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




Once again Douglas reviewed the origin of the war re-arguing the case
for the administration. If the arguments employed were now well-worn,
they were repeated with an incisiveness that took away much of their
staleness. This speech must be understood as complementary to that
which he had made in the House at the opening of hostilities. But he
had not changed his point of view, nor moderated his contentions. Time
seemed to have served only to make him surer of his evidence. Douglas
exhibited throughout his most conspicuous excellencies and his most
glaring defects. From first to last he was an attorney, making the
best possible defense of his client. Nothing could excel his adroit
selection of evidence, and his disposition and massing of telling
testimony. Form and presentation were admirably calculated to disarm
and convince. It goes without saying that Douglas's mental attitude
was the opposite of the scientific and historic spirit. Having a
proposition to establish, he cared only for pertinent evidence. He
rarely inquired into the character of the authorities from which he
culled his data.

That this attitude of mind and these unscholarly habits often were his
undoing, was inevitable. He was often betrayed by fallacies and hasty
inferences. The speech before us illustrates this lamentable mental
defect. With the utmost assurance Douglas pointed out that Texas had
actually extended her jurisdiction over the debatable land between the
Nueces and the Rio Grande, fixing by law the times of holding court in
the counties of San Patricio and Bexar. This was in the year 1838. The
conclusion was almost unavoidable that when Texas came into the Union,
her actual sovereignty extended to the Rio Grande. But further
examination would have shown Douglas, that the only inhabited portion
of the so-called counties were the towns on the right bank of the
Nueces: beyond, lay a waste which was still claimed by Mexico. Was he
misinformed, or had he hastily selected the usable portion of the
evidence? Once again, in his eagerness to show that Mexico, so
recently as 1842, had tacitly recognized the Rio Grande as a boundary
in her military operations, he controverted his own argument that
Texas had been in undisturbed possession of the country. He
corroborated the conviction of those who from the first had asserted
that, in annexing Texas, the United States had annexed a war. This
from the man who had formerly declared that the danger of war was
remote, because there had been no war between Mexico and Texas for
nine years!

Before a vote could be reached on the Ten Regiments bill, the draft
of the Mexican treaty had been sent to the Senate. What transpired in
executive session and what part Douglas sustained in the discussion of
the treaty, may be guessed pretty accurately by his later admissions.
He was one of an aggressive minority who stoutly opposed the provision
of the fifth article of the treaty, which was to this effect: "The
boundary-line established by this article shall be religiously
respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be
made therein except by the express and free consent of both nations,
lawfully given by the general government of each, in conformity with
its own Constitution." This statement was deemed a humiliating avowal
that the United States had wrongfully warred upon Mexico, and a solemn
pledge that we would never repeat the offense. The obvious retort was
that certain consciences now seemed hypersensitive about the war.
However that may be, eleven votes were recorded for conscience' sake
against the odious article.

This was not the only ground of complaint. Douglas afterward stated
the feeling of the minority in this way: "It violated a great
principle of public policy in relation to this continent. It pledges
the faith of this Republic that our successors shall not do that which
duty to the interests and honor of the country, in the progress of
events, may compel them to do." But he hastened to add that he
meditated no aggression upon Mexico. In short, the Republic,--such was
his hardly-concealed thought,--might again fall out with its imbecile
neighbor and feel called upon to administer punishment by demanding
indemnity. There was no knowing what "the progress of events" might
make a national necessity.[243]

As yet Douglas had contributed nothing to the solution of the problem
which lurked behind the Mexican cession; nor had he tried his hand at
making party opinion on new issues. He seemed to have no concern
beyond the concrete business on the calendar of the Senate. He classed
all anticipatory discussion of future issues as idle abstraction. Had
he no imagination? Had he no eyes to see beyond the object immediately
within his field of vision? Had his alert intelligence suddenly become
myopic?

On the subject of Abolitionism, at least, he had positive convictions,
which he did not hesitate to express. An exciting episode in the
Senate drew from him a sharp arraignment of the extreme factions North
and South. An acrimonious debate had been precipitated by a bill
introduced by that fervid champion of Abolitionism, Senator Hale of
New Hampshire, which purported to protect property in the District of
Columbia against rioters. A recent attack upon the office of the
_National Era_, the organ of Abolitionism, at the capital, as everyone
understood, inspired the bill, and inevitably formed the real subject
of debate.[244] It was in the heated colloquy that ensued that Senator
Foote of Mississippi earned his sobriquet of "Hangman," by inviting
Hale to visit Mississippi and to "grace one of the tallest trees of
the forest, with a rope around his neck." Calhoun, too, was excited
beyond his wont, declaring that he would as soon argue with a maniac
from Bedlam as with the Senator from New Hampshire.

With cool audacity and perfect self-possession, Douglas undertook to
recall the Senate to its wonted composure,--a service not likely to be
graciously received by the aggrieved parties. Douglas remarked
sarcastically that Southern gentlemen had effected just what the
Senator from New Hampshire, as presidential candidate of the
Abolitionists, had desired: they had unquestionably doubled his vote
in the free States. The invitation of the Senator from Mississippi
alone was worth not less than ten thousand votes to the Senator from
New Hampshire. "It is the speeches of Southern men, representing slave
States, going to an extreme, breathing a fanaticism as wild and as
reckless as that of the Senator from New Hampshire, which creates
Abolitionism in the North." These were hardly the words of the
traditional peacemaker. Senator Foote was again upon his feet
breathing out imprecations. "I must again congratulate the Senator
from New Hampshire," resumed Douglas, "on the accession of the five
thousand votes!" Again a colloquy ensued. Calhoun declared Douglas's
course "at least as offensive as that of the Senator from New
Hampshire." Douglas was then permitted to speak uninterruptedly. He
assured his Southern colleagues that, as one not altogether
unacquainted with life in the slave States, he appreciated their
indignation against Abolitionists and shared it; but as he had no
sympathy for Abolitionism, he also had none for that extreme course of
Southern gentlemen which was akin to Abolitionism. "We stand up for
all your constitutional rights, in which we will protect you to the
last.... But we protest against being made instruments--puppets--in
this slavery excitement, which can operate only to your interest and
the building up of those who wish to put you down."[245]

Dignified silence, however, was the last thing to be expected from the
peppery gentleman from Mississippi. He must speak "the language of
just indignation." He gladly testified to the consideration with which
Douglas was wont to treat the South, but he warned the young Senator
from Illinois that the old adage--_"in medio tutissimus ibis"_--might
lead him astray. He might think to reach the goal of his ambitions by
keeping clear of the two leading factions and by identifying himself
with the masses, but he was grievously mistaken.

The reply of Douglas was dignified and guarded. He would not speak for
or against slavery. The institution was local and sustained by local
opinion; by local sentiment it would stand or fall. "In the North it
is not expected that we should take the position that slavery is a
positive good--a positive blessing. If we did assume such a position,
it would be a very pertinent inquiry. Why do you not adopt this
institution? We have moulded our institutions at the North as we have
thought proper; and now we say to you of the South, if slavery be a
blessing, it is your blessing; if it be a curse, it is your curse;
enjoy it--on you rest all the responsibility! We are prepared to aid
you in the maintenance of all your constitutional rights; and I
apprehend that no man, South or North, has shown more consistently a
disposition to do so than myself.... But I claim the privilege of
pointing out to you how you give strength and encouragement to the
Abolitionists of the North."[246]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 223: See Garrison, Westward Extension, Ch. 14.]

[Footnote 224: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 815.]

[Footnote 225: February 1, 1848.]

[Footnote 226: See Bancroft's History of Mexico, pp. 173-174 note.]

[Footnote 227: Niles' _Register_, Vol. 50, p. 336.]

[Footnote 228: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 816-817.]

[Footnote 229: Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, I, p. 52.]

[Footnote 230: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for June 22, 1846.]

[Footnote 231: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for June 23, 1846.]

[Footnote 232: Even the Alton _Telegraph_, a Whig paper, and in times
past no admirer of Douglas, spoke (May 30, 1846) of the "most
admirable" speech of Judge Douglas in defense of the Mexican War (May
13th).]

[Footnote 233: The official returns were as follows:

Douglas 9629
Vandeventer 6864
Wilson 395
]

[Footnote 234: The Abolitionist candidate in 1846 showed no marked
gain over the candidate in 1844; Native Americanism had no candidates
in the field.]

[Footnote 235: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for September 4, 1846.]

[Footnote 236: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 13-14.]

[Footnote 237: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for December 14, 1846.]

[Footnote 238: Ford, History of Illinois, p. 390.]

[Footnote 239: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for January 6, 1847.]

[Footnote 240: Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, I, pp. 146-147.]

[Footnote 241: _Globe_, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 92.]

[Footnote 242: _Globe_, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 222.]

[Footnote 243: _Globe_, 32 Cong., 2 Sess., App., p. 172.]

[Footnote 244: The debate is reported in the _Globe_, 30 Cong., 1
Sess., App., pp. 500 ff.]

[Footnote 245: _Globe_, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 506.]

[Footnote 246: _Ibid._, p. 507.]




CHAPTER VII

THE MEXICAN CESSION


When Douglas entered Washington in the fall of 1847, as junior Senator
from Illinois, our troops had occupied the city of Mexico and
negotiations for peace were well under way. Perplexing problems
awaited Congress. President Polk sternly reminded the two Houses that
peace must bring indemnity for the past and security for the future,
and that the only indemnity which Mexico could offer would be a
cession of territory. Unwittingly, he gave the signal for another
bitter controversy, for in the state of public opinion at that moment,
every accession of territory was bound to raise the question of the
extension of slavery. The country was on the eve of another
presidential election. Would the administration which had precipitated
the war, prove itself equal to the legislative burdens imposed by that
war? Could the party evolve a constructive programme and at the same
time name a candidate that would win another victory at the polls?

It soon transpired that the Democratic party was at loggerheads. Of
all the factions, that headed by the South Carolina delegation
possessed the greatest solidarity. Under the leadership of Calhoun,
its attitude toward slavery in the Territories was already clearly
stated in almost syllogistic form: the States are co-sovereigns in the
Territories; the general government is only the agent of the
co-sovereigns; therefore, the citizens of each State may settle in the
Territories with whatever is recognized as property in their own
State. The corollary of this doctrine was: Congress may not exclude
slavery from the Territories.

At the other pole of political thought, stood the supporters of the
Wilmot Proviso, who had twice endeavored to attach a prohibition of
slavery to all territory which should be acquired from Mexico, and who
had retarded the organization of Oregon by insisting upon a similar
concession to the principle of slavery-restriction in that Territory.
Next to these Ultras were those who doubted the necessity of the
Wilmot Proviso, believing that slavery was already prohibited in the
new acquisitions by Mexican law. Yet not for an instant did they doubt
the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories.

Between these extremes were grouped the followers of Senator Cass of
Michigan, who was perhaps the most conspicuous candidate for the
Democratic nomination. In his famous Nicholson letter of December 24,
1847, he questioned both the expediency and constitutionality of the
Wilmot Proviso. It seemed to him wiser to confine the authority of the
general government to the erection of proper governments for the new
countries, leaving the inhabitants meantime to regulate their internal
concerns in their own way. In all probability neither California nor
New Mexico would be adapted to slave labor, because of physical and
climatic conditions. Dickinson of New York carried this doctrine,
which was promptly dubbed "Squatter Sovereignty," to still greater
lengths. Not only by constitutional right, but by "inherent," "innate"
sovereignty, were the people of the Territories vested with the power
to determine their own concerns.

Beside these well-defined groups there were others which professed no
doctrines and no policies. Probably the rank and file of the party
were content to drift: to be non committal was safer than to be
doctrinaire; besides, it cost less effort. Such was the plight of the
Democratic party on the eve of a presidential election. If harmony was
to proceed out of this diversity, the process must needs be
accelerated.

The fate of Oregon had been a hard one. Without a territorial
government through no fault of their own, the settlers had been
repeatedly visited by calamities which the prompt action of Congress
might have averted.[247] The Senate had failed to act on one
territorial bill; twice it had rejected bills which had passed the
House, and the only excuse for delay was the question of slavery,
which everybody admitted could never exist in Oregon. On January 10,
1848, for the fourth time, Douglas presented a bill to provide a
territorial government for Oregon;[248] but before he could urge its
consideration, he was summoned to the bed-side of his father-in-law.
His absence left a dead-lock in the Committee on Territories:
Democrats and Whigs could not agree on the clause in the bill which
prohibited slavery in Oregon. What was the true inwardness of this
unwillingness to prohibit slavery where it could never go?

The Senate seemed apathetic; but its apathy was more feigned than
real. There was, indeed, great interest in the bill, but equally great
reluctance to act upon it. What the South feared was not that Oregon
would be free soil,--that was conceded,--but that an unfavorable
precedent would be established. Were it conceded that Congress might
exclude slavery from Oregon, a similar power could not be denied
Congress in legislating for the newly acquired Territories where
slavery was possible.[249]

As a last resort, a select committee was appointed, of which Senator
Clayton became chairman. Within a week, a compromise was reported
which embraced not only Oregon, but California and New Mexico as well.
The laws of the provisional government of Oregon were to stand until
the new legislature should alter them, while the legislatures of the
prospective Territories of California and New Mexico were forbidden to
make laws touching slavery. The question whether, under existing laws,
slaves might or might not be carried into these two Territories, was
left to the courts with right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States.[250] The Senate accepted this compromise after a
prolonged debate, but the House laid it on the table without so much
as permitting it to be read.[251]

Douglas returned in time to give his vote for the Clayton
compromise,[252] but when this laborious effort to adjust controverted
matters failed, he again pressed his original bill.[253] Hoping to
make this more palatable, he suggested an amendment to the
objectionable prohibitory clause: "inasmuch as the said territory is
north of the parallel of 36 deg. 30' of north latitude, usually known as
the Missouri Compromise." It was the wish of his committee, he told
the Senate, that "no Senator's vote on the bill should be understood
as committing him on the great question."[254] In other words, he
invited the Senate to act without creating a precedent; to extend the
Missouri Compromise line without raising troublesome constitutional
questions in the rest of the public domain; to legislate for a special
case on the basis of an old agreement, without predicating anything
about the future. When this amendment came to vote, only Douglas and
Bright supported it.[255]

Douglas then proposed to extend the Missouri Compromised line to the
Pacific, by an amendment which declared the old agreement "revived ...
and in full force and binding for the future organization of the
Territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same
understanding with which it was originally adopted."[256] This was
President Polk's solution of the question. It commended itself to
Douglas less on grounds of equity than of expediency. It was a
compromise which then cost him no sacrifice of principle; but though
the Senate agreed to the proposal, the House would have none of
it.[257] In the end, after an exhausting session, the Senate gave
way,[258] and the Territory of Oregon was organized with the
restrictive clause borrowed from the Ordinance of 1787. All this
turmoil had effected nothing except ill-feeling, for the final act was
identical with the bill which Douglas had originally introduced in the
House.

In the meantime, national party conventions for the nomination of
presidential candidates had been held. The choice of the Democrats
fell upon Cass; but his nomination could not be interpreted as an
indorsement of his doctrine of squatter sovereignty. By a decisive
vote, the convention rejected Yancey's resolution favoring
"non-interference with the rights of property of any portion of the
people of this confederation, be it in the States or in the
Territories, by any other than the parties interested in them."[259]
The action of the convention made it clear that traditional principles
and habitual modes of political thought and action alone held the
party together. The Whig party had no greater organic unity. The
nomination of General Taylor, who was a doubtful Whig, was a
confession that the party was non-committal on the issues of the hour.
There was much opposition to both candidates. Many anti-slavery Whigs
could not bring themselves to vote for Taylor, who was a slave-owner;
Democrats who had supported the Wilmot Proviso, disliked the evasive
doctrine of Cass.

The disaffected of both parties finally effected a fusion in the
Free-Soil convention, and with other anti-slavery elements nominated
Van Buren as their presidential candidate. With the cry of "Free soil,
free speech, free labor, and free men," the new party threatened to
upset the calculations of politicians in many quarters of the country.

The defeat of the Democratic party in the election of 1848 was
attributed to the war of factions in New York. Had the Barnburners
supported Cass, he would have secured the electoral vote of the State.
They were accused of wrecking the party out of revenge. Certain it is
that the outcome was indecisive, so far as the really vital questions
of the hour were concerned. A Whig general had been sent to the White
House, but no one knew what policies he would advocate. The Democrats
were still in control of the Senate; but thirteen Free-Soilers held
the balance of power in the House.[260]

Curiosity was excited to know what the moribund administration of the
discredited Polk would do. Douglas shared this inquisitiveness. He had
parted with the President in August rather angrily, owing to a fancied
grievance. On his return he called at the White House and apologized
handsomely for his "imprudent language."[261] The President was more
than glad to patch up the quarrel, for he could ill afford now, in
these waning hours of his administration, to part company with one
whom he regarded as "an ardent and active political supporter and
friend." Cordial relations resumed, Polk read to Douglas
confidentially such portions of his forthcoming message as related to
the tariff, the veto power, and the establishment of territorial
governments in California and New Mexico. In the spirit of compromise
he was still willing to approve an extension of the Missouri
Compromise line through our new possessions. Should this prove
unacceptable, he would give his consent to a bill which would leave
the vexing question of slavery in the new Territories to the
judiciary, as Clayton had proposed. Douglas was now thoroughly
deferential. He gratified the President by giving the message his
unqualified approval.[262]

However, by the time Congress met, Douglas had made out his own
programme; and it differed in one respect from anything that the
President, or for that matter anyone else, had suggested. He proposed
to admit both New Mexico and California; _i.e._ all of the territory
acquired from Mexico, into the Union _as a State_. Some years later,
Douglas said that he had introduced his California bill with the
approval of the President;[263] but in this his memory was surely at
fault. The full credit for this innovation belongs to Douglas.[264] He
justified the departure from precedent in this instance, on the score
of California's astounding growth in population. Besides, a
territorial bill could hardly pass in this short session, "for reasons
which may be apparent to all of us." Three bills had already been
rejected.[265]

Now while California had rapidly increased in population, there were
probably not more than twenty-six thousand souls within its borders,
and of these more than a third were foreigners.[266] One would
naturally suppose that a period of territorial tutelage would have
been peculiarly fitting for this distant possession. Obviously,
Douglas did not disclose his full thought. What he really proposed,
was to avoid raising the spectre of slavery again. If the people of
California could skip the period of their political minority and leap
into their majority, they might then create their own institutions: no
one could gainsay this right, when once California should be a
"sovereign State." This was an application of squatter sovereignty at
which Calhoun, least of all, could mock.

The President and his cabinet were taken by surprise. Frequent
consultations were held. Douglas was repeatedly closeted with the
President. All the members of the cabinet agreed that the plan of
leaving the slavery question to the people of the new State was
ingenious; but many objections were raised to a single State. In
repeated interviews, Polk urged Douglas to draft a separate bill for
New Mexico; but Douglas was obdurate.[267]

To Douglas's chagrin, the California bill was not referred to his
committee, but to the Committee on the Judiciary. Perhaps this course
was in accord with precedent, but it was noted that four out of the
five members of this committee were Southerners, and that the vote to
refer was a sectional one.[268] An adverse report was therefore to be
expected. Signs were not wanting that if the people of the new
province were left to work out their own salvation, they would exclude
slavery.[269] The South was acutely sensitive to such signs. Nothing
of this bias, however, appeared in the report of the committee. With
great cleverness and circumspection they chose another mode of attack.

The committee professed to discover in the bill a radical departure
from traditional policy. When had Congress ever created a State out of
"an unorganized body of people having no constitution, or laws, or
legitimate bond of union?" California was to be a "sovereign State,"
yet the bill provided that Congress should interpose its authority to
form new States out of it, and to prescribe rules for elections to a
constitutional convention. What sort of sovereignty was this?
Moreover, since Texas claimed a part of New Mexico, endless
litigations would follow. In the judgment of the committee, it would
be far wiser to organize the usual territorial governments for
California and New Mexico.[270]

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

Daniel A. Goodsell - "The Things Which Remain"

Various - "Lippincott's Magazine, August, 1885"

Beatrix Potter - "The Tale Of Benjamin Bunny"

Maria Thompson Daviess - "Phyllis"

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