Yale University Library I' III , 'II I I J II 1; III I 39002002907690 |S|l'-i^''&''Bi'-.'|p-" '•iVa^ F^i.i"* *.":¦' - 'it I r I I .VMfrif ¦ /t ." -'! '. ¦ 1. 1<^ .[• l-.l H SP\. ^hS MvK|i^l7 BHa 3SjJb!t& m w ^ ifi^J Ij'-'' ^ S^ ^ O 1 ,1 Wt-ift' '>«• ».v.t-;. .,. iytti> 1 n. > ' aV.,> ' * 1 ^ ^s^t^"'^ YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AMERICAN CRISIS BIOGRAPHIES Edited by Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, Ph. D. ^be Hmerican drisie Btogvapbies Edited by Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, Ph.D. With the counsel and advice of Professor John B. McMaster, of the University of Pennsylvania. Each lamo, cloth, with frontispiece portrait. Price $1.25 net; by mail, $i.37. These biographies will constitute a complete and comprehensive history of the great American sectional struggle in the form of readable and authoritative biography. The editor has enlisted the co-operation of many competent writers, as will be noted from the list given below. An interesting feature of the undertaking is that the series is to be im partial, Southern writers having been assigned to Southern subjects and Northern writers to Northern subjects, but all will belong to the younger generation of writers, thus assuring freedom from any suspicion of war time prejudice. The Civil War will not be treated as a rebellion, but as the great event in the history of our nation, which, after forty years, it is now clearly recognized to have been. Now ready : Abraham Lincoln. By Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer. Thomas H. Benton. By Joseph M. Rogers. David G. Farragut. By John R. Spears. William T. Sherman. By Edward Robins. Frederick Douglass. By Booker T. Washington. Judah P. Benjamin. By Pierce Butler. Robert E. Lee. By Philip Alexander Bruce. Jefferson Davis. By Prof. W. E. Dodd. Alexander H. Stephens. By Louis Pendleton. John C. Calhoun. By Gaillard Hunt. "Stonewall" Jackson. By Henry Alexander White. John Brown. By W. E. Burghardt Dubois. Charles Sumner. By Prof. George H. Haynes. Henry Clay. By Thomas H. Clay. William H. Seward. By Edward Everett Hale, Jr. Stephen A. Douglas. By Prof. Henry Parker Willis. In preparation : Daniel Webster. By Prof. Frederic A. Ogg. William Lloyd Garrison. By Lindsay Swift. Thaddeus Stevens. By Prok. J. A. Woodburn. Andrew Johnson. By Prof. Walter L. Fleming. Ulysses S. Grant. By Prof. Franklin S. Edmonds. Edwin M. Stanton. By Edward S. Corwin. Robert Toombs. By Prof. U. B. Phillips. Jay Cooke. By Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer. c\ .^¦L ^^6^^%j#- ^^^^Z^WT AMERICAN CRISIS BIOGRAPHIES Stephen A. Douglas by HENRY PARKER WILUS, Ph.D. PHILADELPHIA GEORGE W. JACOBS & COMPANY PUBLISHERS Copyright, 1910, by George W. Jacobs & Company Published December, igio All rights reserved Printed in U. S. A. To my Mother PREFACE The interest in the Civil War, so long superior to that excited by any other period in American his tory, has for some time past evidently been super seded by a closer attention to the more or less im mediate causes which contributed to bring on the struggle. This is the natural sequence of the pas sage of years and the sinking of the contest itself and of its heroic figures in the larger movement of which it was merely the result. The most signifi cant epoch in American history is not that of the war itself but of the fifteen years preceding. In spite, therefore, of the care with which the ground has already been covered, there will be continued a vivid interest not merely in matter, even of the slightest, which will contribute to the knowledge of American conditions during those troubled years, but also in such critical discussions as may throw the events and personalities of the times into clearer relief, though the gain from any given effort be trifling. It is for this reason, probably, that the past few years have witnessed the repeated rewriting of the history of the ante-bellum period and of the biographies of those who were then influential in shaping the nation's future. The hold of Lincoln, Sumner, Seward, Davis, and many others, upon the 6 PEEFACE imagination as well as upon the sober thought of students has grown rather than been weakened by continuous and valuable contributions to their his tory. Stephen Arnold Douglas fills a unique place in the years before the Civil War and in his case also the lapse of time has but intensified the interest of students of American history in his bold career. The scholarly work of Allen Johnson and the vivid personal recollections of Clark E. Carr have very re cently presented not only the detailed history but the salient qualities of the man. In writing the follow ing pages, the effort has been made to view Douglas primarily as a figure in national politics rather than as one of the chief actors in the slavery struggle. Picturesque and striking, his life possesses its own peculiar appeal apart from that of the causes and movements in which it formed but a strand. Very sincere thanks are due to Mr. Charles Francis Adams of Boston, who has examined the proof of the volume and has offered valuable sug gestions ; and general acknowledgment is made to others who have aided at various stages of the author's work. Henry Parker Willis. CONTENTS CmtONOLOGY . . . . 9 I. Humble Beginnings . 11 II. State Politics . . 30 IU. The Mormons in Illinois . 53 IV. Congressional Apprenticeshi p . 70 Y. War and Slavery . . 91 VI. The Illinois Central Eaileoj 4.D . 108 VII. On the Senate Threshold . 128 vni. Forth and South . . 148 IX. "Amertcan" FoRETGisr Pot.tcv . 166 X. The Kansas-I^Tebraska Strugc JLE . 187 XI. Shifting Party Lines . 208 XII. The a dmission of Kansas . 225 XIII. The Joint Debates . . 265 XIV. Breaking with the South . 291 XV. The Last Battle . 309 XVI. Without a Party . . 333 Bibliography . . 354 Bibliographical Notes . . 356 Index . 360 CHRONOLOGY 1813— April 23d. Birth of Stephen Arnold Douglas, 1814— Death of Douglas's father. 1828-1832 — Studies and apprenticeship. 1833 — April. Departure for the West. 1833 — November. Arrival in Illinois. 1834 — March. Admitted to the bar. 1835 — February 10th. Elected district attorney. 1836 — Elected to the legislature. 1837 — Resigns from the legislature. 1837 — Appointed Register of the Land OfBce in Springfield. 1837 — December. Resigns as Register to become a candidate for Congress. 1838 — la defeated for Congress. 1838-1840 — Lavryer and politician. 1840 — November 30th. Named Secretary of State of Illinois. 1841 — February. Becomes Justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois. 1841 — Renders decision favorable to the Mormons. 1843 — Resigns from Supreme Court and makes successful con test for congressional election. 1844 — Speaks in favor of the Jackson bill. 1844 — August. Interview with General Jackson. 1844 — November. Reelected to Congress. 1 845 — First discussion ot slavery. 1846-1847 — Adopts Polk's Mexican War policies. 1847 — Elected to the United States Senate. 1850 — Aids in passing the Compromise measures of 1850. 1852 — Advocates "American " foreign policy. 1852 — First real contest for the presidency. Defeated by Franklin Pierce. 10 CHEONOLOGY 1853— Visits Europe. 1854 — Secures passage of Kansas-Nebraska Act. 1856 — Second candidacy for the presidency. Defeated by Buchanan. 1857 — Sides with Republicans in Kansas question. 1858 — Debates slavery question with Lincoln. Is reelected to Senate against Lincoln. 1860 — Third candidacy for the presidency. Nominated by one section of the Democrats and defeated by Lincoln at the polls. 18611 — March. Seeks to prevent war. Draws close to Lincoln. 186(1— June. Dies at Chicago. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS CHAPTEE I HUMBLE BEGINNINGS "Tell them to obey the laws and support the Constitution of the United States." ' This message, supposedly containing the last words of Stephen Arnold Douglas, transmitted to his boys " Eobbie " and "Stevie," then four and two years old respect ively, furnishes a key to the singular character of the rival of Abraham Lincoln. It is not necessary to inquire too narrowly into the question whether any man's "last words" were exactly what fell from his lips at the supreme moment ; they are usually those which are given to him by interpret ers prone to accept the spirit for the word. The Constitution and laws of the United States, obedience to which was thus solemnly enjoined upon his infant children had, at the hands of the speaker, perhaps suffered suflicient modification to warrant him in urging a recognition of them. At all events, the anxious attention to "constitutional " ' These words are quoted by all of Douglas's biographers without definite statement as to their authcaity. 12 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS questions, which thus made itself apparent even on a death-bed, furnishes a parallel to many singular incidents in a career curiously misunderstood and as curiously misrepresented. Douglas's early beginnings were by him con cealed behind a cloud of reticence.^ Congressional leaders, not noted for their personal modesty, have in many instances abstained from vaunting the circum stances of their origin or exposing them to the public eye, either because of ignorance, or of disre gard for descent, or of recognition that in a democ racy too much attention to ancestral detail is un popular. Douglas, at any rate, was never a family historian. It is from sources other than his own writings that the details of his genealogy must be compiled. His earliest known forbears were Scotch, settling at New London, Conn., probably about 1645. ' There is no substantial controversy about the early history ot the Douglas family. The clearest account of its origin so far as relates to Stephen Arnold Douglas is found in Sheahan's Life of Stephen A. Douglas (l^fe-w York, 1860), which was pro duced as an incident to the campaign of 1860 and undoubtedly presents authentic information approved by Douglas regarding his early history. Johnson in bis Stephen A. Douglas emboiiea most of the material given by Sheahan and adds a fevp touches obtained from a manuscript biography of Douglas in the posses sion ot the Douglas family. A few additional points are sup plied in the Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society and some minor items of information can be gleaned from con temporary newspapers. Flint's Stephen A. Douglas adds al most nothing to the matter contained in the other works al ready referred to, and the same is true of Gardner's Life of Douglas and the biography by William Garrott Brown. Clark E. Carr's Stephen A. Douglas gives a brief sketch ot Mr. Douglas's early lite, which is of special interest because of the personal reminiscences and impressions. HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 13 The family, though often represented as of dis tinctly New England stock, did not long remain ex- clusi'vely so. It extended itself not only over New England but throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and other Southern states. About 1750 Doug las's grandfather had established himself in New York and there married Martha Arnold. A son, Stephen A. Douglas, was born at Stephentown, Eensselaer County, New York, but he spent no more than his boyhood in that state. Having been educated as a physician, graduating first from Middlebury College, he married Sarah Fisk and, after the birth of two children, the first a daughter, the second, Stephen Arnold Douglas, the subject of this biography, he died of heart disease. His sudden death occurred but a little while after the birth of the son at Brandon, Vt., on April 23, 1813. The elder Douglas, though holding out promise of successful and useful work in his profession, had done little more than to care for the immediate de mands of existence, and it was not long before the mother with her children was transferred to the farm which she and an elder brother had jointly in herited. The farm, later referred to by Sheahan, Douglas's Boswell, as a "patrimonial estate," was not more than the simple New England homestead of the early nineteenth century. Douglas himself knew the meaning of manual labor, working until he was fifteen years old during the long summer seasons and getting a scant education at the district 14 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS school duriiig the winter. Yet the tradition of men tal training had been strong in the Douglas blood, and it was a keen disappointment when at fifteen years an application for some arrangement whereby he would be prepared for, and sent to, college was met with a refusal. The uncle, upon whom Douglas had, in fact, depended, felt himself embarrassed by the presence of a young wife and of an infant son less than a year old, at the time when his nephew sought to make this severe though warrantable draft upon the narrow means of the family. The tenor of the conversation can be imagined from Sheahan's delicate description. " An affectionate remonstrance against the folly of abandoning the farm for the uncertainties of a professional life, ac companied by a gentle intimation that he had a family of his own to support, and therefore did not feel able to bear the expense of educating another person's children, was the response made to the boy's request." ' It was partly pique based upon a belief that he had been cheated through the violation of a supposed understanding that he was to be given a collegiate education, and partly the reaction of this feeling upon a rugged and independent nature, that made Douglas on the same day walk fourteen miles to Middlebury, Vt., where was situated the college at which his father had been educated, and there take service as a cabinet-maker's apprentice. He con tinued at this work for more than two years. 'Sheahan, Life, p. 4. HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 15 Enough had then been earned to warrant Douglas, now seventeen years of age, in entering the academy at Brandon, Vt. Twelve months in the institution gave him a preliminary acquaintance with classical studies, and at the end of his year's schooling, a new opportunity was opened to him by the nearly simultaneous marriage of his sister, now in her twentieth year, and of his mother, still a young woman, the first becoming the wife of Julius N. Granger of Ontario County, N. Y., while the latter married G«hazi Granger, father of her daughter's husband. An invitation to Stephen to make his home for the time with the rearranged family, re sulted in his entering the academy at Canandaigua, N. Y., not far away. Some further progress was made by Douglas in his classical studies, but he was already beginning to drift away from scholastic and literary pursuits. Admiring biographers have noted the development of a taste for " political con troversy" even during Douglas's early years, an observation for which there seems no authentic sup port. The bitter discussions centering about the second election of President Jackson in 1832 could hardly have failed to arrest the attention of a pug nacious and positive nature. In debating clubs and local meetings, Douglas appeared as an enthusiastic Jackson advocate and assumed a recognized position as an exponent of national policies in the school in which he was then enrolled. Until this time, Douglas had had no marked ob ject in his course of self-cultivation. The classical 16 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS studies to which he had addressed himself were the natural and proper introduction to a professional training iu a period when it was thought not expedient to decry general culture iu the interest of special money-making education. Yet even in his first application to his uncle for the aid which would render him independent during the necessary years of collegiate life, Douglas had specified a professional training as his ultimate object. It is probable that this training would have been that of his father who, however, died too early to have left his son with more than a transient predilection for his own profession. Douglas now found himself much more attracted to the law than to medicine, since the former held out far greater rewards as well as opportunities for political promotion. Four more years, however, would be necessary to gain admission to the bar. The young man had already done something by getting a preliminary acquaint ance with a few fundamentals in the service of attorneys established iu Brandon, but the prospect of a full admission to the profession seemed remote, particularly as he had not yet completed his academic training. In June, 1833, Douglas finally took a step which he had contemplated for some months. He started for the West, with no definite post in view and with but a small sum of money, believing with foundation that the opportunities in a growing country would be broader and the restrictions upon his progress less severe than in the older states of the Atlantic HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 17 seaboard. An attack of bilious fever overtook him at Cleveland, O., where he had secured an associa tion of an advantageous character with Sherlock J. Andrews, a practicing lawyer. He had not reached Cleveland with any settled intention of remaining there, but letters of introduction and pei-sonal friends in the city had succeeded in securing him an unex pectedly favorable opening. The sharp attack, probably due to conditions developed by a compara tively frail constitution on the somewhat trying journey, so much reduced a vitality already low as to compel Douglas's physicians to advise against his remaining longer in Cleveland. Douglas, however, was unwilling to return to New York, and during October, 1833, he went by canal boat to Portsmouth on the Ohio Eiver and then by steamer to Cincin nati, where a week's search for work left him with little money and no prospects. A further journey to Louisville and then to St. Louis by steamer, iu the course of which the vessel was detained a week, owing to an accident to her machinery, gained him several traveling acquaintances, but brought him nothing more than friendly and kind advice, with an offer from Edward Bates of St. Louis, an eminent local lawyer, of the use of his ofQce and library without charge until he could establish a practice. The expenses of living in St. Louis were compara tively high and the very few dollars then in posses sion of Douglas evidently would not warrant his awaiting the turn of fortune in a large city. He thought, therefore, of securing an appointment to 18 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS teach — the occupation then as now considered al most the only one for which no previous experience is necessary. Douglas had always been a close and an interested reader of books of travel and descrip tion. It was this, in part, that had drawn him from the more settled portions of the Union. He recalled a description of Illinois in the neighborhood of Jack sonville and, imagining the conditions there to be favorable, in default of any better plan, he spent the whole remainder of his money in reaching that place. The journey was made by steamboat up the Illinois Eiver, with a short run by stage-coach from the landing to Jacksonville, then a mere frontier settlement with a huddle of cabins around the usual country inn. Jacksonville, in fact, was not a place of any commanding importance even for a state as little developed as Illinois. At that time the state was chiefly settled in the lower or southern half of its territory, the capital being Vandalia. The in habitants in 1836-1837 included 267,000 whites, with about 2,200 free negroes and 488 negroes registered as apprentices, making a total population of nearly 270, 000 souls. There was the usual system of government, with a Supreme Court having four members holding offices during good behavior, and also circuit courts created by the legislature. A peculiarly strong position was occupied by the Supreme Court, inasmuch as it was created by the constitution, while its members, jointly with the governor, constituted a council, a majority of whose HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 19 members could approve or veto all acts of legisla tion. Essentially the state was in an important transition period. It was facing the question of internal development, while politically its problems were as difficult and as evasive as those of its in dustrial upbuilding. President Jackson had carried the state in 1832 and since then Democratic votes were in the large majority. To a frontier community thus constituted and agitated by the local application of broad national policies, Douglas had now come. Though he had been a Jacksonian in his Eastern home, it had been some little time since he had concerned himself actively with political questions, while to the local contests of Illinois he was of course an absolute stranger. Moreover, when he descended from the stage at Jacksonville, Douglas was practically penniless. By selling a few school-books which he had with him, he secured the temporary means of support, but Jacksonville held out no encourage ment and a walk from that place to Winchester ap parently did not bring him any nearer to employ ment. His journey to Winchester had occupied the early part of December, for he had been compelled to take it slowly. Not only the low state of his funds but also the lack of transportation, made it impos sible for him to arrive sooner. More than a week was required in making the trip. On reaching Winchester, it was imperative for Douglas to secure work immediately. He had not been able to bring with him the little baggage which he retained 20 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS and therefore could not even resort to the expedient of selling or pawning it. This uncomfortable situa tion was relieved by the sudden acquisition of six dollars earned by acting as clerk to the adminis trator of an estate whose chattels were put up at auction on the very day of Douglas's arrival. An offer of two dollars per day was gratefully accepted and during the intervals of the sale, which lasted three days, Douglas had several opportunities of de fending in conversation the Jacksonian policies then under discussion in the state. He seized the occasion to make it known that he was desirous of teaching school and chance acquaintances who had been favorably impressed with his acumen, suc ceeded in organizing a school, partly for the benefit of the young stranger and partly for that of their children. Forty pupils, each paying three dollars per quarter, were soon found, and on the first Monday in December, 1833, he began work in an improvised schoolroom, continuing in this service barely for the length of time for which he had engaged himself. The three months were well occupied. Teaching did not prove a heavy drain upon his time and he was able to continue a little reading of the law, using borrowed books and oc casionally earning a small fee before justices of the peace who required no license on the part of those practicing before them. General Murray McConnell liad lent Douglas a few books during the short time that he spent at Jacksonville and had encouraged him to make application for an attorney's license. HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 21 The little reading which Douglas had been able to accomplish and the good-will of his newly made acquaintances, brought him the desired recognition, and on the 4th of March, 1834, being then still less than twenty-one years old, he was admitted to the bar by the judges of the Supreme Court. According to the testimony of acquaintances of the time, Douglas was even younger in appearance than he was in years. S. S. Brooks, then editor of the Jacksonville Neics, has given his impression of the young man who came to Jacksonville at the opening of March for the purpose of securing his license. Douglas, says Mr. Brooks, was "a youth apparently not exceeding seventeen or eighteen years of age . . . beardless and remarkably youthful in appearance. ' ' Nevertheless Mr. Brooks, himself not perhaps a very critical judge, was sur prised at the development of his acquaintance's in tellect and his "comprehensive knowledge of the political history of the country." Brooks says nothing about the scope of his legal training, but it is evident that he was better versed in politics than in law, and that his political wisdom was far more evident to those who agreed with him than to his opponents. Nevertheless, Douglas had now taken the first and necessary step to which he had for four years looked forward, more or less vaguely at first, and later with a growing positiveness and determination. He might not know much law, but he was a recognized lawyer, had made acquaint ances, had accepted a definite political allegiance. 22 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS and was in position to make capital of his native ability and his connections. He hastened to open an office in Jacksonville. There was, however, comparatively little business in the town which he had selected as his present home. Still, if there was little law, there was much politics, and Douglas turned to the latter field as a means of livelihood. He had already sought to get a foothold with the press, writing a commendatory letter to S. S. Brooks, who had just organized the Jacksonville Nexos and had begun its publication in February, 1834. Brooks had appreciated this early commendation and encouragement, and as soon as Douglas had fairly settled himself in Jacksonville, the News repaid his support and approval by more or less tactful advertising. It was largely to the interest of the newspaper to secure a better organi zation of the Democratic party, thereby building up a definite body of subscribers. Douglas could aid in this process and in return the paper stood ready to help him into office. The new-fledged at torney began not only energetic but systematic work designed to put himself forward as a local leader. One of his most sympathetic biographers admits that there was no time even at this early stage of his career " when the arts of the politician were not instinctive in him." ' He entered politics distinctly as a means of livelihood and of self-advancement, wholly without "boyish illusions to outlive regard ing the nature and conditions of public life." He ' Johnson, Life of Douglas, p. 19. HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 23 naturally attached himself more and more to the strong, dominating figure of Andrew Jackson, then overshadowing every other upon the national stage, bent upon holding the whole applause and reward ing with a more or less generous hand the Hessians who supported his policies. Douglas found an early opportunity for making himself known. The Whigs, Jackson's opponents, were apparently gaining ground, partly owing to local dissatisfaction with Jackson's attitude toward the Second Bank of the United States. In order to offset their efforts, " it was deemed by Mr. Douglas and the editor of the News expedient to call a mass meeting of the Democrats of the county to test the question whether General Jackson was to be entirely abandoned or heartily supported."' The call had been made at a well-chosen moment and a large and an interested audience filled the court-house and overflowed into the square. The usual resolutions, common at political conventions, had been prepared in advance, and partly as a result of the prominence which Douglas had acquired in the preliminary ar rangements, partly because of the desire of his sup porters to push him into a commanding position, partly because of uncertainty and doubt about the resolutions and a desire to unload their responsi bility should such a course be necessary, Douglas was put forward as their advocate. According to Sheahan, when the meeting had been organized, Douglas "boldly advanced" and 'Sheahan, Life, p. 18. 24 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS read the resolutions, strongly endorsing the policy of the President in refusing to recharter the Second Bank of the United States and removing the public deposits from the institution. The reading of the resolutions was the signal for a bitter debate, vividly described by Douglas's personal admirer and fol lower in his usual florid manner. A local lawyer, one Josiah Lamborn, spoke in opposition to the resolutions, personally attacking their inexperi enced advocate and flatly contradicting one of his statements. This led to a reply by Douglas, ad mitted to have been " in his own peculiar style" — a style later immortalized by John Quincy Adams and others, and characterized by rather extreme and unbridled personal attack. The speech, how ever, had not been pitched too low. His opponent left the room, whether, as intimated by Douglas's biographer, because of the "irresistible" effect of the discourse, or because he was not willing to an swer in the same vein, is not certain. The rough farmers, "hardy pioneers," and local grocery-store statesmen, were delighted with the words of Doug las, bestowing upon him what Sheahan has called "most expressive complimentary titles," such as "high-combed cock."' It would appear that the sobriquet, "Little Giant," which lasted through out Douglas's life, was first applied to him on this memorable occasion. Political meetings were not so numerous at that early day as later and the re ports of the speech were widely published. Prob- ' Life, ante cit., p. 20. HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 25 ably the occasion had some influence in confirming the county (Morgan County) as Democratic in poli tics and Douglas's success stimulated him to become a candidate for his first serious public office. Joseph Duncan had just beeu elected governor of Illinois and A. M. Jenkins, lieutenant-governor in August, 1834. Hardly had the new administration come into office early in January, 1835, when it passed an act providing for the election of states' attorneys by the legislature in joint session iu place of appointment by the governor. The bill had beeu drafted by Douglas and was put through over the veto of the new governor, unwilling as he was to give up his appointive authority and, though chosen only by a plurality of votes, to surrender even in part his character as representative of the people of the state. Probably it would have been more delicate had Douglas declined to draft the bill, or, having drafted it, refused to accept any emolument in con sequence.' If these ideas suggested themselves to the young man, he paid no attention to them, but suffered himself to be elected states' attorney for the First Judicial Circuit on February 10, 1835, by a very scant majority, being given thirty-eight votes against thirty-four for John J. Hardin, the former incumbent of the office and his most considerable competitor. The list of Douglas's supporters on ' John T. Morse, Jr., in writing of Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln —American Statesmen Series, 1899) says (Vol. I, p. 43): "What has chiefly interested the chroniclers is, that at this [1835] session he first saw Stephen A. Douglas, then a lob byist, and said of him : ' He is the least man I ever saw.' " 26 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS that occasion, in fact, included some political workers who continued throughout life members of the Douglas "machine." The circumstances at tending the incident, the fact that Douglas himself had up to that time never had a real case in court, had no law library, and had never practiced in any way, naturally made serious and dignified members of the bar look upon the action as a piece of polit ical jobbery. The accusations were but too well founded and would have been sufficient to discredit an attorney who had more difficult duties to per form. The fact was, however, that the work before Douglas required more energy and activity than legal learning. Although the cases he had to prose cute included, according to the fluent Sheahan, " crime of almost every grade," there was a strik ing similarity among them, and the methods were decidedly rough and ready both on the part of at torneys and of the local courts. Douglas was still a mere stripling, small in figure, extremely short, and pinned his faith to a single copy of the criminal law, the only book he had with him. In the towns he visited, copies even of the statutes under which cases were brought, were lacking. An amusing attempt to discredit Douglas's early efforts turned entirely upon the spelling of the name of one of the counties employed iu the indictments written by the prosecutor. It was necessary to send to Peoria for a copy of the act which was called in question and when this was finally produced, Douglas was able to show that his spelling of the name was cor- HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 27 rect He, however, succeeded in establishing his point, owing to a printer's error which had made the spelling appear as it had been used by himself in the indictments.' With questions of no more significance than this, and with a nature specially adapted to the making of friends, Douglas succeeded well enough in per forming his not very difficult duties. He devoted far more time to mingling with persons of influence, getting the attention of voters, and generally build ing up a personal following than to routine busi ness. This was with a view to the establishment of a distinct political organization. Douglas, sooner than almost any other in Illinois, saw the use that could be made of meetings and conventions, and re garded the personal work he was doing as merely an incident in the preparation for the convention, rather than as the direct preliminary to a contest for office. In Jacksonville he had thought it best to call a meeting for the purpose of consolidating Democratic opinion ; he now thought it desirable to perform a similar act of consolidation for the Democracy of Morgan County as a whole. Working with his old friend Brooks, the pro prietor of the little organ in Jacksonville, Douglas began a movement for a county convention. His idea was to cut down the number of candidates for each office, eliminate the factional or personal ele ment, put forward a single candidate for each office ' Described by Johnson, Life, p. 24, following manuscript Autobiography. 28 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS and thus concentrate the power of the party in the hands of the clique of leaders who were able to con trol it. While, at the time, pretense was made that Morgan County was Whig in its politics, the fact remains that the reverse had been asserted after the Douglas meeting in Jacksonville when it had been announced as Democratic without question. The problem was essentially one of personal control rather than of political domination. So carefully had the preliminary preparations been made, that Douglas's county convention was entirely success ful. When the meeting convened at Jacksonville, a complete ticket was chosen. The county was en titled to six members of the lower house of the legislature and there were various more or less valuable county offices. Two members of the state Senate were also to be chosen. A complete ticket was put in the field and was met by an opposing ticket headed by Hardin, the state's attorney, who less than a year before had been displaced by Douglas's shrewd manoeuvre in the state legislature. Douglas was unable to avoid meeting Hardin on the stump and finally deter mined to accept a nomination for the legislature in stead of one of the candidates already named who gave way to him. Placing himself in the field as the leader of the contest, he carried through the struggle for the regular nomination aud convention system and succeeded in securing the election of the full ticket with one exception — that of his principal opponent Hardin, the leader of his HUMBLE BEGINNINGS 29 own ticket, who succeeded in gaining access to the legislatui-e. The contest was of signal importance in several ways. It practically assured the maintenance of the convention system and implied for the imme diate future a rigid system of party control with a hierarchy of leaders who directed the rank and file and compelled them to surrender personal prefer ences. The convention system had already been discussed and attempted sporadically in other coun ties, but would probably not have fastened itself upon the state so soon, had it not been for the suc cess of Douglas in consolidating his personal fol lowing. In another way also the occasion was im portant. The campaign was carried on by the usual methods, with a copious flow of corn whiskey. The methods to which Douglas then became accus tomed doubtless had a signiflcant influence upon the mind of a young man unfamiliar with the world and possessing no illusions concerning public life and public service. "In those days," says ex- Governor Ford of Illinois, " the people drank vast quantities of whiskey and other liquors ; and the dispensation of liquors, or treating, as it was called by candidates for office, was an indispensable ele ment of success at elections." ' Probably it was during these early days of his life that Douglas laid the foundation of those habits which later marred his public career and were ultimately a primary cause of his death. ' Ford, History of Illinois, p. 104, CHAPTEE II STATE POLITICS By such means as have already been sketched, Douglas had definitely made his entry into public life. His choice as district attorney had been the result of a shrewd manoeuvre which might have given him merely a temporary incumbency, followed by retirement to private life. Douglas, however, had exhibited the first attribute of the politician — the capacity to adjust himself to events and to pass rapidly from one position to a new one. He was now a member of the legislative body of his newly adopted state. The session which opened in Decem ber, 1836, has been described as the most important that ever assembled in Illinois prior to the Civil War, because of the adoption of a large scheme of material development based upon public aid. The fever of speculative exploitation was then sweeping over the state. Agitation had already begun dur ing the summer and fall of 1836 in favor of a gen eral scheme of "internal improvements." The plan was inclusive, and was supported not only by the farming class but also by the townspeople, who had become infected with the speculative mania. When the legislature met, it found itself called upon to determine what should be done. The governor in his message had condemned Jackson's STATE POLITICS 31 policies and had thus raised a warm political issue which could not fail to provoke ill-feeling and to lead to partisan balloting upon all questions pre sented to that body. The scheme which finally took shape comprised a system of railroads running from Galena to the mouth of the Ohio, from Alton to Shawneetown, from Alton to Mt. Carmel, from Quincy to the Indiana boundary of the state, and various other lines, including in all about 1,300 miles. By way of watercourse improvement, there was demanded provision for the deepening of several rivers, while in order to silence dissatisfac tion among the counties which got no appropria tion, there was asked a distribution of funds for local use. It was in some ways a remarkable body of men to which this plan and others of striking local signifi cance were submitted. Not only Douglas but Abra ham Lincoln was enrolled as a member of the legis lature, while with them sat Hardin, Douglas's re cent rival, John Calhoun, James Shields, and others. Douglas, however, started with a distinction ac quired by his vigorous campaign. He became chairman of the Committee on Petitions and in that capacity had some important work demanding his personal attention. Petitions for divorce came numerously to the body over which Douglas pre sided and, recognizing the importance of the issue, he presented to the legislature an inclusive report, concluding with a resolution "that it is unconstitu tional and foreign to the duties of legislation for the 32 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS legislature to grant bills of divorce." ' The resolu tion was adopted by a decisive majority (fifty-three to thirty-two) and the obnoxious system of legislative divorces was terminated. But this creditable performance was shortly to be otfset by action in another field calculated to counterbalance the prestige acquired. Douglas was later to become known as a shrewd aud daring real estate speculator. Finding himself confronted with the question of internal improvements and public works as an immediate and a pressing issue, he threw iu his lot with the element which favored development. Early in the session he submitted resolutions providing for the completion of the Illinois and Michigan canal which had already en countered serious difficulties involving large out lay ; for the construction of a railroad from the end of the canal to the mouth of the Ohio ; for another railroad from Quincy east to the state line ; and for various other appropriations. These resolutions were merely an incident in the general discussion into which the legislature now plunged. Douglas recognized the lack of resources under which the state was laboring and proposed the issue of bonds, the interest on them to be met by sales of public lands. If he did not go as far as some of his more radical colleagues, and if his youth and total lack of knowledge of business excuse him for being carried away by the current demands of ' Bouse Journal, pp. 60 ff. ; also Johnson's Douglas, pp. 33-34, especially footnote p. 34. STATE POLITICS 33 special interests, the fact remains that at the time he did not raise his voice iu opposition to the urgent calls of speculators. Sharing in the work of the committee of conference which attempted to rec oncile the views of the two branches of the state legislature, Douglas, however, endeavored to restrain somewhat the excesses of the land speculators and directly opposed any system of improvement to which the state should be a party or in which it should hold stock. He likewise antagonized a scheme whereby Illinois would have authorized an increase in the stock of the state bank and would have become a large stockholder in it. Finally, however, he yielded his assent to a plan whereby large sums were voted for the improvement of the rivers of the state and still larger subsidies were devoted to the establishment of railroad lines, with a division of $200,000 among the several coun ties.^ Although Douglas's enthusiastic biographer Sheahan claims for him that, had his original plan been adopted, several millions of dollars would have been saved, he is obliged to admit that the legisla ture ' ' laid the foundation of a public debt which for nearly a quarter of a century . . . loomed up in all its hideous proportions, an object of terror and'of oppression to the people, ' ' while a more recent though hardly less sympathetic writer grants that Douglas was put " in a peculiarly trying position." It was only a short time after the adjournment of the legislature when disaster swept over the country. ' Sheahan, Life, p. 32. 34 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS The state bank went to destruction, local bank stock being tremendously depreciated, and the sys tem of internal improvements at once received a decisive check. It was not strange that the mem bers of the legislature felt keenly the criticism to which their action had exposed them, and Douglas, who had had the foresight to accept a place as Eeg- ister of the Land Office at Springfield, found himself well out of the difficulty to which he would have been exposed had he remained a member of the legisla ture during the special session shortly to be called by Governor Duncan. The place as register had been given to Douglas under conditions which sug gested a political " deal." During his first term in the legislature, it had been voted to move the capi tal of the state to Springfield. There had naturally been keen competition among the various towns de sirous of being designated. Douglas had favored Springfield and had done what he could to secure the location of the capital at that place. He was at tached to the town, had gained his first start there and not unnaturally supported its claims. The charge that he had done the work in return for a pledge of the support of the Springfield people for the registership was one of the usual accusations likely to be made under such conditions, but seems to have no historical basis. The fact that Douglas had opposed moving the capital, though if it were to be moved at all he had favoi-ed Springfield, tends to relieve him from the imputations thus cast upon the conditions under which he had assumed office. STATE POLITICS 35 He had in any event chosen wisely from a pecu niary standpoint. Local newspapers promptly charged that his receipts were enormous,' and it is certain that they were sufficient to put him for the first time iu his life upon a thoroughly independent basis. He was still, however, as much of a politician as ever, although holding a more or less non-political office. He resumed the life which he had led in Springfield ^ when he had first opened his office there without law books, without training, and with only a few political backers. Although not in the legis lative body, he continued to be a close observer of state politics. The special session which had been summoned by Governor Duncan met but a little while after the inauguration of President Van Biiren, who had called a special session of Congress before which he had laid a plan for a sub-treasury system. The position of Douglas with reference to national politics at this period is not clear ; his at tention was far more closely concentrated upon local than upon Federal issues. The effect of the disturbances, however, was to weaken the Democratic party throughout the coun try and of course in Illinois. There was danger that the party machinery which Douglas had been ' Johnson, Life, p. 35. ^ When Springfield was organized aa a city in 1840, under a special charter, a ' ' grand ball " was given in the American House to celebrate the event. Invitations were sent to St. Louis and Chicago. "It ivas designed to be a grand affair which was to include wit, beauty, and fashion ot the entire state. Among the managers appear the names of A. Lincoln, S. A. Douglas." Moses, Illinois Historical and Statistical, Vol. I, p. 431. 36 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS so largely instrumental iu building up, would go to pieces and that the controlling elements would lose the management of the state government and the patronage which they had held so long. This disorganization of public opinion naturally revived the hostility to the convention system. During the special session of the legislature, the political situa tion was fully discussed and finally a state conven tion was summoned. Douglas had visited the cap ital for the purpose of securing concert of action and at a meeting on July 27th it had been determined that the convention should be called iu December. The preliminary work was placed iu the hands of a committee of thirty of which Douglas was made a member, while in each congressional district a committee of five was organized to look after local conditions. The committee of thirty issued an ad dress to the people of the state which appeared dur ing the early autumn and probably had some effect in directing public opinion. Douglas traveled hither and thither, addressing various local mass- meetings aud now fully defending the policy of Van Buren in financial and other matters. There were then three congressional districts in the state and Douglas, as a member of the committee controlling one of these, was in a most important position of vantage. With this start, it was now not strange that he should endeavor to transfer himself from local to national politics. Just when he determined to become the successor of William L. May, then representing his district, is not certain. Practice STATE POLITICS 37 favored the continuance of the congressmen for more than one term and May had had but one. The con vention system which Douglas had so earnestly advocated, however, demanded that the nomination should be made in convention and consequently one was called to meet at Peoria in November, 1837. Brooks, the old-time backer of Douglas, had been doing what he could to shape public opinion, and to make sure that the right men were nominated as representatives of the county in the district conven tion. Singularly enough, Douglas was nominated on the first ballot, and thus as a candidate stepped immediately into the place of a recognized member of Congress who had rendered efficient service, and who was now displaced by an electoral device which was far from having obtained permanent recogni tion. The convention itself had represented only about two-fifths of the total number of counties in the district. Had Douglas been sincerely attached to the con vention system, he would hardly have subjected it to so rude a shock as that which it now received from the onset of public criticism. Douglas, in fact, was not a strong candidate. He was then less than twenty-five years of age ; the party was generally in a bad condition ; he was inexperienced save in purely local matters ; he had no financial resources with which to back the organization. It was a wonderful tribute to his personality and skill as a manipulator that he should have received the nomi nation at all. The fact that at about the same time 38 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS the Democratic state convention nominated weak men as candidates more than correspondingly weakened the local tickets. Douglas was not the only Federal appointee designated on the slate, and the machine-made appearance which his own nomination presented was characteristic of prac tically the whole party program throughout Illinois. He undoubtedly realized the difficulties of the situation, but he was in a position where he must go forward or lose ground. The land office business was by no means so profitable after the panic of 1837 as it had been before the disaster, while the character of the work did not suit Douglas's active spirit. He had exhausted about all that was immediately withiu his reach in state politics and his transfer to the national capital was the next and natural step for him to take. His position in the party had been unexpectedly con spicuous, but was not sufficiently confirmed to warrant him in believing that two years outside of direct participation in political matters would leave him in a condition to regain his place. He plunged into the canvass, in opposition to a rival candidate named John T. Stuart, who was described as an eminent lawyer and a fine speaker, to neither of which classes Douglas could as yet be said to belong. The progress of the campaign showed that he was heavily handicapped by the unfair tactics of his party, while the vigor and ability of his opponent would in any case have made it difficult for him to STATE POLITICS 39 gain headway against the Whigs. Stuart was not only popular in Springfield, Douglas's own head quarters, but he was widely known throughout the state, and had the stamina and energy that political campaigns in those primitive days especially de manded. Yet the contest seemed to be more evenly matched than many had expected. Douglas gave a good account of himself even in a personal affray with his opponent, who picked up his rival and twisted his neck vigorously, while Douglas re sponded with a severe bite that left its mark in after years upon Stuart's person. The result, how ever, showed that the political jobbery of the Democrats had disgusted the district as well as the state, so that Stuart secured a small majority. About all that Douglas carried out of the cam paign was a reputation as a vigorous and resource ful fighter. It was the general belief that no other man could have done so well as he in this trying struggle. This, however, was rather cold con solation. Douglas now found himself in September, 1838, out of his snug nest in the land office and with but little to rely upon. He had not been able to save much money, and what he had saved had been heavily drawn upon by political contributions and his own expenses. Like most disappointed politi cians, he fell back on the practice of law, his main obstacle being that he had no legal information. However, he opened an office iu Springfield. The winter's work was not particularly profitable, per- 40 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS haps because he spent more time iu political schem ing than in preparing for practice or iu attendance on the courts. Early in the spring he had a sharp and wordy contest with Lincoln, who had himself begun the practice of law, although the affair had no general significance and was merely a local bout. Other political imbroglios, including a personal fight with ,a newspaper editor in a neighboring town, were less creditable and Douglas was at this time, perhaps more than at any other iu his career, in danger of dropping back into the place of an incompetent local attorney who devotes himself not to law but to the meaner tasks of political manage ment. Fortune, however, or his own restless energy, did not permit this inglorious termination of his career. Douglas continued his political efforts, it is true, sharing in local conventions, but he also put him self upon a more dignified basis than he had thus far been able to attain by securing a place as counsel iu an important political case brought by some members of the Whig party to test the con stitutionality of that provision of the Illinois con stitution which allowed "inhabitants" to vote at state elections. The case never came to trial in the Supreme Court, Douglas and his associate counsel being called in at a moment when the Democrats had been defeated in the Circuit Court, and secur ing an adjournment on technical grounds until after the election of 1840 had passed by. As the case had been brought up largely with a view to the STATE POLITICS 41 effiect of a decision in that election, such action was equivalent, for the immediate purpose, to a victory for the Democrats. This danger out of the way, Douglas plunged into the fierce contest of Van Buren and Harrison for the presidency and succeeded in carrying the state in favor of Van Bmen. The campaign was one of the most bitter that Blinois had yet known and Douglas had acquitted himself with more than common skill and success. The party owed him something because of the clever trick he had turned in securing an adjournment of the case before the Supreme Court, as well as for his active and unpaid efforts during the campaign. What would he take ? The party would undoubtedly grant him anything that was available. He had already declined a re- nomination to the legislature, recognizing, as every aspirant for political honors does, that a second term in a state legislative body means that he who accepts it probably has not much in store for him in Federal politics. Fortunately, the secretaryship of state was opened to him by the resignation of the previous incumbent. This resignation had not been voluntary ; it was the result of legal proceedings in stituted by the governor who desired to oust Field, the previous appointee, because he was a Whig, while the administration was now Democratic. The case had been decided in Field's favor by the Su preme Court of Illinois upon appeal from the lower court which had decided against him ; but so much irritation had been created as a result of the pro- 42 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS ceedings, that Field, foreseeing that his retention of the office would be made a political issue, withdrew ' and was succeeded by Douglas. The latter took of fice just at the close of 1840.' The new place, how ever, proved to be of little importance save as a stepping-stone. Douglas's accession to the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois is one of the most singular turns in the political wheel of fortune by which he was be ing carried steadily on. He had become Secretary of State and had accepted the place as a temporary makeshift, just as he had accepted the various po litical offices which he had held in the past. Ap parently he had had no thought of securing ad vancement in the legal profession, nor had he done anything which could serve as a medium of training ' The governor named J. A. McClernand as Secretary of State in place of Alexander P. Field, a Whig. The legislature re fused to confirm the nomination. After adjournment ot the legislature, he again commissioned McClernand. McClernand "made a formal demand for the ofiioe, and its surrender being refused, sued out a writ of quo warranto before Judge Breese, who upon the hearing decided in his favor. Field appealed the case to the Supreme Court, where it was ably argued on his be half by Cyrus Walker, Justice Butterfield and Levi Davis, and tor the appellee by S. A. Douglas, James Shields, and the At torney-General, Wickliffe Kitchell. The decision ot the court below was reversed." Moses, Illinois Historical and Statistical, p. 443. ' The Democrats '" availed themselves ot the first opportunity offering itself to override, and virtually to reverse, the decision of the Supreme Court by promptly confirming Stephen A. Douglas whose nomination as Secretary of State was among the first official acts of the governor after the assembling ot the called session, on November 30th. Mr. Douglas, however only hell! the position until February 27th." Jbid., p. 444. STATE POLITICS 43 to fit him for preferment in that direction. His law had throughout the few years of his career been simply a servant to his ambition, and that ambition had been consistently and steadily political. He had hardly taken office as Secretary of State when there appeared to be a probability of a new ar rangement of the various scheming groups which were in practical control of the legislature. It had been thought that a change in the organization of the Supreme Court would be desirable at the session of 1840-1841. The idea was to substitute for the Circuit Courts of the state a larger bench of Supreme Court judges, making nine in all, instead of the four previously appointed, the judges thereafter to be assigned to circuits. This plan apparently did not grow out of any general desire for better judicial organization, but out of partisan prejudice which had been stimulated by sundry decisions of the court iu recent cases that involved political issues.' Douglas, being a "good mixer," had early become popular with the legislative wire-pullers and he now demanded some action with reference to the court, that there might be adequate rebuke to it for its alleged political tendencies. The bill reorganizing the Supreme Court was therefore hastened forward 'The court had "held that . . one Kyle, upon the reception ot whose vote the question was made, possessed all the qualifications required by the affidavit, under the law ot 1829. . . . The broad and iraportant question of alien suffrage under the constitution did not arise in the case, and no opinion of the court was expressed upon it." Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, p. 456. 44 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS by all the means of partisanship and legislative trickery, and was speedily enacted. ' Thus arose the question of new appointments to the bench. It would have been far better for Douglas at this juncture had he resolutely refused to consider a ju dicial appointment, especially in view of the share he had had in urging the reorganization. He was, however, troubled with no such scruples, or with undue modesty of any kind. The report shortly gained ground that he would be rewarded for past political service in this way and Douglas made no effort to contradict the rumor. Despite the opposi tion of the more conservative and older lawyers of the state, his name was finally accepted as one of the appointees and he took the place with the usual statement about the sacrifice involved in a step that would cause him wholly to surrender himself to a judicial career. In the court as it was reorganized, Douglas was associated with some whose names were subsequently conspicuous in local history and with others who have continued practically unknown to fame. William Wilson was Chief- Justice aud his associates were Samuel D. Lockwood, Theophilus W. Smith, Thomas C. Browne, Thomas Ford, Sidney Breese, ' " Meanwhile the bill to reorganize the Supreme Court was pending before the legislature, and with the rendition of this decision by the court, it was circulated about by the politicians, and boldly charged by Douglas in a speech made in the lobby of the house, that the main question had been purposely evaded by the court to allay the apprehension of Democrats as to the alien vote, and to conciliate their favor, with the object of de feating the bill." History of Illinois, p. 457. STATE POLITICS 45 Walter B. Scates, Samuel H. Treat, and Douglas himself.' Douglas was assigned to the fifth dis trict for the performance of circuit duties under the new law. The only important feature about the fifth district was that it included the city of Quincy, in Hancock County, and a place called Nauvoo at which had recently settled the peculiar religious sectaries who have come to be known as Mormons. Douglas at once began his duties and handed down ' The five additional supreme j udges elected by the legislature under this law were, Thomas Ford (subsequently governor), Sidney Breese, Walter B. Scates, Samuel H. Treat, and Stephen A. Douglas. '¦ The last named gentleman had been of counsel for the aliens, had derived his information of how the case was going to be decided in June preceding trom Judge Smith, had obtained the continuance then on the defect in the record aa pointed out by him, had made a violent attack upon the old judges by a characteristic speech in the lobby, and had furnished McClernand the data upon which the latter denounced the court ; in view of all of which, it seems strange that he had sought and obtained a position side by side with the gentlemen he had traduced and attempted so much to bring into disrepute. Partisan scheming and the cravings of office could not well go further. "The new judges were charged with partisan conduct by the Whig press of the period, in the secret appointment of a clerk of the Supreme Court. Ebenezer Peck, it seems, as a member of the legislature had originally opposed the judiciary bill ; but his position became suddenly changed, and the bill passed the House by one majority over the objections of the council. After taking their seate, the new members of the court had no con sultation with the old judges on the subject of the clerkship, and not a word was said in open court about removing the in cumbent, Duncan. Indeed, one ot them had given out that to avoid the imputation ot being a partisan court, the clerkship was not to be disturbed. The public astonishment was not in considerable, therefore, when shortly after its adjournment. Peck announced himself as the clerk by appointment of the majority of the court." History of Illinois, p. 460, 46 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS various decisions. Among those which he delivered were Woodward vs. Turnbull, an action for debt in volving the issuance of local licenses for the exhibi tion of a menagerie in which Justice Scates delivered a long dissenting opinion ; Stevens vs. Stebbins, an other action for debt, raising the interesting ques tion whether there was any material variance in law between "Stevens" the Christian name of Mr. Stebbins and ' ' Steven ' ' the form in which the name had appeared in a note, Douglas reaching the conclusion that the variation between the two names was immaterial ; Warren vs. Nexsen, an action of assumpsit involving a minor legal question of technique ; Gardner vs. the People, which involved a motion for a writ of error in a murder case ; Eoper vs. Clabaugh, in which was presented the question of trespass upon lands by one individual who took away fence-rails belonging to another ; aud other cases of the same relatively inconspicuous sort.' Most of the causes which Douglas was called upon to decide furnished no principles of law that could not be settled by a man of shrewd common sense, and this he possessed in abundant , measure, even though provided only with the single law book with which the new Supreme Court justice but a few years before had begun his career as prosecuting District Attorney. Although the cases coming into the tribunal to which Douglas had been elected were at that time possibly not of first-class impor- ' The cases here referred to will be found at length in Soam- mon's Illinois Reports, Vols. III-V, 1840-1843. STATE POLITICS 47 tance, the work lying before him was as significant in its way as any to which he was likely to be called, and was more important than the work of the courts in many older and better -settled common wealths. It was unfortunately true that Douglas had but too little training for the position which he now assumed. The condition of the bar, and of the bench as well, was exceedingly crude at that early day, and no very great amount of legal acumen was called for ; nevertheless, a good deal of tact and skill was needed in order to maintain the position of a member of the Supreme Court before a bar which included many able and alert minds, making up in shrewdness what they lacked in legal learning. Of more interest than the character of the cases passed upon by Douglas is the fact that one of the practicing lawyers who appeared before the court was Abraham Lincoln. John J. Hardin, Douglas's sometime rival for political honors, was another of the lawyers, while among his colleagues on the bench was Sidney Breese, who was in the future to be associated with him as a member of the United States Senate. Lyman Trumbull, who appeared before the court as an attorney, was also to join Douglas in the Senate some years later. Altogether the make-up of the bench and the bar gave Douglas interesting and valuable connections and enabled him to extend his political acquaintance. The ex perience, moreover, brought him into contact with men with whom he was later to engage in some of the keenest struggles of his life, and gave him the 48 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS opportunity of estimating their mental caliber in a way that would probably not have beeu possible under other circumstances. He gained an insight into the character of Lincoln that served him in good stead in subsequent years, and laid the founda tion for the respect which he later accorded to the ungraceful countryman who was to guide the desti nies of the nation during the Civil War. There was no close association between Douglas aud Lincoln, nor probably was there any love lost on either side. Yet each contrived to get a fair appreciation of the other.' The physical equipment of the court, too, was as limited as the training of those who appeared before it. " Eude frame or log houses served the purposes of bench and bar. The judge sat usually upon a platform with a plain table or pine-board for a desk. A larger table below accommodated the attorneys who followed the judge iu his circuit from county to county." ' Nor was there anything in the demeanor ' " When Lincoln was admitted to the bar, the practice ot the law was iu a very crude condition in Illinois. General prin ciples, gathered from a tem text-books, formed the simple basis upon which lawyers tried cases and framed arguments in im provised court-rooms. But the advance was rapid and carried Lincoln forward with it. The raw material, if the phrase may be pardoned, was excellent ; there were many men in the state who united a natural aptitude tor the profession with high ability, ambition, and a progressive spirit. Lincoln was brought in contact with them all, whether they rode his circuit or not, because the Federal courts were held only in Spring field. Among them was Stephen A. Douglas." Morse's Lincoln, ante cit., Vol. I, p. 67. ' Johnson, Douglas, p. 63. STATE POLITICS 49 of the judges to inspire particular awe or anxiety among those who practiced. "The relations be tween the bench and the bar were free and easy, and flashes of wit and humor and personal repartee were constantly passing from one to the other. The court-rooms iu those days were always crowded. To go to court and listen to the witnesses and lawyers was among the chief amusements of the frontier settlements." ' Douglas did not attempt to raise himself above his easy plane of familiarity. One who knew him well says that " when presiding as a judge on the bench he would frequently, while the lawyers were addressing the jury, go down among the spectators aud seat himself beside an old friend and visit with him, all the time keeping cognizance of what was going on, ready to respond when his attention to the case was required, main taining all the time the most perfect order. He has been seen at Knoxville, when the court-room was crowded, to seat himself upon the knee of old Governor McMurtry and, with his arm upon his shoulder, talk with him for a considerable time." ' Douglas was, however, still preeminently a poli tician. Although there was comparatively little criticism of his decisions, it was evident that they were not the product of very much thought, and that their author was preparing for some other field than that of judicial life, notwithstanding his early ' Arnold, Reminiscences of the Illinois Bar, quoted by Johnson, p. 63. ' Carr, Douglas, pp. 42-43. 50 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS statement to the contrary. In this respect he did not differ from his associates.' His colleague, Sidney Breese, had long felt an ambition to go to the United States Senate, aud in this Douglas himself thought he might perhaps rival his associate. Senator Young was hoping to be re elected iu the autumn of 1842 and Douglas's friends at Springfield, knowing that he and Breese would soon be in a personal war, began a movement to se cure support for Douglas as a potential "dark- horse" when the contest was settled in the legisla ture. So well did they lay their plans that Douglas received a very substantial vote, although Breese was finally elected by a small margin. Douglas himself probably realized that the attempt thus boldly made in his behalf had been rather too am bitious, aud he now determined to effect some thing of a more modest character. He continued to cast his eyes longingly toward the national gov ernment and in the autumn of 1842 he allowed the rumor to be circulated that he would not object to being drafted into the service of the party at Wash ington. Illinois had been gaining rapidly in popu lation and the census of 1840 had indicated that the state ought to have seven members of Congress in- ' One of the newly appointed judges, writing of the reorgani zation ot the court, said : " The highest courts are but indiffer ent tribunals for the settlement of great political questions. . . When any grent political question on which parties are arrayed comes up for decision, the utmost which can be ex pected of them is an able aud learned argument in favor of their own party, whose views they must naturally favor." STATE POLITICS 51 stead of only four. This change, however, required action by the legislature iu re-districting the state. The problem was how to retain all of the districts in Democratic hands. Here Douglas saw his oppor tunity. If a suitable district could be selected for him, he might easily secure election. The revision act was passed in June, 1842, and during the next spring the problem of a nomination was taken in hand. The fifth district or circuit iu which Douglas had been holding court was in part covered by a fifth congres sional district, so arranged as to give him the maxi mum number of favorable votes. A small body of Democrats on June 5, 1843, after the farce of con sidering a number of candidates, gave Douglas a unanimous nomination and perfected the organiza tion necessary to carry on the contest. Douglas, after the usual excuses and expressions of regret, resigned office on the 28th, little more than three weeks after his nomination.' His opponent, a Southerner named Browning, was put forward by the Whigs and the campaign was waged not only upon the usual local issues but also upon dis tinctly sectional lines. The contest, although not unusually long, was carried on under great dif ficulties. Constant travel by all sorts of con veyances, the necessity of addressing many public meetings in the open air and the usual election excesses, wore out both candidates and at the close of the campaign, Douglas was obliged to take to his bed, where he lay for some time with ' Scammon, Illinois Reports, Vol. IV, p. viii. 52 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS a serious illness. The election, however, resulted in his favor, giving him a fairly large majoriiy. The district had been too well arranged to make good the chances of his opponent. CHAPTEE III THE mormons in ILLINOIS Coincident with Douglas's short term as Secre tary of State, local politics underwent a curious experience — an experience which extended into and partly modified not only Douglas's brief career on the Supreme Bench of the state but also his later political career. This was the entanglement with the Mormon church into which he was, probably unconsciously, drawn by his desire to secure political support and advance the interests of his party. The experience with the Mormons covers, in Doug las' s life, a continuous period of some six years, 1840-1846, and was destined to furnish him food for future thought. It has been variously interpreted by historians and biographers, some of whom regard it as little more than a temporarily annoying situa tion out of which Douglas doubtless made the best that was possible ; while others bitterly denounce what they consider the unprincipled attitude adopted by him in connection with the fortunes of what was thought by the people of the state to be an odious sect, full of danger to the commonwealth. The tmth seems to be that, throughout this singular episode, Douglas hardly recognized the character of the forces with which he was dealing, being in this 54 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS regard perhaps not very different from his con temporaries. He always endeavored to avoid an tagonizing in an undue way any large section of voters who were not distinctly determined in oppo sition to him already. It is fair to suppose, more over, that iu all of his decisions as a judge, he was animated by the desire to hold the scales substan tially even. In the case of the Mormons, both the political and the judicial motive combined, with the result that the Mormons invariably found Douglas one of the most sympathetic judges with whom they had to deal. The Mormon experience throws into unusually clear relief some of the meth ods which were becoming habitual with rising politicians. The Mormons had first gained a foothold at Nauvoo, Illinois, having come largely from Missouri. In IMissouri their politics had usually been Demo cratic, yet they had been driven out by the Demo cratic governor of a Democratic state, while Van Buren, although himself a Democrat, had refused to give them any relief. When they arrived at Nauvoo in Hancock County, 111., they declared that they would join neither party but would vote for the one which would give them the greatest aid. The announcement of this policy created no little excitement among local politicians, for with parties as evenly balanced as they then were, it was ap parent to most persons that the Mormons might easily come to hold the balance of power. On settling at Nauvoo, they determined to secure some THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 55 distinct recognition from the state. They employed a certain John C. Bennett as their agent and sent him to Springfield with instructions to secure a city charter aud authority to establish a "military legion." Bennett naturally went to the representa tives of Hancock County in the legislature and ad dressed himself chiefly to a Mr. Little who was then a senator for the county. Bennett also thought it well to keep in touch with the Democrats, and after casting about for that person with whom it would be most expedient to deal, he determined to go to Douglas.' There is no record, probably, of the exact nature of his negotiations but the outcome shows what they were clearly enough. The plan as finally developed was to have the charter, which Bennett desired, presented to the legislature by Whig interests, while Douglas undoubtedly promised that Democratic op position should be prevented from showing itself. Senator Little did present such a charter, which was referred to the Judiciary Committee whose chairman, a Mr. Snyder, was a Democrat. Snyder recommended the passage of the charter, which was then adopted by a viva voce vote, no one wishing to go on record either one way or the other. The charter incorporated the city of Nauvoo, provided ' Douglas's relations with the Mormons are best set forth in Linn's Story of the Mormons, and Ford's History of Illinois. Sheahan's Life of Steplien A. Douglas and Johnson's Stephen A. Douglas review the episode in their customary way. Some light on the Mormon situation in Illinois was also aSorded by Douglas himself in certain of his later utterances. 56 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS for the usual officers, and gave them the usual powers to pass ordinances in case they ' ' were not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or this state [Illinois]." Later the question arose whether the ambiguous language of the charter permitted them to pass ordinances in viola tion of the laws of the state and to establish a system of government for themselves. Important as bearing upon this question is the fact that the charter established courts with extensive jurisdic tion, the municipal or higher court being composed of the mayor as chief -justice aud the four aldermen as his associates, but an appeal was allowed to the Circuit Court of the county. This singular charter also incorporated the militia of Nauvoo under the title of "The Nauvoo Legion." That body was made entirely independent of the military organiza tion of the state, and was divorced from the control of all the officers of the state militia except the governor. The commissioned officers of the Legion were to constitute a court-martial, which was to make and execute all ordinances necessary for its government, and was not bound to regard the laws of the state of Illinois, though it was forbidden to do anything repugnant to the constitution. This Legion was placed at the disposal of the mayor for the pui'pose of assuring the execution of the laws and ordinances of the city of Nauvoo. Had it not been for the shrewdness of the Mormons in arrang ing for the support of both parties, it is hard to see how such a document could have passed any THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 57 legislative body. Governor Ford who took office some three years after the charter had been passed at the session of the Illinois legislature in 1840-1841, thinks that the powers " were unheard of and anti-republican iu many particulars ; and capable of infinite abuse by a people disposed to abuse them." ' The opinion is undoubtedly just and it would be hard to account for the passage of such measures on any ground other than that which is assigned by him — political timidity and unwilling ness to run the hazard of defeat. Whatever may be thought of this charter and however little its ultimate effects were at the time foreseen, the real influence of the Mormons shortly became apparent. A city government was speedily organized at Nauvoo and the Nauvoo Legion was established. Joseph H. Smith was not only mayor but also commander of the Legion and head of the church. In the meanwhile Douglas had been elected to the bench of the Supreme Court of the state and in that capacity he had been placed in a position in which his recent attitude toward the Mormons, while Secretary of State, was likely to be sternly tested. As he had assisted in passing, per haps had been primarily responsible for, the singular charter of the Mormons, he was now to be called upon to adjudicate the questions which might arise under it. The legislature had selected Douglas as judge on the 15th of February, 1841, and as we have already seen,' he was now sent to the fifth 'Ford, History of Illinois, p. 265. 'Supra, p. 45. 58 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS circuit — the Quincy district — which happened to be that in which the Mormons had taken up their residence. Under the conditions, it would not have been strange if the inhabitants of the district, who speedily became antagonistic to Mormon in fluence, had given special attention to the attitude which Douglas would assume. The circuit had been much agitated by the conflicts between the Mormons and the so-called Gentiles by whom they were surrounded, and the position of a judge was one of exceptional difficulty in such cases, because of the exceedingly bitter feeling that had been pro duced between the Mormon and non-Mormon groups in the population. Douglas, however, did not waver in his attitude. He sought to give the Mormons full recognition in all of his decisions, and on one occasion when Joseph H. Smith, who was held by the populace to be responsible for the crimes charged against his sect generally, was per sonally endangered, Douglas was largely responsible for rescuing the leader from a lynching which was imminent.' Most of the cases coming before Douglas in this connection were comparatively trivial, but there was at least one of very considerable importance. This one raised a question concerning the Nauvoo Legion and its power under the charter which had been granted it by the legislature through the in fluence of Senator Little and Secretary Douglas. Douglas, almost as soon as he took his place on the 'Sheahan, Life, p. 50. THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 59 bench, had appointed Doctor Bennett, the agent of the Mormons, a Master of Chancery, doubtless as representing the Mormon interests in Hancock County. Bennett was not only an influential Mor mon, an alderman of Nauvoo and a major-general in the Nauvoo Legion, but prior to his joining the Mormons, he had also been appointed an adjutant- general of the state militia. Within a very short time after Douglas had taken office as judge, a war rant for the arrest of Joseph H. Smith and several other Mormons was issued by Governor Carlin, of Illinois, at the demand of the governor of Missouri. Smith's case came up before Judge Douglas and he was discharged upon a technicality. This he, per haps not unnaturally, regarded as a recognition of Mormonism by the Democratic party and directly assumed a position as an ardent supporter of Doug las, publishing a proclamation to that effect in the Nauvoo newspapers in which he described the judge as a "master-spirit." The manifesto of Smith ap parently transferred the Mormon vote from the Whigs to the Democrats and led to an immediate change of front on the part of the Whig party, which now could hardly find strong enough lan guage in denunciation of Mormon iniquities. In the meantime the growth of this singular sect had been proceeding rapidly. It numbered about 16,000 in Hancock County in 1842, while, accord ing to the estimate of Governor Thomas Ford,' there were "several thousand" scattered about in other ' Ford, History of Illinois, p. 313. 60 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS counties. This was a compact body of voters which could not be neglected in a state where political power was as evenly balanced as iu Illinois. The conduct of the Mormons and their status before the law, however, rendered it difficult to overlook cer tain of their acts and consequently almost coutinu- ous conflicts had occurred between them and the recognized state officials. Crimes of all sorts were currently attributed to Mormon influence, or to the direct action of members of the sect, and the num ber of cases coming before the courts, in which the religious and social prejudice aroused by Mormon doctrine was involved, was very considerable. In the opinion that Douglas had rendered in 1841 in Smith's case, the attitude of the Mormons with reference to military service had already been discussed. The decision was construed, both by the Mormons and by others, as permitting them to control their military company through a court- martial of its own officers. According to Linn ' the so-called "Nauvoo Legion" had actually been recognized as independent of state control by virtue of a provision of law which allowed it to be gov erned by a court-martial of its own officers. This view of its independence, taken by the Mormons, says Mr. Linn, "may be seen in the following gen eral order signed by Smith and Bennett in May, 1841, founded on an opinion by Judge Stephen A. Douglas : " ' The officers aud privates belonging to the ' Story of the Mormons, p. 237, et acq. THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 61 Legion are exempt from all military duty not re quired by the legally constituted authorities thereof ; they are therefore expressly inhibited from performing any military service not ordered by the general officers or directed by the court- martial.' "In other words this city military company was entirely independent of even the governor of the state. Little wonder that the Presidency, writing about the new law to the Saints abroad said : ' 'Tis all we ever claimed.' " With the support which had been obtained from Douglas's decision and other favorable verdicts, the Mormons were emboldened to push their views be fore the courts as well as to try to exert some polit ical influence. In 1842, as we have seen. Governor Carlin had issued a warrant for the arrest of Joseph H. Smith, then the head of the Mormon church, on the ground that he was a fugitive from justice in Missouri. Governor Ford has stated that this war rant had never been executed and was still outstand ing when he took office two years later. The Mor mons, however, were desirous of having the case well tested in the Federal court, and upon their ap plication a duplicate warrant was issued during the winter of 1842-1843, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Sangamon County. Joseph H. Smith consequently surrendered himself a prisoner in Springfield and then applied for a writ of habeas corpus to Judge Polk of the Federal court.' Polk ' Ford, History, p. 314. 62 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS discharged Smith and, aa the case had beeu man aged for him by lawyers who were Whig in politics whUe Judge Polk was also a Whig, the Mormons now began to incline toward that side in politics. The situation was rendered particularly interest ing because of the approaching election of a con gressman in the Mormon district in August, 1843. Two candidates, Cyrus Walker and Joseph P. Hoge, the former a Whig, the latter a Democrat, had pre sented themselves and the Mormons were inclined to favor Walker. Further legal proceedings were just then instituted by the governor of Illinois by reason of a new demand from the governor of Missouri for the person of Smith, based upon an indictment found against him in Missouri on the 5th of June, 1843. Judge Ford's warrant resulted in the arrest of the Mormon leader, and Walker appeared as his counsel. In the course of the proceedings before the municipal court in Nauvoo, Walker's opponent, Hoge, being present, both men were called upon to express their opinion as to the power of the munic ipal court to issue writs of habeas corpus in all cases of imprisonment, and both affirmed the power. The municipal court discharged Smith, and immediately a request was made upon the governor for militia to renew the attempt to secure enforcement of the war rant issued by the government. The governor was inclined to order out the militia. He restrained him self owing to political considerations, but the local Democrats near Nauvoo allowed the rumor to be circulated that, should the Mormons persevere in THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 63 their intention of voting for Walker, the militia would certainly be sent against them. There was a considerable amount of bargaining between the Mor mons and the Democratic managers with the result that the Mormon vote, on what the sect believed to be a pledge of immunity from further persecution, was transferred to Hoge, who was elected to Con gress by 600 or 800 majority. It was at this same election in the Quincy district that Douglas was sent to Congress for his first term although in that dis trict the Mormons, not having had time to receive word of the change in the policy of their leaders in favor of the Democrats, voted for Douglas's oppo nent. He was now in a peculiar and embarrassing position, since he was face to face with an important and influential group in the community who had opposed his own election but who had been re sponsible for the choice of a Democrat iu another district. They were at least potentially Democratic voters and decidedly difficult to control. In Doug las's second candidacy for Congress two years later the Mormons were friendly to him rather than otherwise, aud it would appear that he received a substantial number of votes from them. Early in 1844, Judge Ford, who was then in charge of the ninth circuit, was nominated for the governorship by a little group of Democrats who were practically in control of the state organization. While Douglas had bent the knee to Mormonism, Ford had not, and in his later History of Illinois he did not hesi tate to criticize Douglas in unmeasured terms for his 64 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS action in deferring to the sectaries. Douglas ap parently had no objection to Ford as governor ; he rather approved of the choice, as a clever ruse de signed to win the support of those elemeuts in the party which had been antagonized by his own friendliness to the Mormons. The attitude of the Mormons toward the people of the state had not been at all improved. Friction had continued and the apparent success of Smith in resisting arrest rendered them more and more assert ive with regard to their own powers of self-govern ment. Stolen property taken into Nauvoo could seldom be recovered, owing to the composition of the courts in the " holy city," and the effort of the two political parties to gain Mormon support ren dered both of them unwilling to take any very pos itive step. In the spring of 1844, Joseph H. Smith announced himself as a candidate for the presidency of the United States and at about the same time set up a much more elaborate and powerful religious hierarchy. Numbers of missionaries were sent out to preach the Mormon religion, and thus to political, legal and other difficulties were added the prejudices growing out of sectarianism. The situation became so strained as practically to lead to a threat of gen uine war and the demand of the public that the Mormons should leave the state with as little delay as possible became insistent. Things reached a crisis about the beginning of 1846, when the people near Nauvoo determined to drive the Mormons out of the country. Governor Ford sent a body, con- THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 65 sisting of about 450 men, toward Nauvoo for the purpose of arresting the Mormon leaders. The force was under the command of John J. Hardin, Doug las's sometime bitter opponent and political rival, as colonel, while Douglas himself held a post as major. As it approached Nauvoo, it encountered a force of about 4,000 Mormons, well armed and drawn up to oppose further advance. It was evident that in the event of actual conflict the Mormons would easily gain the victory. Hardin naturally saw the wisdom of avoiding an open breach and determined to send Douglas to Nauvoo for the purpose of ar resting the twelve apostles of the church. He told Douglas to take a guard of 100 men and proceed at once to the town. Douglas, however, dreaded the consequences of any such effort ; he, therefore, begged Hardin to change his order and to send him alone as a personal ambassador for the purpose of discussing the question of the removal of the apos tles.' Hardin finally reconsidered his original order and Douglas started at once, without any attendants, for Nauvoo. The Mormon forces, seeing him ap proach alone, had no hesitation in allowing him to pass through their lines. Indeed, they sent an es cort with him to the city, where he succeeded iu per suading the twelve apostles to accompany him to the militia camp for the purpose of talking over the situation. As soon as they arrived, negotiations were begun and terms, under which the Mormons should withdraw from the state, were finaUy worked 'Sheahan, Life, p. 52. 66 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS out, but proved unacceptable to some of the princi pal factors in the Mormon hierarchy. Douglas, however, was successful iu finally holding them to the chief points in the arrangement and it was agreed that they should withdraw. The outcome was regarded as a great triumph for Douglas,' but Gov ernor Ford and other Democrats were not inclined to assign him the same amount of credit. They took the view that the Mormons had already practically determined to go on the ground that ' ' the kind of Mahometanism which they sought to establish could never be established in the near vicinity of a people whose morals and prejudices were all outraged and shocked by it." ^ Linn, the faithful historian of the Mormons, finds that " they had begun arrangements to remove from the county before the recent disturb ances, 1,000 families, including the heads of the church, being determined to start in the spring with out regard to any sacrifice of their property." ' Whatever was the influence of Douglas in this particular incident, it is clear that his work was un qualifiedly on the side of order and in the direction desired by the bulk of the non-Mormon inhabitants of the state notwithstanding that, as always in the past, he took pains to avoid unnecessarily antago nizing the intruders. He of course could hardly have foreseen the growth of the sect in power and influence during later years, yet he for a time con tinued his pleasant relations with the Mormon ' Sheahan, Life, pp. 52-53. ' Ford, History, p. 411. 'Linn, Story of tlie Mormons, ante cit., p. 34o. THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 67 leaders, and presented a memorial in the shape of an application for Utah's admission as a state sub sequent to the final settlement of the sect in that territory.' Several years later, when Douglas was looking hopefully to the presidential nomination and election, he devoted not a little attention to the Mormon • question, dealing with it in a speech at Springfield, 111., on June 12, 1856. He then de clared that reports from the Mormon territory seemed to justify the belief that nine-tenths of its iuhabitants were aliens and that "all were bound by horrid oaths aud penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of Brigham Young." '' "I think it is the duty of the President," said he, "as I have no doubt it is his fixed purpose, to remove Brigham Young and all his followers from office, aud to fill their places with bold, able and true men ; aud to cause a thorough aud searching inves tigation into all the crimes and enormities which are alleged to be perpetrated daily iu that territory under the direction of Brigham Young and his con federates ; and to use all the military force necessary to protect the officers in discharge of their duties aud to enforce the laws of the laud. When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts which are believed to exist, it will become the duty of Congress to apply the knife and to cut out this loathsome, disgusting ulcer." ' The condition ' Linn, ante cit., p. 430. ^ lUd., pp. 476-477. ' Speech given iu full. New York Times, June 23, 1856, quoted by Linn, p. 477, 68 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS of the Mormons after they reached Utah was per haps not worse thau it had been while they were still at Nauvoo, aud their character as au element in the national constituency was perhaps not more seriously objectionable than it had been while they were still merely an element in the state constitu ency. But presidential candidates necessarily take a different point of view from that of state politi cians and Douglas had traveled a long way during the ten years after 1846. His position with respect to the Mormons so long as they were residents of Illinois had, in fact, been almost purely political. He had clearly recognized the influence that these fanatics exercised in the doubtful counties where the balance between Whig and Democrat might readily be turned either in one direction or the other. His subsequent sympathy with the Mormons after they had moved from the state and had settled in Utah was possibly only a reminiscence. At all events the friendliness for Mormonism with which Douglas had often been charged was merely friendliness for a body of voters, and his position in 1856 was doubt less truly representative of his own attitude on the question. It does not appear that Douglas's course with re gard to Mormonism brought him into any local dis favor. Ford and other partisan writers evidently regard his conduct as unprincipled, while the de voted biographers like Sheahan treat it as simply an exhibition of tact and courage rather than as in volving any political or moral blame. The fact that THE MOEMONS IN ILLINOIS 69 the Mormons finally left Illinois, as had been earnestly desired, aud that they were evidently and undoubtedly furthered in this intent by Douglas, who had manifestly become convinced that they presented too serious a local problem, resulted in the closing of the incident so far as state politics were concerned ; while it was not until after Douglas had passed from the national stage that Mormonism really became a sufficient factor in national politics to call for definite governmental action. The Mormons served the purposes of Douglas during the troubled years when he was passing from his secre taryship of state to his place on the bench, and from that again to his membership in Congress. Having answered that purpose, Douglas, now firmly es tablished at Washington and a figure of state im portance, could afford to discard them and was un doubtedly glad when their removal westward re lieved him of an embarrassing entanglement. CHAPTEE IV congressional apprenticeship Douglas was now to enter upon a much larger field than any in which he had yet appeared. Thus far his experience had been solely that of the local politician. The two experiences with the law — one as prosecuting attorney, the other as judge of the Supreme Court — had beeu mere interludes in a purely political career. Neither had given him any opportunity for reading, and the active life that he had led had not beeu such as to afford much leisure for serious attention to the study of history or the broader aspects of public questions. The reading he had done had been incidental, hasty, and planned merely for the purpose of meeting au immediate emergency, such as the preparation of a speech, the drafting of a political address, the writ ing of a vehement newspaper article or some equally transitory production. ' It was thus a grave ques- '" Judge Douglas wrote little, but suggested much. His mind teemed with ' points. ' I never spent an hour with him which did not furnish me with new ideas. He grasped and understood most questions thoroughly. When he read was always a mystery. Social to a degree, driving out almost daily when not entertaining his friends at his own hospitable home, visiting strangers at their hotels, leading in debate or counsel ing in committee, he was rarely at fault for a date or a fact. He was a treasure to an editor, because he possessed the rare faculty ot throwing new light upon every subject in the shortest possible time. " Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, p. 21. CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 71 tion whether the arts of the local frontier politician would serve to advance Douglas upon the wider stage to which he had gained access. He himself entertained few doubts upon the subject aud allowed none to appear. His first entry into the House of Eepresentatives took place in December, 1843, and, as usual, with true intuition, he sought for an op portunity to catch public attention and place him self in the centre of a group or movement which would recognize him as its spokesman. There was at that time no public question prominently before Congress with which he was personally and closely familiar. The usual delay iu developing a program characterized the opening of a session which, as a matter of fact, turned out to be tolerably quiet and untroubled. Douglas would probably not have sought to attract general attention by discussing in public any subject of which he was obviously igno rant, for he himself was far too astute to trade upon an undue ignorance on the part of others. Like many a new congressman just come to Washington, he therefore sought to make the subject of his first speech a topic of personal political interest likely to be understood by, and to appeal to, a body of men throughout the country, and calculated to arouse strong partisanship for and against the views advanced by the speaker. For this purpose a most favorable opening shortly presented itself. General Jackson, during his defense of New Orleans, had been fined $1,000 by a judge in that city for acts connected with the performance of his 72 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS duties. Jackson paid the fine but later sought to induce Congress to refund it to him. A bill for that purpose had been pending intermittently for some time but had never been passed. Sheahan ' says that it had been considered by ' ' some of the best minds in Congress," although he does not tell who they were. The bill was one of those measures that are frequently offered by personal or partisan adherents who wish to compliment a public man, or furnish a bone of contention that may be used to wrangle over during the intervals between real acts of legislation. This old bill was reintroduced at the session of 1843-1844, and again served its former purpose. The usual eulogies upon .Jackson were offered and the usual controversial discussion was indulged in. It was in fact merely au opportunity for "oratory," being supported only, as even Sheahan admits (and as the record shows), "by its friends." This was an unexpectedly good op portunity for Douglas. He had always been known as a Jackson man ; and, as has been seen when re viewing his early history,' had on various occasions delivered himself of the sophomoric rant in eulogy of the general that is familiar in school and college debating societies. Later on he had found it con venient to accept the position of a strong pro- Jack son leader in Illinois.' He had probably followed and analyzed the career of Jackson, particularly its later phases, with as much attention as he had be stowed upon that of any public man. The bill to re- ' Life, p. 60. ' See ante, p. 15. ' Ibid., p. 23. CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 73 fund the $1,000 was therefore an exceptional oppor tunity for a maiden speech. Much old material could be used, aud there was a chance for a great deal of fire and fury. Douglas, more fortunate than congressmen of the present day, had no difficulty in obtaiuing the floor, and on the 7th of January, 1844, undertook to present his views upon the Jackson bill.' The real substance of his argument was merely, flrst, that iu declaring martial law. General Jackson, while at New Orleans, had acted in an entirely legal way, and that, secondly, even conceding that his action was illegal and unconstitutional, the local court had had no authority to condemn him for contempt of court. No act really done by General Jackson had ever been pointed to in specific terms as illegal or improper in such a sense as to constitute a contempt of court. Therefore there was no justification for the verdict and the least that could be done was to refund the money paid in consequence of the fine imposed upon him. There was nothing particularly novel iu this "legal" argument, for it had been ad vanced on various occasions in the past. Douglas perhaps put it somewhat more pointedly and freshly than ever before. It was not, however, the quality of the argument, but the character of the appeal which at once made Douglas a figure of some note. Adams's often quoted account of the speaker re- ' Douglas's speech is found in the Globe, 28th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 112 et seq. 74 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS mains the best and most graphic picture of the newly-elected legislator. His caustic criticism, however, was tempered by a note of appreciation. Adams admitted that the speech was eloquent though sophistical, while he noted as a further ground for disliking it that it was admired by the "slave Democracy." There was in fact little real merit in the effort. In rhetorical turgid language, Douglas sought to appeal to the strong pro-Jackson feeling throughout the country and in closing drew a melodramatic picture of the appearance of the " hero of New Orleans " before the judge who would have sent him " to his grave branded as a criminal." The real success of the effort was in fact largely found in certain passages which Adams with keen insight had noted as appealing to the states' rights senti ment. For this Douglas was almost immediately taken up by the Southern Democrats. An after math of the speech came shortly after the adjourn ment of Congress at a political convention in Nash ville, Tenn. , whither Douglas went with other Illinois delegates to attend the meeting. According to the later partisan legend, however, the occasion was to him more in the nature of a political pilgrimage than the sober work of a routine elective gathering. He wished to see Andrew Jackson personally. Jackson, like more recent politicians, was quite willing to receive the predetermined homage of the well-disciplined pilgrims who had been marshaled before the doors of the " Hermitage." The house was thrown open and the usual " countless multi- CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 75 tude" filed through the front hallway, inflicting upon the retired statesman the customary hand shaking suffering. It was hard for Douglas to reach the door. The strain of the convention aud the dif ficulty of struggling through the crowds had ex hausted him, and his paleness and apparent weari ness were noticeable. Still a very young man and not yet as massively built as iu later life, one ob server noted that he looked " small and plain . . . beside the hundreds of robust and gallant specimens of Tennessee manhood." ' By one of those fortu nate coincidences, likely to occur in well-regulated political Uves, Douglas had at his side a faithful newspaper correspondeut at the moment when he approached General Jackson and it is to the account of this eye-witness that much of the description of the incident is attributable. According to this cor respondent, Mr. Walters, the editor of the Illinois State Begister, General Jackson " raised his still brilliant eyes and gazed for a moment in the coun tenance of the judge, still retaining his hand." After inquiring whether Douglas was the author of the speech in the House of Eepresentatives and re ceiving an affirmative reply, Jackson said : " Then stop, sit down here beside me. . . . You are the first man that has ever relieved my mind on a subject which has rested upon it for thirty years. . . . Throughout my whole life I never performed an official act which I viewed as a violation of the Con stitution of my country ; and I can now go down to ' Quoted by Sheahan, Life, p. 70. 76 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS the grave in peace. . . " Douglas, according to the di-amatic observer, was not able to accept the invitation to be seated. He shook the hand of General Jackson "convulsively" and left the hall. Touching as was the regard for the Constitution ex hibited both by Jackson and by Douglas, the de scription raises some doubt with reference to the circumstances surrounding the meeting. But what ever they were, the endorsement of Jackson stood Douglas in excellent stead, and in the autumn he found himself reelected by a substantial majority. Meanwhile the support which he had afforded to the bill for reimbursing Jackson was not the only work performed by him during the session. In the assignment of members to committees, the most im portant place that had fallen to him was that upon the Committee on Elections. The usual number of contested questions relating to elections had beeu presented and conspicuous among them was one of some general interest. There had recently been a reapportionment of representation in Congress, but in spite of the act dealing with that subject,' it had failed to receive observance in four states. The problem presented was whether the members from such states could be chosen e» bloc or whether they must be selected in " districts composed of contig uous territory equal in number to the number of rep resentatives." Tlie question was important from a party standpoint, because nearly all of the members, some twenty-one in number, who had thus been erro- ' U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 490 (1842). CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 77 neously chosen were Democrats, while the majority of the House was Democratic. A failure to act in regard to the matter would be a permanent discredit to the party and might serve as a dangerous prec edent. The result was the selection of a special committee, consisting of six Democrats and three Whigs, charged with the duty of investigating the legitimacy of the election in question. In appoint ing the committee, search was made for earnest party men who had demonstrated their shrewdness in times of political pressure at home. Among such a body of men it was not strange to find Douglas. Though a new member, he was chosen to draft the majority finding, which, it was a foregone con clusion, would be as favorable as possible to the status of the contested Democratic seats. Douglas's report must have fulfilled the expectations of the party. He pronounced the enactment requiring the choice of representatives by districts to be invalid and unconstitutional, unless accepted by the states aud by them reenacted into local law. The power to prescribe the methods of electing its members under the Constitution undoubtedly could be exer cised by Congress but only in the event that state legislative action was absent or was obviously un constitutional. This remarkable report was, not unexpectedly, received with vigorous criticism. Adams in com menting upon Douglas's defense of the position taken, said that "at the House Stephen A. Douglas of IlUnois, the author of the majority report from 78 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS the Committee on Elections, had taken the floor that evening, and now raved out his hour in abusive in vectives upon the members who had pointed out its slanders, and upon the Whig party. His face was convulsed, his gesticulation frantic, and he lashed himself into such a heat that if his body had been made of combustible matter it would have burnt out. In the midst of his roaring, to save himself from choking, he stripped off and cast away his cravat, unbuttoned his waistcoat, and had the air aud aspect of a half-naked pugilist." ' The unfavorable attitude of opponents, the criticisms of the punctil ious Adams and the manifest impropriety of bringing into Congress this body of illegally elected members were, however, considerations insufficient to offset the manifest advantage which would accrue to the party from the acceptance of the report framed by the majority. Douglas, moreover, felt the necessity common to all new congressmen not only of working for the party in the national field, but also of getting some direct recognition from the public treasury for his constituents. His previous experience in pushing local river and harbor improvements, and in spread ing the craze for internal development which was still prevalent in the West, naturally turned his at tention to these subjects in the Federal arena. While he did not succeed in obtaining the exorbi tant appropriation for the Illinois Eiver which he ' Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, edited by Charles Francis Adams, 1876, Vol. II, pp. 510-511. CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 79 demanded, the item asked for being dropped from the bill, he was able by his oratory to attract con siderable attention to himself at home and to im press his constituents firmly with the idea that he was strongly devoted to their interests. Not only in regard to internal improvements, but iu other mat ters too, Douglas's early years in Congress showed a nice recognition of the necessities of his constituents. On one occasion an earnest effort to secure the pas sage of a bill for the purchase of 1,500 copies of Somebody's " History of Oregon " called forth the caustic comment of Adams and threw light upou the methods by which the young legislator managed to retain the good graces of his constituents and others.' The first session, at all events, though productive of nothing more than the biassed speech- making and repulsive drudgery of a well-bitted party hack, demonstrated that Douglas could fit into a very definite niche in Washington, just as he had done in Illinois. Thus far he was of the type which the leaders, even at the present day, recognize as one that will "stand without hitching" — always re liable in partisan matters and possessed of sufficient shrewdness to cover any defects of knowledge. To many, however, Douglas's methods and manners were repellent. Lincoln's earlier description of him, couched in suggestively ambiguous language, as "the least man I ever saw," was now still about as valid as in 1835 when it had fir.st been given, and ' Adams's Memoirs, Vol. Xll, p. 154. 80 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS the habits which are termed " convivial" by cour teous biographers were by this time tolerably well established. ' Douglas, however, had not yet become well accustomed to the life of Washington, nor had he seen enough of men and methods anywhere to enable him to mitigate the crudities of his style and his attitude, which constituted so serious a hin drance to his advancement. At the close of his first long session of Congress, with the endorsement of General Jackson and his triumphal reelection in prospect in the near future, as well as with the sub stantial approval of the party leaders, it was still questionable whether he could advance himself to the higher levels of political management. Douglas had hardly expected the nomination of Polk for the presidency, aud it is probable that it was not altogether acceptable to him. As a good party man, however, he had nothing to say in criticism of the selection, and speedily became a warm sup porter of the national ticket, not only from the stand point of the platform which the convention had adopted, but also in a personal way, offering Jack sonian compliments to Polk upon the floor of Con gress aud eulogizing him at party gatherings. The election of Polk in the autumn of 1844, shortly after Douglas's own reelection, placed him in a favorable position as a strong administration Democrat of rec- ' " Judge Weldon remembers that he was once in Mr. Douglas's room at Springfield when Lincoln entered, and, following the custom, Mr. Douglas produced a bottle and some glasses and asked liis callers to join him in a drink." W. E. Curtis, True Abraham Lincoln, p. 380. CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 81 ognized ntiUty, if not of undoubted talents. The short session of Congress, completing the first term for which Douglas had been elected, opened iu December, 1844, and presented some questions of a considerable interest. Conspicuous among these was the now threatening problem of the annexation of Texas and the war which, it was already foreseen, might grow out of it. The national Democratic convention had placed the annexation of Texas upou the same basis as the problem of the Oregon Territory. The issue had flgured to some extent in the campaign ; there had at least been no definite popular declaration against the annexation of Texas. Polk urged annexation from the outset, alleging this to be his duty because of the popular mandate he had received. With the question thus forced to the front in a large national way and with his own per sonal endorsement of Polk in mind, Douglas' s tend ency toward the annexation policy, despite its in evitable conflict with most of the theories of states' rights and the like, for which he had previously stood, was rapid. In the new Congress, opening in December, 1844, he had been recognized by two good committee ap pointments, being given places on the Judiciary Committee and on the Committee on Elections. Without a commanding position in either, however, it was necessary for him to adopt some other method than faithful service, if he desired to become a man of prominence without delay. Having definitely accepted the leadership of Polk, he could not do 82 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS better, it seemed, than become a pro administration exponent iu the lower chamber. Anticipating the action of Congress, he introduced resolutions pro viding for the annexation of Texas which he advo cated in season aud out of season. The effort to secure attention, however, fell flat. Not Douglas's resolutions, but others in process of formulation by the older and wiser heads of the party, were those which gained acceptance as a basis for discussion. He had iu fact made a serious error. The effort to get the lead with his resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas would probably have been un objectionable, although the older members would still have persisted in retaining for themselves the prominence which they conceived to be their just due as promoters of the movement. In addition to this, Douglas had committed the plain blunder of forcing to the front the slavery question in an un necessary way, by providing that the boundary es tablished by the Missouri Compromise should be extended through Texas. This alone would have rendered his proposal impossible and the fact was early recognized. When a new form of resolution for the annexation of Texas was reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, it became known that Polk had given this proposal his endorsement, so that it was emphatically the administration measure. The result, of necessity, was that Douglas found himself blocked in his effort at self- advancement and, unwiUing to appear as the leader of a separate section of the administration forces, he now dropped CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 83 his own scheme aud turned heartily to the support of the new plan. Securing recognition by the Speaker, after some delay, he devoted his principal attention to an attack upon the New England men who were antagonizing the resolution, and delivered a speech iu which he contended that a distinction must be drawn between the power of Congress to admit new states and its power to annex territory. His main point here was found in the thesis that the admission of the state was impossible save with an nexation as a preceding step. The speech also was characterized by a rampant imperialism ; it was evidently intended as au appeal to those who were already urgent that the United States should seize the whole of the North American continent. But Douglas's style had not improved materially since his flrst appearance on the floor and Adams, ever critical of the young frontiersman, characterized him cleverly enough when he wrote in his diary that "Douglas of Illinois raved an hour about democracy and Anglo-phobia aud universal empire.'" Doug las, in fact, distinctly advocated the expulsion of Great Britain from North America, and the exten sion of the annexation policy northward as well as southward. While he had discarded his early design to im pose a slavery discussion upon Congress in connec tion with the annexation of Texas, seeing the un willingness of the administration to open the vexed issue, the suggestion which he had offered had not ¦ Adams's Memoirs, Vol. Xll, p. 159. 84 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS gone astray. Southern men weie urgent that the question should be settled, and settled by permitting distinctively Southern states that might be formed out of the new territory to enter the Union as slave states if they so desired. Douglas suggested that in the event of states being formed out of the new ter ritory north of the line established in the Missouri Compromise, slavery should be prohibited in such commonwealths. This final agreement was sub stantially the idea which had been brought forward in Douglas's early resolutions about annexation. The conditions under which the modification had been made, and the final form given to the clause, however, were not favorable to Douglas's claims for credit either with Southern or with Northern men. He emerged from the Texan discussion with rela tively little added reputation. So low an estimate does Douglas's own personal biographer put upon the achievements of his hero during the session of 1844-1845, that he deA'otes almost no attention to it. The first skirmish over the Texas question had, however, a special significance. This lay in the fact that Douglas had now come, though incidentally only, face to face with the issue which colored all his later career, and which furnished the inspiration for most of his important public debates. Slavery changed the whole current of his life and while the subject gave him the opportunity for some of his raost brilliant successes, it also exposed him to his most serious inconsistencies and opened the way to his worst defeats. CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 85 There is no evidence that Douglas was naturally predisposed to the support of slavery. On the con trary, his training, his traditions, his whole early career, were hostile to it. He had been allied neither with slavery advocates nor with the owners of slaves. He had never owned slaves himself, and the sentiment of his immediate environment had undoubtedly beeu antagonistic to the institution. The circumstances that made Douglas appear as an advocate of slavery throughout almost the whole of his congressional career were two-fold. He was above all things a partisan Democrat. As such he had the feeling of all partisans that nothing must be done to disrupt or weaken the organization of which he was in charge, or whose fortunes he was endeavoring to promote. Just as he had sought to gain the aid of the Mormons by favoring their peculiar ideas and institutions, so he sought to make to the Southern interests iu Congress those concessions which he believed were necessary to satisfy them and to keep them harmoniously united with the Northern branch of the Democratic party. He saw the South a solid, compact body, held by the common tie of the institution of slavery. He saw the Northern Democrats united by no such common bond and influenced, if at all, only by general principles, in opposing slavery. Scantily trained in history or in general political theory, Douglas had not the knowledge or the insight to appreciate the significance of slavery as an historical institu tion. From the economic standpoint, he was largely 86 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS or wholly untrained, and he scarcely comprehended the bearing of the question upon the industrial de velopment of the United States. There is evei-y reason to think that Douglas's attitude toward slavery therefore when he first came to recognize it as a definite force in politics, was one of pure op portunism. Always lacking iu the idealistic in stincts which lead some men to devote themselves to a cause for its own sake, Douglas had from his earliest years beeu a strictly practical politician. In every way, he felt impelled toward those courses which would best advance his own interests. In thus acting with reference to the slavery question, he might easily fiud a basis of j ustification in the fact that slavery actually existed, in the fact that its eradica tion or suppression would involve a tremendous conflict, and in the general hopeful philosophy which was inclined to leave the subject to the future iu the confidence that it would ultimately work out its own corrective. From all these stand points, there was every reason why Douglas should stand ready to accept, up to a certain point, the dictation of the strongest element in his party, and should yield his assent to plans and proposals which under other circumstances he would probably have antagonized. The second important influence which tended to affect the life of Douglas in reference to the slavery question is seen in his own personal rela tionships. Douglas early in his congressional career was thrown with slaveholders of the gentle and CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 87 patriarchal type, to whom the welfare of the human property entrusted to their care was one of the most serious duties of existence. He had not be come convinced of the fundamental aud vital char acter of the slavery question at the time of his first marriage in 1847. True, Illinois had been slave ground in the territorial days, and even at that time the issue was important.' Although the state came into the Union in 1818 without slavery, the institution existed there for a time and then, in theory at least, was driven out. Indentured negroes, who were practically slaves, continued to be held in servitude,' but they were not numerous aud their condition was not very unfortunate. There had been a slow growth of anti-slavery sentiment in niinois from 1830 to 1840 but progress toward Abolitionism or anything approaching it had been exceedingly slight. Not long after Douglas first went to Congress, he made the acquaintance of the lady who was to become his first wife. Miss Martha Denny Martin. Her father. Colonel Eobert Martin, owned a substantial tract of land in North Carolina with an adequate force of slaves, besides 150 or more ' "The legislatures of the Indiana aud Illinois Territories had passed laws allowing a qualified introduction of slavery. • _ • _ • It had been enacted that emigrants to the country [Illinois] might bring their slaves with them, and if the slaves, being of lawful age to consent, would . . . voluntarily sign an in denture to serve their master for a term of years, they should be held to a specific performance of their contracts. . . Such slaves were then called indentured and registered servants ; the French negroes were called slaves. Many servants aud slaves were held under these laws." Ford, History of Illinois, p. 32. ' Moses, History of Illinois, Vol. I, p. 314 et seq. 88 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS slaves upon a Mississippi plantation. During his courtship, Douglas visited the North Carolina plan tation and there he saw slavery at its best. His bent was already friendly to the Southern slaveholders, and it was now to become still more so by reason of circumstances. His father-in-law's death within a year after the marriage threw a quantity of valuable property, whose worth was dependent upon slave labor, into the hands of his wife. Eecognizing the political unwisdom of such action, Douglas declined to accept the direct ownership of the slaves and the plantations, but the fact that the financial welfare of his family was thus so intimately bound up with the continued successful maintenance of a slave system of labor, could hardly have operated otherwise than to make him friendly to the existence of the institution. Though his wife lived for but six years, his children's pecuniary interests and the growing connection between himself and the South ern party in Congress, had by that time definitely moulded his attitude toward the question. It would be wrong to suppose, however, that Douglas ever distinctly advocated the slave system. There is more than a little evidence that he re gretted its existence, although iu common with many high-minded Southerners he thought it neither possible nor feasible to attempt any im mediate change. His doctrine that the people of every community should determine their own rela tionship to the question was a natural outgrowth of his general states' rights and democratic ideas. It CONGEESSIONAL APPEENTICESHIP 89 would probably have been better for him, in the sight of his contemporaries, — better, too, from the standpoint of his historical status, had he not mar ried the daughter of a Southern slave-owner and be come the father of slave-owning children. It was not au unfair inference for party opponents to draw that these connections influenced him in his public life, even though there were many others, following the same path as Douglas, who were entirely free from any suspicion of personal interest. Douglas's relationship to slavery may perhaps be fairly divided into three periods : the first embracing his early legislative career, which we have already traced, and covering the time of his courtship and first marriage, during which he was perhaps more friendly to slavery as slavery than at any subsequent period ; the second, extending from the passage of the legislation of 1850 to the close of the Kansas-Ne braska contest, which may be regarded as his period of constitutional support of the slavery cause ; and the third, extending from the time of the Lecompton struggle in Kansas to his death, a period in which he manifestly underwent a course of development, carrying him away from the extremes toward which the slavery advocates were now tending, and in which he found himself in a state of revolt against the desperate measures of the Southern politicians. It is not inconceivable that, had his life been length ened, Douglas would have appeared as the author of some plan for abolishing or limiting slavery in such a way as to dispose of the question with possibly 90 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS less harshness than was finally resorted to in the settlement of the great economic and political dis pute. Meantime the issue was only germinating. The territorial questions raised by the Mexican War and the annexation of Texas, must much more fully de velop before the differences on the subject of slavery could become acute. CHAPTEE V WAR AND SLAVERY THE question of the relations of the United States with Mexico and Texas came into Congress in December, 1845. Hardly had the session begun, when Douglas placed before the lower chamber a joint resolution in which he called for the admis sion of Texas upon the same basis as the other states. Congress had now reached a point where it had, in its opinion, ascertained the feeling of the country sufficiently to act, and the House promptly passed the resolution which Douglas had proposed. This was iu line with the Democratic platform of 1844, and coming from such a source cannot be re garded as a novel proposal. He, however, was responsible for the earnest pressing of the measure, aud there is evidence that he always regarded the work done by him in behalf of Texan annexation as among his greatest accomplishments as a congress man. There was no delay in the Senate, and before the close of the year, on December 29th, the resolu tion had been accepted and had thus practically received the force of law. The action taken meant war with Mexico as a matter of course. Information that Mexican troops had passed the border and had invaded the United 92 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS States, was conveyed to Congress by President Polk on May 11, 1846 — the culmination of a long aud entangled, but fruitless, series of negotiations. He asked for a sufficient body of volunteers to repel the movement. There was already pending' before the lower chamber a bill which had l)een drafted and reported by the Committee on Military Affairs on the 27th of January pre ceding. This bill had been shaped with a view to possible aggression on the part of Mexico, and action on it was now demanded. The measure was promptly passed. It authorized the enlistment of 50, 000 men beside appropriating $10, 000, 000. This at once opened the way for a debate involving the whole subject of policy with respect to foreign countries, and particularly with reference to the Mexican contest. In this Douglas took the lead.' His chosen biographer says that the speech which he delivered "was a most thorough vindication of the war and of President Polk's policy " and " was never surpassed." Without endorsing this view, it is undoubtedly the case that Douglas made himself almost indispensable to the administration, and powerfully forwarded a cause which might other wise have encountered difficulties. He spoke in vigorous but sufficiently moderate terms of the in sults to the United States which had been offered and the injury to American commerce which had ' Congressional Globe, 1st Sess., 29th Cong., pp, 815, e> seq., for debate, also Sheahan, Douglas, Chap. 5, for full extracts from Douglas's argument. WAE AND SLAVEEY 93 been inflicted by Mexico during the past fifteen years, while with respect to Texas he excul pated the United States for its action in con nection with annexation on the ground that the reason for hostilities with Mexico had been brought into existence prior to annexation. The war was, therefore, a much larger matter than a mere strug gle for territory. France had been treated in the same way aud had declared her ultimatum from the deck of a man-of-war off Vera Cruz. Great Britain had also sent au ultimatum. Payment for damages had been made in both cases, but the United States had supinely refrained from taking any step. Mexico had dismissed our minister, and had per mitted him to be robbed by highwaymen " accord ing to the usage of the country." As for Texas, that state had become independent in 1827 and now simply desired to join the United States. Under a republican constitution, it was free and independent of the other united Mexican states and of every other foreign power, although in all matters relating to the Mexican confederation, it had delegated its powers to the general Congress of Mexican states. The republic of Texas held its position " by the same title that our Fathers of the Eevolution acquired the territory and achieved the independence of this republic" — a successful revolution. We had re ceived the republic of Texas, which had thus divorced itself from the Mexican confederation, into our Union as an independent and a sovereign state. We could not retreat were we so disposed. We 94 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS could not surrender a part of Texan leiritory since we had accepted the state with her whole territory. Nothing was to be done then, save to resist the ag gression of Mexico and to insist upon the mainte nance of the entire ten-itory of the United States in tact, including therein such land as Texas had acquired for herself aud had brought into the Union of her own free will. Not only did Douglas thus seek to vindicate the Mexican War by reasoning that followed practically the only available line along which success could be attained from any other than a mere partisan stand point, but it was a notable feature of the debate that he succeeded in part in winning over the good opinion of his most notable opponent, John Quincy Adams, who but a short time before had spoken of him as a " homuncuhis," given to abusive and frantic ravings. Adams had contended that the western boundary of Texas was the Nueces Eiver and not the Eio Grande. Douglas induced his dig nified and venerable critic to commit himself defi nitely and positively to that opinion and then pro ceeded to refute the view expressed by Mr. Adams, basing his repl.y upon a dispatch which Mr. Adams himself had prepared about thirty years before while Secretary of State in President Monroe's Cabinet.' In this Mr. Adams had established con clusively that the Eio Grande was the western boun dary of Texas and that the country between the ' Congressional Globe, 1st Sess., 29th Cong., p. 817, for speech ; also Sheahan, Chap. 5. WAE AND SLAVEEY 95 Nueces and the Eio Grande was a part of Texas. Adams was fairly beaten by this ruse and frankly admitted his opponent's capacity, and in the main the courtesy and tact, which he had employed in the parliamentary struggle.' The speech and the Adams colloquy doubtless gave Douglas a decided increase of popularity and standing, and when he went to the White House, not long after the opening of the war, President Polk hastened to smooth over such frritation as Douglas felt because of political appointments to Federal places in Illinois, and practically designated him as the leader of the Democratic party in the lower chamber.' The question now was the successful prosecution of the war. Polk needed aid in Congress, for he had to struggle not only with military problems, but also with those which surrounded the question of government in Texas. The President had gone on to establish a tentative administration in the new territory and this gave rise at the opening of the session, 1846-1847, to colloquies based upon the as sumption that he had resorted to an excessive use of his power. Men looked to Douglas once more as the spokesman of the administration iu matters relating to the war, and they were not dis appointed. He had already been tutored by Polk, who had given him his side of the case at length. Douglas hastened to vindicate the position of the 'Sheahan, p. 74. ' Polk MS. Diary entry for June 17, 1846, quoted by Johnson, p. 106. 96 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS administration aud drew still closer to the Presi dent. The question now was how to carry on the war, while at the same time looking forward to peace with Mexico. Polk thought that a transfer of 12,000,000 to pay Mexico for the ceded territory would be the best policy and in this Douglas con curred, although they knew that the appropriation would be far from easy to secure. Just at this junc ture Douglas secured his election to the United States Senate, and entered that body with the inten tion of pursuing the same policy with reference to the war which he had already followed while a member of the lower chamber.' His advent upon the floor of the Senate was not characterized by the shrinking modesty enforced upon latter-day states men by the managers of the legislative organization in the "American house of lords," for the change was to Douglas nothing more than speaking at one end of the Capitol rather than at the other. He opened his senatorial career on February 1, 1848, with a vigorous speech iu which he once more sought to vindicate Polk and urged the adoption of an administration measure then pending in the Senate. This was called the " Ten Eegiments Bill " and had beeu offered by Lewis Cass. Douglas had comparatively little to say about the bill itself, save incidentally, but devoted himself chiefly to the subject of the necessit.y of the war and its pro priety from the abstract standpoint, at the same 'See page 102 for further description of circuinatanoes sur rounding election. WAE AND SLAVEEY 97 time also giving due attention to the boundary ques tion. While Douglas was thus striving to vindicate a weak administration by denying facts which were known of all men, the feebleness of Mexico was con tributing to bring about the speedy termination of hostilities. Our troops had had success in pene trating to the capital, and in holding most of the strong points that were needed to support the ad vance. The question of peace was under serious discussion, and a draft of a treaty had reached the Senate even while Douglas was still working for the Ten Eegiments Bill. The treaty was in fact form ally transmitted by the President on February 23, 1848, only about three weeks after Douglas had de livered his opening address on the floor. Discus sions continued until March 10th, when a vote was taken, thirty-eight to fourteen, iu favor of the treaty in the form in which it then stood. Douglas had voted against it, but there were not enough senators with him to make up the necessary one-third in opposition. It was a surprise to many during the days between February 23d and March 10, 1848, that he who had so vigorously upheld the administration in its Mexican policy now attacked it at a vital point. He disliked the boundary provision of the treaty ' because, by providing that the line laid down in the agreement should be permanent, it cut off the possibility of a future rearrangement of the frontier. Such a rearrangement, Douglas appar ently felt, might be necessary at a later date, but ' Sheahan. Douglas, passim. 98 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS his failure to support the Polk administration to the last was of comparatively little importance, since it was now considerably discredited in several direc tions, while Douglas himself had grown remarkably in power and influence since the opening of the war. The question of territorial expansion, which had figured as one of the vital issues in the Mexican War, had also presented itself in a pressing form in connection with Oregon. While still iu the House and still struggling with the Mexican question in its early stages, Douglas had bitterly assailed Great Britain because of her claim to Oregon, bringing forward the view that England should never be allowed to hold a single spot of territory in the Northwest.' He himself had introduced a measure, defining the legal status of the Anui'ican inhabit ants of the territory under the treaty which then existed with Great Britain. This treaty was to be abrogated and Douglas now urged that, in connec tion with such abrogation, we should insist upon absolute and full control of the whole Northwest. On the 27th of January, 1846, he demanded the adoption of his proposed policy, and insisted upon the maintenance of American power upon the Pa cific with a view to the control of future trade. Continuing in this strain, Douglas found himself but one of ten who voted for a substitute resolution (offered in place of the resolution terminating the treaty with Great Britain), in which it was declared that Oregon was already defined in its status aud ' Congressional Globe, 29tb Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 124, etc WAE AND SLAVEEY 99 could not be made the subject of controversy. The small number of supporters which he had succeeded in enlisting did not deter him from continued in sistence upon the 54° 40' line. He persevered in his demand, and when it was suggested a little later that Polk thought of settling with England upon the forty-ninth parallel as a boundary, he declared himself positively to the effect that the acceptance of such a settlement would be a violation of party pledges as embodied in the last Democratic plat form. In fact, the advocacy of extreme views about Oregon carried Douglas into au almost ridiculous position even with his own political associates, al though he succeeded in pushing through the House his biU relating to the settlers in the territory, which was later allowed to die quietly in the Senate. The final draft of the treaty ' was unsatisfactory to Douglas, particularly in view of the language employed in the President's message conveying to Congress the information that the treaty had beeu agreed upon.' Douglas felt the concessions to Great Britain to be a serious personal rebuke, but he could not urge warlike action at a moment when we were evidently on the point of hostilities with Mexico. Polk had urged that a territorial govern ment be promptly established in Oregon, and Doug las was a sufficiently skilful tactician to drop such of his demands as were now plainly out of the ques tion and take up the remaining issues. He pre- 1 Treaties in Force, 1899. p. 931. ' Messages and Papers, Vol. IV, p. 449. 100 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS sented a measure establishing a government in Ore gon and when adopted by the House, he admitted an amendment prohibiting the existence of slavery. This measure, however, like Douglas's other bill, went no further thau the lower chamber, so that the incorporation of the anti-slavery provision was sug gestive leather than actual for the time being. The Oregon question was now shelved for a while and not until Douglas himself had entered the Senate, the Mexican War having meantime passed by as a cause of alarm, was the discussion resumed. As soon, however, as conditions permitted, Douglas re curred to the Oregon question and early in 1848 he offered a measure establishing a regular form of rule in that territory. It was unfortunate that the issue had been so long deferred, for in the meanwhile the annexation of Texas and the question of its govern ment had sharply brought to the front the problem of slavery. Few, if any, were so extreme as to sup pose that slavery would flourish in the far North west, or that any declaration on the subject which might be embodied in the laws or constitution of Oregon, either as a territory or as a state, would be much more thau an academic assertion of belief. While this was true, there was, however, a consid erable distaste for any action which might be held to establish a precedent, to govern later policy in connection with other territories that might apply for admission. Many such territories were now in sight, and their entry into the Union was certain to raise the old question repeatedly. The subject was WAE AND SLAVEEY 101 at length referred to a committee, charged with the duty of investigating the whole territorial situation in the Northwest, aud this committee finally offered a plan for the government not only of the Oregon territory, but also of New Mexico and California in respect to this topic. The compromise proposal proved satisfactory in the upper chamber but the House would have noth ing to do with it. Douglas had been willing to ac cept the scheme, although he had suggested certain amendments designed to carry the Une of the Mis souri Compromise through to the Pacific Ocean, and to place the restriction of slavery in Oregon upon the ground that it was north of the parallel of latitude which formed the southern boundary of Missouri. Polk desired the adoption of some such measure, but at the last Oregon was finally provided for in a biU which retained the clause restricting the introduction of slavery, while Douglas had the poor satisfaction of knowing that the plan as adopted was substantially the one for which he had stood while still a member of the lower chamber. The significant feature of the situation lay in the fact that controversy had now been definitely opened on the slavery question and that Douglas had as sumed a positive attitude on that issue. He had in fact committed himself in a preliminary way to the policy which was later to cause him so much em barrassment, and ultimately to lead him into the mistake in his political career in connection with the Kansas-Nebraska question. 102 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Before Douglas eould go further in his study of national politics, however, he must take account of his position at home. He had in a measure antagonized the national administration, notwith standing the earnet.t aud valuable support which he had rendered ; for Polk was not a sufficiently large man to allow much freedom to members of any party who might diffei- with him even in small particulars. Moreover, his status in Illinois was not altogether encouraging. The development of state politics had raised several serious questions, making it doubtful how men must shape their courses in order to maintain themselves at Wash ington. As has already been seen, Douglas had been sent to the Senate by action of the legislature late iu 1847. His election had been effected as the result of a caucus in which there had been the usual display of irritation and friction growing out of the opposition of the older politicians, unable to agree among themselves and equally dissatisfied at seeing a younger man substituted. The candidacy of Douglas had been known in connection with the senatorship for a long time, but most persons had supposed he would be unable to attain his ambition. Success in this regard was therefore somewhat sur prising at the particular juncture in question, and the charge was made that he had entered into a political bargain whereby a possible opponent was eliminated in return for a substantial Federal ap pointment. Douglas's elevation to the Senate at all events was unexpected and could not be said in any WAE AND SLAVEEY 103 sense to be the deliberate verdict of the people of the state, but rather a purely party matter. His problem, therefore, was that of identifying himself with the state as a whole more fully than he had been able to do while still representing only a part of it. If he wished to remain in the Senate, he must understand aud accept the views of his con stituency and definitely represent it. Meanwhile this constituency had been changing. The steady filling up of Illinois with eastern and northern emigrants and with the German element, which made its way across the Atlantic in consequence of the political disturbances in its native land, had made the vote there somewhat uncertain. It was no longer possible to determine accurately how the electorate would vote on any given question, nor was it certain that one man could fill and satisfy the ideals of the differing elements that existed in this new constituency. Douglas as a representative in Congress had reckoned cleverly and successfully with the pro-slavery element in the state, and as the AboUtion element developed there he had made due aUowance for it, though he still held it in but slight respect. He now saw it decidedly on the increase and was undoubtedly somewhat surprised at the action of the state in 1848 when a vote upon a con stitutional provision prohibiting the entry of free negroes into Illinois territory resulted in a sub stantial ballot in favor of the entry of such negroes. Party lines were still very sharply drawn, however, and the Democrats had contrived to maintain their 104 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS ascendency successfully. The party had skilfully arranged and rearranged the congressional districts in such a way as to keep a majority of votes within its own hands, in most of them changing the lines as the incoming population threatened to alter the political complexion of any given district. Doug las's ability, his skill in manipulation, the fact that he had now risen to the highest Federal office in the gift of the state, marked him as its political leader par excellence. The retirement of his colleague. Senator Breese, shortly left him without a rival for the control of Federal appointments. It was nec essary, however, to have a strong hold upon the national administration and to move, so far as pos sible, with the current of opinion. Before leaving Washington after the struggle over the Mexican question, Douglas had done what he could to draw closer to the administration with which he had to some extent broken. He had even apologized to Polk in August, 1848, aud had ob tained promises of regard for his own wishes iu local political matters. In apparent control of the party organization, sufficiently in favor with the national government to assure proper respect for his recommendations, it was only requisite that he should be sure of his ground on those broader questions involving slavery which, as he now recog nized, were growing more and more acute. Itwas not possible ultimately to avoid the slavery question in some form, aud this was keenly brought home to him when the Illinois legislature sought to instruct him WAE AND SLAVEEY 105 regarding his position on the subject. The presi dential election in the autumn of 1848 had revealed a remarkable strengthening of the anti-slavery forces. Zachary Taylor, the Whig candidate, had received 1,360,000 popular votes, but Cass, whom the Democrats nominated, had 1,220,000, while Van Buren, running on a Pree Soil ticket, received 291,000. Taylor's electoral vote was 163 against 127 for Cass, and Taylor consequently assumed office. The contest was very close in Illinois, where Ca.ss, the candidate of the Democrats, had received only 56,300 votes as against 53,047 for Taylor.' The legislature was safely Democratic but the in troduction of a resolution instructing the senators aud representatives to use all possible means of au honorable character for giving the new territories a government free of slavery had been unexpected, and produced considerable confusion in the party. Opponents of Douglas had noted with interest his- inclination to compromise on the question of slavery, and so far as possible to regard the wishes of its Southern advocates. He had opposed the limiting clause on the ground that the territories should be left free to come into the Union without any restric tion upon the subject of slavery, and his course had also been directly opposed to the imposition of slavery or the withholding of it, during the time that the territories were organized as such, through congressional enactments. For these reasons the action of the legislature might by some be con- ' Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 243. 106 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS sidered as a vote of lack of confidence in him, and under some couditious would probably have driven him out of office by a forced resignation. His efforts to accept the idea of the Missouri Com promise as applied to the new territories of the southwest aud northwest were directly opposed to the ideas embodied iu the resolution of the legisla ture of Illinois. This resolution had been passed by a combination of party groups, all of which were more or less opposed to slavery, and which in cluded not a few Democrats. Democrats represent ing southern Illinois did not of course sympathize with these anti-slavery leanings aud naturally voted against the resolution, but they were unable to con trol the legislature. Douglas was now faced by an embarrassing alter native. Should he give up all that he had accom plished by his strenuous efforts, — the titular head ship of the party in his state, his favorable standing at Washington, his new prominence iu national affairs, and other achievements merely because of a scruple over his relation to local politics? He determined not to hand in his resignation but to at- cept, at least fornially, the idea which had beeu conveyed in the resolution sent him by the legisla ture. He told the Senate that he would not resign because he thought the practical vote of lack of confidence in him was due to a fortuitous combina tion of opposing elements. The call, however, was for strenuous political labor designed to reestablish his position in the state. Meanwhile, it was obvi- WAE AND SLAVEEY 107 ous that he must cease his advocacy of the precise policy toward the slavery question which the Illinois legislature had opposed. The question then would be whether during the next two or three years he could succeed in strengthening his founda tions, and in setting himself four-square to the changing public opinion of his state. The course of political events justified his foresight, for within two years the shifting of party lines and the rapid development of new national issues altered the aspect of affairs. To this end, desirable as it was from his standpoint, Douglas vigorously contributed by effort to reshape the opinion of the state so as to lay greater stress upon the constitutional and legal side of the slavery question and less upon its moral or ethical aspects. Events showed that the conjunc tion of parties against him in the Illinois legislature had been a matter of chance and of shrewd political manipulation, partly growing out of the newness of his own leadership ; and, as the coalition against him proved its inability to hold together, he steadily consolidated his own local organization, aiding wherever possible the disintegration of the oppos ing groups. Threatening as it had seemed, the storm soon subsided aud he emerged stronger than ever, because he was now fully warned of the dangers which confronted him. CHAPTEE VI THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD Like other members of Congress, Douglas had recognized the necessity of promoting the interests of his constituents in a definite and tangible way. Then, as now, the average voter was far from will ing to take an active part iu national affairs, and was most unwilling to put aside his own personal inter ests and needs iu behalf of those of the country at large. , This situation was recognized by Douglas very early iu his political life ; and throughout his subsequent career, while he was concentrating his mind largely upon national affairs and endeavoring to fight his way to the presidential chair, he was never without a distinct policy in regard to the economic questions which were closely aud directly touched by Federal action. We have seen how, on the very threshold of his legislative life in the Illinois legislature, he had been confronted by the necessity of adopting a definite standpoint in regard to the use of state money for internal improvements and how, although setting his face against the wildest excesses of the internal improvement mania, he had seen the wisdom of voting for a bill which involved the state in most serious financial entangle ments. The action then taken might well be over- THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 109 looked in any critical review of Douglas's career on the ground that he was a young man untrained in economic thinking, with his political future still to work out, and unable alone to withstand the strong current of popular sentiment. The course of Douglas while a member of the Illi nois legislature must, however, be regarded as merely the beginning of a definite and set policy with respect to the distribution of public funds, which was continued and expanded as he advanced more and more in Federal politics and became in creasingly able to dictate legislation in Washington. Douglas's faithful biographer maintains that " dur ing his entire poUtical life" he " agreed with the Democratic party in resisting any general system of internal improvements by the Federal govern ment." ' Sheahan admits, that " upon some points, however, . . . he . . . had opinions some what peculiar. ' ' These peculiar ideas related to the promotion of works that were intended to develop commercial and transportation enterprises, and were disapprovingly directed only toward those works which were " asked for by parties having local in terests to serve." ' The question in what sense the term "local" is used by his biographer is one that might give rise to differences of opinion. Undoubt edly Douglas's action with reference to some of the most important commercial enterprises ever devel oped in the state of Illinois constituted one of the principal features of his public career, although one > Sheahan, Life, p. 354. ' lUd. 110 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS which has been regarded as largely incidental to his participation in the broad national questions center ing around the slavery controversy. While Doug las, from the opening of his congressional service, recognized the political obligation, not to say the necessity, resting upou a young and rising politician of working actively for the usual river and harbor distribution of public moneys, the feature of his work which clearly distinguished him from the or dinary seeker after congressional grants was tbat he had the insight to take up, and the pertinacity to ad here to, a plan for a very large enterprise, which would be not only a permanent source of expendi ture within his state but which would regularly divert to the pockets of a very large number of con stituents some of the wealth of the Federal govern ment, whether in the form of public lands (whose value he himself as a land officer had learned to know), or in some other form. He early attached himself therefore to the scheme for building a long line of railroad crossing the state of IlUnois from nortli to south.' Thus he became one of the real origin;itors of the great transportation system now controlled by the Illinois Central Eailroad Company. When Douglas entered the field of national pol itics in the autumn of 1843, he undoubtedly had carefully con.sidered the projects of railroad devel opment which were most in the public mind in Illinois. The idea of a line from the junction of the ' The history ot Douglas's ideas is best given by Cutts, Con stitutional and Party Questions, pp. 187-199. THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 111 Ohio and the Mississippi to some point on the Illi nois Eiver, and then north to Galena, had been talked of in the state for a good while, and its early begin nings are to be found in connection with the great and impracticable scheme for internal improve ments for which Douglas himself had voted when he entered the legislature and which had broken down because of the lack of adequate state funds subse quent to the panic of 1837. This was accepted by Douglas as his leading proposal, aud he soon had an opportunity of exhibiting his attitude, for the people of Illinois were now definitely looking to Congress as the available source of the aid which the state itself could not bestow. Simultaneously with Douglas's entry into Con gress, a biU was favorably reported in the Senate whereby a man named Holbrook was granted a right of way for a railroad through the public lands iu Illinois. The railway was to be allowed to preempt the lands along the route at $1.25 per acre. This bill passed the Senate but failed of any action in the House,' and at the next session a similar bill, -with some slight changes, was introduced but went no farther. Again in 1845-1846, a Senate bill granting to Illinois a large quantity of public lands located within the state for railroad construction was presented, but made no progress. The years 1843- 1847 covered Douglas's career as a member of the lower house, during all this time he had been earnest in support of the general idea of the raU- ' Sheahan, p. 367. 112 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS road, but he had not cared to support the particular propositions which were then presented for discus sion. Sheahan thinks that he would have opposed the original measure providing for preemption at $1.25 an acre had it become a live issue in the House, and intimates that Douglas was largely re sponsible for its failure on the ground that he had no faith in Holbrook or his associates who, he thought, would simply take the grant and sell it to others. His idea was that the grant of lands should be made direct to the state, and this idea, as already noted, was embodied in the subsequent bill bearing on the subject. All of these manceuvres, however, came to nothing. In the meanwhile Douglas had become more aud more attached to a railroad scheme and, during his travels in Illinois just before taking his seat as senator, he spoke freely upon the question. Aban doning the idea of a direct grant to the state, as mentioned in the early Senate bills which had been framed somewhat along the lines he had suggested, he now advocated the gratuitous transfer to the rail way of alternate sections of the public land on each side of the proposed railway, such grant, however, not to take effect until the road should be con structed. The scheme proved to be very popular and Douglas was more than ever confirmed in the idea that something should be done. In fact, he became so strongly interested in it, that, as the plan took form, he gradually enlarged it and finaUy, growing enthusiastic over the commercial possibili- THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 113 ties opening before him, he resolved to get for him self a share of the magnificent development which he believed would follow the construction of the line. He was now in a position where he could be of immense service iu promoting the railroad plan. All the bills thus far had originated in the Senate, and that body had ou the whole beeu the home of the internal improvement scheme in its various forms. Douglas's name, too, had acquired large prestige in Illinois, aud it might safely be antici pated that any project in which he became inter ested would secure favor for that very reason.' Before taking his seat iu the upper chamber Douglas purchased Chicago real estate on a large scale. Johnson thinks his action was the result of "a sort of sixth sense" which enabled him to foresee "the growth of the ugly, but enterprising city on Lake Michigan." ' Whether his action was due to a "sixth sense" or to a confidence in his own ability to shape things in such a way as to promote the development of Chicago, is a matter of opinion. Chicago was not yet included within the proposed raUroad route but Douglas promptly set out to correct this defect. Immediately after his land purchases in Chicago, he took the view during the summer of 1847, that the line to be built must ' Forney, in his Anecdotes of Public Men, p. 19, recites in stances ot investments in Superior City, at Fond du Lac, the head of Lake Superior, at the terminus of the projected Northern Pacific Railroad made at the advice of Douglas and speaks of the large returns received therefrom. ' Johnson, Life, p. 169. 114 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS connect with the Great Lakes, and in support of this proposition he presented not only commercial considerations ' but also arguments growing out of local politics.'" Going to Washington iu the fall of 1847, Douglas promptly introduced the bill. It provided for a grant to the state of Illinois of alternate sections of public land to aid in the con struction of a railroad from Cairo to Galena, with a branch at some suitable point on the road to Chicago. This and rival bills were referred to the Senate Committee on Public Lauds presided over by Douglas's own colleague, Breese of Illinois. Breese had been somewhat cold toward the scheme and had apparently been an advocate of the original group of railway promoters headed by Holbrook, who had sought to secure a preemption privilege at $1.25 per acre. Douglas had aheady sounded Breese during the summer, but had found him in favor of the Holbrook scheme. Breese, however, had become convinced that he could not afford to exhibit undue partiality toward Holbrook, and he there fore reported both bills from the Committee on Public Lands. Douglas, in spite of the opposi tion of his colleague, which was manifest in a sub dued way, succeeded in forcing his measure through the Senate but -without effect, for near the end of the session the house laid it on the table by a small vote. The opposition was i)artly due to the hostility of the Southern states, but other states which had no public lands cooperated in antagonizing it. ' Sheahan, Life, p. 368. 'Johnson, ante cit, p. 170. THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 115 Douglas had afready told the Chicago men who were backing the scheme, that the votes of other portions of the country would have to be secured,' and he now proceeded to make practical use of au idea which had been neglected by other advocates of the plan and which he himself had not had the time to follow up. He believed that by forming an alliance with defunct or embarrassed railroad schemes in the Southern territory which the new road was to penetrate, or with which it was to connect he would be able to bring about a diversion in Con gress which would give him the votes he required. The enterprise that he selected for the negotiation was the so-called Mobile Eailroad. In the course of a -visit to the plantation owned by his children, he went by a circuitous route to Mobile, and there he arranged a scheme which would result in a public land grant to the Mobile Eailway, simultane ous with that to the Illinois Central, the votes of the advocates of both schemes being cast en bloc- With this clever " deal " arranged, -Douglas rein troduced his bill in December, 1849.; Breese was now out of Congress and had been succeeded by Shields. Douglas, Shields, and the House delega tion jointly drafted the measure and proceeded to push it. It was made public in January, 1850, but the pressure of the slavery question and the legisla tion relating thereto greatly hampered its progress. ' A letter written by Douglas to Breese and published in the Illinois State Register January 20, 1851, is relied upon to prove this point. See Johnson, Lite, p. 170. 116 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Enough was done, ho-wever, to make it evident that if any bill could be passed, it would be the Douglas bill and not that of tfie rival group of promoters. Eecognizing their defeat, the Holbrook politicians and boomers hastened back to Illinois and there "by the most dexterous management" succeeded in inducing the legislature to pledge them any lands which might iu future be granted by Congress to the state for the construction of the Illinois Central Eailroad.' This apparently blocked Douglas's further progress, for the latest bill, which had been approved by all of the Illinois members, now provided solely for a single road — the Illinois Central. The scheme had undoubtedly been cleverly managed and there was the usual igno rance as to the methods by which Douglas and his political followers had been outmanoeuvred.' However it had been done, no further progress could be made. It was evident, therefore, that a coup would be necessary. Boldly sending for Hol brook, the head of the rival group of boomers, Doug las now threatened him with publicity aud the abso lute ruin of his whole scheme unless he should assign every right and claim to congressional land grants. This release was to be made iu favor of the state of Illinois. The facts as to Holbrook' s machinations had apparently not become well known, and had only beeu discovered by Douglas in the course of a 'Sheahan, Life, p. 369. 'Moses, Illinois Historical and Statistical, Fergus Printing Co. , 1889, Vol. II, p. 574. THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 117 visit to Springfield in which he had happened to look into the text of a measure wherein the clause conveying the grant had been concealed. Holbrook became convinced that, with Douglas on guard at Washington, he could hope for nothing and being averse to the threatened publicity, he resolved to yield. He executed the desired release, which was then forwarded to Springfield and filed with the public papers. Satisfied on this point, Douglas pushed on with his effort to pass the measure. The biU, whatever the inspiring motive, now at least presented the appearance of a grand conception — a Une from the Great Lakes to the Gulf. There was the same reason for acting in the matter that existed in the case of the Pacific railways, and in addition there was the argument that by enabUng the construction of this road. Congress would con nect the Middle West with the South and Southwest in a way never before possible. A good deal of shrewd political bargaining was still necessary. Votes must be conciliated in the Eastern states, aud appear to have been gained by promises either of tariff changes or aid in securing such changes, by glowing predictions of the benefits to come to East ern roads by reason of the connection at Chicago with the IlUnois Central and in other ways. In the South votes were obtained by urging the advantages that would accrue to that section in the shape of quick and cheap transportation, while the interven ing states without public lands almost inevitably drew to the side of the plan, as they realized the 118 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS benefits that were likely to be gained from the con struction of a road which would cost them nothing. The outcome of all this trafficking was clearly seen when the vote was taken on April 29th in the Senate, where the measure passed twenty-six to fourteen. It subsequently went through the House ou the 17th of September by a vote of 101 to seventy -five. 1 The result showed that Douglas had been unerring in his forecast of the support he could get by his manoeuvring, for he had won over nearly twenty votes, which would otherwise have been against him and would have sufficed to defeat the measure ignominiously. Eunning through the debate were the usual florid utterances and the familiar vague prophecies of untold wealth and enormous commercial expansion to follow from the new enterprise. The bill, however, had been passed and Chicago, the place of Douglas's new-made investments, was duly appreciative, offering to the two senators the customary "ovation." Work was immediately be gun and the road shortly proved successful in many ways. The growth of Chicago was already in prog ress and Douglas's property was advancing in value. He profited materially from the development he had helped to bring about. ' In his later political career ' Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, p. 20, seems to feel that Doug las's work was not appreciated : " I say I could not help . . . drawing the contrast between the vital and vigorous champion ship of Douglas in this stupendous work and the studied neg lect of bis memory by those who have profited by it. After passing through the magnificent depot [Chicago] and the ad- THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 119 he received many favors from the Illinois Central Eaifroad, while the increased cost of political campaigning, which had to be met in 1858 from the candidate's own resources, was paid out of a fund of $80,000 borrowed by Douglas on the strength of his land holdings in or near Chicago. More than this had been borrowed by him at one time or another, but the fact that at a critical period he could secure so much upon his real estate shows how largely he had profited from the commercial growth of the city, now to be promoted by the construction of the railway and later by the development of trade which followed the completion of the work.' Douglas, moreover, iu connection with the Illinois Central scheme, acquired a considerable degree of personal popularity with many of his constituents, and undoubtedly was well rewarded for all that he had attempted while in Washington by the growth of his prestige among business men. Douglas's experience with the Illinois Central now practically committed him to the advocacy of similar schemes in all directions. A certain degree of consistency is necessary in public life, and jacent buildings, I said to an employee, ' Who owns the most stock iu the Illinois Central ? ' ' Indeed I do not know, sir, ' was his reply. ' Well, my friend, I think the man who ought to own the most of it, and whose children should be most benefited by it, was Stephen A. Douglas.' I think the man may have heard ot Douglas, but it was clear to me, from his look, that he thought I was a lunatic." ' The details about Douglas's use of these funds are supplied by Horace Greeley, Century Magazine, July, 1891, p. 375, quoted by Rhodes (with approval). History, Vol. II, p. 338. 120 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS it was the more requisite iu this instance because of the bargains that had been made for votes during the struggle in behalf of this railroad. Douglas could not very well refuse his aid, or at least his countenance to the advocates of any proposed land grant that had the color of legitimacy, when only a short time before he had relied for support in be half of his own project upou the votes of these same men or their immediate predecessors. In con sequence, during the decade of his greatest prestige and prominence, he found himself constantly obliged to lend his favor to land grant propositions and in this way paid a heavy price for the aid he had ob tained for the IlUnois Central. Particularly in the Southwest was the pressure strongly felt, for this was the region to which Douglas had first ap pealed. He found himself obliged to vote at one time or another for land grant bills covering public property in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri. From the middle western states, to which appeal had also been made, came similar pressure, and Douglas was compelled to vote in behalf of schemes affecting Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and possibly others.' The most important subsequent development of Douglas's economic policy was seen, however, in his promotion of the Pacific railway movement. He was strongly actuated in this connection by the stand he had previously taken on the subject of the ' Sheahan, Life, p. 371, summarizes these projects very briefly. THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 121 Illinois Central, although the influence here was less specialized than had been the case with the smaller land grants. Having accepted the general idea of national aid to great through routes de signed to connect distant parts of the country -with one another, and thereby to help in abolishing sec tionalism, he could not turn a deaf ear to similar pleas. Morever, as time passed, it became plain that a western outlet for the commerce of Chicago would be quite as desfrable as a southern trunk Une. All of these considerations shaped his subsequent policy. When the Nebraska bill was in process of passage in the Senate, Douglas materially modified its form ' in order to assure, if possible, a central route for the proposed railway to the coast.' In connection with the Pacific Eailroad legislation it self, Douglas early committed himself to a favorable attitude, and went so far as to recognize and ap prove not one but three routes which later became substantially the lines across the continent. WMle, however, thus endorsing the scheme and occasion ally making a declaration in favor of the general idea, Douglas never allowed himself to become an active promoter of these particular projects. The utmost that he did was to speak strongly in the Senate on April 17, 1858, in favor of the Pacific EaUroad measure, providing that whenever a sec tion of the road should be completed, the govem ment might advance a certain amount of land and $12,500 per mile in bonds in order to enable the ' Infra, p. 193 n., etc. ' Sheahan, Life, p. 372. 122 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS company to construct the next section. He then presented' the stereotyped arguments in favor of government aid to trunk-line railroads, urging the desirability of such roads for the transportation of military equipment iu time of war, as economical avenues over which to carry the mails, as means of uniting the country in its various parts, and on other grounds. In this speech he perhaps gave the most accurate aud clear-cut expression of his phi losophy with reference to the support of internal improvements by the Federal government. "Some gentlemen," he said, " think it is an unsound policy leading to the doctrine of internal improvements by the Federal government within the different states of the Union. We are told we must confine the road to the Umits of the territories, and not extend it into the states, because it is supposed that enter ing a state with this contract violates some great principle of state rights. Mr. President, the com mittee considered that proposition and they avoided that objection in the estimation of the most strict, rigid, tight-laced states' rights men that we have in the body. We struck out the provision in the bill first drawn, that the President should contract for the construction of a railroad from the Missouri Eiver to the Pacific Ocean, and followed an ex ample that we found on the statute book for carry ing the mails from Alexandria to Eichmond, Va., — an act passed about the time when the resolutions of 1798 were passed, and the report of 1799 was adopted ' Congressional Globe, 1st Sess., 35th Cong., pp. 1643 etseq THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 123 — an act that we thought came exactly within the spirit of those resolutions. That act, according to my recoUection, was, that the department be authorized to contract for the transportation of the United States mail by four-horse post-coaches, with closed backs, so as to protect it from the weather aud rain, from Alexandria to Eichmond, in the state of Vfrginia. It occurred to this committee that if it had been the custom, from the beginning of this government to this day, to make contracts for the transportation of the mails, in four-horse post- coaches, built in a particular manner, and the con tractor left to furnish his own coaches and his own horses, and his own means of transportation, we might make a similar contract for the transporta tion of the mails by railroad from one point to an other, leaving the contractor to make his own rail road, and furnish his own cars, and comply with the terms of the contract." ' The superficial point of view which could draw this analogy might perhaps be attributed to the en tire lack of understanding of the position of rail roads as common carriers, characteristic of most public men at the time this speech was delivered. It is difficult, however, to find anywhere in Doug las's speeches or writings a satisfactory reconcilia tion of his idea of government subsidies to private enterprises with the general philosophy of laissez faire and government non-interference, which is the controUing note in all of his other utterances. ¦ Globe. 124 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Taken as a whole, it must be admitted that Doug las's career exhibits in the case of his pro-subsidy tendencies, one of those singular inconsistencies which must be ascribed to the direct pressure of immediate political or private interests upon the general trend of a public man's life. With the acceptance of so extensive and impor tant a general policy as that of government aid to trunk-line railroads, it was probably not hard for Douglas to unite a theory or policy of conduct which would permit him to work steadily aud con sistently for the usual petty distribution of public money involved in excessive river and harbor ap propriations. Douglas was one of the original ad vocates of "systematic" river and harbor im provement. Sheahan admits that he voted pretty generally for "all the river and harbor appropria tion bills" although he always protested "against such items, as were included in them, that did not come up to his idea of justice or propriety." Never theless, as a result of this policy he was "often compelled to vote for a number of small appropria tions for what he deemed inappropriate works." ' It was a remarkable fact that, in order to get rid of the system of log-rolling, whose evils he plainly saw^ he urged a striking, though wholly impossible, plan which if adopted would have largely changed the development of one of our present chief items of Federal expenditure. In 1852 he suggested that three sections be added to the Eiver and Harbor ' Sheahan, Life, p. 355. THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 125 Bill, whereby the consent of Congress would be granted to the several states, and might by the lat ter be granted to thefr various municipalities, to levy a tonnage tax of not over ten cents per ton upon vessels entering the local harbors, such tonnage tax to be used in improving the harbors and the rivers aud channels connected therewith. This scheme was an evident recognition of the inconsistency of the then extending river and harbor policy with the general policy of states' rights aud was advocated distinctly on that ground. So earnestly did Doug las believe in the practicability of the plan that he spoke on the floor of Congress in its favor, dis cussing the constitutional phases of the issue, while later he sent to the governor of Illinois under date of January 2, 1854,' a letter in which he sought to vindicate his attitude. In this letter he took the view that by adopting his plan, commercial competition would automatically develop those harbors and channels which were of service to commerce in a way that was not possible under the system of artificial Federal aid. The notion was unmistakably a product of restlessness and discontent with the idea of Federal assistance, but can hardly be looked upon very seriously, since it was never proposed as a substitute for the river aud harbor appropriations,— merely as an addition thereto. The record of Douglas regarding Federal aid to internal improvements must thus iu all its aspects ' Text given by Sheahan, Life, p. 358 ft. 126 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS be considered strikingly inharmonious with his gen eral philosophy. It is significant of his point of view that, notwith standing the prominence he speedily attained iu the Senate, Douglas took little or no part in the discus sion of the more important economic questions then pressing upon the attention of Congress. The tariff issue, which had been a fundamental problem with the Democrats for many years, did not appeal to him, though he favored reciprocity with Canada in 1850-1851.' True, when the question came up in 1857, he undertook to express some views on the subject, but only with an unaccustomed reservation to the effect that he knew little or nothing about the issue.' That this modest statement was correct, was speedily demonstrated in his analysis of the ques tion, as it then presented itself. He took the point of -view that the question was essentially a matter of expediency, and that the framing of a tariff bill was therefore simply a problem of adjustments, so as to bring about an equality of burden upon different "classes" in the community. Some ideas of an unusually liberal character, however, were ex pressed by Douglas in connection with the tariff issue. He in 1857 secured the adoption of an amendment to the tariff act ' of that year, making wool worth less than twenty cents free ; advocated the free admission of works of art, and in certain ' Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 205-206. ' Congressional Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 353. ' Stanwood, American Tariff Controversies, Vol. II, p. 108. THE ILLINOIS CENTEAL EAILEOAD 127 other respects appeared to be decidedly in advance of the narrow, materialistic views on the question of customs which then controlled men of far broader opportunities for early education. CHAPTEE Vn ON THE SENATE THRESHOLD The chief work of Douglas's life was now to be begun. Up to the time of his entry into the Senate, his acti-vities in national affairs had been of com paratively slender importance when viewed from the historical standpoint. Although a useful party man, already recognized as exceptionally effective iu debate, not overscrupulous, and placing the progress of his party as well as the development of his own personal fortunes decidedly ahead of con siderations of abstract ethics, there are probably few, if any, who would consider Douglas more than an interesting figure in the early history of Illinois, had his life been cut short at the time of his election to the Senate, or even within the first two years of his membership in that body. This, however, was not to be. The ten years fol lowing his entry into the upper house of Congress were to form perhaps the most critical decade in the history of the United States under the Constitution, and in this critical period Douglas was to play one of the leading roles.' ' For Douglas's personal appearance and for the impressions of contemporaries regarding the man at the time ot his most ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 129 The body of which Douglas was now a member was the greatest forum which the country presented. At that time, the Senate had not become hopelessly crippled by purely machine control, nor had it fallen a prey to the influence of special business in terests. It was a wide field of open debate in which large personalities moved across the stage with decided freedom. Great forces were at work there and the traditions of the body were, ou the whole, high. Whatever may be thought of the dom inating influences operative among the different groups in the Senate, it is a fact that they were, at aU events, political and not commercial groups. Douglas's entry upon this first-class field for the display of his capacity was particularly auspicious. Webster, Clay and Calhoun were shortly to pass out. Seward, Chase and Sumner had not yet at tained their full promise and were busy during the early fifties in organizing their great party. Morse says that the period from 1852 to 1860 "belonged to conspicuous service in national political lite, several sources of considerable value may be mentioned. The Washington corre spondence of the New York Tribune gives in the main a sub stantially correct picture of Douglas's appearance on the floor trom day to day under varying conditions. Clark E. Carr, in his Stephen A. Douglas, embodies in his sketch of Douglas's life a considerable number of impressions as received by contempo raries, including his own views. Mrs. Stowe, in a letter pub lished in the New York Independent, has given a graphic pic ture ot the man, and for the later period of his career ^churz and Villard (Schurz's Reminiscences, and Villard's Memoirs) are among the most recent and probably the most trust worthy sources of information. Rhodes (History of the United States), drawing heavily upon contemporary periodical material, adds valuable touches here and there. 130 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Douglas more than to any other man." ' And the judgment thus expressed is obviously true. Upou his coming into the Senate he was not so much overslaughed, as to make necessary a long period of apprenticeship ere he could gain the permission of some masterful leader to appear in debate, nor was the Senate so lacking in organization as to pre vent the recognition of ability when it was ex hibited. Fortunate thus iu the personnel of his coUeagues, he was doubly fortunate in the charac ter of the themes by which he was confronted. There have been times in the history of the United States Senate when the character of the topics de manding attention has been such as to stifle ambi tion, but during the decade after Douglas's entry, hardly a subject that was dealt with failed to touch the nation's life in its innermost cells. There was not an action, not a sentence spoken by a member on the floor, not a committee appointment that might not have unlooked-for aud far-reaching in fluence. It is not too much to say that Douglas seemed to have but a limited conception of the tre mendous tasks to whicii he was now to set his hand. ' Morse, Abraham Lincoln, American Statesmen Series, 1899, Vol. I, p. 106. "From 1852 to 1860 Douglas was the most noteworthy man in public life in the country. Webster, Clay and Calhoun had passed away. Seward, Chase, and Sumner, still in the earlier stages ot their brilliant careers, were organiz ing the great party of the future. This interval of eight years belonged to Douglas more than to any other man. He had been a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presi dency in 1852 and again in 1856 ; and had failed to secure it in part by reason of that unwritten rule whereby the leading statesmen are so often passed over. . ." ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 131 Calm, self-assured, arrogant in the political success which had hitherto attended his every movement, he regarded the future with no kind of apprehen sion.' The portrait of Douglas during his earlier years in the United States Senate has been drawn by many hands and with substantial similarity of lines. It grew more and more distinct as time went on, until at the outbreak of the Civil War there was no man, not even excepting Lincoln, whose traits of character were more deeply graven upon the popu lar imagination. "He had high spirit, was ambi tious, masterful, and self-confident," says Mr. Morse; "he was also an aggressive, brilliant, and tireless fighter in a political campaign, an orator combining something of the impressiveness of Web ster -with the readiness and roughness of the stump speaker. He had a thorough familiarity with all the politics, both the greater and the smaller, of the times ; he was shrewd and adroit as a politician, and he had as good a right as any man then promi nent in public life to the more dignified title of statesman. He had the art of popularity and upon '"Precocious in youth, marvelously active in manhood, he had learned without study, resolved without meditation, ac complished without toil," says William Garrott Brown. "Whatever obstacles he had found in his path, he had either adroitly avoided them or boldly overleaped them, but never laboriously uprooted them. Whatever subject he had taken in hand, he had swiftly compassed it, but rarely probed to the heart of it. . . . His habits were convivial, and the vicious indulgences of his strong and masculine appetites had caused him frequent illnesses." 132 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS sufficient occasion could be supple aud accommodat ing even in the gravest matters of principle." ' Douglas was now at an age when his faculties were in full vigor and when his physical appear ance had taken on the aspect of maturity. He had been born in 1813 and upou his entry into tlie Sen ate in 1847 he was therefore barely thirty-five years old. The epithet of "Little Giant," which had been bestowed upou him by his affectionate fol lowers, had been retained and with the lapse of years had become a more and more suitable descrip tion of the young politician.^ In form he was now an exceedingly short, thick-set man, full of vitality and with remarkable energy. Mrs. Stowe in 1856 saw him probably at his best aud vividly described his good points as well as those in which he was less favored. "This Douglas," she wrote, unable alto gether to suppress her antagonism, "is the very ideal of vitality. Short, broad and thick-set, every inch of him has its own alertness and motion. He ' Morse, ante cit. 'Forney, Anecdotes of PubHc Men, p. 146, describes him as follows: "No character, certainly no candidate for our highest office, was a completer master ot the gift ot securing tenacious friends than Stephen A. Douglas He had scarcely touched the floor ot Congress before he became an object ot interest. His extreme youth, his boyish appearance, his ready wit, his fine memory, his native rhetoric, above all, his suavity and hearti ness, made him a favorite long before he was named for Presi dent. He delighted in pleasant company. Unused to what ia called ' etiquette, ' he soon adapted himself to its rules, and took rank in the dazzling society of the capital. Many a time have I watched him leading in the keen encounters of the bright intellects around the festive board. To see him thread ing the glittering crowd with a pleasant smile or a kind word ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 133 has a good head and face, thick black hafr, heavy black brows and a keen eye. His figure would be an unfortunate one were it not for the animation which constantly pervades it ; as it is, it rather gives poignancy to his peculiar appearance ; he has a small, handsome hand, moreover, and a graceful as well as forcible mode of using it. . . -" ' De spite his "unfortunate" figure aud his lowness of stature, there is every evidence that Douglas's per sonality made a strong, vivid impression upon all of those -with whom he came into contact. He was not one of the vague, shado-wy personalities so hard to bring out in clear traits even when the mind that has beeu at work has left its mark upou history. Indeed, from the beginning of his mature manhood, the physical force, energy aud effectiveness of Douglas were superior in their effect upon contem poraries to the mere weight of his argument or the skill of its presentatiou. Douglas, however, had never made up for the for everybody, one would have taken him for a trained courtier. But he was more at home in the close and exciting thicket of men. That was his element. To call each one by name, some times by his Christian name ; to stand in the centre of a listen ing throng, while he told some Western story or defended some public measure ; to exchange jokes with a political adversary ; or, ascending the rostrum, to hold thousands spellbound for hours, as he poured forth torrents of characteristic eloquence — ¦ these were traits that raised up tor hira hosts who were ready to fight for him. Eminent men did not hesitate to take their stand under the Douglas flag. Riper scholars than himself, older it not better statesmen, frankly acknowledged his leader ship and faithfully followed his fortunes." ' Quoted in Rhodes, Vol. II, p. 128, from New York Independ ent, May 1, 1856. 134 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS lack of a cultivated and gentle early environment. Some of the formative years of his life had been spent on the frontier in the small country town where his chief forum of expression was the corner grocery, the saloon, or at best the dirty court room. The necessity of the most grinding economy during his earlier years had left its mark upou hiiu, even though this had been partially erased by his subse quent prosperity. As he had increased in wealth, he had hardly increased correspondingly in its judicious use. He spent much money upon rather dapper clothing and was inclined to be lavish in social entertainment. Ou dissipation of various kinds he perhaps spent most freely of all. But the greatest lack in Douglas's personal equipment was the absence of dignity. Carl Schurz, no friend to Douglas or what he represented, recognized the es sential parliamentary ability of the man but could not condone the personal characteristics in which it was enveloped. ' ' There was something in his man ner," wrote Schurz, " which strongly smacked of the bar-room. He was the idol of the rough element of his party, and his convivial association with that element left its unmistakable imprint upon his hab its and his deportment. He would sometimes of fend the dignity of the Senate by astonishing con duct. Once at a night session of the Senate I saw him, after a boisterous speech, throw himself upon the lap of a brother senator and loll there, talking and laughing, for ten or fifteen minutes, with his arm around the neck of his friend, who seemed to ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 135 be painfully embarrassed but could or would not shake him off." ' The same view which had impressed itself upon the mind of Schurz had also presented itself from a somewhat different angle of vision to another more critical, though possibly less sincere and single- minded observer. Edwin L. Godkin, keen critic as he was of men and events, spoke cuttingly in 1858 of some of the same things which had offended Schurz, iu a letter from Washington, written while Douglas was at the height of his prestige. "He is a model demagogue," said Mr. Godkin. "He is -vulgar in his habits and vulgar in his ap pearance, 'takes his drink,' chews his quid, aud discharges his saliva with as much constancy and energy as the least pretentious of his constituents, but enters into the popular feelings with a tact and zest rarely equaled, and assails the heads aud hearts of the multitude iu a style of manly and vigorous eloquence such as few men can command. There lies in his bullet head and thick neck enough combativeness, courage, and ability for three men of his dimensions. The slightest touch of what genteel people would call improvement would spoil him. If he were one degree more refined he would be many degrees less popular. When he mounts the stump he holds the crowd in front of him in the hollow of his hand." ' ^Reminiscences, Vol. II, p. 31. ' Life and Letters of E. L. Godkin, edited by BoUo Ogden, Vol. I, p. 175. 136 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Other observers of foreign birth were more appre ciative. W. H. Eussell, who came to the United States as a war correspondent, was deeply im pressed by him. "Few men speak better than Senator Douglas," he wrote; "his words are well chosen, the flow of his ideas even and constant, his intellect vigorous, and thoughts well cut, precise, and vigorous — he seems a man of great ambition, and he told me he is engaged iu preparing a sort of ZoUverein scheme for the North American conti nent, including Canada, which will fix public at tention everywhere, aud may lead to a settlement of the Northern and Southern controversies. For his mind, as for that of many Americans, the aristo cratic idea embodied iu Eussia is very seductive ; and he dwelt with pleasure on the courtesies he had received at the court of the Czar, implying that he had beeu treated differently in England, and per haps France. And yet, had Mr. Douglas become President of the United States, his good-will toward Great Britain might have been invaluable, and surely it had been cheaply purchased by a lit tle civility and attention to a distinguished citizen and statesman of the republic." ' Douglas's first marriage in 1847 was nearly syn chronous with his entry in the Senate. It had lasted only a brief period, which however sufficed to give him an experience of happy family life and to exert, according to close acquaintances, a refin ing and restraining influence. His wife had died ' My Diary North and South, p. 37. ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 137 in 1853, leaving him with two children. The por trait of Mrs. Douglas is not very distinct, although Sheahan describes her in the usual eulogistic terms as a woman of ' ' gentleness . . . and strong na tive good judgment," who " made home an abiding- place of peace aud tranquillity, where all the associ ations were of a refined and Christian character." In entertaining, she "was judicious and yet munifi cent," and "won the respect of all his friends and divided with him their unbounded admiration." Considerable sentiment has been expended upon Douglas's first marriage but apparently without au adequate body of data. The main significant fea ture of this union was seen iu connection with the fact that his father-in-law. Colonel Eobert Martin of North CaroUna, was a slave-owner, and dying shortly after Douglas's marriage, bequeathed to Mrs. Douglas his plantation and the slaves thereon.' Much more is known of Douglas's domestic rela tions during the period of his second marriage. Subsequent to the death of the first Mrs. Douglas, he appears to have drifted, during the succeeding four years, into the somewhat nomadic and irregu lar existence which is supposed to be characteristic of the unmarried man, deteriorating also in per sonal habits and in mental traits. Late in 1856 he married again, this time Miss Adele Cutts of Washington. The second Mrs. Douglas was in every way a powerful moulding influence upon ' This incident has been treated elsewhere, see p. 88. 138 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS the career of her husband, and it may not be too violent au inference to believe that she was partially responsible for the changes of front which occurred during his later years with reference to various political and party questions. He became, accord ing to Schurz, " more tidy and trim in his appear ance aud more careful in his habits, although even then there were rumors of occasional excesses." jMrs. Douglas kept a close eye upon him aud ac companied him ou electioneering journeys. Here the new infiuence which had now entered his life was plainly observed by the impressionable Villard,' who recorded the favorable notion which he had gained in his first meeting with Mrs. Douglas at the time when, as a young newspaper correspondent, he was admitted to speech with the great man who was then engaging Lincoln in debate. This im pression was practically that of all observers of Douglas's second union. It, in fact, tended much to promote his prestige in Washington society as well as his better self-control. The fact that Mrs. Doug las was a Eoman Catholic while her husband was either an atheist or an extreme liberal in religion ' was perhaps the only element of discord or of unsuitability in the match. Mrs. Douglas's enter tainments during the trying later period of the Lecompton struggle did much to overcome the antagonism which her husband's course aroused, and to place him at the head of a social coterie ' Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 92. 'Ibid., Vol. I, p. 97. ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 139 among the most briUiant, in the technical sense of the word, then existing in Washington.' The refining influences thus thro-wn about Doug las diu'ing the most eventful decade of his life were not, however, sufficient to remove all of the traces which his earlier career had left. The haughty and, in their own judgment, aristocratic Southerners, accepted Douglas's aid in the Senate but they privately sneered at some of the crudities which he stiU from time to time betrayed. When the Kansas struggle took place these private stric tures, previously sup^jressed, became public and the organs of Southern feeling referred to " the rugged •vulgarities of his early education," which, it was asserted, had been " smoothed down " by "associa tion with Southern gentlemen." ' Probably not too much weight should be given to the statements of such self-styled aristocrats, but it was true that Douglas had not the traditions of ancestral wealth or the consciousness of family power by which the claims of the Southerners ou the floor of the Senate were fortified. He was essentially a self-made man and showed the roughnesses of his making all too plainly. A gentler spirit would perhaps not have succeeded as weU in the frontier state from which he came, and Douglas stands favorably even in the comparison with Lincoln up to the time that the latter had been put into the crucible of stern respon- ' Sheahan, Life, pp. 435 et seq., also Johnson, Life, p. 316. 'Quoted by Johnson, Life, p. 341 trom Richmond South, quoted in Chicago Times, December 18, 1857. 140 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS sibility. It would be too much to expect that Douglas, representative as he was of Illinois condi tions, should rise much higher than his source or be more than a glorified and enlarged example of the average man upon whom his own political status directly depended. Perhaps there is nothing more noteworthy about Douglas's whole career in the Senate than his de velopment of a distinct type of oratory, effective and to the point. It was this which attracted the attention of Mrs. Stowe during the trying days of 1858. While commenting severely upon Douglas, with whose views she had no sympathy, Mrs. Stowe could not but admit that he had " two requisites of a debater— a melodious voice and a clear sharply- defined enunciation," while she unwillingly con ceded to him "the very best of logic and language " iu dealing with the points he chose to discuss. Mrs. Stowe, in common with many others, noted, however, that Douglas's "forte in debating is his power of mystifying the point," and others regarded him as the prince of special pleaders. Even his most devoted biographers have not been able to obscure the fact that in many of his greatest argu ments he was purely technical, and that his skill was wholly employed in making the worse appear the better reason. Withal, Douglas had the un usual talent of being interesting. By some, this was attributed to his " piquant personalities" ; by others to his wonderful ability to bring into an argument or consideration of a subject multitudes ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 141 of side issues which succeeded in holding the atten tion even of those who were not directly interested in the main theme ; by others to his keen ability iu judging men aud in pitching his argument so as to harmonize it with the tone of their minds. By all, it is conceded that his speeches had a wonderful clarity and force of presentation. Mrs. Stowe thought he lacked iu " wit " aud though he had a fair sense of humor, it is certainly true that in par liamentary debate there is but little of the light allusion and gentle sarcasm which his critic per haps had in mind. As a debater, his chief weak ness was lack of self-control ; he was too easily led into the use of coarse and abusive epithets and personal references which did not suit the occasion and merely tended to put discussion or colloquy upon a low and offensive plane. Of this the most unfortunate example while he was in the Senate was perhaps his altercation with Sumner — when, however, there was but Uttle to choose between him and his antagonist. On this as on many other occa sions, the license to which Douglas resorted was unworthy of the best traditions of the Senate. Throughout his senatorial career, Douglas's re lations with his colleagues were in the main appro priate. His chief defect was in personal familiar ities.' He could not be expected to mingle famil- ' "In all our accounts of him," writes William G. Brown, " he is represented as surrounded with intimates. Not without the power of impressing men with his dignity and seriousness of purpose, we nevertheless hear of him sitting on the knee of an eminent judge during a recess of the court, dancing from 142 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS iarly and closely with the leaders of the anti-slavery party, for whom he professed a loathing and con tempt which was evidently more than the mere expression of noisy parliamentary hatred, and which was returned with interest by the New England men. Yet in times as trying as those from 1850 to 1860 it is worthy of comment that, on the whole, he maintained as equable a poise as he did. The most regrettable personal incident of the decade — the assault perpetrated by Brooks upon Sumner — was undoubtedly looked upon by Douglas with as much reprobation as by any other man. This incident, which occurred shortly after Douglas's speech, the culmination of the celebrated contro versy with Sumner during the struggle over Kansas in 1858, was the result of the burning hatred of the extreme pro-slavery men for the bitter aud austere statesman from Massachusetts. Sumner had been attacked by Brooks while on the floor of the Senate, and was inclined to think that just after the assault he saw Toombs, Douglas and Brooks standing by him. But for this there is no support, and Storey, the secretary and biographer of Sumner, evidently thinks the charge unjustifled, for he says that Brooks " had made his purpose known to Edmund- end to end of a dinner-table with the volatile Shields — the same who won laurels in the Mexican War, a seat in the United States Senate, and the closest approach anybody ever won to victory in battle over Stonewall Jackson ; and engaging, de spite his height ot five feet and his weight ot a hundred pounds, in personal encounters with Stuart, Lincoln's athletic iaw partner, and a corpulent attorney named Francis." ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 143 son, a representative from Virginia, aud to Keitt, one of his colleagues from South Carolina and both were present in the Senate chamber at the time. Edmuudson had advised with Brooks on Monday and Wednesday and was present at his request. Keitt, when the assault began, hurried up, flourish ing a caue as if to prevent any interference with Brooks untU his purpose was accomplished." Storey adds, "Senators Slidell and Douglas were in the anteroom when some one rushed iu and cried out that a man was beating Sumner."' It was a substantial tribute to Douglas's known honesty of purpose that when he made his explanation on the floor to the effect that he was in the anteroom when the assault occurred and refrained from going iu merely because he thought his motives might be misconstrued, the explanation was accepted without any question. No one familiar with the facts sup posed that he had known of the plot against Sumner in any form or at any time. The intimate relation ship which Douglas had with many of his col leagues iu a body wherein mutual suspicion is often the prevailing tone, was aided by his great memory for incidents, names and personalities, and by the ability he had of making every one feel that he entertained a direct personal interest in their ' Storey, Sumner, American Statesmen Series, pp. 146-147. Douglas said: "My first impression was to come into the Senate chamber and help put an end to the affray if I could ; but it occurred to ray mind in an instant that my relations to Mr. Sumner were such that, if I came into the hall, my motives would be misconstrued perhaps, and I sat down again. ' ' 144 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS welfare and in their doings. Despite the numerous encounters ou the floor which he could not have avoided if he would, aud probably would not have avoided if he could, he regarded them as part of the day's work and as such not to be too closely borne in mind later on. He had no objection to meeting Greeley, in spite of the New York Tribune^ s assaults upon himself,' nor did he hesitate in spite of the bitter words which from time to time passed between him aud Lincoln, to lay aside any personal animosity that might have been inspired during their passages at arms. In all this he showed himself unmistakably a great politician, and a politician at a time when political ability received the utmost meas ure of recognition and remuneration in popular prestige and personal advancement, and when it had never had in American history, probably, a more direct and significant influence in national affairs. Douglas had not lacked for personal prosperity since his entry into Congress. Though his early years had been marred by the necessity for the clos est economy, and though his early political endeav ors had been more or less expensive, from the time he entered Congress he was able to provide ade quately for himself and to lead a dignified and comfortable existence. His first marriage, as we have seen, had been fortunate from a pecuniary standpoint, while to this he had added the results of successful laud speculation in Chicago — specula- ' Johnson, Life, p. 320. ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 145 tion whose success had been materially aided by the happy termination of the Illinois Central proj - ect. After making a substantial gift to Chicago University' he was able to realize about $90,000 in 1856 by the sale of his lands. His congressional salary was tolerably adequate and in his second marriage he lost no ground financially. Though a shrewd investor aud speculator, Douglas was, how ever, far too keenly interested iu politics for the sake of the game itself to spend a great amount of time in the pursuit of wealth. The problems be fore the Senate during his period of greatest activ ity were not those iu which questions of property or investment figured very largely, aud the tempta tion which has beset some later statesmen to shape his course in such a way as to advance his personal interests or to take advantage of official knowledge for the purpose of speculation, was not very strong. The IlUnois Central "deal" was the most ques tionable act, perhaps, in which he was concerned, and even this was of a kind that by many would not be considered at the present day particularly offensive. He had refused the cruder solicitations to speculate iu Western lands from which he might have drawn great gain as chafrmau of the Territories Committee, and in the main continued throughout his public life substantially clean-handed. Although shrewd and far-seeing in such business transactions as he undertook, Douglas lacked the New England instinct of frugality. He was fre- ' Sheahan, Life, p. 442. 146 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS quently but too careless in business relations.' He poured his money freely into his campaigns aud lived at times in a rather prodigal manner. As his leadership in the Senate became better and better established, the social demands of his Washington life became more and more positive, and Douglas found himself compelled to meet these demands by concessions both of time and money which he prob ably would not personally have sanctioned from the mere standpoint of social prestige or individual pleasure. The break with the party, which followed ' W. E. Curtis (who, however, is a tar from trustworthy writer) tells the following anecdote ( True Abraham Lincoln, p. 74) : "A singular story is told of a case in which a good many prominent raen were involved besides Lincoln. Abraham Brokaw, of Bloomington, loaned five hundred dollars to one ot his neighbors and took a note, -which remained unpaid. Ac tion was brought, the sherifi levied ou the property of the debtor and collected the entire araount, but neglected to turn the pro ceeds over. Brokaw employed Stephen A. Douglas, who col lected the amount from the bondsman of the sheriff, but re turned to his seat in the Senate at Washington without making settlement. Like some other great men, Douglas was very careless about money matters, and, after appealing to him again and again, Brokaw employed David Davis to bring suit against the senator. Being an intimate friend and fellow Dem ocrat, Davis disliked to appear iu the case, and by his advice Brokaw engaged the services of Lincoln. The latter wrote to Douglas at Washington that he had a claim against him tor col lection aud must insist upon prompt payment. Douglas be came very indignant and reproached Brokaw for placing such a political weapon in the hands ot an Abolitionist. Brokaw sent Douglas's letter to Lincoln, and the latter employed ' Long John ' Wentworth, then a Democratic member of Congress from Chicago, aa an associate in the case. Wentworth saw Douglas, persuaded him to pay the money, and forwarded five hundred dollars to Lincoln, who, in turn, paid it to Brokaw and sent him a bill of three dollars and fifty cents for profes sional services. ' ' ON THE SENATE THEESHOLD 147 his attack upou Buchanan's endorsement of the Le compton constitution in Kansas, did not diminish the social pressure upou Douglas. He was more sought after by curious callers and visitors to Washington than ever, and it became more necessary than ever that he should show a bold and prosperous front. It was largely to these social conditions, and to the heavy expenses to which during his struggle for ad vancement he was compelled to submit iu his later years that his subsequent financial embarrassment was due, yet the situation in all probability could not have been avoided if he were to play the role and Uve the life that had partly beeu achieved by, aud partly thrust upou, him. It cannot be other than an interesting subject of speculation what would have been Douglas's course of personal development had he not been cut off in the flower of his maturity. His years in the Senate had afready shown the power of growth, and of at least some change in point of view and in those in timate characteristics which make .up the fulness of a man. Lincoln at the outbreak of the Civil War had but just started upon his great career of four years' duration. Douglas might have had a like experience. His personality, vivid and dis tinct as it was, had not, at the time of his death, been given an opportunity for complete expression; but, as will now be seen, he had been whirled on ward by ambition and the dictates of expediency which had prevented its real development. CHAPTEE Vin NORTH AND SOUTH A CRITICAL period in the history of the United States was now at hand. Events whose ultimate causes had long before begun to have an obscure ef fect succeeded one another with a rapidity which called for all the statesmanship of the ablest public men, but which even the wisest had not been able fully to forecast, and against which they could not provide. The chief factors in the complex problem, which was to occupy the attention of Congress for ten years to come, and to culminate then in a dis astrous civil war, were the new territories now on the eve of organization and the relation which they should bear to the United States, and the general issue of slavery, partly with reference to the exist ing states but more especially with regard to these newly organized territories. These difficulties had been brought to a pressing stage during the years 1848-1850 by the development of conditions in Cali fornia which called for some decisive action on the part of Congress. Such action had not been taken at the session of 1848-1849 ; various efforts to secure it had been put forth in vain. The territory which had been acquired from Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, including what afterward be came California, Utah, New Mexico, etc., had been NOETH AND SOUTH 149 left without any definite form of government, while the rush of gold-seekers to the southern Pacific coast had brought into existence a lawless community in which the better elements earnestly desired the es tablishment of a settled system of social aud polit ical life. Such, then, was the immediate situation when Congress was on the eve of assembling for the long session of 1849-1850. It was a remarkable Senate before which this issue of the new territories and their government, ¦with all that it involved, was to appear. The body was essentiaUy in a transitional stage. Webster, Clay and Calhoun were about to serve for the last time together. Around them a group of younger and less known men, representing a new generation of statesmen, had now sprung up. Under the care of the older statesmen, and as a result of the unusual capacity and abUity of the generation before 1850, the Senate had been gradually assuming a place of first importance in the national government. It was then that the foundations were laid for that su premacy over the House of Eepresentatives which has continued to this day, subject to mutations and reverses. It was then that the Senate had indicated for the first time, with decided and definite tendency, its liability to become receptive ground for the peculiar type of interests which a later generation has denominated "special," as opposed to those presumably representing the broader popular well- being, although it had not yet committed itself to them. Douglas had already shown his general dis- 150 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS position in the questions that were to be dealt -with, but there remained the crucial test which would definitely place him on one side or the other iu the contest. In a general way, events had now so shaped themselves as to develop with substantial distinct ness a sectional or geographical party line between the North aud the South. Slavery had of course long been a burning issue, but patriotic men had hoped that it would not necessarily be the cause of division too deep for reconciliation. In substance the issues now at stake were as follows : The North demanded : I. The establishment of governments for all the territories of the United States, with a prohibition of slavery. II. The admission of California. III. The abolition of the slave trade in the Dis trict of Columbia. IV. The abolition of slaveholding in the Dis trict of Columbia. The South demanded : I. An efficient fugitive slave act. II. The establishment of territorial governments for all the territories, including California, but without a prohibition of slavery.' It was on this ground that the contest was to take place. Congress presented a rather varied political complexion. In the House there were 112 Demo- ' This classification follows that given in Sheahan's Douglas, p. 126. NOETH AND SOUTH 151 crats, 105 Whigs, aud thirteen Free Soilers,' while the division of opinion iu the Senate, although less distinct, represented substantially the same lines of demarcation. In the President's message for De cember, 1849,' the territorial question was called to the attention of Cougress. He urged that action which had been taken by the inhabitants of Cali fornia, with a view to organizing a territorial gov ernment, should be considered. He thought that it was not -wise to act on the position of New Mexico because its people would probably soon seek admis sion just as had the people of California. The sentiment iu Cougress was now confused and deeply antagonistic. The Northern states desired that California and New Mexico should be added to the free territory of the Union. Southerners desired that there should be no interference with what they considered thefr right to take slaves into the new territory. California had held a convention on- May 6, 1849, with the object of forming a state, and at a later deferred meeting on September 3d had adopted a constitution, similar to the constitutions of New York and Iowa, containing a bill of rights iu which was a clause forever prohibiting slavery in the new state. The convention had finished its work on the 13th of October. The President's message, therefore, amounted to an endorsement of the action of the convention iu California, whUe he 'Rhodes, History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 117. ' Messages and Papers, Vol. V, pp. 18-19 ; see also Vol, IV, p. 629, et seq. 152 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS reserved the New Mexican matter for the future. Immediately a storm broke iu Congress. Eesolu- tions calling for information were adopted in both houses, and early iu January several important proposals were put into the form of bills aud intro duced. Simultaneously memorials were received from various states protesting against any action on the part of Congress which would extend the sys tem of slavery. Among the proposals which thus jostled one another on the floor of Congress, were schemes for the reorganization of the state of Texas upon a smaller geographical basis, aud a plan creating governments for California, Deseret, New Mexico and San Jacinto. New fugitive slave pro visions were offered, and for a time it seemed as if Cougress were about to plunge into au indefinitely protracted controversy. Events in the House had been such as to stimu late this belief. The mixed composition of the body had necessitated a series of struggles lasting three weeks before a speaker could be chosen, and in the course of that time the issues pending between North and South had been thoroughly discussed. The contest had culminated in the election of Howell Cobb of Georgia over Eobert C. Winthrop, the New England candidate. Cobb was a strong pro -slavery man and his choice alarmed the Northern element. Clay and his associates were determined, if possible, to settle this threatening controversy without unnecessarily widening the breach between the two sections. On the 29th of NOETH AND SOUTH 153 January Clay offered a series of compromise resolu tions, whose adoption he earnestly advocated. These resolutions provided for the admission of California with the prohibition of slavery contained in her constitution. They also included a proposal for the estabUshment of territorial governments in the area acquired from Mexico without any restric tion as to slavery. The subject of prohibiting the slave trade in the District of Columbia was not neglected, but it was declared that the abolition of slavery without the consent of Maryland and without compensating the owners would be unwise. It was further affirmed that Cougress had no power to interfere with the slave trade between the states. Adequate legal means for the recovery of fugitive slaves were demanded. As to the ques tions affecting Texas and New Mexico, provision was made for determining the boundary line, pay ing the public debt of Texas, and ending the latter's claim to any portion of New Mexico.' Clay's speech in behalf of his resolutions was powerful and convincing, despite some blemishes, but the time was not one when oratory could im mediately gain the end in view. Douglas, as has been noted,' had become the chairman of the Com mittee on Territories, and he now moved that the constitution of the state of California be referred to his own committee. An effort was made to send it 'These resolutions are fully analyzed in Rhodes, Vol, I, p. 122 — an analysis which has been followed here. ' See anie, pp. 145, etc. 154 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS to a select committee of fifteen, which should also be charged -with the duty of considering the general question of slavery iu the territories. Douglas won his point and, as he had already secured the refer ence to his committee of bills establishing a state or territorial government in Deseret, as well as other measures similar in character, he now had jurisdiction over the whole problem. He was thus the engineer in charge of the machinery by which the actual work of the Senate was to be done, al though Clay and his compeers of the older genera tion were still the spectacular figures ou the fioor. Clay's speech iu defense of his compromise pro posals was answered bj- Calhoun on the 4th of March ; ' Webster followed on the 7th of the same month. Calhoun's reply was in fact his last public utterance, for before the end of the month he had been placed in his grave. His argument was cogent, calling attention to the necessity for union but out lining the causes of the dissatisfaction of the South, and suggesting the danger which confronted the nation in the future. He thought that Clay's com promise plan would not be effective. It was neces sary that the Northern states, now rapidly growing in power and numbers and tending to surpass the South in political strength, should pause to consider whether they were willing to drive the opposite section to a point when it could be longer held in the Union only by force. Might it not be better to offer the South reasonable terms? Such terms ' Congressional Globe, 1st Sess., 3l8t Cong., p. 451, et seq. NOETH AND SOUTH 155 would be found in a constitutional amendment which would give equal power to the Southern as against the Northern states, enabling them to pro tect themselves from possible aggression. Equal rights must be given to the South in the new terri tory, runaway slaves must be returned, and the agi tation of the subject must be ended. Calhoun be lieved that these issues could now properly be dis cussed because the California question was a test issue ; should that state be accepted with its free constitution, similar action iu the case of other territories might be expected. This would pro gressively result in a relative narrowing of the borders of the slave states, aud in limiting their powers in the Senate so that ultimately they would sink into a position of insignificance which could not be endured. Calhoun's prophecies of disaster were, by some, considered ridiculous, while even Benton thought the forebodings of the South Carolinian somewhat absurd. Others agreed with his opinions. Webster, ou March 7th, while not depreciating the signifi cance of Calhoun's views, urged with irresistible force the desirability of getting away from all con templation of the prospect of secession. He would have the Senate adopt a positive aud definite policy based upon the immediate necessities of the case. He reviewed the slavery situation and asserted that the South had beeu fairly dealt with by the estab lishment of the existing boundary line for slavery — the line of 36° 30' which took in practically the 156 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS whole of Texas aud would ultimately create a slave area of substantial size. To the idea that slavery might exist in this area he said the government was solemnly pledged. As to California and New Mexico, the character of their industry and general climatic conditions showed that they offered no field for slavery. Both were free states by nature and as such both must be admitted to the Union. The South had a grievance, said Webster, in con nection with the fugitive slave question, aud this must be allayed. The speaker gave wholesome ad- ^'ice to the Southern states. He suggested that they should not heed the partisan and bitter attacks of Abolitionists upou them and their slavery, and intimated that some of the writing and speech cur rently tolerated in the South was equal in virulence to that of which Southerners complained as prac ticed at the North. Webster's address had a decidedly wholesome effect, entirely apart from its remarkable oratorical success and its bearing upon the future status of the speaker himself. Northern men attacked him bit terly because of his endorsement of the idea that they had been unfair in the fugiti ve slave question, while Webster's acceptance of a drastic bill pre sented by Mason and containing provisions intended to control this whole matter, goaded them to irrepres sible irritation. But the savage denunciations of its author offered by the extreme Abolitionist ele ment did not materially affect the permanent and far-reaching influence of the 7th of March address. NOETH AND SOUTH 157 Douglas had wisely waited for the indications of feeling iu the Senate aud elsewhere to become marked, aud now finding them in conformity with his own ideas, he moved forward with a program which he had planned to develop in his committee. He spoke strongly on the 13th and 14th of March, but confined himself largely to the California question aud presented cogently the same arguments which had been urged by the great figures on the floor in support of the admission of that state. He attacked Webster bitterly for his statement of the reasons why California and New Mexico should be admitted as free states, but he also rebutted with vigor the argument of Calhoun, in particular that portion of it which had beeu based upon the idea of sectional equality among the states of the Union. The amendment to the Constitution urged by Calhoun he stigmatized as ridiculous. The fears of the North about the admission of New Mexico and Cali fornia as slave states he waved aside with a sneer, referring to his own former position when he had predicted that California would certainly establish a free constitution. He demanded for California that government which had been selected by the people, noting that the insertion in the constitution of the slavery or anti-slavery provision was merely an academic issue, since the nature of the soil aud of the industries of the state would, under any circumstances, dictate a system of free labor and free enterprise. Douglas did not attempt to cover the general field which Clay had covered in his first 158 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS great speech ; nor did he definitely accept the com promise piogram, although he spoke in apprecia tive fashion of Clay's action.' The effort, however, to advance the bills in the form in which Douglas had reported them on the 25th of March, i. e., measures to admit California, aud to establish territorial governments in Utah and New Mexico, was premature. Some members of the Senate desired to have the whole question of slavery iu the territories, the California question, aud the other territorial issues dealt with in one bill, be cause they believed that such a measure would stand a better chance of adoption than a series of measures embracing the more or less debatable prop ositions over which men's minds were now strug gling. Benton, for his part, was particularly desir ous that the California question should be dealt with separately. He saw no reason why it should be made a mere pawn iu the slavery discussion, for in his view the Oaliforuiaus presented a simple and concrete issue. Iu this opinion Douglas substan tially agreed, but the final settlement was not reached until April 18th, when, the subject having proven it self too troublesome to be adj usted in any other way, it was decided to establish a select committee of thir teen members to deal with the whole problem of slavery. This committee, as elected by ballot in the Senate, did not include Douglas, who had failed to align himself with Clay, Cass, Webster, aud the ' The text of this speech is found in Congressional Globe, 31st Cong. , 1st Sess. , Appendi.c, p. 364, et seq. NOETH AND SOUTH 159 other great leaders or to secure or accept a status as a distinct follower of any of the senatorial fac tions. In spite of the creation of the committee Douglas requested that his bill for the admission of California should be taken up, and when Clay said that he must iu that case seek to amend it by the insertion of extraneous provisions, Benton threatened protracted resistance. It was evident that Douglas's urgency could not succeed against the carefuUy framed plans of Clay, who confessedly and frankly favored a general or " omnibus " meas ure. Clay, as the chafrmau of the select committee, finally reported a so-called " omnibus bill " consist ing of Douglas's two measures already reported from the Committee ou Territories, the one providing for the admission of California and the other for the es tablishment of territorial governments in Utah and New Mexico. In the latter the select committee had inserted a provision, refusing to the territorial legislature any right to act upon questions involving slavery. Clay spoke in behalf of the measure ou the 13th of May, aud two days later Douglas, with characteristic pertinacity, insisted that a test vote be taken on the question of dealing with the bills separately or together. He was defeated by a small majority, and, Clay's program having been adopted, actual debate was opened. A bitter struggle over slavery was now precipitated. Jefferson Davis asked to have the bill amended so as to restrain the territorial legislature from interfering with rights 160 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS of property growing out of the institution of Afri can slavery, but this proposal was defeated. Doug las sought to strike out the provision restraining the legislature from acting in any way on the slavery question, but he, too, failed. Many efforts were made to secure some amendment which would spe cifically authorize the people of the territories to offer constitutions with or without slavery, as they themselves might determine, whenever they came to present their territories for admission as states. Douglas definitely advocated the insertion of some such provision and explained why he had not placed it in the bill originally. He thought it was merely the assertion of an already existing, an un questionable, an inextinguishable constitutional right. He had " always held that the people have a right to settle these questions as they choose not only when they come into the Union as a state but that they should be permitted to do so while a terri tory." Nevertheless, he saw no reason why, if it were desired, an expression of constitutional princi ple of this kind might not be incorporated in the bill. Finally the provision in the shape offered by Soule ou the 15th of June was adopted by a sub stantial majority. In the subsequent debate, Douglas favored the seating of the California members in the House im mediately upou the passage of the bill. He opposed the plans of Soul6 and others who desired to make the state's admission conditional upon its relinquish ment to the Federal government of the public do- NOETH AND SOUTH 161 main within its area. Thus the controversy dragged ou until the 9th of July when the death of Pres ident Taylor impended. Work was deferred until the 15th of the same month. Discussion was then resumed and continued throughout the remaining two weeks of the mouth. On the 31st of July, a long aud heated day's work resulted iu strik ing out of the bill everything that related to Texas and New Mexico, and then everything bearing upou California. The territory of Utah was all that now remained and from the provisions concerning it Douglas succeeded in eliminating, with the consent of the Senate, the amendment, inserted by the select committee, by which the legislature would be pro hibited from passing any laws relating to African slavery. Upou a motion of Jefferson Davis, con curred in by Douglas, the Southern boundary of Utah was to be fixed at 36° 30', and thus Utah was to be definitely placed north of the much con troverted line. Upon objection by Hale and some of the extreme anti-slavery men, however, the line was set at 37°, and the Utah bill was passed and sent to the House. The Senate had exhausted itself with the constitu tional controversies and other struggles which had attended the progress of this measure, but Douglas was stiU fresh aud unwearied. Without hesitating, he immediately called up his original biU for the admission of California and secured its passage on the 13th of August. He then called for the New Mexico bill, framed upon the same terms as the 162 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Utah bill, aud pushed it through with comparatively little debate. The points in which he was now pri marily interested had beeu disposed of, but he did not neglect the other features of the Compromise originally urged by Clay. Late iu August the Fugitive Slave Law was passed. Three Northern Democrats voted against this measure while fifteen Northern senators did not vote at all.' The slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia on September 15th, and the House promptly ratified the work of the Senate by moderate majorities, although there also a large number of Northern men refrained from voting. To all practical purposes Clay had succeeded in securing the adoption of his compromise plan. In the attainment of this result he had beeu powerfully seconded bj' Douglas, who had worked, and voted for, every feature of the general scheme except the Fugitive Slave Law, and he had refrained from voting on this only because he was under the neces sity of being out of Washington at the time. He warmly favored the bill. Clay could not have developed the details of the great plan which his mind had originally conceived, nor could he probably have managed in the Senate the various bills in which the legislation was em bodied. Douglas was familiar with the grouping of parties, and was an incomparable master of the peculiar art of congressional jugglery by which the adoption of ideas against which there is a substan - ' Rhodes, Vol. I, p. 182. NOETH AND SOUTH 163 tial feeling of opposition can be secured. Although eclipsed by the commanding personality of Clay, he nevertheless reaped an ample measure of recognition from his fellow senators. Davis directly and point edly complimented him, and other Southerners, now that the battle was over for the time, were inclined to feel that they had emerged from the struggle very satisfactorily, and to accord due honor to the man ager whose efforts had so greatly contributed to what they chose to regard as a victory. Douglas was not slow to accept the credit for the work and on the 23d of December, 1851, plainly put himself ou record as having "originated and proposed" the measures contained in the Omnibus Bill.' He was undoubtedly pleased with his own success as a manipulator, gratified at the apparently final dis position of a vexed question, and willing to stand before the country as a harmonizer of conflicting factions. Like many legislators, Douglas had, however, acted iu the hazy political atmosphere of Washing ton without a very clear perception of what his constituency would think of his course. He now found it necessary to meet the views of a body of voters which had its own ideas about the slavery question and the North's relations with the South, and which did not value so highly the arts of the floor manager as did the professional politicians at '¦ Congressional Globe, 1st Seas., 32d Cong., Appendix, p. 65. The speech is also quoted in Sheahan's Douglas, the words used above appearing on p. 166. 164 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Washington. The fugitive slave act had been bit terly attacked throughout the North. This was in line with the denunciation which had been heaped upon Webster because of the latter' s assertion that the Southeruers had some grievances in connection with the recovery of their slaves. Anti-slavery feeling had been growing rapidly iu lUiuois, as elsewhere noted,' and Douglas found himself out of harmony with his constituency. He was in a position to suffer from the misrepresentations of political op ponents who were glad to find an opportunity of successful attack. The City Council of Chicago, falling under the control of such influences, passed resolutions denouncing as traitors those who voted for the Fugitive Slave Law, as well as those who failed to vote against it. Going somewhat beyond its sphere, the Council also released the citizens, officers and police of the city from any obligation to assist in the execution of the law.' Douglas himself was present at the meeting at which this action was taken, but desiring a better audience and feeling that the atmosphere was unfavorable to a fair hear ing, he announced that he would speak ou the following evening, October 23d. As promised, he delivered at that time a general defense of what he had done in the Senate, with special reference to the Fugitive Slave Law. So successful was his argu ment on that occasion, so persuasive his review of the conditions which led to the action of Congress, that the speaker carried all before him. Eising to 'Seep. 103. ^Sheahaji, Douglas, p. 159. NOETH AND SOUTH 165 the spirit of the occasion, as he more and more felt the drift of public sentiment toward him, he closed the speech by offering resolutions in favor of carry ing into effect the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law aud of performing every other duty and obliga tion under the Constitution of the United States. The resolutions were adopted -without dissent aud only a mild protest was heard against further resolutions repudiating the action of the City Council. It was a remarkable personal victory but little more ; for, as Douglas was presently to discover, the dissatis faction in the West and North due to the conditions at which the Fugitive Slave Law was aimed was too deep seated to admit of easy extinguishment. CHAPTEE IX "AMERICAN" FOREIGN POLICY Douglas's prestige was now such that he was an obvious possibility for the presidency. Up to the close of the struggle on the compromise measures of 1850, this had beeu at least doubtful. He was stiU only thirty-seven years old, aud thus far his youth had decidedly militated against his chances. Moreover, it had been questioned whether his abilities were those which would warrant his party in considering him a figure of national size. The discussions centring about the Compromise of 1850 had removed many of these doubts. They had shown him to be a man keen and acute in debate, skilled in congressional manipulation, and able to rally his own constituency to his position, instead of blindly listening with his ear to the ground for the rumblings of popular sentiment that he might shape his course as opportunity seemed to require. He had shown himself to be a man of -vigor and of independence, by no means an idealist, but governed by the most practical of practical po litical considerations. Moreover, it was not the least significant occurrence of the session of 1849-1850 that there were now or soon after removed from the Senate some of the most important national figures. The overshadowing dominance of the elder states- " AMEEICAN " POEEIGN POLICY 167 men had kept Douglas from exhibiting before the country as vigorous a growth as he would have liked, but he was at last iu a position to move for ward. It was evident that the Democratic party, if it wished control for the future, must have as its candidate a man who would to au extent harmo nize the conflicting elements iu the party. There was need of a leader who would in some measure assure a unity of spirit and purpose. The rapid growth of the West and Northwest had ren dered those sections politically important, and past attachments yet sat so lightly upou the people that the vote of these states might be thrown one way or the other as cfrcumstances seemed to requfre. They might thus become the deciding factor in any future national campaign. Furthermore, the controlling question in national politics now concerned the new territories which were seeking admission to the Union, and the status of slavery therein. Douglas, by reason of his chair manship of the Committee on Territories in the Senate, was a foremost student of these issues aud must be reckoned with in any consideration of them. Finally, he came from a state which in cluded a substantial number of slavery as well as of anti-slavery men, and might be expected to hold the balance much more nearly even than one who was distinctly predisposed by surroundings toward one side or the other. Since he had entered the Senate, Douglas had gained in poise, and improved some what in majiner. Although he retained many 168 STEPHEN A. DOUtiLAS Western roughnesses, having never been able to overcome the effect of early circumstances and conditions, he was at least adaptable upou the surface. The discriminating Ehodes ' remarks that he " took on quickly the character of his surround ings, and in Washington society, he soon learned the ease of a gentleman and acquired the bearing of a man of the world." Opinions to the con trary were of course not lacking,^ but he had at least gained so far in polish as to be an available man even for the highest office. Although he was already "convivial," there was at this time "no authenticated instance of his having drunk to such excess" as to warrant a charge of addiction to liquor. Despite his small stature he had attained what was considered an impressive personality, although, as his friends admitted, he was "a little bit corpulent" — a defect for which he somewhat made up by affecting fashionable dress. Moreover, Douglas had developed an almost perfect political machine. He controlled every Federal office iu Illinois,^ and through his friends he practically controlled almost every state and county office. In other states he had an active aud influential personal organization and following. It was not strange, then, that as the great figures of his party fell away, he should regard himself as entitled to wear the mantle of leadership. Al though he later declared that he was not so much of ' History, Vol. I. p. 245. ' See pp. 139. et seq. 'Carr, Stephen A. Douglas, p. 61. " AMEEICAN " FOEEIGN POLICY 169 a " sucker " as to aspire to the presidency,' there is ample evidence that before 1850 he seriously enter tained this ambition, and the idea was now begin ning to find acceptance in other minds. It was already time to prepare for the forthcom ing campaign. Among those who might fairly be considered his rivals for the nomination of the party in 1852 were Cass, Buchanan and Marcy. To shape his course in such a way as to pass the older and better known figures in the race was now Douglas's desfre. He had first to make up his mind as to the consequences of his action in con nection with the Compromise of 1850, and the lines along which he would guide himself in the shifts, evasions, plots, and trickeries that must intervene between him and the nomination, if he were to get it. The year 1850 was closing ; the campaign would be actively begun early in 1852. He had, therefore, about a year iu which to make his prepa rations. First and foremost was the question of slavery and the ascertainment whether the country at large would accept the compromise measures of 1850 as, for some reasonable time at least, a set tlement. Douglas looked anxiously about for information ou this subject. In Illinois, which might be regarded as a typical Western state where opinion was still two-fold, conditions did not seem al together promising. In New England they appeared still less so. Incidents reported from Massachusetts iu connection -with the application of the Fugitive ' Villard, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 96. 170 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Slave Law showed a degree of excitement which augured ill for the future. Southerners were quick to charge that the North was acting in bad faith ; that it would not enforce the legislation of Cougress. As weeks went by, Douglas became convinced that his only safety lay in definitely upholding the Fugitive Slave Law, thereby gaining the support of the Southern wing of the party to which he felt himself more and more drawn, aud in attacking with vigor the purely Abolition group which had already caused him trouble in Illinois, and was threatening to distui-b the artificial harmony estab lished at Washington. He was of the opinion that it was still not too late to make an end of the Aboli tion movement, and as soon as he reached Washing ton for the new session of Congress, he vigorously assailed those who had attempted to stir up general feeling against the legislation comprehended in the Compromise. In this attitude Douglas unexpectedly found himself supported by leaders iu the opposi tion party, who, despite their.'very hostile tactics of the preceding session and their refusal to vote either way on the Fugitive Slave Law, were desir ous of conciliating public opinion. Especially were they concerned in preventing Democrats from getting into a position where they could put for ward the claim that they were the defenders of the • Constitution. On both sides, then, the effort to sustain the Compromise was pushed forward. Extremists, like Sumner, who sought to reopen the- fugitive slave question, were rebuked in open Con- " AMEEICAN " FOEEIGN POLICY 171 gress. There was thus no chance of an issue iu connection with slavery, and, ou the whole, Douglas's better judgment approved, for he felt that, by his action of the preceding year, he had already gained whatever political advantages were to be had. The question stUl remained how he should con duct himself in reference to the presidential situa tion. How could he develop a personal policy which would seem to entitle him to the nomination ? In looking for such a policy Douglas and his followers determined to put forward the idea of au American system under which the United States should develop a distinct position of its own with reference to foreign countries, giving up, in a meas ure, the attitude of aloofness which had hitherto characterized it. It would not to-day seem that any prospective candidate for the presidency could very confidently base his hopes for popular support upon his attitude with respect to foreign countries, or to the position of the United States in its relations -with such countries. But conditions sixty years ago were different. The Mexican War had recently ended, the Cuban question was press- ing for solution, relations with Canada and Great Britain were somewhat uncertain. Perhaps Doug las was right in thinking that the foreign policy of the country afforded the best field for his efforts. Immigration, already beginning to excite serious alarm in some minds, might necessitate important negotiations with other countries. To one who be- 172 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS lieved that the slavery question had beeu set at rest for some time, the problem of foreign relations was possibly the most immediate issue. At any rate, Douglas aud his friends went for ward on this theory. The foreign policy upon which they now embarked was to be fiamed iu ac cord with a so-called "American idea." Every question which brought the United States into rela tions with other countries was to be viewed and dealt with ou an "American" plan. In order to throw discredit upon Webster and others \a ho were following a conservative policy, designed to avoid the development of difficulty with foreign nations, they were to be charged with "old fogyism." As a target for practice, a minor issue, raised by the arrival of Kossuth in the United States and his de sire that this country should intervene iu the Hun garian situation, was set up. Douglas's view, as expressed on the floor of the Senate, was that the same principle of states' rights which he had sought to apply in the relations between the states of the Federal union might be equally applicable to rela tions between other countries or sections of other countries. Without very much acquaintance with foreign political conditions, he argued that wher ever one nation sought to intervene concerning the affairs of another, destroying the liberties or privi leges of that other, a third government might take a hand in the struggle in order to support the gen eral idea of nationality and independence. As to the treatment to be accorded by the United States " AMEEICAN " FOEEIGN POLICY 173 to Kossuth as au individual, Douglas argued that we had a right to do as we pleased without regard to what foreign countries might think. The United States must stand as au independent nation, sup porting the general abstract principles upon which it had itself been organized. It should minimize, so far as possible, the dictates of diplomatic usage and the customs of international relationship as con trolled by the traditions of European practice. This idea was promptly and enthusiastically ac cepted by the Douglas party and utterances based upon it, sometimes couched in rather abusive lan guage, were put into circulation. In these declara tions an effort was made to discredit the element in national politics best represented by Webster. Coupled with the general notion of pushing for ward this " American idea" iu foreign politics, was the concrete plan to favor the acquisition of Cuba, probably on a slavery basis, shrewdly designed to secure Southern sympathy and votes. Douglas, however, was now convinced that it would not be wise to bring up the question of slavery in too acute a form during his campaign for the presidency, but he did not conceal his desfre for the annexation of Cuba — a policy which he continued to advocate iu after years at a time when the idea of accepting the island was much more offensive to the North. Pro vided thus with a foreign policy which he intended to use for political purposes, especially iu the South, aud with the beginnings of au excellent organiza tion throughout the country, Douglas now needed 174 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS only the kind of personal support which would come from those who believed that they could ad vance their own interests through a new man, rather than through an older one who had afready pledged himself to the fortunes of a great number of de pendents. In order to consolidate the support that he required in this particular respect, Douglas definitely committed himself to the notion that a general change of Federal officials would be desir able. He practically declared war ou the men who were then holding the minor offices at Washington, particularly in cases where these men had not ren dered recent aud effective political service. It is necessary, however, to acquit Douglas of acting in consistently in this respect. He had been a spoils man from his youth up, invariably seeking to throw such places as he could control to those who had done the work of the party. True, his infiuence had never before reached the large importance It had recently assumed, yet there was no reason why he should have applied to national affairs a prin ciple different from that in which he beUeved as a guide for state and local conduct. In seeking to draw to himself the unattached and newer elements of the party whose nomination, he believed, would put him into the presidency, he was not much worse than other politicians of his day. There is no evidence that in his pledges or iu his public ex pressions of opinion he showed an undue brutality or went farther thau his contemporaries would have gone under similar temptation. "AMEEICAN" FOEEIGN POLICY 175 The work of making Douglas his party' s candidate was being vigorously pressed and at first his pros pects seemed very favorable, for the only mani fest error of his friends was in attempting to discredit other competing candidates aud to outline too distinctly Douglas's attitude on the slavery question. Although he himself resorted to the common political device of repudiating much that was done in his behalf as matter about which he knew nothing and over which he certainly had no control, the conditions were such as to alarm his competitors for the nomination. Douglas's candi dacy was a new and difficult element iu the familiar problem of presidential politics, and it was only natural that all should unite for the moment in order to crush the candidate who was rising up to defeat the plans of the older groups. To do this, however, required time, aud by the close of the year 1851, after a twelvemonth of contriving, scheming and organizing, Douglas believed himself well on the road to success. There is every evi dence that in the early days of 1852 he felt that he had matters, potentially at least, very much in his own hands. In an unpublished letter to a friend,' dated February 25, 1852, he said : "Prospects look well and are improving every day. If two or three Western states will speak out in my favor, the battle is over. Can anything be done in Iowa and Mis souri ? That is very important. If some one could ' Mannsoript letter quoted by Johnson, Stephen A. Douglas, p. 203. 176 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS go to Iowa, I thiuk the convention in that state would instruct for me. In regard to our own slate, I will say a word. Other states are appointiug a large number of delegates to the convention, . . . ought not our state to do the same thing so as to ensure the attendance of most of our leading poli ticians at Baltimore? . . . This large number would exert a great moral influence ou the other delegates. ' ' These hopes soon faded. It became more and more evident that the elder statesmen had taken the alarm and that the existing organization of the party could not be controlled iu the interest of Douglas. A few states in which he had succeeded in breaking ground with his own organization, and in which the errois made by overzealous followers had not aroused very strong prejudice, caused their delegations to be instructed for him. The con vention was to be held on June 1st in Balti more.' Fully a month before, however, it had become quite evident that Douglas's "boom," while lusty and vigorous, must be considered only preliminary to something that might develop in the future. Ou the first ballot, the convention gave Cass 116 votes, Buchanan ninety-three, Marcy twenty-seven, Douglas twenty, aud other candi dates twenty-five. The number necessary to a choice was 188. On later ballots Cass lost ground and Douglas grew stronger, his maximum being 'Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 248, and same au thority for ballot figures. " AMEEICAN " FOEEIGN POLICY 177 reached on the twenty-ninth ballot when he re ceived ninety-one votes. In that particular ballot, a "dark horse" was brought into the race. This was Franklin Pierce, who received fifteen votes from the Virginia delegation. Douglas had been pretty well aware of the scheme which was now to be developed, aud there is no evidence that he was at all disappointed by the result. He knew that the regular leaders had brought forward the name of Pierce, a good many weeks before the convention met, partly with a view to crushing his own chances and partly because it was beUeved that a man of a less decided position on national issues than the old-line candidates would have a better opportunity to win. Douglas's support on the first baUot had come very largely from his own state. Even such states as had promised their aid had not ralUed to him at the outset, either because he him self at the last moment had given orders to the con trary, as some have believed, or for other reasons. The " dark-horse" plan met all the expectations of its advocates. Mr. Pierce gradually gained iu strength until on the forty-ninth ballot he got a practically unanimous vote of 282, only six votes being cast for all other candidates. For Vice-Presi dent, WilUam E. King of Alabama was unanimously named on the second ballot, and it is an interesting fact that Douglas was not urged to accept the second place but reserved himself, wisely it then seemed, for the greater prize at some time in the future. 178 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Having fully anticipated this defeat of his hopes, Douglas was able to make the customary display of cordiality which is demanded by American politics between two rival candidates for office, after one has succeeded and the other has been defeated. He telegraphed his congratulations to the convention in the usual terms, aud immediately began to cast about for the future, believing that at the end of the next four years he would be able to make a bet ter showing. An analysis of his maximum vote in the convention indicated that his organization was well developed and wide-spread. That it had a pe culiar staying quality was illustrated by the fact that on the very last ballot he still had two votes. What alarmed the older politicians even more was that he had not exhibited his greatest power ; but had evidently masked it to some extent as soon as he definitely understood that he could not muster the necessary number of votes. The point at which Douglas seemed to be lacking did not apparently lie where his friends had feared a year before, at the time when an effort was made to equip him with a national policy. They believed that he would prove to be weak as a figure iu the country as a whole. Instead, singularly enough, he seemed to need strong sectional support. Although he had a good following iu New England and the North, he could not of course rank as a candidate of that section. In the same way, although he was evi dently well liked in the South, he was not yet defi nitely accepted as a Southern candidate. It was " AMEEICAN " FOEEIGN POLICY 179 strange, but manifest, that he lacked strength in the Middle West, exactly the region where he ought to have exhibited it. This was probably due to an overconfident belief that local pride without positive work would carry him forward in that sec tion. But local pride was then somewhat scanty in the Middle West, and it would appear that the ex perience with the convention of 1852 had convinced Douglas that he must get the support of some one portion of the Union for his candidacy, while of course he continued to draw around himself the broadly distributed reinforcements which every presidential candidate must have in sections remote from his main seat of power. The more cordial aud hearty support of the South was indicated as a remedy for the weakness in his organization which had manifested itself at the last moment before the critical struggle in 1852, aud toward the application of this specific the ambitious aspirant must now bend his energies. Meanwhile he had before him what was for the moment a more important contest — that of securing a reelection to the Senate wherein his term was now shortly to expire. The retention of his seat would evidently be necessary to the furtherance of his presidential ambitions. This task, however, proved not to be difficult. He entered the cam paign vigorously, associating the move for his re election with the effort of his party to elect the new President. He emerged from the fall contest in 1852 with a new term of office for himself and 180 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS with additional personal prestige, due to strenuous and ardent speaking of the usual partisan type over a very wide territory. It is an interesting fact that the territory wherein he appeared seems to have been chosen with a view to giving him a chance to appeal to an electorate with which his weakness at the convention had been most obvious. Douglas's utterances, from the time of his defeat in the national conveution throughout the campaign and on into the next session of Congress, indicated no belief on his part that his position, while a candidate, had been erroneously taken. He favored Cuban annexation during the summer and faU of 1852 and also urged, as opportunity offered, his "American policy" in foreign affairs. This seemed to be a policy of defiance to European nations at every point where their wishes came into conflict with our own. The questions thus raised, however, were of no particular interest during the campaign and did not assume importance until after the opening of the next session of Congress. They were then unexpectedly made prominent by a curious conjunction of events. The question which was suddenly thrust forward was the old one of the extent to which European countries should be allowed to exert an influence in Central and South America, and the attitude of the United States in view of the so-called Monroe Doctrine, whose meaning was stUl as obscure as ever. The immediate difficulty was due to the course of Great Britain. That country was assert- " AMEEICAN " FOEEIGN POLICY 181 ing rights over not only the Mosquito Coast, but also islands oflf Honduras. Friction had arisen be tween EngUshmen and Americans at Greytown and shots had been exchanged. Fundamentally the issue involved was the interpretation of the Clayton- Bulwer treaty, and the position in which the United States should stand there in connection with the Monroe Doctrine. The constant irritation existing both ou the part of Great Britain and our own ad ministration led to a discussion in the Senate, which, instead of being conducted iu secret session, was aUowed to go on upou the floor in the presence of the galleries. There was considerably more annoy ance over the whole situation then than would probably be felt at the present time. This was due to special reasons. The opening of California had raised, iu an acute form, the question of a trans- Isthmian route and this, it was believed, should run through Nicaragua, which was largely under the influence of Great Britain. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty, negotiated between England and the United States on AprU 19, 1850, for the purpose of im- pro-ving the international situation, was little more than a compromise. Both nations had agreed to cease their efforts to establish a dominating influence in Central America, but the terms of the treaty had been both obscure and unsatisfactory.' In favor of the document had been cast, among others, the votes of Webster, Clay, Seward, and Cass, who had all at one time or another shared in the work of the ' Treaties in Force, 1899, p. 234. 182 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS State Department.' The differences, therefore, had apparently beeu settled and to have the trouble break out afresh was alarming in a number of ways. In the Senate the general assumption had been that everything was disposed of by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, but when the question of British control of the islands off" Honduras came up, a new element was brought into the situation. In the course of the debate already referred to, Cass disclosed the fact that before the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had been accepted, the British representative had expressly limited his action, stating that the treaty had no application to Honduras and must not be so inter preted. The announcement was unfortunate be cause of the suggestion that everything had not been perfectly frank at the time of the ratification of the treaty. Cass said that in his opinion the Clayton-Bulwer agreement had included the Hon- duran question which now came up as an entirely fresh issue. In order to make the position of the United States clear, however, he offered a resolution designed to define the position of the United States in regard to South and Central America. This was practically a restatement of the Monroe Doctrine. Thus an opportunity was offered for a general de bate upon the question of the nation's foreign policy. Could Douglas's "American" system be developed in connection with the settlement of this dispute ? Here at least was an opportunity for a test. In a speech in the Senate he bitterly assailed the 'Rhodes, History, Vol. I, p. 201. " AMEEICAN " FOEEIGN POLICY 183 methods pursued by the administration. He at tacked Clayton with vigor for waiving certain priv ileges, which had been assured to the United States, in regard to a trans-Isthmian canal. Incidentally he struck at Cass aud alleged that the Monroe Doc trine was a mere farce, entitled to no respect, since we ourselves did not insist upon attention to its provisions. Of Nicaragua he said that " her appeal to the United States for mediation or protection against British aggression being unheeded — her let ters to our government remaining unanswered, thefr receipt not even acknowledged — her hopes of a closer relation to this Union blasted — the Monroe Doctrine abandoned — the Mosquito kingdom under the British protectorate rapidly absorbing her terri tory, she sinks in despair, and yields herself to the European partnership which was about to be estab lished over all Central America by the Clayton- Bulwer treaty." Douglas went ou to say that, at the time the treaty was ratified in the Senate, he had been dissatisfied with the clause relating to the British protectorate over the Mosquito Coast.' He now saw that he had been correct iu this position. The Monroe Doctrine was being grossly violated, and violated in such a way as to establish a general principle of partnership between the United States and Great Britain in regard to Central American affairs. This could not be endured, aud he himself ' Congressional Globe, 2d Sess., 32d Cong., p. 941. The salient features of the speech are given in Sheahan's Douglas, pp. 100-111. 184 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS proposed to stand firmly for the idea of a pure American system, since the whole plan of European colonization rested "upon seizure, violence and fraud." Partisan opponents might sneeriugly ap ply the term "young America" to the effort to up hold the past policy of the Eepublic, yet he would stand his ground. He went further ; for he again adverted to the Cuban question, asserting that, de spite the opposition of England or any other power, he should hold himself ready to favor the transfer of Cuba to the United States so soon as Spain should conclude that she could not longer maintain her control over the island. This argument had been presented on the 14th of February. The session would come to a close on the 4th of March following and Congress would re assemble on the same day. In the meanwhile Clay ton had been elected to the Senate aud the contro versy was immediately reopened. He seized the occasion to repay some of the compliments he had received from Douglas ou the 14th of February, and on the 8th or 9th of March he assailed ' ' the Little Giant," as he sneeringly denominated his critic, applying to him in opprobrium the epithet which his devoted followers had bestowed upon him iu token of affection. Cass, Mason and others also came in for their share of the rebuke. Douglas as well as his associates hastened to respond. In an address on the 10th of March ' he reviewed the re- ^ Congressional Globe, 2d Sess., 32d Cong., Appendix, p. 257, et seq. Also Sheahan, pp. 111-114. "AMEEICAN" FOEEIGN POLICY 185 cent history of the foreign policy of the United States, predicted its great future growth, and in flamboyant language attacked the course of those who would have crippled and fettered the nation in its struggle for expansion. It was here, perhaps, that Douglas most plainly aud boldly assumed the position of contemptuous defiance of European countries. In so doing, and iu mapping out his own particular line of foreign policy, he called down upou himself not only the -wrath of Clayton but also of some of his own party associates. These did not hesitate to charge him with unfairness, narrowness, aud partisauship. The charge was true and Doug las could not but feel that in taking his extreme position, he had overshot the mark. The debate did not help him particularly, and it may have beeu that some of the intimations of ignorance on his part concerning European conditions operated to create in his mind a feeling that he would do well to investigate these conditions at first-hand. Whether this was the real cause of his visit to Eu rope shortly after the adjournment of Congress, or whether he sought merely rest aud refreshment is not certain. It would appear, however, that he be lieved au observation of European conditions on the ground might enable him to speak with more au thority. He went rapidly through England and the continent, visiting Eussia aud various points in Turkey and Asia Minor. It seems hard to believe that this brief vacation could have wrought any real change in the mental character of the man, or 186 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS that it could have materially altered his view of public questions. Yet it is apparent that by the time of his return he had quite positively changed the direction of his thought. Perhaps the interval of refiection and absence from the scene of sharp combat had enabled him to look at things in a larger way. Perhaps it had only enabled him to realize more keenly that the foreign question after all could not of itself suffice to stir public feeling in the United States. The issue must be local ; it must be national ; it must be something that would serve to rouse factional and sectional interest, yet be handled in a way to bind together enough ele ments to insure the success of the cause. He re turned to the United States toward the close of 1853, ready to enter once more upon the campaign for the presidency, and this time with a new issue. CHAPTEE X THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE At the opening of 1854 there were, for the Demo cratic presidential nomination, at least four prin cipal candidates who had been disappointed in 1852 and whose ambition still remained to be satisfied. Marcy relied upon his record and upon his attitude with respect to Cuba. ' Buchanan had accepted the EngUsh mission, but, despite a letter withdraw ing from active politics, few regarded him as thoroughly sincere in this expression. General Cass was looking to the presidency as the repre sentative of the Northwest. Pierce, of course, like every other President, desired a second term. The question before Douglas, as iu 1852, was how, by manipulation within the party, to seize the prize and make off with it before the eyes of his four dis appointed competitors. As has already been noted, Douglas had made ma terial progress in consolidating his influence at the South, yet he lacked the hearty support of the Southern politicians. His flrst marriage, to a Southern woman, had not been taken as sufficient evidence of his complete allegiance to Southern ideals, especially as he had declined the legacy of slaves whose ownership might have passed to him. ' Rhodes, History of the United States, Vol. I, pp. 423-424. 188 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Douglas's manners and methods still failed to ac cord with the supposedly aristocratic predilections of Southern leaders, for he was enough of the Western type of politician to like to talk about the humbleness of his beginnings aud the fact that he had beeu a cabinet-maker while a youth. It was apparently indispensable to Douglas that he should overcome the lurking sentiment of distrust which Southerners entertained in regard to him, and should convince them that only by supporting him could they gain a representative who would com mand Northern and Western votes and would at the same time be sufficiently friendly toward the main tenance of slavery in those parts of the country where it already existed. One hundred and seven teen electoral votes' would be accredited to the South in the next national Democratic convention. It was a fair Inference, from existing conditions, that no Southerner could get the nomination and Douglas, therefore, regarded himself as essentially the man of the hour. There still remained the need for some issue upon which he could demoustrate conclusively his pro -Southern sympathies, his power to control a substantial following, and his ability to manipulate and mold men to his pleasure. The attempt to develop a characteristic foreign policy had not succeeded, but as chairman of the Committee on Territories Douglas and his friends believed that he could create a situation which he could use to his own advantage. With a dominat- ' Rhodes, History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 425. THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA STEUGGLE 189 ing power in his own committee and with an inti mate acquaintance with territorial questions, it might be possible to make what would probably be a master-stroke for the presidency. The territory of Nebraska had been seeking or ganization and a measure providing for the crea tion of the territory, which had passed the House in the session of 1852-1853, had failed to receive action in the Senate. An identical measure was intro duced early in December, 1853, aud was of course sent to Douglas's committee where it was pending at the opening of the foUowing January. The question now was what to do with the bill. Imme diately after the holiday recess on January 4, 1854, Douglas reported it. In his report, he reviewed the compromise measures of 1850, asserting three fundamental propositions which he said inhered in them. Manuscript letter quoted by Johnson, Life, p. 258. 206 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS in the minds of all his opponents, and to a much larger degree than heretofore in the view of his friends. Ehodes' describes the Kansas-Nebraska Act as "the most momentous measure that passed Congress from the day that the senators aud repre sentatives first met to the outbreak of the Civil War." The law, he thinks, "sealed the doom of the Whig party ; it caused the formation of the Eepublican party on the principle of no exteusion of slavery ; it roused Lincoln and gave a bent to his great political ambition ; it made the Fugitive Slave Law a dead letter at the North ; it caused the Germans to become Eepublicans ; it lost the Demo crats their hold on New England ; it made the Northwest Eepublican ; it led to the downfall of the Democratic party." The historian might add that it also rendered Douglas permanently impos sible as a presidential aspirant ; placed him in an anomalous position as a pro-slavery leader, in de fiance of the sentiment of his own state ; allied him almost until his death with a losing cause ; and committed him to the advocacy of principles which he was obliged later practically to repudiate. The passage of the bill had been almost solely due to Douglas. He alone had had the daring to attempt its adoption in the face of the wishes of the country ; only he possessed the skill in political manipula tion that made it possible to unite the warring fac tions in Congress and to throw the administration solidly behind the measure. It was his personal ^History, Vol. I, p. 490. THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA STEUGGLE 207 achievement ; aud, as he afterward admitted, he possessed practically the power of a "dictator" during the period of its discussion. This the country could not but recognize and this inevitably deter mined Douglas's status as a politician during his later life and subsequently his place in history. "It is interesting to reflect," says one of his per sonal friends,' "upon what might and upon what might not have been, but for the repeal of the Mis souri Compromise. Had that Compromise not beeu repealed, it is probable that the Democratic party would have gone ou iu control of the government as it had done so long. In 1856, at farthest iu 1 860, Stephen A. Douglas would have become President. The old Whig party would still have dragged its lazy length along. Ulysses S. Grant would have continued to weigh raw hides on the back alley of a leather store at Galena, aud Abraham Lincoln would have continued to ride the circuit and tell stories in central Illinois. There would have been no Eepub lican party, no secession, and no war." ' Carr, Douglas, pp. 56-57. CHAPTEE XI SHIFTING PARTY LINES It was now plain to all that a rearrangement of party lines was about to occur, and that the issues which had beeu raised iu the course of the Kansas- Nebraska discussion would be the subject of a far greater struggle than any Douglas had anticipated when he decided to reopen the slavery dispute. Short-sighted as he was with reference to large national questions, because of his habitual tendency to underestimate the strength of idealistic in fluences in human nature, no one ever thought him else than the keenest of analysts of contemporary conditions. He saw that a realignment of voters was imminent ; and, simultaneously, he understood that his own position was seriously threatened. The bitterness of his reception in Chicago, the intolerable transition from an atmosphere of political adulation to one of contempt and hatred at once roused iu Douglas not only his combative instincts but also a poignant sense of the change in his own immediate political situation. He determined to engage the enemy at once, and to solidify without delay so far as possible the broken ranks of his party. To this end he immediately started upou a speaking tour extending over almost the whole of northern and central IlUnois. SHIFTING PAETY LINES 209 What Douglas learned on this tour was most dis couraging to him. At least two important polit ical forces were now coming prominently forward. These were the Abolitionists and the so-called Na tive Americans. The Abolitionists were the product of a trend of thought which Douglas could well un derstand and estimate. The Native Americans or "Know-Nothings" were a factor in the situation much harder to weigh. Both groups were united iu thefr opposition to Douglas and to all that he rep resented. The Whigs of course remained a more or less compact body. They would gladly have united with the other two groups, but it was doubt ful whether the latter would be willing to merge themselves in the older party. Now for the first time did it appear as if state contentions were to become a direct and important element iu national affairs. Here locally was mirrored a movement which later took place upon the larger stage of Federal politics. The Native American or Know-Nothing party was nominally based upon a desire to restrict foreign immigration and to prevent the domination of aliens (now coming to the United States in large numbers) over men of American birth. As Ehodes conserva tively expresses it,' " ignorant foreign suffrage had grown to be an evil of immense proportions;" there was, therefore, substantial basis for the general ideas for which the Native Americans stood. But with an element of justice, there had come to be mingled a large element of religious prejudice and ' Rhodes, Vol. II, p. 52. 210 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS an unreasonable hostility to conditions which were either likely to correct themselves, or were not responsible for the problems which the Native Americans wished to solve. The Know-Nothing party had early committed itself to a ciusade against the Eoman Catholic Church as the source of most of what was thought to be evil iu national affairs, al though statistics showed that the Catholics, what ever else might be said of them, were not then set tled iu America in sufficient numbers to exercise political control. Because of this element of re ligious antagonism, a kind of secret character was given to the Know-Nothing party and branches with absurd machinery were created iu each state. Ob jectionable methods flourished under such a type of organization and Douglas had perhaps rightly divined that the demonstration against him in Chicago, — flags at half-mast, the tolling of bells, aud the uproarious manifestations during the meeting, — had been the work of Know-Nothing emissaries. The Abolitionists, while not secret in their meth ods, were as wild in their utterances as were the Native Americans. Garrison had already (early in 1854) burned the Constitution of the United States iu public at Framingham, Mass.' Disturbances of a similar kind had taken place elsewhere and extreme violence had been displayed on all sides by the anti- slavery men. The fact that many of them had joined the Know- Nothings, combined with the similarity of the methods employed by the two ' Life of Garrison, Vol. Ill, p. 412. SHIFTING PAETY LINES 211 bodies, had given Douglas some warrant for declar ing on July 4, 1854, that the Know-Nothing move ment was nothing more than Abolitionism in an altered form. In this judgment he was probably mistaken — to the extent at least that though anti- slavery ideas were of considerable weight with the Know-Nothing group, it was not the latter's desire to lay special stress upon them for the moment, while to the Abolitionists the question of ending the existing system of slavery was of overwhelming importance, dwarfing everything else. However theories might differ with reference to the composi tion and relationship of these various groups, it was perfectly plain to all that the formation of a new party, gaining the support of the various scattered and isolated groups, and uniting local disaffected elements for a strong stand against the further ex tension of slavery was not only possible but almost unavoidable. "Eepublican" had already been suggested as the name of the new party,' and at a gathering at Jackson, Mich., on July 6, 1854, a declaration of principles had been adopted. Most of these "principles" had a bearing upon slavery in some way as was shown in the ticket which was put into the field by the Michigan convention. Five candidates were Whigs, two were Democrats who had opposed the Nebraska bill, and three were anti- slavery men. The future of this new party was still obscure but apparently promising. Its prospect of success lay iu continuing to emphasize the one sub- ' Stanwood, History of the Presidency, p. 260. 212 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS ject which constituted a bond of union between the opposition groups, and in bringing home to the people the necessity of presenting a united front if they wished to defeat the Democratic organization. The fate of the Eepublican party was, however, still quite unknown, and there was yet no certainty that it could become national in its scope. The elections in the autumn of 1854, while mainly adverse to the Kansas- Nebraska legislation, w^ere various in their meaning ; they differed a good deal from state to state by reason of local conditions aud piejudices. This was the general situation ; Illinois formed no exception to the rule. Douglas's early experiences in the northern counties speedily convinced him that his party organization would gain success, if at all, only by the most strenuous efforts. In several congressional districts he found the Democratic candidates very hard pressed, and although a much more friendly reception greeted him in central Illinois, it lacked the spontaneity to which he had become accustomed. Douglas was especially disturbed by the activity of his future senatorial colleague, Trumbull, and of Abraham Lincoln. Although for five years he had led a life apart from politics because current prob lems had largely ceased to interest him, Lincoln had been recalled to the struggle through his feeling that now an issue like to none with which he had previ ously dealt was at hand demanding a settlement.' Douglas crossed his path during the campaign and ' Oberholtzer, Abraham Lincoln, p. 85. SHIFTING PAETY LINES 213 near its end, on October 3, 1854, they met at Spring field for dfrect personal combat. The debate which ensued was the first real opportunity given to the two men for measuring each other's strength. The issue was plainly drawn between them ou the slavery question. Douglas spoke in the State House and on the following day Lincoln answered him at the same place. On the same evening, Douglas appeared in rebuttal, protracting the ses sion of the day to almost six hours. The text of the speeches is lacking, but the testimony of con temporaries is to the effect that Lincoln showed re markable familiarity with the history of the slavery question. He attacked Douglas's position by pre senting a review of the steps by which the existing situation had been brought about. Lincoln had busied himself during the summer in analyzing the Nebraska law. He was well able to find the weak places in his opponent's armor. Somewhat net tled by Lincoln's evident m-astery of the subject, and his own consciousness of the nature of the de vices by which the bill had been passed, Douglas failed to make a good showing in his rejoinder.' He was worn by months of speaking, in an exciting campaign, and by the apparent fact that he was steadily losing ground. The inconclusive character of the result at Springfield led to another passage at arms at Peoria two weeks later. Douglas opened ' This is generally conceded by biographers both of Lincoln and Douglas. Cf. Oberholtzer, Lincoln, p. 88, and Johnson, Douglas, p. 266. 214 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS the discussion iu a three-hour speech, and, after an intermission for supper, Lincoln answered, also oc cupying three hours. In later years, Lincoln spoke of this address as the ablest he had ever made, while Douglas but Uttle improved on the presenta tion of the subject which he had offered at Spring field. Lincoln, in fact, with his usual insight, now foresaw the probability of a renewal of the battle with Douglas and with the forces which he repre sented, and was already preparing himself for such a contest. Douglas was still somewhat contemp tuous of an opponent whose ability and popular support he did not fully realize, though he clearly detected a new kind of opposition, since Lincoln did not merely ring the changes upon slavery and its cruelties, but devoted himself to a cold, cutting legal analysis of the basis for slavery and of the ac tion taken in violating the Missouri Compromise. Douglas also found himself bereft of one of his prin cipal weapons, because Lincoln left open few points against which he could aim his shafts of denuncia tion of Abolitionism. The unsuccessful struggles with Lincoln at Springfield and Peoria, both times in the presence of immense audiences, undoubtedly had much to do with his partial failure at the autumn elections. Opponents of the Nebraska legislation secured five out of nine members of Con gress, their total majority in the state on the con gressional ticket being over 17,000. They were in control of the legislature, which assured the election of Lyman Trumbull, who had cooperated with Lin- SHIFTING PAETY LINES 215 coin in cutting the ground from under Douglas's feet, as Douglas's colleague iu the Senate ; and they had -with them the evident sympathy of the people at large. In but one quarter did Douglas's con tinuous aud almost unprecedented efforts result fa vorably. The Democrats succeeded iu electing the state treasurer and some other state officers. Moreover, the Illinois situation was but one element in a national situation. Iowa had per manently abandoned the Democratic party by electing as governor James W. Grimes, a bitter opponent of the Nebraska legislation. Maine and Vermont sent large anti-Nebraska delegations to Congress, the issue being mainly that of slavery. Iu Pennsylvania, the Whigs and the anti-slavery Democrats chose a governor through the assistance of the Know-Nothing party aud sent au over whelmingly large anti-Nebraska delegation to Congress. An even more striking outcome was that iu Ohio, and elsewhere the results were similar. There could be no doubt that Douglas had wholly failed iu his effort to create a winning issue. He had been the unmistakable cause of forcing upou his party the principle which had resulted in its downfall in a great territory where formerly it had beeu iu supreme control. The efforts of Douglas to make it appear that the victory of his opponents was due largely to their junction with the some what questionable Know-Nothing party were of little significance, and were thrown into an almost absurd light by the fact that the next House of 216 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Eepresentatives would show a majority of seventy- five votes against the Democrats. The situation and the evident responsibility of Douglas for it, were forces tending strongly to weaken his control of the party, aud at times during the succeeding short session of Congress it seemed that he might lose much or all of the immense personal prestige which he had earlier enjoyed in Washington. From the point of view of Douglas's personal for tunes, probably the most important result which grew out of his unfortunate advocacy of the Ne braska bill, was the fact that at last he appeared to be fully committed to the cause of slavery. If there had been any doubt iu the popular mind on this question prior to the election of 1854, foes now left nothing undone whereby they could identify him with the Southern pro-slavery party. Just as he had sought to attach the then odious epithet of Abolitionist to every one who attempted to stand in his way iu politics, so opponents now sought to make it appear not only that he was united with the slavery party in sympathy, but also that his personal interests had guided him toward the support of an institution from which he might de rive personal profit. There was probably little basis for such charges, because, as we have else where seen,' Douglas had refrained from becoming a slaveholder and was far too astute a politician to leave open so manifest an avenue of attack. Yet it was true that the logic of events drove him more ' See p. 88, et seq. SHIFTING PAETY LINES 217 and more to the side of slavery. His new coUeague iu the Senate was an anti -slavery man whom he heartily despised. Trumbull had been supported by the Abolitionists aud the Know-Nothings. Douglas found himself confronted by groups of opponents who were united by the single fact of hostility to slavery. He himself had formed family associations with slave-owners, was on friendly terms with the slavery party iu Congress, and, though he knew it to be a weakness among his own constituents, his own type of mind inclined him more and more to the acceptance of the general philosophy by which the slavery advocates were dominated. More and more he had allowed his early Democratic priuciples to slip into the back ground ; more and more he had become involved in the attempt to justify distinct party measures rather than to expound clear party priuciples. Perhaps the bitterest element, to Douglas, in a bitter situation was the fact that to him, more than to any other man iu public life, must now be ascribed the responsibility for the development whereby a new party of protest, embodying all of the opposi tion elements and bearing the objectionable name "Eepublican," had been founded. The name had been more and more generally recognized through out the latter half of 1854 aud the early part of 1855, as the most available designation for the new party. It was recognized that party organization and the acceptance of popular issues were necessary in order to maintain the start which had beeu so auspiciously 218 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS made through Douglas's overplaying his hand in 1854. Almost at once, clever leaders set to work to bring about a higher state of discipline than had yet been possible. Iu this, they were con siderably aided by circumstances. The Know- Nothing party, pleased with the showing made iu the fall of 1854, held toward the end of the year at Cincinnati' a national council, but the very growth of the group called down upon it opposition from some who had begun to fear its special and peculiar proclivities. One or two unfavorable elections early in 1855 preceded another meeting of the Council at Philadelphia. There the slavery question was bitterly discussed, the debate result ing in a breach between the Northern and Southern wings of the organization. This tended to drive the Northern section into the ranks of the Ee publicans. Anti-slavery men of the more reason able type also began to give their allegiance to the Ee publican party as the most available means of push ing forward their ideas, even though the progress made by the party along their lines was not sufficiently rapid to please them. Beside this tend ency it was now notable that the Whig party was losing ground, and that its branches were gradually dying and falling off. Lines of cleavage between the Eepublican party and the extreme Abolition group on the one hand, and the reactionary ele ments among the Whigs aud Know-Nothings on the other, were daily growing more and more evi- Ehodes, History, Vol. II, p. 87 B. SHIFTING PAETY LINES 219 dent, while Northern Democrats were, in mauy instances, recognizing the Eepublican party, for the time being at least, as the party of progress and the only body to which they could look for the presentation of their ideas in moderate form, in opposition to the compact slavery interest. It was under such conditions that the presidential nominating conventions rapidly approached. Douglas had been slow to accept the designation of Eepublican for the new party. He attacked it bitterly on the floor,' noting that the party was tending to drop the word "national " ; he suggested the substitution of the word "black" on the ground that it substantially represented the idea of negro equality aud of Abolition. But long before the nominating conventions met, Douglas had come to understand his mistake and to recognize the new party as a genuine political factor with which he must reckon. This he was at last ready to do. In fact, it seemed to many that despite his apparent failure to see his blunder in connection with the Nebraska Act, he must continue his leadership. He who had brought the party to its present diffi cult straits could best extricate it. He had origi nally embarked upou the experiment of the Nebraska Act through a desire for a presidential issue. He was not now minded to forego his pur pose. He looked eagerly, therefore, to the national convention which was to meet on June 2, 1856, hoping that it would vindicate him by giving him ^ Globe, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 390, etseq. 220 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS the nomination for the presidency. The outcome was a severe disappointment. At the outset, sup port was considerably divided. Buchanan had 135 votes. Pierce 122, Douglas thirty-three, and Cass five. Douglas's maximum strength was exhibited on the fifteenth ballot when he received 118 votes against Buchanan's 168. Douglas had, however, taken most of the Southern votes of his rivals and it was plain to all of his supporters that he had done his utmost. The party stood waiting for the rivals to sink personal prejudice and personal interest, and this Douglas reluctantly concluded to do after the sixteenth ballot. At that time a dis patch from him announced his withdrawal, and l^ractically transferred his votes to Buchanan, ac tion which was now unavoidable and was the less gracefully taken on that account.' An analysis of the balloting in the convention seems to indicate a recognition on the part of the delegates that under the lead of Douglas they had goue much too far along the lines laid down by the slavery party. The party as a whole not only turned from Douglas's personality, at length so thoroughly and so unfortunately identified with extreme slavery views, but it selected one who had already pledged himself to moderation if not almost to opposition to Douglas. Buchanan had under taken to see that Kansas was fairly treated, while some believed that he looked forward to the admis- 'Rhodes, History, Vol. II, p. 171, etseq. bmA Stanwood, His tory of Presidential Elections, pp. 199-200. SHIFTING PAETY LINES 221 sion of the territory as a free state. He had the favor of New England Democrats aud was not un favorably regarded by some of the aristocratic ele ment in the South. On his first ballot in the nominating convention he had received the votes of all the delegates from Virginia and Louisiana. He was more available thau Douglas because he had made fewer enemies ; but more significant than this was the fact that he also represented the con servative element which had been antagonized by the Nebraska Act and which believed that Douglas had injured the position of the party. It was doubtless even more displeasing to Doug las to realize that while the party turned away from him iu its convention, it laid down a platform which was intended to satisfy the Southern element, and to avoid the charge that the party had deserted the priuciples to which its foremost leaders had been committed during the Nebraska contest. This action, of course, still left Douglas a possible candi date for the future, since it approved the position he had taken and to that extent it was gratifying. Buchanan, in fact, iu his speech of acceptance, en dorsed the platform and expressed sentiments which were satisfactory to the Southern delegates who had voted for him. He asserted that the slavery question was "paramount" and he be lieved that the Kansas- Nebraska Act had furnished a necessary supplement to the Compromise of 1850. This view, formally expressed, was further ex tended in private conversation, and thus Douglas 222 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS had at least the satisfaction of seeing the party recognize the principle which he had sought to make dominant and continue to advocate the policy which he more thau any one else had sought to de velop and to render coherent. Douglas himself was thus left with practically nothing to say. Al though unused to defeat, he had always been the most outspoken advocate of those views which place party regularity before everything else. It was not possible for him, then, to utter a word against a convention which had sinned only in refusing to accept his personality. Moreover, his future was now bound up with that of the party. He pledged himself unequivocally to Buchanan and was apparently content with retaining his position as the foremost Democratic leader, notwithstand ing that the party was now nominally headed by another. The action of the Eepublicans in their national convention at Philadelphia in nominating Fremont and denouncing "polygamy and slavery" was not happy, while Fillmore, nominated some time pre viously as a Native American, and endorsed by other minor groups, tended to draw off" the support which should have goue to Fremont. In this way the election of Buchanan was made unavoidable. After the Eepublican convention had separated, it was safe to guess that the Democrats would remain in control of the government, notwithstanding the enthusiasm and excitement which marked the cam paign of the new party. Buchanan was declared SHIFTING PAETY LINES 223 elected by 174 electoral votes, while Fremont received 114 and Fillmore but eight. Buchanan's popular vote was 1,838,169 aud that of Fremont 1,341,264, while FUlmore had 874,534.' Thus it was true that the Democracy remained by far the largest political group iu the community though a junction of all the opposing elements would have defeated it. To prevent such a junction was plainly the problem of the party leaders, and it was with this problem dis tinctly in mind that Douglas entered upou a new period of his political life. Though it had been clear that the Eepublicans were not yet in a posi tion to win the presidency, it was also clear that a continuance of existing conditions would render the continuance of the Democrats in power out of the question. This made it necessary to see how far the Democratic party, now so largely dominated by the pro-slavery element, could maintain itself in national politics upon that basis, and whether the party, if it should attempt to modify its position, could do so without aUenating from it the Southern element which was identified with a strong pro- slavery policy at Washington. Now for the first time, perhaps, was it clear to Douglas that the slavery question must be dealt with definitely iu the near future, and that upon this question hung not only all his personal chances of advancement but also all the prospects of his party as a national force. Slavery prior to the manifestation of Eepub- ' Rhodes, History, Vol. II, p. 235 and Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, p. 210. 224 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS lican strength had not been identical with Demo cratic party existence. The need of concession to the Northern Democrats, dissatisfied as they were with the inroads of the slavery element in Cougress, had been abundantly established by the outcome at the poUs, since it was plain that the loss of the Northern men whose following had been secured by the selection of Buchanan might have led to defeat. To the old-line leaders of the Democratic party, this situation gave much ground for anxiety, and Douglas himself, confronted with the hostility of his own state ou the slavery question, undoubtedly felt that he must guide his steps with great care unless he were willing to be isolated politically, perhaps to be retired from the Senate, and there with to lose his chances of the presidential suc cession. A retrograde movement, or at all events a refusal to advance further along the extreme line of attack, into which he had been led by his advo cacy of the Nebraska law, was becoming almost imperative. CHAPTEE XII THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS The unfriendly reception accorded to Douglas upon his return to his adopted state, and the re verses which both his party and he personally had met with in the course of the fall campaign had beeu merely the forerunners of a difficult experience in Congress.