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




When President Polk announced to Congress the conclusion of the Oregon
treaty with Great Britain, he recommended the organization of a
territorial government for the newly acquired country, at the earliest
practicable moment. Hardly had the President's message been read, when
Douglas offered a bill of this tenor, stating that it had been
prepared before the terms of the treaty had been made public. His
committee had not named the boundaries of the new Territory in the
bill, for obvious reasons. He also stated, parenthetically, that he
felt so keenly the humiliation of writing down the boundary of 49 deg.,
that he preferred to leave that duty to those who had consented to
compromise our claims. In drafting the bill, he had kept in mind the
provisional government adopted by the people of Oregon: as they had in
turn borrowed nearly all the statutes of Iowa, it was to be presumed
that the people knew their own needs better than Congress.[220]

Before the bill passed the House it was amended at one notable point.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should ever exist in the
Territory, following the provision in the Ordinance of 1787 for the
Northwest Territory. Presumably Douglas was not opposed to this
amendment,[221] though he voted against the famous Wilmot Proviso two
days later. Already Douglas showed a disposition to escape the toils
of the slavery question by a _laissez faire_ policy, which was
compounded of indifference to the institution itself and of a strong
attachment to states-rights. When Florida applied for admission into
the Union with a constitution that forbade the emancipation of slaves
and permitted the exclusion of free negroes, he denied the right of
Congress to refuse to receive the new State. The framers of the
Federal Constitution never intended that Congress should pass upon the
propriety or expediency of each clause in the constitutions of States
applying for admission. The great diversity of opinion resulting from
diversity of climate, soil, pursuits, and customs, made uniformity
impossible. The people of each State were to form their constitution
in their own way, subject to the single restriction that it should be
republican in character. "They are subject to the jurisdiction and
control of Congress during their infancy, their minority; but when
they obtain their majority and obtain admission into the Union, they
are free from all restraints ... except such as the Constitution of
the United States has imposed."[222]

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

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

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER VI

WAR AND POLITICS


A long and involved diplomatic history preceded President Polk's
simple announcement that "Mexico has passed the boundary of the United
States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon
American soil." Rightly to evaluate these words, the reader should
bear in mind that the mission of John Slidell to Mexico had failed;
that the hope of a peaceable adjustment of the Texas boundary and of
American claims against Mexico had vanished; and that General Taylor
had been ordered to the Rio Grande in disregard of Mexican claims to
that region. One should also know that, from the beginning of his
administration, Polk had hoped to secure from our bankrupt neighbor
the cession of California as an indemnity.[223] A motive for
forbearance in dealing with the distraught Mexican government was thus
wholly absent from the mind of President Polk.

Such of these facts as were known at the time, supplied the Whig
opposition in Congress with an abundance of ammunition against the
administration. Language was used which came dangerously near being
unparliamentary. So the President was willing to sacrifice Oregon to
prosecute this "illegal, unrighteous and damnable war" for Texas,
sneered Delano. "Where did the gentleman from Illinois stand now? Was
he still in favor of 61?" This sally brought Douglas to his feet and
elicited one of his cleverest extempore speeches. He believed that
such words as the gentleman had uttered could come only from one who
desired defeat for our arms. "All who, after war is declared, condemn
the justice of our cause, are traitors in their hearts. And would to
God that they would commit some overt act for which they could be
dealt with according to their deserts." Patriots might differ as to
the expediency of entering upon war; but duty and honor forbade
divided counsels after American blood had been shed on American soil.
Had he foreseen the extraordinary turn of the discussion, he assured
his auditors, he could have presented "a catalogue of aggressions and
insults; of outrages on our national flag--on persons and property of
our citizens; of the violation of treaty stipulations, and the murder,
robbery, and imprisonment of our countrymen." These were all anterior
to the annexation of Texas, and perhaps alone would have justified a
declaration of war; but "magnanimity and forbearance toward a weak and
imbecile neighbor" prevented hostilities. The recent outrages left the
country no choice but war. The invasion of the country was the last of
the cumulative causes for war.

But was the invaded territory properly "our country"? This was the
_crux_ of the whole matter. On this point Douglas was equally
confident and explicit. Waiving the claims which the treaty of San
Ildefonso may have given to the boundary of the Rio Grande, he rested
the whole case upon "an immutable principle"--the Republic of Texas
held the country on the left bank of that river by virtue of a
successful revolution. The United States had received Texas as a State
with all her territory, and had no right to surrender any portion of
it.[224]

The evidence which Douglas presented to confirm these claims is highly
interesting. The right of Texas to have and to hold the territory from
the Nueces to the Rio Grande was, in his opinion, based
incontrovertibly on the treaty made by Santa Anna after the battle of
San Jacinto, which acknowledged the independence of Texas and
recognized the Rio Grande as its boundary. To an inquiry whether the
treaty was ever ratified by the government of Mexico, Douglas replied
that he was not aware that it had been ratified by anyone except Santa
Anna, for the very good reason that he was the government at the time.
"Has not that treaty with Santa Anna been since discarded by the
Mexican government?" asked the venerable J.Q. Adams. "I presume it
has," replied Douglas, "for I am not aware of any treaty or compact
which that government ever entered into that has not either been
violated or repudiated by them afterwards." But Santa Anna, as
recognized dictator, was the _de facto_ government, and the acts of a
_de facto_ government were binding on the nation as against foreign
nations. "It is immaterial, therefore, whether Mexico has or has not
since repudiated Santa Anna's treaty with Texas. It was executed at
the time by competent authority. She availed herself of all its
benefits." Forthwith Texas established counties beyond the Nueces,
even to the Rio Grande, and extended her jurisdiction over that
region, while in a later armistice Mexico recognized the Rio Grande as
the boundary. It was in the clear light of these facts that Congress
had passed an act extending the revenue laws of the United States
over the country between the Rio Grande and the Nueces--the very
country in which American soldiers had been slain by an invading
force.

All things considered, Douglas's line of argument was as well
sustained as any presented by the supporters of the war. The absence
of any citations to substantiate important points was of course due to
the impromptu nature of the speech. Two years later,[225] in a
carefully prepared speech constructed on much the same principles, he
made good these omissions, but without adding much, it must be
confessed, to the strength of his argument. The chain of evidence was
in fact no stronger than its weakest link, which was the so-called
treaty of Santa Anna with the President of the Republic of Texas.
Nowhere in the articles, public or secret, is there an express
recognition of the independence of the Republic, nor of the boundary.
Santa Anna simply pledged himself to do his utmost to bring about a
recognition of independence, and an acknowledgment of the claims of
Texas to the Rio Grande as a boundary.[226] Did Douglas misinterpret
these articles, or did he chance upon an unauthentic version of them?
In the subsequent speech to which reference has been made, he cited
specific articles which supported his contention. These citations do
not tally with either the public or secret treaty. It may be doubted
whether the secret articles were generally known at this time; but the
open treaty had been published in Niles' _Register_ correctly, and had
been cited by President Polk.[227] The inference would seem to be
that Douglas unwittingly used an unauthenticated version, and found in
it a conclusive argument for the claim of Texas to the disputed
territory.

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

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

Hardly had the war begun when there was a wild scramble among
Democrats for military office. It seemed to the distressed President
as though every Democratic civilian became an applicant for some
commission. Particularly embarrassing was the passion for office that
seized upon members of Congress. Even Douglas felt the spark of
military genius kindling within him. His friends, too, were convinced
that he possessed qualities which would make him an intrepid leader
and a tactician of no mean order. The entire Illinois delegation
united to urge his appointment as Brigadier Major of the Illinois
volunteers. Happily for the President, his course in this instance was
clearly marked out by a law, which required him to select only
officers already in command of State militia.[230] Douglas was keenly
disappointed. He even presented himself in person to overrule the
President's objection. The President was kind, but firm. He advised
Douglas to withdraw his application. In his judgment, Mr. Douglas
could best serve his country in Congress. Shortly afterward Douglas
sent a letter to the President, withdrawing his application--"like a
sensible man," commented the relieved Executive.[231] It is not likely
that the army lost a great commander by this decision.

In a State like Illinois, which had been staunchly Democratic for many
years, elections during a war waged by a Democratic administration
were not likely to yield any surprises. There was perhaps even less
doubt of the result of the election in the Fifth Congressional
District. By the admission of his opponents Douglas was stronger than
he had been before.[232] Moreover, the war was popular in the counties
upon whose support he had counted in other years. He had committed no
act for which he desired general oblivion; his warlike utterances on
Oregon, which had cost him some humiliation at Washington, so far from
forfeiting the confidence of his followers, seem rather to have
enhanced his popularity. Douglas carried every county in his district
but one, and nearly all by handsome majorities. He had been first sent
to Congress by a majority over Browning of less than five hundred
votes; in the following canvass he had tripled his majority; and now
he was returned to Congress by a majority of over twenty-seven hundred
votes.[233] He had every reason to feel gratified with this showing,
even though some of his friends were winning military glory on Mexican
battlefields. So long as he remained content with his seat in the
House, there were no clouds in his political firmament. Not even the
agitation of Abolitionists and Native Americans need cause him any
anxiety, for the latter were wholly a negligible political quantity
and the former practically so.[234] Everywhere but in the Seventh
District, from which Lincoln was returned, Democratic Congressmen were
chosen; and to make the triumph complete, a Democratic State ticket
was elected and a Democratic General Assembly again assured.

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

For thus throwing himself into the breach, Douglas was rewarded by
further confidences. Before Polk replied to the resolution of inquiry
which the House had voted, he summoned Douglas and a colleague to the
White House, to acquaint them with the contents of his message and
with the documents which would accompany it, so "that they might be
prepared to meet any attacks." And again, with four other members of
the House, Douglas was asked to advise the President in the matter of
appointing Colonel Benton to the office of lieutenant-general in
command of the armies in the field. At the same time, the President
laid before them his project for an appropriation of two millions to
purchase peace; _i.e._ to secure a cession of territory from Mexico.
With one accord Douglas and his companions advised the President not
to press Benton's appointment, but all agreed that the desired
appropriation should be pushed through Congress with all possible
speed.[237] Yet all knew that such a bill must run the gauntlet of
amendment by those who had attached the Wilmot Proviso to the
two-million-dollar bill of the last session.

While Douglas was thus rising rapidly to the leadership of his party
in the House, the Legislature of his State promoted him to the Senate.
For six years he had been a potential candidate for the office,
despite his comparative youth.[238] What transpired in the Democratic
caucus which named him as the candidate of the party, history does not
record. That there was jealousy on the part of older men, much
heart-burning among the younger aspirants, and bargaining on all
sides, may be inferred from an incident recorded in Polk's diary.[239]
Soon after his election, Douglas repaired to the President's office to
urge the appointment of Richard M. Young of Illinois as Commissioner
of the General Land Office. This was not the first time that Douglas
had urged the appointment, it would seem. The President now inquired
of Senator Breese, who had accompanied Douglas and seconded his
request, whether the appointment would be satisfactory to the Illinois
delegation. Both replied that it would, if Mr. Hoge, a member of the
present Congress, who had been recommended at the last session, could
not be appointed. The President repeated his decision not to appoint
members of Congress to office, except in special cases, and suggested
another candidate. Neither Douglas nor Breese would consent. Polk then
spoke of a diplomatic charge for Young, but they would not hear of it.

Next morning Douglas returned to the attack, and the President, under
pressure, sent the nomination of Young to the Senate; before five
o'clock of the same day, Polk was surprised to receive a notification
from the Secretary of the Senate that the nomination had been
confirmed. The President was a good deal mystified by this unusual
promptness, until three members of the Illinois delegation called some
hours later, in a state of great excitement, saying that Douglas and
Breese had taken advantage of them. They had no knowledge that Young's
nomination was being pressed, and McClernand in high dudgeon intimated
that this was all a bargain between Young and the two Senators.
Douglas and Breese had sought to prevent Young from contesting their
seats in the Senate, by securing a fat office for him. All this is _ex
parte_ evidence against Senator Douglas; but there is nothing
intrinsically improbable in the story. In these latter days, so
comparatively innocent a deal would pass without comment.

Immediately upon taking his seat in the Senate, Douglas was appointed
chairman of the Committee on Territories. It was then a position of
the utmost importance, for every question of territorial organization
touched the peculiar interests of the South. The varying currents of
public opinion crossed in this committee. Senator Bright of Indiana is
well described by the hackneyed and often misapplied designation, a
Northern Democrat with Southern principles; Butler was Calhoun's
colleague; Clayton of Delaware was a Whig and represented a border
State which was vacillating between slavery and freedom; while Davis
was a Massachusetts Whig. Douglas was placed, as it appeared, in the
very storm center of politics, where his well-known fighting qualities
would be in demand. It was not so clear to those who knew him, that he
possessed the not less needful qualities of patience and tact for
occasions when battles are not won by fighting. Still, life at the
capital had smoothed his many little asperities of manner. He had
learned to conform to the requirements of a social etiquette to which
he had been a stranger; yet without losing the heartiness of manner
and genial companionableness with all men which was, indeed, his
greatest personal charm. His genuineness and large-hearted regard for
his friends grappled them to him and won respect even from those who
were not of his political faith.[240]

An incident at the very outset of his career in the Senate, betrayed
some little lack of self-restraint. When Senator Cass introduced the
so-called Ten Regiments bill, Calhoun asked that its consideration
might be postponed, in order to give him opportunity to discuss
resolutions on the prospective annexation of Mexico. Cass was disposed
to yield for courtesy's sake; but Douglas resented the interruption.
He failed to see why public business should be suspended in order to
discuss abstract propositions. He believed that this doctrine of
courtesy was being carried to great lengths.[241] Evidently the young
Senator, fresh from the brisk atmosphere of the House, was restive
under the conventional restraints of the more sedate Senate. He had
not yet become acclimated.

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

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

Shepherd Knapp - "Down the Chimney"

Thomas Clarkson - "A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume III (of 3)"

Mabel Collins - "Light On The Path and Through the Gates of Gold"

Mrs. Oliphant - "A Little Pilgrim "

Murder One closing so did we commit this crime?
Articles published by guardian.co.uk Books

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

In focus: Liz Jobey looks at the work of photographic printer Richard Benson
From winged wonders to creepy crawlies, Mark Doty is impressed by the creatures that emerged from his workshop on encountering animals