Stephen A. Douglas by Allen Johnson

A >> Allen Johnson >> Stephen A. Douglas

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34

There was one highly significant change in the territorial bills
inside the Omnibus. Douglas's measures had been silent on the slavery
question; these forbade the territorial legislatures to pass any
measure in respect to African slavery, restricting the powers of the
territorial legislatures at a vital point. Now on this question
Douglas's instructions bound him to an affirmative vote. He was in the
uncomfortable and hazardous position of one who must choose between
his convictions, and the retention of political office. It was a
situation all the more embarrassing, because he had so often asserted
the direct responsibility of a representative to his constituents. He
extricated himself from the predicament in characteristic fashion. He
reaffirmed his convictions; sought to ward off the question; but
followed instructions when he had to give his vote. He obeyed the
letter, but violated the spirit of his instructions.

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

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

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

By the last of July, the Omnibus--in the words of Benton--had been
overturned, and all the inmates but one spilled out. The Utah bill was
the lucky survivor, but even it was not suffered to pass without
material alterations. Clay now joined with Douglas to secure the
omission of the clause forbidding the territorial legislature to touch
the subject of slavery. In this they finally succeeded.[362] The bill
was thus restored to its original form.[363]

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

Douglas voted for all the compromise measures but the Fugitive Slave
Law. This was an unfortunate omission, for many a Congressman had
sought to dodge the question.[364] The partisan press did not spare
him, though he stated publicly that he would have voted for the bill,
had he not been forced to absent himself. Such excuses were common and
unconvincing. Irritated by sly thrusts on every side, Douglas at last
resolved to give a detailed account of the circumstances that had
prevented him from putting himself on record in the vote. This public
vindication was made upon the floor of the Senate a year later.[365] A
"pecuniary obligation" for nearly four thousand dollars was about to
fall due in New York. Arrangements which he had made to pay the note
miscarried, so that he was compelled to go to New York at once, or
suffer the note to be protested. Upon the assurance of his fellow
senators that the discussion of the bill would continue at least a
week, he hastened to New York. While dining with some friends from
Illinois, he was astounded to hear that the bill had been ordered
engrossed for a third reading. He immediately left the city for
Washington, but arrived too late. He was about to ask permission then
to explain his absence, when his colleague dissuaded him. Everyone
knew, said Shields, that he was in favor of the bill; besides, very
probably the bill would be returned from the House with amendments.

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

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

Both Douglas and Toombs told their constituents that Congress had
agreed upon a great, fundamental principle in dealing with the
Territories. Both spoke with some degree of authority, for the two
territorial bills had passed in the identical form upon which they had
agreed in conference. But what was this principle? Toombs called it
the principle which the South had unwisely compromised away in
1820--the principle of non-interference with slavery by Congress, the
right of the people to hold slaves in the common Territories. Douglas
called the great principle, "the right of the people to form and
regulate their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in
their own way."[368] So stated the principle seems direct and simple.
But was Toombs willing to concede that the people of a Territory might
exclude slavery? He never said so; while Douglas conceded both the
positive power to exclude, and the negative power to permit, slavery.
Here was a discrepancy.[369] And it was probably because they could
not agree on this point, that a provision was added to the territorial
bills, providing that cases involving title to slaves might be
appealed to the Supreme Court. Whether the people of Utah and New
Mexico might exclude slaves, was to be left to the judiciary. In any
case Congress was not to interfere with slavery in the Territories.

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

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 331: Letter of Douglas to Breese, _State Register_, January
20, 1851.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 335: Douglas renewed his bill in the short session of
1848-1849, but did not secure action upon it.]

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

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

[Footnote 338: _Globe,_31 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 904. The vote was 26 to
14.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 344: The economic significance of the Illinois Central
Railroad appears in a letter of Vice-President McClellan to Douglas in
1856. The management was even then planning to bring sugar from Havana
directly to the Chicago market, and to take the wheat and pork of the
Northwest to the West Indies _via_ New Orleans.]

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 349: _Ibid._]

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

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

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

[Footnote 353: For an account of this interesting episode, see
Stephens, War Between the States, II, pp. 202-204. Boyd, not
McClernand, was chairman of the House Committee, but the latter
introduced the bills by agreement with Richardson.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER X

YOUNG AMERICA

When Douglas reached Chicago, immediately after the adjournment of
Congress, he found the city in an uproar. The strong anti-slavery
sentiment of the community had been outraged by the Fugitive Slave
Law. Reflecting the popular indignation, the Common Council had
adopted resolutions condemning the act as a violation of the
Constitution and a transgression of the laws of God. Those senators
and representatives who voted for the bill, or "who basely sneaked
away from their seats and thereby evaded the question," were
stigmatized as "fit only to be ranked with the traitors, Benedict
Arnold and Judas Iscariot." This was indeed a sorry home-coming for
one who believed himself entitled to honors.

Learning that a mass-meeting was about to indorse the action of the
city fathers, Douglas determined to face his detractors and meet their
charges. Entering the hall while the meeting was in progress, he
mounted the platform, and announced that on the following evening he
would publicly defend all the measures of adjustment. He was greeted
with hisses and jeers for his pains; but in the end he had the
satisfaction of securing an adjournment until his defense had been
heard.

It was infinitely to his credit that when he confronted a hostile
audience on the next evening, he stooped to no cheap devices to divert
resentment, but sought to approve his course to the sober
intelligence of his hearers.[370] It is doubtful if the Fugitive Slave
Law ever found a more skillful defender. The spirit in which he met
his critics was admirably calculated to disarm prejudice. Come and let
us reason together, was his plea. Without any attempt to ignore the
most obnoxious parts of the act, he passed directly to the discussion
of the clauses which apparently denied the writ of _habeas corpus_ and
trial by jury to the fugitive from service. He reminded his hearers
that this act was supplementary to the Act of 1793. No one had found
fault with the earlier act because it had denied these rights. Both
acts, in fact, were silent on these points; yet in neither case was
silence to be construed as a denial of constitutional obligations. On
the contrary, they must be assumed to continue in full force under the
act. Misapprehension arose in these matters, because the recovery of
the fugitive slave was not viewed as a process of extradition. The act
provided for the return of the alleged slave to the State from which
he had fled. Trial of the facts by jury would then follow under the
laws of the State, just as the fugitive from justice would be tried in
the State where the alleged crime had been committed. The testimony
before the original court making the requisition, would necessarily be
_ex parte_, as in the case of the escaped criminal; but this did not
prevent a fair trial on return of the fugitive. Regarding the question
of establishing the identity of the apprehended person with the
fugitive described in the record, Douglas asserted that the terms of
the act required proof satisfactory to the judge or commissioner, and
not merely the presentment of the record. "Other and further evidence"
might be insisted upon.

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

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

At the conclusion of his speech, Douglas offered a series of
resolutions expressing the obligation of all good citizens to maintain
the Constitution and all laws duly enacted by Congress in pursuance of
the Constitution. With a remarkable revulsion of feeling, the audience
indorsed these sentiments without a dissenting voice, and subsequently
repudiated in express terms the resolutions of the Common
Council.[371] The triumph of Douglas was complete. It was one of those
rare instances where the current of popular resentment is not only
deflected, but actually reversed, by the determination and eloquence
of one man.

There were two groups of irreconcilables to whom such appeals were
unavailing--radical Abolitionists at the North and Southern Rights
advocates. Not even the eloquence of Webster could make willing
slave-catchers of the anti-slavery folk of Massachusetts. The rescue
of the negro Shadrach, an alleged fugitive slave, provoked intense
excitement, not only in New England but in Washington. The incident
was deemed sufficiently ominous to warrant a proclamation by the
President, counseling all good citizens to uphold the law. Southern
statesmen of the radical type saw abundant evidence in this episode of
a deliberate purpose at the North not to enforce the essential
features of the compromise. Both Whig and Democratic leaders, with few
exceptions, roundly denounced all attempts to nullify the Fugitive
Slave Law.[372] None was more vehement than Douglas. He could not
regard this Boston rescue as a trivial incident. He believed that
there was an organization in many States to evade the law. It was in
the nature of a conspiracy against the government. The ring-leaders
were Abolitionists, who were exciting the negroes to excesses. He was
utterly at a loss to understand how senators, who had sworn to obey
and defend the Constitution, could countenance these palpable
violations of law.[373]

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

When the Democrats of Illinois proposed Douglas's name for the
presidency in 1848, no one was disposed to take the suggestion
seriously, outside the immediate circle of his friends. To graybeards
there was something almost humorous in the suggestion that five years
of service in Congress gave a young man of thirty-five a claim to
consideration! Within three short years, however, the situation had
changed materially. Older aspirants for the chief magistracy were
forced, with no little alarm, to acknowledge the rise of a really
formidable rival. By midsummer of 1851, competent observers thought
that Douglas had the best chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
In the judgment of certain Whig editors, he was the strongest man. It
was significant of his growing favor, that certain Democrats of the
city and county of New York tendered him a banquet, in honor of his
distinguished services to the party and his devotion to the Union
during the past two years.

Politicians of both parties shared the conviction that unless the
Whigs could get together,--which was unlikely,--a nomination at the
hands of a national Democratic convention was equivalent to an
election. Consequently there were many candidates in the field. The
preliminary canvass promised to be eager. It was indeed well under way
long before Congress assembled in December, and it continued actively
during the session. "The business of the session," wrote one observer
in a cynical frame of mind, "will consist mainly in the manoeuvres,
intrigues, and competitions for the next Presidency." Events justified
the prediction. "A politician does not sneeze without reference to the
Presidency," observed the same writer, some weeks after the beginning
of the session. "Congress does little else but intrigue for the
respective candidates."[376]

Prospective candidates who sat in Congress had at least this
advantage, over their outside competitors,--they could keep themselves
in the public eye by making themselves conspicuous in debate. But the
wisdom of such devices was questionable. Those who could not point
with confident pride to their record, wisely chose to remain
non-committal on matters of personal history. Douglas was one of those
who courted publicity. Perhaps as a young man pitted against older
rivals, he felt that he had everything to gain thereby and not much to
lose. The irrepressible Foote of Mississippi gave all his colleagues a
chance to mar their reputations, by injecting into the deliberations
of the Senate a discussion of the finality of the compromise
measures.[377] It speedily appeared that fidelity to the settlement of
1850, from the Southern point of view, consisted in strict adherence
to the Fugitive Slave Act.[378] This was the touchstone by which
Southern statesmen proposed to test their Northern colleagues.
Prudence whispered silence into many an ear; but Douglas for one
refused to heed her admonitions. Within three weeks after the session
began, he was on his feet defending the consistency of his course,
with an apparent ingenuousness which carried conviction to the larger
audience who read, but did not hear, his declaration of political
faith.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34