A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

Stephen A. Douglas by Allen Johnson

A >> Allen Johnson >> Stephen A. Douglas




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

Replying to the attacks which this report evoked, Douglas took still
higher ground. He was ready to affirm that Congress had no power to
district the States. To concede to Congress so great a power was to
deny those reserved rights of the States, without which their
sovereignty would be an empty title. "Congress may alter, but it
cannot supersede these regulations [of the States] till it supplies
others in their places, so as to leave the right of representation
perfect."[173]

The argument of the report was bold and ingenious, if not convincing.
The minority were ready to admit that the case had been cleverly
stated, although hardly a man doubted that political considerations
had weighed most heavily with the chairman of the committee. Douglas
resented the suggestion with such warmth, however, that it is
charitable to suppose he was not conscious of the bias under which he
had labored.

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

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

Notwithstanding his very substantial services to his party, Douglas
had sooner or later to face his constituents with an answer to the
crucial question, "What have you done for us?" It is a hard, brutal
question, which has blighted many a promising career in American
politics. The interest which Douglas exhibited in the Western Harbors
bill was due, in part at least, to his desire to propitiate those by
virtue of whose suffrages he was a member of the House of
Representatives. At the same time, he was no doubt sincerely devoted
to the measure, because he believed profoundly in its national
character. Local and national interests were so inseparable in his
mind, that he could urge the improvement of the Illinois River as a
truly national undertaking. "Through this channel, and this alone," he
declared all aglow with enthusiasm, "we have a connected and
uninterrupted navigation for steamboats and large vessels from the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, to all the northern lakes."
Considerations of war and defense, as well as of peace and commerce,
counselled the proposed expenditure. "We have no fleet upon the lakes;
we have no navy-yard there at which we could construct one, and no
channel through which we could introduce our vessels from the
sea-board. In times of war, those lakes must be defended, if defended
at all, by a fleet from the naval depot and a yard on the Mississippi
River." After the State of Illinois had expended millions on the
Illinois and Michigan canal, was Congress to begrudge a few thousands
to remove the sand-bars which impeded navigation in this "national
highway by an irrevocable ordinance"?[175]

This special plea for the Illinois River was prefaced by a lengthy
exposition of Democratic doctrine respecting internal improvements,
for it was incumbent upon every good Democrat to explain a measure
which seemed to countenance a broad construction of the powers of the
Federal government. Douglas was at particular pains to show that the
bill did not depart from the principles laid down in President
Jackson's famous Maysville Road veto-message.[176] To him Jackson
incarnated the party faith; and his public documents were a veritable,
political testament. In the art of reading consistency into his own,
or the conduct of another, Douglas had no equal. To the end of his
days he possessed in an extraordinary degree the subtle power of
redistributing emphasis so as to produce a desired effect. It was the
most effective and the most insidious of his many natural gifts, for
it often won immediate ends at the permanent sacrifice of his
reputation for candor and veracity. The immediate result of this essay
in interpretation of Jacksonian principles, was to bring down upon
Douglas's devoted head the withering charge, peculiarly blighting to a
budding statesman, that he was conjuring with names to the exclusion
of arguments. With biting sarcasm, Representative Holmes drew
attention to the gentleman's disposition, after the fashion of little
men, to advance to the fray under the seven-fold shield of the
Telamon Ajax--a classical allusion which was altogether lost on the
young man from Illinois.

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

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

While the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriations bill was under
discussion in the House, a desultory debate occurred on the politics
of Colonel Polk. Such digressions were not unusual on the eve of a
presidential election. Seizing the opportunity, Douglas obtained
recognition from the Speaker and launched into a turgid speech in
defence of Polk, "the standard-bearer of Democracy and freedom." It
had been charged that Colonel Polk was "the industrious follower of
Andrew Jackson." Douglas turned the thrust neatly by asserting, "He is
emphatically a Young Hickory--the unwavering friend of Old Hickory in
all his trials--his bosom companion--his supporter and defender on all
occasions, in public and private, from his early boyhood until the
present moment. No man living possessed General Jackson's confidence
in a greater degree.... That he has been the industrious follower of
General Jackson in those glorious contests for the defence of his
country's rights, will not be deemed the unpardonable sin by the
American people, so long as their hearts beat and swell with gratitude
to their great benefactor. He is the very man for the times--a 'chip
of the old block'--of the true hickory stump. The people want a man
whose patriotism, honesty, ability, and devotion to democratic
principles, have been tested and tried in the most stormy times of the
republic, and never found wanting. That man is James K. Polk of
Tennessee."[181]

There could be no better evidence that Douglas felt sure of his own
fences, than his willingness to assist in the general campaign outside
of his own district and State. He not only addressed a mass-meeting of
delegates from many Western States at Nashville, Tennessee,[182] but
journeyed to St. Louis and back again, in the service of the
Democratic Central Committee, speaking at numerous points along the
way with gratifying success, if we may judge from the grateful words
of appreciation in the Democratic press.[183] It was while he was in
attendance on the convention in Nashville that he was brought face to
face with Andrew Jackson. The old hero was then living in retirement
at the Hermitage. Thither, as to a Mecca, all good Democrats turned
their faces after the convention. Douglas received from the old man a
greeting which warmed the cockles of his heart, and which, duly
reported by the editor of the Illinois _State Register_, who was his
companion, was worth many votes at the cross-roads of Illinois. The
scene was described as follows:

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

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

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

"Thus spoke the old hero, his countenance brightened by emotions which
it is impossible for us to describe. We turned to look at Douglas--he
was speechless. He could not reply, but convulsively shaking the aged
veteran's hand, he rose and left the hall. Certainly General Jackson
had paid him the highest compliment he could have bestowed on any
individual."[184]

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

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

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

[Footnote 164: Joseph Wallace in the Illinois _State Register_, April
19, 1885.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER V

MANIFEST DESTINY


The defeat of President Tyler's treaty in June, 1844, just on the eve
of the presidential campaign, gave the Texas question an importance
which the Democrats in convention had not foreseen, when they inserted
the re-annexation plank in the platform. The hostile attitude of Whig
senators and of Clay himself toward annexation, helped to make Texas a
party issue. While it cannot be said that Polk was elected on this
issue alone, there was some plausibility in the statement of President
Tyler, that "a controlling majority of the people, and a majority of
the States, have declared in favor of immediate annexation." At all
events, when Congress reassembled, President Tyler promptly acted on
this supposition. In his annual message, and again in a special
message a fortnight later, he urged "prompt and immediate action on
the subject of annexation." Since the two governments had already
agreed on terms of annexation, he recommended their adoption by
Congress "in the form of a joint resolution, or act, to be perfected
and made binding on the two countries, when adopted in like manner by
the government of Texas."[186] A policy which had not been able to
secure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate was now to be endorsed
by a majority of both houses. In short, a legislative treaty was to be
enacted by Congress.

The Hon. Stephen A. Douglas had taken his seat in the House with
augmented self-assurance. He had not only secured his re-election and
the success of his party in Illinois, but he had served most
acceptably as a campaign speaker in Polk's own State. Surely he was
entitled to some consideration in the councils of his party. In the
appointment of standing committees, he could hardly hope for a
chairmanship. It was reward enough to be made a member of the
Committee of Elections and of the Committee on the Judiciary. On the
paramount question before this Congress, he entertained strong
convictions, which he had no hesitation in setting forth in a series
of resolutions, while older members were still feeling their way. The
preamble of these "Joint Resolutions for the annexation of Texas" was
in itself a little stump speech: "Whereas the treaty of 1803 had
provided that the people of Texas should be incorporated into the
Union and admitted as soon as possible to citizenship, and whereas the
present inhabitants have signified their willingness to be re-annexed;
therefore".... Particular interest attaches to the Eighth Resolution
which proposed to extend the Missouri Compromise line through Texas,
"inasmuch as the compromise had been made prior to the treaty of 1819,
by which Texas was ceded to Spain."[187] The resolutions never
commanded any support worth mentioning, attention being drawn to the
joint resolution of the Committee on Foreign Affairs which was known
to have the sanction of the President. The proposal of Douglas to
settle the matter of slavery in Texas in the act of annexation itself,
was perhaps his only contribution to the discussion of ways and
means. An aggressive Southern group of representatives readily caught
up the suggestion.

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

To those who contended that Congress had no power to annex territory
with a view to admitting new States, Douglas replied that the
Constitution not only grants specific powers to Congress, but also
general power to pass acts necessary and proper to carry out the
specific powers. Congress may admit new States, but in the present
instance Congress cannot exercise that power without annexing
territory. "The annexation of Texas is a prerequisite without the
performance of which Texas cannot be admitted."[190] The Constitution
does not state that the President and Senate may admit new States, nor
that they shall make laws for the acquisition of territory in order to
enable Congress to admit new States. The Constitution declares
explicitly, "_Congress_ may admit new States." "When the grant of
power is to Congress, the authority to pass all laws necessary to its
execution is also in Congress; and the treaty-making power is to be
confined to those cases where the power is not located elsewhere by
the Constitution."[191]

With those weaklings who feared lest the extension of the national
domain should react unfavorably upon our institutions, and who
apprehended war with Mexico, Douglas had no patience. The States of
the Union were already drawn closer together than the thirteen
original States in the first years of the Union, because of the
improved means of communication. Transportation facilities were now
multiplying more rapidly than population. "Our federal system," he
exclaimed, with a burst of jingoism that won a round of applause from
Western Democrats as he resumed his seat, "Our federal system is
admirably adapted to the whole continent; and, while I would not
violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in any
manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert all legal and
honorable means to drive Great Britain and the last vestiges of royal
authority from the continent of North America, and extend the limits
of the republic from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound
republic, and have no more disputes about boundaries, or 'red lines'
upon the maps."[192]

In this speech there was one notable omission. The slavery question
was not once touched upon. Those who have eyes only to see plots
hatched by the slave power in national politics, are sure to construe
this silence as part of an ignoble game. It is possible that Douglas
purposely evaded this question; but it does not by any means follow
that he was deliberately playing into the hands of Southern leaders.
The simple truth is, that it was quite possible in the early forties
for men, in all honesty, to ignore slavery, because they regarded it
either as a side issue or as no issue at all. It was quite possible to
think on large national policies without confusing them with slavery.
Men who shared with Douglas the pulsating life of the Northwest wanted
Texas as a "theater for enterprise and industry." As an Ohio
representative said, they desired "a West for their sons and daughters
where they would be free from family influences, from associated
wealth and from those thousand things which in the old settled country
have the tendency of keeping down the efforts and enterprises of
young people." The hearts of those who, like Douglas, had carved out
their fortunes in the new States, responded to that sentiment in a way
which neither a John Quincy Adams nor a Winthrop could understand.

Yet the question of slavery in the proposed State of Texas was thrust
upon the attention of Congress by the persistent tactics of Alexander
H. Stephens and a group of Southern associates. They refused to accept
all terms of annexation which did not secure the right of States
formed south of the Missouri Compromise line to come into the Union
with slavery, if they desired to do so.[193] Douglas met this
opposition with the suggestion that not more than three States besides
Texas should be created out of the new State, but that such States
should be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the
people of each should determine, at the time of their application to
Congress for admission. As the germ of the doctrine of Popular
Sovereignty, this resolution has both a personal and a historic
interest. While it failed to pass,[194] it suggested to Stephens and
his friends a mode of adjustment which might satisfy all sides. It was
at his suggestion that Milton Brown of Tennessee proposed resolutions
providing for the admission of not more than four States besides
Texas, out of the territory acquired. If these States should be formed
south of the Missouri Compromise line, they were to be admitted with
or without slavery, as the people of each should determine. Northern
men demurred, but Douglas saved the situation by offering as an
amendment, "And in such States as shall be formed north of said
Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for
crime, shall be prohibited."[195] The amendment was accepted, and thus
amended, the joint resolution passed by an ample margin of votes. In
view of later developments, this extension of the Missouri Compromise
line is a point of great significance in the career of Douglas.

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Charles E. Bennett - "New Latin Grammar"

William Dana Orcutt - "The Lever"

Various - "Punch, Or The London Charivari, Volume 102, July 2, 1892"

Various - "Punch, or the London Charivari, Vol. 103, July 9, 1892"

President Obama teams up with one of Marvel's greatest heroes, reports Alison Flood
Articles published by guardian.co.uk Books

Murder One closing so did we commit this crime?

Barack Obama is teaming up with Spider-Man in a new comic from Marvel, which will see the future president exchanging a fist-bump with Peter Parker's alter ego.

The five-page story takes place in Washington DC on inauguration day, when one of Spidey's oldest enemies, the Chameleon, attempts to stop Obama's swearing-in ceremony. Fortunately, Peter Parker is covering the event as a photographer, and jumps in to save the day.

"Ya hear that, Chameleon? The president-elect here just appointed me ... secretary of shuttin' you up," Spider-Man says as he thwacks the Chameleon in the face. "I hope this doesn't ruin the inauguration for you," he tells Obama, as the Chameleon is led away by security officials. "Honestly, I'm more upset by the Chameleon's shockingly deficient understanding of the electoral process," Obama replies.

Spidey then cedes the limelight to Obama. "This is your day, after all, and I know it wouldn't look good to be seen palling around with me," he says, in a nod to Sarah Palin's comment that the then presidential candidate had been "palling around with terrorists".

The story, written by Zeb Wells and illustrated by Todd Nauck and Frank D'Armata, will appear as a bonus feature in Amazing Spider-Man 583, which goes on sale on 14 January.

"When we heard that president-elect Obama is a collector of Spider-Man comics, we knew that these two historic figures had to meet in our comics' Marvel Universe," said Marvel's editor-in-chief Joe Quesada. "A Spider-Man fan moving into the Oval Office is an event that must be commemorated in the pages of Amazing Spider-Man."

In October, graphic novel biographies of Obama and his then rival John McCain were published by IDW. April will see Michelle Obama appearing in the Female Force comic book series.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Poetry Workshop creature features

For many years my local corner shop displayed a large sign in its window telling local residents to "use us or lose us!" It always looked a rather toothless threat to me. After all, if I didn't use them, what difference would it make to me if they weren't there? And surely a corner shop, one that had been there for years, would have enough customers to survive without recourse to such apocalyptic warning? But it didn't and was soon converted into flats.

This community shop was destroyed not so much by the pressures of the supermarkets or people's commuting patterns, but simply by customer apathy. It's something to think about as crime writers and readers across the world mourn the imminent passing of Maxim Jakubowski's celebrated Charing Cross Road bookshop in London, Murder One.

Apathy is a strange word to connect to a bookstore that thrives on passion. It's noticeable when you walk through the door, when you speak to the friendly, knowledgeable staff, when you look at the shelves and see the vast range of titles on offer. This isn't your regular kind of bookstore: the first time I visited spent a whole lunch break looking up and down, from floor to ceiling from table to table; it was an hour that changed my perception of both crime writing and of bookselling.

Murder One was – and for a few weeks will remain – a shop that took crime seriously. Not in the sense that it intellectualised it, or made unsubstantiated claims for its importance, but in the way that it treated crime writing with the respect it was due. With a genre that has so many off-shoots, branches and sub-genres, it took a shop of Murder One's calibre to show just how diverse, interesting and mentally stimulating crime could be – far more than the guilty pleasure I had, until then, considered it.

Thanks to judicious recommendations, enticing table displays and hours of foraging among the stacks, I discovered writers that I would never have picked up, let alone read. You could always get the latest blockbuster, but delve a little deeper and you'd find books that were not stocked anywhere else, novels that, like the perfect crime, were hidden from public view. The Martin Beck novels by Sjöwall & Wahlöö – probably my favourite sequence of novels in any genre – were introduced to me via Murder One, as were Kem Nunn, Sue Grafton, and Henning Mankell. It's also the staff of Murder One who piqued my interest in the inimitable Fred Vargas, and I can't thank them enough for the introduction.

Inclusive and without snobbery, Murder One amply demonstrated that the best bookshops are places not just of commerce, but of community; places that make feel you belong. It's the kind of store that bibliophiles dream about: well-stocked, well-staffed and shabby enough to lose days browsing within. It's just unfortunate that such shops don't have enough paying customers to keep them afloat, or that these customers visit all too infrequently – something of which I'm certainly guilty.

These kinds of shops are facing a long, bloody battle – and one which, without significant reinforcements, they are likely to lose. As we hear of the travesty of another brilliant independent going down, we'll mourn the loss, wring our hands and damn Amazon and the supermarkets and Waterstone's. Yet perhaps the most important detail we'll probably keep under wraps: the last time we actually spent any money there.

Murder One closing its doors for the final time is undoubtedly a .38 shell for independent bookshops, but whether it's body blow or a warning shot all depends upon us, the consumers. No one, no matter how iconic or established, can exist on fond memories alone: just ask Woolworths. Use these shops now, because it doesn't take a master sleuth to deduce what will happen if we don't.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds