all 'the organized Territories, ' the same as in theStates. "

The substitute reported by the committee followed the Dodge billclosely, but contained the additional statement. "And when admitted asa State or States, the said Territory, or any part of the same, shallbe received into the Union, with or without slavery, as theirConstitution may prescribe at the time of their admission. "[446] Thisphraseology was identical with that of the Utah and New Mexico Acts. The bill also made special provision for writs of error and appealsfrom the territorial court to the Supreme Court of the United States, in all cases involving title to slaves and personal freedom. Thisfeature, too, was copied from the Utah and New Mexico Acts. As firstprinted in the Washington _Sentinel_, January 7th, the bill containedno reference to the Missouri Compromise and no direct suggestion thatthe territorial legislature would decide the question of slavery. Thewording of the bill and its general tenor gave the impression that theprohibition of slavery would continue during the territorial status, unless in the meantime the courts should declare the MissouriCompromise null and void. Three days later, January 10th, the_Sentinel_ reprinted the bill with an additional section, which hadbeen omitted by a "clerical error. " This twenty-first section read, "In order to avoid all misconstruction, it is hereby declared to bethe true intent and meaning of this act, so far as the question ofslavery is concerned, to carry into practical operation the followingpropositions and principles, established by the compromise measures ofone thousand eight hundred and fifty, to wit:" then followed the threepropositions which had accompanied the report of January 4th. The lastof these three propositions had been slightly abbreviated: allquestions pertaining to slavery were to be left to the decision of thepeople through their appropriate representatives, the clause "to bechosen by them for that purpose" being omitted. 

This additional section transformed the whole bill. For the first timethe people of the Territory are mentioned as the determining agents inrespect to slavery. And the unavoidable inference followed, that theywere not to be hampered in their choice by the restrictive feature ofthe Missouri Act of 1820. The omission of this weighty section wascertainly a most extraordinary oversight. Whose was the "clericalerror"? Attached to the original draft, now in the custody of theSecretary of the Senate, is a sheet of blue paper, in Douglas'shandwriting, containing the crucial article. All evidence points tothe conclusion that Douglas added this hastily, after the bill hadbeen twice read in the Senate and ordered to be printed; but whetherit was carelessly omitted by the copyist or appended by Douglas as anafterthought, it is impossible to say. [447] After his report ofJanuary 4th, there was surely no reason why Douglas should havehesitated to incorporate the three propositions in the bill; but it isperfectly obvious that with the appended section, the Nebraska billdiffered essentially from its prototypes, though Douglas contendedthat he had only made explicit what was contained implicitly in theUtah bill. 

Two years later Douglas replied to certain criticisms from Trumbull inthese words: "He knew, or, if not, he ought to know, that the bill inthe shape in which it was first reported, as effectually repealed theMissouri restriction as it afterwards did when the repeal was put inexpress terms. The only question was whether it should be done in thelanguage of the acts of 1850, or in the language subsequentlyemployed, but the legal effect was precisely the same. "[448] Of courseDouglas was here referring to the original bill containing thetwenty-first section. 

It has commonly been assumed that Douglas desired the repeal of theMissouri Compromise in order to open Nebraska to slavery. This was thepassionate accusation of his anti-slavery contemporaries; and it hasbecome the verdict of most historians. Yet there is ample evidencethat Douglas had no such wish and intent. He had said in 1850, and onother occasions, that he believed the prairies to be dedicated tofreedom by a law above human power to repeal. Climate, topography, theconditions of slave labor, which no Northern man knew better, forbadeslavery in the unoccupied areas of the West. [449] True, he had no suchhorror of slavery extension as many Northern men manifested; he wasprobably not averse to sacrificing some of the region dedicated by lawto freedom, if thereby he could carry out his cherished project ofdeveloping the greater Northwest; but that he deliberately planned toplant slavery in all that region, is contradicted by theincontrovertible fact that he believed the area of slavery to becircumscribed definitely by Nature. Man might propose but physicalgeography would dispose. 

The regrettable aspect of Douglas's course is his attempt to nullifythe Missouri Compromise by subtle indirection. This was the device ofa shifty politician, trying to avert suspicion and public alarm byclever ambiguities. That he really believed a new principle had beensubstituted for an old one, in dealing with the Territories, does notextenuate the offense, for not even he had ventured to assert in 1850, that the compromises of that year had in any wise disturbed the statusof the great, unorganized area to which Congress had applied therestrictive proviso of 1820. Besides, only so recently as 1849, he hadsaid, with all the emphasis of sincerity, that the compromise had"become canonized in the hearts of the American people, as a sacredthing, which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough todisturb. " And while he then opposed the extension of the principle tonew Territories, he believed that it had been "deliberatelyincorporated into our legislation as a solemn and sacredcompromise. "[450]

By this time Douglas must have been aware of the covert purpose ofAtchison and others to secure the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, though he hoped that they would acquiesce in his mode of doing it. Hewas evidently not prepared for the bold move which certain of thesenators from slave States were contemplating. [451] He was thereforestartled by an amendment which Dixon of Kentucky offered on January16th, to the effect that the restrictive clause of the Act of 1820should not be so construed as to apply to Nebraska or any otherTerritory; "but that the citizens of the several States or territoriesshall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of theterritories of the United States or of the States to be formedtherefrom, " as if the Missouri Act had never been passed. Douglas atonce left his seat to remonstrate with Dixon, who was on the Whig sideof the Senate chamber. He disliked the amendment, not so much becauseit wiped out the Missouri Compromise as because it seemed"affirmatively to legislate slavery into the Territory. "[452] KnowingDixon to be a supporter of the compromise measures of 1850, Douglasbegged him not to thwart the work of his committee, which was tryingin good faith to apply the cardinal features of those measures toNebraska. The latter part of Dixon's amendment could hardly beharmonized with the principle of congressional non-intervention. [453]

There seems to be no reason to doubt that Dixon moved in this matter onhis own initiative;[454] but he was a friend to Atchison and he couldnot have been wholly ignorant of the Missouri factional quarrel. [455]To be sure, Dixon was a Whig, but Southern Whigs and Democrats were atone in desiring expansion for the peculiar institution of theirsection. Pressure was now brought to bear upon Douglas to incorporatethe direct repeal of the compromise in the Nebraska bill. [456] Heobjected strongly, foreseeing no doubt the storm of protest which wouldburst over his head in the North. [457] Still, if he could unite theparty on the principle of non-intervention with slavery in theTerritories, the risk of temporary unpopularity would be worth taking. No doubt personal ambition played its part in forming his purpose, butparty considerations swayed him most powerfully. [458] He witnessed withno little apprehension the divergence between the Northern and Southernwings of the party; he had commented in private upon "the distractedcondition" of the party and the need of perpetuating its principles andconsolidating its power. Might this not be his opportunity?

On Sunday morning, January 22d, just before the hour for church, Douglas, with several of his colleagues, called upon the Secretary ofWar, Davis, stating that the Committees on Territories of the Senateand House had agreed upon a bill, for which the President's approvalwas desired. They pressed for an immediate interview inasmuch as theydesired to report the bill on the morrow. Somewhat reluctantly, Davisarranged an interview for them, though the President was not in thehabit of receiving visitors on Sunday. Yielding to their request, President Pierce took the proposed bill under consideration, givingcareful heed to all explanations; and when they were done, both heand his influential secretary promised their support. [459]

What was this momentous bill to which the President thus pledgedhimself? The title indicated the most striking feature. There were nowto be two Territories: Kansas and Nebraska. Bedded in the heart ofSection 14, however, was a still more important provision whichannounced that the prohibition of slavery in the Act of 1820 had been"superseded by the principles of the legislation of eighteen hundredand fifty, commonly called the compromise measures, " and was therefore"inoperative. "

It has been commonly believed that Douglas contemplated making onefree and one slave State out of the Nebraska region. His own simpleexplanation is far more credible: the two Johnsons had petitioned fora division of the Territory along the fortieth parallel, and both theIowa and Missouri delegations believed that their local interestswould be better served by two Territories. [460]

Again Pacific railroad interests seem to have crossed the path of theNebraska bill. The suspicions of Delegate-elect Hadley Johnson hadbeen aroused by the neglect of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs toextinguish the claims of the Omaha Indians, whose lands lay directlywest of Iowa. At the last session, an appropriation had been made forthe purpose of extinguishing the Indian title to lands west of bothMissouri and Iowa; and everyone knew that this was a preliminary stepto settlement by whites. The appropriation had been zealouslyadvocated by representatives from Missouri, who frankly admitted thatthe possession of these lands would make the Pacific railroad routeavailable. Now as the Indian Commissioner, who had before shownhimself an active partisan of Senator Atchison, rapidly pushed on thetreaties with the Indians west of Missouri and dallied with theOmahas, the inference was unavoidable, that Iowa interests were beingsacrificed to Missouri interests. Such was the story that the IowaJohnson poured into the ear of Senator Douglas, to whom he waspresented by Senator Dodge. [461] The surest way to safeguard theinterests of Iowa was to divide the Territory of Nebraska, and giveIowa her natural outlet to the West. 

Senator Dodge had also come to this conclusion. Nebraska would be toIowa, what Iowa had been to Illinois. Were only one Territoryorganized, the seat of government and leading thoroughfares would passto the south of Iowa. [462] Put in the language of the promoters of thePacific railroad, one Territory meant aid to the central route; twoTerritories meant an equal chance for both northern and centralroutes. As the representative of Chicago interests, Douglas was notblind to these considerations. 

On Monday, January 23d, Douglas reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill witha brief word of explanation. Next day Senator Dixon expressed hissatisfaction with the amendment, which he interpreted as virtuallyrepealing the Missouri Compromise. He disclaimed any other wish orintention than to secure the principle which the compromise measuresof 1850 had established. [463] An editorial in the Washington _Union_threw the weight of the administration into the balance: "Theproposition of Mr. Douglas is a practical execution of the principlesof that compromise [of 1850], and therefore, cannot but be regarded bythe administration as a test of Democratic orthodoxy. "[464]

While the administration publicly wheeled into line behind Douglas, the "Appeal of the Independent Democrats in Congress to the People ofthe United States" summoned the anti-slavery elements to join battlein behalf of the Missouri Compromise. This memorable document had beenwritten by Chase of Ohio and dated January 19th, but a postscript wasadded after the revised Kansas-Nebraska bill had been reported. [465]It was an adroitly worded paper. History has falsified many of itspredictions; history then controverted many of its assumptions; but itwas colored with strong emotion and had the ring of righteousindignation. 

The gist of the appeal was contained in two clauses, one of whichdeclared that the Nebraska bill would open all the unorganizedterritory of the Union to the ingress of slavery; the other arraignedthe bill as "a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminalbetrayal of precious rights. " In ominous words, fellow citizens werebesought to observe how the blight of slavery would settle upon allthis land, if this bill should become a law. Christians and Christianministers were implored to interpose. "Let all protest, earnestly andemphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, byresolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whateverother mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime. " In thepostscript Douglas received personal mention. "Not a man in Congressor out of Congress, in 1850, pretended that the compromise measureswould repeal the Missouri prohibition. Mr. Douglas himself neveradvanced such a pretence until this session. His own Nebraska bill, oflast session, rejected it. It is a sheer afterthought. To declare theprohibition inoperative, may, indeed, have effect in law as a repeal, but it is a most discreditable way of reaching the object. Will thepeople permit their dearest interests to be thus made the mere hazardsof a presidential game, and destroyed by false facts and falseinferences?"[466]

This attack roused the tiger in the Senator from Illinois. When headdressed the Senate on January 30th, he labored under ill-repressedanger. Even in the expurgated columns of the _Congressional Globe_enough stinging personalities appeared to make his friends regretful. What excited his wrath particularly was that Chase and Sumner hadasked for a postponement of discussion, in order to examine the bill, and then, in the interval, had sent out their indictment of theauthor. It was certainly unworthy of him to taunt them with havingdesecrated the Sabbath day by writing their plea. The charge was notonly puerile but amusing, when one considers how Douglas himself wasobserving that particular Sabbath. 

It was comparatively easy to question and disprove the unqualifiedstatement of the _Appeal_, that "the original settled policy of theUnited States was non-extension of slavery. " Less convincing wasDouglas's attempt to prove that the Missouri Compromise was expresslyannulled in 1850, when portions of Texas and of the former Spanishprovince of Louisiana were added to New Mexico, and also a part of theprovince of Louisiana was joined to Utah. Douglas was in the maincorrect as to geographical data; but he could not, and did not, provethat the members of the Thirty-first Congress purposed also to revokethe Missouri Compromise restriction in all the other unorganizedTerritories. This contention was one of those _non-sequiturs_ of whichDouglas, in the heat of argument, was too often guilty. Still moreregrettable, because it seemed to convict him of sophistry, was themode by which he sought to evade the charge of the _Appeal_, that theact organizing New Mexico and settling the boundary of Texas hadreaffirmed the Missouri Compromise. To establish his point he had toassume that _all_ the land cut off from Texas north of 36° 30', wasadded to New Mexico, thus leaving nothing to which the slaveryrestriction, reaffirmed in the act of 1850, could apply. But Chaseafterward invalidated this assumption and Douglas was forced so toqualify his original statement as to yield the point. This was adamaging admission and prejudiced his cause before the country. Butwhen he brought his wide knowledge of American colonization to bearupon the concrete problems of governmental policy, his grasp of thesituation was masterly. 

"Let me ask you where you have succeeded in excluding slavery by anact of Congress from one inch of American soil? You may tell me thatyou did it in the northwest territory by the ordinance of 1787. Iwill show you by the history of the country that you did notaccomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law, butyou did not exclude it in fact. . . . I know of but one territory of theUnited States where slavery does exist, and that one is where you haveprohibited it by law, and it is in this very Nebraska Territory. Indefiance of the eighth section of the act of 1820, in defiance ofCongressional dictation, there have been, not many, but a few slavesintroduced. . . . I have no doubt that whether you organize the territoryof Nebraska or not this will continue for some time to come. . . . Butwhen settlers rush in--when labor becomes plenty, and therefore cheap, in that climate, with its productions, it is worse than folly to thinkof its being a slave-holding country. . . . I do not like, I never didlike, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geographicalline, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate, and soil, andof the laws of God, should be run to establish institutions for apeople. "[467]

The fate of the bill was determined behind closed doors. After all, the Senate chamber was only a public clearing-house, where senatorselucidated, or per-chance befogged, the issues. The real arena was theDemocratic caucus. Under the leadership of Douglas, those high in theparty conclaves met, morning after morning, in the endeavor to composethe sharp differences between the Northern and the Southern wings ofthe party. [468] On both sides, there was a disposition to agree on therepeal of the Missouri Compromise, though grave misgivings were felt. There were Southern men who believed that the repeal would be "anunavailing boon"; and there were Northern politicians who foresaw thestorm of popular indignation that would break upon their heads. [469]Southern Democrats were disposed to follow the South Carolina theoryto its logical extreme: as joint owners of the Territories thecitizens of all the States might carry their property into theTerritories without let or hindrance; only the people of the Territoryin the act of framing a State constitution might exclude slavery. Neither Congress nor a territorial legislature might take awayproperty in slaves. With equal pertinacity, Douglas and his supportersadvocated the right of the people in their territorial status, tomould their institutions as they chose. Was there any middle ground?

Prolonged discussion made certain points of agreement clear to all. Itwas found that no one questioned the right of a State, with sufficientpopulation and a republican constitution, to enter the Union with orwithout slavery as it chose. All agreed that it was best that slaveryshould not be discussed in Congress. All agreed that, whether or noCongress had the power to exclude slavery in the Territories, it oughtnot to exercise it. All agreed that if Congress had such power, itought to delegate it to the people. Here agreement ceased. DidCongress have such power? Clearly the law of the Constitution couldalone determine. Then why not delegate the power to control theirdomestic institutions to the people of the Territories, subject to theprovisions of the Constitution? "And then, " said one of theparticipants later, "in order to provide a means by which theConstitution could govern . . . We of the South, conscious that we wereright, the North asserting the same confidence in its own doctrines, agreed that every question touching human slavery or human freedomshould be appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States for itsdecision. "[470]

While this compromise was being reached in caucus, the bill was underconstant fire on the floor of the Senate. The _Appeal of theIndependent Democrats_ had bitterly arraigned the declaratory part ofthe Kansas-Nebraska bill, where the Missouri Compromise was said tohave been superseded and therefore inoperative. Even staunch Democratslike Cass had taken exception to this phraseology, preferring todeclare the Missouri Compromise null and void in unequivocal terms. ToDouglas there was nothing ambiguous or misleading in the wording ofthe clause. What was meant was this: the acts of 1850 rendered theMissouri Compromise _inoperative_ in Utah and New Mexico; but so faras the Missouri Compromise applied to territory not embraced in thoseacts, it was _superseded_ by the great principle established in 1850. "Superseded by" meant "inconsistent with" the compromise of 1850. [471]The word "supersede, " however, continued to cause offense. Cass readfrom the dictionary to prove that the word had a more positive forcethan Douglas gave to it. To supersede meant to set aside: he couldnot bring himself to assent to this statement. [472]

By this time agreement had been reached in the caucus, so that Douglaswas quite willing to modify the phraseology of the bill. "We see, "said he, "that the difference here is only a difference as to theappropriate word to be used. We all agree in the principle which wenow propose to establish. " As he was not satisfied with the phrasessuggested, he desired some time to consult with friends of the bill, as to which word would best "carry out the idea which we are intendingto put into practical operation by this bill. "[473]

On the following day, February 7th, Douglas reported, not merely "theappropriate word, " but an entirely new clause, the product of thecaucus deliberations. 

The eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouriinto the Union is no longer said to be superseded, but "beinginconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress withslavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by thelegislation of 1850, (commonly called the Compromise Measures) ishereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent andmeaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory orState, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereofperfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions intheir own way, subject only to the Constitution of the UnitedStates. "[474]

This part of the bill had now assumed its final form. _Subject only tothe Constitution of the United States_. The words were clear; butwhat was their implication? A few days later, Douglas wrote to hisSpringfield confidant, "The Democratic party is committed in the mostsolemn manner to the principle of congressional non-interference withslavery in the States and Territories. The administration is committedto the Nebraska bill and will stand by it at all hazards. . . . Theprinciple of this bill will form the test of parties, and the onlyalternative is either to stand with the Democracy or rally underSeward, John Van Buren & Co. . . . We shall pass the Nebraska bill inboth Houses by decisive majorities and the party will then be strongerthan ever, for it will be united upon principle. "[475]

Yet there were dissentient opinions. What was in the background ofSouthern consciousness was expressed bluntly by Brown of Mississippi, who refused to admit that the right of the people of a Territory toregulate their domestic institutions, including slavery, was a rightto destroy. "If I thought in voting for the bill as it now stands, Iwas conceding the right of the people in the territory, during theirterritorial existence, to exclude slavery, I would withhold myvote. . . . It leaves the question where I am quite willing it should beleft--to the ultimate decision of the courts. "[476] Chase also, thoughfor widely different reasons, disputed the power of the people of aTerritory to exclude slavery, under the terms of this bill. [477] AndSenator Clayton pointed out that non-interference was a delusion, solong as it lay within the power of any member of Congress to move arepeal of any and every territorial law which came up for approval, for the bill expressly provided for congressional approval ofterritorial laws. [478]

Douglas was irritated by these aspersions on his cherished principle. He declared again, in defiant tones, that the right of the people topermit or exclude was clearly included in the wording of the measure. He was not willing to be lectured about indirectness. He had heardcavil enough about his amendments. [479]

In the course of a debate on March 2d, another unforeseen difficultyloomed up in the distance. If the Missouri Compromise were repealed, would not the original laws of Louisiana, which legalized slavery, berevived? How then could the people of the Territories be free tolegislate against slavery? It was a knotty question, testing the bestlegal minds in the Senate; and it was dispatched only by an amendmentwhich stated that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise should notrevive any antecedent law respecting slavery. [480]

The objection raised by Clayton still remained: how was it possible toreconcile congressional non-intervention with the right of Congress torevise territorial laws? Now Douglas had never contended that theright of the people to self-government in the Territories was completeas against the power of Congress. He had never sought to confer uponthem more than a relative degree of self-government--"the power toregulate their domestic institutions. " He could not, and he did not, deny the truth and awkwardness of Clayton's contention. Where, then, demanded his critics, was the guarantee that the Kansas-Nebraska billwould banish the slavery controversies from Congress? This challengecould not go unanswered. Without other explanation, Douglas moved tostrike out the provision requiring all territorial laws to besubmitted to Congress. [481] But did this divest Congress of the powerof revision? On this point Douglas preserved a discreet silence. 

Recognizing also the incongruity of giving an absolute veto power to agovernor who would be appointed by the President, Douglas proposed asuspensive, in place of an absolute, veto power. A two-thirds vote ineach branch of the territorial legislature would override thegovernor's negative. [482] Chase now tried to push Douglas one stepfarther on the same slippery road. "Can it be said, " he asked, "thatthe people of a territory will enjoy self-government when they electonly their legislators and are subject to a governor, judges, and asecretary appointed by the Federal Executive?" He would amend bymaking all these officers elective. [483] Douglas extricated himselffrom this predicament by saying simply that these officers werecharged with federal rather than with territorial duties. [484] Theamendment was promptly negatived. Yet seven years later, this veryproposition was indorsed by Douglas under peculiar circumstances. Atthis time in 1854, it would have effected nothing short of arevolution in American territorial policy; and it might have alteredthe whole history of Kansas. 

Despite asseverations to the contrary, there were Southern men inCongress who nourished the tacit hope that another slave State mightbe gained west of the Missouri. There was a growing conviction amongSouthern people that the possession of Kansas at least might besuccessfully contested. [485] At all events, no barrier to Southernimmigration into the Territory was allowed to remain in the bill. Objection was raised to the provision, common to nearly allterritorial bills, that aliens, who had declared their intention ofbecoming citizens, should be permitted to vote in territorialelections. In a contest with the North for the possession of theterritorial government, the South would be at an obvious disadvantage, if the homeless aliens in the North could be colonized in Kansas, forthere was no appreciable alien population in the Southern States. [486]So it was that Clayton's amendment, to restrict the right to vote andto hold office to citizens of the United States, received the solidvote of the South in the Senate. It is significant that Douglas votedwith his section on this important issue. There can be no better proofof his desire that freedom should prevail in the new Territories. TheClayton amendment, however, passed the Senate by a close vote. [487]

On the 2d of March the Kansas-Nebraska bill went to a third reading bya vote of twenty-nine to twelve; its passage was thus assured. [488]Debate continued, however, during the afternoon and evening of thenext day. Friends of the bill had agreed that it should be brought toa vote on this night. The privilege of closing the debate belonged tothe chairman of the Committee on Territories; but in view of thelateness of the hour, he offered to waive his privilege and let a votebe taken. Voices were raised in protest, however, and Douglas yieldedto the urgent request of his friends. [489]

The speech of Douglas was a characteristic performance. It abounded inrepetitions, and it can hardly be said to have contributed much to theunderstanding of the issues. Yet it was a memorable effort, because itexhibited the magnificent fighting qualities of the man. He wascompletely master of himself. He permitted interruptions by hisopponents; he invited them; indeed, at times, he welcomed them; but atno time was he at a loss for a reply. Dialectically he was on thisoccasion more than a match for Chase and Seward. There were no studiedeffects in his oratory. Knowing himself to be addressing a wideraudience than the Senate chamber and its crowded galleries, heappealed with intuitive keenness to certain fundamental traits in hisconstituents. Americans admire self-reliance even in an opponent, andthe spectacle of a man fighting against personal injustice is oftenlikely to make them forget the principle for which he stands. SoSeward, who surely had no love for Douglas and no respect for hispolitical creed, was moved to exclaim in frank admiration, "I hope theSenator will yield for a moment, because I have never had so muchrespect for him as I have tonight. " When Chase assured Douglas that healways purposed to treat the Senator from Illinois with entirecourtesy, Douglas retorted: "The Senator says that he never intendedto do me injustice. . . . Sir, did he not say in the same document towhich I have already alluded, that I was engaged, with others, 'in acriminal betrayal of precious rights, ' 'in an atrocious plot'?. . . Didhe not say everything calculated to produce and bring upon my head allthe insults to which I have been subjected publicly and privately--noteven excepting the insulting letters which I have received from hisconstituents, rejoicing at my domestic bereavements, and praying thatother and similar calamities may befall me!"[490]

In much the same way, he turned upon Sumner, as the collaborator ofthe _Appeal_. Here was one who had begun his career as an Abolitionistin the Senate, with the words "Strike but hear me first, " but who hadhelped to close the doors of Faneuil Hall against Webster, when hesought to speak in self-defense in 1850, and who now--such was theimplication--was denying simple justice to another patriot. [491]

Personalities aside, the burden of his speech was the reassertion ofhis principle of popular sovereignty. He showed how far he hadtraveled since the Fourth of January in no way more strikingly, thanwhen he called in question the substantive character of the MissouriCompromise. In his discussion of the legislative history of theMissouri acts, he easily convicted both Chase and Seward ofmisapprehensions; but he refused to recognize the truth of Chase'swords, that "the facts of the transaction taken together and asunderstood by the country for more than thirty years, constitute acompact binding in moral force, " though expressed only in the terms ofordinary statutes. So far had Douglas gone in his advocacy of hismeasure that he had lost the measure of popular sentiment. He was soconfident of himself and his cause, so well-assured that he hadsacrificed nothing but an empty form, in repealing the slaveryrestriction, that he forgot the popular mind does not so readily castaside its prejudices and grasp substance in preference to form. Thecombative instinct in him was strong. He had entered upon a quarrel;he would acquit himself well. Besides, he had supreme confidence thatpopular intelligence would slowly approve his course. 

Perhaps Douglas's greatest achievement on this occasion was in coininga phrase which was to become a veritable slogan in succeeding years. That which had hitherto been dubbed "squatter sovereignty, " Douglasnow dignified with the name "popular sovereignty, " and provided with apedigree. "This was the principle upon which the colonies separatedfrom the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which the battlesof the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which ourrepublican system was founded. . . . The Revolution grew out of theassertion of the right on the part of the imperial government tointerfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of thecolonies. . . . I will not weary the Senate in multiplying evidence uponthis point. It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence hadits origin in the violation of the great fundamental principle whichsecured to the people of the colonies the right to regulate their owndomestic affairs in their own way; and that the Revolution resulted inthe triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the rightasserted by it. "[492]

In conclusion, Douglas said with perfect truthfulness: "I have notbrought this question forward as a Northern man or as a Southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. I havebrought it forward as an American Senator, representing a State whichis true to this principle, and which has approved of my action inrespect to the Nebraska bill. I have brought it forward not as an actof justice to the South more than to the North. I have presented itespecially as an act of justice to the people of those Territories, and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all time tocome. "[493]

Nor did he seem to entertain a doubt as to the universal appeal whichhis principle would make: "I say frankly that, in my opinion, thismeasure will be as popular at the North as at the South, when itsprovisions and principles shall have been fully developed and becomewell understood. The people at the North are attached to theprinciples of self-government; and you cannot convince them that thatis self-government which deprives a people of the right of legislatingfor themselves, and compels them to receive laws which are forced uponthem by a legislature in which they are not represented. "[494]

The rising indignation at the North against the Kansas-Nebraska billwas felt much more directly in the House than in the Senate. So strongwas the counter-current that the Senate bill was at first referred tothe Committee of the Whole, and thus buried for weeks under a mass ofother bills. Many believed that the bill had received a quietus forthe session. Not so Douglas and his friend Richardson of Illinois, whowas chairman of the Committee on Territories. With a patience born oflong parliamentary experience, they bided their time. In themeantime, every possible influence was brought to bear uponrecalcitrant Democrats. And just here the wisdom of Douglas, in firstsecuring the support of the administration, was vindicated. All thosedevices were invoked which President and cabinet could employ throughthe use of the Federal patronage, so that when Richardson, on the 8thof May, called upon the House to lay aside one by one the eighteenbills which preceded the Kansas-Nebraska bill, he was assured of aworking majority. The House bill having thus been reached, Richardsonsubstituted for it the Senate bill, minus the Clayton amendment. Whenhe then announced that only four days would be allowed for debate, theobstructionists could no longer contain themselves. Scenes of wildexcitement followed. In the end, the friends of the bill yielded tothe demand for longer discussion. Debate was prolonged until May 22d, when the bill passed by a vote of 113 to 110, in the face of bitteropposition. 

Through all these exciting days, Douglas was constantly atRichardson's side, cautioning and advising. He was well within thetruth when he said, in confidential chat with Madison Cutts, "I passedthe Kansas-Nebraska Act myself. I had the authority and power of adictator throughout the whole controversy in both houses. The speecheswere nothing. It was the marshalling and directing of men, andguarding from attacks, and with a ceaseless vigilance preventingsurprises. "[495]

The refusal of the House to accept the Clayton amendment brought theKansas-Nebraska measure again before the Senate. Knowing that arefusal to concur would probably defeat the measure for the session, Southern senators were disposed to waive their objections to allowingaliens to vote in the new Territories. Even Atchison was now disposedto think the matter of little consequence. Foreigners were not thepioneers in the Territories; they followed the pioneers. He did notcomplete his thought, but it is unmistakable: therefore, nativecitizens as first-comers, rather than foreigners, would probablydecide the question of slavery in the Territories forever. And so, after two days of debate, Douglas again had his way: the Senate votedto recede from the Clayton amendment. On May 30th, the Presidentsigned the Kansas-Nebraska bill and it became law. [496]

The outburst of wrath at the North which accompanied the repeal of theMissouri Compromise did not augur well for the future repose of thecountry. Douglas had anticipated angry demonstrations; but even he wasdisturbed by the vehemence of the protestations which penetrated tothe Senate chamber. Had he failed to gauge the depth of Northernpublic opinion? Senator Everett disturbed the momentary quiet ofCongress by presenting a memorial signed by over three thousand NewEngland clergymen, who, "in the name of Almighty God, " protestedagainst the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a great moral wrong and as a breachof faith. This brought Douglas to his feet. With fierce invective hedeclared this whole movement was instigated by the circulars sent outby the Abolition confederates in the Senate. These preachers had beenled by an atrocious falsehood "to desecrate the pulpit, and prostitutethe sacred desk to the miserable and corrupting influence of partypolitics. " What right had these misguided men to speak in the name ofAlmighty God upon a political question? It was an attempt to establishin this country the doctrine that clergymen have a peculiar right todetermine the will of God in legislative matters. This wastheocracy. [497]

Some weeks later, Douglas himself presented another protest, signed byover five hundred clergymen of the Northwest and accompanied byresolutions which denounced the Senator from Illinois for his "want ofcourtesy and reverence toward man and God. "[498] His comments uponthis protest were not calculated to restore him to favor among these"divinely appointed ministers for the declaration and enforcement ofGod's will. " His public letter to them, however, was much morecreditable, for in it he avoided abusive language and appealed franklyto the sober sense of the clergy. [499] Of the repeal of the MissouriCompromise, he said again that it was necessary, "in order torecognize the great principle of self-government and State equality. It does not vary the question in any degree, that human slavery, inyour opinion, is a great moral wrong. If so, it is not the only wrongupon which the people of each of the States and Territories of thisUnion are called upon to act. . . . You think you are abundantlycompetent to decide this question now and forever. If you shouldremove to Nebraska, with a view of making it your permanent home, would you be any less competent to decide it when you should havearrived in the country?"[500]

The obloquy which Douglas encountered in Washington was mere child'splay, as compared with the storm of abuse that met him on his returnto Chicago. He afterwards said that he could travel from Boston toChicago by the light of his own effigies. [501] "Traitor, ""Arnold, "--with a suggestion that he had the blood of Benedict Arnoldin his veins, --"Judas, " were epithets hurled at him from desk andpulpit. He was presented with thirty pieces of silver by someindignant females in an Ohio village. [502] So incensed were the peopleof Chicago, that his friends advised him not to return, fearing thathe would be assaulted. [503] But fear was a sensation that he had neverexperienced. He went to Chicago confident that he could silenceopposition as he had done four years before. [504]

Three or four days after his return, he announced that on the night ofSeptember 1st, he would address his constituents in front of NorthMarket Hall. The announcement occasioned great excitement. Theopposition press cautioned their readers not to be deceived by hissophistries, and hinted broadly at the advisability of breaking up themeeting. [505] Many friends of Douglas believed that personal violencewas threatened. During the afternoon flags were hung at half mast onthe lake boats; bells were tolled, as the crowds began to gather inthe dusk of the evening; some public calamity seemed to impend. At aquarter past eight, Douglas began to address the people. He wasgreeted with hisses. He paused until these had subsided. But no soonerdid he begin again than bedlam broke loose. For over two hours hewrestled with the mob, appealing to their sense of fairness; but hecould not gain a hearing. Finally, for the first time in his career, he was forced to admit defeat. Drawing his watch from his pocket andobserving that the hour was late, he shouted, in an interval ofcomparative quiet, "It is now Sunday morning--I'll go to church, andyou may go to Hell!" At the imminent risk of his life, he went to hiscarriage and was driven through the crowds to his hotel. [506]

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 415: House Bill No. 444; 28 Cong. , 2 Sess. ]

[Footnote 416: Executive Docs. , 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 124. ]

[Footnote 417: House Bill, No. 170; 30 Cong. , 1 Sess. ]

[Footnote 418: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1161. ]

[Footnote 419: _Ibid. _, pp. 1684-1685. ]

[Footnote 420: _Ibid. _, p. 1760. Clingman afterward admitted that theSouthern opposition was motived by reluctance to admit new freeTerritories. "This feeling was felt rather than expressed in words. "Clingman, Speeches and Writings, p. 334. ]

[Footnote 421: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1762. ]

[Footnote 422: See Davis, Union Pacific Railway, Chap. 3. ]

[Footnote 423: See Benton's remarks in the House, _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 2Sess. , p. 56. ]

[Footnote 424: Connelley, The Provisional Government of the NebraskaTerritory, published by the Nebraska State Historical Society, pp. 23-24. ]

[Footnote 425: Connelley, Provisional Government, p. 28. ]

[Footnote 426: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 56-58. ]

[Footnote 427: House Bill No. 353; 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. ]

[Footnote 428: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 558. ]

[Footnote 429: _Ibid. _, p. 560. ]

[Footnote 430: _Ibid. _, p. 565. ]

[Footnote 431: _Ibid. _, p. 1020. ]

[Footnote 432: _Globe_ 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 1116-1117. ]

[Footnote 433: _Ibid. _, p. 1113. ]

[Footnote 434: Connelley, Provisional Government, pp. 43 ff. ]

[Footnote 435: _Ibid. _, pp. 37-41. ]

[Footnote 436: Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 183; Connelley, pp. 70-77. ]

[Footnote 437: See Hadley D. Johnson's account in the Transactions ofthe Nebraska Historical Society, Vol. II. ]

[Footnote 438: Illinois _State Register_, December 22, 1853. ]

[Footnote 439: MS. Letter to the editors of the Illinois _StateRegister_, dated November 11, 1853. ]

[Footnote 440: Washington _Union_, December 3, 1853. See also itemshowing the interest in Nebraska, in the issue of November 26. ]

[Footnote 441: Senate Bill No. 22. The bounds were fixed at 43° on thenorth; 36° 30' on the south, except where the boundary of New Mexicomarked the line; the western line of Iowa and Missouri on the east;and the Rocky Mountains on the west. ]

[Footnote 442: Illinois _State Register_, December 22, 1853. ]

[Footnote 443: New York _Journal of Commerce_, December 30, 1853. ]

[Footnote 444: Two years later, Douglas flatly denied that he hadbrought in the bill at the dictation of Atchison or any one else; andI see no good ground on which to doubt his word. His own statement wasthat he first consulted with Senator Bright and one other Senator fromthe Northwest, and then took counsel with Southern friends. See_Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 392-393; also Rhodes, History ofthe United States, I, pp. 431-432. Mr. Rhodes is no doubt correct, when he says "the committee on territories was Douglas. "]

[Footnote 445: Senate Report No. 15, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. ]

[Footnote 446: The northern boundary was extended to the 49thparallel. ]

[Footnote 447: The first twenty sections are written on white paper, in the handwriting of a copyist. In pencil at the end are the words:"Douglas reports Bill & read I & to 2 reading special report Printagreed. " The blue paper in Douglas's handwriting covers part of theselast words. The sheet has been torn in halves, but pasted togetheragain and attached by sealing wax to the main draft. The handwritingbetrays haste. ]

[Footnote 448: _Globe, _34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1374. ]

[Footnote 449: See his speech of March, 1850, quoted above. In aletter to the editor of _State Capital Reporter_ (Concord, N. H. ), February 16, 1854, Douglas intimated as strongly as he then dared--thebill was still pending, --that "the sons of New England" in the Westwould exclude slavery from that region which lay in the same latitudeas New York and Pennsylvania, and for much the same reasons thatslavery had been abolished! in those States; see also Transactions ofIllinois State Historical Society, 1900, pp. 48-49. ]

[Footnote 450: Speech before the Illinois Legislature, October 23, 1849; see Illinois _State Register_, November 8, 1849. ]

[Footnote 451: The Southern Whigs were ready to support the DixonAmendment, according to Clingman, Speeches and Writings, p. 335. ]

[Footnote 452: See remarks of Douglas, January 24th, _Globe_, 33Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 240. ]

[Footnote 453: Letter of Dixon to Foote, September 30, 1858, in Flint, Douglas, pp. 138-141. ]

[Footnote 454: Dixon, True History of the Repeal of the MissouriCompromise. ]

[Footnote 455: Parker, Secret History of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, inthe _National Quarterly Review_, July, 1880. ]

[Footnote 456: Parker, Secret History of the Kansas-Nebraska Act; alsoFoote, Casket of Reminiscences, p. 93; also Cox, Three Decades ofFederal Legislation, p. 49. ]

[Footnote 457: _Ibid. _ Dixon's account of his interview with Douglasis too melodramatic to be taken literally, but no doubt it revealsDouglas's agitation. ]

[Footnote 458: This was Greeley's interpretation, _Tribune_, June 1, 1861. ]

[Footnote 459: Jefferson Davis to Mrs. Dixon, September 27, 1879, inDixon, True History of the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, pp. 457ff. ]

[Footnote 460: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 221. ]

[Footnote 461: Transactions of the Nebraska Historical Society, Vol. II, p. 90. ]

[Footnote 462: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 382. ]

[Footnote 463: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 239-240. ]

[Footnote 464: Washington _Union_, January 24, 1854. ]

[Footnote 465: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 282. ]

[Footnote 466: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 281-282. ]

[Footnote 467: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 278-279. ]

[Footnote 468: See remarks of Senator Bell of Tennessee, May 24, 1854, in _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 939-940; also see statementof Benjamin in _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1093. ]

[Footnote 469: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. Pp. 414-415; p. 943. ]

[Footnote 470: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1093. This statement bySenator Benjamin was corroborated by Douglas and by Hunter ofVirginia, during the debates, see _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 224. See also the letter of A. H. Stephens, May 9, 1860, in _Globe_, 36Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 315-316. ]

[Footnote 471: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 343-344. ]

[Footnote 472: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 344. ]

[Footnote 473: _Ibid. _, p. 344. ]

[Footnote 474: _Ibid. _, p. 353. ]

[Footnote 475: MS. Letter, Douglas to Lanphier, February 13, 1854. ]

[Footnote 476: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 232. ]

[Footnote 477: _Ibid. _, pp. 279-280. ]

[Footnote 478: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 391. ]

[Footnote 479: _Ibid. _, pp. 287-288. ]

[Footnote 480: _Ibid. _, p. 296. ]

[Footnote 481: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 296-297. ]

[Footnote 482: _Ibid. _, p. 297. ]

[Footnote 483: _Ibid. _, p. 298. ]

[Footnote 484: _Ibid. _, p. 298. ]

[Footnote 485: See remarks of Bell; _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 414-415; and also later, _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 937. ]

[Footnote 486: See remarks of Atchison, _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 302. ]

[Footnote 487: _Ibid. _, p. 298. ]

[Footnote 488: _Ibid. _, p. 302. ]

[Footnote 489: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 325. ]

[Footnote 490: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 332. ]

[Footnote 491: _Ibid. _, p. 332. ]

[Footnote 492: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 337. ]

[Footnote 493: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 338. ]

[Footnote 494: _Ibid. _, p. 338. ]

[Footnote 495: Cutts, Treatise on Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 122-123. ]

[Footnote 496: That the President believed with Douglas that thebenefits of the Act would inure to freedom, is vouched for byex-Senator Clemens of Alabama. See Illinois _State Register_, April 6, 1854. ]

[Footnote 497: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 618, 621. ]

[Footnote 498: _Ibid. _, App. , p. 654. ]

[Footnote 499: _Ibid. _, App. , pp. 657-661. ]

[Footnote 500: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 661. ]

[Footnote 501: Speech at Wooster, Ohio, 1859, Philadelphia _Press_, September 26, 1859. ]

[Footnote 502: Rhodes, History of the United States, I, p. 496. ]

[Footnote 503: Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, p. 98. ]

[Footnote 504: "I speak to the people of Chicago on Friday next, September 1, on Nebraska. They threaten a mob but I have no fears. Allwill be right. . . . Come up if you can and bring our friends with you. "MS. Letter, Douglas to Lanphier, August 25, 1854. ]

[Footnote 505: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, p. 640. ]

[Footnote 506: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 271-273. Cutts, Constitutionaland Party Questions, pp. 98-101. New York _Times_, September 6, 1854. ]

CHAPTER XII

BLACK REPUBLICANISM

The passing of the Whig party after its defeat in the election of1852, must be counted among the most momentous facts in our politicalhistory. Whatever were its errors, whatever its shortcomings, it wasat least a national organization, with a membership that embracedanti-slavery Northerners and slave-holding Southerners, Easterners andWesterners. As events proved, there was no national organization totake its place. One of the two political ties had snapped that hadheld together North and South. The Democratic party alone could layclaim to a national organization and membership. 

Party has been an important factor in maintaining national unity. Thedangers to the Union from rapid territorial expansion have not alwaysbeen realized. The attachment of new Western communities to the Unionhas too often been taken as a matter of course. Even when the dangerof separation was small, the isolation and provincialism of the newWest was a real menace to national welfare. Social institutions didtheir part in integrating East and West; but the politicallyintegrating force was supplied by party. Through their membership innational party organizations, the most remote Western pioneers wereenergized to think and act on national issues. [507] In much the sameway, the great party organizations retarded the growth ofsectionalism at the South. The very fact that party ties held longafter social institutions had been broken asunder, proves theirsuperior cohesion and nationalizing power. The inertia of partiesduring the prolonged slavery controversy was an element of strength. Because these formal organizations did not lend themselves readily toradical policies, they provided a frame-work, within which adjustmentsof differences were effected without danger to the Union. HadAbolitionists of the radical type taken possession of the organizationof either party, can it be doubted that the Union would have beenimperiled much earlier than it was, and very probably when it couldnot have withstood the shock?

No one who views history calmly will maintain, that it would have beenwell for either the radical or the conservative to have been dominantpermanently. If the radical were always able to give application tohis passing, restless humors, society would lose its coherence. If theconservative always had his way, civilization would stagnate. It was afortunate circumstance that neither the Whig nor the Democratic partywas composed wholly either of radicals or conservatives. Party actionwas thus a resultant. If it was neither so radical as the most radicalcould desire, nor so conservative as the ultra-conservative wished, atleast it safeguarded the Union and secured the political achievementsof the past. Moreover, the two great party organizations had done muchto assimilate the foreign elements injected into our population. Nodoubt the politician who cultivated "the Irish vote" or "the Germanvote, " was obeying no higher law than his own interests; but hisactivities did much to promote that fusion of heterogeneous elementswhich has been one of the most extraordinary phenomena of Americansociety. With the disappearance of the Whig party, one of the twogreat agencies in the disciplining and educating of the immigrant waslost. 

For a time the Native American party seemed likely to take the placeof the moribund Whig party. Many Whigs whose loyalty had grown coldbut who would not go over to the enemy, took refuge in the new party. But Native Americanism had no enduring strength. Its tenets and itsmethods were in flat contradiction to true American precedents. Greeley was right when he said of the new party, "It would seem asdevoid of the elements of persistence as an anti-cholera or ananti-potato-rot party would be. " By its avowed hostility to Catholicsand foreigners, by its insistence upon America for Americans, and byits secrecy, it forfeited all real claims to succeed the Whig party asa national organization. 

After the downfall of the Whig party, then, the Democratic party stoodalone as a truly national party, preserving the integrity of itsnational organization and the bulk of its legitimate members. But theevents of President Pierce's administration threatened to be itsundoing. If the Kansas-Nebraska bill served to unite outwardly theNorthern and Southern wings of the party, it served also tocrystallize those anti-slavery elements which had hitherto been heldin solution. An anti-Nebraska coalition was the outcome. Out of thisopposition sprang eventually the Republican party, which was, therefore, in its inception, national neither in its organization norin its membership. 

For "Know-Nothingism, " as Native Americanism was derisively called, Douglas had exhibited the liveliest antipathy. Shortly after thetriumph of the Know-Nothings in the municipal elections ofPhiladelphia, he was called upon to give the Independence Day addressin the historic Independence Square. [508] With an audacity rarelyequalled, he seized the occasion to defend the great principle ofself-government as incorporated in the Nebraska bill, just become law, and to beard Know-Nothingism in its den. Under guise of defendingnational institutions and American principles, he turned his orationinto what was virtually the first campaign speech of the year inbehalf of Democracy. Never before were the advantages of a party nameso apparent. Under his skillful touch the cause of popular government, democracy, religious and civil liberty, became confounded with thecause of Democracy, the only party of the nation which stood opposedto "the allied forces of Abolitionism, Whigism, Nativeism, andreligious intolerance, under whatever name or on whatever field theymay present themselves. "[509]

There can be no doubt that Douglas voiced his inmost feeling, when hedeclared that "to proscribe a man in this country on account of hisbirthplace or religious faith is revolting to our sense of justice andright. "[510] In his defense of religious toleration he rose to heightsof real eloquence. 

Douglas paid dearly for this assault upon Know-Nothingism. The orderhad organized lodges also in the Northwest, and when Douglas returnedto his own constituency after the adjournment of Congress, he foundthe enemy in possession of his own redoubts. With some show of reason, he afterward attributed the demonstration against him in Chicago tothe machinations of the Know-Nothings. His experience with the mobleft no manner of doubt in his mind that Know-Nothingism, and nothostility to his Kansas-Nebraska policy, was responsible for hisfailure to command a hearing. [511]

But Douglas was mistaken, or he deceived himself, when he sought inthe same fashion to explain away the opposition which he encounteredas he traveled through the northern counties of the State. Malcontentsfrom both parties, but chiefly anti-slavery Whigs, Free-Soilers, andAbolitionists, were drawing together in common hostility to the repealof the Missouri Compromise. Mass conventions were summoned, irrespective of party, in various counties; and they gave no uncertainexpression to their hatred of slavery and the slave-power. These werethe counties most largely peopled by the New England immigrants. Anti-Nebraska platforms were adopted; and fusion candidates put innomination for State and congressional office. In the central andsouthern counties, the fusion was somewhat less complete; but finallyan anti-Nebraska State convention was held at Springfield, whichnominated a candidate for State Treasurer, the only State officer tobe elected. [512] For the first time in many years, the overthrow ofthe Democratic party seemed imminent. 

However much Douglas may have misjudged the causes for this fusionmovement at the outset, he was not long blind as to its implications. On every hand there were symptoms of disaffection. Personal friendsturned their backs upon him; lifelong associates refused to follow hislead; even the rank and file of his followers seemed infected with theprevailing epidemic of distrust. With the instinct of a born leader ofmen, Douglas saw that the salvation of himself and his party lay inaction. The _élan_ of his forces must be excited by the signal to ridedown the enemy. Sounding the charge, he plunged into the thick of thefray. For two months, he raided the country of the enemy in northernIllinois, and dashed from point to point in the central counties wherehis loyal friends were hard pressed. [513] It was from first to last atempestuous conflict that exactly suited the impetuous, dashingqualities of "the Little Giant. "

In the Sixth Congressional District, Douglas found his friend Harrisfighting desperately with his back against the wall. His opponent, Yates, was a candidate for re-election, with the full support ofanti-Nebraska men like Trumbull and Lincoln, whom the passage of theKansas-Nebraska bill had again drawn into politics. While the StateFair was in progress at Springfield, both candidates strained everynerve to win votes. Douglas was summoned to address the goodly body ofDemocratic yeomen, who were keenly alive to the political, as well asto the bucolic, opportunities which the capital afforded at thisinteresting season. Douglas spoke to a large gathering in the StateHouse on October 3d. Next day the Fusionists put forward Lincoln toanswer him; and when Lincoln had spoken for nearly four hours, Douglasagain took the stand and held his audience for an hour and a halflonger. [514] Those were days when the staying powers of speakers wereequalled only by the patience of their hearers. 

Like those earlier encounters, whose details have passed into the hazeof tradition, this lacks a trustworthy chronicler. It would seem, however, as though the dash and daring of Douglas failed to bear downthe cool, persistent opposition of his antagonist. Douglas should haveknown that the hazards in his course were reared by his own hand. Whatever other barriers blocked his way, Nebraska-ism was the mostformidable; but this he would not concede. 

A curious story has connected itself with this chance encounter of therivals. Alarmed at the effectiveness of Lincoln's attack, so runs thelegend, Douglas begged him not to enter the campaign, promising thathe likewise would be silent thereafter. Aside from the palpableimprobability of this "Peoria truce, " it should be noted that Lincolnaccepted an invitation to speak at Lacon next day, without so much asreferring to this agreement, while Douglas continued his campaign withunremitting energy. [515] If Douglas exhibited fear of an adversary atthis time, it is the only instance in his career. 

The outcome of the elections gave the Democrats food for thought. Fiveout of nine congressional districts had chosen anti-Nebraska or Fusioncandidates; the other four returned Democrats to Congress by reducedpluralities. [516] To be sure, the Democrats had elected theircandidate for the State Treasury; but this was poor consolation, ifthe legislature, as seemed probable, should pass from their control. Asuccessor to Senator Shields would be chosen by this body; and thechoice of an anti-Nebraska man would be as gall and wormwood to thesenior senator. In the country at large, such an outcome would surelybe interpreted as a vote of no confidence. In the light of theseevents, Democrats were somewhat chastened in spirit, in spite ofapparent demonstrations of joy. Even Douglas felt called upon tovindicate his course at the banquet given in his honor in Chicago, November 9th. He was forced to admit--and for him it was an unwontedadmission--that "the heavens were partially overcast. "

For the moment there was a disposition to drop Shields in favor ofsome Democrat who was not so closely identified with the Nebraskabill. Douglas viewed the situation with undisguised alarm. He urgedhis friends, however, to stick to Shields. "The election of any otherman, " he wrote truthfully, "would be deemed not only a defeat, but anungrateful desertion of him, when all the others who have voted withhim have been sustained. "[517] It was just this fine spirit of loyaltythat made men his lifelong friends and steadfast followers throughthick and thin. "Our friends should stand by Shields, " he continued, "and throw the responsibility on the Whigs of beating him _because hewas born in Ireland_. The Nebraska fight is over, and Know-Nothingismhas taken its place as the chief issue in the future. If thereforeShields shall be beaten it will [be] apparent to the people & to thewhole country that a gallant soldier, and a faithful public servanthas been stricken down because of the place of his birth. " This wascertainly shrewd, and, measured by the tone of American public life, not altogether reprehensible, politics. Douglas anticipated that theWhigs would nominate Lincoln and "stick to him to the bitter end, "while the Free-Soilers and anti-Nebraska Democrats would hold withequal persistence to Bissell, in which case either Bissell wouldultimately get the Whig vote or there would be no election. Soundingthe trumpet call to battle, Douglas told his friends to nail Shields'flag to the mast and never to haul it down. "We are sure to triumph inthe end on the great issue. Our policy and duty require us to standfirm by the issues in the late election, and to make no bargains, noalliances, no concessions to any of the _allied isms_. "

When the legislature organized in January, the Democrats, to theirindescribable alarm, found the Fusion forces in control of bothhouses. The election was postponed until February. Meantime Douglascautioned his trusty lieutenant in no event to leave Springfield foreven a day during the session. [518] On the first ballot for senator, Shields received 41 votes; Lincoln 45; Trumbull, an anti-NebraskaDemocrat, 5; while three Democrats and five Fusionists scatteredtheir votes. On the seventh ballot, Shields fell out of the running, his place being taken by Matteson. On the tenth ballot, Lincoln havingwithdrawn, the Whig vote concentrated on Trumbull, who, with the aidof his unyielding anti-Nebraska following, received the necessary 51votes for an election. This result left many heart-burnings among bothWhigs and Democrats, for the former felt that Lincoln had beenunjustly sacrificed and the latter looked upon Trumbull as littlebetter than a renegade. [519]

The returns from the elections in other Northern States were equallydiscouraging, from the Democratic point of view. Only seven out offorty-two who had voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill were re-elected. In the next House, the Democrats would be in a minority ofseventy-five. [520] The anti-Nebraska leaders were not slow in claiminga substantial victory. Indeed, their demonstrations of satisfactionwere so long and loud, when Congress reassembled for the shortsession, that many Democrats found it difficult to accept defeatgood-naturedly. Douglas, for one, would not concede defeat, despitethe face of the returns. Men like Wade of Ohio, who enjoyed chaffingtheir discomfited opponents, took every occasion to taunt the authorof the bill which had been the undoing of his party. Douglas met theirgibes by asking whether there was a single, anti-Nebraska candidatefrom the free States who did not receive the Know-Nothing vote. Forevery Nebraska man who had suffered defeat, two anti-Nebraskacandidates were defeated by the same causes. "The fact is, and thegentleman knows it, that in the free States there has been analliance, I will not say whether holy or unholy, at the recentelections. In that alliance they had a crucible into which they pouredAbolitionism, Maine liquor-lawism, and what there was left of NorthernWhigism, and then the Protestant feeling against the Catholic, and thenative feeling against the foreigner. All these elements were melteddown in that crucible, and the result was what was called the Fusionparty. That crucible . . . Was in every instance, a Know-NothingLodge. "[521]

There was, indeed, enough of confusion in some States to give color tosuch assertions. Taken collectively, however, the elections indicatedunmistakably a widespread revulsion against the administration ofPresident Pierce; and it was folly to contend that the Kansas-Nebraskabill had not been the prime cause of popular resentment. Douglas wasso constituted temperamentally that he both could not, and would not, confront the situation fairly and squarely. This want of sensitivenessto the force of ethical convictions stirring the masses, is the mostconspicuous and regrettable aspect of his statecraft. PersonallyDouglas had a high sense of honor and duty; in private affairs he wasscrupulously honest; and if at times he was shifty in politics, heplayed the game with quite as much fairness as those contemporarypoliticians who boasted of the integrity of their motives. Hepreferred to be frank; he meant to deal justly by all men. Even so, hefailed to understand the impelling power of those moral ideals whichborder on the unattainable. For the transcendentalist in politics andphilanthropy, he had only contempt. The propulsive force of an idea inhis own mind depended wholly upon its appeal to his practicaljudgment. His was the philosophy of the attainable. Results that wereapproximately just and fair satisfied him. He was not disposed tosacrifice immediate advantage to future gain. His Celtic temperamentmade him think rapidly; and what imagination failed to supply, quickwit made good. 

When, then, under the pressure of conditions for which he was notresponsible, he yielded to the demand for a repeal of the MissouriCompromise, he failed to foresee that revulsion of moral sentimentthat swept over the North. It was perfectly clear to his mind, thathistorically the prohibition of slavery by Federal law had had farless practical effect than the North believed. He was convinced thatnearly all, if not all, of the great West was dedicated to freedom bya law which transcended any human enactment. Why, then, hold to a mereform, when the substance could be otherwise secured? Why shouldNortherner affront Southerner by imperious demands, when the same endmight be attained by a compromise which would not cost either dear?Possibly he was not unwilling to let New Mexico become slaveTerritory, if the greater Northwest should become free by theoperation of the same principle. Besides, there was the very tangibleadvantage of holding his party together by a sensible agreement, forthe sake of which each faction yielded something. 

Douglas was not blind to the palpable truth that the masses are swayedmore by sentiment than logic: indeed, he knew well enough how to runthrough the gamut of popular emotions. What did escape him was thealmost religious depth of the anti-slavery sentiment in that verystock from which he himself had sprung. It was not a sentiment thatcould be bargained away. There was much in it of the inexorableobstinacy of the Puritan faith. Verging close upon fanaticism attimes, it swept away considerations of time and place, and overwhelmedappeals to expediency. Even where the anti-slavery spirit did not takeon this extreme form, those whom it possessed were reluctant to yieldone jot or tittle of the substantial gains which freedom had made. 

It is probable that with the growing sectionalism, North and Southwould soon have been at odds over the disposition of the greaterNorthwest. Sooner or later, the South must have demanded the repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise, or have sought large concessions elsewhere. But it is safe to say that no one except Douglas could have been foundin 1854, who possessed the requisite parliamentary qualities, thepersonal following, the influence in all sections, --and withal, theaudacity, to propose and carry through the policy associated with theKansas-Nebraska bill. The responsibility for this measure rested in apeculiar sense upon his shoulders. 

It was in the course of this post-election discussion of February 23d, that Wade insinuated that mercenary motives were the key to Douglas'sconduct. "Have the people of Illinois forgotten that injunction ofmore than heavenly wisdom, that 'Where a man's treasure is, there willhis heart be also'?" To this unwarranted charge, which was current inAbolitionist circles, Douglas made a circumstantial denial. "I am notthe owner of a slave and never have been, nor have I ever received, and appropriated to my own use, one dollar earned by slave-labor. " Forthe first time, he spoke of the will of Colonel Martin and of theproperty which he had bequeathed to his daughter and to her children. With very genuine emotion, which touched even his enemies, he added, "God forbid that I should be understood by anyone as being willing tocast from me any responsibility that now does, or has ever attached toany member of my family. So long as life shall last--and I shallcherish with religious veneration the memories and virtues of thesainted mother of my children--so long as my heart shall be filledwith parental solicitude for the happiness of those motherlessinfants, I implore my enemies who so ruthlessly invade the domesticsanctuary, to do me the favor to believe, that I have no wish, noaspiration, to be considered purer or better than she, who was, orthey, who are, slaveholders. "[522]

When the new Congress met in the fall of 1855, the anti-Nebraska mendrew closer together and gradually assumed the name "Republican. "Their first victory was the election of their candidate for theSpeakership. They were disciplined by astute leaders under thepressure of disorders in Kansas. Before the session closed, theydeveloped a remarkable degree of cohesion, while the body of theirsupporters in the Northern States assumed alarming proportions. Theparty was not wholly, perhaps not mainly, the product of humanitariansentiment. The adherence of old-line Whig politicians like Sewardsuggests that there was some alloy in the pure gold of Republicanism. Such leaders were willing to make political capital out of thebreakdown of popular sovereignty in Kansas. [523] They were too shrewdto stake the fortune of the nascent party on a bold, constructivepolicy. They preferred to play a waiting game. Events in Kansas cameto their aid in ways that they could not have anticipated. 

While this re-alignment of parties was in progress, the presidentialyear drew on apace. It behooved the Democrats to gather theirscattered forces. The advantage of organization was theirs; but theysuffered from desertions. The morale of the party was weakened. Tocheck further desertions and to restore confidence, was the aim of theparty whips. No one had more at stake than Douglas. He was on trialwith his party. Conscious of his responsibilities, he threw himselfinto the light skirmishing in Congress which always precedes apresidential campaign. In this partisan warfare he was clever, but notaltogether admirable. One could wish that he had been lessuncharitable and less denunciatory; but political victories are seldomwon by unaided virtue. 

From the outset his anti-Nebraska colleague was the object of hisbitterest gibes, for Trumbull typified the deserter, who was causingsuch alarm in the ranks of the Democrats. "I understand that mycolleague has told the Senate, " said Douglas contemptuously, "that hecomes here as a Democrat. Sir, that fact will be news to the Democracyof Illinois. I undertake to assert there is not a Democrat in Illinoiswho will not say that such a statement is a libel upon the Democracyof that State. When he was elected he received every Abolition vote inthe Legislature of Illinois. He received every Know-Nothing vote inthe Legislature of Illinois. So far as I am advised and believe, hereceived no vote except from persons allied to Abolitionism orKnow-Nothingism. He came here as the Know-Nothing-Abolition candidate, in opposition to the united Democracy of his State, and to theDemocratic candidate. "[524]

When to desertion was added association with "Black Republicans, "Douglas found his vocabulary inadequate to express his scorn. Likemost Democrats he was sensitive on the subject of partynomenclature. [525] "Republican" was a term which had associations withthe very father of Democracy, though the party had long since droppedthe hyphenated title. But this new, so-called Republican party hadwisely dropped the prefix "national, " suggested Douglas, because "itis a purely sectional party, with a platform which cannot cross theOhio river, and a creed which inevitably brings the North and Southinto hostile collision. " In view of the emphasis which their platformput upon the negro, Douglas thought that consistency required thesubstitution of the word "Black" for "National. " The Democratic party, on the other hand, had no sympathy with those who believed in makingthe negro the social and political equal of the white man. "Our peopleare a white people; our State is a white State; and we mean topreserve the race pure, without any mixture with the negro. If you, "turning to his Republican opponents, "wish your blood and that of theAfrican mingled in the same channel, we trust that you will keep at arespectful distance from us, and not try to force that on us as one ofyour domestic institutions. "[526] In such wise, Douglas labored tobefog and discredit the issues for which the new party stood. Thedemagogue in him overmastered the statesman. 

Douglas believed himself--and with good reason--to be the probablenominee of his party in the approaching presidential election. SeveralState conventions had already declared for him. There was no otherDemocrat, save President Pierce, whose name was so intimatelyassociated with the policy of the party as expressed in theKansas-Nebraska bill. Yet, while both were in favor at the South, neither Pierce nor Douglas was likely to secure the full party vote atthe North. This consideration led to a diversion in favor of JamesBuchanan, of Pennsylvania. The peculiar availability of thiswell-known Democrat consisted in his having been on a foreign missionwhen the Kansas-Nebraska bill was under fire. Still, Buchanan wasreported "sound" on the essential features of this measure. Before thenational convention met, a well-organized movement was under way tosecure the nomination of the Pennsylvanian. [527] Equallywell-organized and even more noisy and demonstrative was the followingof Douglas, as the delegates began to assemble at Cincinnati duringthe first week in June. 

The first ballot in the convention must have been a grievousdisappointment to Douglas and his friends. While Buchanan received135 votes and Pierce 122, he could muster only 33. Only the Missouriand Illinois delegations cast their full vote for him. Of the slaveStates, only Missouri and Kentucky gave him any support. As theballoting continued, however, both Buchanan and Douglas gained at theexpense of Pierce. After the fourteenth ballot, Pierce withdrew, andthe bulk of his support was turned over to Douglas. Cass, the fourthcandidate before the convention, had been from the first out of therunning, his highest vote being only seven. On the sixteenth ballot, Buchanan received 168 and Douglas 122. Though Buchanan now had amajority of the votes of the convention, he still lacked thirty of thetwo-thirds required for a nomination. [528]

It was at this juncture that Douglas telegraphed to his friendRichardson, who was chairman of the Illinois delegation and aprominent figure in the convention, instructing him to withdraw hisname. The announcement was received with loud protestations. Thedispatch was then read: "If the withdrawal of my name will contributeto the harmony of our party or the success of our cause, I hope youwill not hesitate to take the step . . . If Mr. Pierce or Mr. Buchanan, or any other statesman who is faithful to the great issues involved inthe contest, shall receive a majority of the convention, I earnestlyhope that all my friends will unite in insuring him two-thirds, andthen making his nomination unanimous. Let no personal considerationsdisturb the harmony or endanger the triumph of our principles. "[529]Very reluctantly the supporters of Douglas obeyed their chief, and onthe seventeenth ballot, James Buchanan received the unanimous vote ofthe convention. For the second time Douglas lost the nomination of hisparty. 

Douglas bore himself admirably. At a mass-meeting in Washington, [530]he made haste to pledge his support to the nominee of the convention. His generous words of commendation of Buchanan, as a man possessing"wisdom and nerve to enforce a firm and undivided execution, of thelaws" of the majority of the people of Kansas, were uttered withoutany apparent misgivings. Prophetic they certainly were not. Douglascould approve the platform unqualifiedly, for it was a virtualindorsement of the principle which he had proclaimed from thehousetops for the greater part of two years. "The American Democracy, "read the main article in the newly adopted resolutions, "recognize andadopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing theTerritories of Nebraska and Kansas as embodying the only sound andsafe solution of the slavery question, upon which the great nationalidea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determinedconservation of the Union, and non-interference of Congress withslavery in the Territories or in the District of Columbia. "[531]Douglas deemed it a cause for profound rejoicing that the party wasat last united upon principles which could be avowed everywhere, North, South, East, and West. As the only national party in theRepublic, the Democracy had a great mission to perform, for in hisopinion "no less than the integrity of the Constitution, thepreservation and perpetuity of the Union, " depended upon the result ofthis election. [532]

No man could have been more magnanimous under defeat and so littleresentful at a personal slight. His manly conduct received favorablecomment on all sides. [533] He was still the foremost figure in theDemocratic party. To be sure, James Buchanan was the titular leader, but he stood upon a platform erected by his rival. His letter ofacceptance left no doubt in the minds of all readers that he indorsedthe letter and the spirit of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. [534]

A fortnight later the Republican national convention met atPhiladelphia, and with great enthusiasm adopted a platform declaringit to be the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories "thosetwin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery. " Even in this newparty, availability dictated the choice of a presidential candidate. The real leaders of the party were passed over in favor of John C. Frémont, whose romantic career was believed to be worth many votes. Pitted against Buchanan and Frémont, was Millard Fillmore who had beennominated months before by the American party, and who subsequentlyreceived the indorsement of what was left of the moribund Whigparty. [535]

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 507: This aspect of party has been treated at greater lengthin an article by the writer entitled "The Nationalizing Influence ofParty, " _Tale Review_, November; 1906. ]

[Footnote 508: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 264-265. ]

[Footnote 509: _Ibid. _, p. 271. ]

[Footnote 510: _Ibid. _, p. 269. ]

[Footnote 511: Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 98-99. ]

[Footnote 512: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 641-643. ]

[Footnote 513: See items scattered through the Illinois _StateRegister_ for these exciting weeks. ]

[Footnote 514: See Illinois State _Register_, October 6, 1854, andsubsequent issues. ]

[Footnote 515: Nearly every biographer of Lincoln has noted thisapparent breach of agreement on the part of Douglas, but none hasquestioned the accuracy of the story, though the unimaginative Lamonbetrays some misgivings, as he records Lincoln's course after the"Peoria truce. " See Lamon, Lincoln, p. 358. The statement of Irwin (inHerndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 329) does not seem credible, in thelight of all the attendant circumstances. ]

[Footnote 516: _Whig Almanac_ 1855. ]

[Footnote 517: MS. Letter, Douglas to Lanphier, December 18, 1854. ]

[Footnote 518: MS. Letter, Douglas to Lanphier, December 18, 1854. ]

[Footnote 519: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 689-690;Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 275-276. ]

[Footnote 520: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 67. ]

[Footnote 521: _Globe_, 33 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 216. ]

[Footnote 522: Globe, 33 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 330. ]

[Footnote 523: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 97-98, 130, 196. ]

[Footnote 524: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 655. ]

[Footnote 525: _Ibid. _, App. , p. 391. ]

[Footnote 526: _Globe, _34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. P. 392. ]

[Footnote 527: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 169-171. ]

[Footnote 528: Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 265. Douglasreceived 73 votes from the slave States and Buchanan 47; Buchananreceived 28 votes in New England, Douglas 13; Buchanan received 41votes from the Northwest, Douglas 19. The loss of Buchanan in theSouth was more than made good by his votes from the Middle AtlanticStates. ]

[Footnote 529: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 448-449; Proceedings of theNational Democratic Convention, 1856. ]

[Footnote 530: Washington _Union_, June 7, 1856. ]

[Footnote 531: Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 267. ]

[Footnote 532: Washington _Union_, June 7, 1856. ]

[Footnote 533: Correspondent to Cincinnati _Enquirer_, June 12, 1856. ]

[Footnote 534: The letter read, "This legislation is founded uponprinciples as ancient as free government itself, and in accordancewith them has simply declared that the people of a Territory likethose of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall orshall not exist within their limits. The Kansas-Nebraska Act does nomore than give the force of law to this elementary principle ofself-government, declaring it to be 'the true intent and meaning ofthis act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor toexclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly freeto form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. ' How vain andillusory would any other principle prove in practice in regard to theTerritories, " etc. Cincinnati _Enquirer_, June 22, 1856. ]

[Footnote 535: Stanwood, History of the Presidency, pp. 269-274. ]

CHAPTER XIII

THE TESTING OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

The author of the Kansas-Nebraska bill doubtless anticipated a gradualand natural occupation of the new Territories by settlers like thosehome-seekers who had taken up government lands in Iowa and otherStates of the Northwest. In the course of time, it was to be expected, such communities would form their own social and politicalinstitutions, and so determine whether they would permit or forbidslave-labor. By that rapid, and yet on the whole strangelyconservative, American process the people of the Territories wouldbecome politically self-conscious and ready for statehood. Not all atonce, but gradually, a politically self-sufficient entity would comeinto being. Such had been the history of American colonization; itseemed the part of wise statesmanship to follow the trend of thathistory. 

Theoretically popular sovereignty, as applied in the Kansas-NebraskaAct, was not an advance over the doctrine of Cass and Dickinson. Itprofessed to be the same which had governed Congress in organizingUtah and New Mexico. Nevertheless, popular sovereignty had anartificial quality which squatter sovereignty lacked. The relationbetween Congress and the people of the Territories, in the matter ofslavery, was now to be determined not so much by actual conditions asby an abstract principle. Federal policy was indoctrinated. 

There was, too, this vital difference between squatter sovereignty inUtah and New Mexico and popular sovereignty in Nebraska and Kansas:the former were at least partially inhabited and enjoyed some degreeof social and political order; the latter were practicallyuninhabited. It was one thing to grant control over all domesticconcerns to a population _in esse_, and another and quite differentthing to grant control to a people _in posse_. In the Kansas-NebraskaAct hypothetical communities were endowed with the capacity ofself-government, and told to decide for themselves a question whichwould become a burning issue the very moment that the first settlersset foot in the Territories. Congress attempted thus to solve anequation without a single known quantity. 

Moreover, slavery was no longer a matter of local concern. Doubtlessit was once so regarded; but the time had passed when the conscienceof the North would acquiesce in a _laissez faire_ policy. By force ofcircumstances slavery had become a national issue. Ardent haters ofthe institution were not willing that its extension or restrictionshould be left to a fraction of the nation, artificially organized asa Territory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act prejudiced the minds of manyagainst the doctrine, however sound in theory it may have seemed, byunsettling what the North regarded as its vested right in the freeterritory north of the line of the Missouri Compromise. The Act madethe political atmosphere electric. The conditions for obtaining acalm, dispassionate judgment on the domestic concern of chiefinterest, were altogether lacking. 

It was everywhere conceded that Nebraska would be a free Territory. The eyes of the nation were focused upon Kansas, which was from thefirst debatable ground. A rush of settlers from the Northwest joinedby pioneers from Kentucky and Missouri followed the opening up of thenew lands. As Douglas had foretold, the tide of immigration held backby Indian treaties now poured in. The characteristic features ofAmerican colonization seemed about to repeat themselves. So far themovement of population was for the most part spontaneous. Land-hunger, not the political destiny of the West, drove men to locate theirclaims on the Kansas and the Missouri. By midsummer colonists of asomewhat different stripe appeared. Sent out under the auspices of theEmigrant Aid Company, they were to win Kansas for freedom at the sametime that they subdued the wilderness. It was a species of assistedemigration which was new in the history of American colonization, outside the annals of missionary effort. The chief promoter of thisenterprise was a thrifty, Massachusetts Yankee, who saw no reason whycrusading and business should not go hand in hand. Kansas might bewrested from the slave-power at the same time that returns on investedfunds were secured. 

The effect of these developments upon the aggressive pro-slaverypeople of Missouri is not easy to describe. Hitherto they had assumedthat Kansas would become a slave Territory in the natural order ofevents. This was the prevailing Southern opinion. At once the peopleof western Missouri were put upon the defensive. Blue lodges wereformed for the purpose of carrying slavery into Kansas. Appeals werecirculated in the slave-holding States for colonists and funds. Passions were inflamed by rumors which grew as they stalked abroad. The peaceful occupation of Kansas was at an end. Popular sovereigntywas to be tested under abnormal conditions. 

When the election of territorial delegates to Congress occurred, inthe late fall, a fatal defect in the organic law was disclosed, towhich many of the untoward incidents of succeeding months may beascribed. The territorial act conferred the right of voting at thefirst elections upon all free, white, male inhabitants, twenty-oneyears of age and actually resident in the Territory. [536] Here was anunfortunate ambiguity. What was actual residence? Every other actorganizing a territorial government was definite on this point, permitting only those to vote who were living in the proposedTerritory, at the time of the passage of the act. The omission in thecase of Kansas and Nebraska is easily accounted for. Neither had legalresidents when the act was passed. Indeed, this defect bears witnessto the fact that Congress was legislating, not for actual, but forhypothetical communities. The consequences were far-reaching, for atthe very first election, it was charged that frauds were practiced bybands of Missourians, who had crossed the border only to aid thepro-slavery cause. Not much was made of these charges, as noparticular interest attached to the election. 

Far different was the election of members of the territoriallegislature in the following spring. On all hands it was agreed thatthis legislature would determine whether Kansas should be slave orfree soil. It was regrettable that Governor Reeder postponed thetaking of the census until February, since by mid-winter manysettlers, who had staked their claims, returned home for the coldseason, intending to return with their families in the early spring. This again was a characteristic feature of frontier history. [537] InMarch, the governor issued his proclamation of election, giving onlythree weeks' notice. Of those who had returned home, only residents ofMissouri and Iowa were able to participate in the election of March30th, by hastily recrossing into Kansas. Governor Reeder did his bestto guard against fraud. In his instructions to the judges of election, he warned them that a voter must be "an actual resident"; that is, "must have commenced an active inhabitancy, which he actually intendsto continue permanently, and must have made the Territory his dwellingplace to the exclusion of any other home. "[538] Still, it was not tobe expected that _bona fide_ residents could be easily ascertained incommunities which had sprung up like mushrooms. A hastily constructedshack served all the purposes of the would-be voter; and, in lastanalysis, judges of elections had to rest content with declarations ofintentions. Those who crossed into Kansas after the governor'sproclamation and endeavored to continue actual inhabitancy, were withdifficulty distinguished from those who now crossed for the firsttime, under a similar pretext. As Douglas subsequently contended withmuch force, the number of votes cast in excess of the census returnsdid not in itself prove wholesale fraud. [539]

Under such liability to deception and misjudgment, the territorialauthorities held the election which was likely to determine the statusof Kansas with respect to slavery. Both parties were playing for greatstakes; passion and violence were the almost inevitable outcome. Bothparties contained desperadoes, who invariably come to the surface inthe general mixing which occurs on the frontier. Both parties committedfrauds at the polls. But the most serious gravamina have been laid atthe door of those Blue Lodges of Missouri which deliberately sought tosecure the election of pro-slavery candidates by fair means or foul. The people of western Missouri had come to believe that the fate ofslavery in their own Commonwealth hinged upon the future of Kansas. Itwas commonly believed that after Kansas, Missouri would beabolitionized. It was, therefore, with the fierce, unreasoning energyof defenders of their own institutions, that Blue Lodges organizedtheir crusade for Kansas. [540] On election day armed bands ofMissourians crossed into Kansas and polled a heavy vote for thepro-slavery candidates, in the teeth of indignant remonstrances. [541]

The further history of popular sovereignty in Kansas must be lightlytouched upon, for it is the reflex action in the halls of Congressthat interests the student of Douglas's career. Twenty-eight of thethirty-nine members of the first territorial legislature were men ofpronounced pro-slavery views; eleven were anti-slavery candidates. Inseven districts, where protests had been filed, the governor orderednew elections. Three of those first elected were returned, six werenew men of anti-slavery proclivities. But when the legislature met, these new elections were set aside and I the first elections weredeclared valid. [542]

In complete control of the legislature, the pro-slavery partyproceeded to write slavery into the law of the Territory. In theireagerness to establish slavery permanently, these legislative Hotspursquite overshot the mark, creating offenses and affixing penalties ofdoubtful constitutionality. [543] Meanwhile the census of Februaryreported but one hundred ninety-two slaves in a total population ofeight thousand six hundred. [544] Those who had migrated from theSouth, were not as a rule of the slave-holding class. Those whopossessed slaves shrank from risking their property in Kansas, untilits future were settled. [545] Eventually, the climate was to prove aneven greater obstacle to the transplantation of the slave-labor systeminto Kansas. 

Foiled in their hope of winning the territorial legislature, thefree-State settlers in Kansas resolved upon a hazardous course. Believing the legislature an illegal body, they called a convention todraft a constitution with which they proposed to apply for admissionto the Union as a free State. Robinson, the leader of the free-Stateparty, was wise in such matters by reason of his experience inCalifornia. Reeder, who had been displaced as governor and had goneover to the opposition, lent his aid to the project; andex-Congressman Lane, formerly of Indiana, gave liberally of hisvehement energy to the cause. After successive conventions in whichthe various free-State elements were worked into a fairly consistentmixture, the Topeka convention launched a constitution and afree-State government. Unofficially the supporters of the newgovernment took measures for its defense. In the following spring, Governor Robinson sent his first message to the State legislature insession at Topeka; and Reeder and Lane were chosen senators for theinchoate Commonwealth. [546]

Meantime Governor Shannon had succeeded Reeder as executive of theterritorial government at Shawnee Mission. The aspect of affairs wasominous. Popular sovereignty had ended in a dangerous dualism. Twogovernments confronted each other in bitter hostility. There wereuntamed individuals in either camp, who were not averse to a decisionby wager of battle. [547]

Such was the situation in Kansas, when Douglas reached Washington inFebruary, after a protracted illness. [548] The President had alreadydiscussed the Kansas imbroglio in a special message; but theDemocratic majority in the Senate showed some reluctance to follow thelead of the administration. From the Democrats in the House not muchcould be expected, because of the strength of the Republicans. Theparty awaited its leader. Upon his appearance, all matters relating toKansas were referred to the Committee on Territories. The situationcalled for unusual qualities of leadership. How would the author ofthe Kansas-Nebraska Act face the palpable breakdown of his policy?

With his customary dispatch, Douglas reported on the 12th ofMarch. [549] The majority report consumed two hours in the reading;Senator Collamer stated the position of the minority in half thetime. [550] Evidently the chairman was aware where the burden of prooflay. Douglas took substantially the same ground as that taken by thePresident in his special message, but he discussed the issues boldlyin his own vigorous way. No one doubted that he had reached hisconclusions independently. 

The report began with a constitutional argument in defense of theKansas-Nebraska Act. As a contribution to the development of thedoctrine of popular sovereignty, the opening paragraphs deserve morethan passing notice. The distinct advance in Douglas's thoughtconsisted in this: that he explicitly refused to derive the power toorganize Territories from that provision of the Constitution whichgave Congress "power to dispose of and make all needful rules andregulations respecting the territory or other property belonging tothe United States. " The word "territory" here was used in itsgeographical sense to designate the public domain, not to indicate apolitical community. Rather was the power to be derived from theauthority of Congress to adopt necessary and proper means to admit newStates into the Union. But beyond the necessary and properorganization of a territorial government with reference to ultimatestatehood, Congress might not go. Clearly, then, Congress might notimpose conditions and restrictions upon a Territory which wouldprevent its entering the Union on an equality with the other States. From the formation of the Union, each State had been left free todecide the question of slavery for itself. Congress, therefore, mightnot decide the question for prospective States. Recognizing this, theframers of the Kansas-Nebraska Act had relegated the discussion of theslavery question to the people, who were to form a territorialgovernment under cover of the organic act. [551]

This was an ingenious argument. It was in accord with the utterancesof some of the weightiest intellects in our constitutional history. But it was not in accord with precedent. There was hardly aterritorial act that had emerged from Douglas's committee room, whichhad not imposed restrictions not binding on the older Commonwealths. 

Having given thus a constitutional sanction to the principle of theKansas-Nebraska Act, the report unhesitatingly denounced that "vastmoneyed corporation, " created for the purpose of controlling thedomestic institutions of a distinct political community fifteenhundred miles away. [552] This was as flagrant an act of interventionas though France or England had interfered for a similar purpose inCuba, for "in respect to everything which affects its domestic policyand internal concerns, each State stands in the relation of a foreignpower to every other State. " The obvious retort to this extraordinaryassertion was, that Kansas was only a Territory, and not a State. Douglas then made this "mammoth moneyed corporation" the scapegoat forall that had happened in Kansas. The Missouri Blue Lodges weredefensive organizations, called into existence by the fear that the"abolitionizing" of Kansas was the prelude to a warfare upon slaveryin Missouri. The violence and bloodshed in Kansas were "the naturaland inevitable consequences of such extraordinary systems ofemigration. "[553]

Such _ex post facto_ assertions did not mend matters in Kansas, however much they may have relieved the author of the report. Itremained to deal with the existing situation. The report took theground that the legislature of Kansas was a legal body and had been sorecognized by Governor Reeder. Neither the alleged irregularity of theelections, nor other objections, could diminish its legislativeauthority. Pro-tests against the election returns had been filed inonly seven out of eighteen districts. Ten out of thirteen councilmen, and seventeen out of twenty-six representatives, held their seats byvirtue of the governor's certificate. Even if it were assumed that thesecond elections in the seven districts were wrongly invalidated bythe legislature, its action was still the action of a lawfullegislature, possessing in either house a quorum of duly certificatedmembers. This was a lawyer's plea. Technically it was unanswerable. 

Having taken this position, Douglas very properly refused to passjudgment on the laws of the legislature. By the very terms of theKansas-Nebraska Act, Congress had confided the power to enact locallaws to the people of the Territories. If the validity of these lawsshould be doubted, it was for the courts of justice and not forCongress to decide the question. [554]

Throughout the report, the question was not once raised, whether thelegislature really reflected the sentiment of a majority of thesettlers of Kansas. Douglas assumed that it was truly representative. This attitude is not surprising, when one recalls his predilectionsand the conflict of evidence on essential points in the controversy. Nevertheless, this attitude was unfortunate, for it made him unfairtoward the free-State settlers, with whom by temper and training hehad far more in common than with the Missouri emigrants. Could he havecut himself loose from his bias, he would have recognized thefree-State men as the really trustworthy builders of a Commonwealth. But having taken his stand on the legality of the territoriallegislature, he persisted in regarding the free-State movement as aseditious combination to subvert the territorial governmentestablished by Congress. To the free-State men he would not accord anyinherent, sovereign right to annul the laws and resist the authorityof the territorial government. [555] The right of self-government wasderived only from the Constitution through the organic act passed byCongress. And then he used that expression which was used with tellingeffect against the theory of popular sovereignty: "The sovereignty ofa Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, intrust for the people, until they shall be admitted into the Union as aState. "[556] If this was true, then popular sovereignty after allmeant nothing more than local self-government, the measure of whichwas to be determined by Congress. If Congress left slavery to localdetermination, it was only for expediency's sake, and not by reason ofany constitutional obligation. 

Douglas found a vindication of his Kansas-Nebraska Act in the peacefulhistory of Nebraska, "to which the emigrant aid societies did notextend their operations, and into which the stream of emigration waspermitted to flow in its usual and natural channels. "[557] He fixedthe ultimate responsibility for the disorders in Kansas upon those whoopposed the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and who, "failing toaccomplish their purpose in the halls of Congress, and under theauthority of the Constitution, immediately resorted in theirrespective States to unusual and extraordinary means to control thepolitical destinies and shape the domestic institutions of Kansas, indefiance of the wishes and regardless of the rights of the people ofthat Territory as guaranteed by their organic law. "[558]

A practical recommendation accompanied the report. It was proposed toauthorize the territorial legislature to provide for a constitutionalconvention to frame a State constitution, as soon as a census shouldindicate that there were ninety-three thousand four hundred and twentyinhabitants. [559] This bill was in substantial accord with thePresident's recommendations. 

The minority report was equally positive as to the cause of thetrouble in Kansas and the proper remedy. "Repeal the act of 1854, organize Kansas anew as a free Territory and all will be put right. "But if Congress was bent on continuing the experiment, then theTerritory must be reorganized with proper safeguards against illegalvoting. The only alternative was to admit the Territory as a Statewith its free constitution. 

The issue could not have been more sharply drawn. Popular sovereigntyas applied in the Kansas-Nebraska Act was put upon the defensive. Republican senators made haste to press their advantage. Sumnerdeclared that the true issue was smothered in the majority report, butstood forth as a pillar of fire in the report of the minority. Trumbull forced the attack, while Douglas was absent, without waitingfor the printing of the reports. It needed only this apparentdiscourtesy to bring Douglas into the arena. An unseemly wranglebetween the Illinois senators followed, in the course of which Douglaschallenged his colleague to resign and stand with him for re-electionbefore the next session of the legislature. [560] Trumbull wiselydeclined to accept the risk. 

On the 20th of March, Douglas addressed the Senate in reply toTrumbull. [561] Nothing that he said shed any new light on thecontroversy. He had not changed his angle of vision. He had only theold arguments with which to combat the assertion that "Kansas had beenconquered and a legislature imposed by violence. " But the speechdiffered from the report, just as living speech must differ from theprinted page. Every assertion was pointed by his vigorous intonations;every argument was accentuated by his forceful personality. The reportwas a lawyer's brief; the speech was the flexible utterance of anaccomplished debater, bent upon a personal as well as an argumentativevictory. 

Even hostile critics were forced to yield to a certain admiration for"the Little Giant. " The author of _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ watched him fromher seat in the Senate gallery, with intense interest; and thoughwriting for readers, who like herself hated the man for his supposedservility to the South, she said with unwonted objectivity, "ThisDouglas is the very ideal of vitality. Short, broad, and thick-set, every inch of him has its own alertness and motion. He has a good headand face, thick black hair, heavy black brows and a keen eye. Hisfigure would be an unfortunate one were it not for the animation whichconstantly pervades it; as it is, it rather gives poignancy to hispeculiar appearance; he has a small, handsome hand, moreover, and agraceful as well as forcible mode of using it. . . . He has tworequisites of a debater--a melodious voice and a clear, sharplydefined enunciation. . . . His forte in debating is his power ofmystifying the point. With the most off-hand assured airs in theworld, and a certain appearance of honest superiority, like one whohas a regard for you and wishes to set you right on one or two littlematters, he proceeds to set up some point which is _not_ that inquestion, but only a family connection of it, and this point heattacks with the very best of logic and language; he charges upon ithorse and foot, runs it down, tramples it in the dust, and then turnsupon you with--'Sir, there is your argument! Did not I tell you so?You see it is all stuff;' and if you have allowed yourself to be sodazzled by his quickness as to forget that the routed point is not, after all, the one in question, you suppose all is over with it. Moreover, he contrives to mingle up so many stinging allusions to somany piquant personalities that by the time he has done hismystification a dozen others are ready and burning to spring on theirfeet to repel some direct or indirect attack, all equally wide of thepoint. "[562]

Douglas paid dearly for some of these personal shots. He had neverforgiven Sumner for his share in "the Appeal of the IndependentDemocrats. " He lost no opportunity to attribute unworthy motives tothis man, whose radical views on slavery he never could comprehend. More than once he insinuated that the Senator from Massachusetts andother Black Republicans were fabricating testimony relating to Kansasfor political purposes. When Sumner, many weeks later, rose to addressthe Senate on "the Crime against Kansas, " he labored under the doubleweight of personal wrongs and the wrongs of a people. The veteran Casspronounced his speech "the most un-American and unpatriotic that evergrated on the ears of the members of this high body. "[563] EvenSumner's friends listened to him with surprise and regret. Of Douglashe had this to say:

"As the Senator from South Carolina is the Don Quixote, the Senatorfrom Illinois is the squire of slavery, its very Sancho Panza, readyto do all its humiliating offices. This Senator in his laboredaddress, vindicating his labored report--piling one mass of elaborateerror upon another mass--constrained himself, as you will remember, tounfamiliar decencies of speech. . . . I will not stop to repel theimputations which he cast upon myself. . . . Standing on this floor, theSenator issued his rescript, requiring submission to the Usurped Powerof Kansas; and this was accompanied by a manner--all his own--such asbefits the tyrannical threat. . . . He is bold. He shrinks from nothing. Like Danton, he may cry, _'l'audace! l'audace! tonjours l'audace!'_but even his audacity cannot compass this work. The Senator copies theBritish officer, who, with boastful swagger, said that with the hiltof his sword he would cram the 'stamps' down the throats of theAmerican people, and he will meet a similar failure. "[564]

The retort of Douglas was not calculated to turn away wrath. He calledattention to the fact that these gross insults were not uttered in theheat of indignation, but "conned over, written with cool, deliberatemalignity, repeated from night to night in order to catch theappropriate grace. " He ridiculed the excessive self-esteem of Sumnerin words that moved the Senate to laughter; and then completed hisvindictive assault by charging Sumner with perfidy. Had he not swornto obey the Constitution, and then, forsooth, refused to support theenforcement of the Fugitive Slave law?[565]

Sumner replied in a passion, "Let the Senator remember hereafter thatthe bowie-knife and bludgeon are not the proper emblems of senatorialdebate. Let him remember that the swagger of Bob Acres and theferocity of the Malay cannot add dignity to this body. . . . No personwith the upright form of a man can be allowed, without violation ofall decency, to switch out from his tongue the perpetual stench ofoffensive personality. Sir, that is not a proper weapon of debate, atleast, on this floor. The noisome, squat, and nameless animal, towhich I refer, is not a proper model for an American Senator. Will theSenator from Illinois take notice?" And upon Douglas's unworthyretort that he certainly would not imitate the Senator in thatcapacity, Stunner said insultingly, "Mr. President, again the Senatorhas switched his tongue, and again he fills the Senate with itsoffensive odor. "[566]

Two days later Brooks made his assault on Sumner in the Senatechamber. Sumner's recollection was, that on recovering consciousness, he recognized among those about him, but offering no assistance, Senators Douglas and Toombs, and between them, his assailant. [567] Itwas easy for ill-disposed persons to draw unfortunate inferences fromthis sick-bed testimony. Douglas felt that an explanation was expectedfrom him. In a frank, explicit statement he told his colleagues thathe was in the reception room of the Senate when the assault occurred. Hearing what was happening, he rose immediately to his feet to enterthe chamber and put an end to the affray. But, on second thought, herealized that his motives would be misconstrued if he entered thehall. When the affair was over, he went in with the crowd. He was notnear Brooks at any time, and he was not with Senator Toombs, exceptperhaps as he passed him on leaving the chamber. He did not know thatany attack upon Mr. Sumner was purposed "then or at any other time, here or at any other place. "[568] Still, it is to be regretted thatDouglas did not act on his first, manly instincts and do all that layin his power to end this brutal assault, regardless of possiblemisconstructions. 

Disgraceful as these scenes in Congress were, they were less ominousthan events which were passing in Kansas. Clashes between pro-slaveryand free-State settlers had all but resulted in civil war in thepreceding fall. An unusually severe winter had followed, which notonly cooled the passions of all for a while, but convinced many aslave-holder of the futility of introducing African slaves into aclimate, where on occasion the mercury would freeze in thethermometer. In the spring hostilities were resumed. Under cover ofexecuting certain writs in Lawrence, Sheriff Jones and a posse ofruffians took revenge upon that stronghold of the Emigrant AidSociety, by destroying the newspaper offices, burning some publicbuildings, and pillaging the town. Three days after the sack ofLawrence, and just two days after the assault upon Sumner in theSenate, John Brown and his sons executed the decree of Almighty God, by slaying in cold blood five pro-slavery settlers on thePottawatomie. Civil war had begun in Kansas. [569]

If remedial measures for Kansas were needed at the beginning ofCongress, much more were they needed now. The bill reported by Douglasfor the eventual admission of Kansas had commended itself neither tothe leaders, nor to the rank and file, of the party. There was ageneral disposition to await the outcome of the national partyconventions, before legislating for Kansas. Douglas made repeatedefforts to expedite his bill, but his failure to secure the Democraticnomination seemed to weaken his leadership. Pressure from withoutfinally spurred the Democratic members of Congress to action. Theenthusiasm of the Republicans in convention and their confidentexpectation of carrying many States at the North, warned theDemocrats that they must make some effort to allay the disturbances inKansas. The initiative was taken by Senator Toombs, who drafted a billconceding far more to Northern sentiment than any yet proposed. Itprovided that, after a census had been taken, delegates to aconstitutional convention should be chosen on the date of thepresidential election in November. Five competent persons, appointedby the President with the consent of the Senate, were to supervise thecensus and the subsequent registration of voters. The convention thuschosen was to assemble in December to frame a State constitution andgovernment. [570]

The Toombs bill, with several others, and with numerous amendments, was referred to the Committee on Territories. Frequent conferencesfollowed at Douglas's residence, in which the recognized leaders ofthe party participated. [571] It was decided to support the Toombs billin a slightly amended form and to make a party measure of it. [572]Prudence warned against attempting to elect Buchanan on a policy ofmerely negative resistance to the Topeka movement. [573] The Republicanmembers of Congress were to be forced to make a show of hands on ameasure which promised substantial relief to the people of Kansas. 

In his report of June 30th, Douglas discussed the various measuresthat had been proposed by Whigs and Republicans, but found the Toombsbill best adapted to "insure a fair and impartial decision of thequestions at issue in Kansas, in accordance with the wishes of the_bona fide_ inhabitants. " A single paragraph from this report ought tohave convinced those who subsequently doubted the sincerity ofDouglas's course, that he was partner to no plots against the freeexpression of public opinion in the Territory. "In the opinion of yourcommittee, whenever a constitution shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, thegenius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican systemimperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairlyexpressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law, withoutfraud or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or unlawfulinfluence, and subject to no other restrictions than those imposed bythe Constitution of the United States. "[574]

The Toombs bill caused Republicans grave misgivings, even while theyconceded its ostensible liberality. Could an administration that hadcondoned the frauds already practiced in Kansas be trusted to appointdisinterested commissioners? Would a census of the present populationgive a majority in the proposed convention to the free-State party inKansas? Everyone knew that many free-State people had been driven awayby the disorders. Douglas endeavored to reassure his opponents onthese points; but his words carried no weight on the other side of thechamber. No better evidence of his good faith in the matter, however, could have been asked than he offered, by an amendment which extendedthe right of voting at the elections to all who had been _bona fide_residents and voters, but who had absented themselves from theTerritory, provided they should return before October 1st. [575] If, as Republicans asserted, many more free-State settlers thanpro-slavery squatters had been driven out, then here was a fairconcession. But what they wanted was not merely an equal chance forfreedom in Kansas, but precedence. To this end they were ready even toadmit Kansas under the Topeka constitution, which, by the mostfavorable construction, was the work of a faction. [576]

It was afterwards alleged that Douglas had wittingly suppressed aclause in the original Toombs bill, which provided for a submission ofthe constitution to a popular vote. The circumstances were such as tomake the charge plausible, and Douglas, in his endeavor to clearhimself, made hasty and unqualified statements which were manifestlyincorrect. In his own bill for the admission of Kansas, Douglasreferred explicitly to "the election for the adoption of theConstitution. "[577] The wording of the clause indicates that heregarded the popular ratification of the constitution to be a matterof course. The original Toombs bill had also referred explicitly to aratification of the constitution by the people;[578] but when it wasreported from Douglas's committee in an amended form, it had beenstripped of this provision. Trumbull noted at the time that thisamended bill made no provision for the submission of the constitutionto the vote of the people and deplored the omission, though hesupposed, as did most men, that such a ratification would benecessary. [579] Subsequently he accused Douglas not only of havingintentionally omitted the referendum clause, but of having prevented apopular vote, by adding the clause, "and until the complete executionof this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory. "[580]

Douglas cleared himself from the latter charge, by pointing out thatthis clause had been struck out upon his own motion, and replaced bythe clause which read, "all other elections in said Territory arehereby postponed until such time as said convention shallappoint. "[581] As to the other charge, Douglas said in 1857, that heknew the Toombs bill was silent on the matter of submission, but hetook the fair construction to be that powers not delegated werereserved, and that of course the constitution would be submitted tothe people. "That I was a party, either by private conferences at myhouse or otherwise, to a plan to force a constitution on the people ofKansas without submission, is not true. "[582]

Still, there was the ugly fact that the Toombs bill had gone to hiscommittee with the clause, and had emerged shorn of it. Toombs himselfthrew some light on the matter by stating that the clause had beenstricken out because there was no provision for a second election, andtherefore no proper safeguards for such a popular vote. [583] Theprobability is that Douglas, and in fact most men, deemed itsufficient at that time to provide a fair opportunity for theelection of a convention. [584] When Trumbull preferred his charges indetail in the campaign of 1858, Douglas at first flatly denied thatthere was a submission clause in the original Toombs bill. BothTrumbull and Lincoln then convicted Douglas of error, and thus put himin the light of one who had committed an offense and had sought tosave himself by prevaricating. 

The Toombs bill passed the Senate over the impotent Republicanopposition; but in the House it encountered a hostile majority whichwould not so much as consider a proposition emanating from Democraticsources. [585] Douglas charged the Republicans with the deliberate wishand intent to keep the Kansas issue alive. "All these gentlemen want, "he declared, "is to get up murder and bloodshed in Kansas forpolitical effect. They do not mean that there shall be peace untilafter the presidential election. . . . Their capital for the presidentialelection is blood. We may as well talk plainly. An angel from Heavencould not write a bill to restore peace in Kansas that would beacceptable to the Abolition Republican party previous to thepresidential election. "[586]

"Bleeding Kansas" was, indeed, a most effective campaign cry. BeforeCongress adjourned, the Republicans had found other campaign materialin the majority report of the Kansas investigating committee. TheDemocrats issued the minority report as a counter-blast, and alsocirculated three hundred thousand copies of Douglas's 12th of Marchreport, which was held to be campaign material of the first order. Douglas himself paid for one-third of these out of his ownpocket. [587] No one could accuse him of sulking in his tent. Whateverpersonal pique he may have felt at losing the nomination, he wasthoroughly loyal to his party. He gave unsparingly of his time andstrength to the cause of Democracy, speaking most effectively in thedoubtful States. And when Pennsylvania became the pivotal State, aselection day drew near, Douglas gave liberally to the campaign fundwhich his friend Forney was collecting to carry the State forBuchanan. [588]

Illinois, too, was now reckoned as a doubtful State. Douglas hadforced the issues clearly to the fore by pressing the nomination ofRichardson for governor. [589] Next to himself, there was no man in theState so closely identified with Kansas-Nebraska legislation. Theanti-Nebraska forces accepted the gage of battle by nominatingBissell, a conspicuous figure among those Democrats who could notsanction the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Only the nomination ofa Know-Nothing candidate complicated the issues which were thus drawn. Shortly before the October State elections, Douglas saw that he hadcommitted a tactical blunder. Richardson was doomed to defeat. "Wouldit not be well, " wrote Douglas to James W. Sheahan, who had come fromWashington to edit the Chicago _Times_, "to prepare the minds of yourreaders for losing the State elections on the 14th of October?Buchanan's friends expect to lose it then, but carry the State by20, 000 in November. We may have to fight against wind and tide afterthe 14th. Hence our friends ought to be prepared for the worst. Wemust carry Illinois at all hazards and in any event. "[590]

This forecast proved to be correct. Richardson, with all that herepresented, went down to defeat. In November Buchanan carried theState by a narrow margin, the total Democratic vote falling far behindthe combined vote for Frémont and Fillmore. [591] The politicalcomplexion of Illinois had changed. It behooved the senior senator totake notice. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 536: Section 23, United States Statutes at Large, X, p. 285. ]

[Footnote 537: See remarks of Douglas, _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 360-361. ]

[Footnote 538: Howard Report, pp. 108-109. ]

[Footnote 539: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 360-361. ]

[Footnote 540: Spring, Kansas, pp. 39-41. ]

[Footnote 541: _Ibid. _, pp. 43-49; Rhodes, History of the UnitedStates, II, pp. 81-82. ]

[Footnote 542: Spring, Kansas, pp. 53-56. ]

[Footnote 543: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 99. ]

[Footnote 544: _Ibid. _, p. 100. ]

[Footnote 545: _Ibid. _, p. 101. ]

[Footnote 546: Spring, Kansas, Chapter V; Rhodes, II, pp. 102-103. ]

[Footnote 547: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 103. ]

[Footnote 548: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 286. ]

[Footnote 549: Senate Reports, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , No. 34. ]

[Footnote 550: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 639. ]

[Footnote 551: Senate Report, No. 34, p. 4. ]

[Footnote 552: _Ibid. _, p. 7. ]

[Footnote 553: Senate Report, No. 34, pp. 7-9. ]

[Footnote 554: _Ibid. _, p. 23. ]

[Footnote 555: Senate Report, No. 34, p. 34. ]

[Footnote 556: _Ibid. _, p. 39. ]

[Footnote 557: Senate Report, No. 34, p. 40. ]

[Footnote 558: _Ibid. _, pp. 39-40. ]

[Footnote 559: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 693. ]

[Footnote 560: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 657. ]

[Footnote 561: _Ibid. _, App. , pp. 280 ff. ]

[Footnote 562: New York _Independent_, May 1, 1856; quoted by RhodesII, p. 128. ]

[Footnote 563: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. P. 544. ]

[Footnote 564: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 531. ]

[Footnote 565: _Ibid. _, p. 545. ]

[Footnote 566: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 547. ]

[Footnote 567: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 148. ]

[Footnote 568: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1305. ]

[Footnote 569: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 103-106;154-166. ]

[Footnote 570: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1439. ]

[Footnote 571: _Ibid. _, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 22. ]

[Footnote 572: _Ibid. _, p. 119. ]

[Footnote 573: _Ibid. _, p. 119. ]

[Footnote 574: Senate Report, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , No. 198. ]

[Footnote 575: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 795. ]

[Footnote 576: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 194-195. ]

[Footnote 577: Senate Bill, No. 172, Section 3. ]

[Footnote 578: Senate Bill, No. 356, Section 13. ]

[Footnote 579: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 779. ]

[Footnote 580: Speech at Alton, Illinois, 1858. ]

[Footnote 581: Political Debates between Lincoln and Douglas, pp. 161ff. ]

[Footnote 582: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 22. ]

[Footnote 583: _Ibid. _, App. , p. 127. Toombs also stated that thesubmission clause had been put in his bill in the first place byaccident, and that it had been stricken from the bill at hissuggestion. ]

[Footnote 584: The submission of State constitutions to a popular votehad not then become a general practice. ]

[Footnote 585: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 195. ]

[Footnote 586: _Globe_, 34 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 844. ]

[Footnote 587: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 21. ]

[Footnote 588: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 443. ]

[Footnote 589: Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, p. 650. ]

[Footnote 590: MS. Letter, Douglas to Sheahan, October 6, 1856. ]

[Footnote 591: _Tribune Almanac_, 1857. The vote was as follows:

 Buchanan 105, 348 Frémont 96, 189 Fillmore 37, 444]

BOOK III

THE IMPENDING CRISIS

CHAPTER XIV

THE PERSONAL EQUATION

Vast changes had passed over Illinois since Douglas set foot on itssoil, a penniless boy with his fortune to make. The frontier had beenpushed back far beyond the northern boundary of the State; the Indianshad disappeared; and the great military tract had been occupied by athrifty, enterprising people of the same stock from which Douglassprang. In 1833, the center of political gravity lay far south of thegeographical center of the State; by 1856, the northern counties hadalready established a political equipoise. The great city on LakeMichigan, a lusty young giant, was yearly becoming more conscious ofits commercial and political possibilities. Douglas had naturalaffinities with Chicago. It was thoroughly American, thoroughlytypical of that restless, aggressive spirit which had sent him, andmany another New Englander, into the great interior basin of thecontinent. There was no other city which appealed so strongly to hisnative instincts. From the first he had been impressed by itscommercial potentialities. He had staked his own fortunes upon itsinvincible prosperity by investing in real estate, and within a fewyears he had reaped the reward of his faith in unseen values. Hisholdings both in the city and in Cook County advanced in value byleaps and bounds, so that in the year 1856, he sold approximately onehundred acres for $90, 000. With his wonted prodigality, born of superbconfidence in future gains, he also deeded ten acres of his valuable"Grove Property" to the trustees of Chicago University. [592] Yet witha far keener sense of honor than many of his contemporaries exhibited, he refused to speculate in land in the new States and Territories, with whose political beginnings he would be associated as chairman ofthe Committee on Territories. He was resolved early in his career "toavoid public suspicion of private interest in his politicalconduct. "[593]

The gift to Chicago University was no doubt inspired in part at leastby local pride; yet it was not the first nor the only instance of thedonor's interest in educational matters. No one had taken greaterinterest in the bequest of James Smithson to the United States. Atfirst, no doubt, Douglas labored under a common misapprehensionregarding this foundation, fancying that it would contribute directlyto the advancement and diffusion of the applied sciences; but hissupport was not less hearty when he grasped the policy formulated bythe first secretary of the institution. He was the author of thatprovision in the act establishing the Smithsonian Institution, whichcalled for the presentation of one copy of every copyrighted book, map, and musical composition, to the Institution and to theCongressional Library. [594] He became a member of the board of regentsand retained the office until his death. 

With his New England training Douglas believed profoundly in thedignity of labor; not even his Southern associations lessened hisgenuine admiration for the magnificent industrial achievements of theNorthern mechanic and craftsman. He shared, too, the conviction of hisNorthern constituents, that the inventiveness, resourcefulness, andbold initiative of the American workman was the outcome of freeinstitutions, which permitted and encouraged free and bold thinking. The American laborer was not brought up to believe it "a crime tothink in opposition to the consecrated errors of olden times. "[595] Itwas impossible for a man so thinking to look with favor upon theslave-labor system of the South. He might tolerate the presence ofslavery in the South; but in his heart of hearts he could not desireits indefinite extension. 

Douglas belonged to his section, too, in his attitude toward thedisposition of the public domain. He was one of the first to advocatefree grants of the public lands to homesteaders. His bill to grant onehundred and sixty acres to actual settlers who should cultivate themfor four years, was the first of many similar projects in the earlyfifties. [596] Southern statesmen thought this the best "bid" yet madefor votes: it was further evidence of Northern demagogism. The South, indeed, had little direct interest in the peopling of the Westernprairies by independent yeomen, native or foreign. Just here Douglasparted company with his Southern associates. He believed that thefuture of the great West depended upon this wise and beneficial use ofthe national domain. Neither could he agree with Eastern statesmen whodeplored the gratuitous distribution of lands, which by sale wouldyield large revenues. His often-repeated reply was the quintessenceof Western statesmanship. The pioneer who went into the wilderness, towrestle with all manner of hardships, was a true wealth-producer. Ashe cleared his land and tilled the soil, he not only himself became atax-payer, but he increased the value of adjoining lands and added tothe sum total of the national resources. [597]

Douglas gave his ungrudging support to grants of land in aid ofrailroads and canals. He would not regard such grants, however, asmere donations, but rather as wise provisions for increasing the valueof government lands. "The government of the United States is a greatland owner; she has vast bodies of land which she has had in marketfor thirty or forty years; and experience proves that she cannot sellthem. . . . The difficulty in the way of the sale does not arise from thefact that the lands are not fertile and susceptible to cultivation, but that they are distant from market, and in many cases destitute oftimber. "[598] Therefore he gave his voice and vote for nearly all landgrant bills, designed to aid the construction of railroads and canalsthat would bring these public lands into the market; but he insistedthat everything should be done by individual enterprise if possible. He shared the hostility of the West toward large grants of land toprivate corporations. [599] What could not be done by individualenterprise, should be done by the States; and only that should beundertaken by the Federal government which could be done in no otherway. 

As the representative of a constituency which was profoundlyinterested in the navigation of the great interior waterways of thecontinent, Douglas was a vigorous advocate of internal improvements, so far as his Democratic conscience would allow him to construe theConstitution in favor of such undertakings by the Federal government. Like his constituents, he was not always logical in his deductionsfrom constitutional provisions. The Constitution, he believed, wouldnot permit an appropriation of government money for the constructionof the ship canal around the Falls of the St. Mary's; but aslandowner, the Federal government might donate lands for thatpurpose. [600] He was also constrained to vote for appropriations forthe improvement of river channels and of harbors on the lakes and onthe ocean, because these were works of a distinctly nationalcharacter; but he deplored the mode by which these appropriations weremade. [601]

Just when the Nebraska issue came to the fore, he was maturing ascheme by which a fair, consistent, and continuous policy of internalimprovements could be initiated, in place of the political bargainingwhich had hitherto determined the location of government operations. Two days before he presented his famous Nebraska report, Douglasaddressed a letter to Governor Matteson of Illinois in which hedeveloped this new policy. [602] He believed that the whole questionwould be thoroughly aired in the session just begun. [603] Instead ofmaking internal improvements a matter of politics, and of wastefuljobbery, he would take advantage of the constitutional provisionwhich permits a State to lay tonnage duties by the consent ofCongress. If Congress would pass a law permitting the imposition oftonnage duties according to a uniform rule, then each town and citymight be authorized to undertake the improvement of its own harbor, and to tax its own commerce for the prosecution of the work. Undersuch a system the dangers of misuse and improper diversion of fundswould be reduced to a minimum. The system would be self-regulative. Negligence, or extravagance, with the necessary imposition of higherduties, would punish a port by driving shipping elsewhere. 

But for the interposition of the slavery issue, which no one wouldhave more gladly banished from Congress, Douglas would haveunquestionably pushed some such reform into the foreground. His heartwas bound up in the material progress of the country. He could neverunderstand why men should allow an issue like slavery to stand in theway of prudential and provident legislation for the expansion of theRepublic. He laid claim to no expert knowledge in other matters: hefrankly confessed his ignorance of the mysteries of tariff schedules. "I have learned enough about the tariff, " said he with a sly thrust athis colleagues, who prided themselves on their wisdom, "to know that Iknow scarcely anything about it at all; and a man makes considerableprogress on a question of this kind when he ascertains thatfact. "[604] Still, he grasped an elementary principle that had escapedmany a protectionist, that "a tariff involves two conflictingprinciples which are eternally at war with each other. Every tariffinvolves the principles of protection and of oppression, theprinciples of benefits and of burdens. . . . The great difficulty is, soto adjust these conflicting principles of benefits and burdens as tomake one compensate for the other in the end, and give equal benefitsand equal burdens to every class of the community. "[605]

Douglas was wiser, too, than the children of light, when he insistedthat works of art should be admitted free of duty. "I wish we couldget a model of every work of art, a cast of every piece of ancientstatuary, a copy of every valuable painting and rare book, so that ourartists might pursue their studies and exercise their skill at home, and that our literary men might not be exiled in the pursuits whichbless mankind. "[606]

Still, the prime interests of this hardy son of the West werepolitical. How could they have been otherwise in his environment?There is no evidence of literary refinement in his public utterances;no trace of the culture which comes from intimate association with theclassics; no suggestion of inspiration quaffed in communion withimaginative and poetic souls. An amusing recognition of theselimitations is vouched for by a friend, who erased a line of poetryfrom a manuscript copy of a public address by Douglas. Taken to taskfor his presumption, he defended himself by the indisputableassertion, that Douglas was never known to have quoted a line ofpoetry in his life. [607] Yet the unimaginative Douglas anticipated theera of aërial navigation now just dawning. On one occasion, he urgedupon the Senate a memorial from an aëronaut, who desired the aid ofthe government in experiments which he was conducting with dirigibleballoons. When the Senate, in a mirthful mood, proposed to refer thepetition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Douglas protested thatthe subject should be treated seriously. [608]

While Douglas was thus steadily growing into complete accord with theNew England elements in his section--save on one vital point, --he fellcaptive to the beauty and grace of one whose associations were withmen and women south of Mason and Dixon's line. Adèle Cutts was thedaughter of Mr. J. Madison Cutts of Washington, who belonged to an oldMaryland family. She was the great-niece of Dolly Madison, whom shemuch resembled in charm of manner. When Douglas first made heracquaintance, she was the belle of Washington society, --in the dayswhen the capital still boasted of a genuine aristocracy of gentleness, grace, and talent. There are no conflicting testimonies as to herbeauty. Women spoke of her as "beautiful as a pearl;" to men sheseemed "a most lovely and queenly apparition. "[609] Both men and womenfound her sunny-tempered, generous, warm-hearted, and sincere. Whatcould there have been in the serious-minded, dark-visaged "LittleGiant" to win the hand of this mistress of many hearts? Perhaps shesaw "Othello's visage in his mind"; perhaps she yielded to theimperious will which would accept no refusal; at all events, AdèleCutts chose this plain little man of middle-age in preference to menof wealth and title. [610] It proved to be in every respect a happymarriage. [611] He cherished her with all the warmth of his manlyaffection; she became the devoted partner of all his toils. His twoboys found in her a true mother; and there was not a household inWashington where home-life was graced with tenderer mutualaffection. [612]

Across this picture of domestic felicity, there fell but a single, fugitive shadow. Adèle Cutts was an adherent of the Roman Church; andat a time when Native Americanism was running riot with the sense ofeven intelligent men, such ecclesiastical connections were made thesubject of some odious comment. Although Douglas permitted his boys tobe educated in the Catholic faith, and profoundly respected thereligious instincts of his tender-hearted wife, he never entered intothe Roman communion, nor in fact identified himself with anychurch. [613] Much of his relentless criticism of Native Americanismcan be traced to his abhorrence of religious intolerance in any form. 

This alliance meant much to Douglas. Since the death of his firstwife, he had grown careless in his dress and bearing, too littleregardful of conventionalities. He had sought by preference thesociety of men, and had lost those external marks of good-breedingwhich companionship with gentlewomen had given him. Insensibly he hadfallen a prey to a certain harshness and bitterness of temper, whichwas foreign to his nature; and he had become reckless, so men said, because of defeated ambition. But now yielding to the warmth of tenderdomesticity, the true nature of the man asserted itself. [614] He grew, perhaps not less ambitious, but more sensible of the obligations whichleadership imposed. 

No one could gainsay his leadership. He was indisputably the mostinfluential man in his party; and this leadership was not bought byobsequiousness to party opinion, nor by the shadowy arts of themachine politician alone. True, he was a spoilsman, like all of hiscontemporaries. He was not above using the spoils of office to rewardfaithful followers. Reprehensible as the system was, and is, there isperhaps a redeeming feature in this aspect of American politics. Theignorant foreigner was reconciled to government because it was made toappear to him as a personal benefactor. Due credit must be given tothose leaders like Douglas, who fired the hearts of Irishmen andGermans with loyalty to the Union through the medium of party. [615]

The hold of Douglas upon his following, however, cannot be explainedby sordid appeals to their self-interest. He commanded the unboughtservice of thousands. In the early days of his career, he had foundloyal friends, who labored unremittingly for his advancement, withouthope of pecuniary reward or of any return but personal gratitude; andthroughout his career he drew upon this vast fund of personal loyalty. His capacity for warm friendships was unlimited. He made men, particularly young men, feel that it was an inestimable boon to bepermitted to labor with him "for the cause. " Far away in Asia Minor, with his mind teeming with a thousand strange sensations, he can yetthink of a friend at the antipodes who nurses a grievance against him;and forthwith he sits down and writes five pages of generous, affectionate remonstrance. [616] In the thick of an important campaign, when countless demands are made upon his time, he finds a moment tolay his hand upon the shoulder of a young German ward-politician withthe hearty word, "I count very much on your help in thiselection. "[617] If this was the art of a politician, it was artreduced to artlessness. 

Not least among the qualities which made Douglas a great, persuasive, popular leader, was his quite extraordinary memory for names andfaces, and his unaffected interest in the personal life of those whomhe called his friends. "He gave to every one of those humble andpractically nameless followers the impression, the feeling, that hewas the frank, personal friend of each one of them. "[618] Doubtless hewas well aware that there is no subtler form of flattery, than to callindividuals by name who believe themselves to be forgotten pawns in agreat game; and he may well have cultivated the profitable habit. Still, the fact remains, that it was an innate temperamental qualitywhich made him frank and ingenuous in his intercourse with all sortsand conditions of men. 

Those who judged the man by the senator, often failed to understandhis temperament. He was known as a hard hitter in parliamentaryencounters. He never failed to give a Roland for an Oliver. In theheat of debate, he was often guilty of harsh, bitter invective. Hismanner betrayed a lack of fineness and good-breeding. But hisresentment vanished with the spoken word. He repented the barbedshaft, the moment it quitted his bow. He would invite to his table thevery men with whom he had been in acrimonious controversy, and perhapsrenew the controversy next day. Greeley testified to this absence ofresentment. On a certain occasion, after the New York _Tribune_ hadattacked Douglas savagely, a mutual acquaintance asked Douglas if heobjected to meeting the redoubtable Greeley. "Not at all, " was thegood-natured reply, "I always pay that class of political debts as Igo along, so as to have no trouble with them in social intercourse andto leave none for my executors to settle. "[619]

In the round of social functions which Senator and Mrs. Douglasenjoyed, there was little time for quiet thought and reflection. Menwho met him night after night at receptions and dinners, marvelled atthe punctuality with which he returned to the routine work of theSenate next morning. Yet there was not a member of the Senate who hada readier command of facts germane to the discussions of the hour. Hismemory was a willing slave which never failed to do the bidding ofmaster intellect. Some of his ablest and most effective speeches weremade without preparation and with only a few pencilled notes at hand. Truly Nature had been lavish in her gifts to him. 

To nine-tenths of his devoted followers, he was still "Judge" Douglas. It was odd that the title, so quickly earned and so briefly worn, should have stuck so persistently to him. In legal attainments he fellfar short of many of his colleagues in the Senate. Had he but chosento apply himself, he might have been a conspicuous leader of theAmerican bar; but law was ever to him the servant of politics, and henever cared to make the servant greater than his lord. That he wouldhave developed judicial qualities, may well be doubted; advocate hewas and advocate he remained, to the end of his days. So it was thatwhen a legal question arose, with far-reaching implications forAmerican politics, the lawyer and politician, rather than the judge, laid hold upon the points of political significance. 

The inauguration of James Buchanan and the Dred Scott decision of theSupreme Court, two days later, marked a turning point in the career ofJudge Douglas. Of this he was of course unaware. He accepted theadvent of his successful rival with composure, and the opinion of theCourt, with comparative indifference. In a speech before the GrandJury of the United States District Court at Springfield, three monthslater, he referred publicly for the first time to the Dred Scott case. Senator, and not Judge, Douglas was much in evidence. He swallowed theopinion of the majority of the court without wincing--the _obiterdictum_ and all. Nay, more, he praised the Court for passing, likehonest and conscientious judges, from the technicalities of the caseto the real merits of the questions involved. The material, controlling points of the case were: first, that a negro descendedfrom slave parents could not be a citizen of the United States;second, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and voidfrom the beginning, and thus could not extinguish a master's right tohis slave in any Territory. "While the right continues in full forceunder . . . The Constitution, " he added, "and cannot be divested oralienated by an act of Congress, it necessarily remains a barren andworthless right, unless sustained, protected, and enforced byappropriate police regulations and local legislation, prescribingadequate remedies for its violation. These regulations and remediesmust necessarily depend entirely upon the will and wishes of thepeople of the Territory, as they can only be prescribed by the locallegislatures. " Hence the triumphant conclusion that "the greatprinciple of popular sovereignty and self-government is sustained andfirmly established by the authority of this decision. "[620]

There were acute legal minds who thought that they detected a falsenote in this paean. Was this a necessary implication from the DredScott decision? Was it the intention of the Court to leave theprinciple of popular sovereignty standing upright? Was not thedecision rather fatal to the great doctrine--the shibboleth of theDemocratic party?

On this occasion Douglas had nothing to add to his exposition of theDred Scott case, further than to point out the happy escape of whitesupremacy from African equality. And here he struck the note which puthim out of accord with those Northern constituents with whom he wasotherwise in complete harmony. "When you confer upon the African racethe privileges of citizenship, and put them on an equality with whitemen at the polls, in the jury box, on the bench, in the Executivechair, and in the councils of the nation, upon what principle will youdeny their equality at the festive board and in the domestic circle?"In the following year, he received his answer in the homely words ofAbraham Lincoln: "I do not understand that because I do not want anegro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. "

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 592: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 442-443; Iglehart, History of theDouglas Estate in Chicago. ]

[Footnote 593: Letter in Chicago _Times_, August 30, 1857. ]

[Footnote 594: _Globe_, 29 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 749-750. ]

[Footnote 595: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 870. ]

[Footnote 596: _Ibid. _, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 75. ]

[Footnote 597: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 266. ]

[Footnote 598: _Ibid. _, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 350-351. ]

[Footnote 599: _Ibid. _, p. 769. ]

[Footnote 600: _Globe_, 32 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 951. ]

[Footnote 601: _Ibid. _, p. 952. ]

[Footnote 602: Letter to Governor Matteson, January 2, 1854, inSheahan, Douglas, pp. 358 ff. ]

[Footnote 603: MS. Letter, Douglas to C. H. Lanphier, November 11, 1853. ]

[Footnote 604: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 953. ]

[Footnote 605: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 953. ]

[Footnote 606: _Ibid. _, p. 1050. ]

[Footnote 607: Chicago _Times_, January 27, 1858. ]

[Footnote 608: _Globe_, 31 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 132. ]

[Footnote 609: Mrs. Pryor, Reminiscences of Peace and War, p. 68;Villard, Memoirs, I, p. 92. ]

[Footnote 610: Letter of Mrs. Lippincott ("Grace Greenwood") to thewriter. ]

[Footnote 611: Conversation with Stephen A. Douglas, Esq. , ofChicago. ]

[Footnote 612: The marriage took place November 20, 1856. ]

[Footnote 613: See Philadelphia _Press_, June 8, 1861. ]

[Footnote 614: Letter of J. H. Roberts, Esq. , of Chicago to the writer;also letter of Mrs. Lippincott to the writer. ]

[Footnote 615: See Philadelphia _Press_, November 17, 1860. ]

[Footnote 616: For a copy of this letter, I am indebted to J. H. Roberts, Esq. , of Chicago. ]

[Footnote 617: Conversation with Henry Greenbaum, Esq. , of Chicago. ]

[Footnote 618: Major G. M. McConnell in the Transactions of theIllinois Historical Society, 1900; see also Forney, Anecdotes ofPublic Men, I, p. 147. ]

[Footnote 619: Schuyler Colfax in the South Bend _Register, _ June, 1861; Forney in his Eulogy, 1861; Greeley, Recollections of a BusyLife, p. 359. ]

[Footnote 620: The New York _Times_, June 23, 1857, published thisspeech of June 12th, in full. ]

CHAPTER XV

THE REVOLT OF DOUGLAS

Had anyone prophesied at the close of the year 1856, that within atwelvemonth Douglas would be denounced as a traitor to Democracy, hewould have been thought mad. That Douglas of all men should break withhis party under any circumstances was almost unthinkable. His wholepublic career had been inseparably connected with his party. To besure, he had never gone so far as to say "my party right or wrong";but that was because he had never felt obliged to make a moral choice. He was always convinced that his party was right. Within thecircumference of party, he had always found ample freedom of movement. He had never lacked the courage of his convictions, but hitherto hisconvictions had never collided with the dominant opinion of Democracy. He undoubtedly believed profoundly in the mission of his party, as anorganization standing above all for popular government and thepreservation of the Union. No ordinary circumstances would justify himin weakening the influence or impairing the organization of theDemocratic party. Paradoxical as it may seem, his partisanship wasdictated by a profound patriotism. He believed the maintenance of theUnion to be dependent upon the integrity of his party. So thinking andfeeling he entered upon the most memorable controversy of his career. 

When President Buchanan asked Robert J. Walker of Mississippi tobecome governor of Kansas, the choice met with the hearty approval ofDouglas. Not all the President's appointments had been acceptable tothe Senator from Illinois. But here was one that he could indorseunreservedly. He used all his influence to persuade Walker to acceptthe uncoveted mission. With great reluctance Walker consented, butonly upon the most explicit understanding with the administration asto the policy to be followed in Kansas. It was well understood on bothsides that a true construction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act required thesubmission to popular vote of any constitution which the prospectiveconvention might adopt. This was emphatically the view of Douglas, whom Governor Walker took pains to consult on his way throughChicago. [621]

The call for an election of delegates to a constitutional conventionhad already been issued, when Walker reached Kansas. The free-Statepeople were incensed because the appointment of delegates had beenmade on the basis of a defective census and registration; and even theassurance of the governor, in his inaugural, that the constitutionwould be submitted to a popular vote, failed to overcome theirdistrust. They therefore took no part in the election of delegates. This course was unfortunate, for it gave the control of the conventionwholly into the hands of the pro-slavery party, with consequences thatwere far-reaching for Kansas and the nation. [622] But by October thefree-State party had abandoned its policy of abstention fromterritorial politics, so far as to participate in the election of anew territorial legislature. The result was a decisive free-Statevictory. The next legislature would have an ample majority offree-State men in both chambers. It was with the discomfitingknowledge, then, that they represented only a minority of thecommunity that the delegates of the constitutional convention begantheir labors. [623] It was clear to the dullest intelligence that anypro-slavery constitution would be voted down, if it were submittedfairly to the people of Kansas. Gloom settled down upon the hopes ofthe pro-slavery party. 

When the document which embodied the labors of the convention was madepublic, the free-State party awoke from its late complacence to finditself tricked by a desperate game. The constitution was not to besubmitted to a full and fair vote; but only the article relating toslavery. The people of Kansas were to vote for the "Constitution withslavery" or for the "Constitution with no slavery. " By eitheralternative the constitution would be adopted. But should theconstitution with no slavery be ratified, a clause of the schedulestill guaranteed "the right of property in slaves now in thisTerritory. "[624] The choice offered to an opponent of slavery inKansas was between a constitution sanctioning and safeguarding allforms of slave property, [625] and a constitution which guaranteed thefull possession of slaves then in the Territory, with no assurancesas to the status of the natural increase of these slaves. Viewed inthe most charitable light, this was a gambler's device for securingthe stakes by hook or crook. Still further to guard existing propertyrights in slaves, it was provided that if the constitution should beamended after 1864, no alteration should be made to affect "the rightsof property in the ownership of slaves. "[626]

The news from Lecompton stirred Douglas profoundly. In a peculiarsense he stood sponsor for justice to bleeding Kansas, not onlybecause he had advocated in abstract terms the perfect freedom of thepeople to form their domestic institutions in their own way, butbecause he had become personally responsible for the conduct of theleader of the Lecompton party. John Calhoun, president of theconvention, had been appointed surveyor general of the Territory uponhis recommendation. Governor Walker had retained Calhoun in thatoffice because of Douglas's assurance that Calhoun would support thepolicy of submission. [627] Moreover, Governor Walker had gone to hispost with the assurance that the leaders of the administration wouldsupport this course. 

Was it likely that the pro-slavery party in Kansas would take thisdesperate course, without assurance of some sort from Washington?There were persistent rumors that President Buchanan approved theLecompton constitution, [628] but Douglas was loth to give credence tothem. The press of Illinois and of the Northwest voiced publicsentiment in condemning the work of the Lecomptonites. [629] Douglaswas soon on his way to Washington, determined to know the President'smind; his own was made up. 

The interview between President Buchanan and Douglas, as recounted bythe latter, takes on a dramatic aspect. [630] Douglas found his worstfears realized. The President was clearly under the influence of anaggressive group of Southern statesmen, who were bent upon makingKansas a slave State under the Lecompton constitution. Laboring underintense feeling, Douglas then threw down the gauntlet: he would opposethe policy of the administration publicly to the bitter end. "Mr. Douglas, " said the President rising to his feet excitedly, "I desireyou to remember that no Democrat ever yet differed from anadministration of his own choice without being crushed. Beware of thefate of Tallmadge and Rives. " "Mr. President" rejoined Douglas alsorising, "I wish you to remember that General Jackson is dead. "

The Chicago _Times_, reporting the interview, intimated that there hadbeen a want of agreement, but no lack of courtesy or regard on eitherside. Douglas was not yet ready to issue an ultimatum. The situationmight be remedied. On the night following this memorable encounter, Douglas was serenaded by friends and responded with a brief speech, but he did not allude to the Kansas question. [631] It was generallyexpected that he would show his hand on Monday, the opening day ofCongress. The President's message did not reach Congress, however, until Tuesday. Immediately upon its reading, Douglas offered the usualmotion to print the message, adding, as he took his seat, that hetotally dissented from "that portion of the message which may fairlybe construed as approving of the proceedings of the Lecomptonconvention. " At an early date he would state the reasons for hisdissent. [632]

On the following day, December 9th, Douglas took the irrevocable step. For three hours he held the Senate and the audience in the galleriesin rapt attention, while with more than his wonted gravity andearnestness he denounced the Lecompton constitution. [633] He beganwith a conciliatory reference to the President's message. He was happyto find, after a more careful examination, that the President hadrefrained from making any recommendation as to the course whichCongress should pursue with regard to the constitution. And so, headded adroitly, the Kansas question is not to be treated as anadministration measure. He shared the disappointment of the Presidentthat the constitution had not been submitted fully and freely to thepeople of Kansas; but the President, he conceived, had made afundamental error in supposing that the Nebraska Act provided for thedisposition of the slavery question apart from other local matters. The direct opposite was true. The main object of the Act was to removean odious restriction by which the people had been prevented fromdeciding the slavery question for themselves, like all other local anddomestic concerns. If the President was right in thinking that by theterms of the Nebraska bill the slavery question must be submitted tothe people, then every other clause of the constitution should besubmitted to them. To do less would be to reduce popular sovereigntyto a farce. 

But Douglas could not maintain this conciliatory attitude. His senseof justice was too deeply outraged. He recalled facts which everywell-informed person knew. "I know that men, high in authority and inthe confidence of the territorial and National Government, canvassedevery part of Kansas during the election of delegates, and each one ofthem pledged himself to the people that no snap judgment was to betaken. Up to the time of the meeting of the convention, in Octoberlast, the pretense was kept up, the profession was openly made, andbelieved by me, and I thought believed by them, that the conventionintended to submit a constitution to the people, and not to attempt toput a government in operation without such submission. "[634] How wasthis pledge redeemed? All men, forsooth, must vote for theconstitution, whether they like it or not, in order to be permitted tovote for or against slavery! This would be like an election under theFirst Consul, when, so his enemies averred, Napoleon addressed histroops with the words: "Now, my soldiers, you are to go to theelection and vote freely just as you please. If you vote for Napoleon, all is well; vote against him, and you are to be instantly shot. " Thatwas a fair election! "This election, " said Douglas with bitter irony, "is to be _equally fair!_ All men in favor of the constitution mayvote for it--all men against it shall not vote at all! Why not letthem vote against it? I have asked a very large number of thegentlemen who framed the constitution . . . And I have received the sameanswer from every one of them. . . . They say if they allowed a negativevote the constitution would have been voted down by an overwhelmingmajority, and hence the fellows shall not be allowed to vote at all. "

"Will you force it on them against their will, " he demanded, "simplybecause they would have voted it down if you had consulted them? Ifyou will, are you going to force it upon them under the plea ofleaving them perfectly free to form and regulate their domesticinstitutions in their own way? Is that the mode in which I am calledupon to carry out the principle of self-government and popularsovereignty in the Territories?" It is no answer, he argued, that theconstitution is unobjectionable. "You have no right to force anunexceptionable constitution on a people. " The pro-slavery clause wasnot the offense in the constitution, to his mind. "If Kansas wants aslave-State constitution she has a right to it, if she wants afree-State constitution she has a right to it. It is none of mybusiness which way the slavery clause is decided. I care not whetherit is voted up or down. " The whole affair looked to him "like a systemof trickery and jugglery to defeat the fair expression of the will ofthe people. "[635]

The vehemence of his utterance had now carried Douglas perhaps fartherthan he had meant to go. [636] He paused to plead for a fair policywhich would redeem party pledges:

 "Ignore Lecompton, ignore Topeka; treat both those party movements as irregular and void; pass a fair bill--the one that we framed ourselves when we were acting as a unit; have a fair election--and you will have peace in the Democratic party, and peace throughout the country, in ninety days. The people want a fair vote. They never will be satisfied without it. They never should be satisfied without a fair vote on their Constitution. . . . 

 "Frame any other bill that secures a fair, honest vote, to men of all parties, and carries out the pledge that the people shall be left free to decide on their domestic institutions for themselves, and I will go with you with pleasure, and with all the energy I may possess. But if this Constitution is to be forced down our throats, in violation of the fundamental principle of free government, under a mode of submission that is a mockery and insult, I will resist it to the last. I have no fear of any party associations being severed. I should regret any social or political estrangement, even temporarily; but if it must be, if I can not act with you and preserve my faith and my honor, I will stand on the great principle of popular sovereignty, which declares the right of all people to be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. I will follow that principle wherever its logical consequences may take me, and I will endeavor to defend it against assault from any and all quarters. No mortal man shall be responsible for my action but myself. By my action I will compromit no man. "[637]

The speech made a profound impression. No one could mistake itsimport. The correspondent of the New York _Tribune_ was right inthinking that it "marked an important era in our politicalhistory. "[638] Douglas had broken with the dominant pro-slaveryfaction of his party. How far he would carry his party with him, remained to be seen. But that a battle royal was imminent, wasbelieved on all sides. "The struggle of Douglas with the slave-powerwill be a magnificent spectacle to witness, " wrote one who hadhitherto evinced little admiration for the author of theKansas-Nebraska Act. [639]

Douglas kept himself well in hand throughout his speech. His mannerwas at times defiant, but his language was restrained. At no time didhe disclose the pain which his rupture with the administration costhim, except in his closing words. What he had to expect from thefriends of the administration was immediately manifest. Senator Biglerof Pennsylvania sprang to the defense of the President. In anirritating tone he intimated that Douglas himself had changed hisposition on the question of submission, alluding to certain privateconferences at Douglas's house; but as though bound by a pledge ofsecrecy, Bigler refrained from making the charge in so many words. Douglas, thoroughly aroused, at once absolved, him from any pledges, and demanded to know when they had agreed not to submit theconstitution to the people. The reply of Bigler was still allusive andevasive. "Does he mean to say, " insisted Douglas excitedly, "that Iever was, privately or publicly, in my own house or any other, infavor of a constitution without its being submitted to the people?" "Ihave made no such allegation, " was the reply. "You have allowed it tobe inferred, " exclaimed Douglas in exasperated tones. [640] And thenGreen reminded him, that in his famous report of January 4, 1854, hehad proposed to leave the slavery question to the decision of thepeople "by their appropriate representatives chosen by them for thatpurpose, " with no suggestion of a second, popular vote. Truly, hismost insidious foes were now those of his own political household. 

Anti-slavery men welcomed this revolt of Douglas without crediting himwith any but self-seeking motives. They could not bring themselves tobelieve other than ill of the man who had advocated the repeal of theMissouri Compromise. Republicans accepted his aid in their struggleagainst the Lecompton fraud, but for the most part continued to regardhim with distrust. Indeed, Douglas made no effort to placate them. Heprofessed to care nothing for the cause of the slave which was nearesttheir hearts. Hostile critics, then, were quick to point out theprobable motives from which he acted. His senatorial term was drawingto a close. He was of course desirous of a re-election. But hisnominee for governor had been defeated at the last election, and theState had been only with difficulty carried for the nationalcandidates of the party. The lesson was plain: the people of Illinoisdid not approve the Kansas policy of Senator Douglas. Hence theweathercock obeyed the wind. 

In all this there was a modicum of truth. Douglas would not have beenthe power that he was, had he not kept in touch with his constituency. But a sense of honor, a desire for consistency, and an abiding faithin the justice of his great principle, impelled him in the samedirection. These were thoroughly honorable motives, even if heprofessed an indifference as to the fate of the negro. He had pledgedhis word of honor to his constituents that the people of Kansas shouldhave a fair chance to pronounce upon their constitution. Nothing shortof this would have been consistent with popular sovereignty as he hadexpounded it again and again. And Douglas was personally a man ofhonor. Yet when all has been said, one cannot but regret that thesense of fair play, which was strong in him, did not assert itself inthe early stages of the Kansas conflict and smother that lawyer'sinstinct to defend, a client by the technicalities of the law. Couldhe only have sought absolute justice for the people of Kansas in thewinter of 1856, the purity of his motives would not have beenquestioned in the winter of 1858. 

Even those colleagues of Douglas who doubted his motives, could notbut admire his courage. It did, indeed, require something more thanaudacity to head a revolt against the administration. No man knewbetter the thorny road that he must now travel. No man loved his partymore. No man knew better the hazard to the Union that must follow arupture in the Democratic party. But if Douglas nursed the hope thatDemocratic senators would follow his lead, he was sadly disappointed. Three only came to his support--Broderick of California, Pugh of Ohio, and Stuart of Michigan, --while the lists of the administration werefull. Green, Bigler, Fitch, in turn were set upon him. 

Douglas bitterly resented any attempt to read him out of the party bymaking the Lecompton constitution the touchstone of genuine Democracy;yet each day made it clearer that the administration had just that endin view. Douglas complained of a tyranny not consistent with freeDemocratic action. One might differ with the President on everysubject but Kansas, without incurring suspicion. Every pensionedletter writer, he complained, had been intimating for the last twoweeks that he had deserted the Democratic party and gone over to theBlack Republicans. He demanded to know who authorized thesetales. [641] Senator Fitch warned him solemnly that the Democraticparty was the only political link in the chain which now bound theStates together. "None . . . Will hold that man guiltless, who abandonsit upon a question having in it so little of practical importance . . . And by seeking its destruction, thereby admits his not unwillingnessthat a similar fate should be visited on the Union, perhaps, tosubserve his selfish purpose. "[642] These attacks roused Douglas tovehement defiance. More emphatically than ever, he declared theLecompton constitution "a trick, a fraud upon the rights of thepeople. "

If Douglas misjudged the temper of his colleagues, he at least gaugedcorrectly the drift of public sentiment in Illinois and the Northwest. Of fifty-six Democratic newspapers in Illinois, but one ventured tocondone the Lecompton fraud. [643] Mass meetings in various cities ofthe Northwest expressed confidence in the course of Senator Douglas. 

He now occupied a unique position at the capital. Visitors were quiteas eager to see the man who had headed the revolt as to greet thechief executive. [644] His residence, where Mrs. Douglas dispensed agracious hospitality, was fairly besieged with callers. [645]Washington society was never gayer than during this memorablewinter. [646] None entertained more lavishly than Senator and Mrs. Douglas. Whatever unpopularity he incurred at the Capitol, she morethan offset by her charming and gracious personality. Acknowledged asthe reigning queen of the circle in which she moved, Mrs. Douglasdisplayed a social initiative that seconded admirably the independent, self-reliant attitude of her husband. When Adèle Cutts Douglas choseto close the shutters of her house at noon, and hold a reception byartificial light every Saturday afternoon, society followed her lead. There were no more brilliant affairs in Washington than theseafternoon receptions and hops at the Douglas residence in MinnesotaBlock. [647] In contrast to these functions dominated by a thoroughlycharming personality, the formal precision of the receptions at theWhite House was somewhat chilling and forbidding. President Buchanan, bachelor, with his handsome but somewhat self-contained niece, was notequal to this social rivalry. [648] Moreover, the cares of officepermitted the perplexed, wearied, and timid executive no respite dayor night. 

Events in Kansas gave heart to those who were fighting Lecomptonism. At the election appointed by the convention, the "constitution withslavery" was adopted by a large majority, the free-State peoplerefusing to vote; but the legislature, now in the control of thefree-State party, had already provided for a fair vote on the wholeconstitution. On this second vote the majority was overwhelminglyagainst the constitution. Information from various sourcescorroborated the deductions which unprejudiced observers drew from thevoting. It was as clear as day that the people of Kansas did notregard the Lecompton constitution as a fair expression of theirwill. [649]

Ignoring the light which made the path of duty plain, PresidentBuchanan sent the Lecompton constitution to Congress with a messagerecommending the admission of Kansas. [650] To his mind, the Lecomptonconvention was legally constituted and had exercised its powersfaithfully. The organic act did not bind the convention to submit tothe people more than the question of slavery. Meantime the SupremeCourt had handed down its famous decision in the Dred Scott case. Fortified by this dictum, the President told Congress that slaveryexisted in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. "Kansas is, at this moment, as much a slave State as Georgia or SouthCarolina"! Slavery, then, could be prohibited only by constitutionalprovision; and those who desired to do away with slavery would mostspeedily compass their ends, if they admitted Kansas at once underthis constitution. 

The President's message with the Lecompton constitution was referredto the Committee on Territories and gave rise to three reports:Senator Green of Missouri presented the majority report, recommendingthe admission of Kansas under this constitution; Senators Collamer andWade united on a minority report, leaving Douglas to draft anotherexpressing his dissent on other grounds. [651] Taken all in all, thismust be regarded as the most satisfactory and convincing of allDouglas's committee reports. It is strong because it is permeated bya desire for justice, and reinforced at every point by a consummatemarshalling of evidence. Barely in his career had his conspicuousqualities as a special pleader been put so unreservedly at the serviceof simple justice. He planted himself firmly, at the outset, upon theincontrovertible fact that there was no satisfactory evidence that theLecompton constitution was the act and deed of the people ofKansas. [652]

It had been argued that, because the Lecompton convention had beenduly constituted, with full power to ordain a constitution andestablish a government, consequently the proceedings of the conventionmust be presumed to embody the popular will. Douglas immediatelychallenged this assumption. The convention had no more power than theterritorial legislature could confer. By no fair construction of theKansas-Nebraska Act could it be assumed that the people of theTerritory were authorized, "at their own will and pleasure, to resolvethemselves into a sovereign power, and to abrogate and annul theorganic act and territorial government established by Congress, and toordain a constitution and State government upon their ruins, withoutthe consent of Congress. " Surely, then, a convention which theterritorial legislature called into being could not abrogate or impairthe authority of that territorial government established by Congress. Hence, he concluded, the Lecompton constitution, formed without theconsent of Congress, must be considered as a memorial or petition, which Congress may accept or reject. The convention was the creatureof the territorial legislature. "Such being the case, whenever thelegislature ascertained that the convention whose existence dependedupon its will, had devised a scheme to force a constitution upon thepeople without their consent, and without any authority from Congress, . . . It became their imperative duty to interpose and exert theauthority conferred upon them by Congress in the organic act, andarrest and prevent the consummation of the scheme before it had goneinto operation. "[653] This was an unanswerable argument. 

In the prolonged debate upon the admission of Kansas, Douglas tookpart only as some taunt or challenge brought him to his feet. Whilethe bill for the admission of Minnesota, also reported by theCommittee on Territories, was under fire, Senator Brown of Mississippielicited from Douglas the significant concession, that he did not deeman enabling act absolutely essential, so long as the constitutionclearly embodied the will of the people. Neither did he think asubmission of the constitution always essential; it was, however, afair way of ascertaining the popular will, when that will wasdisputed. " Satisfy me that the constitution adopted by the people ofMinnesota is their will, and I am prepared to adopt it. Satisfy methat the constitution adopted, or said to be adopted, by the people ofKansas, is their will, and I am prepared to take it. . . . I will neverapply one rule to a free State and another to a slave-holdingState. "[654] Nevertheless, even his Democratic colleagues continued tobelieve that slavery had something to do with his opposition. In theclassic phraseology of Toombs, "there was a 'nigger' in it. "

The opposition of Douglas began to cause no little uneasiness. Brownpaid tribute to his influence, when he declared that if the Senatorfrom Illinois had stood with the administration, "there would not havebeen a ripple on the surface. " "Sir, the Senator from Illinois giveslife, he gives vitality, he gives energy, he lends the aid of hismighty genius and his powerful will to the Opposition on thisquestion. "[655] But Douglas paid a fearful price for this power. Everypossible ounce of pressure was brought to bear upon him. The partypress was set upon him. His friends were turned out of office. Thewhole executive patronage was wielded mercilessly against hispolitical following. The Washington _Union_ held him up to execrationas a traitor, renegade, and deserter. [656] "We cannot affectindifference at the treachery of Senator Douglas, " said a Richmondpaper. "He was a politician of considerable promise. Association withSouthern gentlemen had smoothed down the rugged vulgarities of hisearly education, and he had come to be quite a decent and well-behavedperson. "[657] To political denunciation was now to be added the stingof mean and contemptible personalities. 

Small wonder that even the vigorous health of "the Little Giant"succumbed to these assaults. For a fortnight he was confined to hisbed, rising only by sheer force of will to make a final plea forsanity, before his party took its suicidal plunge. He spoke on the 22dof March under exceptional conditions. In the expectation that hewould speak in the forenoon, people thronged the galleries at anearly hour, and refused to give up their seats, even when it wasannounced that the Senator from Illinois would not address the Senateuntil seven o 'clock in the evening. When the hour came, crowds stillheld possession of the galleries, so that not even standing room wasavailable. The door-keepers wrestled in vain with an impatient throngwithout, until by motion of Senator Gwin, ladies were admitted to thefloor of the chamber. Even then, Douglas was obliged to pause severaltimes, for the confusion around the doors to subside. [658] He spokewith manifest difficulty, but he was more defiant than ever. Hisspeech was at once a protest and a personal vindication. Denial of theright of the administration to force the Lecompton constitution uponthe people of Kansas, went hand in hand with a defense of his ownDemocracy. Sentences culled here and there suggest not unfairly thestinging rebukes and defiant challenges that accentuated the none toocoherent course of his speech:

 "I am told that this Lecompton constitution is a party test, a party measure; that no man is a Democrat who does not sanction it . . . Sir, who made it a party test? Who made it a party measure?. . . Who has interpolated this Lecompton constitution into the party platform?. . . Oh! but we are told it is an Administration measure. Because it is an Administration measure, does it therefore follow that it is a party measure?" . . . "I do not recognize the right of the President or his Cabinet . . . To tell me my duty in the Senate Chamber. " "Am I to be told that I must obey the Executive and betray my State, or else be branded as a traitor to the party, and hunted down by all the newspapers that share the patronage of the government, and every man who holds a petty office in any part of my State to have the question put to him, 'Are you Douglas's enemy? if not, your head comes off. '" "I intend to perform my duty in accordance with my own convictions. Neither the frowns of power nor the influence of patronage will change my action, or drive me from my principles. I stand firmly, immovably upon those great principles of self-government and state sovereignty upon which the campaign was fought and the election won. . . . If, standing firmly by my principles, I shall be driven into private life, it is a fate that has no terrors for me. I prefer private life, preserving my own self-respect and manhood, to abject and servile submission to executive will. If the alternative be private life or servile obedience to executive will, I am prepared to retire. Official position has no charms for me when deprived of that freedom of thought and action which becomes a gentleman and a senator. '"[659]

On the following day, the Senate passed the bill for the admission ofKansas under the Lecompton constitution, having rejected the amendmentof Crittenden to submit that constitution to a vote of the people ofKansas. A similar amendment, however, was carried in the House. Asneither chamber would recede from its position, a conference committeewas appointed to break the deadlock. [660] It was from this committee, controlled by Lecomptonites, that the famous English bill emanated. Stated briefly, the substance of this compromise measure--for such itwas intended to be--was as follows: Congress was to offer to Kansas aconditional grant of public lands; if this land ordinance should beaccepted by a popular vote, Kansas was to be admitted to the Unionwith the Lecompton constitution by proclamation of the President; ifit should be rejected, Kansas was not to be admitted until theTerritory had a population equal to the unit of representationrequired for the House of Representatives. 

Taken all in all, the bill was as great a concession as could beexpected from the administration. Not all were willing to say that thebill provided for a vote on the constitution, but Northern adherentscould point to the vote on the land ordinance as an indirect vote uponthe constitution. It is not quite true to say that the land grant wasa bribe to the voters of Kansas. As a matter of fact, the amount ofland granted was only equal to that usually offered to theTerritories, and it was considerably less than the area specified inthe Lecompton constitution. Moreover, even if the land ordinance weredefeated in order to reject the constitution, the Territory was prettysure to secure as large a grant at some future time. It was rather inthe alternative held out, that the English bill was unsatisfactory tothose who loved fair play. Still, under the bill, the people ofKansas, by an act of self-denial, could defeat the Lecomptonconstitution. To that extent, the supporters of the administrationyielded to the importunities of the champion of popular sovereignty. 

Under these circumstances it would not be strange if Douglas"wavered. "[661] Here was an opportunity to close the rift betweenhimself and the administration, to heal party dissensions, perhaps tosave the integrity of the Democratic party and the Union. And theprice which he would have to pay was small. He could assume, plausiblyenough, --as he had done many times before in his career, --that thebill granted all that he had ever asked. He was morally sure that thepeople of Kansas would reject the land grant to rid themselves of theLecompton fraud. Why hesitate then as to means, when the desired endwas in clear view?

Douglas found himself subjected to a new pressure, harder even toresist than any he had yet felt. Some of his staunch supporters in theanti-Lecompton struggle went over to the administration, coveringtheir retreat by just such excuses as have been suggested. Was hewiser and more conscientious than they? A refusal to accept theproffered olive branch now meant, --he knew it well, --theirreconcilable enmity of the Buchanan faction. And he was not asked torecant, but only to accept what he had always deemed the very essenceof statesmanship, a compromise. His Republican allies promptly evincedtheir distrust. They fully expected him to join his former associates. From them he could expect no sympathy in such a dilemma. [662] Hispolitical ambitions, no doubt, added to his perplexity. They werebound up in the fate of the party, the integrity of which was nowmenaced by his revolt. On the other hand, he was fully conscious thathis Illinois constituency approved of his opposition to Lecomptonismand would regard a retreat across this improvised political bridge asboth inglorious and treacherous. Agitated by conflicting emotions, Douglas made a decision which probably cost him more anguish than anyhe ever made; and when all has been said to the contrary, love of fairplay would seem to have been his governing motive. [663]

When Douglas rose to address the Senate on the English bill, April29th, he betrayed some of the emotion under which he had made hisdecision. He confessed an "anxious desire" to find such provisions aswould permit him to support the bill; but he was painfully forced todeclare that he could not find the principle for which he hadcontended, fairly carried out. He was unable to reconcile popularsovereignty with the proposed intervention of Congress in the Englishbill. "It is intervention with inducements to control the result. Itis intervention with a bounty on the one side and a penalty on theother. "[664] He frankly admitted that he did not believe there wasenough in the bounty nor enough in the penalty to influence materiallythe vote of the people of Kansas; but it involved "the principle offreedom of election and--the great principle of self-government uponwhich our institutions rest. " And upon this principle he took hisstand. "With all the anxiety that I have had, " said he with deepfeeling, "to be able to arrive at a conclusion in harmony with theoverwhelming majority of my political friends in Congress, I could notbring my judgment or conscience to the conclusion that this was afair, impartial, and equal application of the principle. "[665]

As though to make reconciliation with the administration impossible, Douglas went on to express his distrust of the provision of the billfor a board of supervisors of elections. Instead of a board of four, two of whom should represent the Territory and two the Federalgovernment, as the Crittenden bill had provided, five were toconstitute the board, of whom three were to be United Statesofficials. "Does not this change, " asked Douglas significantly, "giveground for apprehension that you may have the Oxford, the Shawnee, andthe Delaware Crossing and Kickapoo frauds re-enacted at thiselection?"[666] The most suspicions Republican could hardly have dealtan unkinder thrust. 

There could be no manner of doubt as to the outcome of the Englishbill in the Senate. Douglas, Stuart, and Broderick were the onlyDemocrats to oppose its passage, Pugh having joined the majority. Thebill passed the House also, nine of Douglas's associates in theanti-Lecompton fight going over to the administration. [667] Douglasaccepted this defection with philosophic equanimity, indulging in novindictive feelings. [668] Had he not himself felt misgivings as to hisown course?

By midsummer the people of Kansas had recorded nearly ten thousandvotes against the land ordinance and the Lecompton constitution. Theadministration had failed to make Kansas a slave State. Yet theSupreme Court had countenanced the view that Kansas was legally aslave Territory. What, then, became of the great fundamental principleof popular sovereignty? This was the question which Douglas was nowcalled upon to answer. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 621: Report of the Covode Committee, pp. 105-106; Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, p. 111; Speech of Douglas atMilwaukee, Wis. , October 14, 1860, Chicago _Times and Herald_, October17, 1860. ]

[Footnote 622: Spring, Kansas, p. 213; Rhodes, History of the UnitedStates, II, p. 274. ]

[Footnote 623: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 277-278. ]

[Footnote 624: _Ibid. _, pp. 278-279; Spring, Kansas, p. 223. ]

[Footnote 625: See Article VII, of the Kansas constitution, SenateReports, No. 82, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. ]

[Footnote 626: Schedule Section 14. ]

[Footnote 627: Covode Report, p. 111. ]

[Footnote 628: Chicago _Times_, November 19, 1857. ]

[Footnote 629: Chicago _Times_, November 20 and 21, 1857. ]

[Footnote 630: Speech at Milwaukee, October 14, 1860, Chicago _Timesand Herald_, October 17, 1860. ]

[Footnote 631: New York _Tribune_, December 3, 1857. ]

[Footnote 632: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 5. ]

[Footnote 633: Chicago _Times_, December 19, 1857. ]

[Footnote 634: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 17. ]

[Footnote 635: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 17-18. ]

[Footnote 636: "I spoke rapidly, without preparation, " he afterwardsaid. _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 47. ]

[Footnote 637: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 18. ]

[Footnote 638: New York _Tribune_, December 9, 1857. ]

[Footnote 639: New York _Tribune_, December 10, 1857. ]

[Footnote 640: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 21-22. ]

[Footnote 641: _Globe_, 5 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 120. ]

[Footnote 642: _Ibid. _, p. 137. ]

[Footnote 643: Chicago _Times_, December 24, 1857. ]

[Footnote 644: _Ibid. _, December 23, 1857. ]

[Footnote 645: Correspondent to Cleveland _Plaindealer_, quoted inChicago _Times_, January 29, 1858. ]

[Footnote 646: Mrs. Jefferson Davis to Mrs. Pierce, MS. Letter, April4, 1858. ]

[Footnote 647: Mrs. Roger Pryor, Reminiscences of Peace and War, pp. 69-70. ]

[Footnote 648: _Ibid. _, Chapter 4. ]

[Footnote 649: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 289. ]

[Footnote 650: Message of February 2, 1858. ]

[Footnote 651: Senate Report No. 82, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , February 18, 1858. ]

[Footnote 652: Minority Report, p. 52. ]

[Footnote 653: Minority Report, p. 64. ]

[Footnote 654: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 502. ]

[Footnote 655: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 572-573. ]

[Footnote 656: Washington _Union_, February 26, 1858. ]

[Footnote 657: Richmond _South_, quoted in Chicago _Times_, December18, 1857. ]

[Footnote 658: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 328; _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 193-194. ]

[Footnote 659: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , pp. 194-201, _passim. _]

[Footnote 660: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 297-299. ]

[Footnote 661: Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II, p. 563. ]

[Footnote 662: Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II, pp. 566-567. ]

[Footnote 663: This cannot, of course, be demonstrated, but it accordswith his subsequent conduct. ]

[Footnote 664: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1869. ]

[Footnote 665: _Ibid. _, p. 1870. ]

[Footnote 666: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 1870. ]

[Footnote 667: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 300. ]

[Footnote 668: Cox, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, p. 58. ]

CHAPTER XVI

THE JOINT DEBATES WITH LINCOLN

National politics made strange bed-fellows in the winter of 1857-8. Douglas consorting with Republicans and flouting the administration, was a rare spectacle. There was a moment in this odd alliance when itseemed likely to become more than a temporary fusion of interests. Theneed of concerted action brought about frequent conferences, in whichthe distrust of men like Wilson and Colfax was, in a measure, dispelled by the engaging frankness of their quondam opponent. [669]Douglas intimated that in all probability he could not act with hisparty in future. [670] He assured Wilson that he was in the fight tostay--in his own words, "he had checked his baggage and taken athrough ticket. "[671] There was an odd disposition, too, on the partof some Republicans to indorse popular sovereignty, now that it seemedlikely to exclude slavery from the Territories. [672] There was even arumor afloat that the editor of the New York _Tribune_ favored Douglasfor the presidency. [673] On at least two occasions, Greeley was inconference with Senator Douglas at the latter's residence. To thegossiping public this was evidence enough that the rumor was correct. And it may well be that Douglas dallied with the hope that a greatConstitutional Union party might be formed. [674] But he could hardlyhave received much encouragement from the Republicans, with whom hewas consorting, for so far from losing their political identity, theycalculated upon bringing him eventually within the Republicanfold. [675]

A Constitutional Union party, embracing Northern and SouthernUnionists of Whig or Democratic antecedents, might have supplied thegap left by the old Whig party. That such a party would have exerciseda profound nationalizing influence can scarcely be doubted. Eventsmight have put Douglas at the head of such a party. But, in truth, such an outcome of the political chaos which then reigned, was aremote possibility. 

The matter of immediate concern to Douglas was the probable attitudeof his allies toward his re-election to the Senate. There was a widedivergence among Republican leaders; but active politicians likeGreeley and Wilson, who were not above fighting the devil with his ownweapons, counselled their Illinois brethren not to oppose hisreturn. [676] There was no surer way to disrupt the Democratic party. In spite of these admonitions, the Republicans of Illinois were bentupon defeating Douglas. He had been too uncompromising and bitter anopponent of Trumbull and other "Black Republicans" to win theirconfidence by a few months of conflict against Lecomptonism. "I seehis tracks all over our State, " wrote the editor of the Chicago_Tribune_, "they point only in one direction; not a single toe isturned toward the Republican camp. Watch him, use him, but do nottrust him--not an inch. "[677] Moreover, a little coterie ofSpringfield politicians had a candidate of their own for United Statessenator in the person of Abraham Lincoln. [678]

The action of the Democratic State convention in April closed the doorto any reconciliation with the Buchanan administration. Douglasreceived an unqualified indorsement. The Cincinnati platform wasdeclared to be "the only authoritative exposition of Democraticdoctrine. " No power on earth except a similar national convention hada right "to change or interpolate that platform, or to prescribe newor different tests. " By sound party doctrine the Lecomptonconstitution ought to be "submitted to the direct vote of the actualinhabitants of Kansas at a fair election. "[679] Could any words havebeen more explicit? The administration responded by a mercilessproscription of Douglas office-holders and by unremitting efforts tocreate an opposition ticket. Under pressure from Washington, conventions were held to nominate candidates for the various Stateoffices, with the undisguised purpose of dividing the Democratic votefor senator. [680]

On the 16th of June, the Republicans of Illinois threw advice to thewinds and adopted the unusual course of naming Lincoln as "the firstand only choice of the Republicans of Illinois for the United StatesSenate. " It was an act of immense political significance. Not only didit put in jeopardy the political life of Douglas, but it ended for alltime to come any coalition between his following and the Republicanparty. 

The subsequent fame of Lincoln has irradiated every phase of his earlycareer. To his contemporaries in the year 1858, he was a lawyer ofrecognized ability, an astute politician, and a frank aspirant fornational honors. Those who imagine him to have been an unambitioussoul, upon whom honors were thrust, fail to understand the Lincolnwhom Herndon, his partner, knew. Lincoln was a seasoned politician. Hehad been identified with the old Whig organization; he had repeatedlyrepresented the Springfield district in the State legislature; and hehad served one term without distinction in Congress. Upon the passageof the Kansas-Nebraska Act he had taken an active part in fusing theopposing elements into the Republican party. His services to the newparty made him a candidate for the senatorship in 1855, and receivedrecognition in the national Republican convention of 1856, when he wassecond on the list of those for whom the convention balloted forVice-president. He was not unknown to Republicans of the Northwest, though he was not in any sense a national figure. Few men had a keenerinsight into political conditions in Illinois. None knew better theins and outs of political campaigning in Illinois. 

Withal, Lincoln was rated as a man of integrity. He had strongconvictions and the courage of his convictions. His generous instinctsmade him hate slavery, while his antecedents prevented him from lovingthe negro. His anti-slavery sentiments were held strongly in check byhis sound sense of justice. He had the temperament of a humanitarianwith the intellect of a lawyer. While not combative by nature, hepossessed the characteristic American trait of measuring himself bythe attainments of others. He was solicitous to match himself withother men so as to prove himself at least their peer. Possessed of acause that enlisted the service of his heart as well as his head, Lincoln was a strong advocate at the bar and a formidable opponent onthe stump. Douglas bore true witness to Lincoln's powers when he said, on hearing of his nomination, "I shall have my hands full. He is thestrong man of his party--full of wit, facts, dates--and the best stumpspeaker, with his droll ways and dry jokes, in the West. He is ashonest as he is shrewd; and if I beat him, my victory will be hardlywon. "[681]

The nomination of Lincoln was so little a matter of surprise to himand his friends, that at the close of the convention he was able toaddress the delegates in a carefully prepared speech. Wishing to sounda dominant note for the campaign, he began with these memorable words:

"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, wecould better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far intothe fifth year, since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Underthe operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, untila crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided againstitself cannot stand. ' I believe this government cannot endurepermanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to bedissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it willcease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it isin the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push itforward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old aswell as new--North as well as South. "[682]

All evidence, continued Lincoln, pointed to a design to make slaverynational. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, the popular indorsement ofBuchanan, and the Dred Scott decision, were so many parts of a plot. Only one part was lacking; _viz. _ another decision declaring itunconstitutional for a State to exclude slavery. Then the fabric wouldbe complete for which Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James had eachwrought his separate piece with artful cunning. It was impossible notto believe that these Democratic leaders had labored in concert. Tothose who had urged that Douglas should be supported, Lincoln had onlythis to say: Douglas could not oppose the advance of slavery, for hedid not care whether slavery was voted up or down. His avowed purposewas to make the people care nothing about slavery. The Republicancause must not be intrusted to its adventitious allies, but to itsundoubted friends. 

A welcome that was truly royal awaited Douglas in Chicago. On his waythither, he was met by a delegation which took him a willing captiveand conducted him on a special train to his destination. Along theroute there was every sign of popular enthusiasm. He entered the cityamid the booming of cannon; he was conveyed to his hotel in acarriage drawn by six horses, under military escort; banners withflattering inscriptions fluttered above his head; from balconies andwindows he heard the shouts of thousands. [683]

Even more flattering if possible was the immense crowd that throngedaround the Tremont House in the early evening to hear his promisedspeech. Not only the area in front of the hotel, but the adjoiningstreets were crowded. Illuminations and fireworks cast a lurid lighton the faces which were upturned to greet the "Defender of PopularSovereignty, " as he appeared upon the balcony. A man of far lessvanity would have been moved by the scene. Just behind the speaker butwithin the house, Lincoln was an attentive listener. [684] The presenceof his rival put Douglas on his mettle. He took in good part a ratherdiscourteous interruption by Lincoln, and referred to him in generousterms, as "a kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen, and an honorable opponent. "[685]

The address was in a somewhat egotistical vein--pardonably egotistical, considering the extraordinary circumstances. Douglas could not refrainfrom referring to his career since he had confronted that excited crowdin Chicago eight years before, in defense of the compromise measures. To his mind the events of those eight years had amply vindicated thegreat principle of popular sovereignty. Knowing that he was in aRepublican stronghold, he dwelt with particular complacency upon themanful way in which the Republican party had come to the support ofthat principle, in the recent anti-Lecompton fight. It was thisfundamental right of self-government that he had championed throughgood and ill report, all these years. It was this, and this alone, which had governed his action in regard to the Lecompton fraud. It wasnot because the Lecompton constitution was a slave constitution, butbecause it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas that he hadcondemned it. "Whenever, " said he, "you put a limitation upon the rightof a people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed thefundamental principle of self-government. "

With Lincoln's house-divided-against-itself proposition, he took issueunqualifiedly. "Mr. Lincoln asserts, as a fundamental principle ofthis government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws anddomestic institutions of each and all the States of the Union, and hetherefore invites all the non-slaveholding States to band together, organize as one body, and make war upon slavery in Kentucky, uponslavery in Virginia, upon slavery in the Carolinas, upon slavery inall of the slave-holding States in this Union, and to persevere inthat war until it shall be exterminated. He then notifies theslave-holding States to stand together as a unit and make anaggressive war upon the free States of this Union with a view ofestablishing slavery in them all; of forcing it upon Illinois, offorcing it upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other freeState, and that they shall keep up the warfare until it has beenformally established in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincolnadvocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the Northagainst the South, of the free States against the slave States--a warof extermination--to be continued relentlessly until the one or theother shall be subdued, and all the States shall either become free orbecome slave. "[686]

But such uniformity in local institutions would be possible only byblotting out State Sovereignty, by merging all the States in oneconsolidated empire, and by vesting Congress with plenary power tomake all the police regulations, domestic and local laws, uniformthroughout the Republic. The framers of our government knew wellenough that differences in soil, in products, and in interests, required different local and domestic regulations in each locality;and they organized the Federal government on this fundamentalassumption. [687]

With Lincoln's other proposition Douglas also took issue. He refusedto enter upon any crusade against the Supreme Court. "I do not choose, therefore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing thevarious decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon theDred Scott case, or any other. I have no idea of appealing from thedecision of the Supreme Court upon a constitutional question to thedecision of a tumultuous town meeting. "[688]

Neither could Douglas agree with his opponent in objecting to thedecision of the Supreme Court because it deprived the negro of therights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship, which pertainedonly to the white race. Our government was founded on a white basis. "It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to beadministered by white men. " To be sure, a negro, an Indian, or anyother man of inferior race should be permitted to enjoy all therights, privileges, and immunities consistent with the safety ofsociety; but each State should decide for itself the nature and extentof these rights. 

On the next evening, Republican Chicago greeted its protagonist withmuch the same demonstrations, as he took his place on the balcony fromwhich Douglas had spoken. Lincoln found the flaw in Douglas's armor atthe outset. "Popular sovereignty! Everlasting popular sovereignty!What is popular sovereignty"? How could there be such a thing in theoriginal sense, now that the Supreme Court had decided that the peoplein their territorial status might not prohibit slavery? And as for theright of the people to frame a constitution, who had ever disputedthat right? But Lincoln, evidently troubled by Douglas's vehementdeductions from the house-divided-against-itself proposition, soonfell back upon the defensive, where he was at a great disadvantage. Hewas forced to explain that he did not favor a war by the North uponthe South for the extinction of slavery; nor a war by the South uponthe North for the nationalization of slavery. "I only said what Iexpected would take place. I made a prediction only, --it may have beena foolish one, perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that slaveryshould be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do say so now, however. "[689] He _believed_ that slavery had endured, because untilthe Nebraska Act the public mind had rested in the conviction thatslavery would ultimately disappear. In affirming that the opponents ofslavery would arrest its further extension, he only meant to say thatthey would put it where the fathers originally placed it. He was notin favor of interfering with slavery where it existed in the States. As to the charge that he was inviting people to resist the Dred Scottdecision, Lincoln responded rather weakly--again laying himself opento attack--"We mean to do what we can to have the court decide theother way. "[690]

Lincoln also betrayed his fear lest Douglas should draw Republicanvotes. Knowing the strong anti-slavery sentiment of the region, heasked when Douglas had shown anything but indifference on the subjectof slavery. Away with this quibbling about inferior races! "Let usdiscard all these things and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are createdequal. "[691]

From Chicago Douglas journeyed like a conquering hero to Bloomington. At every station crowds gathered to see his gaily decorated train andto catch a glimpse of the famous senator. A platform car bearing atwelve-pound gun was attached to the train and everywhere "popularsovereignty, " as the cannon was dubbed, heralded his arrival. [692] Onthe evening of July 16th he addressed a large gathering in the openair; and again he had among his auditors, Abraham Lincoln, who was hotupon his trail. [693] The county and district in which Bloomington wassituated had once been strongly Whig; but was now as stronglyRepublican. With the local conditions in mind, Douglas made an artfulplea for support. He gratefully acknowledged the aid of theRepublicans in the recent anti-Lecompton fight, and of that worthysuccessor of the immortal Clay, John J. Crittenden of Kentucky. Afterall, was it not a common principle for which they had been contending?"My friends, " said Douglas with engaging ingenuousness, "when I ambattling for a great principle, I want aid and support from whateverquarter I can get it. " Pity, then, that Republican politicians, inorder to defeat him, should form an alliance with Lecompton men andthus betray the cause![694]

Douglas called attention to Lincoln's explanation of hishouse-divided-against-itself argument. It still seemed to him toinvite a war of sections. Mr. Lincoln had said that he had no wish tosee the people _enter into_ the Southern States and interfere withslavery: for his part, he was equally opposed to a sectional agitationto control the institutions of other States. [695] Again, Mr. Lincolnhad said that he proposed, so far as in him lay, to secure a reversalof the Dred Scott decision. How, asked Douglas, will he accomplishthis? There can be but one way: elect a Republican President who willpack the bench with Republican justices. Would a court so constitutedcommand respect?[696]

As to the effect of the Dred Scott decision upon slavery in theTerritories, Douglas had only this to say: "With or without thatdecision, slavery will go just where the people want it, and not oneinch further. " "Hence, if the people of a Territory want slavery, theywill encourage it by passing affirmatory laws, and the necessarypolice regulations, patrol laws, and slave code; if they do not wantit they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slaveryis as dead as if it was prohibited by a constitutional prohibition, especially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as itwould be if they were opposed to it. They could pass such local lawsand police regulations as would drive slavery out in one day, or onehour, if they were opposed to it, and therefore, so far as thequestion of slavery in the Territories is concerned, so far as theprinciple of popular sovereignty is concerned, in its practicaloperation, it matters not how the Dred Scott case may be decided withreference to the Territories. "[697]

The closing words of the speech approached dangerously near to bathos. Douglas pictured himself standing beside the deathbed of Clay andpledging his life to the advocacy of the great principle expressed inthe compromise measures of 1850, and later in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Strangely enough he had given the same pledge to "the god-likeWebster. "[698] This filial reverence for Clay and Webster, whomDouglas had fought with all the weapons of partisan warfare, must havepuzzled those Whigs in his audience who were guileless enough toaccept such statements at their face value. 

Devoted partisans accompanied Douglas to Springfield, on the followingday. In spite of the frequent downpours of rain and the sultryatmosphere, their enthusiasm never once flagged. On board the sametrain, surrounded by good-natured enemies, was Lincoln, who was alsoto speak at the capital. [699] Douglas again found a crowd awaitinghim. He had much the same things to say. Perhaps his arraignment ofLincoln's policy was somewhat more severe, but he turned the edges ofhis thrusts by a courteous reference to his opponent, "with whom heanticipated no personal collision. " For the first time he alluded toLincoln's charge of conspiracy, but only to remark casually, "If Mr. Lincoln deems me a conspirator of that kind, all I have to say is thatI do not think so badly of the President of the United States, and theSupreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal onearth, as to believe that they were capable in their actions anddecision of entering into political intrigues for partisanpurposes. "[700]

Meantime Lincoln, addressing a Republican audience, was relating hisrecent experiences in the enemy's camp. Believing that he haddiscovered the line of attack, he sought to fortify his position. Hedid not contemplate the abolition of State legislatures, nor any suchradical policy, any more than the fathers of the Republic did, whenthey sought to check the spread of slavery by prohibiting it in theTerritories. [701] He did not propose to resist the Dred Scott decisionexcept as a rule of political action. [702] Here in Sangamon County, hewas somewhat less insistent upon negro equality. The negro was not theequal of the white man in all respects, to be sure; "still, in theright to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. "[703]

As matters stood, Douglas had the advantage of Lincoln, since with hisnational prominence and his great popularity, he was always sure ofan audience, and could reply as he chose to the attacks of hisantagonist. Lincoln felt that he must come to close terms with Douglasand extort from him admissions which would discredit him withRepublicans. With this end in view, Lincoln suggested that they"divide time, and address the same audiences the presentcanvass. "[704] It was obviously to Douglas's interest to continue thecampaign as he had begun. He had already mapped out an extensiveitinerary. He therefore replied that he could not agree to such anarrangement, owing to appointments already made and to the possibilityof a third candidate with whom Lincoln might make common cause. Heintimated, rather unfairly, that Lincoln had purposely waited until hewas already bound by his appointments. However, he would accede to theproposal so far as to meet Lincoln in a joint discussion in eachcongressional district except the second and sixth, in which both hadalready spoken. [705]

It was not such a letter as one would expect from a generous opponent. But politics was no pastime to the writer. He was sparring now indeadly earnest, for every advantage. Not unnaturally Lincoln resentedthe imputation of unfairness; but he agreed to the proposal of sevenjoint debates. Douglas then named the times and places; and Lincolnagreed to the terms, rather grudgingly, for he would have but threeopenings and closings to Douglas's four. [706] Still, as he hadfollowed Douglas in Chicago, he had no reason to complain. 

The next three months may be regarded as a prolonged debate, accentuated by the seven joint discussions. The rival candidatestraversed much the same territory, and addressed much the sameaudiences on successive days. At times, chance made themfellow-passengers on the same train or steamboat. Douglas had alreadybegun his itinerary, when Lincoln's last note reached him in PiattCounty. [707] He had just spoken at Clinton, in De Witt County, andagain he had found Lincoln in the audience. 

No general ever planned a military campaign with greater regard to thetopography of the enemy's country, than Douglas plotted his campaignin central Illinois. For it was in the central counties that theelection was to be won or lost. The Republican strength lay in theupper, northern third of the State; the Democratic strength, in thesouthern third. The doubtful area lay between Ottawa on the north andBelleville on the south; Oquawka on the northwest and Paris on theeast. Only twice did Douglas make any extended tour outside this area:once to meet his appointment with Lincoln at Freeport; and once toengage in the third joint debate at Jonesboro. 

The first week in August found Douglas speaking at various pointsalong the Illinois River to enthusiastic crowds. Lincoln followedclosely after, bent upon weakening the force of his opponent'sarguments by lodging an immediate demurrer against them. On the whole, Douglas drew the larger crowds; but it was observed that Lincoln'saudiences increased as he proceeded northward. Ottawa was theobjective point for both travelers, for there was to be held the firstjoint debate on August 21st. 

An enormous crowd awaited them. From sunrise to mid-day men, women, and children had poured into town, in every sort of conveyance. It wasa typical midsummer day in Illinois. The prairie roads were thoroughlybaked by the sun, and the dust rose, like a fine powder, from beneaththe feet of horses and pedestrians, enveloping all in blinding clouds. A train of seventeen cars had brought ardent supporters of Douglasfrom Chicago. The town was gaily decked; the booming of cannonresounded across the prairie; bands of music added to the excitementof the occasion. The speakers were escorted to the public square bytwo huge processions. So eager was the crowd that it was with muchdifficulty, and no little delay, that Lincoln and Douglas, thecommittee men, and the reporters, were landed on the platform. [708]

For the first time in the campaign, the rival candidates were placedside by side. The crowd instinctively took its measure of the two men. They presented a striking contrast:[709] Lincoln, tall, angular, andlong of limb; Douglas, short, almost dwarfed by comparison, broad-shouldered and thick-chested. Lincoln was clad in a frock coatof rusty black, which was evidently not made for his lank, ungainlybody. His sleeves did not reach his wrists by several inches, and histrousers failed to conceal his huge feet. His long, sinewy neckemerged from a white collar, drawn over a black tie. Altogether, hisappearance bordered upon the grotesque, and would have provoked mirthin any other than an Illinois audience, which knew and respected theman too well to mark his costume. Douglas, on the contrary, presenteda well-groomed figure. He wore a well-fitting suit of broadcloth; hislinen was immaculate; and altogether he had the appearance of a man ofthe world whom fortune had favored. 

The eyes of the crowd, however, sought rather the faces of the rivalcandidates. Lincoln looked down upon them with eyes in which there wasan expression of sadness, not to say melancholy, until he lost himselfin the passion of his utterance. There was not a regular feature inhis face. The deep furrows that seamed his countenance boreunmistakable witness to a boyhood of grim poverty and grinding toil. Douglas surveyed the crowd from beneath his shaggy brows, with bold, penetrating gaze. Every feature of his face bespoke power. Thedeep-set eyes; the dark, almost sinister, line between them; the mouthwith its tightly-drawn lips; the deep lines on his somewhat puffycheeks--all gave the impression of a masterful nature, accustomed tobear down opposition. As men observed his massive brow with its maneof abundant, dark hair; his strong neck; his short, compact body; theyinstinctively felt that here was a personality not lightly to beencountered. He was "the very embodiment of force, combativeness, andstaying power. "[710]

When Douglas, by agreement, opened the debate, he was fully consciousthat he was addressing an audience which was in the main hostile tohim. With the instinct of a born stump speaker, he sought first tofind common ground with his hearers. Appealing to the history ofparties, he pointed out the practical agreement of both Whig andDemocratic parties on the slavery question down to 1854. It was when, in accordance with the Compromise of 1850, he brought in theKansas-Nebraska bill, that Lincoln and Trumbull entered into anagreement to dissolve the old parties in Illinois and to form anAbolition party under the pseudonym "Republican. " The terms of thealliance were that Lincoln should have Senator Shields' place in theSenate, and that Trumbull should have Douglas's, when his term shouldexpire. [711] History, thus interpreted, made not Douglas, but hisopponent, the real agitator in State politics. 

Douglas then read from the first platform of the Black Republicans. "My object in reading these resolutions, " he said, "was to put thequestion to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and willstand by each article in that creed and carry it out. I desire to knowwhether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of theunconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I desire him to answerwhether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against theadmission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the peoplewant them. I want to know whether he stands pledged against theadmission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution asthe people of that State may see fit to make. I want to know whetherhe stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the Districtof Columbia. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to theprohibition of the slave trade between the different States. I desireto know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all theTerritories of the United States, North as well as South of theMissouri Compromise line. I desire him to answer whether he is opposedto the acquisition of any more territory, unless slavery is prohibitedtherein. "[712]

In all this there was a rude vehemence and coarse insinuation that wasregrettable; yet Douglas sought to soften the asperity of his manner, by adding that he did not mean to be disrespectful or unkind to Mr. Lincoln. He had known Mr. Lincoln for twenty-five years. While he wasa school-teacher, Lincoln was a flourishing grocery-keeper. Lincolnwas always more successful in business; Lincoln always did wellwhatever he undertook; Lincoln could beat any of the boys wrestling orrunning a foot-race; Lincoln could ruin more liquor than all the boysof the town together. When in Congress, Lincoln had distinguishedhimself by his opposition to the Mexican War, taking the side of theenemy against his own country. [713] If this disparagement of anopponent seems mean and ungenerous, let it be remembered that in therough give-and-take of Illinois politics, hard hitting was to beexpected. Lincoln had invited counter-blows by first charging Douglaswith conspiracy. No mere reading of cold print can convey the virileenergy with which Douglas spoke. The facial expression, the animatedgesture, the toss of the head, and the stamp of the foot, the full, resonant voice--all are wanting. 

To a man of Lincoln's temperament, this vigorous invective wasindescribably irritating. Rather unwisely he betrayed his vexation inhis first words. His manner was constrained. He seemed awkward and illat ease, but as he warmed to his task, his face became more animated, he recovered the use of his arms, and he pointed his remarks withforceful gestures. His voice, never pleasant, rose to a shrill treblein moments of excitement. After the familiar manner of Westernspeakers of that day, he was wont to bend his knees and then rise tohis full height with a jerk, to enforce some point. [714] Yet with allhis ungraceful mannerisms, Lincoln held his hearers, impressing mostmen with a sense of the honesty of his convictions. 

Instead of replying categorically to Douglas's questions, Lincoln reada long extract from a speech which he had made in 1854, to show hisattitude then toward the Fugitive Slave Act. He denied that he had hadanything to do with the resolutions which had been read. He believedthat he was not even in Springfield at the time when they wereadopted. [715] As for the charge that he favored the social andpolitical equality of the black and white races, he said, "Anythingthat argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equalitywith the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . Ihave no purpose to introduce political and social equality between thewhite and the black races. There is a physical difference between thetwo, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their livingtogether upon the footing of perfect equality . . . Notwithstanding allthis, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled toall the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration ofIndependence, --the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness. "[716] Slavery had always been, and would always be, "anapple of discord and an element of division in the house. " Hedisclaimed all intention of making war upon Southern institutions, yethe was still firm in the belief that the public mind would not be easyuntil slavery was put where the fathers left it. He reminded hishearers that Douglas had said nothing to clear himself from thesuspicion of having been party to a conspiracy to nationalize slavery. Judge Douglas was not always so ready as now to yield obedience tojudicial decisions, as anyone might see who chose to inquire how heearned his title. [717]

In his reply, Douglas endeavored to refresh Lincoln's memory inrespect to the resolutions. They were adopted while he was inSpringfield, for it was the season of the State Fair, when both hadspoken at the Capitol. He had not charged Mr. Lincoln with havinghelped to frame these resolutions, but with having been a responsibleleader of the party which had adopted them as its platform. Was Mr. Lincoln trying to dodge the questions? Douglas refused to allowhimself to be put upon the defensive in the matter of the allegedconspiracy, since Lincoln had acknowledged that he did not know it tobe true. He would brand it as a lie and let Lincoln prove it if hecould. [718]

At the conclusion of the debate, two young farmers, in their exuberantenthusiasm, rushed forward, seized Lincoln in spite of hisremonstrances, and carried him off upon their stalwart shoulders. "Itwas really a ludicrous sight, " writes an eye-witness, [719] "to seethe grotesque figure holding frantically to the heads of hissupporters, with his legs dangling from their shoulders, and hispantaloons pulled up so as to expose his underwear almost to hisknees. " Douglas was not slow in using this incident to thediscomfiture of his opponent. "Why, " he said at Joliet, "the verynotice that I was going to take him down to Egypt made him tremble inhis knees so that he had to be carried from the platform. He laid upseven days, and in the meantime held a consultation with his politicalphysicians, "[720] etc. Strangely enough, Lincoln with all his sense ofhumor took this badinage seriously, and accused Douglas of telling afalsehood. [721]

The impression prevailed that Douglas had cornered Lincoln by hisadroit use of the Springfield resolutions of 1854. Within a week, however, an editorial in the Chicago _Press and Tribune_ reversed thepopular verdict, by pronouncing the resolutions a forgery. TheRepublicans were jubilant. "The Little Dodger" had cornered himself. The Democrats were chagrined. Douglas was thoroughly nonplussed. Hehad written to Lanphier for precise information regarding theseresolutions, and he had placed implicit confidence in the reply of hisfriend. It now transpired that they were the work of a localconvention in Kane County. [722] Could any blunder have been moreunfortunate?

When the contestants met at Freeport, far in the solid Republicancounties of the North, Lincoln was ready with his answers to thequestions propounded by Douglas at Ottawa. In most respects Lincolnwas clear and explicit. While not giving an unqualified approval ofthe Fugitive Slave Law, he was not in favor of its repeal; whilebelieving that Congress possessed the power to abolish slavery in theDistrict of Columbia, he favored abolition only on condition that itshould be gradual, acceptable to a majority of the voters of theDistrict, and compensatory to unwilling owners; he would favor theabolition of the slave-trade between the States only upon similarconservative principles; he believed it, however, to be the right andduty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the Territories; he wasnot opposed to the honest acquisition of territory, provided that itwould not aggravate the slavery question. The really crucialquestions, Lincoln did not face so unequivocally. Was he opposed tothe admission of more slave States? Would he oppose the admission of anew State with such a constitution as the people of that State shouldsee fit to make?

Lincoln answered hesitatingly: "In regard to the other question, ofwhether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States intothe Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedinglysorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon thatquestion. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would neverbe another slave State admitted into the Union; but I must add, thatif slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the territorialexistence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt theConstitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slaveConstitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institutionamong them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admitthem into the Union. "[723]

It was now Lincoln's turn to catechise his opponent. He had preparedfour questions, the second of which caused his friends somemisgivings. [724] It read: "Can the people of a United StatesTerritory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of theUnited States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formationof a State Constitution?"

Lincoln knew well enough that Douglas held to the power of the peoplepractically to exclude slavery, regardless of the decision of theSupreme Court; Douglas had said as much in his hearing at Bloomington. What he desired to extort from Douglas was his opinion of the legalityof such action in view of the Dred Scott decision. Should Douglasanswer in the negative, popular sovereignty would become an emptyphrase; should he answer in the affirmative, he would put himself, soLincoln calculated, at variance with Southern Democrats, who claimedthat the people of a Territory were now inhibited from any such powerover slave property. In the latter event, Lincoln proposed to givesuch publicity to Douglas's reply as to make any future evasion orretraction impossible. [725]

Douglas faced the critical question without the slightest hesitation. "It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as tothe abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into aTerritory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means tointroduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slaverycannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported bylocal police regulations. Those police regulations can only beestablished by the local legislature; and if the people are opposed toslavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will byunfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it intotheir midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislationwill favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of theSupreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of thepeople to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect andcomplete under the Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answersatisfactory on that point"[726]

The other three questions involved less risk for the advocate ofpopular sovereignty. He would vote to admit Kansas without therequisite population for representation in Congress, if the peopleshould frame an unobjectionable constitution. He would prefer ageneral rule on this point, but since Congress had decided that Kansashad enough people to form a slave State, she surely had enough toconstitute a free State. He scouted the imputation in the thirdquestion, that the Supreme Court could so far violate the Constitutionas to decide that a State could not exclude slavery from its ownlimits. He would always vote for the acquisition of new territory, when it was needed, irrespective of the question of slavery. [727]

Smarting under Lincoln's animadversions respecting the Springfieldresolutions, Douglas explained his error by quoting from a copy of theIllinois _State Register_, which had printed the resolutions as thework of the convention at the capital. He gave notice that he wouldinvestigate the matter, "when he got down to Springfield. " At allevents there was ample proof that the resolutions were a faithfulexposition of Republican doctrine in the year 1854. Douglas then readsimilar resolutions adopted by a convention in Rockford County. OneTurner, who was acting as one of the moderators, interrupted him atthis point, to say that he had drawn those very resolutions and thatthey were the Republican creed exactly. "And yet, " exclaimed Douglastriumphantly, "and yet Lincoln denies that he stands on them. Mr. Turner says that the creed of the Black Republican party is theadmission of no more slave States, and yet Mr. Lincoln declares thathe would not like to be placed in a position where he would have tovote for them. All I have to say to friend Lincoln is, that I do notthink there is much danger of his being placed in such a position. . . . I propose, out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any suchnecessity. "[728]

As he continued, Douglas grew offensively denunciatory. His opponentswere invariably Black Republicans; Lincoln was the ally of rankAbolitionists like Giddings and Fred Douglass; of course those whobelieved in political and social equality for blacks and whites wouldvote for Lincoln. Lincoln had found fault with the resolutions becausethey were not adopted on the right spot. Lincoln and his friends weregreat on "spots. " Lincoln had opposed the Mexican War becauseAmerican blood was not shed on American soil in the right spot. Trumbull and Lincoln were like two decoy ducks which lead the flockastray. Ambition, personal ambition, had led to the formation of theBlack Republican party. Lincoln and his friends were now only tryingto secure what Trumbull had cheated them out of in 1855, when thesenatorship fell to Trumbull. Under this savage attack the crowd grewrestive. As Douglas repeated the epithet "Black" Republican, he wasinterrupted by indignant cries of "White, " "White. " But Douglasshouted back defiantly, "I wish to remind you that while Mr. Lincolnwas speaking there was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard enough tointerrupt him, " and browbeat his hearers into quiet again. [729]

Realizing, perhaps, the immense difficulty of exposing the fallacy ofDouglas's reply to his questions, in the few moments at his disposal, Lincoln did not refer to the crucial point. He contented himself witha defense of his own consistency. His best friends were dispirited, when the half-hour ended. They could not shake off the impression thatDouglas had saved himself from defeat by his adroit answers toLincoln's interrogatories. [730]

The next joint debate occurred nearly three weeks later down in Egypt. By slow stages, speaking incessantly at all sorts of meetings, Douglasand Lincoln made their several ways through the doubtful centralcounties to Jonesboro in Union County. This was the enemy's countryfor Lincoln; and by reason of the activities of United States MarshalDougherty, a Buchanan appointee, the county was scarcely less hostileto Douglas. The meeting was poorly attended. Those who listened to thespeakers were chary of applause and appeared politicallyapathetic. [731]

Douglas opened the debate by a wild, unguarded appeal to partisanprejudices. Knowing his hearers, he was personally vindictive in hisreferences to Black Republicans in general and to Lincoln inparticular. He reiterated his stock arguments, giving new vehemence tohis charge of corrupt bargain between Trumbull and Lincoln by quotingMatheny, a Republican and "Mr. Lincoln's especial and confidentialfriend for the last twenty years. "[732]

Lincoln begged leave to doubt the authenticity of this new evidence, in view of the little episode at Ottawa, concerning the Springfieldresolutions. At all events the whole story was untrue, and he hadalready declared it to be such. [733] Why should Douglas persist inmisrepresenting him? Brushing aside these lesser matters, however, Lincoln addressed himself to what had now come to be known asDouglas's Freeport doctrine. "I hold, " said he, "that the propositionthat slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations ishistorically false. . . . There is enough vigor in slavery to plantitself in a new country even against unfriendly legislation. It takesnot only law but the enforcement of law to keep it out. " Moreover, thedecision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had createdconstitutional obligations. Now that the right of property in slaveswas affirmed by the Constitution, according to the Court, how could amember of a territorial legislature, who had taken the oath tosupport the Constitution, refuse to give his vote for laws necessaryto establish slave property? And how could a member of Congress keephis oath and withhold the necessary protection to slave property inthe Territories?[734]

Of course Lincoln was well aware that Douglas held that the Court haddecided only the question of jurisdiction in the Dred Scott case; andthat all else was a mere _obiter dictum_. Nevertheless, "the Court didpass its opinion. . . . If they did not decide, they showed what theywere ready to decide whenever the matter was before them. They usedlanguage to this effect: That inasmuch as Congress itself could notexercise such a power [_i. E. _, pass a law prohibiting slavery in theTerritories], it followed as a matter of course that it could notauthorize a Territorial Government to exercise it; for the TerritorialLegislature can do no more than Congress could do. "[735]

The only answer of Douglas to this trenchant analysis was a reiteratedassertion: "I assert that under the Dred Scott decision [takingLincoln's view of that decision] you cannot maintain slavery a day ina Territory where there is an unwilling people and unfriendlylegislation. If the people are opposed to it, our right is a barren, worthless, useless right; and if they are for it, they will supportand encourage it. "[736]

Douglas made much of Lincoln's evident unwillingness to commit himselfon the question of admitting more slave States. In various ways hesought to trip his adversary, believing that Lincoln had pledgedhimself to his Abolitionist allies in 1855 to vote against theadmission of more slave States, if he should be elected senator. "Letme tell Mr. Lincoln that his party in the northern part of the Statehold to that Abolition platform [no more slave States], and if they donot in the South and in the center, they present the extraordinaryspectacle of a house-divided-against-itself. "[737]

Douglas turned the edge of Lincoln's thrust at the duties oflegislators under the Dred Scott decision by saying, "Well, if you arenot going to resist the decision, if you obey it, and do not intend toarray mob law against the constituted authorities, then, according toyour own statement, you will be a perjured man if you do not vote toestablish slavery in these Territories. "[738] And it did not saveLincoln from the horns of this uncomfortable dilemma to repeat that hedid not accept the Dred Scott decision as a rule for political action, for he had just emphasized the moral obligation of obeying the law ofthe Constitution. 

From the darkness of Egypt, Douglas and Lincoln journeyed northwardtoward Charleston in Coles County, where the fourth debate was to beheld. Both paused _en route_ to visit the State Fair, then in fullblast at Centralia. Curious crowds followed them around the fairgrounds, deeming the rival candidates quite as worthy of closescrutiny as the other exhibits. [739] Ten miles from Charleston, theyleft the train to be escorted by rival processions along the dustyhighway to their destination. From all the country-side people hadcome to town to cheer on their respective champions. [740] Thistwenty-fifth district, comprising Coles and Moultrie counties, hadbeen carried by the Democrats in 1856, but was now regarded asdoubtful. The uncertainty added piquancy to the debate. 

It was Lincoln's turn to open the joust. At the outset he tried toallay misapprehensions regarding his attitude toward negro equality. "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor ofbringing about in any way the social and political equality of thewhite and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor ofmaking voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to holdoffice, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say inaddition to this, that there is a physical difference between thewhite and black races which I believe will forever forbid the tworaces living together on terms of social and political equality. Andinasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together theremust be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as anyother man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to thewhite race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that becausethe white man is to have the superior position the negro should bedenied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want anegro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. Myunderstanding is that I can just let her alone. "[741] This was by farthe most explicit statement that he had yet made on the hazardoussubject. 

Lincoln then turned upon his opponent, with more aggressiveness than, he had hitherto exhibited, to drive home the charge which Trumbull hadmade earlier in the campaign. Prompted by Trumbull, probably, Lincolnreviewed the shadowy history of the Toombs bill and Douglas's stillmore enigmatical connection with it. The substance of the indictmentwas, that Douglas had suppressed that part of the original bill whichprovided for a popular vote on the constitution to be drafted by theKansas convention. In replying to Trumbull, Douglas had damaged hisown case by denying that the Toombs bill had ever contained such aprovision. Lincoln proved the contrary by the most transparenttestimony, convicting Douglas not only of the original offense but ofan untruth in connection with it. [742]

This was not a vague charge of conspiracy which could be treated withcontempt, but an indictment, accompanied by circumstantial evidence. While a dispassionate examination of the whole incident will acquitDouglas of any part in a plot to prevent the fair adoption of aconstitution by the people of Kansas, yet he certainly took a mostunfortunate and prejudicial mode of defending himself. [743] Hispersonal retorts were so vindictive and his attack upon Trumbull sofull of venom, that his words did not carry conviction to the minds ofhis hearers. It was a matter of common observation that Democratsseemed ill at ease after the debate. [744] "Judge Douglas is playingcuttle-fish, " remarked Lincoln, noting with satisfaction the veryevident discomfiture of his opponent, "a small species of fish thathas no mode of defending itself when pursued except by throwing out ablack fluid, which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. "[745]

Douglas, however, did his best to recover his ground by accusingLincoln of shifting his principles as he passed from the northerncounties to Egypt; the principles of his party in the north were"jet-black, " in the center, "a decent mulatto, " and in lower Egypt"almost white. " Lincoln then dared him to point out any differencebetween his speeches. Blows now fell thick and fast, both speakersapproaching dangerously near the limit of parliamentary language. Reverting to his argument that slavery must be put in the course ofultimate extinction, Lincoln made this interesting qualification: "Ido not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction itwill be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not supposethat in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in lessthan a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best wayfor both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. "[746]

Douglas was now feeling the full force of the opposition within hisown party. The Republican newspapers of the State had seized upon hisFreeport speech to convince the South and the administration that hewas false to their creed. The Washington _Union_ had from the firstdenounced him as a renegade, with whom no self-respecting Democratwould associate. [747] Slidell was active in Illinois, spending moneyfreely to defeat him. [748] The Danites in the central counties plottedincessantly to weaken his following. Daniel S. Dickinson of New Yorksent "a Thousand Greetings" to a mass-meeting of Danites inSpringfield, --a liberal allowance, commented some Douglasite, as eachdelegate would receive about ten greetings. [749] Yet the dimensions ofthis movement were not easily ascertained. The declination ofVice-President Breckinridge to come to the aid of Douglas was a rebuffnot easily laughed down, though to be sure, he expressed a guardedpreference for Douglas over Lincoln. The coolness of Breckinridge wasin a measure offset by the friendliness of Senator Crittenden, whorefused to aid Lincoln, because he believed Douglas's re-election"necessary as a rebuke to the administration and a vindication of thegreat cause of popular rights and public justice. "[750] The mostinfluential Republican papers in the East gave Lincoln tardy support, with the exception of the New York _Times_. [751]

Unquestionably Douglas drew upon resources which Lincoln could notcommand. The management of the Illinois Central Railroad was naturallyfriendly toward him, though there is no evidence that it countenancedany illegitimate use of influence on his behalf. If Douglas enjoyedspecial train service, which Lincoln did not, it was because he drewupon funds that exceeded Lincoln's modest income. How many thousandsof dollars Douglas devoted from his own exchequer to his campaign, can now only be conjectured. In all probability, he spent all thatremained from the sale of his real estate in Chicago, and more whichhe borrowed in New York by mortgaging his other holdings in CookCounty. [752] And not least among his assets was the constantcompanionship of Mrs. Douglas, whose tact, grace, and beauty placatedfeelings which had been ruffled by the rude vigor of "the LittleGiant. "[753]

When the rivals met three weeks later at Galesburg, they were disposedto drop personalities. Indeed, both were aware that they were about toaddress men and women who demanded an intelligent discussion of theissues of the hour. Lincoln had the more sympathetic hearing, for KnoxCounty was consistently Republican; and the town with its academicatmosphere and New England traditions shared his hostility to slavery. Vast crowds braved the cold, raw winds of the October day to listenfor three hours to this debate. [754] From a platform on the collegecampus, Douglas looked down somewhat defiantly upon his hearers, though his words were well-chosen and courteous. The circumstanceswere much the same as at Ottawa; and he spoke in much the same vein. He rang the changes upon his great fundamental principle; he defendedhis course in respect to Lecomptonism; he denounced the Republicanparty as a sectional organization whose leaders were bent upon"outvoting, conquering, governing, and controlling the South. "Douglas laid great stress upon this sectional aspect of Republicanism, which made its southward extension impossible. "Not only is thisRepublican party unable to proclaim its principles alike in the Northand in the South, in the free States and in the slave States, but itcannot even proclaim them in the same forms and give them the samestrength and meaning in all parts of the same State. My friend Lincolnfinds it extremely difficult to manage a debate in the center part ofthe State, where there is a mixture of men from the North and theSouth. "[755]

Here Douglas paused to read from Lincoln's speeches at Chicago and atCharleston, and to ask his hearers to reconcile the conflictingstatements respecting negro equality. He pronounced Lincoln'sdoctrine, that the negro and the white man are made equal by theDeclaration of Independence and Divine Providence, "a monstrousheresy. "

Lincoln protested that nothing was farther from his purpose than to"advance hypocritical and deceptive and contrary views in differentportions of the country. " As for the charge of sectionalism, JudgeDouglas was himself fast becoming sectional, for his speeches nolonger passed current south of the Ohio as they had once done. "Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral contest between JudgeDouglas and myself, I see the day rapidly approaching when his pill ofsectionalism, which he has been thrusting down the throats ofRepublicans for years past, will be crowded down his own throat. "[756]

And Lincoln again scored on his opponent, when he pointed out thathis political doctrine rested upon the major premise, that there wasno wrong in slavery. "If you will take the Judge's speeches, andselect the short and pointed sentences expressed by him, --as hisdeclaration that he 'don't care whether slavery is voted up ordown'--you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you donot admit that slavery is wrong. . . . Judge Douglas declares that if anycommunity wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say thatlogically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if youadmit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say thatanybody has a right to do wrong. "[757]

Those who now read these memorable debates dis-passionately, willsurely acquit Lincoln of inconsistency in his attitude toward thenegro. His speech at Charleston supplements the speech at Chicago; atGalesburg, he made an admirable re-statement of his position. Nevertheless, there was a marked difference in point of emphasisbetween his utterances in Northern and in Southern Illinois. Even thecasual reader will detect subtle omissions which the varying characterof his audience forced upon Lincoln. In Chicago he said nothing aboutthe physical inferiority of the negro; he said nothing about theequality of the races in the Declaration of Independence, when hespoke at Charleston. Among men of anti-slavery leanings, he had muchto say about the moral wrong of slavery; in the doubtful counties, Lincoln was solicitous that he should not be understood as favoringsocial and political equality between whites and blacks. 

Feeling keenly this diplomatic shifting of emphasis, Douglas persistedin accusing Lincoln of inconsistency: "He has one set of principlesfor the Abolition counties and another set for the counties opposed toAbolitionism. " If Lincoln had said in Coles County what he has to-daysaid in old Knox, Douglas complained, "it would have settled thequestion between us in that doubtful county. "[758] And in this Douglaswas probably correct. 

At Quincy, Douglas was in his old bailiwick. Three times the Democratsof this district had sent him to Congress; and though the bounds ofthe congressional district had since been changed, Adams County wasstill Democratic by a safe majority. Among the people who greeted thespeakers, however, were many old-time Whigs, for whose special benefitthe Republicans of the city carried on a pole, at the head of theirprocession, a live raccoon. With a much keener historic sense, theDemocrats bore aloft a dead raccoon, suspended by its tail. [759]

Lincoln again harked back to his position that slavery was "a moral, asocial, and a political wrong" which the Republican party proposed toprevent from growing any larger; and that "the leading man--I think Imay do my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling himsuch--advocating the present Democratic policy, never himself says itis wrong. "[760]

The consciousness that he was made to seem morally obtuse, cut Douglasto the quick. Even upon his tough constitution this prolonged campaignwas beginning to tell. His voice was harsh and broken; and he gaveunmistakable signs of nervous irritability, brought on by physicalfatigue. When he rose to reply to Lincoln, his manner was offensivelycombative. At the outset, he referred angrily to Lincoln's "grosspersonalities and base insinuations. "[761] In his references to theSpringfield resolutions and to his mistake, or rather the mistake ofhis friends at the capital, he was particularly denunciatory. "When Imake a mistake, " he boasted, "as an honest man, I correct it withoutbeing asked to, but when he, Lincoln, makes a false charge, he sticksto it and never corrects it. "[762]

But Douglas was too old a campaigner to lose control of himself, andno doubt the rude charge and counter-charge were prompted less bypersonal ill-will than by controversial exigencies. Those who haveconceived Douglas as the victim of deep-seated and abiding resentmenttoward Lincoln, forget the impulsive nature of the man. There is notthe slightest evidence that Lincoln took these blows to heart. He hadhimself dealt many a vigorous blow in times past. It was part of thegame. 

Douglas found fault with Lincoln's answers to the Ottawa questions: "Iask you again, Lincoln, will you vote to admit New Mexico, when shehas the requisite population with such a constitution as her peopleadopt, either recognizing slavery or not, as they shall determine!" Hewas well within the truth when he asserted that Lincoln's answer hadbeen purposely evasive and equivocal, "having no reference to anyterritory now in existence. "[763] Of Lincoln's Republican policy ofconfining slavery within its present limits, by prohibiting it in theTerritories, he said, "When he gets it thus confined, and surrounded, so that it cannot spread, the natural laws of increase will go onuntil the negroes will be so plenty that they cannot live on the soil. He will hem them in until starvation seizes them, and by starving themto death, he will put slavery in the course of ultimateextinction. "[764] A silly argument which Douglas's wide acquaintancewith Southern conditions flatly contradicted and should have kept himfrom repeating. 

To the charge of moral obliquity on the slavery question, Douglas madea dignified and worthy reply. "I hold that the people of theslave-holding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that theybear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to Godand their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question forthemselves within their own limits. "[765]

On the following day both Lincoln and Douglas took passage on a riversteamer for Alton. The county of Madison had once been Whig in itspolitical proclivities. In the State legislature it was nowrepresented by two representatives and a senator who were NativeAmericans; and in the present campaign, the county was classed asdoubtful. In Alton and elsewhere there was a large German vote whichwas likely to sway the election. 

Douglas labored under a physical disadvantage. His voice was painfulto hear, while Lincoln's betrayed no sign of fatigue. [766] Both fellinto the argument _ad hominem_. Lincoln advocated holding theTerritories open to "free white people" the world over--to "Hans, Baptiste, and Patrick. " Douglas contended that the equality referredto in the Declaration of Independence, was the equality of whitemen--"men of European birth and European descent. " Both conjured withthe revered name of Clay. Douglas persistently referred to Lincoln asan Abolitionist, knowing that his auditors had "strong sympathiessouthward, " as Lincoln shrewdly guessed; while Lincoln sought tounmask that "false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a systemof policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing thateverybody does care the most about. "[767]

Douglas made a successful appeal to the sympathy of the crowd, when hesaid of his conduct in the Lecompton fight, "Most of the men whodenounced my course on the Lecompton question objected to it, notbecause I was not right, but because they thought it expedient at thattime, for the sake of keeping the party together, to do wrong. I neverknew the Democratic party to violate any one of its principles, out ofpolicy or expediency, that it did not pay the debt with sorrow. Thereis no safety or success for our party unless we always do right, andtrust the consequences to God and the people. I chose not to departfrom principle for the sake of expediency on the Lecompton question, and I never intend to do it on that or any other question. "[768]

Both at Quincy and at Alton, Douglas paid his respects to the"contemptible crew" who were trying to break up the party and defeathim. At first he had avoided direct attacks upon the administration;but the relentless persecution of the Washington _Union_ made himrestive. Lincoln derived great satisfaction from this intestinewarfare in the Democratic camp. "Go it, husband! Go it, bear!" hecried. 

In this last debate, both sought to summarize the issues. SaidLincoln, "You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy frombeginning to end, . . . It everywhere carefully excludes the idea thatthere is anything wrong in it [slavery]. 

"That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in thiscountry when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall besilent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--rightand wrong--throughout the world. . . . I was glad to express my gratitudeat Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas, --_that he looksto no end of the institution of slavery_. That will help the people tosee where the struggle really is. "[769]

To the mind of Douglas, the issue presented itself in quite anotherform. "He [Lincoln] says that he looks forward to a time when slaveryshall be abolished everywhere. I look forward to a time when eachState shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keepslavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses toabolish slavery, it is its own business, --not mine. I care more forthe great principle of self-government, the right of the people torule, than I do for all the negroes in Christendom. I would notendanger the perpetuity of this Union, I would not blot out the greatinalienable rights of the white men, for all the negroes that everexisted. "[770]

With this encounter at Alton, the joint debates, but not the campaignclosed. Douglas continued to speak at various strategic points, inspite of inclement weather and physical exhaustion, up to the eve ofthe election. [771] The canvass had continued just a hundred days, during which Douglas had made one hundred and thirty speeches. [772]During the last weeks of the campaign, election canards designed toinjure Douglas were sedulously circulated, adding no littleuncertainty to the outcome in doubtful districts. The most damaging ofthese stories seems to have emanated from Senator John Slidell ofLouisiana, whose midsummer sojourn in Illinois has already been noted. A Chicago journal published the tale that Douglas's slaves in theSouth were "the subjects of inhuman and disgraceful treatment--thatthey were hired out to a factor at fifteen dollars per annumeach--that he, in turn, hired them out to others in lots, and thatthey were ill-fed, over-worked, and in every way so badly treated thatthey were spoken of in the neighborhood where they are held as adisgrace to all slave-holders and the system they support. " Theexplicit denial of the story came from Slidell some weeks after theelection, when the slander had accomplished the desired purpose. [773]

All signs pointed to a heavy vote for both tickets. As the campaigndrew to a close, the excitement reached a pitch rarely equalled evenin presidential elections. Indeed, the total vote cast exceeded thatof 1856 by many thousands, --an increase that cannot be whollyaccounted for by the growth of population in these years. [774] TheRepublican State ticket was elected by less than four thousand votesover the Democratic ticket. The relative strength of the rivalcandidates for the senatorship, however, is exhibited more fully inthe vote for the members of the lower house of the State legislature. . The avowed Douglas candidates polled over 174, 000, while the Lincolnmen received something over 190, 000. Administration candidatesreceived a scant vote of less than 2, 000. Notwithstanding this popularmajority, the Republicans secured only thirty-five seats, while theDemocratic minority secured forty. Out of fifteen contested senatorialseats, the Democrats won eight with a total of 44, 826 votes, while theRepublicans cast 53, 784 votes and secured but seven. No better proofcould be offered of Lincoln's contention that the State wasgerrymandered in favor of the Democrats. Still, this was part of thegame; and had the Republicans been in office, they would haveundoubtedly used an advantage which has proved too tempting for thevirtue of every American party. 

When the two houses of the Illinois Legislature met in joint session, January 6, 1859, not a man ventured, or desired, to record his voteotherwise than as his party affiliations dictated. Douglas receivedfifty-four votes and Lincoln forty-six. "Glory to God and the SuckerDemocracy, " telegraphed the editor of the _State Register_ to hischief. And back over the wires from Washington was flashed the laconicmessage, "Let the voice of the people rule. " But had the _will_ of thepeople ruled?

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 669: Hollister, Life of Colfax pp. 119 ff; Wilson, Rise andFall of the Slave Power, II, p. 567. ]

[Footnote 670: Hollister, Colfax, p. 121. ]

[Footnote 671: Wilson, p. 567. ]

[Footnote 672: Bancroft, Life of Seward, I, pp. 449-450. ]

[Footnote 673: Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 403. ]

[Footnote 674: Hollister, Colfax, p. 119. ]

[Footnote 675: _Ibid. _, p. 121. ]

[Footnote 676: Wilson, II, p 567; Greeley, Recollections of a BusyLife, p. 397. ]

[Footnote 677: Hollister, Colfax, p. 120. ]

[Footnote 678: Herndon-Weik, Life of Lincoln, II, pp. 59 ff. ]

[Footnote 679: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 394. ]

[Footnote 680: Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, p. 135. ]

[Footnote 681: Forney, Anecdotes, II, p. 179. ]

[Footnote 682: Lincoln-Douglas Debates (Edition of 1860), p. 1. ]

[Footnote 683: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 398-400. ]

[Footnote 684: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 400; Mr. Horace White inHerndon-Weik, Life of Lincoln, II, p. 93. ]

[Footnote 685: Debates, p. 9. ]

[Footnote 686: Debates, p. 9. ]

[Footnote 687: _Ibid. _, p. 10. ]

[Footnote 688: _Ibid. _, p. 11. ]

[Footnote 689: Debates, p. 18. ]

[Footnote 690: Debates, p. 20. ]

[Footnote 691: _Ibid. _, p. 24. ]

[Footnote 692: Flint, Douglas, pp. 114-117; Chicago _Times_, July 18, 1858. ]

[Footnote 693: Debates, p. 24. ]

[Footnote 694: Debates, p. 27. ]

[Footnote 695: _Ibid. _, p. 30. ]

[Footnote 696: _Ibid. _, pp. 33-34. ]

[Footnote 697: Debates, p. 35. ]

[Footnote 698: _Ibid. _, p. 39. ]

[Footnote 699: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 417; Chicago _Times_, July 21, 1858. ]

[Footnote 700: Debates, p. 44. ]

[Footnote 701: _Ibid. _, p. 60. ]

[Footnote 702: _Ibid. _, p. 61. ]

[Footnote 703: _Ibid. _, p. 63. ]

[Footnote 704: Debates, p. 64. ]

[Footnote 705: _Ibid. _, pp. 64-65. ]

[Footnote 706: _Ibid. _, p. 66. ]

[Footnote 707: Debates, p. 66. ]

[Footnote 708: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, pp. 104-105. ]

[Footnote 709: For the following description I have drawn freely fromthe narratives of eye-witnesses. I am particularly indebted to thegraphic account by Mr. Carl Schurz in _McClure's Magazine_, January, 1907. ]

[Footnote 710: Mr. Schurz in _McClure's_, January, 1907. ]

[Footnote 711: Debates, p. 67. ]

[Footnote 712: Debates, p. 68. ]

[Footnote 713: _Ibid. _, p. 69. ]

[Footnote 714: Herndon in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, pp. 76-77; Mr. Carl Schurz in _McClure's_, January, 1907. ]

[Footnote 715: Debates, p. 73. ]

[Footnote 716: Debates, p. 75. ]

[Footnote 717: _Ibid. _, p. 82. ]

[Footnote 718: _Ibid. _, p. 86. ]

[Footnote 719: Henry Villard, Memoirs, I, p. 93; Mr. Horace White inHerndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 108. ]

[Footnote 720: Debates, p. 129. ]

[Footnote 721: _Ibid. _, p. 130. ]

[Footnote 722: Holland, Lincoln, p. 185; Tarbell, Lincoln, _McClure'sMagazine_, VII, pp. 408-409. ]

[Footnote 723: Debates, p. 89. ]

[Footnote 724: Holland, Lincoln, pp. 188-189; Mr. Horace White inHerndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 109. ]

[Footnote 725: Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 109. ]

[Footnote 726: Debates, p. 95. ]

[Footnote 727: Debates, pp. 94-97. ]

[Footnote 728: Debates, pp. 100-101. ]

[Footnote 729: Debates, p. 101. ]

[Footnote 730: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, p. 110. ]

[Footnote 731: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, p. 118. ]

[Footnote 732: Debates, pp. 113-114. ]

[Footnote 733: _Ibid. _, p. 120. ]

[Footnote 734: Debates, p. 127. ]

[Footnote 735: _Ibid. _, p. 129. ]

[Footnote 736: _Ibid. _, p. 135. ]

[Footnote 737: Debates, p. 133. Lamon is authority for the statementthat Lincoln pledged himself to Lovejoy and his faction to favor theexclusion of slavery from all the territory of the United States. Douglas did not know of this pledge, but suspected an understanding tothis effect. If Lamon may be believed, this statement explains thepersistence of Douglas on this point and the evasiveness of Lincoln. See Lamon, Lincoln, pp. 361-365. ]

[Footnote 738: _Ibid. _, p. 135. ]

[Footnote 739: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, p. 119. ]

[Footnote 740: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, p. 121. ]

[Footnote 741: Debates, p. 136. ]

[Footnote 742: Debates, pp. 137-143. ]

[Footnote 743: See above pp. 303-304. ]

[Footnote 744: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, p. 122. ]

[Footnote 745: Debates, p. 159. ]

[Footnote 746: _Ibid. _, p. 157. ]

[Footnote 747: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 342. ]

[Footnote 748: Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, p. 135; Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 127. ]

[Footnote 749: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 129. ]

[Footnote 750: Coleman, Life of Crittenden, II, p. 163. ]

[Footnote 751: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 341. ]

[Footnote 752: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 338, note3. The record of the Circuit Court of Cook County, December term, 1867, states that the entire lien upon the estate in 1864 exceeded$94, 000. The mortgages were held by Fernando Wood and others of NewYork. ]

[Footnote 753: Villard, Memoirs, I, p. 92. ]

[Footnote 754: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 123. ]

[Footnote 755: Debates p. 173. ]

[Footnote 756: _Ibid. _, p. 180. ]

[Footnote 757: Debates, p. 181. ]

[Footnote 758: Debates, p. 188. ]

[Footnote 759: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, pp. 123-124. ]

[Footnote 760: Debates, p. 198. ]

[Footnote 761: Debates, p. 199; _McClure's Magazine_, January, 1907. ]

[Footnote 762: Debates, p. 201. ]

[Footnote 763: _Ibid. _, p. 201. ]

[Footnote 764: Debates, p. 204. ]

[Footnote 765: _Ibid. _, p. 209. ]

[Footnote 766: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 124. ]

[Footnote 767: Debates, p. 231. ]

[Footnote 768: _Ibid. _, p. 218. ]

[Footnote 769: Debates, p. 234. ]

[Footnote 770: _Ibid. _, p. 238. ]

[Footnote 771: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 432. ]

[Footnote 772: Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, II, p. 146 note. ]

[Footnote 773: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 439-442; Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 128. ]

[Footnote 774: It has not been generally observed that the Democratsgained more than their opponents over the State contest of 1856. Theelection returns were as follows:

 Democratic ticket in 1856, 106, 643; in 1858, 121, 609; gain, 14, 966. Republican ticket in 1856, 111, 375; in 1858, 125, 430; gain, 14, 055. ]

CHAPTER XVII

THE AFTERMATH

Douglas had achieved a great personal triumph. Not even his Republicanopponents could gainsay it. In the East, the Republican newspapersapplauded him undisguisedly, not so much because they admired him orlacked sympathy with Lincoln, as because they regarded his re-electionas a signal condemnation of the Buchanan administration. Moreover, there was a general expectation in anti-slavery circles to whichTheodore Parker gave expression when he wrote, "Had Lincoln succeeded, Douglas would be a ruined man. . . . But now in place for six years more, with his own personal power unimpaired and his positional influencemuch enhanced, he can do the Democratic party a world of damage. "[775]There was cheer in this expectation even for those who deplored thedefeat of Lincoln. 

As Douglas journeyed southward soon after the November elections, hemust have felt the poignant truth of Lincoln's shrewd observation thathe was himself becoming sectional. Though he was received with seemingcordiality at Memphis and New Orleans, he could not but notice thathis speeches, as Lincoln predicted, "would not go current south of theOhio River as they had formerly. " Democratic audiences applauded hisbold insistence upon the universality of the principles of the partycreed, but the tone of the Southern press was distinctly unfriendlyto him and his Freeport doctrine. [776] He told his auditors at Memphisthat he indorsed the decision of the Supreme Court; he believed thatthe owners of slaves had the same right to take them into theTerritories as they had to take other property; but slaves once in theTerritory were then subject to local laws for protection, on an equalfooting with all other property. If no local laws protecting slaveproperty were passed, slavery would be practically excluded. "Non-action is exclusion. " It was a matter of soil, climate, interests, whether a Territory would permit slavery or not. "You comeright back to the principle of dollars and cents . . . If old Joshua E. Giddings should raise a colony in Ohio and settle down in Louisiana, he would be the strongest advocate of slavery in the whole South; hewould find when he got there, his opinion would be very much modified;he would find on those sugar plantations that it was not a questionbetween the white man and the negro, but between the negro and thecrocodile. " "The Almighty has drawn the line on this continent, on oneside of which the soil must be cultivated by slave labor; on the otherby white labor. "[777]

At New Orleans, he repeated more emphatically much the same thought. "There is a line, or belt of country, meandering through the valleysand over the mountain tops, which is a natural barrier between freeterritory and slave territory, on the south of which are to be foundthe productions suitable to slave labor, while on the north exists acountry adapted to free labor alone. . . . But in the great centralregions, where there may be some doubt as to the effect of naturalcauses, who ought to decide the question except the people residingthere, who have all their interests there, who have gone there to livewith their wives and children!"[778]

It was characteristic of the man that he thought politics even when hewas in pursuit of health. Advised to take an ocean voyage, he decidedto visit Cuba so that even his recreative leisure might be politicallyprofitable, for the island was more than ever coveted by the South andhe wished to have the advantage of first-hand information about thisunhappy Spanish province. Landing in New York upon his return, he wasgiven a remarkable ovation by the Democracy of the city; and he wasgreeted with equal warmth in Philadelphia and Baltimore. [779] Even aless ambitious man might have been tempted to believe in his owncapacity for leadership, in the midst of these apparently spontaneousdemonstrations of regard. At the capital, however, he was lesscordially welcomed. He was not in the least surprised, for while hewas still in the South, the newspapers had announced his depositionfrom the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories. He knew wellenough what he had to expect from the group of Southern Democrats whohad the ear of the administration. [780] Nevertheless, his removal froma position which he had held ever since he entered the Senate was abitter pill. 

For the sake of peace Douglas smothered his resentment, and, for abrief time at least, sought to demonstrate his political orthodoxy inmatters where there was no conflict of opinion. As a member of theCommittee on Foreign Affairs, he cordially supported the bill for thepurchase of Cuba, even though the chairman, Slidell, had done more toinjure him in the recent campaign than any other man. There were thosewho thought he demeaned himself by attending the Democratic caucus andindorsing the Slidell project. [781]

It was charged that the proposed appropriation of $30, 000, 000 was tobe used to bribe Spanish ministers to sell Cuba; that the wholeproject was motived by the desire of the South to acquire more slaveterritory; and that Douglas was once more cultivating the South tosecure the presidency in 1860. The first of these charges has neverbeen proved; the second is probably correct; but the third is surelyopen to question. As long ago as Folk's administration, Douglas hadexpressed his belief that the Pearl of the Antilles must some day fallto us; and on various occasions he had advocated the annexation ofCuba, with the consent of Spain and the inhabitants. At New Orleans, he had been called upon to express his views regarding the acquisitionof the island; and he had said, without hesitation, "It is folly todebate the acquisition of Cuba. It naturally belongs to the Americancontinent. It guards the mouth of the Mississippi River, which is theheart of the American continent and the body of the American nation. "At the same time he was careful to add that he was no filibuster: hedesired Cuba only upon terms honorable to all concerned. [782]

Subsequent events acquit Douglas of truckling to the South at thistime. No doubt he would have been glad to let bygones be bygones, toclose up the gap of unpleasant memories between himself and theadministration, and to restore Democratic harmony. For Douglas lovedhis party and honored its history. To him the party of Jefferson andJackson was inseparably linked with all that made the AmericanCommonwealth the greatest of democracies. Yet where men are acutelyconscious of vital differences of opinion, only the hourly practice ofself-control can prevent clashing. Neither Douglas nor his opponentswere prepared to undergo any such rigid self-discipline. 

On February 23d, the pent-up feeling broke through all barriers andlaid bare the thoughts and intents of the Democratic factions. TheKansas question once more recurring, Brown of Mississippi now demandedadequate protection for property; that is, "protection sufficient toprotect animate property. " Any other protection would be a delusionand a cheat. If the territorial legislature refused such protection, he for one would demand it of Congress. He dissented altogether fromthe doctrine of the Senator from Illinois, that by non-action, orunfriendly legislation a Territory could annul a decision of theSupreme Court and exclude slavery. That was mistaking power for right. "What I want to know is, whether you will interpose against power andin favor of right. . . . If the Territorial Legislature refuses to act, will you act?. . . If it pass laws hostile to slavery, will you annulthem, and substitute laws favoring slavery in their stead?" "What Iand my people ask is action; positive, unqualified action. Ourunderstanding of the doctrine of non-intervention was, that you werenot to intervene against us, but I never understood that we could haveany compromise or understanding here which could release Congress froman obligation imposed on it by the Constitution of the UnitedStates. "[783]

Reluctant as Douglas must have been to accentuate the differencesbetween himself and the Southern Democrats, he could not remainsilent, for silence would be misconstrued. With all the tact which hecould muster out of a not too abundant store, he sought to conciliate, without yielding his own opinions. It was a futile effort. At the veryoutset he was forced to deny the right of slave property to otherprotection than common property. Thence he passed with wider and widerdivergence from the Southern position over the familiar ground ofpopular sovereignty. To the specific demands which Brown had voiced, he replied that Congress had never passed an act creating a criminalcode for any organized Territory, nor any law protecting any speciesof property. Congress had left these matters to the territoriallegislatures. Why, then, make an exception of slave property? TheSupreme Court had made no such distinction. "I know, " said Douglas, ina tone little calculated to soothe the feelings of his opponents, "Iknow that some gentlemen do not like the doctrine of non-interventionas well as they once did. It is now becoming fashionable to talksneeringly of 'your doctrine of non-intervention, ' Sir, that doctrinehas been a fundamental article in the Democratic creed for years. ""If you repudiate the doctrine of non-intervention and form a slavecode by act of Congress, when the people of a Territory refuse it, youmust step off the Democratic platform. . . . I tell you, gentlemen of theSouth, in all candor, I do not believe a Democratic candidate can evercarry any one Democratic State of the North on the platform that it isthe duty of the Federal government to force the people of a Territoryto have slavery when they do not want it. "[784]

What Brown had asserted with his wonted impulsiveness, was thenreaffirmed more soberly by his colleague, Jefferson Davis, upon whommore than any other Southerner the mantle of Calhoun had fallen. Statesovereignty was also his major premise. The Constitution was acompact. The Territories were common property of the States. Theterritorial legislatures were mere instruments through which theCongress of the United States "executed its trust in relation to theTerritories. " If, as the Senator from Illinois insisted, Congress hadgranted full power to the inhabitants of the Territories to legislateon all subjects not inconsistent with the Constitution, then Congresshad exceeded its authority. Turning to Douglas, Davis said, "Now, thesenator asks, will you make a discrimination in the Territories? Isay, yes, I would discriminate in the Territories wherever it isneedful to assert the right of citizens. . . . I have heard many asiren's song on this doctrine of non-intervention; a thing shadowy andfleeting, changing its color as often as the chameleon. "[785]

When Douglas could again get the floor, he retorted sharply, "Thesenator from Mississippi says, if I am not willing to stand in theparty on his platform, I can go out. Allow me to inform him that Istand on the platform, and those that jump off must go out of theparty. "

Hot words now passed between them. Davis spoke disdainfully of men whoseek to build up a political reputation by catering to the prejudiceof a majority, to exclude the property of the minority. And Douglasretorted, "I despise to see men from other sections of the Unionpandering to a public sentiment against what I conceive to be commonrights under the Constitution. " "Holding the views that you do, " saidDavis, "you would have no chance of getting the vote of Mississippito-day. " The senator has "confirmed me in the belief that he is now asfull of heresy as he once was of adherence to the doctrine of popularsovereignty, correctly construed; that he has gone back to his firstlove of squatter sovereignty, a thing offensive to every idea ofconservatism and sound government. "

Davis made repeated efforts to secure an answer to the questionwhether, in the event that slavery should be excluded by the people ofa Territory and the Supreme Court should decide against such action, Douglas would maintain the rights of the slave-holders. Douglasreplied, somewhat evasively, that when the Supreme Court should decideupon the constitutionality of the local laws, he would abide by thedecision. "That is not the point, " rejoined Davis impatiently;"Congress must compel the Territorial Legislature to perform itsproper functions"; _i. E. _ actively protect slave property. "Well, "said Douglas with exasperating coolness, "on that point, the Senatorand I differ. If the Territorial Legislature will not pass such lawsas will encourage mules, I will not force them to have them. " AgainDavis insisted that his question had not been answered. Douglasrepeated, "I will vote against any law by Congress attempting tointerfere with a regulation made by the Territories, with respect toany kind of property whatever, whether horses, mules, negroes, oranything else. "[786]

But there was a flaw in Douglas's armor which Green of Missouridetected. Had the Senator from Illinois not urged the intervention ofCongress to prevent polygamy in Utah? "Not at all, " replied Douglas;"the people of that Territory were in a state of rebellion against theFederal authorities. " What he had urged was the repeal of the organicact of the Territory, so that the United States might exerciseabsolute jurisdiction and protect property in that region. "But if thepeople of a Territory took away property in slaves, were they not alsodefying the Federal authorities?" persisted Green. UnquestionablyCongress might revoke the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Douglas admitted; butit should be remembered that the act was bottomed upon an agreement. There was a distinct understanding that the question whetherterritorial laws affecting the right of property in slaves wereconstitutional, should be referred to the Supreme Court. "Ifconstitutional, they were to remain in force until repealed by theTerritorial Legislature; if not, they were to become void not byaction of Congress but by the decision of the court. "[787] And Douglasquoted at length from a speech by Senator Benjamin in 1856, to provehis point. But it was precisely this agreement of 1854, which was nowbeing either repudiated or construed in the interest of the South. Jefferson Davis frankly deprecated the "great hazard" whichrepresentatives from his section ran in 1854; but, he added, "I takeit for granted my friends who are about me must have understood atthat time clearly that this was the mere reference of a right; andthat if decided in our favor, congressional legislation would followin its train, and secure to us the enjoyment of the right thusdefined. "[788]

The wide divergence of purpose and opinion which this debate revealed, dashed any hope of a united Democratic party in 1860. Men who lookedinto the future were sobered by the prospect. If the Democratic partywere rent in twain, --the only surviving national party, --ifNortherners and Southerners could no longer act together within aparty of such elastic principles, what hope remained for the Union?The South was already boldly facing the inevitable. Said Brown, passionately, "If I cannot obtain the rights guaranteed to me and mypeople under the Constitution, as expounded by the Supreme Court, then, Sir, I am prepared to retire from the concern. . . . When ourconstitutional rights are denied us, we _ought_ to retire from theUnion. . . . If you are going to convert the Union into a masked batteryfrom behind which to make war on me and my property, in the name ofall the gods at once, why should I not retire from it?"[789]

After the 23d of February, Douglas neither gave nor expected quarterfrom the Southern faction led by Jefferson Davis. So far from avoidingconflict, he seems rather to have forced the fighting. He flaunted hisviews in the faces of the fire-eaters. Prudence would have suggestedsilence, when a convention of Southern States met at Vicksburg andresolved that "all laws, State and Federal, prohibiting the Africanslave-trade, ought to be repealed, "[790] but Douglas, who knewsomething of the dimensions which this illicit traffic had alreadyassumed, at once declared himself opposed to it. He said privately ina conversation, which afterwards was reported by an anonymouscorrespondent to the New York _Tribune_, that he believed fifteenthousand Africans were brought into the country last year. He had seen"with his own eyes three hundred of those recently imported miserablebeings in a slave-pen at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and also largenumbers at Memphis, Tennessee. "[791]

In a letter which speedily became public property, Douglas said thathe would not accept the nomination of the Democratic party, if theconvention should interpolate into the party creed "such new issues asthe revival of the African slave-trade, or a congressional slave codefor the Territories. "[792] And to leave no doubt as to his attitude hewrote a second letter, devoted exclusively to this subject; it alsofound its way, as the author probably intended it should, into thenewspapers. He opposed the revival of the African slave-trade becauseit was abolished by one of the compromises which had made the FederalUnion and the Constitution. "In accordance with this compromise, I amirreconcilably opposed to the revival of the African slave-trade, inany form and under any circumstances. "[793] How deeply thisunequivocal condemnation lacerated the feelings of the South, willnever be known until the economic necessities and purposes of thelarge plantation owners are more clearly revealed. 

The captious criticism of the Freeport doctrine by Southerners of theCalhoun-Jefferson Davis school was less damaging, from a legal pointof view, than the sober analysis of Lincoln. The emphasis in Lincoln'sfamous question at Freeport fell upon the word _lawful_: "Can thepeople of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, " etc. Douglashad replied to the question of legal right by an assertion of thepower of the people of the Territories. This answer, as Lincolnpointed out subsequently, was equivalent to saying that "a thing maybe lawfully driven away from where it has the lawful right tobe. "[794] As a prediction, Douglas's simple statement, that if thepeople of a Territory wanted slavery they would have it, and if theydid not, they would not let it be forced on them, was fully justifiedby the facts of American history. It has been characteristic of theAmerican people that, without irreverence for law, they have notallowed it to stand in the way of their natural development: they havenot, as a rule, driven rough-shod over law, but have quietly allowedundesirable laws to fall into innocuous desuetude. 

But such an answer was unworthy of a man who prided himself upon hisfidelity to the obligation of the Constitution and the laws. Feelingthe full force of Lincoln's inexorable logic, [795] but believing thatit was bottomed on a false premise, Douglas endeavored to give hisFreeport doctrine its proper constitutional setting. During thesummer, he elaborated an historical and constitutional defense ofpopular sovereignty. The editors of _Harper's Magazine_ so fardeparted from the traditions of that popular periodical as to publishthis long and tedious essay in the September number. Douglas probablycalculated that through this medium better than almost any other, hewould reach those readers to whom Lincoln made his most effectiveappeal. [796]

The essay bore the title "The Dividing Line between Federal and LocalAuthority, " with the sub-caption, "Popular Sovereignty in theTerritories. " In his interpretation of history, the author provedhimself rather a better advocate than historian. He had traversed muchthe same ground in his speeches--and with far more vivacity and force. Douglas searched the colonial records, and found--one is tempted tosay, to find--our fathers contending unremittingly for "theinalienable right, when formed into political communities, toexercise exclusive power of legislation in their local legislatures inrespect to all things affecting their internal polity--slavery notexcepted. "[797]

Douglas took issue with the fundamental postulate of Lincoln'ssyllogism--that a Territory is the mere creature of Congress andcannot be clothed with powers not possessed by the creator. He deniedthat such an inference could be drawn from that clause in theConstitution which permits Congress to dispose of, and make allneedful rules for, the territory or other property belonging to theUnited States. Names were deceptive. The word "territory" in thisconnection was not used in a political, but in a geographical sense. The power of Congress to organize governments for the Territories mustbe inferred rather from the power to admit new States into the Union. The Federal government possessed only expressly delegated powers; andthe absence of any explicit authority to interfere in localterritorial affairs must be held to inhibit any exercise of suchpower. It was on these grounds that the Supreme Court had ruled thatCongress was not authorized by the Constitution to prohibit slavery inthe Territories. 

It had been erroneously held by some, continued the essayist, that theCourt decided in the Dred Scott case that a territorial legislaturecould not legislate in respect to slave property like other property. He understood the Court to speak only of forbidden powers--powersdenied to Congress, to State legislatures and to territoriallegislatures alike. But if ever slavery should be decided to be one ofthese forbidden subjects of legislation, then the conclusion would beinevitable that the Constitution established slavery in theTerritories beyond the power of the people to control it by law, andguaranteed to every citizen the right to go there and be protected inthe enjoyment of his slave property; then every member of Congresswould be in duty bound to supply adequate protection, if the rights ofproperty should be invaded. Not only so, but another conclusion wouldfollow, --if the Constitution should be held to establish slavery inthe Territories beyond the power of the people to controlit, --Congress would be bound to provide adequate protection for slaveproperty everywhere, _in the States_ as well as in the Territories. 

Douglas immediately went on to show that such was not the decision ofthe Court in the Dred Scott case. The Court had held that "the rightof property in slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in theConstitution. " Yes, but where? Why in that provision which speaks ofpersons "held to service or labor in one State, under the lawsthereof"; not under the Constitution, not under the laws of Congress, Douglas emphasized, but _under the laws of the particular State wheresuch service is due. _ And so, when the Court declared that "thegovernment, in express terms, is pledged to protect it [slaveproperty] in all future time, " it added "if the slave escapes from hisowner. " "This is the only contingency, " Douglas maintained, "in whichthe Federal Government is authorized, required, or permitted tointerfere with slavery in the States or Territories; and in that caseonly for the purpose of 'guarding and protecting the owner in hisrights' to reclaim his slave property. " Slave-owners, therefore, whomoved with their property to a Territory, must hold it like all otherproperty, subject to local law, and look to local authorities for itsprotection. 

One other question remained: was the word "State, " as used in theclause just cited, intended to include Territories? Douglas socontended. Otherwise, "the Territories must become a sanctuary for allfugitives from service and justice. " In numerous clauses in theConstitution, the Territories were recognized as _States_. 

Clever as this reasoning was, it clearly was not a fair exposition ofthe opinion of the Court in the case of Dred Scott. If the Court didnot deny the right of a territorial legislature to interfere withslave property, it certainly left that proposition open to fairinference by the phrasing and emphasis of the critical passages. Itshould be noted that Douglas, in quoting the decision, misplaced thedecisive clause so as to bring it in juxtaposition to the reference tothe fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, thus redistributing theemphasis and confusing the real significance of the foregoingparagraph. [798] Douglas stated subsequently that he did not believethe decision of the Court reached the power of a territoriallegislature, because there was no territorial legislature in therecord nor any allusion to one; because there was no territorialenactment before the Court; and because there was no fact in the casealluding to or connected with territorial legislation. [799] All thiswas perfectly true. The opinion of the Court was _obiter dicens_; butthe Court expressed its opinion nevertheless. As Lincoln said, menknew what to expect of the Court when a territorial act prohibitingslavery came before it. Yet this was what Douglas would not concede. He would not admit the inference. Congress could confer powers upon aterritorial legislature which it could not itself exercise. Thedividing line between Federal and local authority was so drawn as topermit Congress to institute governments with legislative, judicial, and executive functions but without permitting Congress to exercisethose functions itself. From Douglas's point of view, a Territory wasnot a dependency of the Federal government, but an inchoateCommonwealth, endowed with many of the attributes of sovereigntypossessed by the full-fledged States. 

So unusual an event as a political contribution by a prominentstatesman to a popular magazine, created no little excitement. [800]Attorney-General Black came to the defense of the South with anunsigned contribution to the Washington _Constitution_, the organ ofthe administration. [801] And Douglas, who had meantime gone to Ohio totake part in the State campaign, replied caustically to this critiquein his speech at Wooster, September 16th. Black rejoined in a pamphletunder his own name. Whereupon Douglas returned to the attack with aslashing pamphlet, which he sent to the printer in an unfinished formand which did him little credit. [802]

This war of pamphlets was productive of no results. Douglas and Blackwere wide apart upon their major premises, and diverged inevitably intheir conclusions. Holding fast to the premise that a Territory wasnot sovereign but a "subordinate dependency, " Black ridiculed theattempts of Douglas to clothe it, not with complete sovereignty butwith "the attributes of sovereignty. "[803] Then Douglas denounced inscathing terms the absurdity of Black's assumption that property inthe Territories would be held by the laws of the State from which itcame, while it must look for redress of wrongs to the law of its newdomicile. [804]

The Ohio campaign attracted much attention throughout the country, notonly because the gubernatorial candidates were thoroughgoingrepresentatives of the Republican party and of Douglas Democracy, butbecause both Lincoln and Douglas were again brought into thearena. [805] While the latter did not meet in joint debate, theirsuccessive appearance at Columbus and Cincinnati gave the campaign theaspect of a prolongation of the Illinois contest. Lincoln devoted nolittle attention to the _Harper's Magazine_ article, while Douglasdefended himself and his doctrine against all comers. There was adisposition in many quarters to concede that popular sovereignty, whether theoretically right or wrong, would settle the question ofslavery in the Territories. [806] Apropos of Douglas's speech atColumbus, the New York _Times_ admitted that at least his principleswere "definite" and uttered in a "frank, gallant and masculine"spirit;[807] and his speeches were deemed of enough importance to beprinted entire in the columns of this Republican journal. "He means togo to Charleston, " guessed the editor shrewdly, "as the unmistakablerepresentative of the Democratic party of the North and to bring thisinfluence to bear upon Southern delegates as the only way to securetheir interests against anti-slavery sentiment represented by theRepublicans. He will claim that not a single Northern State can becarried on a platform more pro-slavery than his. The Democrats of theNorth have yielded all they will. "[808]

While Douglas was in Ohio, he was saddened by the intelligence thatSenator Broderick of California, his loyal friend and staunchsupporter in the Lecompton fight, had fallen a victim to the animosityof the Southern faction in his State. The Washington _Constitution_might explain his death as an affair of honor--he was shot in aduel--but intelligent men knew that Broderick's assailant had desiredto rid Southern "chivalry" of a hated political opponent. [809] A monthlater, on the night of October 16th, John Brown of Kansas famemarshalled his little band of eighteen men and descended upon theUnited States arsenal at Harper's Ferry. What did these eventsportend?

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 775: Weiss, Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker, II, p. 243. ]

[Footnote 776: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 355. ]

[Footnote 777: Memphis _Avalanche_, November 30, 1858, quoted byChicago _Times_, December 8, 1858. ]

[Footnote 778: New Orleans _Delta_, December 8, 1858, quoted byChicago _Times_, December 19, 1858. ]

[Footnote 779: Rhodes, History of United States, II, p. 355. ]

[Footnote 780: See reported conversation of Douglas with the editor ofthe Chicago _Press and Tribune_, Hollister, Life of Colfax, p. 123. ]

[Footnote 781: Letcher to Crittenden; Coleman. Life of John J. Crittenden, II, p. 171; Hollister, Colfax, p. 124. ]

[Footnote 782: New Orleans _Delta_, December 8, 1858. ]

[Footnote 783: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1243. ]

[Footnote 784: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 2: Sess. , p. 1245. ]

[Footnote 785: _Ibid. _, pp. 1247-1248. ]

[Footnote 786: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1259. ]

[Footnote 787: _Ibid. _, p. 1258. ]

[Footnote 788: _Globe_, 35 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1256. ]

[Footnote 789: _Ibid. _, p. 1243. ]

[Footnote 790: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 371. ]

[Footnote 791: _Ibid. _, pp. 369-370. ]

[Footnote 792: Letter to J. B. Dorr, June 22, 1859; Flint, Douglas, pp. 168-169. ]

[Footnote 793: Letter to J. L. Peyton, August 2, 1859; Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 465-466. ]

[Footnote 794: Speech at Columbus, Ohio, September, 1859; see Debates, p. 250. ]

[Footnote 795: On his return to Washington after the debates, Douglassaid to Wilson, "He [Lincoln] is an able and honest man, one of theablest of the nation. I have been in Congress sixteen years, and thereis not a man in the Senate I would not rather encounter in debate. "Wilson, Slave Power in America, II, p. 577. ]

[Footnote 796: It does not seem likely that Douglas hoped to reach thepeople of the South through _Harper's Magazine_, as it never had alarge circulation south of Mason and Dixon's line. See Smith, Partiesand Slavery, p. 292. ]

[Footnote 797: _Harper's Magazine_, XIX, p. 527. ]

[Footnote 798: Compare the quotation in _Harper's_, p. 531, with theopinion of the Court, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 19 How. , p. 720. Theclause beginning "And if the Constitution recognizes" is taken fromits own paragraph and put in the middle of the following paragraph. ]

[Footnote 799: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 2152. This statement wasconfirmed by Reverdy Johnson, who was one of the lawyers that arguedthe case. See the speech of Reverdy Johnson, June 7, 1860. ]

[Footnote 800: Rhodes, History of the United States, II. , p. 374. ]

[Footnote 801: Washington _Constitution_, September 10, 1859. Thearticle was afterward published in a collection of his essays andspeeches. ]

[Footnote 802: Flint, Douglas, p. 181. ]

[Footnote 803: One of the most interesting commentaries on Black'sargument is his defense of the people of Utah, many years later, against the Anti-Polygamy Laws, when he used Douglas's argumentwithout the slightest qualms. See Essays and Speeches, pp. 603, 604, 609. ]

[Footnote 804: Flint, Douglas, pp. 172-181 gives extracts from thesepamphlets. ]

[Footnote 805: Rhodes History of United States, II, p. 381. ]

[Footnote 806: _Ibid. _, p. 382. ]

[Footnote 807: New York _Times_, September 9, 1859. ]

[Footnote 808: _Ibid. _, September 9, 1859. ]

[Footnote 809: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 374-379. ]

CHAPTER XVIII

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1860

Deeds of violence are the inevitable precursors of an approaching war. They are so many expressions of that estrangement which is at the rootof all sectional conflicts. The raid of John Brown upon Harper'sFerry, like his earlier lawless acts in Kansas, was less the crime ofan individual than the manifestation of a deep social unrest. Occurring on the eve of a momentous presidential election, it threwdoubts upon the finality of any appeal to the ballot. The antagonismbetween North and South was such as to make an appeal to arms seem aprobable last resort. The political question of the year 1860 waswhether the law-abiding habit of the American people and thetraditional mode of effecting changes in governmental policy, would bestrong enough to withstand the primitive instinct to decide thequestion of right by an appeal to might. To actors in the drama thequestion assumed this simple, concrete form: could the nationalDemocratic party maintain its integrity and achieve another victoryover parties which were distinctly sectional?

The passions aroused by the Harper's Ferry episode had no time to coolbefore Congress met. They were again inflamed by the indorsement ofHelper's "Impending Crisis" by influential Republicans. As the authorwas a poor white of North Carolina who hated slavery and desired toprove that the institution was inimical to the interests of hisclass, the book was regarded by slave-holders as an incendiarypublication, conceived in the same spirit as John Brown's raid. Thecontest for the Speakership of the House turned upon the attitude ofcandidates toward this book. At the North "The Impending Crisis" hadgreat vogue, passing through many editions. All events seemed toconspire to prevent sobriety of judgment and moderation in speech. 

From a legislative point of view, this exciting session of Congresswas barren of results. The paramount consideration was the approachingparty conventions. What principles and policies would control theaction of the Democratic convention at Charleston, depended verylargely upon who should control the great body of delegates. Early inJanuary various State conventions in the Northwest expressed theirchoice. Illinois took the lead with a series of resolutions which rangclear and true on all the cardinal points of the Douglas creed. [810]Within the next sixty days every State in the greater Northwest hadchosen delegates to the national Democratic convention, pledged tosupport the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas. [811] It was with theknowledge, then, that he spoke for the Democracy of the Northwest thatDouglas took issue with those Southern senators who plumed themselveson their party orthodoxy. 

In a debate which was precipitated by a resolution of Senator Pugh, the old sores were rent open. Senator Davis of Mississippi wasparticularly irritating in his allusions to the Freeport, and otherrecent, heresies of the Senator from Illinois. In the give and takewhich followed, Douglas was beset behind and before. But his fightingblood was up and he promised to return blow for blow, with interest. Let every man make his assault, and when all were through, he would"fire into the lump. "[812] "I am not seeking a nomination, " hedeclared, "I am willing to take one provided I can assume it onprinciples that I believe to be sound; but in the event of your makinga platform that I could not conscientiously execute in good faith if Iwere elected, I will not stand upon it and be a candidate. " For hispart he would like to know "who it is that has the right to say who isin the party and who not?" He believed that he was backed bytwo-thirds of the Democracy of the United States. Did one-third of theDemocratic party propose to read out the remaining two-thirds? "I haveno grievances, but I have no concessions. I have no abandonment ofposition or principle; no recantation to make to any man or body ofmen on earth. "[813]

Some days later Douglas made it equally clear that he had norecantation to make for the sake of Republican support. Speaking ofthe need of some measure by which the States might be protectedagainst acts of violence like the Harper's Ferry affair, he roundlydenounced that outrage as "the natural, logical, inevitable result ofthe doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained andenforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphletsand books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and outof Congress. "[814] True, they disavowed the _act_ of John Brown, butthey should also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachingswhich produced the act. Fraternal peace was possible only upon "thatgood old golden principle which teaches all men to mind their ownbusiness and let their neighbors' alone. " When men so act, the Unioncan endure forever as the fathers made it, composed of free and slaveStates. [815] "Then the senator is really indifferent to slavery, as heis reported to have said?" queried Fessenden. "Sir, " replied Douglas, "I hold the doctrine that a statesman will adapt his laws to thewants, conditions, and interests of the people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in one climate and totally useless inanother. If I were a citizen of Louisiana I would vote for retainingand maintaining slavery, because I believe the good of the peoplewould require it. As a citizen of Illinois I am utterly opposed to it, because our interests would not be promoted by it. "[816]

The lines upon which the Charleston convention would divide, weresharply drawn by a series of resolutions presented to the Senate byJefferson Davis. They were intended to serve as an ultimatum, and theywere so understood by Northern Democrats. They were deliberatelywrought out in conference as the final expression of Southernconviction. In explicit language the right of either Congress or aterritorial legislature to impair the constitutional right of propertyin slaves, was denied. In case of unfriendly legislation, it wasdeclared to be the duty of Congress to provide adequate protection toslave property. Popular sovereignty was completely discarded by theassertion that the people of a Territory might pass upon the questionof slavery only when they formed a State constitution. [817]

As the delegates to the Democratic convention began to gather in thelatter part of April, the center of political interest shifted fromWashington to Charleston. Here the battle between the factions was tobe fought out, but without the presence of the real leaders. Theadvantages of organization were with the Douglas men. The delegationsfrom the Northwest were devoted, heart and soul, to their chief. Asthey passed through the capital on their journey to the South, theygathered around him with noisy demonstrations of affection; and whenthey continued on their way, they were more determined than ever tosecure his nomination. [818] From the South, too, every Douglas man whowas likely to carry weight in his community, was brought to Charlestonto labor among the Ultras of his section. [819] The Douglasheadquarters in Hibernian Hall bore witness to the business-like wayin which his candidacy was being promoted. Not the least strikingfeature within the committee rooms was the ample supply of Sheahan's_Life of Stephen A. Douglas_, fresh from the press. [820]

Recognized leader of the Douglas forces was Colonel Richardson ofIllinois, a veteran in convention warfare, seasoned by years ofcongressional service and by long practice in managing men. [821] Itwas he who had led the Douglas cohorts in the Cincinnati convention. The memory of that defeat still rankled, and he was not disposed toyield to like contingencies. Indeed, the spirit of the delegates fromthe Northwest, --and they seemed likely to carry the other Northerndelegates with them, --was offensively aggressive; and theirdemonstrations of enthusiasm assumed a minatory aspect, as theylearned of the presence of Slidell, Bigler, and Bright, and witnessedthe efforts of the administration to defeat the hero of the Lecomptonfight. [822]

Those who observed the proceedings of the convention could not ridthemselves of the impression that opposing parties were wrestling forcontrol, so bitter and menacing was the interchange of opinion. It wasmatter of common report that the Southern delegations would withdrawif Douglas were nominated. [823] Equally ominous was the rumor thatRichardson was authorized to withdraw the name of Douglas, if theplatform adopted should advocate the protection of slavery in theTerritories. [824] The temper of the convention was such as to precludean amicable agreement, even if Douglas withdrew. 

The advantages of compact organization and conscious purpose wereapparent in the first days of the convention. At every point theDouglas men forced the fighting. On the second day, it was voted thatwhere a delegation had not been instructed by a State convention howto give its vote, the individual delegates might vote as they pleased. This rule would work to the obvious advantage of Douglas. [825] On thethird day, the convention refused to admit the contesting delegationsfrom New York and Illinois, represented by Fernando Wood and IsaacCook respectively. [826]

Meantime the committee on resolutions, composed of one delegate fromeach State, was in the throes of platform-making. Both factions hadagreed to frame a platform before naming a candidate. But here, as inthe convention, the possibility of amiable discussion and mutualconcession was precluded. The Southern delegates voted in caucus tohold to the Davis resolutions; the Northern, with equal stubbornness, clung to the well-known principles of Douglas. On the fifth day of theconvention, April 27th, the committee presented a majority report andtwo minority reports. The first was essentially an epitome of theDavis resolutions; the second reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform, atthe same time pledging the party to abide by the decisions of theSupreme Court on those questions of constitutional law which shouldaffect the rights of property in the States or Territories; and thethird report simply reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform withoutadditional resolutions. [827] The defense of the main minority reportfell to Payne of Ohio. In a much more conciliatory spirit than Douglasmen had hitherto shown, he assured the Southern members of theconvention that every man who had signed the report felt that "uponthe result of our deliberations and the action of this convention, inall human probability, depended the fate of the Democratic party andthe destiny of the Union. " The North was devoted to the principle ofpopular sovereignty, but "we ask nothing for the people of theterritories but what the Constitution allows them. "[828] The argumentof Payne was cogent and commended itself warmly to Northern delegates;but it struck Southern ears as a tiresome reiteration of argumentsdrawn from premises which they could not admit. 

It was Yancey of Alabama, chief among fire-eaters, who, in theafternoon of the same day, warmed the cockles of the Southern heart. Gifted with all the graces of Southern orators, he made an eloquentplea for Southern rights. Protection was what the South demanded:protection in their constitutional rights and in their sacred rightsof property. The proposition contained in the minority report wouldruin the South. "You acknowledged that slavery did not exist by thelaw of nature or by the law of God--that it only existed by State law;that it was wrong, but that you were not to blame. That was yourposition, and it was wrong. If you had taken the position directlythat slavery was right, and therefore ought to be . . . You would havetriumphed, and anti-slavery would now have been dead in your midst. . . . I say it in no disrespect, but it is a logical argument that youradmission that slavery is wrong has been the cause of all thisdiscord. "[829]

These words brought Senator Pugh to his feet. Wrought to a dangerouspitch of excitement, he thanked God that a bold and honest man fromthe South had at last spoken, and had told the whole of the Southerndemands. The South demanded now nothing less than that NorthernDemocrats should declare slavery to be right. "Gentlemen of theSouth, " he exclaimed, "you mistake us--you mistake us--we will not doit. "[830] The convention adjourned before Pugh had finished; but inthe evening he told the Southern delegates plainly that NorthernDemocrats were not children at the bidding of the South. If thegentlemen from the South could stay only on the terms they proposed, they must go. For once the hall was awed into quiet, for Senator Pughstood close to Douglas and the fate of the party hung in thebalance. [831]

Sunday intervened, but the situation remained unchanged. Gloom settleddown upon the further deliberations of the convention. On Monday, theminority report (the Douglas platform) was adopted by a vote of 165 to138. Thereupon the chairman of the Alabama delegation protested andannounced the formal withdrawal of his State from the convention. Thecrisis had arrived. Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas followed in succession, with valedictories whichseemed directed less to the convention than to the Union. Indeed, morethan one face blanched at the probable significance of this secession. Southerners of the Yancey following, however, were jubilant and hadmuch to say about an independent Southern Republic. [832]

On the following day, what Yancey scornfully dubbed the "RumpConvention, " proceeded to ballot, having first voted that two-thirdsof the full vote of the convention should be necessary to nominate. Onthe first ballot, Douglas received 145-1/2, Hunter of Virginia 42, Guthrie of Kentucky 35-1/2; and the remaining thirty were dividedamong several candidates. As 202 votes were necessary for a choice, the hopelessness of the outlook was apparent to all. Nevertheless, theballoting continued, the vote of Douglas increasing on four ballots to152-1/2. After the thirty-sixth ballot, he failed to command more than151-1/2. In all, fifty-seven ballots were taken. [833] On the tenth dayof the convention, it was voted to adjourn to meet at Baltimore, onthe 18th of June. 

The followers of Douglas left Charleston with wrath in their hearts. Chagrin and disappointment alternated with bitterness and resentmenttoward their Southern brethren. Moreover, contact with the South, sofar from having lessened their latent distrust of its culture andinstitutions, had widened the gulf between the sections. Such speechesas that of Goulden of Georgia, who had boldly advocated the re-openingof the African slave-trade, saying coarsely that "the Africanslave-trade man is the Union man--the Christian man, " caused a certainethical revolt in the feelings of men, hitherto not particularlysusceptible to moral appeals on the slavery question. [834] Added toall these cumulative grievances was the uncomfortable probability, that the next President was about to be nominated in the Republicanconvention at Chicago. 

What were the feelings of the individual who had been such a divisiveforce in the Charleston convention? The country was not long left indoubt. Douglas was quite ready to comment upon the outcome; and itneeded only the bitter arraignment of his theories by Davis, to bringhim armed _cap-a-pie_ into the arena. 

Aided by his friend Pugh, who read long extracts from letters andspeeches, Douglas made a systematic review of Democratic principlesand policy since 1848. His object, of course, was to demonstrate hisown consistency, and at the same time to convict his critics ofapostasy from the party creed. There was, inevitably, much tiresomerepetition in all this. It was when he directed his remarks to theissues at Charleston that Douglas warmed to his subject. He refused torecognize the right of a caucus of the Senate or of the House, toprescribe new tests, to draft party platforms. That was a taskreserved, under our political system, for national conventions, madeup of delegates chosen by the people. Tried by the standard of theonly Democratic organization competent to pronounce upon questions ofparty faith, he was no longer a heretic, no longer an outlaw from theDemocratic party, no longer a rebel against the Democraticorganization. "The party decided at Charleston also, by a majority ofthe whole electoral college, that I was the choice of the Democraticparty of America for the Presidency of the United States, giving me amajority of fifty votes over all other candidates combined; and yet myDemocracy is questioned!" "But, " he added, and there is no reason todoubt his sincerity, "my friends who know me best know that I have nopersonal desire or wish for the nomination;. . . Know that my name neverwould have been presented at Charleston, except for the attempt toproscribe me as a heretic, too unsound to be the chairman of acommittee in this body, where I have held a seat for so many yearswithout a suspicion resting on my political fidelity. I was forced toallow my name to go there in self-defense; and I will now say thathad any gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority of thatconvention over me, the lightning would have carried a messagewithdrawing my name from the convention. "[835]

Douglas was ready to acquit his colleagues in the Senate of a purposeto dissolve the Union, but he did not hesitate to assert that suchprinciples as Yancey had advocated at Charleston would lead "directlyand inevitably" to a dissolution of the Union. Why was the South soeager to repudiate the principle of non-intervention? By it they hadconverted New Mexico into slave Territory; by it, in all probability, they would extend slavery into the northern States of Mexico, whenthat region should be acquired. "Why, " he asked, "are you notsatisfied with these practical results? The only difference of opinionis on the judicial question, about which we agreed to differ--which wenever did decide; because, under the Constitution, no tribunal onearth but the Supreme Court could decide it. " To commit the Democraticparty to intervention was to make the party sectional and to invitenever-ceasing conflict. "Intervention, North or South, means disunion;non-intervention promises peace, fraternity, and perpetuity to theUnion, and to all our cherished institutions. "[836]

The challenge contained in these words was not permitted to passunanswered. Davis replied with offensive references to the "swellingmanner" and "egregious vanity" of the Senator from Illinois. Heresented such dictation. [837] On the following day, May 17th, anexciting passage-at-arms occurred between these representatives ofthe Northwest and the Southwest. Douglas repeated his belief thatdisunion was the prompting motive which broke up the Charlestonconvention. Davis resented the insinuation, with fervent protestationsof affection for the Union of the States. It was the Senator fromIllinois, who, in his pursuit of power, had prevented unanimity, bytrying to plant his theory upon the party. The South would have nomore to do with the "rickety, double-construed platform" of 1856. "Thefact is, " said Davis, "I have a declining respect for platforms. Iwould sooner have an honest man on any sort of a rickety platform youcould construct, than to have a man I did not trust on the bestplatform which could be made. A good platform and an honest man on itis what we want. "[838] Douglas reminded his opponent sharply that thebolters at Charleston seceded, not on the candidate, but on theplatform. "If the platform is not a matter of much consequence, whypress that question to the disruption of the party? Why did you nottell us in the beginning of this debate that the whole fight wasagainst the man, and not upon the platform?"[839]

In the interval between the Charleston and the Baltimore conventions, the Davis resolutions were pressed to a vote in the Senate, with thepurpose of shaping party opinion. They passed by votes which gave adeceptive appearance of Democratic unanimity. Only Senator Pugh partedcompany with his Democratic colleagues on the crucial resolution; yethe represented the popular opinion at the North. [840] The futility ofthese resolutions, so far as practical results were concerned, wasdemonstrated by the adoption of Clingman's resolution, that theexisting condition of the Territories did not require the interventionof Congress for the protection of property in slaves. [841] In otherwords, the South was insisting upon rights which were barren ofpractical significance. Slave-holders were insisting upon the right tocarry their slaves where local conditions were unfavorable, and wheretherefore they had no intention of going. [842]

The nomination of Lincoln rather than Seward, at the Republicanconvention in Chicago, was a bitter disappointment to those who feltthat the latter was the real leader of the party of moral ideas, andthat the rail-splitter was simply an "available" candidate. [843] ButDouglas, with keener insight into the character of Lincoln, said to agroup of Republicans at the Capitol, "Gentlemen, you have nominated avery able and a very honest man. "[844] For the candidate of the newConstitutional Union party, which had rallied the politicallyunattached of various opinions in a convention at Baltimore, Douglashad no such words of praise, though he recognized John Bell as aUnionist above suspicion and as an estimable gentleman. 

These nominations rendered it still less prudent for NorthernDemocrats to accept a candidate with stronger Southern leanings thanDouglas. No Northern Democrat could carry the Northern States on aSouthern platform; and no Southern Democrat would accept a nominationon the Douglas platform. Unless some middle ground could befound, --and the debates in the Senate had disclosed none, --theDemocrats of the North were bound to adhere to Douglas as their firstand only choice in the Baltimore convention. 

When the delegates reassembled in Baltimore, the factional quarrel hadlost none of its bitterness. Almost immediately the convention fellfoul of a complicated problem of organization. Some of the originaldelegates, who had withdrawn at Charleston, desired to be re-admitted. From some States there were contesting delegations, notably fromLouisiana and Alabama, where the Douglas men had rallied in force. Those anti-Douglas delegates who were still members of the convention, made every effort to re-admit the delegations hostile to him. Theaction of the convention turned upon the vote of the New Yorkdelegation, which would be cast solidly either for or against theadmission of the contesting delegations. For three days the fate ofDouglas was in the hands of these thirty-five New Yorkers, in whom thedisposition to bargain was not wanting. [845] It was at this juncturethat Douglas wrote to Dean Richmond, the _Deus ex machina_ in thedelegation, [846] "If my enemies are determined to divide and destroythe Democratic party, and perhaps the country, rather than see meelected, and if the unity of the party can be preserved, and itsascendancy perpetuated by dropping my name and uniting upon somereliable non-intervention and Union-loving Democrat, I beseech you, inconsultation with my friends, to pursue that course which will savethe country, without regard to my individual interests. I mean allthis letter implies. Consult freely and act boldly for theright. "[847]

It was precisely the "if's" in this letter that gave the New Yorkersmost concern. Where was the candidate who possessed thesequalifications and who would be acceptable to the South? On the fifthday of the convention, the contesting Douglas delegations wereadmitted. The die was cast. A portion of the Virginia delegation thenwithdrew, and their example was followed by nearly all the delegatesfrom North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and Maryland. If the firstwithdrawal at Charleston presaged the secession of the cotton Statesfrom the Union, this pointed to the eventual secession of the borderStates. 

On June 23d, the convention proceeded to ballot. Douglas received173-1/2 votes; Guthrie 10; and Breckinridge 5; scattering 3. On thesecond ballot, Douglas received all but thirteen votes; whereupon itwas moved and carried unanimously with a tremendous shout thatDouglas, having received "two-thirds of all votes given in thisconvention, " should be the nominee of the party. [848] ColonelRichardson then begged leave to have the Secretary read a letter fromSenator Douglas. He had carried it in his pocket for three days, butthe course of the bolters, he said, had prevented him from usingit. [849] The letter was of the same tenor as that written to DeanRichmond. There is little likelihood that an earlier acquaintance withits contents would have changed the course of events, since so longas the platform stood unaltered, the choice of Douglas was a logicaland practical necessity. Douglas and the platform were one andinseparable. 

Meantime the bolters completed their destructive work by organizing aseparate convention in Baltimore, by adopting the report of themajority in the Charleston convention as their platform, and bynominating John C. Breckinridge as their candidate for the presidency. Lane of Oregon was named for the second place on the ticket for muchthe same reason that Fitzpatrick of Alabama, and subsequently HerschelV. Johnson of Georgia, was put upon the Douglas ticket. Both factionsdesired to demonstrate that they were national Democrats, withadherents in all sections. In his letter of acceptance Douglas rangthe changes on the sectional character of the doctrine of interventioneither for or against slavery. "If the power and duty of Federalinterference is to be conceded, two hostile sectional parties must bethe inevitable result--the one inflaming the passions and ambitions ofthe North, the other of the South. "[850] Indeed, his best, --hisonly, --chance of success lay in his power to appeal to conservative, Union-loving men, North and South. This was the secret purpose of hisfrequent references to Clay and Webster, who were invoked assupporters of "the essential, living principle of 1850"; _i. E. _ hisown doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in theTerritories. But the Constitutional Union party was quite as likely toattract the remnant of the old Whig party of Clay and Webster. 

Douglas began his campaign in excellent spirits. His only regret wasthat he had been placed in a position where he had to look on and seea fight without taking a hand in it. [851] The New York _Times_, whoseeditor followed the campaign of Douglas with the keenest interest, without indorsing him, frankly conceded that popular sovereignty had avery strong hold upon the instinct of nine-tenths of the Americanpeople. [852] Douglas wrote to his Illinois confidant in high spiritsafter the ratification meeting in New York. [853] Conceding SouthCarolina and possibly Mississippi to Breckinridge, and the borderslave States to Bell, he expressed the firm conviction that he wouldcarry the rest of the Southern States and enough free States to beelected by the people. Richardson had just returned from New England, equally confident that Douglas would carry Maine, New Hampshire, RhodeIsland, and Connecticut. If the election should go to the House ofRepresentatives, Douglas calculated that Lincoln, Bell, and he wouldbe the three candidates. In any event, he was sure that Breckinridgeand Lane had "no show. " He enjoined his friends everywhere to treatthe Bell and Everett men in a friendly way and to cultivate goodrelations with them, "for they are Union men. " But, he added, "we canhave no partnership with the Bolters. " "Now organize and rally inIllinois and the Northwest. The chances in our favor are immense inthe East. Organize the State!"

Buoyed up by these sanguine expectations, Douglas undertook a tourthrough New England, not to make stump speeches, he declared, but tovisit and enhearten his followers. Yet at every point on the way toBoston, he was greeted with enthusiasm; and whenever time permitted heresponded with brief allusions to the political situation. As theguest of Harvard University, at the alumni dinner, he was called uponto speak--not, to be sure, as a candidate for the presidency, but asone high in the councils of the nation, and as a generous contributorto the founding of an educational institution in Chicago. [854] A visitto Bunker Hill suggested the great principle for which ourRevolutionary fathers fought and for which all good Democrats were nowcontending. [855] At Springfield, too, he harked back to the Revolutionand to the beginnings of the great struggle for control of domesticconcerns. [856]

Along the route from Boston to Saratoga, he was given ovations, andhis diffidence about making stump speeches lessened perceptibly. [857]At Troy, he made a political speech in his own vigorous style, remarking apologetically that if he did not return home soon, he would"get to making stump speeches before he knew it. "[858] Passing throughVermont, he visited the grave of his father and the scenes of hischildhood; and here and there, as he told the people of Concord with atwinkle in his eye, he spoke "a little just for exercise. " Providencerecalled the memory of Roger Williams and the principles for which hesuffered--principles so nearly akin to those for which Democratsto-day were laboring. By this time the true nature of this pilgrimagewas apparent to everybody. It was the first time in our history that apresidential candidate had taken the stump in his own behalf. Therewas bitter criticism on the part of those who regretted the departurefrom decorous precedent. [859] When Douglas reached Newport for a briefsojourn, the expectation was generally entertained that he wouldcontinue in retirement for the remainder of the campaign. 

Except for this anomaly of a candidate canvassing in his own behalf, the campaign was devoid of exciting incidents. The personal canvass ofDouglas was indeed almost the only thing that kept the campaign frombeing dull and spiritless. [860] Republican politicians were somewhatat a loss to understand why he should manoeuvre in a section devotedbeyond question to Lincoln. Indeed, a man far less keen than Douglaswould have taken note of the popular current in New England. Why, then, this expenditure of time and effort! In all probability Douglasgauged the situation correctly. He is said to have conceded franklythat Lincoln would be elected. [861] His contest was less withRepublicans and Constitutional Unionists now, than with the followersof Breckinridge. He hoped to effect a reorganization of the Democraticparty by crushing the disunion elements within it. With this end inview he could not permit the organization to go to pieces in theNorth. A listless campaign on his part would not only give theelection to Lincoln, but leave his own followers to wander leaderlessinto other organizations. For the sake of discipline and futuresuccess, he rallied Northern Democrats for a battle that was alreadylost. [862]

Well assured that Lincoln would be elected, Douglas determined to goSouth and prepare the minds of the people for the inevitable. [863] Thelanguage of Southern leaders had grown steadily more menacing as theprobability of Republican success increased. It was now proclaimedfrom the house-tops that the cotton States would secede, if Lincolnwere elected. Republicans might set these threats down as Southerngasconade, but Douglas knew the animus of the secessionists betterthan they. [864] This determination of Douglas was warmly applaudedwhere it was understood. [865] Indeed, that purpose was dictated nowalike by politics and patriotism. 

On August 25th, Douglas spoke at Norfolk, Virginia. In the course ofhis address, an elector on the Breckinridge ticket interrupted himwith two questions. Though taken somewhat by surprise, Douglas withunerring sagacity detected the purpose of his interrogator andanswered circumstantially. [866] "First, If Abraham Lincoln be electedPresident of the United States, will the Southern States be justifiedin seceding from the Union?" "To this I emphatically answer no. Theelection of a man to the presidency by the American people inconformity with the Constitution of the United States _would notjustify any attempt at dissolving this glorious confederacy_. ""Second, If they secede from the Union upon the inauguration ofAbraham Lincoln, before an overt act against their constitutionalrights, will you advise or vindicate resistance to the decision!" "Ianswer emphatically, that it is the duty of the President of theUnited States and of all others in authority under him, to enforce thelaws of the United States, passed by Congress and as the Courtsexpound them; and I, as in duty bound by my oath of fidelity to theConstitution, _would do all in my power to aid the government of theUnited States in maintaining the supremacy of the laws against allresistance to them, come from whatever quarter it might_. . . . I holdthat the Constitution has a remedy for every grievance that may arisewithin the limits of the Union. . . . The mere inauguration of aPresident of the United States, whose political opinions were, in myjudgment, hostile to the Constitution and safety of the Union, withoutan overt act on his part, without striking a blow at our institutionsor our rights, is not such a grievance as would justify revolution orsecession. " But for the disunionists at the South, Douglas went on tosay, "I would have beaten Lincoln in every State but Vermont andMassachusetts. As it is I think I will beat him in almost all of themyet. "[867] And now these disunionists come forward and ask aid indissolving the Union. "I tell them 'no--never on earth!'"

Widely quoted, this bold defiance of disunion made a profoundimpression through the South. At Raleigh, North Carolina, Douglasentered into collusion with a friend, in order to have the questionsrepeated. [868] And again he stated his attitude in unequivocallanguage. "I am in favor of executing, in good faith, every clause andprovision of the Constitution, and of protecting every right under it, and then hanging every man who takes up arms against it. Yes, myfriends, I would hang every man higher than Haman who would attempt toresist by force the execution of any provision of the Constitutionwhich our fathers made and bequeathed to us. "[869]

He touched many hearts when he reminded his hearers that in the greatNorthwest, Northerners and Southerners met and married, bequeathingthe choice gifts of both sections to their children. "When theirchildren grow up, the child of the same parents has a grandfather inNorth Carolina and another in Vermont, and that child does not like tohear either of those States abused. . . . He will never consent that thisUnion shall be dissolved so that he will be compelled to obtain apassport and get it _viséd_ to enter a foreign land to visit thegraves of his ancestors. You cannot sever this Union unless you cutthe heart strings that bind father to son, daughter to mother, andbrother to sister, in all our new States and territories. " And theheart of the speaker went out to his kindred and his boys, who werealmost within hearing of his voice. "I love my children, " heexclaimed, "but I do not desire to see them survive this Union. "

At Richmond, Douglas received an ovation which recalled the days whenClay was the idol of the Whigs;[870] but as he journeyed northward hefelt more and more the hostility of Breckinridge men, and marked thedisposition of many of his own supporters to strike an alliance withthem. Unhesitatingly he threw the weight of his personal influenceagainst fusion. At Baltimore, he averred that while Breckinridge wasnot a disunionist, every disunionist was a Breckinridge man. [871] Andat Reading, he said, "For one, I can never fuse, and never will fusewith a man who tells me that the Democratic creed is a dogma, contraryto reason and to the Constitution. . . . I have fought twenty-sevenpitched battles, since I entered public life, and never yet tradedwith nominations or surrendered to treachery. "[872] With equalpertinacity he refused to countenance any attempts at fusion in NorthCarolina. [873] Even more explicitly he declared against fusion in aspeech at Erie: "No Democrat can, without dishonor, and a forfeitureof self-respect and principle, fuse with anybody who is in favor ofintervention, either for or against slavery. . . . As Democrats we cannever fuse either with Northern Abolitionists or Southern Bolters andSecessionists. "[874]

In spite of these protests and admonitions, Douglas men in several ofthe doubtful States entered into more or less definite agreement withthe supporters of Breckinridge. The pressure put upon him in New Yorkby those to whom he was indebted for his nomination, was almost toostrong to be resisted. Yet he withstood all entreaties, even tomaintain a discreet silence and let events take their course. Hostilenewspapers expressed his sentiments when they represented him asopposed to fusion, "all the way from Maine to California. "[875]"Douglas either must have lost his craft as a politician, " commentedRaymond, in the editorial columns of the _Times_, "or be credited withsteadfast convictions. "[876]

Adverse comment on Douglas's personal canvass had now ceased. Wise menrecognized that he was preparing the public mind for a crisis, as noone else could. He set his face westward, speaking at numerouspoints. [877] Continuous speaking had now begun to tell upon him. AtCincinnati, he was so hoarse that he could not address the crowdswhich had gathered to greet him, but he persisted in speaking on thefollowing day at Indianapolis. He paused in Chicago only long enoughto give a public address, and then passed on into Iowa. [878] Among hisown people he unbosomed himself as he had not done before in all theseweeks of incessant public speaking. "I am no alarmist. I believe thatthis country is in more danger now than at any other moment since Ihave known anything of public life. It is not personal ambition thathas induced me to take the stump this year. I say to you who know me, that the presidency has no charms for me. I do not believe that it ismy interest as an ambitious man, to be President this year if I could. But I do love this Union. There is no sacrifice on earth that I wouldnot make to preserve it. "[879]

While Douglas was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he received a dispatch fromhis friend, Forney, announcing that the Republicans had carriedPennsylvania in the October State election. Similar intelligence camefrom Indiana. The outcome in November was thus clearly foreshadowed. Recognizing the inevitable, Douglas turned to his Secretary with thelaconic words, "Mr. Lincoln is the next President. We must try to savethe Union. I will go South. "[880] He at once made appointments tospeak in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, as soon as he should havemet his Western engagements. His friends marvelled at his powers ofendurance. For weeks he had been speaking from hotel balconies, fromthe platform of railroad coaches, and in halls to monstermass-meetings. [881] Not infrequently he spoke twice and thrice a day, for days together. It was often said that he possessed theconstitution of the United States; and he caught up the jest withdelight, remarking that he believed he had. Small wonder if much thathe said was trivial and unworthy of his attention;[882] in and throughall his utterance, nevertheless, coursed the passionate current of hislove for the Union, transfiguring all that was paltry and commonplace. From Iowa he passed into Wisconsin and Michigan, finally enteringupon his Southern mission at St. Louis, October 19th. "I am not hereto-night, " he told his auditors, with a shade of weariness in hisvoice, "to ask your votes for the presidency. I am not one of thosewho believe that I have any more personal interest in the presidencythan any other good citizen in America. I am here to make an appeal toyou in behalf of the Union and the peace of the country. "[883]

It was a courageous little party that left St. Louis for Memphis andthe South. Mrs. Douglas was still with her husband, determined toshare all the hardships that fell to his lot; and besides her, therewas only James B. Sheridan, Douglas's devoted secretary andstenographer. The Southern press had threatened Douglas with personalviolence, if he should dare to invade the South with his politicalheresies. [884] But Luther bound for Worms was not more indifferent topersonal danger than this modern intransigeant. His conduct earned thehearty admiration of even Republican journals, for no one could nowbelieve that he courted the South in his own behalf. Nor was there anyfoolish bravado in this adventure. He was thoroughly sobered by theimminence of disunion. When he read, in a newspaper devoted to hisinterests, that it was "the deep-seated fixed determination on thepart of the leading Southern States to go out of the Union, peaceablyand quietly, " he knew that these words were no cheap rhetoric, forthey were penned by a man of Northern birth and antecedents. [885]

The history of this Southern tour has never been written. It was thefirm belief of Douglas that at least one attempt was made to wreck histrain. At Montgomery, while addressing a public gathering, he was madethe target for nameless missiles. [886] Yet none of these adventureswere permitted to find their way into the Northern press. And only hisintimates learned of them from his own lips after his return. 

The news of Mr. Lincoln's election overtook Douglas in Mobile. He wasin the office of the Mobile _Register_, one of the few newspaperswhich had held to him and his cause through thick and thin. It nowbecame a question what policy the paper should pursue. The editorasked his associate to read aloud an article which he had justwritten, advocating a State convention to deliberate upon the courseof Alabama in the approaching crisis. Douglas opposed its publication;but he was assured that the only way to manage the secession movementwas to appear to go with it, and by electing men opposed to disunion, to control the convention. With his wonted sagacity, Douglas remarkedthat if they could not prevent the calling of a convention, they couldhardly hope to control its action. But the editors determined topublish the article, "and Douglas returned to his hotel more hopelessthan I had ever seen him before, " wrote Sheridan. [887]

On his return to the North, Douglas spoke twice, at New Orleans and atVicksburg, urging acquiescence in the result of the election. [888] Heput the case most cogently in a letter to the business men of NewOrleans, which was widely published. No one deplored the election of anAbolitionist as President more than he. Still, he could not find anyjust cause for dissolving the Federal Union in the mere election of anyman to the presidency, in accordance with the Constitution. Those whoapprehended that the new President would carry out the aggressivepolicy of his party, failed to observe that his party was in aminority. Even his appointments to office would have to be confirmed bya hostile Senate. Any invasion of constitutional rights would beresented in the North, as well as in the South. In short, the electionof Mr. Lincoln could only serve as a pretext for those who purposed tobreak up the Union and to form a Southern Confederacy. [889]

On the face of the election returns, Douglas made a sorry showing; hehad won the electoral vote of but a single State, Missouri, thoughthree of the seven electoral votes of New Jersey fell to him as theresult of fusion. Yet as the popular vote in the several States wasascertained, defeat wore the guise of a great personal triumph. Leaderof a forlorn hope, he had yet received the suffrages of 1, 376, 957citizens, only 489, 495 less votes than Lincoln had polled. Of these163, 525 came from the South, while Lincoln received only 26, 430, allfrom the border slave States. As compared with the vote ofBreckinridge and Bell at the South, Douglas's vote was insignificant;but at the North, he ran far ahead of the combined vote of both. [890]It goes without saying that had Douglas secured the full Democraticvote in the free States, he would have pressed Lincoln hard in manyquarters. From the national standpoint, the most significant aspect ofthe popular vote was the failure of Breckinridge to secure a majorityin the slave States. [891] Union sentiment was still stronger than thesecessionists had boasted. The next most significant fact in thehistory of the election was this: Abraham Lincoln had been elected tothe presidency by the vote of a section which had given over a millionvotes to his rival, the leader of a faction of a disorganized party. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 810: Flint, Douglas, pp. 205-207. ]

[Footnote 811: _Ibid. _, pp. 207-209. ]

[Footnote 812: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 421. ]

[Footnote 813: _Ibid. _, pp. 424-425. ]

[Footnote 814: _Ibid. _, p. 553. ]

[Footnote 815: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , pp. 554-555. ]

[Footnote 816: _Ibid. _, p. 559. ]

[Footnote 817: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 658. For the finalversion, see p. 935. ]

[Footnote 818: Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 59. ]

[Footnote 819: _Ibid. _, p. 29. ]

[Footnote 820: _Ibid. _, p. 5. ]

[Footnote 821: _Ibid. _, pp. 9 and 20. ]

[Footnote 822: Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, pp. 12-13. ]

[Footnote 823: _Ibid. _, p. 8. ]

[Footnote 824: _Ibid. _, p. 36. ]

[Footnote 825: Especially in securing votes from the delegations ofMassachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the influence of theadministration was strong. Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, pp. 25-28. ]

[Footnote 826: Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 36. ]

[Footnote 827: Stanwood, History of the Presidency, pp. 283-288. ]

[Footnote 828: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 446. ]

[Footnote 829: _Ibid. _, p. 448. ]

[Footnote 830: Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 49. ]

[Footnote 831: _Ibid. _, p. 50. ]

[Footnote 832: _Ibid. _, pp. 74-75. ]

[Footnote 833: Proceedings of the National Democratic Convention, pp. 46-53. ]

[Footnote 834: Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 78. ]

[Footnote 835: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , App. , p. 313. ]

[Footnote 836: _Ibid. _, p. 316. ]

[Footnote 837: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 2120. ]

[Footnote 838: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 2155. ]

[Footnote 839: _Ibid. _, p. 2156. ]

[Footnote 840: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 456. ]

[Footnote 841: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 1 Sess. , p. 2344. ]

[Footnote 842: See Wise, Life of Henry A. Wise, pp. 264-265. ]

[Footnote 843: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 472. ]

[Footnote 844: _Ibid. _, p. 472. ]

[Footnote 845: Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, pp. 227-228. ]

[Footnote 846: _Ibid. _, pp. 194-195. ]

[Footnote 847: The letter was written at Washington, June 22d, at 9:30a. M. ]

[Footnote 848: Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 286; Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 211. ]

[Footnote 849: Halstead, p. 216. ]

[Footnote 850: Flint, Douglas, pp. 213-215. ]

[Footnote 851: New York _Times_, July 3, 1860. ]

[Footnote 852: _Ibid. _, June 26. ]

[Footnote 853: MS. Letter, Douglas to C. H. Lanphier, July 5, 1860. Hewrote in a similar vein to a friend in Missouri, July 4, 1860. ]

[Footnote 854: New York _Times_, July 20, 1860. ]

[Footnote 855: _Ibid. _, July 21. ]

[Footnote 856: _Ibid. _, July 21. ]

[Footnote 857: _Ibid. _, July 24. ]

[Footnote 858: _Ibid. _, July 28. ]

[Footnote 859: New York _Times_, July. 24. ]

[Footnote 860: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 482-483. ]

[Footnote 861: Wilson, Slave Power in America, II, p. 699. ]

[Footnote 862: This was the view of a well-informed correspondent ofthe New York _Times_, August 10, 14, 16, 1860. From this point ofview, Douglas's tour through Maine in August takes on specialsignificance. ]

[Footnote 863: Wilson, Slave Power in America, II, 699. ]

[Footnote 864: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, pp. 487, 489. ]

[Footnote 865: New York _Times_, August 16, 1860. ]

[Footnote 866: _Ibid. _, August 29, 1860. ]

[Footnote 867: This can hardly be regarded as a sober opinion. Clingman had become convinced by conversation with Douglas that he wasnot making the canvass in his own behalf, but in order to weaken anddivide the South, so as to aid Lincoln. Clingman, Speeches andWritings, p. 513. ]

[Footnote 868: Clingman, Speeches and Writings, p. 513. ]

[Footnote 869: North Carolina _Standard_, September 5, 1860. ]

[Footnote 870: Correspondent to New York _Times_, September 5, 1860. ]

[Footnote 871: _Ibid. _, September 7, 1860. ]

[Footnote 872: New York _Tribune_, September 10, 1860. Greeley didDouglas an injustice when he accused him of courting votes by favoringa protective tariff in Pennsylvania. The misapprehension was doubtlessdue to a garbled associated press dispatch. ]

[Footnote 873: Clingman, Speeches and Writings, p. 513. ]

[Footnote 874: New York _Times_, September 27, 1860. ]

[Footnote 875: New York _Times_, September 13, 1860. ]

[Footnote 876: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 877: His movements were still followed by the New York_Times_, which printed his list of appointments. ]

[Footnote 878: Chicago _Times_ and _Herald_, October 9, 1860. ]

[Footnote 879: Chicago _Times and Herald_, October 6, 1860. ]

[Footnote 880: Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, II, p. 700; see also Forney's Eulogy of Douglas, 1861. ]

[Footnote 881: Rhodes, History of the United States, II, p. 493. ]

[Footnote 882: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 883: Chicago _Times and Herald_, October 24, 1860. ]

[Footnote 884: Philadelphia _Press_, October 29, 1860. ]

[Footnote 885: Savannah (Ga. ) _Express_, quoted by Chicago _Times andHerald_, October 25, 1860. ]

[Footnote 886: There was a bare reference to the Montgomery incidentin the Chicago _Times and Herald_, November 12, 1860. ]

[Footnote 887: Wilson, Slave Power in America, II, p. 700. ]

[Footnote 888: Chicago _Times and Herald_, November 13, 1860;Philadelphia _Press_, November 28, 1860. ]

[Footnote 889: Chicago _Times and Herald_, November 19, 1860. ]

[Footnote 890: Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 297. ]

[Footnote 891: Douglas and Bell polled 135, 057 votes more thanBreckinridge; see Greeley, American Conflict, I, p. 328. ]

CHAPTER XIX

THE MERGING OF THE PARTISAN IN THE PATRIOT

On the day after the election, the palmetto and lone star flag wasthrown out to the breeze from the office of the Charleston _Mercury_and hailed with cheers by the populace. "The tea has been thrownoverboard--the revolution of 1860 has been initiated, " said thatebullient journal next morning. [892] On the 10th of November, thelegislature of South Carolina called a convention of the people toconsider the relations of the Commonwealth "with the Northern Statesand the government of the United States. " The instantaneous approvalof the people of Charleston, the focus of public opinion in the State, left no doubt that South Carolina would secede from the Union soonafter the 17th of December, when the convention was to assemble. OnNovember 23d, Major Robert Anderson, in command of Fort Moultrie inCharleston harbor, urged the War Department to reinforce his garrisonand to occupy also Fort Sumter and Castle Pinckney, saying, "I neednot say how anxious I am--indeed, determined, so far as honor willpermit--to avoid collision with the citizens of South Carolina. Nothing, however, will be better calculated to prevent bloodshed thanour being found in such an attitude that it would be madness and follyto attack us. " "That there is a settled determination, " he continued, "to leave the Union, and to obtain possession of this work, isapparent to all. "[893] No sane man could doubt that a crisis wasimminent. Unhappily, James Buchanan was still President of the UnitedStates. 

To those who greeted Judge Douglas upon his return to Washington, heseemed to be in excellent health, despite rumors to the contrary. [894]Demonstrative followers insisted upon hearing his voice immediatelyupon his arrival, and he was not unwilling to repeat what he had saidat New Orleans, here within hearing of men of all sections. The burdenof his thought was contained in a single sentence: "Mr. Lincoln, having been elected, must be inaugurated in obedience to theConstitution. " "Fellow citizens, " he said, in his rich, sonorousvoice, sounding the key-note of his subsequent career, "I beseech you, with reference to former party divisions, to lay aside all politicalasperities, all personal prejudices, to indulge in no criminations orrecriminations, but to unite with me, and all Union-loving men, in acommon effort to save the country from the disasters which threatenit. "[895]

In the midst of forebodings which even the most optimistic shared, Congress reassembled. Feeling was tense in both houses, but it wasmore noticeable in the Senate, where, hitherto, political differenceshad not been a barrier to social intercourse. Senator Iverson put intowords what all felt: "Look at the spectacle exhibited on this floor. How is it? There are Republican Northern senators upon that side. Hereare Southern senators on this side. How much social intercourse isthere between us? You sit upon your side, silent and gloomy; we situpon ours with knit brows and portentous scowls. . . . Here are twohostile bodies on this floor; and it is but a type of the feeling thatexists between the two sections. "[896]

Southern senators hastened to lay bare their grievances. However muchthey might differ in naming specific, tangible ills, they all agreedupon the great cause of their apprehension and uneasiness. Davisvoiced the common feeling when he said, "I believe the true cause ofour danger to be that a sectional hostility has been substituted for ageneral fraternity. "[897] And his colleague confirmed this opinion. Clingman put the same thought more concretely when he declared thatthe South was apprehensive, not because a dangerous man had beenelected to the presidency; but because a President had been electedwho was known to be a dangerous man and who had declared his purposeto war upon the social system of the South. [898]

With the utmost boldness, Southern senators announced the impendingsecession of their States. "We intend, " said Iverson of Georgiaspeaking for his section, "to go out peaceably if we can, forcibly ifwe must. . . . In this state of feeling, divided as we are by interests, by a geographical feeling, by everything that makes two peopleseparate and distinct, I ask why we should remain in the same Uniontogether?"[899]

No Northern senator had better reason than Douglas to believe thatthese were not merely idle threats. The knowledge sobered him. In thishour of peril, his deep love for the Union welled up within him, submerging the partisan and the politician. "I trust, " he said, rebuking a Northern senator, "we may lay aside all party grievances, party feuds, partisan jealousies, and look to our country, and not toour party, in the consequences of our action. Sir, I am as good aparty man as anyone living, when there are only party issues at stake, and the fate of political parties to be provided for. But, Sir, if Iknow myself, I do not desire to hear the word party, or to listen toany party appeal, while we are considering and discussing thequestions upon which the fate of the country now hangs. "[900]

In this spirit Douglas welcomed from the South the recital of specialgrievances. "Give us each charge and each specification. . . . I holdthat there is no grievance growing out of a nonfulfillment ofconstitutional obligations, which cannot be remedied under theConstitution and within the Union. "[901] And when the Personal LibertyActs of Northern States were cited as a long-standing grievance, heheartily denounced them as in direct violation of the letter and thespirit of the Constitution. At the same time he contended that theseacts existed generally in the States to which few fugitives ever fled, and that the Fugitive Slave Act was enforced nineteen out of twentytimes. It was the twentieth case that was published abroad through thepress, misleading the South. In fact, the present excitement was, tohis mind, due to the inability of the extremes of North and South tounderstand each other. "Those of us that live upon the border, andhave commercial intercourse and social relations across the line, canlive in peace with each other. " If the border slave States and theborder free States could arbitrate the question of slavery, the Unionwould last forever. [902]

Arbitration and compromise--these were the words with which thevenerable Crittenden of Kentucky, successor to Clay, now endeavored torally Union-loving men. He was seconded by his colleague, SenatorPowell, who had already moved the appointment of a special committeeof thirteen, to consider the grievances between the slave-holding andnon-slave-holding States. Douglas put himself unreservedly at theservice of the party of compromise. It seemed, for the moment, asthough the history of the year 1850 were to be repeated. Now, as then, the initiative was taken by a senator from the border-State ofKentucky. Again a committee of thirteen was to prepare measures ofadjustment. The composition of the committee was such as to givepromise of a settlement, if any were possible. Seward, Collamer, Wade, Doolittle, and Grimes, were the Republican members; Douglas, Rice, andBigler represented the Democracy of the North. Davis and Toombsrepresented the Gulf States; Powell, Crittenden, and Hunter, theborder slave States. [903]

On the 22d of December, the committee took under consideration theCrittenden resolutions, which proposed six amendments to theConstitution and four joint resolutions. The crucial point was thefirst amendment, which would restore the Missouri Compromise line "inall the territory of the United States now held, or hereafteracquired. " Could this disposition of the vexing territorial questionhave been agreed upon, the other features of the compromise wouldprobably have commanded assent. But this and all the other proposedamendments were defeated by the adverse vote of the Republican membersof the committee. [904]

The outcome was disheartening. Douglas had firmly believed thatconciliation, or concession, alone could save the country from civilwar. [905] When the committee first met informally[906] the news wasalready in print that the South Carolina convention had passed anordinance of secession. Under the stress of this event, and of otherswhich he apprehended, Douglas had voted for all the Crittendenamendments and resolutions, regardless of his personal predilections. "The prospects are gloomy, " he wrote privately, "but I do not yetdespair of the Union. _We can never acknowledge the right of a Stateto secede and cut us off from the ocean and the world, without ourconsent. _ But in view of impending civil war with our brethren innearly one-half of the States of the Union, I will not consider thequestion of force and war until all efforts at peaceful adjustmenthave been made and have failed. The fact can no longer be disguisedthat many of the Republican leaders desire war and disunion underpretext of saving the Union. They wish to get rid of the Southernsenators in order to have a majority in the Senate to confirmLincoln's appointments; and many of them think they can hold apermanent Republican ascendancy in the Northern States, but not inthe whole Union. For partisan reasons, therefore, they are anxious todissolve the Union, if it can be done without making them responsiblebefore the people. I am for the Union, and am ready to make anyreasonable sacrifice to save it. No adjustment will restore andpreserve peace _which does not banish the slavery question fromCongress forever_ and place it beyond the reach of Federallegislation. Mr. Crittenden's proposition to extend the Missouri lineaccomplishes this object, and hence I can accept it now for the samereasons that I proposed it in 1848. I prefer our own plan ofnon-intervention and popular sovereignty, however. "[907]

The propositions which Douglas laid before the committee proved to beeven less acceptable than the Crittenden amendments. Only a single, insignificant provision relating to the colonizing of free negroes indistant lands, commended itself to a majority of the committee. [908]All hope of an agreement had now vanished. Sad at heart, Douglas votedto report the inability of the committee to agree upon any generalplan of adjustment. [909] Yet he did not abandon all hope; he was notyet ready to admit that the dread alternative must be accepted. Hejoined with Crittenden in replying to a dispatch from the South: "Wehave hopes that the rights of the South, and of every State andsection, may be protected within the Union. Don't give up the ship. Don't despair of the Republic. "[910] And when Crittenden proposed tothe Senate that the people at large should be allowed to express theirapproval, or disapproval, of his amendments by a vote, Douglascordially indorsed the suggested referendum in a speech of greatpower. 

There was dross mingled with the gold in this speech of January 3d. Not all his auditors by any means were ready to admit that the attemptof the Federal government to control the slavery question in theTerritories, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants, was the realcause of Southern discontent. Nor were all willing to concede that"whenever Congress had refrained from such interference, harmony andfraternal feeling had been restored. "[911] The history of Kansas wasstill too recent. Yet from these premises, Douglas drew the conclusion"that the slavery question should be banished forever from the Hallsof Congress and the arena of Federal politics by an irrepealableconstitutional provision. "[912]

The immediate occasion for revolution in the South was no doubt theoutcome of the presidential election; but that it furnished a justcause for the dissolution of the Union, he would not for an instantadmit. No doubt Mr. Lincoln's public utterances had given some groundfor apprehension. No one had more vigorously denounced thesedangerous, revolutionary doctrines than he; but neither Mr. Lincolnnor his party would have the power to injure the South, if theSouthern States remained in the Union and maintained full delegationsin Congress. "Besides, " he added, "I still indulge the hope that whenMr. Lincoln shall assume the high responsibilities which will soondevolve upon him, he will be fully impressed with the necessity ofsinking the politician in the statesman, the partisan in the patriot, and regard the obligations which he owes to his country as paramountto those of his party. "[913]

No one brought the fearful alternatives into view, with suchinexorable logic, as Douglas in this same speech. While he denouncedsecession as "wrong, unlawful, unconstitutional, and criminal, " he wasbound to recognize the fact of secession. "South Carolina had no rightto secede; _but she has done it_. The rights of the Federal governmentremain, but possession is lost. How can possession be regained, byarms or by a peaceable adjustment of the matters in controversy? _Arewe prepared for war?_ I do not mean that kind of preparation whichconsists of armies and navies, and supplies, and munitions of war; butare we prepared IN OUR HEARTS for war with our own brethren andkindred? I confess I am not. "[914]

These were not mere words for oratorical effect. They were expressionswrung from a tortured heart, bound by some of the tenderest of humanaffections to the people of the South. Buried in the land of her birthrested the mother of his two boys, whom he had loved tenderly andtruly. There in the Southland were her kindred, the kindred of his twoboys, and many of his warmest personal friends. The prospect of warbrought no such poignant grief to men whose associations forgenerations had been confined to the North. 

Returning to the necessity of concession and compromise, he franklyadmitted that he had thrown consistency to the winds. The preservationof the Union was of more importance than party platforms or individualrecords. "I have no hesitation in saying to senators on all sides ofthis Chamber, that I am prepared to act on this question withreference to the present exigencies of the case, as if I had nevergiven a vote, or uttered a word, or had an opinion upon thesubject. "[915]

Nor did he hesitate to throw the responsibility for disagreement inthe Committee of Thirteen upon the Republican members. In the name ofpeace he pled for less of party pride and the pride of individualopinion. "The political party which shall refuse to allow the peopleto determine for themselves at the ballot-box the issue betweenrevolution and war on the one side, and obstinate adherence to a partyplatform on the other, will assume a fearful responsibility. A warupon a political issue, waged by the people of eighteen States againstthe people and domestic institutions of fifteen sister-States, is afearful and revolting thought. "[916] But Republican senators were deafto all warnings from so recent a convert to non-partisan politics. 

While the Committee of Thirteen was in session, Major Anderson movedhis garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor, urging repeatedly the need of reinforcements. At the beginning of thenew year, President Buchanan was inspired to form a good resolution. He resolved that Anderson should not be ordered to return to Moultriebut should be reinforced. On the 5th of January, the "Star of theWest, " with men, arms and ammunition, was dispatched to Charlestonharbor. On the 9th the steamer was fired upon and forced to returnwithout accomplishing its mission. Then came the news of the secessionof Mississippi. In rapid succession Florida, Alabama, and Georgiapassed ordinances of secession. [917] Louisiana and Texas were sure tofollow the lead of the other cotton States. 

In spite of these untoward events, the Republican senators remainedobdurate. Their answer to the Crittenden referendum proposition wasthe Clark resolution, which read, "The provisions of the Constitutionare ample for the preservation of the Union, and the protection of allthe material interests of the country; it needs to be obeyed ratherthan amended. "[918] On the 21st of the month, the senators of theseceding States withdrew; yet Douglas could still say to anxious Unionmen at the South, "There is hope of adjustment, and the prospect hasnever been better than since we first assembled. "[919] And SenatorCrittenden concurred in this view. On what could they have groundedtheir hopes?

Douglas still believed in the efficacy of compromise to preserve theUnion. Through many channels he received intelligence from the South, and he knew well that the leaders of public opinion were not of onemind. Some, at least, regarded the proposed Southern confederacy as ameans of securing a revision of the Constitution. Men like Benjamin ofLouisiana were still ready to talk confidentially of a finaladjustment. [920] Moreover, there was a persistent rumor that Sewardwas inclining to the Crittenden Compromise; and Seward, as theprospective leader of the incoming administration, would doubtlesscarry many Republicans with him. Something, too, might be expectedfrom the Peace Convention, which was to meet on February 4th, inWashington. 

Meantime Douglas lent his aid to such legislative labors as theexigencies of the hour permitted. Once again, he found himself actingwith the Republicans to do justice to Kansas, for Kansas was now asuppliant for admission into the Union with a free constitution. Againspecious excuses were made for denying simple justice. Toward theobstructionists, his old enemies, Douglas showed no rancor: there wasno time to lose in personalities. "The sooner we close up thiscontroversy the better, if we intend to wipe out the excited andirritated feelings that have grown out of it. It will have a tendencyto restore good feelings. "[921] But not until the Southern senatorshad withdrawn, was Kansas admitted to the Union of the States, whichwas then hanging in the balance. 

Whenever senators from the slave States could be induced to nametheir tangible grievances, and not to dwell merely upon anticipatedinjuries, they were wont to cite the Personal Liberty Acts. In spiteof his good intentions, Douglas was drawn into an altercation withMason of Virginia, in which he cited an historic case where Virginiahad been the offender. Recovering himself, he said ingenuously, "Ihope we are not to bandy these little cases backwards and forwards forthe purpose of sectional irritation. Let us rather meet the question, and give the Constitution the true construction, and allow allcriminals to be surrendered according to the law of the State wherethe offense was committed. "[922]

As evidence of his desire to remove this most tangible of Southerngravamina, Douglas introduced a supplementary fugitive slave bill onJanuary 28th. [923] Its notable features were the provision for jurytrial in a Federal court, if after extradition a fugitive shouldpersist in claiming his freedom; and the provisions for the payment ofdamages to the claimant, if he should lose through violence a fugitiveslave to whom he had a valid title. The Federal government in turnmight bring suit against the county where the rescue had occurred, andthe county might reimburse itself by suing the offenders to the fullamount of the damages paid. [924] Had this bill passed, it would havemade good the most obvious defects in the much-defamed legislation of1850; but the time had long since passed, when such concessions wouldsatisfy the South. 

Douglas had to bear many a gibe for his publicly expressed hopes ofpeace. Mason denounced his letter to Virginia gentlemen as a "puny, pusillanimous attempt to hoodwink" the people of Virginia. But Douglasreplied with an earnest reiteration of his expectations. Yet alldepended, he admitted, on the action of Virginia and the borderStates. For this reason he deprecated the uncompromising attitude ofthe senator from Virginia, when he said, "We want no concessions. "Equally deplorable, he thought, was the spirit evinced by the senatorfrom New Hampshire who applauded that regrettable remark. "I neverintend to give up the hope of saving this Union so long as there is aray left, " he cried. [925] Why try to force slavery to go whereexperience has demonstrated that climate is adverse and where thepeople do not want it? Why prohibit slavery where the governmentcannot make it exist? "Why break up the Union upon an abstraction?"Let the one side give up its demand for protection and the other forprohibition; and let them unite upon an amendment to the Constitutionwhich shall deny to Congress the power to legislate upon slaveryeverywhere, except in the matter of fugitive slaves and the Africanslave-trade. "Do that, and you will have peace; do that, and the Unionwill last forever; do that, and you do not extend slavery one inch, nor circumscribe it one inch; you do not emancipate a slave, and donot enslave a free-man. "[926]

In the course of his eloquent plea for mutual concession, Douglas wasrepeatedly interrupted by Wigfall of Texas, whose State was at themoment preparing to leave the Union. In ironical tones, Wigfallbegged to be informed upon what ground the senator based his hope andbelief that the Union would be preserved. Douglas replied, "I seeindications every day of a disposition to meet this question now andconsider what is necessary to save the Union. " And then, anticipatingthe sneers of his interrogator, he said sharply, "If the senator willjust follow me, instead of going off to Texas; sit here, and act inconcert with us Union men, we will make him a very efficient agent inaccomplishing that object. "[927] But to the obdurate mind of Wigfallthis Union talk was "the merest balderdash. " Compromise on the basisof non-intervention, he pronounced "worse than 'Sewardism, ' for it hadhypocrisy and the other was bold and open. " There was, unhappily, onlytoo much truth in his pithy remark that "the apple of discord isoffered to us as the fruit of peace. "

It was a sad commentary on the state of the Union that while the sixcotton States were establishing the constitution and government of aSouthern Confederacy, the Federal Senate was providing for theterritorial organization of that great domain whose acquisition hadbeen the joint labor of all the States. Three Territories wereprojected. In one of these, Colorado, a provisional government hadalready been set up by the mining population of the Pike's Peakcountry. To the Colorado bill Douglas interposed serious objections. By its provisions, the southern boundary cut off a portion of NewMexico, which was slave Territory, and added it to Colorado. At thesame time a provision in the bill prevented the territoriallegislature from passing any law to destroy the rights of privateproperty. Was the new Territory of Colorado to be free or slave?Another provision debarred the territorial legislature from condemningprivate property for public uses. How, then, could Colorado constructeven a public road? Still another provision declared that there shouldbe no discrimination in the rate of taxation between different kindsof property. How, then, could Colorado make those necessary exemptionswhich were to be found on all statute books?[928]

In his encounter with Senator Green, who had succeeded him as chairmanof the Committee on Territories, Douglas did not appear to goodadvantage. It was easy to prove his first objection idle, as there wasno slave property in northern New Mexico. As for the otherobjectionable provisions, all--by your leave!--were to be found in theWashington Territory Act, which had passed through Douglas's committeewithout comment. [929]

Douglas proposed a substitute for the Colorado bill, nevertheless, which, besides rectifying these errors, --for such he still deemed themto be, --proposed that the people of the Territory should elect theirown officers. He reminded the Senate that the Kansas-Nebraska bill hadbeen sharply criticised, because while professing to recognize popularsovereignty, it had withheld this power. At that time, however, thegovernor was also an Indian agent and a Federal officer; now, the twofunctions were separated. He proposed that, henceforth, the Presidentand Senate should appoint only such officers as performed Federalduties. [930] When Senator Wade suggested that Douglas had experienceda conversion on this point, because he happened to be in opposition tothe incoming administration, which would appoint the new territorialofficers, Douglas referred to his utterances in the last session, asproof of his disinterestedness in the matter. [931]

Even in his rôle of peace-maker, Douglas could not help remarking thatthe bill contained not a word about slavery. "I am rejoiced, " he said, somewhat ironically, "to find that the two sides of the House, representing the two sides of the 'irrepressible conflict, ' find itimpossible when they get into power, to practically carry on thegovernment without coming to non-intervention, and saying nothing uponthe subject of slavery. Although they may not vote for my proposition, the fact that they have to avow the principle upon which they havefought me for years is the only one upon which they can possiblyagree, is conclusive evidence that I have been right in thatprinciple, and that they have been wrong in fighting me upon it. "[932]

In the House the Colorado bill was amended by the excision of theclause providing for appeals to the United States Supreme Court in allcases involving title to slaves. Douglas promptly pointed out thesignificance of this omission. The decisions of the territorial courtregarding slavery would now be final. The question of whether theterritorial legislature might, or might not, exclude slavery, wouldnow be decided by territorial judges who would be appointed by aRepublican President. [933] The Republicans now in control of theSenate were eager to press their advantage. And Douglas had toacquiesce. After all, the practical importance of the matter was notgreat. No one anticipated that slavery ever would exist in these newTerritories. 

The substitute which Douglas offered for the Colorado bill, andsubsequently for the other territorial bills, deserves more than apassing allusion. Not only was it his last contribution to territoriallegislation, but it suggested a far-reaching change in our colonialpolicy. It was the logical conclusion of popular sovereigntypractically applied. [934] Congress was invited to abdicate all but themost meagre power in organizing new Territories. The task of framingan organic act for the government of a Territory was to be left to aconvention chosen by adult male citizens who were in actual residence;but this organic law must be republican in form, and in every waysubordinate to the Constitution and to all laws and treaties affectingthe Indians and the public lands. A Territory so organized was to beadmitted into the Union whenever its population should be equal to theunit required for representation in the lower house of Congress. Theinitiative in taking a preliminary census and calling a territorialconvention, was to be taken by the judge of the Federal court in theTerritory. The tutelage of the Federal government was thus to bereduced to lowest terms. 

Congress was to confine itself to general provisions applicable to allTerritories, leaving the formation of new Territories to the capriceof the people in actual residence. This was a generous concession topopular sovereignty; but even so, the paramount authority was stillvested in Congress. Congress, and not the people, was to designate thebounds of the Territory; Congress was to pass judgment upon therepublicanism of the organic law, and a Federal judge was to set themachinery of popular sovereignty in motion. Obviously the time hadpassed when Congress would make so radical a departure from precedent. Least of all were the Republican members disposed to weaken the holdof the Federal government upon Territories where the question ofslavery might again become acute. 

While the House was unwilling to vote for a submission of theCrittenden propositions to a popular vote, it did propose an amendmentdenying to Congress the power to interfere with the domesticinstitutions of any State. Not being in any sense a concession, butonly an affirmation of a widely accepted principle, this amendmentpassed the House easily enough. Yet in his rôle of compromiser, Douglas made much of this vote. He called Senator Mason's attention totwo great facts--"startling, tremendous facts--that they [theRepublicans] have abandoned their aggressive policy in the Territoriesand are willing to give guarantees in the States. " These "ought to beaccepted as an evidence of a salutary change in public opinion at theNorth. "[935] Now if the Republican party would only offer a similarguarantee, by a constitutional amendment, that they would never revivetheir aggressive policy toward slavery in the Territories!

As the February days wore away, Douglas became less hopeful ofpeaceable adjustment through compromise. If he had counted upon largeconcessions from Seward, he was disappointed. If he had entertainedhopes of the Peace Conference, he had also erred grievously. He becamemore and more assured that the forces making against peace were fromthe North as well as the South. He told the Senate on February 21st, that there was "a deliberate plot to break up this Union underpretense of preserving it. "[936] Privately he feared the influence ofsome of Mr. Lincoln's advisers, who were hostile to Seward. "What theBlairs really want, " he said hotly to a friend, "is a civil war. "[937]With many another well-wisher he deplored the secret entrance of Mr. Lincoln into the capital. It seemed to him both weak and undignified, when the situation called for a conciliatory, but firm, front. [938]

With an absence of personal pique which did him credit, he determinedto take the first opportunity to warn Mr. Lincoln of the dangers ofhis position. Douglas knew Lincoln far better than the averageWashington politician. To an acquaintance who lamented the apparentweakness of the President-elect, Douglas said emphatically, "No, he isnot that, Sir; but he is eminently a man of the atmosphere whichsurrounds him. He has not yet got out of Springfield, Sir. . . . He hedoes not know that he is President-elect of the United States, Sir, hedoes not see that the shadow he casts is any bigger now than it waslast year. It will not take him long to find it out when he has gotestablished in the White House. "[939]

The ready tact of Mrs. Douglas admirably seconded the initiative ofher husband. She was among the first to call upon Mrs. Lincoln, thereby setting the example for the ladies of the opposition. [940] Alittle incident, to be sure; but in critical hours, the warp and woofof history is made up of just such little acts of thoughtful courtesy. Washington society understood and appreciated the gracious spirit ofAdèle Cutts Douglas; and even the New York press commented upon theincident with satisfaction. 

That Seward and his friends were no less alarmed than Douglas, at theprospect of Lincoln's falling under the influence of the coercionists, is a matter of record. [941] There were, indeed, two factionscontending for mastery over the incoming administration. So far as anoutsider could do so, Douglas was willing to lend himself to theschemes of the Seward faction, for in so doing he was obviouslypromoting the cause of peace. [942] Three days after Lincoln's arrivalDouglas called upon him; and on the following evening (February 27th)he sought another private interview. [943] They had long known eachother; and politics aside, Lincoln entertained a high opinion ofDouglas's fairmindedness and common sense. [944] They talked earnestlyabout the Peace Conference and the efforts of extremists in Congressto make it abortive. [945] Each knew the other to be a genuine lover ofthe Union. Upon this common basis of sentiment they could conversewithout reservations. 

Douglas was agitated and distressed. [946] Compromise was nowimpossible in Congress. He saw but one hope. With great earnestness heurged Lincoln to recommend the instant calling of a nationalconvention to amend the Constitution. Upon the necessity of this stepDouglas and Seward agreed. But Lincoln would not commit himself tothis suggestion, without further consideration. [947] "It is impossiblenot to feel, " wrote an old acquaintance, after hearing Douglas'saccount of this interview, "that he [Douglas] really and truly loveshis country in a way not too common, I fear now, in Washington. "[948]

The Senate remained in continuous session from Saturday, March 2d, until the oath of office was taken by Vice-President Hamlin on Mondaymorning. During these eventful hours, the Crittenden amendments werevoted down;[949] and when the venerable senator from Kentucky made afinal effort to secure the adoption of the resolution of the PeaceCongress, which was similar to his own, it too was decisivelydefeated. [950] In the closing hours of the session, however, in spiteof the opposition of irreconcilables like Sumner, Wade, and Wilson, the Senate adopted the amendment which had passed the House, limitingthe powers of Congress in the States. [951]

While Union-loving men were thus wrestling with a forlorn hope, Douglas was again closeted with Lincoln. It is very probable thatDouglas was invited to call, in order to pass judgment upon certainpassages in the inaugural address, which would be delivered on themorrow. At all events, Douglas exhibited a familiarity with portionsof the address, which can hardly be accounted for in other ways. Heexpressed great satisfaction with Lincoln's statement of theinvalidity of secession. It would do, he said, for all constitutionalDemocrats to "brace themselves against. "[952] He frankly announcedthat he would stand by Mr. Lincoln in a temperate, resolute Unionpolicy. [953]

On the forenoon of Inauguration Day, Douglas told a friend that hemeant to put himself as prominently forward in the ceremonies as heproperly could, and to leave no doubt in any one's mind of hisdetermination to stand by the administration in the performance of itsfirst great duty to maintain the Union. "I watched him carefully, "records this same acquaintance. "He made his way not withoutdifficulty--for there was literally no sort of order in thearrangements--to the front of the throng directly beside Mr. Lincoln, when he prepared to read his address. A miserable little rickety tablehad been provided for the President, on which he could hardly findroom for his hat, and Senator Douglas, reaching forward, took it witha smile and held it during the delivery of the address. It was atrifling act, but a symbolical one, and not to be forgotten, and itattracted much attention all around me. "[954]

At least one passage in the inaugural address was framed uponsuggestions made by Douglas. Contrary to his original intention, Lincoln went out of his way to say, "I cannot be ignorant of the factthat many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having theNational Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation ofamendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the peopleover the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modesprescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existingcircumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity beingafforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to methe convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments tooriginate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting themto take or reject propositions originated by others, not especiallychosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as theywould wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposedamendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have notseen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Governmentshall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction ofwhat I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particularamendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now beimplied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being madeexpress and irrevocable. "[955]

In the original draft of his address, written before he came toWashington, Lincoln had dismissed with scant consideration the notionof a constitutional amendment: "I am not much impressed with thebelief that the present Constitution can be improved. I am rather forthe old ship, and the chart of the old pilots. "[956] Sometime afterhis interview with Douglas, Lincoln struck out these words andinserted the paragraph already quoted, rejecting at the same time asuggestion from Seward. [957]

The curious and ubiquitous correspondents of the New York press, always on the alert for straws to learn which way the wind wasblowing, made much of Douglas's conspicuous gallantry toward Mrs. Lincoln. He accompanied her to the inaugural ball and unhesitatinglydefended his friendliness with the President's household, on theground that Mr. Lincoln "meant to do what was right. " To one pressagent, eager to have his opinion of the inaugural, Douglas said, "Idefend the inaugural if it is as I understand it, namely, an emanationfrom the brain and heart of a patriot, and as I mean, if I knowmyself, to act the part of a patriot, I endorse it. "[958]

On March 6th, while Republican senators maintained an uncertain anddiscreet silence respecting the inaugural address, Douglas rose tospeak in its defense. Senator Clingman had interpreted the President'spolicy in terms of his own emotions: there was no doubt about it, theinaugural portended war. "In no wise, " responded Douglas with energy:"It is a peace-offering rather than a war message. " In all his longcongressional career there is nothing that redounds more to Douglas'severlasting credit than his willingness to defend the policy of hissuccessful rival, while men of Lincoln's own party were doubting whatmanner of man the new President was and what his policy might mean. Nothing could have been more adroit than Douglas's plea for theinaugural address. He did not throw himself into the arms of theadministration and betray his intimate acquaintance with the plans ofthe new President. He spoke as the leader of the opposition, critically and judiciously. He had read the inaugural with care; hehad subjected it to a critical analysis; and he was of the opinionthat it was characterized by ability and directness on certain points, but by lack of explicitness on others. He cited passages that hedeemed equivocal and objectionable. Nevertheless he rejoiced to readone clause which was evidently the key to the entire document:

"The course here indicated will be followed unless current events andexperience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and inevery case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised accordingto circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of apeaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration offraternal sympathies and affections. "[959]

By the terms of his message, too, the President was pledged to favorsuch amendments as might originate with the people for the settlementof the slavery question, --even if the settlement should be repugnantto the principles of his party. Mr. Lincoln should receive the thanksof all Union-loving men for having "sunk the partisan in the patriot. "The voice of Douglas never rang truer than when he paid this tributeto his rival's honesty and candor. 

"I do not wish it to be inferred, " he said in conclusion, . . . "that Ihave any political sympathy with his administration, or that I expectany contingency can happen in which I may be identified with it. Iexpect to oppose his administration with all my energy on those greatprinciples which have separated parties in former times; but on thisone question--that of preserving the Union by a peaceful solution ofour present difficulties; that of preventing any future difficultiesby such an amendment of the Constitution as will settle the questionby an express provision--if I understand his true intent and meaning, I am with him. "[960]

But neither President Lincoln nor Douglas had committed himself on theconcrete question upon which hung peace or war--what should be doneabout Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. The point was driven home withrelentless vigor by Wigfall, who still lingered in the Senate afterthe secession of his State. "Would the Senator who is speaking for theadministration say explicitly, whether he would advise the withdrawalof the troops from the forts?" The reply of Douglas was admirable: "AsI am not in their counsels nor their confidence, I shall not tenderthem my advice until they ask it. . . . I do not choose either, toproclaim what my policy would be, in view of the fact that the Senatordoes not regard himself as the guardian of the honor and interests ofmy country, but is looking to the interests of another, which hethinks is in hostility to this country. It would hardly be good policyor wisdom for me to reveal what I think ought to be our policy, to onewho may so soon be in the counsels of the enemy, and the command ofits armies. "[961]

Douglas did admit, however, that since the garrison of Fort Sumter hadprovisions for only thirty days, he presumed no attempt would be madeto reinforce it. Under existing circumstances the President had nopower to collect the revenues of the government and no military forcesufficient to reinforce Sumter. Congress was not in session to supplyeither the necessary coercive powers or troops. He therefore drew theconclusion that not only the President himself was pacific in hispolicy, but the Republican party as well, despite the views ofindividual members. "But, " urged Mason of Virginia, "I ask theSenator, then, what is to be done with the garrison if they are in astarving condition?" "If the Senator had voted right in the lastpresidential election, " replied Douglas good-naturedly, "I should havebeen in a condition, perhaps, to tell him authoritatively what oughtto be done. "

From this moment on, Douglas enjoyed the confidence of PresidentLincoln to an extraordinary degree. No one knew better than Lincolnthe importance of securing the coöperation of so influential apersonage. True, by the withdrawal of Southern senators, theDemocratic opposition had been greatly reduced; but Douglas was stilla power in this Democratic remnant. Besides, the man who could commandthe suffrages of a million voters was not a force lightly to bereckoned with. After this speech of the 6th, Lincoln again sent forDouglas, to express his entire agreement with its views and with itsspirit. [962] He gave Douglas the impression that he desired to gaintime for passions to cool by removing the causes of irritation. Hefelt confident that there would soon be a general demand for anational convention where all existing differences could be radicallytreated. "I am just as ready, " Douglas reported him to have said, "toreinforce the garrisons at Sumter and Pickens or to withdraw them, asI am to see an amendment adopted protecting slavery in the Territoriesor prohibiting slavery in the Territories. What I want is to get donewhat the people desire to have done, and the question for me is how tofind that out exactly. "[963] On this point they were in entire accord. 

The patriotic conduct of Douglas earned for him the warm commendationof Northern newspapers, many of which had hitherto been incapable ofascribing honorable motives to him. [964] No one who met him at thePresident's levees would have suspected that he had been one of hishost's most relentless opponents. A correspondent of the New York_Times_ described him as he appeared at one of these functions. "Hereone minute, there the next--now congratulating the President, thencomplimenting Mrs. Lincoln, bowing and scraping, and shaking hands, and smiling, laughing, yarning and saluting the crowd of people whomhe knew. " More soberly, this same observer added, "He has already donea great deal of good to the administration. "[965] It is impossible tofind the soured and discomfited rival in this picture. 

The country was anxiously awaiting the development of the policy ofthe new Executive, for to eight out of every ten men, Lincoln wasstill an unknown man. Rumors were abroad that both Sumter and Pickenswould be surrendered. [966] Seward was known to be conciliatory on thispoint; and the man on the street never once doubted that Seward wouldbe the master-mind in the cabinet. Those better informed knew--andDouglas was among them--that Seward's influence was menaced by anaggressive faction in the cabinet. [967] Behind these officialadvisers, giving them active support, were those Republican senatorswho from the first had doubted the efficacy of compromise. 

Believing the country should have assurances that President Lincolndid not meditate war, --did not, in short, propose to yield to theaggressive wing of his party, --Douglas sought to force a show ofhands. [968] On March 13th, he offered a resolution which was designedto draw the fire of Republican senators. The Secretary of War wasrequested to furnish information about the Southern forts now inpossession of the Federal government; to state whether reinforcementswere needed to retain them; whether under existing laws the governmenthad the power and means to reinforce them, and whether it was wise toretain military possession of such forts and to recapture those thathad been lost, except for the purpose of subjugating and occupying theStates which had seceded; and finally, if such were the motives, tosupply estimates of the military force required to reduce the secedingStates and to protect the national capital. [969] The wording of theresolution was purposely involved. Douglas hoped that it wouldprecipitate a discussion which would disclose the covert wish of theaggressives, and force an authoritative announcement of PresidentLincoln's policy. Doubtless there was a political motive behind allthis. Douglas was not averse to putting his bitter and implacableenemies in their true light, as foes of compromise even to the extentof disrupting the Union. [970]

Not receiving any response, Douglas took the floor in defense of hisresolution. He believed that the country should have the informationwhich his resolution was designed to elicit. The people wereapprehensive of civil war. He had put his construction upon thePresident's inaugural; but "the Republican side of the Chamber remainsmute and silent, neither assenting nor dissenting. " The answer whichhe believed the resolution would call forth, would demonstrate twopoints of prime importance: "First, that the President does notmeditate war; and, secondly, that he has no means for prosecuting awarfare upon the seceding States, even if he desired. "

With his wonted dialectic skill Douglas sought to establish his case. The existing laws made no provision for collecting the revenue onshipboard. It was admitted on all sides that collection at the port ofentry in South Carolina was impossible. The President had no legalright to blockade the port of Charleston. He could not employ the armyto enforce the laws in the seceded States, for the military could beused only to aid a civil process; and where was the marshal in SouthCarolina to execute a writ? The President must have known that helacked these powers. He must have referred to the future action ofCongress, then, when he said that he should execute the laws in allthe States, unless the "requisite means were withheld. " But Congresshad not passed laws empowering the Executive to collect revenue or togain possession of the forts. What, then, was the inference? Clearlythis, that the Republican senators did not desire to confer thesepowers. 

If this inference is not correct, if this interpretation of theinaugural address is faulty, urged Douglas, why preserve thisimpenetrable silence? Why not let the people know what the policy ofthe administration is? They have a right to know. "The President ofthe United States holds the destiny of this country in his hands. Ibelieve he means peace, and war will be averted, unless he isoverruled by the disunion portion of his party. We all know theirrepressible conflict is going on in their camp. . . . Then, throw asidethis petty squabble about how you are to get along with your pledgesbefore election; meet the issues as they are presented; do what duty, honor, and patriotism require, and appeal to the people to sustainyou. Peace is the only policy that can save the country or save yourparty. "[971]

On the Republican side of the chamber, this appeal was bitterlyresented. It met with no adequate response, because there was none togive; but Wilson roundly denounced it as a wicked, mischief-makingutterance. [972] Unhappily, Douglas allowed himself to be drawn into apersonal altercation with Fessenden, in which he lost his temper andmarred the effect of his patriotic appeal. There was probably sometruth in Douglas's charge that both senators intended to be personallyirritating. [973] Under the circumstances, it was easier to indulge inpersonal disparagement of Douglas, than to meet his embarrassingquestions. 

How far Douglas still believed in the possibility of saving the Unionthrough compromise, it is impossible to say. Publicly he continued totalk in an optimistic strain. [974] On March 25th, he expressed hissatisfaction in the Senate that only one danger-point remained; FortSumter, he understood, was to be evacuated. [975] But among his friendsno one looked into the future with more anxiety than he. Intimationsfrom the South that citizens of the United States would probably beexcluded from the courts of the Confederacy, wrung from him theadmission that such action would be equivalent to war. [976] He notedanxiously the evident purpose of the Confederated States to coerceKentucky and Virginia into secession. [977] Indeed, it is probable thatbefore the Senate adjourned, his ultimate hope was to rally the Unionmen in the border States. [978]

When President Lincoln at last determined to send supplies to FortSumter, the issue of peace or war rested with Jefferson Davis and hiscabinet at Montgomery. Early on the morning of April 12th, a shell, fired from a battery in Charleston harbor, burst directly over FortSumter, proclaiming to anxious ears the close of an era. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 892: Rhodes, History of the United States, III, pp. 116 ff. ]

[Footnote 893: Rhodes, History of the United States, III, pp. 131-132. ]

[Footnote 894: Chicago _Times and Herald_, December 7, 1860. ]

[Footnote 895: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 896: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 12. ]

[Footnote 897: _Ibid. _, p. 29. ]

[Footnote 898: _Ibid. _, p. 3. ]

[Footnote 899: _Ibid. _, pp. 11-12. ]

[Footnote 900: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 28. ]

[Footnote 901: _Ibid. _, p. 57. ]

[Footnote 902: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 52. ]

[Footnote 903: Rhodes, History of the United States, III, pp. 151-153. ]

[Footnote 904: Report of the Committee of Thirteen, pp. 11-12. ]

[Footnote 905: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 158. ]

[Footnote 906: December 21st. ]

[Footnote 907: MS. Letter, Douglas to C. H. Lanphier, December 25, 1860. ]

[Footnote 908: Report of the Committee of Thirteen, p. 16. ]

[Footnote 909: _Ibid. _, p. 18. ]

[Footnote 910: McPherson, Political History of the Rebellion, p. 38. ]

[Footnote 911: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 35. ]

[Footnote 912: _Ibid. _, p. 38. ]

[Footnote 913: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 39. It is notunlikely that Douglas may have been reassured on this point by somecommunication from Lincoln himself. The Diary of a Public Man (_NorthAmerican Review_, Vol. 129, ) p. 130, gives the impression that theyhad been in correspondence. Personal relations between them had beencordial even in 1859, just after the debates; See Publication No. 11, of the Illinois Historical Library, p. 191. ]

[Footnote 914: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 39. ]

[Footnote 915: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , App. , p. 41. ]

[Footnote 916: _Ibid. _, p. 42. ]

[Footnote 917: January 10th, 11th, and 19th. ]

[Footnote 918: The resolution was carried, 25 to 23, six SouthernSenators refusing to vote. _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 409. ]

[Footnote 919: McPherson, Political History of the Rebellion, p. 39. ]

[Footnote 920: Diary of a Public Man, pp. 133-134. Douglas was onterms of intimacy with the writer, and must have shared thesecommunications. Besides, Douglas had independent sources ofinformation. ]

[Footnote 921: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 445-446. ]

[Footnote 922: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 508. ]

[Footnote 923: _Ibid. _, p. 586. ]

[Footnote 924: Senate Bill, No. 549, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. ]

[Footnote 925: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 661. ]

[Footnote 926: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 927: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , pp. 669. ]

[Footnote 928: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 764. ]

[Footnote 929: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 930: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 764. ]

[Footnote 931: _Ibid. _, p. 765. ]

[Footnote 932: _Ibid. _, p. 766. ]

[Footnote 933: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1205. ]

[Footnote 934: It is printed in full in _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1207. ]

[Footnote 935: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1391. ]

[Footnote 936: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1081. ]

[Footnote 937: Diary of a Public Man, p. 261. ]

[Footnote 938: _Ibid. _, p. 260. ]

[Footnote 939: _Ibid. _, p. 261. ]

[Footnote 940: Correspondent of the New York _Times_, February 25, 1861. ]

[Footnote 941: Diary of a Public Man, pp. 260-261. ]

[Footnote 942: _Ibid. _, p. 264. ]

[Footnote 943: _Ibid. _, pp. 264, 268; the interview of February 26thwas commented upon by the Philadelphia _Press_, February 28. ]

[Footnote 944: Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 73, note. ]

[Footnote 945: Diary of a Public Man, p. 268. ]

[Footnote 946: Diary of a Public Man, p. 268. ]

[Footnote 947: _Ibid. _, p. 268. ]

[Footnote 948: _Ibid. _, p. 268. ]

[Footnote 949: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , 2 Sess. , p. 1405. ]

[Footnote 950: _Ibid. _, p. 1405. ]

[Footnote 951: _Ibid. _, p. 1403. ]

[Footnote 952: Diary of a Public Man, p. 380. ]

[Footnote 953: _Ibid. _, p. 379. ]

[Footnote 954: _Ibid. _, p. 383. ]

[Footnote 955: Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, III, pp. 340-341. Theseauthors note that Lincoln rewrote this paragraph, but take it forgranted that he did so upon his own motion, after rejecting Seward'ssuggestion. ]

[Footnote 956: Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, III, p. 340, note. ]

[Footnote 957: Seward's letter was written on the evening of February24th. Douglas called upon the President February 26th. See Nicolay andHay, Lincoln, III, p. 319; Diary of a Public Man, pp. 264, 268. ]

[Footnote 958: New York _Times_, March 6, 1861. ]

[Footnote 959: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 1437. ]

[Footnote 960: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 1438]

[Footnote 961: _Ibid. _, p. 1442. ]

[Footnote 962: Diary of a Public Man, p. 493. ]

[Footnote 963: Diary of a Public Man, p. 493. ]

[Footnote 964: New York _Times_, March 8, 1861; also the Philadelphia_Press_, March 11, 1861. ]

[Footnote 965: New York _Times_, March 10, 1861. ]

[Footnote 966: Rhodes History of the United States, III, p. 332. ]

[Footnote 967: Diary of a Public Man, p. 493. ]

[Footnote 968: _Ibid. _, pp. 495-496. ]

[Footnote 969: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 1452. ]

[Footnote 970: Diary of a Public Man, pp. 495-496. ]

[Footnote 971: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , Special Sess. , p 1461. ]

[Footnote 972: _Ibid. _, p. 1461. ]

[Footnote 973: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , Special Sess. , p. 1465. ]

[Footnote 974: _Ibid. _, pp. 1460, 1501, 1504. ]

[Footnote 975: _Ibid. _, p. 1501. ]

[Footnote 976: Diary of a Public Man, p. 494. ]

[Footnote 977: _Ibid. _, p. 494. ]

[Footnote 978: _Globe_, 36 Cong. , Special Sess. , pp. 1505, 1511. ]

CHAPTER XX

THE SUMMONS

The news of the capitulation of Fort Sumter reached Washington onSunday morning, April 14th. At a momentous cabinet meeting, PresidentLincoln read the draft of a proclamation calling into serviceseventy-five thousand men, to suppress combinations obstructing theexecution of the laws in the Southern States. The cabinet was now aunit. Now that the crisis had come, the administration had a policy. Would it approve itself to the anxious people of the North? Could itcount upon the support of those who had counselled peace, peace at anycost?

Those who knew Senator Douglas well could not doubt his loyalty to theUnion in this crisis; yet his friends knew that Union-loving men inthe Democratic ranks would respond to the President's proclamationwith a thousandfold greater enthusiasm, could they know that theirleader stood by the administration. Moved by these considerations, Hon. George Ashmun of Massachusetts ventured to call upon Douglas onthis Sunday evening, and to suggest the propriety of some publicstatement to strengthen the President's hands. Would he not call uponthe President at once and give him the assurance of his support?Douglas demurred: he was not sure that Mr. Lincoln wanted his adviceand aid. Mr. Ashmun assured him that the President would welcome anyadvances, and he spoke advisedly as a friend to both men. The peril ofthe country was grave; surely this was not a time when men should letpersonal and partisan considerations stand between them and service totheir country. Mrs. Douglas added her entreaties, and Douglas finallyyielded. Though the hour was late, the two men set off for the WhiteHouse, and found there the hearty welcome which Ashmun hadpromised. [979]

Of all the occurrences of this memorable day, this interview betweenLincoln and Douglas strikes the imagination with most poignantsuggestiveness. Had Douglas been a less generous opponent, he mighthave reminded the President that matters had come to just that passwhich he had foreseen in 1858. Nothing of the sort passed Douglas'slips. The meeting of the rivals was most cordial and hearty. They heldconverse as men must when hearts are oppressed with a common burden. The President took up and read aloud the proclamation summoning thenation to arms. When he had done, Douglas said with deep earnestness, "Mr. President, I cordially concur in every word of that document, except that instead of the call for seventy-five thousand men, I wouldmake it two hundred thousand. You do not know the dishonest purposesof those men as well as I do. "[980] Why has not some artist seizedupon the dramatic moment when they rose and passed to the end of theroom to examine a map which hung there? Douglas, with animated faceand impetuous gesture, pointing out the strategic places in the comingcontest; Lincoln, with the suggestion of brooding melancholy upon hiscareworn face, listening in rapt attention to the quick, penetratingobservations of his life-long rival. But what no artist could put uponcanvas was the dramatic absence of resentment and defeated ambition inthe one, and the patient teachableness and self-mastery of the other. As they parted, a quick hearty grasp of hands symbolized thisremarkable consecration to a common task. 

As they left the executive mansion, Ashmun urged his companion to sendan account of this interview to the press, that it might accompany thePresident's message on the morrow. Douglas then penned the followingdispatch: "Senator Douglas called upon the President, and had aninteresting conversation on the present condition of the country. Thesubstance of it was, on the part of Mr. Douglas, that while he wasunalterably opposed to the administration in all its political issues, he was prepared to fully sustain the President in the exercise of allhis constitutional functions, to preserve the Union, maintain thegovernment, and defend the Federal capital. A firm policy and promptaction was necessary. The capital was in danger, and must be defendedat all hazards, and at any expense of men and money. He spoke of thepresent and future without any reference to the past. "[981] When thepeople of the North read the proclamation in the newspapers, on thefollowing morning, a million men were cheered and sustained in theirloyalty to the Union by the intelligence that their great leader hadsubordinated all lesser ends of party to the paramount duty ofmaintaining the Constitution of the fathers. To his friends inWashington, Douglas said unhesitatingly, "We must fight for ourcountry and forget all differences. There can be but two parties--theparty of patriots and the party of traitors. We belong to thefirst. "[982] And to friends in Missouri where disunion sentiment wasrife, he telegraphed, "I deprecate war, but if it must come I am withmy country, and for my country, under all circumstances and in everycontingency. Individual policy must be subordinated to the publicsafety. "[983]

From this day on, Douglas was in frequent consultation with thePresident. The sorely tried and distressed Lincoln was unutterablygrateful for the firm grip which this first of "War Democrats" keptupon the progress of public opinion in the irresolute border States. It was during one of these interviews, after the attack upon the SixthMassachusetts Regiment in the streets of Baltimore, that Douglas urgedupon the President the possibility of bringing troops by water toAnnapolis, thence to Washington, thus avoiding further conflict in thedisaffected districts of Maryland. [984] Eventually the EighthMassachusetts and the Seventh New York reached Washington by thisroute, to the immense relief of the President and his cabinet. 

Before this succor came to the alarmed capital, Douglas had left thecity for the West. He had received intimations that Egypt in his ownState showed marked symptoms of disaffection. The old ties of bloodand kinship of the people of southern Illinois with their neighbors inthe border States were proving stronger than Northern affiliations. Douglas wielded an influence in these southern, Democratic counties, such as no other man possessed. Could he not best serve theadministration by bearding disunionism in its den? Believing thatCairo, at the confluence of the Mississippi and the Ohio, was destinedto be a strategic point of immense importance in the coming struggle, and that the fate of the whole valley depended upon the unwaveringloyalty of Illinois, Douglas laid the matter before Lincoln. He wouldgo or stay in Washington, wherever Lincoln thought he could do themost good. Probably neither then realized the tremendous nature of thestruggle upon which the country had entered; yet both knew that theNorthwest would be the makeweight in the balance for the Union; andthat every nerve must be strained to hold the border States ofKentucky and Missouri. Who could rouse the latent Unionism of theNorthwest and of the border States like Douglas? Lincoln advised himto go. There was a quick hand-grasp, a hurried farewell, and theyparted never to meet again. [985]

Rumor gave strange shapes to this "mission" which carried Douglas insuch haste to the Northwest. Most persistent of all is the traditionthat he was authorized to raise a huge army in the States of the upperMississippi Valley, and to undertake that vast flanking movement whichsubsequently fell to Grant and Sherman to execute. Such a projectwould have been thoroughly consonant with Douglas's conviction of theinevitable unity and importance of the great valley; but evidence iswanting to corroborate this legend. [986] Its frequent repetition, then and now, must rather be taken as a popular recognition of thecomplete accord between the President and the greatest of WarDemocrats. Colonel Forney, who stood very near to Douglas, afterwardstated "by authority, " that President Lincoln would eventually havecalled Douglas into the administration or have placed him in one ofthe highest military commands. [987] Such importance may be given tothis testimony as belongs to statements which have passed unconfirmedand unchallenged for half a century. 

On his way to Illinois, Douglas missed a train and was detained half aday in the little town of Bellaire, Ohio, a few miles below Wheelingin Virginia. [988] It was a happy accident, for just across the riverthe people of northwestern Virginia were meditating resistance to thesecession movement, which under the guidance of Governor Letcherthreatened to sever them from the Union-loving population of Ohio andPennsylvania. It was precisely in this region, nearly a hundred yearsbefore, that popular sovereignty had almost succeeded in forming afourteenth State of the Confederacy. There had always been a disparitybetween the people of these transmontane counties and the tide-waterregion. The intelligence that Douglas was in Bellaire speedily broughta throng about the hotel in which he was resting. There were clamorsfor a speech. In the afternoon he yielded to their importunities. Bythis time the countryside was aroused. People came across the riverfrom Virginia and many came down by train from Wheeling, [989] Men whowere torn by a conflict of sentiments, not knowing where theirparamount allegiance lay, hung upon his words. 

Douglas spoke soberly and thoughtfully, not as a Democrat, not as aNorthern man, but simply and directly as a lover of the Union. "If werecognize the right of secession in one case, we give our assent to itin all cases; and if the few States upon the Gulf are now to separatethemselves from us, and erect a barrier across the mouth of that greatriver of which the Ohio is a tributary, how long will it be before NewYork may come to the conclusion that she may set up for herself, andlevy taxes upon every dollar's worth of goods imported and consumed inthe Northwest, and taxes upon every bushel of wheat, and every poundof pork, or beef, or other productions that may be sent from theNorthwest to the Atlantic in search of a market?" Secession meantendless division and sub-division, the formation of pettyconfederacies, appeals to the sword and the bayonet instead of to theballot. 

"Unite as a band of brothers, " he pleaded, "and rescue your governmentand its capital and your country from the enemy who have been theauthors of your calamity. " His eye rested upon the great river. "Ah!"he exclaimed, a great wave of emotion checking his utterance, "Thisgreat valley must never be divided. The Almighty has so arranged themountain and the plain, and the water-courses as to show that thisvalley in all time shall remain one and indissoluble. Let no manattempt to sunder what Divine Providence has rendered indivisible. "[990]

As he concluded, anxious questions were put to him, regarding therumored retirement of General Scott from the army. "I saw him onlySaturday, " replied Douglas. "He was at his desk, pen in hand, writinghis orders for the defense and safety of the American Capital. " And ashe repeated the words of General Scott declining the command of theforces of Virginia--"'I have served my country under the flag of theUnion for more than fifty years, and as long as God permits me tolive, I will defend that flag with my sword; even if my own Stateassails it, '"--the crowds around him broke into tumultuous cheers. Within thirty days the Unionists of western Virginia had rallied, organized, and begun that hardy campaign which brought West Virginiainto the Union. On the very day that Douglas was making his ferventplea for the Union, Robert E. Lee cast in his lot with the South. 

At Columbus, Douglas was again forced to break his journey; and againhe was summoned to address the crowd that gathered below his window. It was already dark; the people had collected without concert; therewere no such trappings, as had characterized public demonstrations inthe late campaign. Douglas appeared half-dressed at his bedroomwindow, a dim object to all save to those who stood directly belowhim. Out of the darkness came his solemn, sonorous tones, bringingrelief and assurance to all who listened, for in the throng were menof all parties, men who had followed him through all changes ofpolitical weather, and men who had been his persistent foes. There waslittle cheering. As Douglas pledged anew his hearty support toPresident Lincoln, "it was rather a deep 'Amen' that went up from thecrowd, " wrote one who had distrusted hitherto the mighty power ofthis great popular leader. [991]

On the 25th of April, Douglas reached Springfield, where he purposedto make his great plea for the Union. He spoke at the Capitol tomembers of the legislature and to packed galleries. Friend and foealike bear witness to the extraordinary effect wrought by his words. "I do not think that it is possible for a human being to produce amore prodigious effect with spoken words, " wrote one who had formerlydetested him. [992] "Never in all my experience in public life, beforeor since, " testified the then Speaker of the House, now high in thecouncils of the nation, "have I been so impressed by a speaker. "[993]Douglas himself was thrilled with his message. As he approached theclimax, the veins of his neck and forehead were swollen with passion, and the perspiration ran down his face in streams. At times his clearand resonant voice reverberated through the chamber, until it seemedto shake the building. [994] While he was in the midst of a passionateinvective, a man rushed into the hall bearing an American flag. Thetrumpet tones of the speaker and the sight of the Stars and Stripesroused the audience to the wildest pitch of excitement. [995] Men andwomen became hysterical with the divine madness of patriotism. "Whenhostile armies, " he exclaimed with amazing force, "When hostile armiesare marching under new and odious banners against the government ofour country, the shortest way to peace is the most stupendous andunanimous preparation for war. We in the great valley of theMississippi have peculiar interests and inducements in the struggle. . . I ask every citizen in the great basin between the Rocky Mountainsand the Alleghanies . . . To tell me whether he is ever willing tosanction a line of policy that may isolate us from the markets of theworld, and make us dependent provinces upon the powers that thuschoose to isolate us?. . . Hence, if a war does come, it is a war ofself-defense on our part. It is a war in defense of the Governmentwhich we have inherited as a priceless legacy from our patrioticfathers, in defense of those great rights of freedom of trade, commerce, transit and intercourse from the center to the circumferenceof our great continent. "[996]

The voice of the strong man, so little given to weak sentiment, broke, as he said, "I have struggled almost against hope to avert thecalamities of war and to effect a reunion and reconciliation with ourbrethren in the South. I yet hope it may be done, but I am not able topoint out how it may be. Nothing short of Providence can reveal to usthe issues of this great struggle. Bloody--calamitous--I fear it willbe. May we so conduct it, if a collision must come, that we will standjustified in the eyes of Him who knows our hearts, and who willjustify our every act. We must not yield to resentments, nor to thespirit of vengeance, much less to the desire for conquest or ambition. I see no path of ambition open in a bloody struggle for triumphs overmy countrymen. There is no path of ambition open for me in a dividedcountry. . . . My friends, I can say no more. To discuss these topics isthe most painful duty of my life. It is with a sad heart--with a griefI have never before experienced--that I have to contemplate thisfearful struggle; but I believe in my conscience that it is a duty weowe to ourselves and to our children, and to our God, to protect thisGovernment and that flag from every assailant, be he who he may. "

Thereafter treason had no abiding place within the limits of the Stateof Illinois. And no one, it may be safely affirmed, could have sosteeled the hearts of men in Southern Illinois for the death grapple. In a manly passage in his speech, Douglas said, "I believe I may withconfidence appeal to the people of every section of the country tobear witness that I have been as thoroughly national as any man thathas lived in my day. And I believe if I should make an appeal to thepeople of Illinois, or of the Northern States, to their impartialverdict; they would say that whatever errors I have committed havebeen in leaning too far to the Southern section of the Union againstmy own. . . . I have never pandered to the prejudice and passion of mysection against the minority section of the Union. " It was preciselythis truth which gave him a hearing through the length and breadth ofIllinois and the Northwest during this crisis. 

The return of Douglas to Chicago was the signal for a remarkabledemonstration of regard. He had experienced many strange home-comings. His Democratic following, not always discriminating, had ever accordedhim noisy homage. His political opponents had alternately execratedhim and given him grudging praise. But never before had men of allparties, burying their differences, united to do him honor. On theevening of his arrival, he was escorted to the Wigwam, where hardly ayear ago Lincoln had been nominated for the presidency. Before himwere men who had participated jubilantly in the Republican campaign, with many a bitter gibe at the champion of "squatter sovereignty. "Douglas could not conceal his gratification at this proof that, however men had differed from him on political questions, they hadbelieved in his loyalty. And it was of loyalty, not of himself, thathe spoke. He did not spare Southern feelings before this Chicagoaudience. He told his hearers unequivocally that the slavery question, the election of Lincoln, and the territorial question, were so manypretexts for dissolving the Union. "The present secession movement isthe result of an enormous conspiracy formed more than a year since, formed by leaders in the Southern Confederacy more than twelve monthsago. " But this was no time to discuss pretexts and causes. "Theconspiracy is now known. Armies have been raised, war is levied toaccomplish it. There are only two sides to the question. Every manmust be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutralsin this war; _only patriots_--_or traitors_. "[997] It was the firsttime he had used the ugly epithet. 

Hardly had he summoned the people of Illinois to do battle, when againhe touched that pathetic note that recurred again and again in hisappeal at Springfield. Was it the memory of the mother of his boysthat moved him to say, "But we must remember certain restraints onour action even in time of war. We are a Christian people, and the warmust be prosecuted in a manner recognized by Christian nations. Wemust not invade Constitutional rights. The innocent must not suffer, nor women and children be the victims. " Before him were some who felttoward the people of the South as Greek toward barbarian. But Douglasforesaw that the horrors of war must invade and desolate the homes ofthose whom he still held dear. There is no more lovable and admirableside of his personality than this tenderness for the helpless andinnocent. Had he but lived to temper justice with mercy, what a powerfor good might he not have been in the days of reconstruction!

The summons had gone forth. Already doubts and misgivings had givenway, and the North was now practically unanimous in its determinationto stifle rebellion. There was a common belief that secession was thework of a minority, skillfully led by designing politicians, and thatthe loyal majority would rally with the North to defend the flag. Young men who responded jubilantly to the call to arms did not doubt, that the struggle would be brief. Douglas shared the common belief inthe conspiracy theory of secession, but he indulged no illusion as tothe nature of the war, if war should come. Months before the firingupon Fort Sumter, in a moment of depression, he had prophesied that ifthe cotton States should succeed in drawing the border States intotheir schemes of secession, the most fearful civil war the world hadever seen would follow, lasting for years. "Virginia, " said he, pointing toward Arlington, "over yonder across the Potomac, willbecome a charnel-house. . . . Washington will become a city ofhospitals, the churches will be used for the sick and wounded. Thishouse 'Minnesota Block, ' will be devoted to that purpose before theend of the war. "[998] He, at least, did not mistake the chivalry ofthe South. Not for an instant did he doubt the capacity of theSouthern people to suffer and endure, as well as to do battle. And heknew--Ah! how well--the self-sacrifice and devotion of Southern women. 

The days following the return of Douglas to Chicago were filled alsowith worries and anxieties of a private nature. The financial panic of1857 had been accompanied by a depression of land values, which causedDouglas grave concern for his holdings in Chicago, and no littleimmediate distress. Unable and unwilling to sacrifice his investments, he had mortgaged nearly all of his property in Cook County, includingthe valuable "Grove Property" in South Chicago. Though he was alwayslax in pecuniary matters, and, with his buoyant generous nature, little disposed to take anxious thought for the morrow, these heavyfinancial obligations began now to press upon him with grievousweight. The prolonged strain of the previous twelve months had rackedeven his constitution. He had made heavy drafts on his bodily health, with all too little regard for the inevitable compensation whichNature demands. As in all other things, he had been prodigal withNature's choicest gift. 

Not long after his public address Douglas fell ill and developedsymptoms that gave his physicians the gravest concern. Weeks ofillness followed. The disease, baffling medical skill, ran itscourse. Yet never in his lucid moments did Douglas forget the ills ofhis country; and even when delirium clouded his mind, he was stillbattling for the Union. "Telegraph to the President and let the columnmove on, " he cried, wrestling with his wasting fever. In his lasthours his mind cleared. Early on the morning of June 3d, he seemed torally, but only momentarily. It was evident to those about him thatthe great summons had come. Tenderly his devoted wife leaned over himto ask if he had any message for his boys, "Robbie" and "Stevie. " Withgreat effort, but clearly and emphatically, he replied, "Tell them toobey the laws and support the Constitution of the United States. " Notlong after, he grappled with the great Foe, and the soul of a greatpatriot passed on. 

 "I was ever a fighter, so--one fight more, The best and the last! I would hate that death bandaged my eyes, and forbore, And bade me creep past. No! let me taste the whole of it, fare like my peers The heroes of old, Bear the brunt, in a minute pay glad life's arrears Of pain, darkness and cold. "

With almost royal pomp, the earthly remains of Stephen Arnold Douglaswere buried beside the inland sea that washes the shores of the homeof his adoption. It is a fitting resting place. The tempestuous watersof the great lake reflect his own stormy career. Yet they have theirmilder moods. There are hours when sunlight falls aslant the subduedsurface and irradiates the depths. 

 * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 979: Holland, Life of Lincoln, p. 301. ]

[Footnote 980: _Ibid. _, p. 302. ]

[Footnote 981: Arnold, Lincoln, pp. 200-201. The date of this dispatchshould be April 14, and not April 18. ]

[Footnote 982: Forney, Anecdotes, I, p. 224. ]

[Footnote 983: New York _Tribune_, April 18. ]

[Footnote 984: Forney, Anecdotes, I, p. 225. ]

[Footnote 985: Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 249 note; Forney, Anecdotes, I, p. 225. ]

[Footnote 986: Many friends of Douglas have assured me of theirunshaken belief in this story. ]

[Footnote 987: Forney, Anecdotes, I, pp. 121, 226. ]

[Footnote 988: Philadelphia _Press_, April 26, 1861. ]

[Footnote 989: Philadelphia _Press_, April 26, 1861. ]

[Footnote 990: The Philadelphia _Press_, April 26, 1861, reprinted thespeech from the Wheeling _Intelligencer_ of April 21, 1861. ]

[Footnote 991: J. D. Cox, Military Reminiscences of the Civil War, I, pp. 5-6. ]

[Footnote 992: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, pp. 126-127. ]

[Footnote 993: Senator Cullom of Illinois, quoted in Arnold, Lincoln, p. 201, note. ]

[Footnote 994: Mr. Horace White in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, pp. 126-127. ]

[Footnote 995: Arnold, Lincoln, p. 201, note. ]

[Footnote 996: The speech was printed in full in the New York_Tribune_, May 1, 1861. ]

[Footnote 997: The New York _Tribune_, June 13th, and the Philadelphia_Press_, June 14th, published this speech in full. ]

[Footnote 998: Arnold, Lincoln, p. 193. See also his remarks in theSenate, January 3, 1861. ]

INDEX

Abolitionism, debate in the Senate on, 124-126. 

Abolitionists, in Illinois, 156, 158-160; agitation of, 194-195. 

Adams, John Quincy, on Douglas, 72, 76, 89, 98; catechises Douglas, 111, 113. 

Albany Regency, 10. 

Anderson, Robert, dispatch to War Department, 442; moves garrison to Port Sumter, 451. 

Andrews, Sherlock J. , 11. 

Anti-Masonry, in New York, 10. 

Anti-Nebraska party. _See_ Republican party. 

"Appeal of the Independent Democrats, " origin, 240; assails motives of Douglas, 241. 

Arnold, Martha, grandmother of Stephen A. Douglas, 4. 

Arnold, William, ancestor of Stephen A. Douglas, 4. 

Ashmun, George, 475, 476, 477. 

Atchison, David R. , pro-slavery leader in Missouri, 223; favors Nebraska bill (1853), 225; and repeal of Missouri Compromise, 225, 235; and Kansas-Nebraska bill, 256. 

Badger, George E. , 215. 

"Barnburners, " 132. 

Bay Islands, Colony of, 209, 213. 

Bell, John, presidential candidate, 425, 429, 440. 

Benjamin, Judah P. , quoted, 402, 453. 

Benton, Thomas H. , 44, 117, 223. 

Berrien, John M. , 185. 

Bigler, William, 333, 335, 417, 446. 

Bissell, William H. , 305. 

Black, Jeremiah S. , controversy with Douglas, 409-410. 

"Black Republicans, " origin of epithet, 275; arraigned by Douglas, 296, 297, 304, 374-375. 

"Blue Lodges" of Missouri, 283, 286. 

Boyd, Linn, 182. 

Brandon, birthplace of Douglas, 5, 9, 69. 

Brandon Academy, 7, 9. 

Breckinridge, John C. , 382; presidential candidate (1860), 427, 428, 435, 440-441. 

Breese, Sidney, judge of Circuit Court, 52; elected Senator, 62; and Federal patronage, 118-119; director of Great Western Railroad Company, 168-170; retirement, 158, 171. 

Bright, Jesse D. , 119, 417. 

Broderick, David C. , and Lecompton constitution, 335; and English bill, 347; killed, 411. 

Brooks, S. S. , editor of Jacksonville _News_, 19, 20, 25, 40. 

Brooks, Preston, assaults Sumner, 298. 

Brown, Albert G. , 247, 340, 341, 397-398, 402. 

Brown, John, Pottawatomie massacre, 299; Harper's Ferry raid, 411, 412. 

Brown, Milton, of Tennessee, 89. 

Browning, O. H. , 66, 67, 115. 

Buchanan, James, candidacy (1852), 206; nominated for presidency (1856), 276-278; indorses Kansas-Nebraska bill, 279 _n. _; elected, 306; appoints Walker governor of Kansas, 324-325; interview with Douglas, 328; message, 328-329; advises admission of Kansas, 338; orders reinforcement of Sumter, 452. 

Bulwer, Sir Henry, Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 209. 

Butler, Andrew P. , 119, 137, 216. 

Calhoun, John, president of Lecompton Convention, 327. 

Calhoun, John C. , 120; on Abolitionism, 124; and Douglas, 125; radical Southern leader, 127, 138; on the Constitution, 140. 

California, coveted by Polk, 109; Clayton Compromise, 130; Polk's programme, 133; statehood bill, 134; controversy in Senate, 135-142; Clay's resolutions, 176; new statehood bill, 181-184; the Omnibus, 184-186; admitted, 187. 

Canandaigua Academy, 9, 10. 

Carlin, Thomas, 42, 45, 51. 

Cass, Lewis, defends Oregon policy, 99; introduces Ten Regiments bill, 120; Nicholson letter, 128; presidential candidate, 132; candidacy (1852), 206; and Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 209; and Monroe Doctrine, 211; on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 245-246; candidacy (1856), 277; on Sumner, 296. 

Charleston Convention, delegates to, 413, 416; organization of, 417; Committee on Resolutions, 418; speech of Payne, 418-419; speech of Yancey, 419; speech of Pugh, 419-420; minority report adopted, 420; secession, 420; balloting, 420-421; adjournment, 421. 

Chase, Salmon P. , joint author of the "Appeal, " 240-241; and Kansas-Nebraska bill, 247; 249; assailed by Douglas, 251-252. 

Chicago, residence of Douglas, 309; investments of Douglas in, 310. 

Chicago Convention, 425. 

Chicago _Press and Tribune_, on Douglas, 349; declares Springfield resolutions a forgery, 370. 

Chicago _Times_, Douglas organ in Northwest, 305, 328. 

Chicago University, gift of Douglas to, 310. 

Clark Resolution (1861), 452. 

Clay, Henry, compromise programme, 176; and Douglas, 183-184; and Utah bill, 186-187; on passage of compromise measures, 189. 

Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 209-214. 

Clayton, John M. , 119; on Oregon, 130; _entente_ with Bulwer, 209-210; assailed by Cass and Douglas, 211-212; replies to critics, 213-214; on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 247-248. 

Clingman, Thomas L. , 425, 444, 466. 

Colfax, Schuyler, 348. 

Collamer, Jacob, 289, 338, 446-447. 

Colorado bill, 456; substitute of Douglas for, 457, 459-460; slavery in, 456, 458-459. 

Committee on Territories, Douglas as chairman, in House, 99-100; in Senate, 119-120; Douglas deposed, 395. 

Compromise of 1850, Clay's resolutions, 176-177; speech of Douglas, 177-181; compromise bills, 181-182; committee of thirteen, 183-184; debate in Senate, 184-187; passage, 187; finality resolution, 194-195; 197; principle involved, 189-190. 

Constitutional Union party, possibility of, 349; nominates Bell, 425; prospects, 428. 

Cook, Isaac, 418. 

Crittenden Compromise, 446-447; indorsed by Douglas, 447-448; proposed referendum on, 449; opposed by Republicans, 452; defeated, 463. 

Crittenden, John J. , favors Douglas's re-election, 382; compromise resolutions, 446-447; efforts for peace, 448, 452, 463. 

Cuba, acquisition of, favored by Douglas, 199, 208, 396-397. 

Cutts, J. Madison, father of Adèle Cutts Douglas, 255, 316. 

Danites, Mormon order, 90; Buchanan Democrats, 382. 

Davis, Jefferson, and Douglas, 189; and Kansas-Nebraska bill, 237-238; and Freeport doctrine, 399 ff. , 413; resolutions of, 415-416; assails Douglas, 423; on candidates and platforms, 424; on Southern grievances, 444; on committee of thirteen, 446; permits attack on Sumter, 474. 

Davis, John, 119. 

Democratic party, Baltimore convention (1844), 79; campaign, 80-81; platform, 84, 98-99, 104-105; convention of 1848, 131-132; Cass and Barnburners, 132-133; convention of 1852, 204-206; campaign, 207; Cincinnati convention, 276-278; platform and candidate, 278-279; "Bleeding Kansas, " 299 ff. ; election of 1856, 305-306; Charleston convention, 413 ff. ; Davis resolutions, 415-416; minority report, 418-420; secession, 420; adjournment, 421; Baltimore convention, 426-428; Bolters' convention, 428; campaign of 1860, 429-441. 

_Democratic Review_, and candidacy of Douglas (1852), 200-202. 

Dickinson, Daniel S. , 128, 382. 

Divorce, Douglas on, 33-34. 

Dixon, Archibald, and repeal of Missouri Compromise, 235-236; and Nebraska bill, 239. 

Dodge, Augustus C. , Nebraska bill of, 228; favors two Territories, 239. 

Doolittle, James R. , 446. 

Douglas, Adèle Cutts, wife of Stephen A. , 316-317; leader in Washington society, 336-337; in campaign of 1858, 383; in campaign of 1860, 438; calls upon Mrs. Lincoln, 462; 476, 489. 

Douglas, Martha (_née_ Martha Denny Martin), daughter of Robert Martin, 145; marries Stephen A. Douglas, 147; inherits father's estate, 148; death, 208. 

Douglas, Stephen Arnold. _Early years_: ancestry and birth, 4-5; boyhood, 5-7; apprentice, 8-9; in Brandon Academy, 9; removal to New York, 9; in Canandaigua Academy, 9-10; studies law, 11; goes west, 11-13; reaches Jacksonville, Illinois, 14; teaches school, 16-17; admitted to bar, 17. _Beginnings in Politics_: first public speech, 20-21; elected State's attorney, 22; first indictments, 23-24; defends Caucus system, 26-27; candidate for Legislature, 27-29; in Legislature, 29-34; Register of Land Office, 35-36; nominated for Congress (1837), 40-41; campaign against Stuart, 42-44; resumes law practice, 45; chairman of State committee, 47-50; Secretary of State, 53; appointed judge, 56-57; visits Mormons, 58; on the Bench, 63-64; candidate for Senate, 62; nominated for Congress, 65; elected, 67. _Congressman_: defends Jackson, 69-72; reports on Election Law, 73-76; plea for Internal Improvements, 77-78; on Polk, 80; meets Jackson, 81-82; re-elected (1844), 83; advocates annexation of Texas, 85-90; and the Mormons, 91-92; proposes Oregon bills, 95; urges "re-occupation of Oregon, " 96-98; supports Polk's policy, 99; appointed chairman of Committee on Territories, 99; offers bill on Oregon, 101; opposes compromise and arbitration, 101-103; renominated for Congress, 103; and the President, 104-106; proposes organization of Oregon, 106; advocates admission of Florida, 107; defends Mexican War, 109-110; claims Rio Grande as boundary, 111-114; seeks military appointment, 114-115; re-elected (1846), 115; defends Polk's war policy, 116-117; elected Senator (1847), 117-118. _United States Senator_: appointed chairman of Committee on Territories, 119; on Ten Regiments bill, 120-122; on Abolitionism, 124-126; second attempt to organize Oregon, 129; favors Clayton Compromise, 130; proposes extension of Missouri Compromise line, 131; offers California statehood bills, 134-137; advocates "squatter sovereignty, " 138-139; presents resolutions of Illinois Legislature, 140; marriage, 147; denies ownership of slaves, 149-150; removes to Chicago, 169; advocates central railroad, 169-172; speech on California (1850), 177 ff. ; concerts territorial bills with Toombs and Stephens, 181-182; vote on compromise measures, 187-188; defends Fugitive Slave Law, 191-194; presidential aspirations, 195-196; on intervention in Hungary, 199-200; candidacy (1852), 200-206; in campaign of 1852, 207; re-elected Senator, 208 _n. _; death of his wife, 208; on Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 211-214; hostility to Great Britain, 215-216; travels abroad, 217-219; proposes military colonization of Nebraska, 221; urges organization of Nebraska, 224-225; report of January 4, 1854, 229 ff. ; offers substitute for Dodge bill, 231-232; interprets new bill, 233-234; and Dixon, 235-236; drafts Kansas-Nebraska bill, 237; secures support of administration, 237-238; reports bill, 239; arraigned by Independent Democrats, 241; replies to "Appeal, " 241-243; proposes amendments to Kansas-Nebraska bill, 246, 249; closes debate, 251-254; answers protests, 256-257; faces mob in Chicago, 258-259; denounces Know-Nothings, 263; in campaign of 1854, 264 ff. ; debate with Lincoln, 265-266; and Shields, 267, 268; on the elections, 269-272; and Wade, 272-273; on "Black Republicanism, " 275-276; candidacy at Cincinnati, 276-278; supports Buchanan, 278; reports on Kansas, 289-293; proposes admission of Kansas, 293; replies to Trumbull, 294; and Sumner, 296-298; reports Toombs bill, 300-301; omits referendum provision, 302; subsequent defense, 303-304; in campaign of 1856, 304-306; second marriage, 316; on Dred Scott decision, 321-323; interview with Walker, 325; and Buchanan, 327-328; denounces Lecompton constitution, 329-332; report on Kansas, 338-340; speech on Lecomptonism, 341-343; rejects English bill, 345-347; Republican ally, 348; re-election opposed, 349-350; in Chicago, 352-354; opening speech of campaign, 354-357; speech at Bloomington, 358-360; speech at Springfield, 360-361; agrees to joint debate, 362; first debate at Ottawa, 363-370; Springfield resolutions, 370; Freeport debate, 370-375; debate at Jonesboro, 375-378; debate at Charleston, 378-381; friends and foes, 381-382; resources, 382-383; debate at Galesburg, 383-386; debate at Quincy, 386-388; debate at Alton, 388-390; the election, 391-392; journey to South and Cuba, 393-395; deposed from chairmanship of Committee on Territories, 395; supports Slidell project, 396; debate of February 23, 1859, 397 ff. ; opposes slave-trade, 403-404; _Harper's Magazine_ article, 405-409; controversy with Black, 409-410; in Ohio, 410-411; presidential candidate of Northwest, 413, 416; and the South, 414; and Republicans, 414-415; candidate at Charleston, 416 ff. ; defends his orthodoxy, 422-424; nominated at Baltimore, 427; letter of acceptance, 428; personal canvass, 429-439; on election of Lincoln, 439 ff. ; and Crittenden compromise, 446-448; speech of January 3, 1861, 449 ff. ; efforts for peace, 448, 452, 453; offers fugitive slave bill, 454; and Mason, 454-455; and Wigfall, 455-456; fears the Blairs, 461; opinion of President-elect, 461; and Lincoln, 462-463; at inauguration, 464; and the inaugural, 466-468; on reinforcement of Sumter, 468-469; in the confidence of Lincoln, 469-470; on policy of administration, 471-473; faces war, 474; closeted with Lincoln, April 14, 475-477; press dispatch, 477; first War Democrat, 478; mission in Northwest, 478-480; speech at Bellaire, 480-482; speech at Columbus, 482-483; speech at Springfield, 483-485; speech at Chicago, 485-487; premonitions of war, 487-488; last illness and death, 488-489. _Personal traits_: Physical appearance, 22-23, 69, 294-295, 364-365; limitations upon his culture, 36-37, 119-120, 215-217, 270-272; his indebtedness to Southern associations, 147-148, 317-318; advocate rather than judge, 70-71, 121-122, 177-181, 270-272, 321; liberal in religion, 263, 317; retentive memory, 319-320; his impulsiveness, 320; his generosity of temper, 320; his loyalty to friends, 267-268, 318-319; his prodigality in pecuniary matters, 309-310; his domestic relations, 317; the man and the politician, 270-272. _As a party leader_: early interest in politics, 8, 10; schooling in politics, 18-19; his talent as organizer, 25 ff. ; 39 ff. , 47-50; secret of his popularity, 318-319; his partisanship, 324. _As a statesman_: readiness in debate, 320; early manner of speaking, 70 ff. ; later manner, 251-252, 294-297; insight into value of the public domain, 36, 311-312; belief in territorial expansion, 100, 107-108; his Chauvinism, 87-88, 97-98, 101-103, 199, 211-214; his statecraft, 100, 107-108, 174-181, 270-272, 314-315; abhorrence of civil war, 449-451, 484-487; love of the Union, 324, 436-437, 481, 484, 489. 

Douglass, Benajah, grandfather of Stephen A. Douglas, 4-5. 

Douglass, Sally Fisk, mother of Stephen A. Douglas, 5. 

Douglass, Stephen A. , father of Stephen A. Douglas, 5. 

Douglass, William, ancestor of Stephen A. Douglas, 4. 

Dred Scott decision, Douglas on, 321-323, 356, 359-360, 372-373, 377; Lincoln on, 353, 357, 361, 376-377. 

Duncan, Joseph, 50, 60. 

Election Law of 1842, 73; Douglas on, 74-75. 

Elections, State and local, 22, 29, 50, 61, 158-159, 267; congressional, 44, 67, 73-76, 83, 115-116, 207, 267; senatorial, 62, 117, 207, 208 _n. _, 268-269, 391-392; presidential, 50, 306, 440-441. 

English bill, reported, 343; opposed by Douglas, 345-346; passed, 347. 

Everett, Edward, 256, 429. 

Fessenden, William P. , 473-474. 

Field, Alexander P. , 52. 

Fillmore, Millard, 280. 

Fitch, Graham N. , 335, 336. 

Fitzpatrick, Benjamin, 428. 

Foote, Henry S. , on Abolitionism, 124-125; and Douglas, 126; offers finality resolution, 197. 

Ford, Thomas, 61, 90, 154. 

Forney, John W. , 305, 437; on Douglas and Lincoln, 480. 

Fort Pickens, question of evacuating, 468 ff. 

Fort Sumter, occupation advised, 442; occupied, 451; abortive attempt to reinforce, 452; question of evacuating, 468 ff. ; attack upon, 474; capitulation of, 475. 

Francis, Simeon, 46. 

Frémont, John C. , 280. 

Freeport doctrine, foreshadowed, 322, 359-360; stated, 372-373; analyzed by Lincoln, 376-377; effect upon South, 381-382; denounced in Senate, 397 ff. ; defended in _Harper's Magazine_, 405-409. 

Free-Soil party, convention of, 132; holds balance of power in House, 133; in Illinois, 158-160. 

Fugitive Slave Law, passed, 187; not voted upon by Douglas, 188; defended by Douglas, 191-194; violations of, 194-195; repeal proposed, 195; attitude of South, 195; Lincoln on, 371; evasions of, 445-446; supplementary law proposed by Douglas, 454. 

Fusion party, in Illinois, 264 ff. _See_ Republican party. 

Galena alien case, 47, 48, 54. 

Granger, Gehazi, 9. 

Great Britain, animus of Douglas toward, concerning Oregon, 88, 93-94, 97, 101, 102; concerning Central America, 211-213, 215-216; 217. 

Great Western Railroad Company, 168. 

Greeley, Horace, and Douglas, 320, 348; favors re-election of Douglas, 349. 

Green, James S. , 333, 335, 338, 401, 457. 

Greenhow's _History of the Northwest Coast of North America_, 94, 95. 

Grimes, James W. , 446. 

Guthrie, James, 420, 427. 

Hale, John P. , 124, 138, 186. 

Hall, Willard P. , 223-224. 

Hannegan, Edward A. , 103-104. 

Hardin, John J. , 21-22, 27, 91, 92. 

_Harper's Magazine_, essay by Douglas in, 405 ff. 

Harris, Thomas L. , 265. 

Helper's _Impending Crisis_, 412-413. 

Herndon, William H. , Lincoln's law partner, 351. 

Hise, Elijah, drafts treaty, 210. 

Hoge, Joseph B. , 118. 

Homestead bill of Douglas, 311. 

Honduras and its dependencies, claimed by Great Britain, 209-211. 

Howe, Henry, 9. 

Hunter, R. M. T. , 420, 446. 

Illinois and Michigan Canal, lands granted to, 31; Douglas and construction of, 32-33; probable influence upon settlement, 154. 

Illinois Central Railroad, inception of, 168; project taken up by Douglas, 169-170; bill for land grant to, 170; legislative history of, 171-173; larger aspects of, 174 ff. ; in the campaign of 1858, 382. 

Illinois _Republican_, attack upon office of, 37-38. 

Illinois _State Register_, on Douglas, 46, 81-82; and Springfield clique, 61-62; editorial by Douglas in, 149-150; forecast of Nebraska legislation, 228. 

Indian claims, in Nebraska, 220, 222-225, 238-239. 

Internal Improvements, agitation in Illinois, 29-30; Douglas on, 30-31. 

Iverson, Alfred, 443, 444. 

Jackson, Andrew, 16, 20; defended by Douglas, 69-72, 78; and Douglas, 81-82. 

Jacksonville, Illinois, early home of Douglas, 14 ff. 

Johnson, Hadley D. , 226, 238-239. 

Johnson, Herschel V. , 428. 

Johnson, Thomas, 225, 226. 

Judiciary bill, in Illinois legislature, 54-56, 59. 

Kansas, first settlers in, 283; colonists of Emigrant Aid Company in, 283; defect in organic act of, 284; first elections in, 284 ff. ; invasion by Missourians, 286; first territorial legislature, 286-287; Topeka convention and free State legislature, 288; sack of Lawrence, 299; raid of John Brown, 299; convention elected, 325; free State party in control of legislature, 326; Lecompton convention, 326-327; vote on constitution, 337-338; land ordinance rejected, 347. 

Kansas-Nebraska bill, origin of, 236-239; in Democratic caucus, 243-245; wording criticised, 245; amended, 246, 248, 249, 250; passes to third reading in Senate, 250; course in House, 254-255; defeat of Clayton amendment, 255-256; passes Senate, 256; becomes law, 256; arouses North, 256 ff. ; popular sovereignty in, 281-282. 

King, William F. , 172. 

Knowlton, Caleb, 9. 

Know-Nothing party, origin, 262; denounced by Douglas, 263; in Northwest, 263-264; nominates Fillmore, 280. 

Kossuth, Louis, reception of, 199 ff. 

Lamborn, Josiah, 16. 

Lane, James H. , in Kansas, 287-288. 

Lane, Joseph, 205, 428. 

Lecompton constitution, origin, 326-327; denounced by Douglas, 329 ff. ; vote upon, 337; submitted to Congress, 338; bill to admit Kansas with, 343. 

Lee, Robert E. , 482. 

Letcher, John, 480. 

Liberty party, 116, 158. 

Lincoln, Abraham, in Illinois legislature, 32 _n. _; leader of "the Long Nine, " 34; debate with Douglas (1839), 46; on Douglas, 46; elected to Congress, 116; debate with Douglas (1854), 265-266; "the Peoria Truce, " 266 _n. _; candidate for Senate, 268-269; Republican nominee for Senate (1858), 350; early career, 351; personal traits, 351-352; addresses Republican convention, 352-353; hears Douglas in Chicago, 354; replies to Douglas, 357-358; speech at Springfield, 361; proposes joint debates, 362; personal appearance, 364-365; debate at Ottawa, 365-370; Freeport debate, 370-375; debate at Jonesboro, 375-378; debate at Charleston, 378-381; resources, 382; debate at Galesburg, 383-386; debate at Quincy, 386-388; debate at Alton, 388-390; defeated, 392; in Ohio, 410-411; presidential candidate, 425; elected, 440-441; enters Washington, 461; and advisers, 461, 462; confers with Douglas, 463-464; inauguration, 464; address, 464-466; defended by Douglas, 466 ff. ; consults Douglas, 469-470; not generally known, 471; decides to provision Sumter, 474; calls for troops, 475; confers with Douglas, 476-477, 478; last interview with Douglas, 479. 

Logan, Stephen T. , 23. 

"Lord Coke's Assembly, " 53, 55. 

McClernand, John A. , 51, 55, 119, 182. 

McConnell, Murray, 14, 48. 

McRoberts, Samuel, 42. 

Marble, Mary Ann, wife of William Douglass, 4. 

Marble, Thomas, ancestor of Stephen A. Douglas, 4. 

Marshall, Edward C. , 203. 

Martin, Colonel Robert, 145; plantations of, 146; will of, 148-149. 

Mason, James M. , 454, 455, 469. 

Matteson, Joel A. , 268-269; letter of Douglas to, 313-314. 

May, William L. , 40. 

Mexico, Slidell's mission to, 109; dictatorship in, 111; treaty with Texas, 111-112; territory lost by, 116, 117; treaty of 1848, 123. 

Mexican War, announced by Polk, 105, 109; defended by Douglas, 109-112, 116-117; appointments in, 114, 117; terminated, 123. 

Minnesota bill, to organize territorial government, 142; to admit State, 340. 

Minnesota Block, Douglas residence in Washington, 337, 488. 

Missouri Compromise, and annexation of Texas, 89-90; and organization of Oregon, 130; and organization of Mexican cession, 131, 133; and organization of Nebraska, 221, 230-231, 232-233, 235; repeal agitated by Atchison, 235-236; repealed, 237 ff. ; declared unconstitutional, 321-322. 

Monroe doctrine, debated in Senate, 211-214. 

Moore, John, 60. 

Mormons, settle in Illinois, 57-58; politics of, 58-61; disorders in Hancock County, 90-91; advised to emigrate, 91; removal, 92; in Utah, 220. 

Morris, Edward J. , 96. 

Mosquito protectorate, 209, 210-211. 

Nashville convention (1844), 81. 

_National Era_, occasions controversy in Senate, 124. 

Native American party, 262. _See_ Know-Nothing party. 

Nauvoo, settled by Mormons, 57; charter repealed, 90; evacuated, 92. 

Nauvoo Legion, 58. 

Nebraska, first bill to organize, 95; second bill, 142; bill for military colonization of, 221; third bill, 223-224; Dodge bill, 228; report of Douglas on, 239 ff. ; new bill reported, 231; bill printed, 232; manuscript of, 233. _See_ Kansas-Nebraska bill. 

Negro equality, Douglas on, 275-276, 356-357, 384; Lincoln on, 358, 361, 368, 379, 385. 

New England Emigrant Aid Company, 283. 

New Mexico, slavery in, 127 ff. ; Clayton compromise, 130; controversy in Congress, 130-131; Polk's policy, 133; Douglas's statehood bills, 134-137; Taylor's policy, 166; Clay's resolutions, 176; territorial bill for, 181-183; in the Omnibus, 184-186; organized, 187. 

New York _Times_, supports Lincoln (1858), 382; on Douglas, 411, 429, 436, 470. 

New York _Tribune_, on Douglas, 332, 348, 403. 

_Niles' Register_, cited as a source, 112. 

Non-intervention, principle of, Cass on, 128; in Clayton compromise, 130; Douglas on, 138-139; in compromise of 1850, 181-187, 189-190; in Kansas-Nebraska legislation, 230-231, 236, 243-249, 289-292, 397-402. 

"Old Fogyism, " 200. 

Oregon, emigration from Illinois to, 93; "re-occupation" of, 94; international status of, 94-95; Douglas on, 96-98; Polk's policy toward, 98-99; bill to protect settlers in, 101; and treaty with Great Britain, 103, 106; bills to organize, 106, 108, 129; Clayton compromise, 130; organized, 131. 

Pacific Railroad, and organization of Nebraska, 222-224, 238-239. 

Parker, Nahum, 8. 

Parker, Theodore, on Douglas, 393. 

Party organizations, beginnings of, in Illinois, 25-27, 38-42, 49-50; efficiency of, 65-66, 79, 103; sectional influence upon, 158-160; institutional character of, 157-158, 260-262. 

Payne, Henry B. , 418-419. 

Peace Convention, 453; resolution of, 463. 

Peck, Ebenezer, 26, 56. 

Personal Liberty Acts, 445, 454. 

Pierce, Franklin, presidential candidacy, 204-205; approves Kansas-Nebraska bill, 237-238; signs Kansas-Nebraska bill, 256; opinion on slavery extension, 256 _n. _; candidacy at Cincinnati, 276-277. 

Political parties, and annexation of Texas, 84; and Mexican War, 109; and slavery in Territories, 127-129; and election of 1848, 132-133; in Illinois, 157-158; and Free-Soilers, 158 ff. ; and compromise of 1850, 195; nationalizing influence of, 260-262; decline of Whigs, 262; rise of Know-Nothings, 262; and Nebraska Act, 264 ff. ; rise of Republican party, 273-274; and "Bleeding Kansas, " 294, 299-302, 304-306; and Lecomptonism, 332 ff. ; possible re-alignment of, 348-349; and Lincoln-Douglas contest, 349-350, 381-382, 393; and Freeport doctrine, 397-402, 413-414; and issues of 1860, 415 ff. ; and election of 1860, 440-441. 

Polk, James K. , presidential candidacy, 70; indorsed by Douglas, 80; inaugural of, 98; on Oregon, 99; negotiates with Great Britain, 103-104; war message of, 105; and Douglas, 105-106; announces Oregon treaty, 106; covets California, 109; and appointments, 114, 118-119; urges indemnity, 127; and slavery in Territories, 131; proposes territorial governments, 133; proposes statehood bills, 135. 

Popular sovereignty, doctrine anticipated, 89; phrase coined, 253; in Kansas-Nebraska Act, 281-282; tested in Kansas, 283 ff. ; and Dred Scott decision, 322; and Lecompton constitution, 326-327; defended by Douglas, 329-332, 338-340, 342-343; indorsed by Seward, 348; debated by Lincoln and Douglas, 355, 357, 359-360, 372-373, 376-377; denounced by South, 397 ff. ; defended in _Harper's Magazine_ 405-409; ridiculed by Black, 409-410; operates against slavery, 410-411, 429; Douglas urges further concessions to, 457, 459-460. 

Powell, Lazarus W. , 446. 

Public lands, granted to Illinois for canal, 31; Douglas and administration of, 35-36; squatters and land leagues, 163-164; granted to Illinois Central, 170 ff. ; granted to Indians, 220; and proposed military colonies, 221; and proposed Pacific railroad, 222-224; in Kansas, 283-285; Douglas and proper distribution of, 311-313. 

Pugh, George E. , and Lecompton constitution, 335; and English bill, 347; 413; speech in Charleston convention, 419-420; and Douglas, 422, 424. 

Ralston, J. H. , 58. 

Raymond, Henry J. , editor of New York _Times_, 436. 

Reapportionment Act of 1843, 64, 65. 

Reeder, A. H. , governor of Kansas, 284; and elections, 285, 286; joins free State party, 287; chosen senator at Topeka, 288. 

Reid, David S. , 145, 146. 

Republican party, rise of, in Illinois, 264 ff. ; elections of 1854, 269; origin of name, 273; composition of, 273-274; Philadelphia convention, 279-280; and "Bleeding Kansas, " 304-305; opposes Lecomptonism, 334; Chicago convention, 421; nominates Lincoln, 425; elections of 1860, 437, 440-441. 

Resolution of Illinois Legislature, presented in Senate, 139-140; origin, 159-160; controls Douglas (1850), 184. 

Rice, Henry M. , 446. 

Richardson, William A. , on House Committee on Territories, 182; steers Kansas-Nebraska bill through House, 254-255; in Cincinnati convention, 277; candidate for governor, 305; in Charleston convention, 416 ff. ; in Baltimore convention, 427; forecasts election, 429. 

Richmond, Dean, 426. 

River and harbor improvements, Douglas on, 77-78, 313-314. _See also_ Internal Improvements. 

Robinson, Charles, leader of free State party in Kansas, 287, 288. 

Roman Church, Adèle Cutts an adherent of, 317; attitude of Douglas toward, 317. 

Sangamo _Journal_, on Caucus system, 28; on Douglas, 41. 

Santa Anna, treaty with Texas, 111, 112. 

Scott, Winfield, 482. 

Secession, apprehended, 442; of South Carolina, 447; of Cotton States, 452; and border States, 474. 

Seward, William H. , and Douglas, 251; loses Republican nomination, 425; on committee of thirteen, 453; and the Blairs, 461, 462. 

Shadrach rescue, 194. 

Shannon, Wilson, governor of Kansas, 288. 

Sheahan, James W. , biographer of Douglas, 218, 416; editor of Chicago _Times_, 305. 

Sheridan, James B. , 438. 

Shields, James, senator from Illinois, 171; and Illinois Central Railroad, 175; fails of re-election, 267 ff. 

Slavery, in North Carolina, 147-148; in Illinois, 155-156, 178, 242-243; in Kansas, 287, 298; Nebraska bill not designed to extend, 234; Douglas on extension of, 179-180, 243; peonage, 186; Douglas on, 126, 311, 388, 390, 415; Lincoln on, 351, 352, 358, 361, 368-369, 379, 381, 385, 386, 390. 

Slave-trade, revival proposed, 403, 421; condemned by Douglas, 403-404. 

Slidell, John, mission to Mexico, 109; seeks Douglas's defeat (1858), 381-382, 391; project to purchase Cuba, 396; at Charleston, 417. 

Smith, Joseph, on Douglas, 58-59; to Mormon voters, 59-60; on polygamy, 90; murdered, 90. 

Smith, Theophilus W. , 48, 54, 55. 

Smithsonian Institution, foundation of, 310; Douglas on board of Regents, 310. 

Snyder, Adam W. , 59, 60. 

Southern Rights advocates, 194. 

Spoils system, countenanced by Douglas, 198, 207. 

Springfield Resolutions, in Lincoln-Douglas debates, 366-367, 368, 369, 370, 374. 

"Squatter sovereignty, " Cass and Dickinson on, 128; favored by Douglas, 138-139; genesis of, 161 ff. ; explained by Douglas, 184-185; and compromise of 1850, 189-190. _See_ Popular sovereignty. 

Squier, E. G. , drafts treaty, 210. 

"Star of the West, " sent to Sumter, 452. 

Stephens, Alexander H. , and annexation of Texas, 89; and territorial bills (1850), 181-182. 

Stowe, Harriet B. , description of Douglas, 295-296. 

Stuart, Charles E. , 335, 347. 

Stuart, John T. , lawyer, 23; Douglas's opponent (1838), 42-44; Whig politician, 50, 58. 

Sumner, Charles, and Fugitive Slave Act, 195; on Kansas, 294, 296; altercation with Douglas, 296-298; assaulted, 298; foe to compromise, 463. 

Tariff, views of Douglas on, 314-315. 

Taylor, Zachary, in Mexican War, 109, 114; nominated for presidency, 132; message, 166. 

Texas, as campaign issue, 84; Douglas on annexation of, 85; and slavery, 89; and Missouri Compromise, 90; joint resolution adopted, 90; admitted, 100-101; and Mexican boundary, 110-114, 122-123; and New Mexico boundary, 176, 187. 

"The Third House, " 53, 54. 

Toombs, Robert, 189, 190; Kansas bill, 300; 303, 340; on committee of thirteen, 446. 

Trumbull, Lyman, senator from Illinois, 268-269; Democracy questioned, 274-275; on Kansas, 294; on Toombs bill, 302; opposes Douglas, 349. 

Tyler, John, 79 _n. _; 84. 

Urquhart, J. D. , Douglas's law partner, 45. 

Utah, territorial organization of, 181-187; Mormons in, 220; polygamy and intervention in, 401. 

Van Buren, Martin, nominated by Free-Soilers, 132. 

Wade, Benjamin F. , 269, 272, 338, 446, 458, 463. 

Walker, Cyrus, 45, 58. 

Walker, Isaac P. , 140, 174. 

Walker, Robert J. , governor of Kansas, 325. 

Washington _Sentinel_, prints Nebraska bill, 232. 

Washington Territory, organization of, 224. 

Washington _Union_, on Douglas, 207; forecast of Nebraska legislation, 228; supports Kansas-Nebraska bill, 240; assails Douglas, 341, 381. 

Webster, Daniel, on the Constitution, 140. 

Whig party, convention of 1848, 132; campaign of 1852, 207; decline, 260-262; nominates Fillmore, 280. 

Whitney, Asa, 222. 

Wigfall, Louis T. , 455-456, 468. 

Wilmot proviso, 107, 117, 128, 132. 

Wilson, Henry, Republican leader, 348; favors re-election of Douglas, 349; foe to compromise, 463, 473-474. 

Winthrop, Robert C. , 86. 

Wood, Fernando, 418. 

Wyandot Indians, memorial of, 222, 223. 

Wyatt, John, 21-22. 

Yancey, William L. , resolution of, 132; speech in Charleston convention, 419. 

Yates, Richard, 265. 

"Young America, " 198, 200, 214. 

Young, Brigham, 91. 

Young, Richard M. , 62, 118, 119. 

Norman Hapgood's _biographies_

Illustrated with portraits, fac similes, etc. 

Abraham Lincoln--The Man of the People

_Library edition, half leather, $2. 00_

 "A Life of Lincoln that has never been surpassed in vividness, compactness and lifelike reality, "--_Chicago Tribune_. 

 "Perhaps the best short biography that has yet appeared. "--_Review of Reviews_. 

 "Its depth, its clearness, its comprehensiveness, seem to me to mark the author as a genuine critic of the broader and the higher school. "--_Justin McCarthy_. 

 * * * * *

George Washington

_Half leather, $1. 75 net; by mail, $1. 90_

 "Mr. Hapgood may have done more brilliant or more entertaining work in other fields but we doubt if any of his previous work will take its place in permanent literature so certainly as this study of Washington. "--_Daily Eagle_. 

 "Mr. Norman Hapgood's 'George Washington' is characterized by an unusual amount of judicious quotation, and also by many pages of graphic narrative and description. It has not been customary heretofore, in brief biographies of eminent men, to put the reader so closely in touch with the sources of history. In this case, however, the method adopted by Mr. Hapgood has not only greatly enhanced the historical value of his work, but has at the same time added to its intrinsic interest. "--_Review of Reviews_. 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

PUBLISHERS, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK

Mr. Owen Wister's _sketch of_

The Seven Ages of Washington

 _Boards, leather back in box cover, $2. 00 net; by mail, $2. 11_ _With nine illustrations in photogravure_

 "A bright, enjoyable book, brimfull of individuality, containing one of the truest sketches of Washington ever written, "--_Record-Herald_, Chicago. 

 "The essence of the whole book is character, and it is as a study of character that it possesses unique value. . . . It would be a good thing for high school and college students if this study of Washington were made a required text-book in the course of American history. Certainly the young Americans of our day would get from it a far more correct idea of Washington's life, character and influence than from any of the standard biographies or histories. "--_San Francisco Chronicle_. 

 "The value of the book consists largely in its placing of Washington in the right perspective. Mr. Wister's portrait of him is all of a piece. 

 "The background, like the portrait, is handled with perfect discretion. The reader who is searching for an authoritative biography of Washington, brief, and made humanly interesting from the first page to the last, will find it here. "--From a column review of the book in _The New York Tribune_, Nov. 23, 1907. 

 "Mr. Wister has succeeded in revealing a new Washington--a Washington who becomes a wholly lovable man without losing any of his dignity. "--_Boston Herald_. 

 "In Mr. Wister's hands the Father of his Country is no frozen god. He steps out of the block of ice into which, as the author so well indicates, he was put for safekeeping after death. The book emphasizes the man side of Washington's character. The hero is in the background, and the result is a warm and very convincing picture which it is good to have. "--_Philadelphia Public Ledger_. 

 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY PUBLISHERS, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK

Theodore Roosevelt

The Boy and the Man

By JAMES MORGAN

_Cloth, illustrated, gilt tops, $1. 50_

 "It does not pretend to be an analysis of the individual, and it was not written with the intention of advocating or criticising his political policies. It was meant to be a simple, straightforward, yet complete biography of the most interesting personality of our day. Its aim is to present a life of action by portraying the varied dramatic scenes in the career of a man who still has the enthusiasm of a boy, and whose energy and faith have illustrated before the world the spirit of Young America. "--_From the Author's Foreword_. 

 "The book can go into home or school, north or south, without the possibility of offence. . . . It is especially tonic for high school youth and college young men. I doubt if any book has been written that will do as much for students as will this story of a real life. . . . Buy it, read it, and tell others to read it. "--_Journal of Education_. 

 "In point of style the work is a masterpiece of vivid, forceful, sinewy, Anglo-Saxon. The story never halts, one is never irritated by floridity and gush. "--_Boston Traveler_. 

 "Whether or not a reader believes in Mr. Roosevelt's policies, we doubt if he can fail, after reading Mr. Morgan's book, to be a better American. "--_Sacred Heart Review_. 

 "It is a book which boys will delight to read, and which they cannot read without feeling the potent charm of what is wholesomest, manliest, worthiest, in man or boy. "--_Chicago Tribune_. 

 "The book is as readable as a novel and the story it tells is packed with inspiration for American boys. "--_Hamilton Wright Mabie_. 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

PUBLISHERS, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK

_"Unquestionably the Final Edition" of_

The Life and Letters of Benjamin Franklin

Edited by ALBERT H. SMYTH, late Professor of English Language andLiterature in the Central High School, Philadelphia. In ten volumeswith twenty portraits. 

 _Special limited edition, $30. 00 net. _ _Eversley edition, $15. 00 net. _

 "The volume closes with a copy of Franklin's will and a series of remarkably complete indexes, rendering the contents of all the volumes easily accessible from several different points of view. The whole work bears evidences of painstaking care and devotion to the task for its own sake. It is incomparably the best and most complete edition of Franklin's writings in existence, containing all that is worth preserving, while in arrangement, editorial treatment, and mechanical workmanship it leaves nothing to be desired. The set is certain to have an irresistible attraction for admirers of Franklin and for lovers of well-made books. "--_Record-Herald_, Chicago. 

 "'Franklin's writings are his best biography. ' To few has it been given to tell their own story so frankly and so fully, and with shrewd wisdom and such unfailing humor. We have already, on several occasions, described this excellent edition of Franklin, the fullest, the most accurate that we have ever had. "--_Churchman. _

 "Some interesting notes regarding the twenty rare Franklin portraits that have appeared in these volumes are given in the preface to Volume X. The most interesting portrait is the one appearing as the final volume frontispiece, a photogravure of the painting that originally belonged to Franklin, which was taken from his home in Philadelphia during the British occupation, and after the lapse of 130 years was presented to the United States by Earl Gray. It was painted in London in 1759 by Benjamin Wilson, and is now in the White House at Washington. "--_Boston Transcript. _

 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Sixty-four and Sixty-six Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK