We are assured by his devoted biographer, Sheahan, that Douglas personally examined all the public institutions of the capital during his two weeks' stay in St. Petersburg; and that he sought a thorough knowledge of the manners, laws, and government of that city and the Empire.[412] No doubt, with his nimble perception he saw much in this brief sojourn, for Russia had always interested him greatly, and he had read its history with more than wonted care.[413] He was not content to follow merely the beaten track in central and western Europe; but he visited also the Southeast where rumors of war were abroad. From St. Petersburg, he passed by carriage through the interior to the Crimea and to Sebastopol, soon to be the storm centre of war. In the marts of Syria and Asia Minor, he witnessed the contact of Orient and Occident. In the Balkan peninsula he caught fugitive glimpses of the rule of the unspeakable Turk.[414]

No man with the quick apperceptive powers of Douglas could remain wholly untouched by the sights and sounds that crowd upon even the careless traveler in the East; yet such experiences are not formative in the character of a man of forty. Douglas was still Douglas, still American, still Western to the core, when he set foot on native soil in late October. He was not a larger man either morally or intellectually; but he had acquired a fund of information which made him a readier, and possibly a wiser, man. And then, too, he was refreshed in body and mind. More than ever he was bold, alert, persistent, and resourceful. In his compact, massive frame, were stored indomitable pluck and energy; and in his heart the spirit of ambition stirred mightily.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

[Footnote 372: Globe,31 Cong., 2 Sess., Debate of February 21 and 22, 1851.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 383: Globe,32 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 70-71.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 394: Richmond Enquirer, quoted in Illinois Register, August 3, 1852.]

[Footnote 395: Illinois State Register, December 23, 1852.]

[Footnote 396: Washington Union, November 30, 1852. On a joint ballot of the legislature Douglas received 75 out of 95 votes. See Illinois State Register, January 5, 1853.]

[Footnote 397: Illinois State Register, December 23, 1852.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 404: Ibid., p. 262.]

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

[Footnote 406: Ibid., p. 262.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 414: Washington Union, and Illinois State Register, May 26 and November 6, 1853.]



CHAPTER XI

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT

With the occupation of Oregon and of the gold fields of California, American colonization lost temporarily its conservative character. That heel-and-toe process, which had hitherto marked the occupation of the Mississippi Valley, seemed too slow and tame; the pace had lengthened and quickened. Consequently there was a great waste—No-man's-land—between the western boundary of Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas, and the scattered communities on the Pacific slope. It was a waste broken only by the presence of the Mormons in Utah, of nomadic tribes of Indians on the plains, and of tribes of more settled habits on the eastern border. In many cases these lands had been given to Indian tribes in perpetuity, to compensate for the loss of their original habitat in some of the Eastern States. With strange lack of foresight, the national government had erected a barrier to its own development.

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

The last of these was unique. Its provisions were designed, no doubt, to meet the unusual conditions presented by the overland emigration to California. Military protection for the emigrant, a telegraph line, and an overland mail were among the ostensible objects. The military force was to be a volunteer corps, which would construct military posts and at the same time provide for its own maintenance by tilling the soil. At the end of three years these military farmers were each to receive 640 acres along the route, and thus form a sort of military colony.[419] Douglas pressed the measure with great warmth; but Southerners doubted the advisability of "encouraging new swarms to leave the old hives," not wishing to foster an expansion in which they could not share,[420] nor forgetting that this was free soil by the terms of the Missouri Compromise. All sorts of objections were trumped up to discredit the bill. Douglas was visibly irritated. "Sir," he exclaimed, "it looks to me as if the design was to deprive us of everything like protection in that vast region ... I must remind the Senate again that the pointing out of these objections, and the suggesting of these large expenditures show us that we are to expect no protection at all; they evince direct, open hostility to that section of the country."[421]

It was the fate of the Nebraska country to be bound up more or less intimately with the agitation in favor of a Pacific railroad. All sorts of projects were in the air. Asa Whitney had advocated, in season and out, a railroad from Lake Michigan to some available harbor on the Pacific. Douglas and his Chicago friends were naturally interested in this enterprise. Benton, on the other hand, jealous for the interests of St. Louis, advocated a "National Central Highway" from that city to San Francisco, with branches to other points. The South looked forward to a Pacific railroad which should follow a southern route.[422] A northern or central route would inevitably open a pathway through the Indian country and force on the settlement and organization of the territory;[423] the choice of a southern route would in all likelihood retard the development of Nebraska.

While Congress was shirking its duty toward Nebraska, the Wyandot Indians, a civilized tribe occupying lands in the fork of the Kansas and Missouri rivers, repeatedly memorialized Congress to grant them a territorial government.[424] Dogged perseverance may be an Indian characteristic, but there is reason to believe that outside influences were working upon them. Across the border, in Missouri, they had a staunch friend in ex-Senator Benton, who had reasons of his own for furthering their petitions. In 1850, the opposition, which had been steadily making headway against him, succeeded in deposing the old parliamentarian and electing a Whig as his successor in the Senate. The coup d'etat was effected largely through the efforts of an aggressive pro-slavery faction led by Senator David E. Atchison.[425] It was while his fortunes were waning in Missouri, that Benton interested himself in the Central Highway and in the Wyandots. His project, indeed, contemplated grants of land along the route, when the Indian title should be extinguished.[426] Possibly it was Benton's purpose to regain his footing in Missouri politics by advocating this popular measure; possibly, as his opponents hinted, he looked forward to residing in the new Territory and some day becoming its first senator; at all events, he came to look upon the territorial organization of Nebraska as an integral part of his larger railroad project.

In this wise, Missouri factional quarrels, Indian titles, railroads, territorial government for Nebraska, and land grants had become hopelessly tangled, when another bill for the organization of Nebraska came before Congress in February, 1853.[427] The measure was presented by Willard P. Hall, a representative from Missouri, belonging to the Benton faction. His advocacy of the bill in the House throws a flood of light on the motives actuating both friends and opponents. Representatives from Texas evinced a poignant concern for the rights of the poor Indian. Had he not been given these lands as a permanent home, after being driven from the hunting ground of his fathers? To be sure, there was a saving clause in the bill which promised to respect Indian claims, but zeal for the Indian still burned hotly in the breasts of these Texans. Finally, Hall retorted that Texas had for years been trying to drive the wild tribes from her borders, so as to make the northern routes unsafe and thus to force the tide of emigration through Texas.[428] "Why, everybody is talking about a railroad to the Pacific. In the name of God, how is the railroad to be made, if you will never let people live on the lands through which the road passes?"[429]

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

It was most significant that, while a bill to organize the Territory of Washington passed at once to a third reading in the Senate, the Nebraska bill hung fire. Douglas made repeated efforts to gain consideration for it; but the opposition seems to have been motived here as it was in the House.[431] On the last day of the session, the Senate entered upon an irregular, desultory debate, without a quorum. Douglas took an unwilling part. He repeated that the measure was "very dear to his heart," that it involved "a matter of immense importance," that the object in view was "to form a line of territorial governments extending from the Mississippi valley to the Pacific ocean." The very existence of the Union seemed to him to depend upon this policy. For eight years he had advocated the organization of Nebraska; he trusted that the favorable moment had come.[432] But his trust was misplaced. The Senate refused to consider the bill, the South voting almost solidly against it, though Atchison, who had opposed the bill in the earlier part of the session, announced his conversion,—for the reason that he saw no prospect of a repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The Territory might as well be organized now as ten years later.[433]

Disappointed by the inaction of Congress, the Wyandots took matters into their own hands, and set up a provisional government.[434] Then ensued a contest between the Missouri factions to name the territorial delegate,—who was to present the claims of the new government to the authorities at Washington. On November 7, 1853, Thomas Johnson, the nominee of the Atchison faction, was elected.[435] In the meantime Senator Atchison had again changed his mind: he was now opposed to the organization of Nebraska, unless the Missouri Compromise were repealed.[436] The motives which prompted this recantation can only be surmised. Presumably, for some reason, Atchison no longer believed the Missouri Compromise "irremediable."

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

Under these circumstances, the question of Nebraska seemed likely to recur. Certain Southern newspapers were openly demanding the removal of the slavery restriction in the new Territory.[438] Yet the chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, who had just returned from Europe, seems to have been unaware of the undercurrents whose surface indications have been pointed out. He wrote confidentially on November 11th:[439] "It [the administration] has difficulties ahead, but it must meet them boldly and fairly. There is a surplus revenue which must be disposed of and the tariff reduced to a legitimate revenue standard. It will not do to allow the surplus to accumulate in the Treasury and thus create a pecuniary revulsion that would overwhelm the business arrangements and financial affairs of the country. The River and Harbor question must be met and decided. Now in my opinion is the time to put those great interests on a more substantial and secure basis by a well devised system of Tonnage duties. I do not know what the administration will do on this question, but I hope they will have the courage to do what we all feel to be right. The Pacific railroad will also be a disturbing element. It will never do to commence making railroads by the federal government under any pretext of necessity. We can grant alternate sections of land as we did for the Central Road, but not a dollar from the National Treasury. These are the main questions and my opinions are foreshadowed as you are entitled to know them."

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

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

Those better informed, however, believed that Congress would have to deal with the territorial question in the near future. The Washington Union, commonly regarded as the organ of the administration, predicted that next to pressing foreign affairs, the Pacific railroad and the Territories would occupy the attention of the administration.[440] And before Congress assembled, or had been long in session, the chairman of the Committee on Territories must have sensed the situation, for on December 14, 1853, Senator Dodge of Iowa introduced a bill for the organization of Nebraska, which was identical with that of the last session.[441] The bill was promptly referred to the Committee on Territories, and the Nebraska question entered upon its last phase. Within a week, Douglas's friends of the Illinois State Register were sufficiently well informed of the thoughts and intents of his mind to hazard this conjecture: "We believe they [the people of Nebraska] may be safely left to act for themselves.... The territories should be admitted to exercise, as nearly as practicable, all the rights claimed by the States, and to adopt all such political regulations and institutions as their wisdom may suggest."[442] A New York correspondent announced on December 30th, that the committee would soon report a bill for three Territories on the basis of New Mexico and Utah; that is, without excluding or admitting slavery. "Climate and nature and the necessary pursuits of the people who are to occupy the territories," added the writer complacently, "will settle the question—and these will effectually exclude slavery."[443]

These rumors foreshadowed the report of the committee. The problem was to find a mode of overcoming the opposition of the South to the organization of a Territory which would not only add eventually to the number of free States, but also open up a northern route to the Pacific. The price of concession from the South on the latter point must be some apparent concession to the South in the matter of slavery. The report of January 4, 1854, and the bill which accompanied it, was Douglas's solution of the problem.[444] The principles of the compromise measures of 1850 were to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the new Territory of Nebraska. "In the judgment of your committee," read the report, "those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles ... your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures. If any other consideration were necessary, to render the propriety of this course imperative upon the committee, they may be found in the fact that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position to the slavery question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those Territories were organized."[445]

Just as it was a disputed point, the report argued, whether slavery was prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico, so it is questioned whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment. "In the opinion of those eminent statesmen, who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void; while the prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter upon the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850." And just as Congress deemed it wise in 1850 to refrain from deciding the matter in controversy, so "your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion either by affirming or repealing the 8th section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." The essential features of the Compromise of 1850, which should again be carried into practical operation, were stated as follows:

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

"Second: That 'all cases involving title to slaves,' and 'questions of personal freedom,' are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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

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

This additional section transformed the whole bill. For the first time the people of the Territory are mentioned as the determining agents in respect to slavery. And the unavoidable inference followed, that they were not to be hampered in their choice by the restrictive feature of the Missouri Act of 1820. The omission of this weighty section was certainly a most extraordinary oversight. Whose was the "clerical error"? Attached to the original draft, now in the custody of the Secretary of the Senate, is a sheet of blue paper, in Douglas's handwriting, containing the crucial article. All evidence points to the conclusion that Douglas added this hastily, after the bill had been twice read in the Senate and ordered to be printed; but whether it was carelessly omitted by the copyist or appended by Douglas as an afterthought, it is impossible to say.[447] After his report of January 4th, there was surely no reason why Douglas should have hesitated to incorporate the three propositions in the bill; but it is perfectly obvious that with the appended section, the Nebraska bill differed essentially from its prototypes, though Douglas contended that he had only made explicit what was contained implicitly in the Utah bill.

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

It has commonly been assumed that Douglas desired the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in order to open Nebraska to slavery. This was the passionate accusation of his anti-slavery contemporaries; and it has become the verdict of most historians. Yet there is ample evidence that Douglas had no such wish and intent. He had said in 1850, and on other occasions, that he believed the prairies to be dedicated to freedom by a law above human power to repeal. Climate, topography, the conditions of slave labor, which no Northern man knew better, forbade slavery in the unoccupied areas of the West.[449] True, he had no such horror of slavery extension as many Northern men manifested; he was probably not averse to sacrificing some of the region dedicated by law to freedom, if thereby he could carry out his cherished project of developing the greater Northwest; but that he deliberately planned to plant slavery in all that region, is contradicted by the incontrovertible fact that he believed the area of slavery to be circumscribed definitely by Nature. Man might propose but physical geography would dispose.

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

By this time Douglas must have been aware of the covert purpose of Atchison and others to secure the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, though he hoped that they would acquiesce in his mode of doing it. He was evidently not prepared for the bold move which certain of the senators from slave States were contemplating.[451] He was therefore startled by an amendment which Dixon of Kentucky offered on January 16th, to the effect that the restrictive clause of the Act of 1820 should not be so construed as to apply to Nebraska or any other Territory; "but that the citizens of the several States or territories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the territories of the United States or of the States to be formed therefrom," as if the Missouri Act had never been passed. Douglas at once left his seat to remonstrate with Dixon, who was on the Whig side of the Senate chamber. He disliked the amendment, not so much because it wiped out the Missouri Compromise as because it seemed "affirmatively to legislate slavery into the Territory."[452] Knowing Dixon to be a supporter of the compromise measures of 1850, Douglas begged him not to thwart the work of his committee, which was trying in good faith to apply the cardinal features of those measures to Nebraska. The latter part of Dixon's amendment could hardly be harmonized with the principle of congressional non-intervention.[453]

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

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

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

It has been commonly believed that Douglas contemplated making one free and one slave State out of the Nebraska region. His own simple explanation is far more credible: the two Johnsons had petitioned for a division of the Territory along the fortieth parallel, and both the Iowa and Missouri delegations believed that their local interests would be better served by two Territories.[460]

Again Pacific railroad interests seem to have crossed the path of the Nebraska bill. The suspicions of Delegate-elect Hadley Johnson had been aroused by the neglect of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to extinguish the claims of the Omaha Indians, whose lands lay directly west of Iowa. At the last session, an appropriation had been made for the purpose of extinguishing the Indian title to lands west of both Missouri and Iowa; and everyone knew that this was a preliminary step to settlement by whites. The appropriation had been zealously advocated by representatives from Missouri, who frankly admitted that the possession of these lands would make the Pacific railroad route available. Now as the Indian Commissioner, who had before shown himself an active partisan of Senator Atchison, rapidly pushed on the treaties with the Indians west of Missouri and dallied with the Omahas, the inference was unavoidable, that Iowa interests were being sacrificed to Missouri interests. Such was the story that the Iowa Johnson poured into the ear of Senator Douglas, to whom he was presented by Senator Dodge.[461] The surest way to safeguard the interests of Iowa was to divide the Territory of Nebraska, and give Iowa her natural outlet to the West.

Senator Dodge had also come to this conclusion. Nebraska would be to Iowa, what Iowa had been to Illinois. Were only one Territory organized, the seat of government and leading thoroughfares would pass to the south of Iowa.[462] Put in the language of the promoters of the Pacific railroad, one Territory meant aid to the central route; two Territories meant an equal chance for both northern and central routes. As the representative of Chicago interests, Douglas was not blind to these considerations.

On Monday, January 23d, Douglas reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill with a brief word of explanation. Next day Senator Dixon expressed his satisfaction with the amendment, which he interpreted as virtually repealing the Missouri Compromise. He disclaimed any other wish or intention than to secure the principle which the compromise measures of 1850 had established.[463] An editorial in the Washington Union threw the weight of the administration into the balance: "The proposition of Mr. Douglas is a practical execution of the principles of that compromise [of 1850], and therefore, cannot but be regarded by the administration as a test of Democratic orthodoxy."[464]

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

The gist of the appeal was contained in two clauses, one of which declared that the Nebraska bill would open all the unorganized territory of the Union to the ingress of slavery; the other arraigned the bill as "a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights." In ominous words, fellow citizens were besought to observe how the blight of slavery would settle upon all this land, if this bill should become a law. Christians and Christian ministers were implored to interpose. "Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime." In the postscript Douglas received personal mention. "Not a man in Congress or out of Congress, in 1850, pretended that the compromise measures would repeal the Missouri prohibition. Mr. Douglas himself never advanced such a pretence until this session. His own Nebraska bill, of last session, rejected it. It is a sheer afterthought. To declare the prohibition inoperative, may, indeed, have effect in law as a repeal, but it is a most discreditable way of reaching the object. Will the people permit their dearest interests to be thus made the mere hazards of a presidential game, and destroyed by false facts and false inferences?"[466]

This attack roused the tiger in the Senator from Illinois. When he addressed the Senate on January 30th, he labored under ill-repressed anger. Even in the expurgated columns of the Congressional Globe enough stinging personalities appeared to make his friends regretful. What excited his wrath particularly was that Chase and Sumner had asked for a postponement of discussion, in order to examine the bill, and then, in the interval, had sent out their indictment of the author. It was certainly unworthy of him to taunt them with having desecrated the Sabbath day by writing their plea. The charge was not only puerile but amusing, when one considers how Douglas himself was observing that particular Sabbath.

It was comparatively easy to question and disprove the unqualified statement of the Appeal, that "the original settled policy of the United States was non-extension of slavery." Less convincing was Douglas's attempt to prove that the Missouri Compromise was expressly annulled in 1850, when portions of Texas and of the former Spanish province of Louisiana were added to New Mexico, and also a part of the province of Louisiana was joined to Utah. Douglas was in the main correct as to geographical data; but he could not, and did not, prove that the members of the Thirty-first Congress purposed also to revoke the Missouri Compromise restriction in all the other unorganized Territories. This contention was one of those non-sequiturs of which Douglas, in the heat of argument, was too often guilty. Still more regrettable, because it seemed to convict him of sophistry, was the mode by which he sought to evade the charge of the Appeal, that the act organizing New Mexico and settling the boundary of Texas had reaffirmed the Missouri Compromise. To establish his point he had to assume that all the land cut off from Texas north of 36 deg. 30', was added to New Mexico, thus leaving nothing to which the slavery restriction, reaffirmed in the act of 1850, could apply. But Chase afterward invalidated this assumption and Douglas was forced so to qualify his original statement as to yield the point. This was a damaging admission and prejudiced his cause before the country. But when he brought his wide knowledge of American colonization to bear upon the concrete problems of governmental policy, his grasp of the situation was masterly.

"Let me ask you where you have succeeded in excluding slavery by an act of Congress from one inch of American soil? You may tell me that you did it in the northwest territory by the ordinance of 1787. I will show you by the history of the country that you did not accomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law, but you did not exclude it in fact.... I know of but one territory of the United States where slavery does exist, and that one is where you have prohibited it by law, and it is in this very Nebraska Territory. In defiance of the eighth section of the act of 1820, in defiance of Congressional dictation, there have been, not many, but a few slaves introduced.... I have no doubt that whether you organize the territory of Nebraska or not this will continue for some time to come.... But when settlers rush in—when labor becomes plenty, and therefore cheap, in that climate, with its productions, it is worse than folly to think of its being a slave-holding country.... I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate, and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish institutions for a people."[467]

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

Prolonged discussion made certain points of agreement clear to all. It was found that no one questioned the right of a State, with sufficient population and a republican constitution, to enter the Union with or without slavery as it chose. All agreed that it was best that slavery should not be discussed in Congress. All agreed that, whether or no Congress had the power to exclude slavery in the Territories, it ought not to exercise it. All agreed that if Congress had such power, it ought to delegate it to the people. Here agreement ceased. Did Congress have such power? Clearly the law of the Constitution could alone determine. Then why not delegate the power to control their domestic institutions to the people of the Territories, subject to the provisions of the Constitution? "And then," said one of the participants later, "in order to provide a means by which the Constitution could govern ... we of the South, conscious that we were right, the North asserting the same confidence in its own doctrines, agreed that every question touching human slavery or human freedom should be appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States for its decision."[470]

While this compromise was being reached in caucus, the bill was under constant fire on the floor of the Senate. The Appeal of the Independent Democrats had bitterly arraigned the declaratory part of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, where the Missouri Compromise was said to have been superseded and therefore inoperative. Even staunch Democrats like Cass had taken exception to this phraseology, preferring to declare the Missouri Compromise null and void in unequivocal terms. To Douglas there was nothing ambiguous or misleading in the wording of the clause. What was meant was this: the acts of 1850 rendered the Missouri Compromise inoperative in Utah and New Mexico; but so far as the Missouri Compromise applied to territory not embraced in those acts, it was superseded by the great principle established in 1850. "Superseded by" meant "inconsistent with" the compromise of 1850.[471] The word "supersede," however, continued to cause offense. Cass read from the dictionary to prove that the word had a more positive force than Douglas gave to it. To supersede meant to set aside: he could not bring himself to assent to this statement.[472]

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

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

The eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union is no longer said to be superseded, but "being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, (commonly called the Compromise Measures) is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."[474]

This part of the bill had now assumed its final form. Subject only to the Constitution of the United States. The words were clear; but what was their implication? A few days later, Douglas wrote to his Springfield confidant, "The Democratic party is committed in the most solemn manner to the principle of congressional non-interference with slavery in the States and Territories. The administration is committed to the Nebraska bill and will stand by it at all hazards.... The principle of this bill will form the test of parties, and the only alternative is either to stand with the Democracy or rally under Seward, John Van Buren & Co.... We shall pass the Nebraska bill in both Houses by decisive majorities and the party will then be stronger than ever, for it will be united upon principle."[475]

Yet there were dissentient opinions. What was in the background of Southern consciousness was expressed bluntly by Brown of Mississippi, who refused to admit that the right of the people of a Territory to regulate their domestic institutions, including slavery, was a right to destroy. "If I thought in voting for the bill as it now stands, I was conceding the right of the people in the territory, during their territorial existence, to exclude slavery, I would withhold my vote.... It leaves the question where I am quite willing it should be left—to the ultimate decision of the courts."[476] Chase also, though for widely different reasons, disputed the power of the people of a Territory to exclude slavery, under the terms of this bill.[477] And Senator Clayton pointed out that non-interference was a delusion, so long as it lay within the power of any member of Congress to move a repeal of any and every territorial law which came up for approval, for the bill expressly provided for congressional approval of territorial laws.[478]

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

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

The objection raised by Clayton still remained: how was it possible to reconcile congressional non-intervention with the right of Congress to revise territorial laws? Now Douglas had never contended that the right of the people to self-government in the Territories was complete as against the power of Congress. He had never sought to confer upon them more than a relative degree of self-government—"the power to regulate their domestic institutions." He could not, and he did not, deny the truth and awkwardness of Clayton's contention. Where, then, demanded his critics, was the guarantee that the Kansas-Nebraska bill would banish the slavery controversies from Congress? This challenge could not go unanswered. Without other explanation, Douglas moved to strike out the provision requiring all territorial laws to be submitted to Congress.[481] But did this divest Congress of the power of revision? On this point Douglas preserved a discreet silence.

Recognizing also the incongruity of giving an absolute veto power to a governor who would be appointed by the President, Douglas proposed a suspensive, in place of an absolute, veto power. A two-thirds vote in each branch of the territorial legislature would override the governor's negative.[482] Chase now tried to push Douglas one step farther on the same slippery road. "Can it be said," he asked, "that the people of a territory will enjoy self-government when they elect only their legislators and are subject to a governor, judges, and a secretary appointed by the Federal Executive?" He would amend by making all these officers elective.[483] Douglas extricated himself from this predicament by saying simply that these officers were charged with federal rather than with territorial duties.[484] The amendment was promptly negatived. Yet seven years later, this very proposition was indorsed by Douglas under peculiar circumstances. At this time in 1854, it would have effected nothing short of a revolution in American territorial policy; and it might have altered the whole history of Kansas.

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

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

The speech of Douglas was a characteristic performance. It abounded in repetitions, and it can hardly be said to have contributed much to the understanding of the issues. Yet it was a memorable effort, because it exhibited the magnificent fighting qualities of the man. He was completely master of himself. He permitted interruptions by his opponents; he invited them; indeed, at times, he welcomed them; but at no time was he at a loss for a reply. Dialectically he was on this occasion more than a match for Chase and Seward. There were no studied effects in his oratory. Knowing himself to be addressing a wider audience than the Senate chamber and its crowded galleries, he appealed with intuitive keenness to certain fundamental traits in his constituents. Americans admire self-reliance even in an opponent, and the spectacle of a man fighting against personal injustice is often likely to make them forget the principle for which he stands. So Seward, who surely had no love for Douglas and no respect for his political creed, was moved to exclaim in frank admiration, "I hope the Senator will yield for a moment, because I have never had so much respect for him as I have tonight." When Chase assured Douglas that he always purposed to treat the Senator from Illinois with entire courtesy, Douglas retorted: "The Senator says that he never intended to do me injustice.... Sir, did he not say in the same document to which I have already alluded, that I was engaged, with others, 'in a criminal betrayal of precious rights,' 'in an atrocious plot'?... Did he not say everything calculated to produce and bring upon my head all the insults to which I have been subjected publicly and privately—not even excepting the insulting letters which I have received from his constituents, rejoicing at my domestic bereavements, and praying that other and similar calamities may befall me!"[490]

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

Personalities aside, the burden of his speech was the reassertion of his principle of popular sovereignty. He showed how far he had traveled since the Fourth of January in no way more strikingly, than when he called in question the substantive character of the Missouri Compromise. In his discussion of the legislative history of the Missouri acts, he easily convicted both Chase and Seward of misapprehensions; but he refused to recognize the truth of Chase's words, that "the facts of the transaction taken together and as understood by the country for more than thirty years, constitute a compact binding in moral force," though expressed only in the terms of ordinary statutes. So far had Douglas gone in his advocacy of his measure that he had lost the measure of popular sentiment. He was so confident of himself and his cause, so well-assured that he had sacrificed nothing but an empty form, in repealing the slavery restriction, that he forgot the popular mind does not so readily cast aside its prejudices and grasp substance in preference to form. The combative instinct in him was strong. He had entered upon a quarrel; he would acquit himself well. Besides, he had supreme confidence that popular intelligence would slowly approve his course.

Perhaps Douglas's greatest achievement on this occasion was in coining a phrase which was to become a veritable slogan in succeeding years. That which had hitherto been dubbed "squatter sovereignty," Douglas now dignified with the name "popular sovereignty," and provided with a pedigree. "This was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded.... The Revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the colonies.... I will not weary the Senate in multiplying evidence upon this point. It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence had its origin in the violation of the great fundamental principle which secured to the people of the colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way; and that the Revolution resulted in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the right asserted by it."[492]

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

Nor did he seem to entertain a doubt as to the universal appeal which his principle would make: "I say frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North as at the South, when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed and become well understood. The people at the North are attached to the principles of self-government; and you cannot convince them that that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which are forced upon them by a legislature in which they are not represented."[494]

The rising indignation at the North against the Kansas-Nebraska bill was felt much more directly in the House than in the Senate. So strong was the counter-current that the Senate bill was at first referred to the Committee of the Whole, and thus buried for weeks under a mass of other bills. Many believed that the bill had received a quietus for the session. Not so Douglas and his friend Richardson of Illinois, who was chairman of the Committee on Territories. With a patience born of long parliamentary experience, they bided their time. In the meantime, every possible influence was brought to bear upon recalcitrant Democrats. And just here the wisdom of Douglas, in first securing the support of the administration, was vindicated. All those devices were invoked which President and cabinet could employ through the use of the Federal patronage, so that when Richardson, on the 8th of May, called upon the House to lay aside one by one the eighteen bills which preceded the Kansas-Nebraska bill, he was assured of a working majority. The House bill having thus been reached, Richardson substituted for it the Senate bill, minus the Clayton amendment. When he then announced that only four days would be allowed for debate, the obstructionists could no longer contain themselves. Scenes of wild excitement followed. In the end, the friends of the bill yielded to the demand for longer discussion. Debate was prolonged until May 22d, when the bill passed by a vote of 113 to 110, in the face of bitter opposition.

Through all these exciting days, Douglas was constantly at Richardson's side, cautioning and advising. He was well within the truth when he said, in confidential chat with Madison Cutts, "I passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act myself. I had the authority and power of a dictator throughout the whole controversy in both houses. The speeches were nothing. It was the marshalling and directing of men, and guarding from attacks, and with a ceaseless vigilance preventing surprises."[495]

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

The outburst of wrath at the North which accompanied the repeal of the Missouri Compromise did not augur well for the future repose of the country. Douglas had anticipated angry demonstrations; but even he was disturbed by the vehemence of the protestations which penetrated to the Senate chamber. Had he failed to gauge the depth of Northern public opinion? Senator Everett disturbed the momentary quiet of Congress by presenting a memorial signed by over three thousand New England clergymen, who, "in the name of Almighty God," protested against the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a great moral wrong and as a breach of faith. This brought Douglas to his feet. With fierce invective he declared this whole movement was instigated by the circulars sent out by the Abolition confederates in the Senate. These preachers had been led by an atrocious falsehood "to desecrate the pulpit, and prostitute the sacred desk to the miserable and corrupting influence of party politics." What right had these misguided men to speak in the name of Almighty God upon a political question? It was an attempt to establish in this country the doctrine that clergymen have a peculiar right to determine the will of God in legislative matters. This was theocracy.[497]

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

The obloquy which Douglas encountered in Washington was mere child's play, as compared with the storm of abuse that met him on his return to Chicago. He afterwards said that he could travel from Boston to Chicago by the light of his own effigies.[501] "Traitor," "Arnold,"—with a suggestion that he had the blood of Benedict Arnold in his veins,—"Judas," were epithets hurled at him from desk and pulpit. He was presented with thirty pieces of silver by some indignant females in an Ohio village.[502] So incensed were the people of Chicago, that his friends advised him not to return, fearing that he would be assaulted.[503] But fear was a sensation that he had never experienced. He went to Chicago confident that he could silence opposition as he had done four years before.[504]

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

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 419: Ibid., pp. 1684-1685.]

[Footnote 420: Ibid., p. 1760. Clingman afterward admitted that the Southern opposition was motived by reluctance to admit new free Territories. "This feeling was felt rather than expressed in words." Clingman, Speeches and Writings, p. 334.]

[Footnote 421: Globe, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1762.]

[Footnote 422: See Davis, Union Pacific Railway, Chap. 3.]

[Footnote 423: See Benton's remarks in the House, Globe, 31 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 56.]

[Footnote 424: Connelley, The Provisional Government of the Nebraska Territory, published by the Nebraska State Historical Society, pp. 23-24.]

[Footnote 425: Connelley, Provisional Government, p. 28.]

[Footnote 426: Globe, 31 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 56-58.]

[Footnote 427: House Bill No. 353; 32 Cong., 2 Sess.]

[Footnote 428: Globe, 32 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 558.]

[Footnote 429: Ibid., p. 560.]

[Footnote 430: Ibid., p. 565.]

[Footnote 431: Ibid., p. 1020.]

[Footnote 432: Globe 32 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 1116-1117.]

[Footnote 433: Ibid., p. 1113.]

[Footnote 434: Connelley, Provisional Government, pp. 43 ff.]

[Footnote 435: Ibid., pp. 37-41.]

[Footnote 436: Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 183; Connelley, pp. 70-77.]

[Footnote 437: See Hadley D. Johnson's account in the Transactions of the Nebraska Historical Society, Vol. II.]

[Footnote 438: Illinois State Register, December 22, 1853.]

[Footnote 439: MS. Letter to the editors of the Illinois State Register, dated November 11, 1853.]

[Footnote 440: Washington Union, December 3, 1853. See also item showing the interest in Nebraska, in the issue of November 26.]

[Footnote 441: Senate Bill No. 22. The bounds were fixed at 43 deg. on the north; 36 deg. 30' on the south, except where the boundary of New Mexico marked the line; the western line of Iowa and Missouri on the east; and the Rocky Mountains on the west.]

[Footnote 442: Illinois State Register, December 22, 1853.]

[Footnote 443: New York Journal of Commerce, December 30, 1853.]

[Footnote 444: Two years later, Douglas flatly denied that he had brought in the bill at the dictation of Atchison or any one else; and I see no good ground on which to doubt his word. His own statement was that he first consulted with Senator Bright and one other Senator from the Northwest, and then took counsel with Southern friends. See Globe, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., App., pp. 392-393; also Rhodes, History of the United States, I, pp. 431-432. Mr. Rhodes is no doubt correct, when he says "the committee on territories was Douglas."]

[Footnote 445: Senate Report No. 15, 33 Cong., 1 Sess.]

[Footnote 446: The northern boundary was extended to the 49th parallel.]

[Footnote 447: The first twenty sections are written on white paper, in the handwriting of a copyist. In pencil at the end are the words: "Douglas reports Bill & read I & to 2 reading special report Print agreed." The blue paper in Douglas's handwriting covers part of these last words. The sheet has been torn in halves, but pasted together again and attached by sealing wax to the main draft. The handwriting betrays haste.]

[Footnote 448: Globe,34 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1374.]

[Footnote 449: See his speech of March, 1850, quoted above. In a letter to the editor of State Capital Reporter (Concord, N.H.), February 16, 1854, Douglas intimated as strongly as he then dared—the bill was still pending,—that "the sons of New England" in the West would exclude slavery from that region which lay in the same latitude as New York and Pennsylvania, and for much the same reasons that slavery had been abolished! in those States; see also Transactions of Illinois State Historical Society, 1900, pp. 48-49.]

[Footnote 450: Speech before the Illinois Legislature, October 23, 1849; see Illinois State Register, November 8, 1849.]

[Footnote 451: The Southern Whigs were ready to support the Dixon Amendment, according to Clingman, Speeches and Writings, p. 335.]

[Footnote 452: See remarks of Douglas, January 24th, Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 240.]

[Footnote 453: Letter of Dixon to Foote, September 30, 1858, in Flint, Douglas, pp. 138-141.]

[Footnote 454: Dixon, True History of the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.]

[Footnote 455: Parker, Secret History of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, in the National Quarterly Review, July, 1880.]

[Footnote 456: Parker, Secret History of the Kansas-Nebraska Act; also Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, p. 93; also Cox, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, p. 49.]

[Footnote 457: Ibid. Dixon's account of his interview with Douglas is too melodramatic to be taken literally, but no doubt it reveals Douglas's agitation.]

[Footnote 458: This was Greeley's interpretation, Tribune, June 1, 1861.]

[Footnote 459: Jefferson Davis to Mrs. Dixon, September 27, 1879, in Dixon, True History of the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, pp. 457 ff.]

[Footnote 460: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 221.]

[Footnote 461: Transactions of the Nebraska Historical Society, Vol. II, p. 90.]

[Footnote 462: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 382.]

[Footnote 463: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 239-240.]

[Footnote 464: Washington Union, January 24, 1854.]

[Footnote 465: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 282.]

[Footnote 466: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 281-282.]

[Footnote 467: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 278-279.]

[Footnote 468: See remarks of Senator Bell of Tennessee, May 24, 1854, in Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., pp. 939-940; also see statement of Benjamin in Globe, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1093.]

[Footnote 469: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App. pp. 414-415; p. 943.]

[Footnote 470: Globe, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1093. This statement by Senator Benjamin was corroborated by Douglas and by Hunter of Virginia, during the debates, see Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 224. See also the letter of A.H. Stephens, May 9, 1860, in Globe, 36 Cong., 1 Sess., App., pp. 315-316.]

[Footnote 471: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 343-344.]

[Footnote 472: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 344.]

[Footnote 473: Ibid., p. 344.]

[Footnote 474: Ibid., p. 353.]

[Footnote 475: MS. Letter, Douglas to Lanphier, February 13, 1854.]

[Footnote 476: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 232.]

[Footnote 477: Ibid., pp. 279-280.]

[Footnote 478: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 391.]

[Footnote 479: Ibid., pp. 287-288.]

[Footnote 480: Ibid., p. 296.]

[Footnote 481: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., pp. 296-297.]

[Footnote 482: Ibid., p. 297.]

[Footnote 483: Ibid., p. 298.]

[Footnote 484: Ibid., p. 298.]

[Footnote 485: See remarks of Bell; Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., pp. 414-415; and also later, Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 937.]

[Footnote 486: See remarks of Atchison, Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 302.]

[Footnote 487: Ibid., p. 298.]

[Footnote 488: Ibid., p. 302.]

[Footnote 489: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 325.]

[Footnote 490: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 332.]

[Footnote 491: Ibid., p. 332.]

[Footnote 492: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 337.]

[Footnote 493: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 338.]

[Footnote 494: Ibid., p. 338.]

[Footnote 495: Cutts, Treatise on Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 122-123.]

[Footnote 496: That the President believed with Douglas that the benefits of the Act would inure to freedom, is vouched for by ex-Senator Clemens of Alabama. See Illinois State Register, April 6, 1854.]

[Footnote 497: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 618, 621.]

[Footnote 498: Ibid., App., p. 654.]

[Footnote 499: Ibid., App., pp. 657-661.]

[Footnote 500: Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 661.]

[Footnote 501: Speech at Wooster, Ohio, 1859, Philadelphia Press, September 26, 1859.]

[Footnote 502: Rhodes, History of the United States, I, p. 496.]

[Footnote 503: Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, p. 98.]

[Footnote 504: "I speak to the people of Chicago on Friday next, September 1, on Nebraska. They threaten a mob but I have no fears. All will be right.... Come up if you can and bring our friends with you." MS. Letter, Douglas to Lanphier, August 25, 1854.]

[Footnote 505: Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, p. 640.]

[Footnote 506: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 271-273. Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 98-101. New York Times, September 6, 1854.]



CHAPTER XII

BLACK REPUBLICANISM

The passing of the Whig party after its defeat in the election of 1852, must be counted among the most momentous facts in our political history. Whatever were its errors, whatever its shortcomings, it was at least a national organization, with a membership that embraced anti-slavery Northerners and slave-holding Southerners, Easterners and Westerners. As events proved, there was no national organization to take its place. One of the two political ties had snapped that had held together North and South. The Democratic party alone could lay claim to a national organization and membership.

Party has been an important factor in maintaining national unity. The dangers to the Union from rapid territorial expansion have not always been realized. The attachment of new Western communities to the Union has too often been taken as a matter of course. Even when the danger of separation was small, the isolation and provincialism of the new West was a real menace to national welfare. Social institutions did their part in integrating East and West; but the politically integrating force was supplied by party. Through their membership in national party organizations, the most remote Western pioneers were energized to think and act on national issues.[507] In much the same way, the great party organizations retarded the growth of sectionalism at the South. The very fact that party ties held long after social institutions had been broken asunder, proves their superior cohesion and nationalizing power. The inertia of parties during the prolonged slavery controversy was an element of strength. Because these formal organizations did not lend themselves readily to radical policies, they provided a frame-work, within which adjustments of differences were effected without danger to the Union. Had Abolitionists of the radical type taken possession of the organization of either party, can it be doubted that the Union would have been imperiled much earlier than it was, and very probably when it could not have withstood the shock?

No one who views history calmly will maintain, that it would have been well for either the radical or the conservative to have been dominant permanently. If the radical were always able to give application to his passing, restless humors, society would lose its coherence. If the conservative always had his way, civilization would stagnate. It was a fortunate circumstance that neither the Whig nor the Democratic party was composed wholly either of radicals or conservatives. Party action was thus a resultant. If it was neither so radical as the most radical could desire, nor so conservative as the ultra-conservative wished, at least it safeguarded the Union and secured the political achievements of the past. Moreover, the two great party organizations had done much to assimilate the foreign elements injected into our population. No doubt the politician who cultivated "the Irish vote" or "the German vote," was obeying no higher law than his own interests; but his activities did much to promote that fusion of heterogeneous elements which has been one of the most extraordinary phenomena of American society. With the disappearance of the Whig party, one of the two great agencies in the disciplining and educating of the immigrant was lost.

For a time the Native American party seemed likely to take the place of the moribund Whig party. Many Whigs whose loyalty had grown cold but who would not go over to the enemy, took refuge in the new party. But Native Americanism had no enduring strength. Its tenets and its methods were in flat contradiction to true American precedents. Greeley was right when he said of the new party, "It would seem as devoid of the elements of persistence as an anti-cholera or an anti-potato-rot party would be." By its avowed hostility to Catholics and foreigners, by its insistence upon America for Americans, and by its secrecy, it forfeited all real claims to succeed the Whig party as a national organization.

After the downfall of the Whig party, then, the Democratic party stood alone as a truly national party, preserving the integrity of its national organization and the bulk of its legitimate members. But the events of President Pierce's administration threatened to be its undoing. If the Kansas-Nebraska bill served to unite outwardly the Northern and Southern wings of the party, it served also to crystallize those anti-slavery elements which had hitherto been held in solution. An anti-Nebraska coalition was the outcome. Out of this opposition sprang eventually the Republican party, which was, therefore, in its inception, national neither in its organization nor in its membership.

For "Know-Nothingism," as Native Americanism was derisively called, Douglas had exhibited the liveliest antipathy. Shortly after the triumph of the Know-Nothings in the municipal elections of Philadelphia, he was called upon to give the Independence Day address in the historic Independence Square.[508] With an audacity rarely equalled, he seized the occasion to defend the great principle of self-government as incorporated in the Nebraska bill, just become law, and to beard Know-Nothingism in its den. Under guise of defending national institutions and American principles, he turned his oration into what was virtually the first campaign speech of the year in behalf of Democracy. Never before were the advantages of a party name so apparent. Under his skillful touch the cause of popular government, democracy, religious and civil liberty, became confounded with the cause of Democracy, the only party of the nation which stood opposed to "the allied forces of Abolitionism, Whigism, Nativeism, and religious intolerance, under whatever name or on whatever field they may present themselves."[509]

There can be no doubt that Douglas voiced his inmost feeling, when he declared that "to proscribe a man in this country on account of his birthplace or religious faith is revolting to our sense of justice and right."[510] In his defense of religious toleration he rose to heights of real eloquence.

Douglas paid dearly for this assault upon Know-Nothingism. The order had organized lodges also in the Northwest, and when Douglas returned to his own constituency after the adjournment of Congress, he found the enemy in possession of his own redoubts. With some show of reason, he afterward attributed the demonstration against him in Chicago to the machinations of the Know-Nothings. His experience with the mob left no manner of doubt in his mind that Know-Nothingism, and not hostility to his Kansas-Nebraska policy, was responsible for his failure to command a hearing.[511]

But Douglas was mistaken, or he deceived himself, when he sought in the same fashion to explain away the opposition which he encountered as he traveled through the northern counties of the State. Malcontents from both parties, but chiefly anti-slavery Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Abolitionists, were drawing together in common hostility to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Mass conventions were summoned, irrespective of party, in various counties; and they gave no uncertain expression to their hatred of slavery and the slave-power. These were the counties most largely peopled by the New England immigrants. Anti-Nebraska platforms were adopted; and fusion candidates put in nomination for State and congressional office. In the central and southern counties, the fusion was somewhat less complete; but finally an anti-Nebraska State convention was held at Springfield, which nominated a candidate for State Treasurer, the only State officer to be elected.[512] For the first time in many years, the overthrow of the Democratic party seemed imminent.

However much Douglas may have misjudged the causes for this fusion movement at the outset, he was not long blind as to its implications. On every hand there were symptoms of disaffection. Personal friends turned their backs upon him; lifelong associates refused to follow his lead; even the rank and file of his followers seemed infected with the prevailing epidemic of distrust. With the instinct of a born leader of men, Douglas saw that the salvation of himself and his party lay in action. The elan of his forces must be excited by the signal to ride down the enemy. Sounding the charge, he plunged into the thick of the fray. For two months, he raided the country of the enemy in northern Illinois, and dashed from point to point in the central counties where his loyal friends were hard pressed.[513] It was from first to last a tempestuous conflict that exactly suited the impetuous, dashing qualities of "the Little Giant."

In the Sixth Congressional District, Douglas found his friend Harris fighting desperately with his back against the wall. His opponent, Yates, was a candidate for re-election, with the full support of anti-Nebraska men like Trumbull and Lincoln, whom the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill had again drawn into politics. While the State Fair was in progress at Springfield, both candidates strained every nerve to win votes. Douglas was summoned to address the goodly body of Democratic yeomen, who were keenly alive to the political, as well as to the bucolic, opportunities which the capital afforded at this interesting season. Douglas spoke to a large gathering in the State House on October 3d. Next day the Fusionists put forward Lincoln to answer him; and when Lincoln had spoken for nearly four hours, Douglas again took the stand and held his audience for an hour and a half longer.[514] Those were days when the staying powers of speakers were equalled only by the patience of their hearers.