n/snc

SI^FiPHF'

*I, givk theft; BMs,, : y

• y^lh •wannfEiasinnf •
Bought with the income
of the
Henry W. Scott, Jr. Fund

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS

HIS LIFE
PUBLIC SERVICES, SPEECHES
AND PATRIOTISM

By Clark E. Carr

THE ILLINI: A Story of the Prairies.
With many portraits. Seventh Edition. Large
8vo. $2.00 net.
MY DAY AND GENERATION. With sixty-
three illustrations. Large 8vo. $3.00 net.
LINCOLN AT GETTYSBURG. With por
traits. Third Edition. l6mo. $1.00 net.

A. C. McClueg & Co., Publishers

Marble Statue of Senator Douglas in the
Illinois State Historical Society
Library at Springfield

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
HIS LIFE
PUBLIC SERVICES, SPEECHES
AND PATRIOTISM

BY
CLARK E. CARR, LL.D.
AUTHOR OF "THE ILLINI," "MY DAY AND GENERATION"
"LINCOLN AT GETTYSBURG," ETC.

IliXTSTRATED

CHICAGO
A. C. McCLUEG & CO.
1909

Copyrighted
By Clark E. Carr
1909

Published October 30, 1909

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, V. g. A.

FOEEWOED
THE author of this work has been for several
years considering making an attempt to place
Senator Douglas before the public as he ap
peared, when a conspicuous actor in public affairs, a
half century ago. While the author then was and still
is a Republican in politics, identified with the party
that was directly in antagonism to Senator Douglas
and his later policies, he has become satisfied that but
scant justice has been done to the Senator — that his
nobility and purity of character, and sublime patriotism,
and transcendent abilities have not been appreciated as
they deserve to be.
Abraham Lincoln, in grandeur of character and
achievements, became so exalted as to overshadow,
for a time, the work of the great Senator; but the
patriotic people of America should never forget the
public services of Senator Douglas. Great as is
the fame of Mr. Lincoln, it may be doubted whether
his name would have ever been known to any consid
erable degree beyond the limits of the State of Illinois,
but for his proving himself to be able to meet and suc
cessfully cope with the Senator in what are known as
The Lincoln-Douglas debates, and it may also be doubted
whether President Lincoln could have been successful

vi STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
in the mighty work of maintaining the integrity of the
Nation but for the timely support of Senator Douglas.
The name of Senator Douglas is usually connected
with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the
legislation incident thereto, and as the champion of the
doctrine of " popular sovereignty." Comparatively few
remember that, before these measures were proposed,
or even thought of, he had, through his broad and
comprehensive views, and his potentiality in the dis
cussion of and solving important public questions,
become the foremost American statesman.
Those who remember the potentiality of Senator
Douglas, and who have a proper conception of his char
acter and statesmanship, are rapidly passing away.
Because of this the publishers wished to have one
whose memory goes back to those ante bellum times,
and who knew both Lincoln and Douglas, to give some
of his recollections of the stirring events in which they
acted, and so the author has consented to carry into
execution the work he has long contemplated. He will
be more than satisfied if he has succeeded in placing
the great Senator before the reader as he deserves.
Clark E. Carr.
Galebburg, Illinois, September 1, 1909.

CONTENTS

Chapter Pack
I. First Appearance in Illinois  1
II. Early Life  3
III. His Political Prominence  4
IV. A Jackson Democrat  5
V. Martin Van Buren  9
VI. Douglas takes his Seat in Congress  12
VII. The Old Man Eloquent  14
VIII. The Mexican War  16
IX. The Oregon Boundary  20
X. The Illinois Central Railway  23
XI. The Pacific Railway  25
XII. Inland Waterways  27
XIII. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty  28
XIV. An Isthmian Canal  30
| XV. Douglas would not limit the Boundaries of the
Republic  34
¦' XVI. The Compromise Measures of 1850  38
»XVII. A Portrayal of Senator Douglas  41
XVIII. Senator Douglas's Family  49
XIX. The University of Chicago  50
¦— • i XX. The Mistake of Senator Douglas's Life .... 53
-1 XXI. Douglas's Position on Slavery  58
XXII. The Heroism of Douglas  62

Viii CONTENTS
Chapter Page
XXIII. Speech of Douglas against the Lecompton
Constitution  65
XXIV. Presidential Dictation to Members of Con
gress  70
XXV. Recapitulation  73
XXVI. Abraham Lincoln  75
XXVII. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates  80
XXVIII. The Presidency  90
XXIX. The Charleston Convention  94
XXX. Lincoln and Douglas Candidates for President 98
XXXI. The Patriotism of Senator Douglas . . . . 105
XXXII. Strenuous Efforts to effect a Compromise . 110
XXXIII. The Southern Confederacy  114
XXXIV. A Solid South and a Divided North . . . . 118
XXXV. Inauguration of President Lincoln .... 123
XXXVI. A Momentous Conference  129
XXXVII. Douglas arouses his Party in the North . . 132
XXXVIII. Speaks at Springfield and Chicago .... 135
XXXIX. The North United  140
XL. Douglas's Last Admonition  143

APPENDIX
Senator Douglas's Speech in the House of Representa
tives in vindication of Andrew Jackson. Delivered Jan
uary 7, 1844  145
Speech in the House of Representatives on the Annex
ation of Texas and the Mexican War. Delivered May,
1846, in reply to John Quincy Adams  156
Extracts from Speeches on the Oregon Boundary . . . 168
Policy with Foreign Nations. Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
Speech in the Senate, February 14, 1853  169-'
Territorial Expansion, Foreign Aggression. Speech
in the Senate, March 10, 1853  179

CONTENTS IX
Page
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Speech in the Senate,
March 8, 1854  187
The Lecompton Constitution. Speech in the Senate,
March 22, 1857  218
Internal Improvements. Letter to Governor Matteson . 235
Pacific Railway. Speech in the Senate, April 17, 1858 . 243
Final Plea for the Union. Last Speech in the Senate,
January 3, 1861  252
Article by Clark E. Carr, showing that Douglas was not
" driven into a corner " at Freeport  276
INDEX  287

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page
Marble Statue of Douglas in the Illinois State His
torical Society Library at Springfield . . Frontispiece
Birthplace at Brandon, Vermont  2
Portrait of Andrew Jackson, President 1829-1837 . 6
Portrait of William Henry Harrison  10
Portrait of Martin Van Buren  14
Portrait of John Quincy Adams  18
Portrait of Baron Von Humboldt  30
Portrait of John Hay  32
Portrait of Abraham Lincoln  44
Portrait of John D. Rockefeller  50
Douglas Monument  52
Portrait of James Buchanan  60
Portrait of Horace Greeley  74
Knox College Tablet showing Spot where Lincoln and
Douglas met in the Great Debate at Galesburg . 80
Portrait of Franklin Pierce  96
Portrait of John C. Breckenridge  102
Portrait of John J. Crittenden  108
Portrait of Benjamin F. Wade  112
Portrait of Reuben H. Walworth  120
Portrait of Jefferson Davis  128
Portrait of Stephen A. Douglas  134
Portrait of S. M. Cullom  136

Xii ILLUSTRATIONS Paoe
Portrait of Edward A. Pollard  140
The Tremont House, Chicago  143
Portrait of John Slidell  148
Portrait of General W. J. Worth  156
Portrait of Zachary Taylor  160
Portrait of Sam Houston  162
Portrait of General Santa Ana  166
Portrait of Henry Clay  184
Portrait of President James K. Polk  204

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
CHAPTER I
FIRST APPEARANCE IN ILLINOIS
SLENDER of figure, only five feet four in height,
and only twenty years old, without a friend and
with scarcely an acquaintance within a thousand
miles, with but a few cents in his pocket, Stephen A.
Douglas, in the Spring of 1833, walked into the town
of Winchester in Scott County, Illinois, with his coat on
his arm, in the hope of being able to find employment.
As he proceeded along the main street of the town he
saw quite a number of people assembled, and learned
that there was to be an auction of the goods and chat
tels and live-stock of some citizen of the county. The
young man paused to ask a question, when he was
asked whether he could write and keep accounts; to
which he replied in the affirmative. It was then pro
posed to him that he act as clerk of the auction, and he
engaged to do so at the wages of two dollars a day.
The auction continued for three days, and he was paid
six dollars for his services.
This was the first money he ever earned.
The young man soon found an opportunity for more
permanent employment by opening a private school.
He got together forty scholars for a term of three

2 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
months, at three dollars a scholar, which gave him
enough for his immediate wants. He had studied the
law in an Eastern State and, while thus teaching, he
continued that study.
Within ten years after that friendless boy walked
into that town, he had been admitted to the bar, im
mediately becoming a successful lawyer; had been a
member of the Illinois Legislature; had been Prose
cuting Attorney ; had been Register of the Land
Office at Springfield ; had been Secretary of State
of Illinois ; had been a Judge of the Supreme Court of
Illinois, presiding upon the bench ; and was on his way
to Washington to take his seat in the Lower House of
Congress, to which position he had been elected. When
the Congressional term expired he was reelected, and
then reelected again, each time by increased majorities.
When about to enter upon his third term in theiower
House of Congress he was elected to the United States
Senate for six years. When that term in the Senate
expired he was reelected for another term practically
without opposition. Six years later he was confronted
by Abraham Lincoln in the great debates ; he was vic
torious, and was reelected to a third term ; upon this
he served but little more than two years, when he died,
at forty-eight years of age.

Birthplace at Brandon, Vermont

CHAPTER II
EARLY LIFE
DOUGLAS was born at Brandon, Vermont, on
the twenty-third of April, 1813. During his
infancy, his father, Dr. Douglas, died. The
child grew up on a farm, working in the field in the
Summer and attending district school during the Win
ter. At fifteen he expected to be sent to college ; but
his widowed mother could not afford such an outlay,
and he was apprenticed to a cabinet-maker and became
proficient at the trade. It was said facetiously, after
he became dominant in public affairs at Washington,
that he was still a cabinet-maker, proficient in making
Cabinets and Bureaus.
When he was seventeen, his mother married again
and moved to Canandaigua, New York, taking the boy
with her. He "then had the advantages of the fine
academy located there, of which he availed himself,
and became an excellent scholar. He remained at
Canandaigua for three years, and, in addition to his
academic studies, he found time to study law in the
office of one of the leading lawyers of the place.
From Canandaigua, in 1833, at twenty years of age,
he made his way alone to Illinois and appeared at
Winchester, as has been stated.

CHAPTER III
HIS POLITICAL PROMINENCE
SENATOR DOUGLAS was several times presented
by Illinois for nomination to the Presidency
in Democratic national conventions, and finally in
1860 received a majority of the votes of the convention
and became a candidate before the people; but the
Southern wing of the party which opposed him with
drew, claiming that, under the two-thirds rule of the
Democratic party, he was not regularly nominated. In
that election Senator Douglas received an enormous
popular vote for President, but Abraham Lincoln was
elected. Stephen A. Douglas was for several years the fore
most American statesman. For nearly a quarter of a
century he was prominently connected with, and poten
tial in, all the great measures that came before the
country.

CHAPTER IV
A JACKSON DEMOCRAT
WHEN Douglas first arrived in Illinois, Andrew
Jackson was President and was just entering
upon his second term of office, having been
reelected the year before.
During all the youth of Stephen A. Douglas, Andrew
Jackson was his beau ideal of an American patriot and
statesman. The battle of New Orleans was fought and
won by the intrepid hero when Douglas was two years
old. General Jackson was a man of most remarkable
resources. The victory was won through his extraor
dinary strategy. To accomplish the result he deemed
it necessary to declare martial law, under the rigor of
which men were executed. He was on account of this
confronted with many embarrassments by the actions
of his own people, by American citizens who did not
realize that a dictatorship alone could save the city of
New Orleans and the State of Louisiana to the Union.
The General found it necessary to arrest the United
States Federal Judge, and imprison and finally banish
him. When, after the victory, martial law was discon
tinued and civil government resumed, the Judge returned
and fined General Jackson a thousand dollars for con
tempt of court. Friends tried to pay the fine, but the

6 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
General refused to permit it and paid it himself. These
complications created bitter feelings of animosity, which
resulted in a Jackson and an anti-Jackson party. The
controversies were taken up by the country, and General
Jackson became at once the most honored and the most
detested of men. The Jackson men could not say
enough in praise of their hero, and the anti-Jackson
men could not say enough against him. He was called
a murderer and an ignorant boor by one party, while
the other regarded him as the sublimest of heroes and
the noblest of patriots.
This controversy raged during the entire minority of
Stephen A. Douglas. A youth of such strong character
and such intensity of feeling could not keep out of the
controversy. He must champion one side or the other.
He was a Jackson boy and a Jackson man so long as
his hero lived.
When the boy was eleven years old General Jackson
first became a candidate before the people for President
of the United States. He was not elected, but his popu
larity proved to be great. Four years later, when the
lad was fifteen years old, General Jackson was again a
candidate and was elected. Young Douglas was nineteen
years old when General Jackson was reelected to a second
term. Having from his earliest childhood been inter
ested in and following so closely the career of his hero,
who had constantly been the central figure in public
life, no other man was so familiar with his history and
no other championed him with greater zeal than did
young Douglas.
During the term of the school he taught, young

Andrew Jackson, President 1829-1837
From a portrait loaned by the Smithsonian Institution

A JACKSON DEMOCRAT 7
Douglas had made himself familiar with the Illinois
statutes and reports, and was admitted to the practice
of the law ; and when the school closed, he opened an
office in Jacksonville. From the first he found clients.
President Jackson had but a short time before re
moved the Government deposits from the National
Bank, and vetoed its charter. A meeting was called in
the Courthouse to indorse the President, and Douglas,
young as he was, was called upon to present the reso
lutions, which were violently opposed. To the aston
ishment of everybody this stripling who had but just
attained his majority, this petite stranger, this little
man, made the finest address in vindication of the hero
President, that had ever been heard in Jacksonville.
His appearance to champion such a cause was at first
regarded as ludicrous, and he was an object of derision ;
but, as he proceeded, men listened and became absorbed
in his statements, his arguments, his illustrations, his
citing of precedents, his conclusions, to such a degree as
to realize that they had before them in that young man
an orator and a statesman. This, it must be remem
bered, was in the most cultivated, scholarly, and the
only college town in Illinois. The long years of study
and training under the spell of this hero worship which
had been the inspiration of his life had borne fruit.
President Jackson was in himself the embodiment of
Democracy, and Stephen A. Douglas had thus already
proven himself to be the best informed and the ablest
champion of the Democratic party in Illinois. In an
incredibly short time his fame extended to all that
region and throughout the State.

8 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
So great had become the reputation of the young
orator, and so great his influence, as to alarm the Whigs,
who came to realize that, unless checked, he would
carry the whole people with him. The ablest men were
pitted against him. He met them fearlessly in joint de
bate, and not only held his own but constantly added to
his reputation and strengthened himself with the people.
The Rev. Wm. H. Milburn, since chaplain of the
United States Senate, known as the blind orator, de
scribes Douglas, as he saw him engaged in one of these
contests, as follows :
" The first time I saw Mr. Douglas was in June, 1838,
standing on the gallery of the Market House, which
some of my readers may recollect as situated in the
middle of the square at Jacksonville. He and Colonel
John J. Hardin were engaged in canvassing Morgan
County for Congress. He was on the threshold of that
great world in which he has since played so prominent a
part. I stood and listened to him surrounded by a
motley crowd of backwood farmers and hunters dressed
in homespun or deerskin, my boyish breast glowing with
exultant joy, as he, only ten years my senior [Douglas
was then twenty-five], battled so bravely for the doc
trines of his party with the veteran and accomplished
Hardin. . . . He even then showed signs of that dex
terity in debate and vehement and impressive declama
tion of which he has since become such a master. . . .
Less than four years before, he had walked into the
town of Winchester, sixteen miles from Jacksonville,
an entire stranger, with thirty-seven and a half cents
in his pocket, his all of earthly fortune."

CHAPTER V
MARTIN VAN BUREN
IN those days there were no packed caucuses, no
political bosses, no delegates, and no nominating
conventions. Any man could become a candi
date by announcing himself or by having his friends
announce him. It was in this way that all the
prominent men of those days in Illinois first became
candidates before the people.
The machine politicians, the bosses, and the caucus
managers, were not then able to crowd out men of
ability and to fill public places with men of calibre
similar to their own.
Soon after the appearance of Douglas in politics
came a Presidential campaign. General Jackson's
second term was drawing to a close. The General
could not himself be again a candidate, but he could
dictate the choice of his successor. He chose his
friend and former cabinet officer, who was Vice Presi
dent, having been elected upon the same ticket with
himself, Martin Van Buren. There was no question
after General Jackson spoke as to Douglas's choice.
President Jackson's opinions were always followed by
the young orator. He canvassed the State for Van
Buren, who triumphantly carried it, and was elected.

10 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
When that campaign closed, Stephen A. Douglas at
the age of twenty-four was the best-known public man
in Illinois.
As we have stated, Douglas was chosen for and held
positions of trust and responsibility, almost from the
time he appeared in the State. To the duties of these
offices he gave careful attention, in addition to his
marvellous work " on the stump." When he could not
give personal attention to details he always found
faithful and efficient help. There were no scandals in
his administration of public office.
Douglas had now become more potential than any
other Democrat in Illinois. The time again came
when, in order to hold the State to the Democracy, he
must put forth his whole strength.
Van Buren' s term drew to a close, and General
Jackson, still wishing to maintain his influence and
power, proclaimed from his retreat at the Hermitage
his desire for Mr. Van Buren's reelection. With
Douglas the will of Jackson still was law, and, desper
ate as was the contest, never was a candidate for
President supported with such zeal and with such
efficiency in his candidacy for reelection as was Martin
Van Buren by Stephen A. Douglas.
In that year (1840) such a political tidal wave swept
over the country as had never before been known.
The country was deluged, overwhelmed by it. The
song of "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" reverberated
throughout the land. Hard cider was on tap in every
house, and coon-skins were the emblems nailed upon
nearly every cabin door.

William Henry Harrison

MARTIN VAN BUREN 11
It seemed futile to attempt to stem the tide, but
Stephen A. Douglas by the majesty of his power saved
Ulinois to General Jackson, to Van Buren, and to the
Democratic party. Never had there been such a cam
paign as he made. In the midst of the craze for hard
cider and coon-skins, the din of campaign music, the
hoarse plaudits of campaign orators, the cheers for
" Tippecanoe and Tyler too " upon the prairies, rose the
voice of Stephen A. Douglas calling the people to halt,
and hold fast to the principles of the mighty chieftain
who had so long been their guiding star. In the cam
paign, Douglas, then but twenty-seven years old, was
far and away the foremost orator in Illinois. He
spoke for seven months, addressing two hundred and
seven different political meetings. It was then that he
began to be generally known as " The Little Giant."
Illinois and New Hampshire were the only Northern
States that gave their electoral votes to Mr. Van Buren
and against William Henry Harrison.

CHAPTER VI
DOUGLAS TAKES HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS
SENATOR DOUGLAS took his seat in Congress in
December, 1843. He was then thirty years old,
and, as has been said, it was but ten years since
he first appeared in Illinois.
Curiously his first effort and success was in vindica
tion of the hero whom he had worshipped and followed
from his childhood. Judge Hall of the Federal Court
at New Orleans had, as has been stated, fined General
Jackson a thousand dollars, which the hero had paid
out of his own pocket. A bill had been for several
years pending in Congress to refund that money to the
General, and, although he had since served two terms as
President of the United States, the bill, thus far, could
not be passed. Douglas waited modestly a proper time
for a new member before venturing to put himself
forward, and when he did, his appearance in debate
was in support of the bill in vindication of the acts of
General Jackson arguing that they were not only
justifiable, but that Jackson would have been recreant
to his duty had he failed to declare martial law and
carry into effect such drastic measures as he adopted.
The right and the duty under the conditions that
confronted General Jackson, of proclaiming martial
law, and suspending the privilege of the writ of

DOUGLAS TAKES HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS 13
habeas corpus, was so clearly shown in the speech of
Mr. Douglas that the bill was passed and became a
law. The interpretation of the law in this matter by
Mr. Douglas was made so plain that it was followed
as a precedent in the Civil War.

CHAPTER VII
THE OLD MAN ELOQUENT
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS was then a member of
the House. This great man had gone through all
the gradations of political preferment — United
States Minister to the greatest countries of the earth,
United States Senator, Secretary of State, and had
finally reached the highest goal of all American states
men, the Presidency. At the end of his Presidential
term he was tendered by his fellow-citizens of Massa
chusetts a seat in the House of Representatives, where
he served for seventeen years, until finally stricken
down in his seat with paralysis while still devoting
himself to his country's service. He was the son of
John Adams, the second President of the United States,
and a graduate of Harvard, where he was for a time a
professor. No living American had had such extraor
dinary opportunities and such experiences, and few
were so learned. He was called "the old man
eloquent." It was perhaps but natural and inevitable that the
great statesman should not at first have looked with
favor upon the ambitious young man who came into
the House as one of the representatives of a new State
of the West. When Douglas entered Congress Mr.
Adams had been a member of the House for twelve

7^S&

C*. ^-L-

<^^<.^C

^C-

Martin Van Buren

THE OLD MAN ELOQUENT 15
years, and was necessarily a leader. It has since been
brought to light that Mr. Adams in his diary called the
young Douglas a homunculus, and describes him as
"raving out his hour in abusive invectives, his face
convulsed, his gesticulation frantic," and lashing him
self into such heat that, if his body had been made of
combustible matter it would have burned out.
" In the midst of his roaring, to save himself from
choking, he stript off and cast away his cravat, unbut
toned his waistcoat, and had the air and aspect of a
half naked pugilist."
Mr. Adams was no doubt very much prejudiced
against what seemed to him an upstart. No doubt Mr.
Douglas had acquired some of the ways of public speak
ing that were then common in the West. If Douglas
really had taken on some of these peculiarities he very
soon, without losing his force and vigor, so adjusted
himself to the new conditions as to gain the respect
and good will of all the members of the House. He
certainly proved himself capable of taking care of
himself, even in a conflict with Mr. Adams.

CHAPTER Vni
THE MEXICAN WAR
DOUGLAS was an earnest and most enthusiastic
supporter of his party and of the administra
tion of President Polk in advocacy of the pros
ecution of a war with Mexico. He believed in
the war, and did not object to the acquisition through
the war of new territory. He looked with longing
eyes toward the vast region west of that we had
acquired by the Louisiana Purchase. It was after
wards claimed by his friends that but for him there
would have been no Mexican war, and that to him
more than to any other were we indebted for the
acquisition of California, New Mexico, and Arizona.
Mr. Adams represented that New England Northern
sentiment which was, above everything else, fearful
that, if our territory were extended to the southwest
the South might acquire preponderance in the Govern
ment. Consequently Mr. Adams was violently opposed
to the Mexican war.
Mr. Adams soon found that there was more- in this
stripling of thirty, whom he had designated as a homun
culus than he at first supposed.
Never were the tables turned upon an adversary in
debate more completely and triumphantly than Doug
las turned them upon the venerable statesman, and

THE MEXICAN WAR 17
never was an antagonist discomfited and overwhelmed
in a manner so courteous and complimentary. For
completeness and conclusiveness in turning the posi
tions and arguments and conclusions of an adversary
against himself, that of the youthful Douglas upon the
venerable Mr. Adams has no parallel. Never was
another man silenced in a manner so flattering to
himself. The Mexicans had made attacks upon Americans on
the east side of the Rio Grande River. This, declared
Douglas, and all the supporters of the administration,
was an invasion of our territory and, therefore, clearly
a casus belli. The opponents of the war declared that
Texas did not extend to the Rio Grande but only to the
Nueces River. The Mexicans, while they crossed the
Rio Grande, did not cross the Nueces. Therefore, de
clared the anti-war party, there had been no invasion
of our territory and there was no casus belli. The
whole question turned upon what was the western
boundary of Texas. Mr. Adams was especially strenu
ous and earnest in taking the position that the western
boundary of Texas was the Nueces River and not the
Rio Grande. By a series of questions Douglas made
Mr. Adams commit himself most positively to that
position. When the venerable statesman had entirely and fully
so committed himself, Douglas drew from his desk a
printed volume the contents of which he proceeded to
explain. It was a despatch prepared by Mr. Adams
himself nearly thirty years before, while Secretary of
State in President Monroe's cabinet, which proved
2

18 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
beyond question that the Rio Grande River was the west
ern boundary of Texas and that the country between the
Nueces and the Rio Grande was a part of Texas.
Never in all of his illustrious public career, running
through a period of more than half a century, was the
great statesman so completely discomfited, and it may
be doubted whether he ever received such flattering
commendation. In presenting the document to the House Mr. Douglas
said :
"Texas (before her revolution) was always under
stood to have been a portion of the old province of
Louisiana, whilst Coahuila was one of the Spanish
provinces of Mexico. By ascertaining the western
boundary of Louisiana, therefore, prior to the transfer
by France to Spain, we discovered the dividing line
between Texas and Coahuila. I will not weary the
patience of the House by an examination of the author
ities in detail. I will content myself by referring the
gentleman to a document in which he will find them
all collected and analyzed in a masterly manner, by
one whose learning and accuracy he will not question. I
allude to a despatch (perhaps I might with propriety
call it a book from its great length) written by our
Secretary of State in 1819 to Don Onis, the Spanish
Minister. The document is to be found in the State
papers. He will there find a multitudinous collection
of old maps and musty records, histories, and geographies
— Spanish, English, and French — by which it is clearly
established that the Rio del Norte was the western bound
ary of Louisiana, and so considered by Spain and France

John Quincy Adams

THE MEXICAN WAR 19
both, when they owned the opposite banks of that river.
The venerable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Adams) in that famous despatch reviews all the authori
ties on either side with a clearness and ability which
defy refutation, and demonstrate the validity of our
title by virtue of the purchase of Louisiana. He went
further and expressed his own convictions, upon a full
examination of the whole question, that our title as far
as the Rio del Norte, was as clear as to the Island of
New Orleans. This was the opinion of Mr. Adams in
1819. It was the opinion of Messrs. Monroe and
Pinckney in 1805. It was the opinion of Jefferson and
Madison — of all our Presidents and of all adminis
trations from its acquisition in 1803 to its fatal re
linquishment in 1819."
In the lapse of nearly thirty years, during which there
had been crowded into his life the duties and vast re
sponsibilities of Secretary of State, the Presidency, and
membership of that House, besides all his literary work,
it is not remarkable that the memory of that famous
despatch was crowded out.
In reply " the grand old man " pleaded that he made
the best case possible for his country, as he surely did
— so good a case as to set at rest the dispute upon the
question of the boundary of Texas.

CHAPTER IX
THE OREGON BOUNDARY
IT is difficult for people of this generation to realize
how much was involved in the question of the
northern boundary of Oregon. Our people claimed
that the western coast almost up to the present bound
ary of Alaska, to the parallel of fifty-four degrees and
forty minutes, then designated as Oregon, belonged to
us. Great Britain claimed that that whole coast clear
down to California belonged to her. Fur traders and
trappers of both nations had made their way into those
wild regions and through this, both the United States
and Great Britain had indefinite and inchoate claims to
certain localities. British vessels had skirted along the
Pacific coast and ascended for short distances rivers
that flowed into the ocean. As a legal proposition the
question of title turned in a great degree upon discovery
and occupancy, — whether the Hudson's Bay Company,
a British commercial organization and its agents, or the
American Fur Company and its agents had been fore
most in discovering and most persistent in holding the
territory. Really, if ever a matter of momentous im
portance depended upon determined, united, positive
aggressiveness — call it nerve, gall, or what you will — on
the part of the United States, it was the Oregon bound
ary question.

THE OREGON BOUNDARY 21
Senator Douglas declared that our title to the Oregon
country, up to fifty-four degrees and forty minutes, was
clear and unquestionable and that he never would, now
or hereafter, yield up one inch of Oregon to either
Great Britain or any other government.
He believed that, if our Government could be so
aroused as to present a united front ; an inexorable deter
mination in claiming all that region as ours, Great
Britain would yield as she did on the northeastern
boundary question which was finally fixed by the Ash-
burton Treaty. The Senate was then unanimous in
asserting the justice of our claim and the House of
Representatives stood one hundred and ninety-seven for
it, with but six against it. Senator Douglas insisted
that if we would be so united upon the Oregon question,
all that vast region would be conceded to us and that
there would be no war, but that we could better afford
to fight than surrender it. He realized, as did few
other men, the importance to us of our having the
territory between the present boundary, as finally
settled upon, and the parallel of fifty-four degrees and
forty minutes. He said that out of that region could
be carved three states as large as Illinois, of, when de
veloped, almost unlimited resources, and he knew that,
with all her other vast enterprises, that wild region was
not regarded as of very great importance to Great
Britain. He said that an empire was involved in the
controversy. One will realize that the Senator did not
overestimate the importance to us of this controversy if
he will now go and see that country ; if he will traverse
Puget Sound, the Gulf of Georgia, and the Straits of

22 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Juan de Fuca and get an idea of the vast commerce
to the Orient that is springing up.
Upon this northwestern boundary question Douglas
found himself working with, and under the leadership
of, the " Old Man Eloquent," John Quincy Adams. In
the course of a speech upon the Oregon question Mr.
Adams avowed himself in favor of the course of Fred
erick the Great in regard to Silesia, to " take possession
first, and negotiate afterwards. " 1 The country became so
interested in the matter that " Fifty-four forty or fight "
became the watchword of the Democratic party. Upon
this cry James K. Polk had been elected President.
But the South did not care to give the North the
preponderance in the nation by adding several more
free States on the Northwest. Because of this our
claim was not pressed with earnestness and vigor except
by Senator Douglas, who constantly urged that if we
presented a united front, if the United States would
unite in the determination to fight rather than give
up that region, if we would adhere to the " fifty-four
forty or fight " doctrine, our claim would be conceded ;
and he voted to the last for holding to our claim.
The representatives of Great Britain were not slow
in understanding precisely the embarrassment of our posi
tion on account of the jealousy between the sections, and
they pressed their claim much stronger, no doubt, than
they otherwise would have done. After much negotia
tion a compromise was entered into fixing the present
boundary line on the forty-ninth parallel of latitude.
1 It will be observed that in this controversy the North was especially
interested as none of that region could become slave territory.

CHAPTER X
THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILWAY
SENATOR DOUGLAS was not the pioneer in pro
posing and advocating the building of the Illinois
Central Railway. Judge Sidney Breese was the
projector and originator of the enterprise. But justice
to the memory of Senator Douglas requires that it be
said that he carried the measure through Congress and
made it possible to build that great highway. He
threw himself into the project with all the energy and
enthusiasm of his great nature and brought to its
support most of the other leading statesmen of the
country. A vast grant of land was necessary to make the road
possible. The road was projected through a wilderness
for a distance of four hundred miles — a vast stretch of
boundless uninhabited prairies. Lands that now sell at
a hundred and more dollars per acre could not be sold
at a dollar and a quarter an acre, the Government
price. By the franchise every alternate section was granted
to the railway, and those reserved by the Government,
the other alternate sections, were doubled in price and
placed at two and a half dollars an acre. Besides this
the railway company was required to pay seven per
cent of its gross earnings into the State treasury of

24 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Illinois for the support of the State. The amount
paid into the State treasury of Illinois by the Illinois
Central Railway under this wise provision already
amounts to the enormous sum of $25,596,759.10.
What a boon it would have been and would still be to
Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, the Dakotas, and other
States had such a provision been placed in the charters
of their land-grant railways.
The benefits of the building of the Illinois Central
Railway in those early days cannot be overestimated.
The Illinois Central opened to settlement a vast region
of country ; and not only that, it stimulated the build
ing of other lines, the aggregate mileage of which soon
became far greater than its own.1
1 The Hon. Robert M. Douglas of Greensborough, North Carolina,
the eldest son of Senator Douglas, writes of his father's relations to the
Illinois Central Railway as follows :
" In 1836, although only twenty-three years of age, Judge Douglas,
then a member of the Legislature of Illinois, moved to insert in each
charter granted a clause ' reserving the right to alter, amend, or repeal
this act whenever the public good shall require it.' Again in 1851, while
in the Senate of the United States, he insisted that the grant of lands
that secured the building of the Illinois Central Railroad should be made
directly to the State of Illinois. He then had them given by the State
to the Illinois Central Railroad upon condition that the road should pay
forever to the State seven per cent of its gross receipts in lieu of taxes
upon the original line. I am informed that under this agreement the
company has for several years paid to the State of Illinois an average of
over one million dollars a year. For the year ending April 30, 1906, it
paid $1,143,097.46."

CHAPTER XI
THE PACIFIC RAILWAY
SENATOR DOUGLAS advocated a railway across
the continent just as earnestly as he had cham
pioned the Illinois Central. Although the project
was not carried into effect until several years after he
had passed away, he was one of the first to advocate it,
and his speeches in its favor had probably more influ
ence than those of any other statesman in arousing
public sentiment in its favor. But for the Civil War
the building of the great railway would no doubt have
been entered upon very soon after Senator Douglas so
eloquently and earnestly declared himself in favor of
building it. Again and again he urged the importance
of such a great highway.
On the seventeenth of April, 1858, in an elaborate
and exhaustive address in the Senate, we find him
declaring upon the subject.
" I believe," he exclaimed, " it is the greatest practi
cal measure now pending before the country. I believe
that we have arrived at that period in our history when
our great substantial interests require it. The interests
of commerce, the great interests of travel and communi
cation, those still greater interests which bind the nation
together and are to make and preserve the continent as
one and indivisible, all demand that this road shall be

26 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
commenced, prosecuted, and completed at the earliest
practicable moment.
"I am unwilling to postpone the bill until next
December. ... I think, Sir, we had better grapple
with the difficulties that surround this measure now,
when it is fairly before us, when we have time to con
sider it as dispassionately, as calmly, as wisely, as we
shall ever be able to do.
"I have regretted to see the question of sectional
advantage brought into this discussion.1
" If you are to have but one road, fairness and jus
tice would plainly indicate that that one should be
located as near the centre as practicable. The Missouri
River is near the centre, and the line of this road is as
near as it can be made ; and if there is but one to be
made, the route now indicated in my opinion is fair, is
just, and ought to be taken. I have heretofore been of
the opinion that we ought to have three roads : one in
the centre, one in the extreme south, and one in the
extreme north. ... If there is to be but one the
central one should be taken."
1 As was the case with the Oregon question, the Mexican war, and all
other great matters, the question of sectional advantages appeared,

CHAPTER XII
INLAND WATERWAYS
SENATOR DOUGLAS was one of the foremost to
give support to practical and necessary internal
improvements of all kinds, especially water navi
gation. He was the first statesman who showed that
in the river and harbor appropriations inland naviga
tion had not received its proper and just recognition.
He frequently expressed himself in the Senate upon
this matter, but never so ably as in a letter to his friend,
Governor Mattison of Illinois, in the course of which he
said: " I repeat that the policy has proved worse than a
failure. If we expect to provide facilities and securities
for our navigation interests, we must adopt a system
commensurate with our wants — one that will be just
and equal in its operations upon lake, river, and ocean,
wherever the water is navigable, fresh or salt, tide or no
tide ; a system which will not depend for its success
upon the dubious and fluctuating issues of political cam
paigns and Congressional combination — one which will
be certain, uniform, and unvarying in its results."

CHAPTER XIII
THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY
NONE of the great statesmen of his day took a
greater interest in our foreign policy than did
Senator Douglas. He hoped to see the time
when the whole of North America would be brought
under the beneficent influences of our institutions and
rest beneath the folds of our flag. He would never
consent to the adoption of a policy that would limit the
boundaries or paramount influence of the United States
upon this hemisphere.
In regard to the possibilities of acquisition by the
United States, he had the broadest views of all Ameri
can statesmen up to his day.
We have seen what his position was in the Oregon
controversy — how he believed in the " fifty-four forty
or fight" doctrine — to fight Great Britain unless she
would accede to our terms', which would have given us
the whole Pacific coast clear up to Alaska. We have
seen how vigorously he supported a war policy against
Mexico through which we acquired California, Arizona,
and New Mexico.
In none of his utterances did Senator Douglas pro
claim his views more fully than when assailing the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
This treaty with England among other things pledged

THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY 29
both nations neither " ever to buy, annex, colonize, or
acquire, or erect fortifications upon, any portion of Cen
tral America." Senator Douglas with all his might
opposed the idea of our Government entering into such
an obligation. He was not then urging the acquisition
of more territory, but he regarded it as humiliating for
us to make such a pledge. He predicted that the time
would come when we should be embarrassed by such a
pledge.

CHAPTER XIV
AN ISTHMIAN CANAL
ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT, the great Ger
man scientist and explorer, became so interested
in the matter of building a ship canal to connect
the two oceans that he planned and mapped out six dif
ferent routes across the Isthmus. So early as 1827
Goethe, the poet and scientist, commenting upon Hum
boldt's theories, said :
" If they succeed in cutting such a canal that ships
of any burden and size can be navigated through it,
from the Mexican Gulf to the Pacific Ocean, innumer
able benefits will result to the benefit of the whole
human race, civilized and uncivilized. But I should
wonder if the United States were to let an opportunity
escape of getting such a work into their own hands."
After giving most conclusive arguments showing how
important it was to us for the United States to build
and control such a canal, Goethe continued, " I, there
fore, repeat that it is absolutely indispensable for the
United States to effect a passage from the Mexican Gulf
to the Pacific Ocean, and I am certain that they will
do it."
Senator Douglas realized the importance to our
Government of being in a position not merely to build
but to control such a canal as was proposed a half

Baron Von Humboldt

AN ISTHMIAN CANAL 31
a century before our Government undertook the great
work, and upon this question he was far in advance of
all other American statesmen ; and, because of this, he
was unwilling to bind us to a treaty stipulation that
might prevent or embarrass us in entering upon the
great enterprise.
His argument against the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was,
that it would hinder or embarrass us, should we enter
upon the work of building an Isthmian canal. Always
alert to the possibilities of American enterprise, with
prophetic vision Senator Douglas exclaimed in his
speech before the Senate in opposition to the Clayton-
Bulwer Treaty :
" What is the use of your guarantee that we will
never erect any fortifications in Central America, never
annex, occupy, nor colonize any portion of that country ?
How do you know that you can avoid doing it ? If you
make the canal, I ask you if American citizens will not
settle along its line; whether they will not build up
towns at each terminus; whether they will not spread
over that country and convert it into an American State ;
whether American principles and American institutions
will not be firmly planted there. And I ask you
how many years you think will pass away before you
will find the same necessity to extend your laws over
your own kindred that you found in the case of Texas ?
How long will it be before that day arrives ? It may
not occur in the Senator's day nor in mine, but, so
certain as this Republic exists, so certain as we remain
a united people, so certain as the laws of progress, which
have raised us from a mere handful to a mighty nation,

32 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
shall continue to govern our action, just so certain are
these events to be worked out, and you will be com
pelled to extend your protection in that direction.
" Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am
not impatient of the time when it shall be realized. I do
not wish to give any additional impulse to our progress.
We are going fast enough. But I wish our policy, our
laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance
in science, in the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and in
everything that tends to make us a great and powerful
nation. Let us look the future in the face, and let us
prepare to meet that which cannot be avoided. Hence
I was unwilling to adopt that clause in the treaty guar
anteeing that neither party would ever ' annex, colo
nize, or occupy any portion of Central America.' "
Before we, under the late administration, could enter
into negotiations or turn a shovel in the direction of
building the Panama Canal, that Clayton-Bulwer Treaty,
against the blighting effect of which the great Senator
a half-century ago warned his countrymen, — the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, the ratification of which he
opposed with all his might, had to be abrogated.
The right and duty of the United States to exercise
paramount authority over an Isthmian canal were
entirely inharmonious with the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty
and led to many controversies with Great Britain, some
of them serious and threatening; but the demands
of the United States, made so long ago by Senator
Douglas, which were foretold by Goethe, were finally
conceded. With tact and courage and ability and perse
verance, our greatest Secretary of State, John Hay, a

John Hay

AN ISTHMIAN CANAL 33
student and disciple of both Lincoln and Douglas, suc
ceeded in negotiating a treaty with Great Britain abro
gating the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and then the United
States was free to build and control the Panama canal.
This treaty is known as the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

CHAPTER XV
DOUGLAS WOULD NOT LIMIT THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE REPUBLIC
WE found Senator Douglas proclaiming such
sentiments as :
" You may make as many treaties as you
please to fetter the limbs of this great Republic, and she
will burst them all from her, and her course will be
onward to a limit which I will not venture to describe.
" Fifty years ago the question was being debated in
this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any
territory on the west bank of the Mississippi, and it
was then contended that we could never with safety
extend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously
considered whether the Alleghany Mountains should not
be the barrier beyond which we should never pass.
After we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more
liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that
perhaps we might venture to establish one tier of States
west of the Mississippi. . . . We burst through and
passed the Rocky Mountains and were only arrested by
the waters of the Pacific. Who shall now say that we
will not be compelled to turn to the north or to the
south for an outlet ? . . .
" It is our destiny to have Cuba, and it is folly to
debate the question. It naturally belongs to the Amer-

WOULD NOT LIMIT BOUNDARIES OF REPUBLIC 35
ican continent. It guards the mouth of the Mississippi
River which is the heart of the American continent and
the body of the American nation. Its acquisition is
a matter of time only. Our Government should adopt
the policy of receiving Cuba as soon as a fair and just
opportunity shall be presented, whether that opportu
nity shall occur next year or the year after ; whenever
the occasion arises and presents itself, it should be
embraced. " The same is true of Central America and of Mexico.
It will not do to say we have territory enough. When
the Constitution was formed there was enough, yet in a
few years afterward we needed more. We acquired
Louisiana and Florida, Texas and California, just as the
increase of our population and our interests demanded.
When in 1850 the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was sent
to the Senate for ratification, I fought it to the end.
They then asked what I wanted with Central America.
I told them I did not want it then, but the time would
come when we must have it. They then asked what
my objection to the treaty was. I told them I
objected to that, among other clauses, which said that
neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever
buy, annex, colonize, or acquire any portion of Central
America. I said that I would never consent to a
treaty with any foreign power pledging ourselves not
to do in the future whatever interest or necessity might
compel us to do. I was then told by veteran Senators,
as my distinguished friend well knows [looking at Mr.
Soule], that Central America was so far off we should
never want it. I told them then, ' Yes, a good way off —

36 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
half way to California and on the direct road to it.' I
said it was our right and duty to open all the highways
between the Atlantic and the Gulf States and our pos
sessions on the Pacific, and that I would enter into
no treaty with Great Britain or any other government
concerning the affairs of the American continent.
" Here, without a breach of confidence, I may be
permitted to state a conversation which took place at
that time between myself and the British Minister, Sir
Henry Bulwer, on that point.
" He took occasion to remonstrate with me, that my
position with regard to the treaty was unjust and un
tenable; that the treaty was fair, because it was re
ciprocal — because it pledged that neither Great Britain
nor the United States should ever purchase, colonize, or
acquire any territory in Central America.
" I told him that it would be fair if they would add
one word to the treaty so that it would read that neither
Great Britain nor the United States should ever occupy
or hold dominion over Central America or Asia. ( But,'
he said, ' you have no interests in Asia.' ' No,' an
swered I, ' and you have none in Central America.'
" ' But,' said he, ' you can never establish any rights
in Asia.' ' No,' said I, ' and we don't mean that
you shall ever establish any in America.' I told him
it would be as respectful for us to ask that pledge in
reference to Asia as it was for Great Britain to ask it
from us in reference to Central America. . . .
" I am in favor of expansion as far as is consistent
with our interest and the increase and development of
our population and resources. . . . The more degrees of

WOULD NOT LIMIT BOUNDARIES OF REPUBLIC 37
latitude and longitude beneath our Constitution the
better. ... A young nation with all her freshness,
vigor, and youth desires no limits fixed to her great
ness, no boundaries to her future growth."
It was on account of his having such broad and
statesmanlike views, and because he was able to vindi
cate them with such power, that his fame came to be,
as was said by his greatest rival, " world wide."

CHAPTER XVI
THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850
FEW now realize how prominent Senator Douglas
was in formulating and carrying through the
Compromise Measures of 1850.
After years of the most violent and acrimonious
sectional strife, culminating in a most serious and most
perilous crisis, in 1850 the greatest of our statesmen
assembled in Congress at Washington, and addressed
themselves to the task of averting the calamity of civil
war that seemed to be imminent. So appalling was
the crisis that patriotic statesmen feared that inter
necine war was impending.
Henry Clay had retired from public life to his home
in Kentucky, expecting, during his few remaining years,
to enjoy the sweets of repose, which he had richly earned
by long and faithful and patriotic service to his country.
Known as the " Sage of Ashland," and finally as the
" Great Pacificator," he left his retreat and resumed his
seat in the Senate and was made the leader of the
movement to effect a compromise.
After a protracted session of nearly ten months the
legislation known as The Compromise Measures of
1850 was accomplished.
Those measures were :

THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850 39
1. The admission of California into the Union as a free
State. 2. The creation of a Territorial government for Utah.
3. The creation of a Territorial government for New
Mexico. 4. The adjustment of the disputed boundary of Texas.
5. The abolition of the slave trade in the District of
Columbia. 6. The Fugitive Slave Law.
Senator Douglas was the author of three of these six
measures, — the bill to admit California into the Union
as a free State ; the creation of a Territorial government
for Utah ; the creation of a Territorial government for
New Mexico.
On the twenty-third of October, 1850, Senator
Douglas made a speech in Chicago before his con
stituents on the Compromise Measures of 1850, which
is a complete and exhaustive exposition of those
measures. Senator Douglas had now, upon the adoption of the
Compromise Measures of 1850, served honorably in the
House, had served a full term in the Senate, and was
nearly half through his second term. He had, as has
been shown, from the time he was firmly established in
his seat in Congress, taken an active and usually a
prominent part in the measures that had come before
the country. He was influential in his party in every
State of the Union. In his own State he controlled
every Federal office ; and not only that, through his
friends he controlled most of the State and county
offices. He had met in debate and worsted nearly
every man of the Whig party, and had, by the force of

40 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
his intellect and indomitable will, risen gradually to the
supreme leadership in the Democratic party, which
dominated the country. Young as he was, — only
forty-one, — he was prominently put forward for the
presidency.

CHAPTER XVII
A PORTRAYAL OF SENATOR DOUGLAS
A CORRESPONDENT of The New York Times
gave at that time a description of him as
follows :
" The ' Little Giant,' as he has been well styled, is
seen to advantage on the floor of the Senate. He is not
above the middle height; but the easy and natural
dignity of his manner stamps him at once as one born
to command. His massive head rivets undivided atten
tion. It is a head of the antique, with something of
the infinite in its expression of power ; a head difficult
to describe, but better worth description than any other
in the country. Mr. Douglas has a brow of unusual
size, covered with heavy masses of dark-brown hair,
now beginning to be sprinkled with silver. His fore
head is high, open, and splendidly developed, based on
dark, thick eyebrows of great width. His eyes, large
and deeply set, are of the darkest and most brilliant
hue. The mouth is cleanly cut, finely arched, but with
something of bitter, sad expression. The chin is square
and vigorous, and is full of eddying dimples — the
muscles and nerves showing great mobility, and every
thought having some external reflection in the sensitive
and expressive features. Add now a rich, dark com
plexion, clear and healthy; smoothly-shaven cheeks

42 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
and handsome throat ; small, white ears ; eyes which
shoot out electric fires ; small, white hands ; small feet ;
a full chest and broad shoulders ; and with these points
doubly blended together, we have a picture of the
Little Giant."
The author of this work remembers Senator Douglas
as what the politicians of to-day would call a good
mixer. There was no company in which he could not
be a congenial companion. In company of the great at
Washington and in the cabin of the frontier, with grave
senators, with cabinet officials, and with the plain peo
ple — farmers and mechanics and laboring men — he
was equally at home. He was genial and cordial, inter
ested in everything that concerned those with whom he
came in contact, to such a degree as to make them feel
that he was one of them.
In the early days when the principal gatherings were
at raisings of buildings, corn-huskings, nutting parties,
horse-races, wrestling bouts, with dancing to the melo
dious strains of a fiddle in the evening, he entered into
the sports and was a " Hail, fellow ! well met ! " He
had a happy faculty of remembering names and faces ;
but, beyond this, he instinctively at once acquired some
knowledge of the relations and surroundings and tastes
of those about him, and was ready to talk of matters in
which they were interested. When presiding as a judge
on the bench he would frequently, while the lawyers
were addressing the jury, go down among the specta
tors and seat himself beside an old friend and visit with
him, all the time keeping cognizance of what was going
on, ready to respond when his attention to the case at

A PORTRAYAL OF SENATOR DOUGLAS 43
bar was required, maintaining all the time the most
perfect order. He has been seen at Knoxville, when
the court room was crowded, to seat himself upon the
knee of old Governor McMurtry and, with his arm upon
his shoulder, talk with him for a considerable time,
which, diminutive as was his stature, and great as was
that of the Governor, did not seem incongruous.1
His voice, while deep and strong, was melodious and
sympathetic, and his ways most winning. He knew
who were his friends, and confided in them. In all his
public career he never forgot a friend, and never failed
to serve him in an emergency if within his power. His
friends realized this, and in turn gave him similar confi
dence and support. He gained confidence by giving
confidence. In his conversation this confidence was an
important characteristic. It would seem that you were
especially favored. He would say, " I can tell you " ;
" I know that I can say to you " ; "I have no hesitation
in confiding in you " ; "I want you to know," etc., and
his confidence was never betrayed.
Genial as he was, cordial as he was, entering into and
enjoying all the social relations and sports of those
early days, he was always dignified. While he was
amused at the vagaries and the excesses of those who
took part in the social gatherings of the time, and their
1 It used to be related that while presiding on the bench at Knoxville,
Knox County, the news came of his nomination for Congress to run
against Orville H. Browning, whom he defeated. This was his first elec
tion to the Lower House, The news so stirred the people that he was
obliged to adjourn court, and the whole assemblage, judge and jury,
lawyers and spectators, paraded around the public square singing,
" The old black bull came down the meadow."

44 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
extravagant demonstrations, and enjoyed them, he him
self never gave way to them to such a degree as to be a
leader in them. He maintained such reserve as was
becoming in one of such character and attainments.
He would enjoy and laugh at stories, but there is no
record of his ever having told one. He appreciated and
enjoyed a pun, but he never made one.
In this regard he was the antithesis of Mr. Lincoln.
When Senator Douglas made his first speech in Chicago
in opening the great campaign in which Lincoln was
pitted against him, Mr. Lincoln was present and was
invited to sit on the platform. On the evening before,
the common council of Chicago had passed a resolution
denouncing the Dred Scott decision, and Douglas called
the council to account for attempting to reverse and
override a decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States, saying that it reminded him of the statement of
an old friend who used to declare that if you wish to
get justice in a case you should take it to the Supreme
Court of Illinois, and from that court take an appeal to
a Justice of the Peace. Lincoln's voice was heard from
behind the speaker, sotto voce, calling " Judge ! Judge !
Judge ! " The Senator paused and turned around, and
Lincoln said, " Judge, that was when you were on the
Illinois Supreme bench." So far from being put out
by the interruption Judge Douglas repeated the joke
of his "friend Lincoln" to the audience.
The nearest the Senator came to making a joke that
appears in any of his speeches was in the joint debate
at Galesburg. Mr. Lincoln had said that in the
campaign the Judge always made the same speech.

Abraham Lincoln

A PORTRAYAL OF SENATOR DOUGLAS 45
There was considerable reason for this, for the Judge
always repeated and elaborated and plumed himself
upon the popular sovereignty clause in his Nebraska bill.
The statement of Mr. Lincoln evoked laughter and ap
plause and made quite an impression upon the audience.
Douglas replied that he wished he could say the same
thing of Mr. Lincoln. That the difficulty with Mr.
Lincoln was that in Northern Illinois, among the anti-
slavery people, he always made a, free soil speech, but in
Southern Illinois where abolitionism was unpopular
he always made an old-line Whig speech. There was
sufficient truth in this to make the Senator's declaration
more of an argument than a joke.
In 1854, four years before the great debates, the
writer heard a joint debate between the Senator and a
prominent anti-slavery local orator. It was the Sen
ator's appointment for a Democratic meeting, but the
Republicans put forward their champion, who chal
lenged him for a joint debate, which, as was his custom,
he at once accepted. The principal subject of discussion
was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The Senator
was called to account for inconsistency, in himself break
ing it down after declaring that the Missouri Compro
mise was "canonized in the hearts of the people, and
no ruthless hand would ever dare to disturb it." The
attack was virulent and bitter. Douglas's only reply
to this was by pointing his finger at his assailant and
exclaiming, "There is an old adage that wise men
change their opinions, but fools never do."
In the bitterness of political acrimony it was fre
quently stated that the Senator was too much addicted

46 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
to drink. It cannot be denied that, at a time when ex
cessive conviviality among politicians, especially among
Democratic politicians, was the rule rather than the
exception, he joined in the conviviality of his friends;
but there is no authenticated instance of his having
drunk to such excess as to warrant such an accusation.
The writer saw him many times on public occasions
when he spoke, and at social gatherings, and never saw
any reason for such an accusation.
He smoked incessantly. Even on the platform dur
ing the great debates, he smoked while Mr. Lincoln
was speaking.
When the writer first knew the Senator, he had
already in physical development become a little bit
corpulent. Not too much so. His friends who had
known him for a considerable time, said that, slender
as he was when younger, this was an improvement.
He had reached what the French call embonpoint.
This tendency increased as he grew older, and, had
he lived to old age, might have gone to excess.
In dress he was, after he attained high position, al
most " the glass of fashion," and certainly he was " the
mould of form." Small as he was in stature, it was
seldom one saw so perfect a figure. There never was a
greater contrast in physical peculiarities than that pre
sented by him and Mr. Lincoln.
In an emergency he immediately took in the situa
tion and acted with promptness. While other men were
considering, he would meet the crisis. Once, during
what were called in financial circles " wild-cat " times,
there was a run upon a bank in Chicago, owned and

A PORTRAYAL OF SENATOR DOUGLAS 47
conducted by his personal and political friends. The
money was loaned out and could not be called in in
time to meet the demands of the panic-stricken people
who filled the street in front of the bank, crowding up
to draw out their deposits. The currency on hand be
came almost exhausted, and the order was about to be
given to close the doors, when a carriage dashed up a
side street and Senator Douglas appeared at a back
door. He hastened in and placed a large amount of
currency, eighty thousand dollars, as was said, upon
the table and the bank was able to tide over the emer
gency. He had seen the surging crowd in the street,
and, at once appreciating the situation, hastened to the
bank where he deposited, and with his own money
and his credit, which he used to the extreme limit, he
was able to save his friends.
The Senator was particularly attentive and considerate
to young men. Some days after the first inauguration
of President Lincoln, the writer, then quite a young
man, approached him in the Senate Chamber just be
fore the session of the day opened. The Senator
greeted him cordially, and, finding he was from Gales
burg, inquired about his old friends in Knox County,
Governor McMurtry, Judge Lanphere, Squire Barnett,
and others. While they were thus engaged in conver
sation the Senate was called to order, and an usher
appeared and held up a card before the young man
upon which was printed in large type the list of per
sonages permitted upon the floor of the Senate : " Gover
nors of States, Ex-Senators, members of the other House,
judges of the Supreme Court," etc. The usher asked

48 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
the young man, " Do you, sir, belong to that list ? "
Whereupon Senator Douglas with the utmost gravity
and in a tone of surprise asked, " Is it possible you do
not know this gentleman ? " " No, Senator," replied
the man obsequiously, " I have not the honor, Senator."
" He is the Governor of Illinois, the Governor of my own
State," replied the Senator. " I beg pardon, Senator,"
replied the man, withdrawing, with a broad grin, " I
beg pardon, Senator. " The conversation continued for
some moments when the young " Governor of Illinois "
withdrew, and the Senator went to his seat.

CHAPTER XVIII
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S FAMILY
SENATOR DOUGLAS married, April 7, 1847,
Martha, daughter of Colonel Robert Martin of
Rockingham County, North Carolina, by whom he
had children. The eldest, Judge Robert Martin Douglas,
is now a resident of North Carolina. He has held high
position on the bench and is a prominent and respected
citizen of that State. The second son, Stephen A.
Douglas, Jr., was engaged for many years in the prac
tice of the law in Chicago. He was frequently called
upon to address public meetings ; and in the Summer of
1908, when the fiftieth anniversary of the Lincoln-
Douglas debates was celebrated throughout Illinois he
made several engagements to speak ; and he did speak
on one or two occasions, but died while the celebrations
were going on.
Mrs. Douglas died on the nineteenth of January,
1853. On the twentieth of November, 1856, Senator
Douglas married again. His second wife, Miss Adele
Cutts, was the daughter of Mr. James Madison Cutts
of Washington. She survived him and some years
after his death married General Robert Williams of
the United States Army.

CHAPTER XIX
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER founded the University
of Chicago, and through his munificence it has
become one of the wealthiest and most prosperous
institutions of learning in the United States.
Stephen A. Douglas conceived the idea of establishing
such an institution, and the glory of the inception of
the great enterprise must be attributed to him.
Senator Douglas was one of the incorporators of the
University of Chicago. In 1856 he gave the site of
about ten acres for the institution at Thirty-fourth Street
and Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, now worth mil
lions. He was a member of the Board of Trustees dur
ing all his life afterwards, and President of the board.
When the new University of Chicago was established,
in 1890, although it had no connection with the former
University it assumed its name. The old University
gave its consent to this and changed its corporate name
to " The Old University," to allow this to be done.
Because the University of Chicago succeeded the old
University and took its name, and continued its work
under the same denominational auspices, this new Uni
versity of Chicago adopted the alumni of the Old
University as her own and reenacted their degrees so
that they consider themselves her alumni and generally

John D. Rockefeller

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 51
cooperate with her. While Senator Douglas had no
direct connection with the establishment of the present
University of Chicago, he was an essential factor in
founding the first university, to whose name and
alumni she has succeeded. This relation has been
commemorated by a bronze tablet of Douglas, showing
his bust, on the walls of one of the buildings of the
University of Chicago.
To the building of a great university in Chicago
Senator Douglas devoted much of his thought and
energy from 1856 to the close of his illustrious career.
He appreciated the value of learning and gave a large
portion of his property to place within the reach of the
young of Chicago and of the West the advantages of
higher education. In the midst of great political excite
ment at a time when in the political arena of the whole
great nation he was the central figure, midway between
his repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the great de
bates, he found time to establish what he hoped and
intended should be a great university. He was not sat
isfied with merely establishing such an institution, but
as a member of its Board of Trust and in other ways he
contributed to its success. He had a high conception of
what an institution so situated and with such environ
ment should be, and did everything in his power to bring
it up to such a standard of excellence as he hoped to see
it attain. Had he survived to the allotted years of man,
no doubt much that he hoped for would have been
attained by the institution he founded. But he lived
only five years after the institution he founded was so
established.

52 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
It remained for wise, brave, able, and generous men,
after the lapse of thirty years, to take up the work
Senator Douglas so nobly attempted, and carry it for
ward to the most complete and triumphant achievement
that has ever been reached by any institution of learn
ing in so brief a period. In the University of Chicago,
the dream of the great Senator has been far more than
realized. That he hoped to see reared a great univer
sity upon the foundation he laid cannot be doubted, but
it is scarcely within the bounds of possibility that he
could have had any adequate idea of the success to
which the institution has attained. Familiar as we are
with its history and appreciative as we are of its useful
ness, we must revere the memory of him in whose heart
and brain it was conceived, and by whose initiative a
University of Chicago was first established.
It is eminently appropriate that, hard by the great
university; mingling with the soil of the State of Illi
nois which he so much loved and upon whose citizens
he reflected so much glory ; in the midst of the people
of the imperial city of Chicago, whose restless energy
and enterprise typify the activities of his busy and
eventful life, and to whose advancement he so largely
contributed; beside the great central highway created
by his supreme effort; upon the shore of Lake
Michigan whose waves are constantly beating a mourn
ful requiem of the mighty dead, — it is eminently
appropriate that there should forever rest the mortal
remains of the great Senator.

Douglas Monument

CHAPTER XX
THE MISTAKE OF SENATOR DOUGLAS'S LIFE
NO other statesman — not even Henry Clay —
ever had more earnest and devoted following.
Not only among the great masses of the people
of his party, but among the leading statesmen of the
country, Senator Douglas had a commanding influence.
No other man was so potential in the Senate ; and his
influence was perhaps as great in the Lower House
through the strong men on the floor who were his
friends and followers.
It was not then considered as among the possibilities
to make a man President until he had, through length of
years as well as experience, become mature. Douglas, as
has been said, was then but forty-one years old. Still,
notwithstanding his comparative youth, he was promi
nently put forward for the great office. That he would
in maturer years, as conditions were then, have reached
the goal of every ambitious American seemed certain.
In a retrospective view of the events of that day, of
the political issues, of the statesmen of the time, and of
the attitude and standing of Douglas, it seems to the
writer (who was familiar with them) inevitable that,
had the conditions remained as they then were, Senator
Douglas would before many years have attained to the
Presidency, which was the goal of his ambition.

54 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
But the conditions did not continue as they then
were. There came a new departure, a complete and
entire revolution in politics and in the political situa
tion; and Senator Douglas, the man of all men most
interested in keeping matters in statu quo, being
flushed with the consciousness of strength and power,
inaugurated a movement that entirely changed political
conditions, overturned policies that had been in vogue
for a generation, and finally resulted in driving him
and his party from the control of the Government.
The conflict between those interested in human slav
ery in the South and those opposed to it in the North
reached a climax so long ago as 1820, when it was
proposed to admit Missouri into the Union as a slave
State. As was the case in later years, when, after a
long and earnest struggle the two sections seemed
almost ready to war upon each other, a compromise
was effected. That compromise of 1820, known as the
" Missouri Compromise," provided for the admission of
Missouri into the Union as a slave State as a concession
to the South and for the perpetual inhibition of slavery
north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes. This parallel from that day forward was
called the " Missouri Compromise line." The act of
Congress provided that in all the territory then owned
by the United States which lay north of the parallel of
thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes "slavery and
involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punish
ment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited."
Curiously, the author of the provision creating the

THE MISTAKE OF SENATOR DOUGLAS'S LIFE 55
Missouri Compromise line was Jesse B. Thomas, an
Illinois Senator.
For thirty-four years — for a generation — that Com
promise line was, for all the region of the United States
north of it and west of Missouri, an insurmountable
barrier against human slavery. One thing which had
been so firmly established as to be regarded as fixed
and permanent was the Missouri Compromise line. It
was regarded by the people as sacred and binding,
scarcely less so than the Federal Constitution. It was
enacted before most of the voters of that day were
born. Senator Douglas himself when that line was
established was but seven years old.
He himself had said of the Missouri Compromise
line : " It is canonized in the hearts of the American
people, and no ruthless hand will ever dare to disturb
it " ; and, after we acquired a vast territory from Mex
ico he wanted to extend it to the Pacific Ocean.
The Senator had now become infatuated with the
idea of taking the question of slavery in the new Terri
tories out of Congress, and leaving it to the people of
those territories which must soon be organized. He
had come to believe that if the question were left to the
Territories there would be no more slavery agitation in
Congress, and that there would be no conflict except in
the Territory immediately interested. He was chairman
of the Committee on Territories, and he formulated a
bill to organize Kansas and Nebraska ; this bill declared
that " it is not the intent nor meaning of this act either
to legislate slavery into a Territory or to exclude it
therefrom, but to leave the people perfectly free to form

56 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United
States." A Southern Senator, Archibald Dixon of Kentucky,
introduced a bill repealing the Missouri Compromise
line. Both Kansas and Nebraska were north of that
line. Slavery could not lawfully be introduced into
those Territories without abrogating that line, and so
Senator Douglas was persuaded to make the principle
enunciated in Senator Dixon's bill repealing the Mis
souri Compromise line a part of his bill known as the
"Nebraska bill."
When Senator Dixon proposed his measure few paid
any attention to it ; but when Senator Douglas adopted
it there arose such an excitement as had not before
been known since the organization of the Government.
The people had come to realize the majesty of the
power of the great Illinois Senator, and they had reason
to fear that the sacred barrier against slavery was
doomed. " What ! " exclaimed men from ocean to ocean,
" repeal the Missouri Compromise ! You might as well
repeal the Constitution ! "
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise had precisely
the opposite effect from that which Senator Douglas
and his friends expected. Instead of the agitation of
the slavery question being removed from Congress, it
; became more intense in Congress, and it extended
| throughout the country.
It is interesting to reflect upon what might and upon
what might not have been, but for the repeal of the

THE MISTAKE OF SENATOR DOUGLAS'S LIFE 57
Missouri Compromise. Had that Compromise not been
repealed, it is probable that the Democratic party would
have gone on in control of the Government as it had
done so long. In 1856, at farthest in 1860, Stephen
A. Douglas would have become President. The old
Whig party would still have dragged its lazy length
along. Ulysses S. Grant would have continued to
weigh raw hides on the back alley of a leather store at
Galena, and Abraham Lincoln would have continued
to ride the circuit and tell stories in Central Illinois.
There would have been no Republican party, no se
cession, and no war.
Senator Douglas had never before given such demon
stration of his supreme control of Congress as in carry
ing through that Nebraska bill. Never before had there
been such a contest. Never did men fight as they
fought to save the great barrier against slavery. All
their efforts were of no avail. The Senator carried his
bill, and the barrier was overthrown.
Brilliant as was his victory in the mighty struggle,
who cannot now see that the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, on the part of Senator Douglas, was a
mistake ?

CHAPTER XXI
DOUGLAS'S POSITION ON SLAVERY
THE whole country regarded the action of Senator
Douglas in breaking down the Missouri Compro
mise line as opening the territories of Kansas
and Nebraska to slavery. The South so regarded it, as
well as did the North. The people of the North and
South regarded it as committing the Senator to the South,
and that henceforward he would champion her cause.
So far as the negro was concerned the Senator did not
regard him as in any sense a citizen. He declared over and
over again : " This is a white man's government made
by white men, for white men and their descendants."
He declared that the fathers, in the Declaration that all
men are created equal, had no reference whatever to
the negro. In all he said, in every argument he made,
he classed negro slaves as he did other property, and
declared that so far as the action of the people of the
Territories upon the question was concerned, he cared
not "whether slavery was voted down or voted up."
From these utterances the South came to regard him as
their champion to fight to the bitter end in order to
fasten slavery upon Kansas and Nebraska.1
1 The following, from the pen of the Hon. Robert M. Douglas, the
eldest son of Senator Douglas, whom we have hereinbefore quoted, gives
an account of the action of Senator Douglas when slaves were offered him :
"I deem ... it simple justice to his [Senator Douglas's] memory to

DOUGLAS'S POSITION ON SLAVERY 59
But the fundamental principle of his Kansas Ne
braska bill was to leave the question of slavery to the
people of the Territory interested. He went before the
country proclaiming this principle. In season and out
of season, throughout the North and the South, he ad
vocated " popular," " squatter " sovereignty. He never
once spoke without quoting in clarion tones that signifi
cant sentence of his bill : " Neither to legislate slavery
into a Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to
leave the people perfectly free to form and regulate

recall the fact that he was personally opposed to slavery. He showed the
sincerity of his convictions by refusing a gift of slave property offered by
his father-in-law in the contingency of the failure of heirs to his wife,
which would have been worth from one hundred thousand dollars to one
hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. He never owned or accepted
a slave or the proceeds of a slave, directly or indirectly ; nor would he per
mit himself to be placed in a position where the ownership of slave prop
erty might be east upon him by operation of law. My mother, who was the
only child of Colonel Robert Martin of Rockingham County, North Caro
lina, met my father in Washington City through my first cousin, Governor
David S. Reid, who was a colleague of Judge Douglas both in the House
of Representatives and in the Senate. My grandfather, Colonel Martin,
died 1848, after my mother's marriage but before my birth.
"In his will, recorded both in this State [North Carolina] and Mis
sissippi, appears the following paragraph: 'In giving to my dear daughter
full and complete control over my slaves in Mississippi [his slaves in North
Carolina having been left to his wife in fee simple] I make to her one dying
request instead of endeavoring to reach the case in this will. That is, that
if she leaves no children, to make provision before she dies to have all
these negroes, together with their increase, sent to Liberia or some other
colony in Africa. By giving them the net proceeds of the last crop they
make would fit them out for the trip, and probably leave a large surplus
to aid them in commencing planting in that country. In this request I
would remind my dear daughter that her husband does not desire to own
this kind of property, and most of our collateral connexion have more of
that kind of property than is of advantage to them.' "
Under his oath, as executor of Colonel Martin, it was the duty of Senator
Douglas to protect the property belonging to his children; but it is evi
dent from the above provision that he was never willing to own personally
a slave or the proceeds of a slave.

60 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of the United States."
Republicans asserted that he would not stand by the
principle. The Southern people believed that he was so
committed to them that he could not do otherwise than
sustain slavery in a Territory, however the people might
vote. The test came. After the most violent struggle be
tween slavery and freedom for supremacy, there proved
to be a majority in the Territory of Kansas against
slavery. Senator Douglas took no part in the struggle
in that Territory, but kept entirely aloof from the con
test ; yet he kept constantly informed as to the situ-
ation, examined the returns of every voting precinct,
read carefully the statements of public officials, and
found, as every intelligent observer found, that a large
majority of the people of Kansas were opposed to per
mitting slavery in their midst.
Would the great Senator stand by the principle of
" popular sovereignty " enunciated in his bill, or would
he, at the behest of the South, force slavery upon the
people of Kansas, against their will, as she expected
him to do ? He was still dominant in Congress. No
other man was so potential. What course would he
take? The administration of President Buchanan had passed
entirely under the control of the South. It led in every
measure in the interest of slavery. Whatever the slave
power demanded was done.
A convention of Kansas pro-slavery men met at
Lecompton and formulated a constitution recognizing

James Buchanan

DOUGLAS'S POSITION ON SLAVERY 61
slavery and presented it to Congress, asking admission
under it as a State of the Union. Had Kansas been
admitted under that Constitution it would have become
a slave State.
The South, with an almost unanimous vote, urged
that Kansas be admitted under that Constitution. The
administration with all its might and mind and strength
supported the South in this measure. No other Demo
crat in Congress then had more friends in the South
than Senator Douglas, and he was just as strong in the
North. Every Federal official in Illinois — marshals,
postmasters, and all others — had been appointed upon
Senator Douglas's recommendation, and were his friends.
The administration had become so committed to the
South that Douglas knew that, if he opposed the Le
compton Constitution and permitted the will of the
people of Kansas to be carried out, the administration
and the whole South would make bitter relentless war
upon him. That which was even more terrible to him
was, he knew that if he opposed the Lecompton Con
stitution every friend he had recommended to office,
men who had stood by him for a third of a century,
would be driven from position, and that all the power
of the administration would be exerted to crush him.
Would he yield to the administration or would he
obey his convictions ? Did he hesitate ?

CHAPTER XXII
THE HEROISM OF DOUGLAS
IMMEDIATELY upon his arrival at Washington,
when Congress met, he went to President Buchanan
and frankly told him that he had become convinced
that the people of Kansas had declared against slavery
and that, therefore, he could not favor the Lecompton
Constitution, and that he must oppose its adoption on
the floor of the Senate. The President argued the
question with him, told him that he would be breaking
away from friends who relied upon him, spoke of his
great influence and of how easy it would be for him to
carry the Lecompton Constitution through Congress,
and how much smoother it would be for him to go with
his friends than with the Republicans, who were his
enemies. The Senator was inexorable. Finally, the
President threatened to remove all those from office
who had been appointed upon his recommendation.
Thereupon the Senator arose and respectfully asked to
be permitted to withdraw, when the President said :
" Senator, I wish you to remember that no Democrat
ever was successful in opposing the policy of an adminis
tration of his party."
Senator Douglas drew himself up and replied : " Mr.
President, permit me most respectfully to remind you
that General Jackson is dead," and withdrew.

THE HEROISM OF DOUGLAS 63
He took his place in the Senate ; and never was such
a war waged against an arbitrary and unscrupulous
administration, determined to force an obnoxious and
abhorrent institution upon a people against their will.
Never did a great statesman rise to such sublimity of
independence, such grandeur of patriotism, as did Sen
ator Douglas. He flung to the winds all hope of favor
and support from an administration of his own party^
which he himself more than any other had been the
means of placing in power.
It is difficult for men in this generation to realize
what was involved in this action of the great Senator,
who, as has been intimated, up to that moment had
been the idol of his party in every State of the Union,
South as well as North. Democrats of the North had
been up to that time his firm and enthusiastic support
ers, and he was adored at the South.
There are few chapters in American history more
interesting than those which give the account of the
heroic and successful contest of Senator Douglas in an
tagonism to the effort to force slavery upon the people
of Kansas through admitting her into the Union with
the Lecompton Constitution as her fundamental law.
Senator Douglas spoke frequently upon the question,
and it would be instructive for the student to follow the
whole debate. An important and exhaustive address
was made by him on the eighth of December, 1857,
upon the President's annual message, in which Mr.
Buchanan clearly indicated his determination to have
Kansas admitted under the Lecompton Constitution. In
the course of that address Senator Douglas exclaimed :

64 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
"Why force this Constitution down the throats of
the people of Kansas in opposition to their wishes and
in violation of our pledges ? What great object is to
be attained ? Cui bono ? What are you to gain by it ?
Will you sustain the party by violating its principles ?
Do you propose to keep the party united by forcing a
division ? Stand by the doctrine that leaves the people
perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions for
themselves in their own way, and your party will be
united and irresistible in power. Abandon that great
principle, and the party is not worth saving, and can
not be saved after it is violated. I trust that we are
not to be rushed upon this question. Why should it be
done ? Is the South to be the gainer ? Is the North
to be the gainer? Neither the North nor the South
has the right to gain a sectional advantage by trickery
and fraud." Finally President Buchanan transmitted
to Congress the Lecompton Constitution with a special
message recommending that Kansas be admitted as
a State under it.

CHAPTER XXIII
SPEECH OF DOUGLAS AGAINST THE LECOMPTON
CONSTITUTION
SENATOR DOUGLAS was at the time ill in bed ;
but just before the final vote was to be taken he
arose and took his place in the Senate, and then,
on the twenty-second of March, 1858, he made one of
the greatest speeches of his life. The discussion had
been going on for several days, when it was announced
that Senator Douglas would speak at seven o'clock in
the evening.
So great was the desire to hear him, that, from the
time when the Senate adjourned in the afternoon, until
the evening, the people kept their seats in the galleries
and even those who could not get seats remained. Not
only the seats, but all the standing-room was occupied,
and the corridors finally became so crowded that it was
impossible to reach the gallery. In order to make more
room, a resolution was adopted to admit ladies to the
floor of the Senate, and they filled every available space.
It is impossible that there can ever be a crowd more
vast than that which then filled the Senate chamber.
There is no more dignified body upon the face of the
earth than was the Senate of the United States. Its
proceedings were conducted with the most perfect de
corum, which not only the Senators but every one who

66 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
entered the chamber observed. Such a thing as ap
plause in the galleries had scarcely ever been known,
but as Senator Douglas proceeded to portray the situa
tion in Kansas and hold up to scorn, as only he could
do, the infamy of the outrage that was being attempted,
the vast concourse of people could not restrain them
selves, and they frequently broke out into tumultuous
applause, which the protest of several Senators could
not prevent, until it was ordered that unless this ceased,
the galleries and aisles would be cleared.
The Senator reviewed the whole action of Congress
upon the question of slavery in the Territories and de
clared that, after the policy of depending upon a dividing
line north of which slavery was prohibited and south
of which it was permitted, a policy was adopted in the
Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and the Nebraska bill of
1854, under which the question was to be left to the
people of the Territories to be settled for themselves.
After this introduction the Senator proceeded to take
up in detail the political proceedings of the Kansas
people at the polls, in popular elections, in their Legis
lature, in their constitutional conventions, and showed
beyond the possibility of a doubt that a large majority
were opposed to slavery. He showed that if Kansas
were admitted under the Lecompton Constitution a
State government would be brought into existence not
only by fraudulent voting, but by forged returns, sus
tained by perjury. He showed that the people at an
election had, on the fourth of January, repudiated the
Lecompton Constitution by a majority of ten thousand ;
and he exclaimed :

SPEECH AGAINST LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION 67
" If further evidence were necessary to show that the
Lecompton Constitution is not the will of the people of
Kansas, you find it in the action of the Legislature of
that Territory. On the first Monday of October an
election took place for members of the Territorial Leg
islature. It was a severe struggle between the two
great parties in the Territory. On a fair test, and at
the fairest election, as is recorded on all hands, ever
held in the Territory a Legislature was elected. That
Legislature came together and remonstrated by an over
whelming majority against this Constitution as not be
ing the act and deed of that people, and not embodying
their will. Ask the late Governor of that Territory,1
and he will tell you that it is a mockery to call this
the act and deed of that people. Ask the Secretary
of the Territory, ex-Governor Stanton, and he will tell
you the same thing. I will hazard the prediction that,
if you ask Governor Denver to-day, he will tell you, if
he answers at all, that it is a mockery, nay, a crime, to
attempt to enforce this Constitution as an embodiment
of the will of the people. Ask then your official agents
in the Territory; ask the Legislature elected by the
people at the last election ; consult the poll books on a
fair election held in pursuance of law ; consult private
citizens from there ; consult whatever sources of infor
mation you please, and you get the same answer —
that this Constitution does not embody the public will,
is not the act and deed of the people, does not represent
their wishes ; and hence, I deny your right, your au
thority, to make it their organic law."
1 Robert J. Walker, former Secretary of the Treasury, a Southern man
appointed by Mr. Buchanan.

68 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Much stress was laid by the supporters of the admin
istration upon the fact that that Constitution provided
that after six years, in 1864, it might be so amended,
if the people desired, as to exclude slavery. In regard
to this, Senator Douglas declared :
" I do not object that this Constitution cannot be
changed until 1864, provided you will show me it to be
the act and deed of the people and that it embodies
their will now. If it be not their act and deed, you
have no right to fix it on them for a day, nor for an hour,
nor for an instant ; for it is a violation of the principle
of free government to force it upon them."
Senator Douglas had no idea of permitting slavery,
which a majority of the people abhorred, to exist in the
new State until it should obtain a firm foothold, as was
desired by its champions.
During all this most heroic fight for freedom in Kansas
the Senator proclaimed that, had the people of that
Territory decided in favor of slavery, he would just as
earnestly and persistently have fought against the Free-
soilers for the admission of the Territory as a slave
State. To the question of the right and wrong of
slavery so far as that controversy was concerned, he was
entirely indifferent. The Senator's only solicitude was
to find what was the will of the people of Kansas, and he
spared no pains to ascertain that ; and when convinced
that they were opposed to slavery he would not permit
it to be forced upon them. No one can justly charge
Senator Douglas of being recreant to the principle of
popular sovereignty as enunciated in his Nebraska bill.
Because it did not embody the will of the people of

SPEECH AGAINST LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION 69
Kansas he fought the Lecompton Constitution until it
was buried out of sight. Then men realized how great
and strong and brave was the great statesman who so
ably represented Illinois in the Senate.
It is true, as was afterwards declared by Mr. Lincoln,
that the Republicans in Congress gave most of the votes
necessary to defeat the administration in its efforts to
force slavery upon Kansas through the Lecompton Con
stitution ; yet it is equally true that but for Senator
Douglas the infamy would have been accomplished.

CHAPTER XXIV
PRESIDENTIAL DICTATION TO MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S second term in the United
States Senate was about to expire. As has been
said, from the moment he announced his deter
mination to oppose the Lecompton Constitution the
administration made war upon him in Illinois in the
hope of defeating him for reelection. Every Federal
official who would not join in the hue and cry against
Senator Douglas was turned out, and an enemy ap
pointed in his place. Every newspaper that could be
controlled by patronage or otherwise was set upon him,
and there was no limit to their remorseless assaults.
Senator Douglas wished above all things to be re
elected, but he was undaunted. Important as it was to
him in that awful crisis of his life to have the support
that power and patronage could give, he did not falter.
In the great speech from which we have quoted he
said: " I do not recognize the right of the President or his
cabinet, no matter what my respect may be for them,
to tell me my duty in the Senate chamber. The Presi
dent has his duty to perform under the Constitution,
and he is responsible to his constituency. A Senator
has his duties to perform here under the Constitution

PRESIDENTIAL DICTATION TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 71
and according to his oath, and he is responsible to the
sovereign State he represents as his constituency. A
member of the House of Representatives has his duties
under the Constitution and his oath, and he is responsi
ble to the people who elected him. The President has
no more right to prescribe tests to Senators than Sena
tors have to the President. Suppose we here should
attempt to prescribe a test of faith to the President of
the United States, would he not rebuke our imperti
nence and impudence, as subversive of the fundamental
principle of the Constitution? Would he not tell us
that the Constitution and his oath and his conscience
were his guides — that we must perform our duties,
and he would perform his, and let each be responsible
to his own constituency ?
" Sir, when the time comes that the President of the
United States can change the allegiance of the Senators
from the States to himself, what becomes of the sover
eignty of the States? When the time comes that a
Senator is to account to the executive and not to his
State, whom does he represent ? If the will of my State
is one way and the will of the President the other, am
I to be told that I must obey the executive and be
tray my State, or else be branded as a traitor to the
party and be hunted down by all the newspapers that
share the patronage of the Government ? And is every
man who holds a petty office in any part of my State
to have the question put to him, ' Are you Douglas's
enemy ? If not, your head comes off.' Why ? ' Because
he is a recreant Senator ; because he chooses to follow
his judgment and his conscience, and to represent his

72 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
State, instead of obeying my executive behest.' I
should like to know what is the use of Congresses, what
is the use of Senates and Houses of Representatives,
when their highest duty is to obey the executive in
disregard of the wishes, rights, and honor of their
constituents." On account of his gallant fight against the Lecompton
Constitution Horace Greeley, the editor of the leading
Republican newspaper in the United States, recom
mended to the Republicans of Illinois that they make
no nomination of a Senator, but reelect Douglas by a
unanimous vote. This was the general consensus of
opinion among Republicans of other States.
No one outside of Illinois had any idea that there
was any other American able to cope with Senator
Douglas in a campaign before the people. Certainly, no
one had then appeared who had been so prominently
connected with the great measures that had come before
the country. There was no American who had fought
so many forensic battles and gained such conquests.

CHAPTER XXV
RECAPITULATION
IN order to have any proper and just estimation of
how Senator Douglas was regarded at that time, it
may not be out of place to recapitulate and call
especial attention to the measures with which he had
been prominently connected, most of which were famil
iar to the people of Illinois :
The vindication of Andrew Jackson.
His attitude on the Mexican war through which we
acquired California, New Mexico, and Arizona.
His championship of the "Fifty-four forty or fight"
doctrine on the Oregon question.
His important part hi the Compromise Measures of
1850. His carrying through Congress the bill to establish
the Illinois Central Railway.
His advocacy of waterways and internal improvements.
His support of a liberal foreign policy."*
His favoring expansions
His antagonism toward the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.)^
His advocacy of a railway across the continent, v
His potentiality in Congress and in the country."
His Kansas Nebraska bill. L
Finally, his gallant fight against the Lecompton Con
stitution and his share in making Kansas a free State.

74 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
At that time Senator Douglas was the foremost
American statesman. When he overthrew the Missouri
Compromise line, that mighty barricade wall against
slavery, he was the most potential of Americans, domi
nating not only the Senate, of which he was the most
conspicuous member, but the House of Representatives
and, in so far as he desired, the executive.
If the reader has followed in these pages the career
of Douglas, from the time when, a friendless, penniless
boy, he first appeared upon the prairies of Illinois, he
will realize that the great Senator did not attain to this
supreme authoritativeness by accident. Through years
of experience and activity in statecraft, as a member of
the Legislature of Illinois, as a lawyer, as a public
official, as a man of affairs, as a judge on the bench, as
a member of the Lower House of Congress, as a Senator,
he had labored. He had familiarized himself with the
political history of the country to such a degree that he
was always ready in discussion of public questions to
give in detail just when and how and where a measure
had been considered, and just what action if any had
been taken, and why. He knew the Constitution by
heart, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and was
able at any moment to cite precedents, if any had been
made, relating to a matter under consideration. He
was positive, bold, and aggressive, the ablest debater in
the Senate — so able that, since the passing away of
Webster and Clay and Calhoun, no man in public life
could cope with him. He was a natural leader of men.

Horace Greeley

CHAPTER XXVI
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
BUT, notwithstanding his great fame, notwith
standing his achievements, notwithstanding all
the distinction he had conferred upon the State,
notwithstanding his gallant fight to save Kansas from
having slavery forced upon her, notwithstanding that
Republicans of other States urged that he be reelected,
the Republicans of Illinois would not favor the reelec
tion of Senator Douglas. They rose up as one man
against him.
Douglas had declared that, had the people of Kansas
so desired, he would just as earnestly have championed
a slave constitution. He had said, as regarding his
position as to the right of the people of the Territories
to decide, that he cared not whether slavery was voted
down or voted up. He had been the means of abrogat
ing the Missouri Compromise line which in itself pro
hibited slavery in those Territories.
Besides all this, the Republicans of Illinois had a man
whom they knew thoroughly and in whom they im
plicitly relied, a man who was opposed to any further
extension of slavery, a man who did care whether
slavery was voted down or voted up, a man who would
never have consented to the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise, a man who, they believed, could cope with

76 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Senator Douglas. This the Republicans of other States
did not and could not know.
It may be doubted whether any other man that ever
lived has been endowed with such power of analysis as
was Abraham Lincoln. He would take up a problem
and divide it into its component parts, as a skilled
chemist would separate the component parts of a solid
or a fluid, and weigh each individual substance, and
ascribe to each so much or so little importance as it
merited. This thorough analysis was made with delib
eration, and he was able to come to such a conclusion
as was scarcely ever wrong. Through this power of
analysis he was able to see clearly what had been and
to form an opinion of what would be, " looking before
and after," as Shakespeare expresses it.
Throughout many years of obscurity and disappoint
ment, passed during much of the time in poverty,
Abraham Lincoln had been a student and an observer.
While he was denied the privilege of taking a part in
and directing public affairs, moved by the most intense
feelings of patriotism, his interest in them was so pro
found and absorbing that every question was by him
thoroughly investigated and considered. As the sequel
proved, Mr. Lincoln was better able to canvass and
consider problems of government than would have been
possible had he been a conspicuous actor in them ; and
he was better equipped to cope with the great statesman
than any Senator in Congress or any other person with
whom the Senator had hitherto contended in debate.
Fresh from the mighty contest in the Senate, in
which he had been the victor; with the prestige of

ABRAHAM LINCOLN 77
having vindicated the principle of popular sovereignty,
which he had promulgated for the Territories, Senator
Douglas came home to Illinois. Tens of thousands of
people turned out with glad acclaim to welcome him.
Surely there would be no question as to his return to a
deliberative body in which he had gained so many
laurels. Surely there would be no one who could cope
with a Senator who had met and worsted in debate the
ablest men in public life. His vindication of the right
of the people of Kansas to govern themselves fresh in
the minds of the people must carry him triumphantly
back to the Senate.
Before the Senator reached home he read in the news
papers the following sentiment :
" A house divided against itself cannot stand. I be
lieve that this Government cannot endure permanently
half slave and half free."
To this was added, " I do not expect the Union to be
dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I
do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become
all one thing or all the other."
Although slavery had existed in the country almost
from the time of the first settlement of the continent,
no such sentiment had ever before been proclaimed.
Through all the State papers of Hamilton and Madison
and Jay, through all the voluminous writings of Jeffer
son, through all the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall,
through all the addresses of Webster and Clay and
Calhoun, one will look in vain for such a sentiment.
It remained for a comparatively obscure lawyer,
Abraham Lincoln, after a lifetime of observation and

78 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
reflection, to come to this conclusion. When the prop
osition was once stated, its correctness was so apparent
that it became axiomatic. The sentiment, " This Gov
ernment cannot endure permanently half slave and half
free, it must become all one thing or all the other," sent
a thrill through the hearts of men from Maine to Cali
fornia. As men reflected and recalled the mighty strug
gles for supremacy through which the two sections had
passed, that of 1820, that of 1850, and that which was
then culminating, it became more and more apparent to
them that this Illinois lawyer was right, and that the
only hope and the last hope of saving the nation was
by its becoming "all one thing or all the other."
Emerson says that to believe your own thought, to
follow what is true for you in your private heart, is
true for all men, — that is genius. Speak your latent
conviction and it shall be the universal sense; for
always the inmost becomes the outmost and our first
thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of
the last judgment. Familiar as is the voice of the
mind to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses,
Plato, or Milton is that they set at naught books and
traditions and spoke not what men thought, but
what they thought. Abraham Lincoln believed his
own thought and expressed it.
John W. Draper said : " An idea may possess su
preme political influence. A sentiment expressed by a
few words may break up nationalities venerable for
their antiquity, rearrange races of men and revolu
tionize the world."
The Senator came home believing that through his

ABRAHAM LINCOLN 79
¦gallant fight against the Lecompton Constitution he
had dictated the issue of the campaign : he found that
by proclaiming the sentiment we have quoted this
Springfield lawyer had dictated the issue and placed
him upon the defensive from that time forward.
In his great opening speech at Chicago, where tens
of thousands turned out to hear him, Senator Douglas
was confronted with this sentiment. It had not then
reached the ear ef the general public. Uttered by one
who was scarcely known beyond the limits of Illinois,
it had attracted little attention throughout the country
at large. But that lawyer who had proclaimed the
sentiment was the opposing candidate to the great
Senator, and what he said could not be ignored.
Senator Douglas read the sentiment to his audience
and tried to answer it. Every word he uttered was
read everywhere, and when he quoted it, it arrested
the attention of the whole country. Then men in
other States began to ask, " Who is this man Lincoln ?
Why have we not heard of him before ? "
The Senator devoted much of that great Chicago ad
dress to an attempt to refute that declaration of his
adversary, arguing that as the Government had endured
for so many years, half slave and half free, there was no
reason why it should not so continue to endure perma
nently. He spoke again at Bloomington before a vast
assemblage ; again at Springfield, and from day to day
throughout the State. In every speech he quoted this
sentiment and vainly tried to answer it.

CHAPTER XXVII
THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES
FINALLY Mr. Lincoln challenged the Senator to
meet him in joint debates face to face. Mr.
Lincoln gave as a reason for making this chal
lenge that, while on account of his great fame every
body turned out to hear Senator Douglas, the Democrats
would not come to hear him at Republican meetings
where he was speaking. He said, " If we have joint
debates, the Democrats will come out to hear Douglas,
and I will get at them."
Senator Douglas promptly accepted the challenge,
and there were seven joint debates, held at Ottawa,
Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy,
and Alton, in the order named.
In every one of those debates, Senator Douglas
quoted the sentiment of Mr. Lincoln to which reference
has been made, and tried to answer it. The more he
struggled to refute it, the more apparent did its truth
appear. Before the sentiment, " This government can
not endure permanently half slave and half free — it
must become all one thing or all the other," before this
idea that possessed supreme political power, this senti
ment, expressed by few words, went down forever all
the compromises, all the machinations of the politi
cians and time-servers. And, although temporarily

rgSffi

P

S^ffi

~J|

Q

Z

<

-^

C5

Z «
3 a
i «3K
o ra
o «
i*3w
z w
B
-n r-
H 0
X
3b
5 H
£Q
0 H
Z <!
S a
i«i Pi
% o
^w
s ^
-**3j
J ™
¥ws
05 Z
— ^
< ""
^3t
H H
[d
« S
0
Ed
mvi
J
J
O
r*m
O
EsS
X
o
z
w
THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES 81
successful, the great Senator himself was finally engulfed
in the maelstrom of public opinion which it aroused.
Mr. Lincoln showed that under the Dred Scott de
cision, which Senator Douglas endorsed, slavery was
already lawful in the Territories, and that by going one
step further the court could make it lawful in all the
States. His argument was clear and convincing and
conclusive that under the Dred Scott decision, so far as
the naked question of law was concerned, slavery was
already legalized and that as Senator Douglas endorsed
that decision he was committed to this proposition.
The Senator was not slow to realize that unless this
were answered in some way, the public would become
convinced that, notwithstanding the defeat of the
Lecompton Constitution, slavery already existed and
must continue to exist in Kansas, and that all his
opposition to that Constitution was of no avail. -
Senator Douglas was not slow to realize that by this
he was placed in an awkward position ; and, at Bloom-
ington, Mr. Lincoln being present, he sought to extri
cate himself from the dilemma by showing that slavery
could not, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme
Court, "exist one day or one hour in any Territory
against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly
people." " I care not," he said, " how the Dred Scott decision
may have settled the abstract question. If the people
of a Territory want slavery they will encourage it by
passing affirmative laws and the necessary police regu
lations, patrol laws, and slave code; if they do not
want it they will withhold that legislation, and by

82 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
withholding it slavery is as dead as if prohibited by a
constitutional prohibition."
Often it has been asserted that Senator Douglas was
" driven into a corner " at Freeport by Mr. Lincoln and
forced to make this declaration, notwithstanding the
fact that six weeks before the Freeport debate, in pres
ence of Mr. Lincoln at Bloomington, he had made a
similar declaration, and also at Springfield, the day after
he spoke at Bloomington, which was then published in
The Illinois State Register. Senator Douglas was not a
man to be driven into a corner.
Mr. Lincoln frequently declared that the sentiment of
the Declaration of Independence, " All men are created
equal, " applied to the negro as well as to the white
man. Senator Douglas denied this, and declared that
because Mr. Lincoln so believed he wanted to go into
the South and set the slaves free ; that he favored negro
equality and wanted to permit the negroes to vote and
hold office and intermarry with the whites. Lincoln
showed the absurdity of all this, stigmatizing it as that
false logic which assumed that because he did not want
a black woman as a slave he did want her for a wife.
Mr. Lincoln was too wary to permit himself to be
committed to such doctrines.
There is nothing more remarkable in the great
debates than the modesty with which Mr. Lincoln
entered into them.
We found him at the opening declaring: "Senator
Douglas wants to keep me down. Put me down I
should not say, for I have never been up."
In speaking of when he and Douglas first met, he said:

THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES 83
" We were both young then, he a trifle younger than I.
Even then we were both ambitious, I perhaps as much
as he. With me the race of ambition has been a fail
ure — a flat failure. With him it has been one of
splendid success. His name fills the nation and is not
unknown in foreign lands. I affect no contempt for the
high eminence he has reached. ... I would rather
stand upon that eminence than wear the richest crown
that ever pressed a monarch's brow."
While Senator Douglas in conversation expressed the
highest appreciation of Mr. Lincoln's character and abil
ities, it cannot be denied that in the debates he sought
to " damn him with faint praise." We find him speak
ing of Mr. Lincoln as a "quiet, amiable, intelligent
gentleman," telling how as a young man " he was then
just as good at telling an anecdote as now. He could
beat any of the boys wrestling or running a foot race,
in pitching quoits or tossing a copper, could ruin more
liquor than all the boys in the town together, and the
dignity and impartiality with which he presided at a
horse race or fist fight excited the admiration and
won the praise of everybody that was present and par
ticipated. I sympathized with him because he was
struggling with difficulties and so was I. Mr. Lincoln
worked with me in the Legislature of 1836, when we
both retired, and he subsided or became submerged, and
he was lost sight of as a public man for some years."
Never in Illinois, nor perhaps anywhere else, was
there such interest in public meetings as in those when
Douglas and Lincoln met face to face. There was
plenty of time to give notice, and all the people within

84 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
a radius of fifty miles of where the debate was to be
held were aroused. The fact that the masses of both
political parties assembled insured a vast crowd. Or
ganizations were made by both parties at every town
and hamlet to get up processions and insure the largest
possible attendance. Some of the processions were
more than a mile long. All the debates were held in
the open air.
It was a curious sight to look upon when the vast
crowd of earnest men and women of both parties were
wedged in together before the grand stand. There was
the usual jostling and crowding to get good places.
There was taunting and jeering between the represent
atives of each party but very few breaches of the
peace. When the speaking began there was almost
perfect order. If the pent-up feelings of either party
caused an angry demonstration, its representative on
the platform would rise and beg his friends to desist.
When they applauded a speaker he would beg them
to cease as it would be taken out of his time.
The timekeepers, made up from both political parties,
seated upon the platform, were inexorable. The speak
ers alternated at the different places in opening and
closing. At the precise moment in which the time
for opening arrived, the first speaker must begin. A
speaker was given an hour for his opening ; then his
competitor had an hour and a half ; and he who opened
was given half an hour to close. Time was called at
the moment a speaker should conclude, and he could
only finish the sentence he was upon and could not
begin another.

THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES 85
In speaking, Douglas stood firmly upon his feet, mov
ing but little. He was, although so short, dignified
and stately. Small as he was, he seemed sometimes
majestic. Had he been so large in stature his figure
would have been as imposing as was that of Webster.
One writer in describing him has said that his face
suggested the infinite. His voice was a deep bass
and had a great carrying power, by which he was able
to reach a vast multitude. Each word distinctly
uttered was projected out from his deep chest as if
fired from a columbiad.
He was positive, bold, aggressive, and assertive. His
manner of argument was something like this : Lincoln
declares that the Government must become all free or
all slave ; therefore, Lincoln is sectional and favors a
war upon the slave States. He declares that to endure
permanently the Government must become all one thing
or all the other ; therefore he insists upon uniformity ;
that the same laws shall be enacted in every State,
whatever the conditions; therefore he is for over
throwing State rights, and making every community
conform to the customs of every other community.
Lincoln refuses to obey the mandate of the Supreme
Court in the Dred Scott decision ; therefore Lincoln
seeks to create among the people a feeling of contempt
for the courts and to break down our system of juris
prudence ; Lincoln believes that the sentiment " all men
are created equal " was intended to apply to the negro ;
therefore Lincoln favors negroes the same as white
men, and favors amalgamation, miscegenation, and a
general mixing of the races.

86 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Mr. Lincoln was angular and rawboned, his limbs
long. He was gaunt of body, his neck long, his cheek
bones high, his features irregular, his arching eye
brows overshadowing. He was generally regarded as
a homely man, but upon occasions when he rose to the
full apprehension of a subject in..which he was inter
ested, all the rugged inequalities of his frame and feat
ures combined to make him appear majestic and even
sublime. His voice was keyed upon rather a high pitch, clear
but not shrill, and his ringing tones reached even more
people than did the deeper ones of Douglas.
Mr. Lincoln was, until he warmed into his subject,
apologetic. He often seemed to have misgivings as to
whether he was a proper man to be pitted against the
distinguished Senator, and to feel that he could only
bring himself to an attempt to answer him by his
appreciation of the importance of the questions involved.
His whole manner indicated candor and sincerity. He
appealed to his hearers, asking them questions, and
apparently taking them into his confidence, seeming to
consult and advise with them, all the time giving the
impression that he was feeling his way and also giving
the impression that he had doubts whether, after all,
the Senator was not right, and that after discussing
the question under consideration, if it should appear
that he himself was in the wrong he would be the
first to acknowledge it. He would, as the lawyers
say, file a demurrer, the best definition of which is
" What of it ? " That is, " Suppose that this declara
tion of the Senator is true, what does it amount to ? "

THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES 87
And then he would reason it out and show how little
there was in it.
Every assertion of the Senator would be tested in the
crucible of Mr. Lincoln's analysis, and when it came
out it was estimated at precisely what it was worth and
no more.
Curiously, one will look in vain through all the de
bates for a high-sounding period. There were no orna
ments of rhetoric, no passages that are now sought
for repetition or declamation. In these regards those
speeches bear no comparison with those of Burke or
Pitt or Fox or Brougham, nor with those of Webster
and Everett and Phillips and Ingersoll. But in close
reasoning, in the logic that leads to irresistible conclu
sions, it may be doubted whether the speeches of Lin
coln and Douglas have ever been equalled.
When the debates were first entered upon, men out
side of Illinois asked, " Who is this man Lincoln ? "
and marvelled that he could have the temerity to at
tempt to meet in such a conflict a colossal character
like the great Senator. At first his speeches were pub
lished only in the Illinois papers. As the debates went
on the whole nation became intensely interested ; the
speeches of both were telegraphed to all the leading
journals of the country and were taken up and read
with avidity from ocean to ocean. In every house and
office and shop and mill, men were found reading them
and discussing them.
" Did you see how Lincoln turned the tables on the
Little Giant with the Dred Scott decision ? " asked one.
" Read it ! Read it aloud ! " was the answer. " See how

88 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Douglas answered him," cried another ; and it was
read. " The Little Giant is too much for your Spring
field lawyer," said one. " The Little Giant has at last
found his match," another replied. " It 's all very well
for Lincoln to talk his abolition doctrine in Northern
Illinois," said the Douglas men after the Ottawa and
Freeport debates. "You just wait until the Little
Giant trots him down into Egypt, and you'll laugh
out of the other side of your mouth."
The interest in the debates became so great that men
forgot what position the two champions were contend
ing for.
The immediate result of the campaign was, that,
while Lincoln carried the State on the popular vote,
Douglas carried a majority of the Legislature. Senator
Douglas was reelected, and, as he had done so many
times before, Mr. Lincoln went back to his law office.
It may be said of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, that
the ablest men of the nation were the champions, that
the great prairies were the audience room, that the
whole American people were the audience, that the
Constitution of the United States was the platform,
and that upon the elucidation and solution of the
problems involved depended the fate of a continent.
When the Legislature convened, Senator Douglas
was reelected to the Senate.
But the malignant fight made upon him by the
administration of President Buchanan continued and
became more bitter. It became understood that the
only avenue to political preferment was through hostil
ity to Douglas. Not only to every Democrat who could

THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES 89
be induced to fight Douglas was held out the hope of
reward, but the certainty of political ostracism con
fronted every Democratic office-holder who supported
him. He had at the same time to contend with the
new Republican party that was just beginning to be
come conscious of its strength, a young and strong and
vigorous party, destined to dominate the policies of the
Government for a generation. He had met an adver
sary who, although at first apparently unequal to the
mighty responsibility, proved to be the ablest and best
equipped champion that had ever appeared against him.
With courage, fortitude, and persistence, by his indom
itable will and transcendent ability, in the most obsti
nate and protracted political combat that had ever
been fought upon the prairies, Senator Douglas had
surmounted every obstacle and grandly won.

CHAPTER XXVIII
THE PRESIDENCY
WITH the prestige of his victory, the Senator
returned to Washington to enter upon the
campaign for the nomination of a successor to
President Buchanan, which was already begun.
It might be himself, as he had been three times pre
sented in national conventions for the Presidential
nomination. He was far and away the ablest man in
his party. Now it seemed that he might succeed.
The Democrats of the North with almost perfect una
nimity favored him. Had the Democrats of the South
supported him he would no doubt have attained the
goal of the ambition of his life. The integrity of the
Union would have been maintained, and there would
have been no Civil War.
But the Democrats of the South would not support
Senator Douglas. They had become dissatisfied with
him when he defeated the Lecompton Constitution and
favored the admission of Kansas into the Union under
an organic law of her choice. Following with intense
interest the great Senatorial campaign in Illinois, the
Southern politicians were indignant at his doctrine that
a Territory could, notwithstanding the Dred Scott
decision, protect itself from slavery by unfriendly leg
islation and the withholding police regulations, ideas

THE PRESIDENCY 91
which he had proclaimed at Bloomington, repeated at
Springfield, and reiterated at Freeport. As the same
mad rabble that had shouted " Hosanna to the King ! "
afterwards cried " Crucify him ! Crucify him ! " so those
Southern politicians, under the leadership of an admin
istration he had placed in power, turned against Senator
Douglas with the fury of demons. He had with his
own hands drafted the acts organizing most of the
Territories, — Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah,
California, and others. The administration had come
to dominate the Senate ; and that august body, by an
act of injustice and outrage unprecedented, summarily
removed Senator Douglas from a position he had long
held and honored, the chairmanship of the Commit
tee on Territories. Scarcely anything could be more
mortifying, but it did not humiliate the great statesman.
He was still great and proud and strong, every day
demonstrating his superiority to those who sought to
overwhelm him.
While at the South the men of his party would not
be reconciled to him, Democrats of the North rallied to
his support, determined that he should be their standard-
bearer in the approaching national political campaign.
After his reelection to the Senate by the Legislature
of Illinois he made speeches in other States, both North
and South.
Curiously, in every one of those speeches he quoted
from what had come to be known as Lincoln's " house
divided against itself " speech, and endeavored to show
that the Government could endure permanently half
slave and half free ; but in vain. The people seemed

92 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
to have settled down to the conviction that Mr. Lincoln
was right in regard to this matter, and the more often
he was quoted the more apparent did it appear.
In the course of his speaking Senator Douglas was
invited to Winchester, where we introduced him to the
reader of this volume. He received a cordial welcome
from the citizens, to which he responded as follows :
" To say that I am profoundly impressed with the
keenest gratitude for the kind and cordial welcome you
have given me, in the eloquent and too partial remarks
which have been addressed to me, is but a futile expres
sion of the emotions of my heart. There is no spot on
this vast globe which fills me with such emotions as
when I come to this place and recognize the faces of
my old and good friends who now surround me and bid
me welcome. Twenty-five years ago, I entered this
town on foot, with my coat upon my arm, without an
acquaintance in a thousand miles, and without knowing
where I could get money to pay a week's board. Here
I made the first six dollars I ever earned in my life,
and obtained the first regular occupation I ever pur
sued. For the first time in my life I then felt that the
responsibilities of manhood were upon me, although I
was under age, for I had none to advise with and knew
no one upon whom I had a right to call for assistance
or friendship. Here I found the then settlers of the
country my friends; my first start in life was taken
here, not only as a private citizen, but my first election
to a public office by the people was conferred upon me
by those whom I am now addressing, and by their
fathers. A quarter of a century has passed, and that

THE PRESIDENCY 93
penniless boy stands before you with his heart full and
gushing with the sentiments which such associations and
recollections necessarily inspire."
As State conventions, called to elect delegates to the
coming national Democratic convention, were held, State
after State elected delegates instructed for Douglas.
Illinois, his own State, was in the lead. Her con
vention was held so early as the fourth of January,
1860. That convention resolved " That no honorable
man can accept a seat in the national Democratic con
vention or should be recognized as a member of the
Democratic party who will not abide the decisions of
such convention and support its nominees." Resolved,
" That the Democracy of the State of Illinois is unani
mously in favor of Stephen A. Douglas for the next
Presidency, and that the delegates from this State are
instructed to vote for him and make every honorable
effort to procure his nomination."
Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New
York, and other States followed the example of Illi
nois in instructing for Senator Douglas, and it was
evident that he would receive a large majority for
the nomination.1
1 Afterwards in New York and Illinois delegations were made up
through the efforts of the administration opposed to Douglas, but they
were not admitted to the convention.

CHAPTER XXIX
THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION
THE Democratic national convention met at
Charleston, South Carolina, on the twenty-third
of April, 1860.
From the first it was evident that no other candidate
could receive half so many votes in the convention as
Stephen A. Douglas. And why should he not be nomi
nated ? If any man had deserved such a nomination it
was he. No other man had such a party record.
Eight years before, in 1852, Illinois had presented
her favorite son for the nomination in the national
Democratic convention held at Baltimore. On the first
ballot he received only the twenty votes of his own
State. But his vote ran steadily up until on the
twenty-ninth ballot he received ninety-one votes ; but
Franklin Pierce was nominated.
In 1856, four years before, Douglas was, next to Mr.
Buchanan, the leading candidate for the nomination,
running up to 121 votes. When it appeared that a
majority was for Mr. Buchanan, Douglas telegraphed
directing the withdrawal of his name in order to pre
serve harmony in the party by giving Mr. Buchanan the
requisite two-thirds. Now he himself was far and away
the leading candidate in the convention, and in all fair
ness and justice he should have been nominated.

THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION 95
Had the men of the South been imbued with the
sentiments of patriotism that animated the bosom of
the great Illinois Senator, had they been as magnani
mous as he had been, they would have remained in the
convention, and either he or some other Democrat would
have been nominated who would have led the party
to victory. Under the leadership of Senator Douglas,
while Kansas would have been free, there would have
been no Civil War with all its calamities and horrors,
and for many years thereafter the institutions of the
South would have remained in statu quo. The deca
dence of slavery, which, even then, after the policy of
its restriction had been entered upon, would have been
so gradual as to cause but little anxiety or loss even
to the slaveholders.
It cannot be denied that since the close of the Civil
War the statesmen and people of the South, with but
few exceptions, have manifested a feeling of magnanim
ity that is unparalleled in history. Through this, and
through similar emotions on the part of the North,
sentiments of patriotism are animating the people of
both sections to a greater degree than ever before. But
at that time, the men of the South in that convention
were animated by no such emotions. There were dele
gates from the South in that convention who even then
favored secession and were willing to plunge the country
into the horrors of civil war, if that were necessary for
the accomplishment of such a result. With men hold
ing such extreme views the cry was " Anything to beat
Douglas ! "
Forty-five of these extreme Southern delegates

96 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
withdrew from the convention, which may properly
be regarded as the initial step in a movement toward
secession from the Union. From the time of the adop
tion of what were known as the " Virginia resolutions in
1798," declaring that "whensoever the general Govern
ment assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthor
itative, void, and of no force," the States themselves
being the judges as to the action of the general
Government, there had been threats of secession when
ever the action of the general Government was distaste
ful to the extremists of the South, but they had never
up to this time acted in a manner so marked.
It may be said that the withdrawal of those forty-
five Southern delegates from the national Democratic
convention was the first overt act of secession.
It was decided that in order to secure nomination,
two thirds of the full delegation (which numbered 303)
in favor of a candidate should be necessary, according
to the time-honored rule of the Democratic party, the
candidate thus requiring 202 votes.
There were at Charleston fifty-seven ballots, in the
course of which Douglas ran up to 152|. On the last
twenty-one of those ballots Douglas received 151| votes.
The next highest on the last vote was James Guthrie
of Kentucky, who received 65| votes. R. M. T. Hunter
of Virginia received sixteen, Joseph Lane of Oregon
fourteen, Daniel S. Dickinson of New York four, and
Jefferson Davis of Mississippi one.
After a stormy session of ten days the convention
adjourned, to meet at Baltimore. The friends of Doug
las hoped against hope through all those ten days of

Franklin Pierce

THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION 97
turmoil at Charleston that the Southern delegates
would finally show the magnanimity he had shown,
and give Senator Douglas the two-thirds required to
nominate him ; but they could not be induced to do so.
The convention adjourned on the third of May to
meet at Baltimore on June 7.1
The opposition to Senator Douglas at Baltimore was
even more bitter than at Charleston. A large number
of delegates from the Southern States withdrew, leav
ing the convention almost entirely in the hands of his
supporters. Upon balloting, Senator Douglas received
181^ votes, while all others received but 13 votes,
and he was declared nominated.
The seceders met at once at another place, organized
a rival convention, and nominated John C. Brecken-
ridge of Kentucky for President.
1 The wits of that day propounded the question, " In case an irresisti
ble force comes in contact with an immovable body, what will be the
result? " To which the answer was, " Adjourn to Baltimore."

CHAPTER XXX
LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS CANDIDATES FOR
PRESIDENT
IN the meantime, on the sixteenth of May, the Repub
lican convention assembled in Chicago and nomi
nated Abraham Lincoln for President; and the
" Constitutional Union party," which had assembled at
Baltimore on the ninth of May, nominated John Bell
of Tennessee.
The Democratic party which had long been in con
trol of the Government was hopelessly divided upon
sectional lines. The Northern Democrats were as
united as ever before, and supported Douglas with
enthusiasm ; but the Southern Democrats, upon whom
the party had long relied, turned against him and sup
ported Breckenridge.
Notwithstanding their almost unanimous support of
his bill abrogating the Missouri Compromise line and
leaving the question of slavery to the people of the Ter
ritories of Kansas and Nebraska, they could not be
reconciled to his carrying out the principle of " squatter
sovereignty " in good faith, and favoring the admission
of Kansas with a Constitution of their choice.
Had the question of the Presidency been left to the
Democrats of the. North there can be no doubt that
notwithstanding the defection of the Democrats of the

LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT 99
South, Douglas would have been elected. Never had a
candidate been supported with such earnestness and
enthusiasm as was Douglas supported by the Demo
crats throughout the North. He was their idol. No
other candidate who ever appeared before the people,
not even Henry Clay, was supported by his followers
with such unanimity and devotion. He had such an
influence over them and such a hold upon them that
wherever he led they would follow.
But the great question was not left to Northern
Democrats. The Republican party, which was defeated four years
before, had obtained a foothold in every Northern State.
The people of the whole nation had followed the great
debates held upon the prairies of Illinois. They had
become convinced that the Government could not
endure permanently half slave and half free. They
had been led to the conclusion that there should be no
more slave States, that slavery must be placed where
the public mind would rest in the belief of its ultimate
extinction. Abraham Lincoln, who had proclaimed these senti
ments and expounded them in such clear and convinc
ing eloquence as to carry conviction, was the Republican
candidate for President. The Northern people became
satisfied that he of all men would be able to carry them
into effect. As the campaign proceeded it became more
and more apparent every day that the tide was setting
in favor of Lincoln.
Senator Douglas, mighty as he had always been, with
the prestige of never having been defeated, supported

100 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
by as loyal and earnest followers as ever favored a
candidate, put forth his whole strength to stem the tide.
He spoke every day during the campaign at great
centres of population. Tens of thousands of people
turned out to hear him and manifested such devotion
to him as had never been shown to another candidate.
With all his effort, with all his buffeting, he could not
stem the tide. The early local elections in Maine,
Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and other States fore
shadowed his certain defeat and the election of Mr.
Lincoln. In the meantime, while Senator Douglas spoke every
day Mr. Lincoln remained quiet at his home in Spring
field. He said : " The issue is really between Senator
Douglas and me. The people heard and read our
speeches in the debates two years ago, and are fully in
formed as to my views"; and it was impossible to
induce him to say one word after he had given out
his letter of acceptance, further than to express his
appreciation of the courtesy of the delegations that
called upon him.
It is scarcely possible for the people of this generation
to have a proper appreciation of the difficulties under
which Senator Douglas labored and the obstacles with
which he was confronted during that great campaign.
He was a Democrat, nominated by a convention which
represented the great majority of his party ; yet, with
all the bitterness and malice of revenge, the President
and the whole administration (a President and admin
istration to whose success in gaining the election he
had contributed more than any other human being)

LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT 101
pursued him with malignant hatred from the opening
of the campaign to its close.
Every possible inducement was still held out to
Democrats to turn against Douglas. The best offices
within the gift of the President — marshalships, collect-
orships, postmasterships — were offered to Democrats as
a reward for turning against Douglas. Democrats
were still given to understand that support of Douglas
closed every avenue to position, but that they might be
favored if they should make a record of antagonism to
Douglas. To the everlasting honor and glory of the
Northern Democrats of 1860, it may be truthfully said
that very few of them were influenced by such base
threatenings or seductive allurements. With compar
atively few exceptions none were influenced by them.
They rallied to the support of the great Senator. John
C. Breckenridge was the administration candidate for
President. In Illinois, out of an aggregate vote of
339,693 Breckenridge received but 2,404.
It was known that Douglas could receive no electoral
votes in the South, and that there could be no possi
bility of his election. Yet, so strong was his hold
upon the people that in New York he received 312,510
votes; in Ohio 187,232 votes, and in Mlinois 160,215.
Out of 339,693 votes cast in Illinois in 1860 Lincoln's
majority over Douglas was but 11,946. Had but 6,000
in Illinois who voted for Lincoln voted for Douglas,
Douglas would have carried the State.
Of the entire popular vote Lincoln received 1,866,452
votes and Douglas received 1,376,957.
Never did another great statesman stand before the

102 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
world in a position so extraordinary as was that of
Senator Douglas at that time. Regarded as the fore
most American, with a record of achievement in inau
gurating and carrying into effect policies that had
surpassed those of any other statesman of his generation,
— a man whose abilities had placed him at the front
and given him the lead in every important public
movement, — he had, almost from the time he en
tered public life, always been successful.
For a quarter of a century as he came before the
people he had never been defeated. He had been for
years the autocrat of both Houses of Congress. He
had again and again been put forward in national con
ventions as a candidate for the Presidency. Yet it was
becoming every day during the campaign more and
more evident that, notwithstanding his transcendent
abilities and his resplendent record of deeds performed,
Stephen A. Douglas would be defeated at the polls. It
was evident that the man who was to be elected was
one whose name was scarcely known three years before
beyond the limits of Illinois, but who had finally be
come known by showing himself capable of meeting
the Little Giant and coping with him in the discussion of
measures which he himself had originated and formula
ted and carried through Congress ; a man as ambitious
as he, whose whole life had been made up of disap
pointments ; a man who, while he himself enjoyed all of
position and power and emoluments that his State could
bestow, was so often and so constantly defeated that, when
fifty years old, he was moved to cry out, " My life has
been a failure, a flat failure "; a man whom he could '

**Sg$fes

am

mm ggfe

John C. Breckenridge

LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT 103
only designate as " a quiet, amiable, intelligent gentle
man. Such a man was to attain the goal of ambition
for which Douglas had all his life been struggling, and
which had seemed to be almost within his reach.
Already the extremists of the South were plotting to
plunge their people into the vortex of secession. They
had come to believe that through defeating Douglas for
the Presidency they could break his power, and that he
would never again be a factor in public affairs ; and so
they put forth all their strength to crush him.
Never was a misguided people more mistaken. Every
effort they made, every assault upon the great Senator,
served to unite the party at the North in devotion to
him. While by turning the Southern wing of the
party against him they made his election to the Presi
dency impossible, their assaults upon him caused the
rank and file of the party at the North to rally about
him with such unanimity and zeal that they would
follow wherever he led.
They did not realize it, he did not realize it ; but
through it all he was gathering strength and power
through which those who so cruelly conspired against
him were finally overwhelmed in disaster and defeat
and death, and his country was saved.
Douglas received the full electoral vote of only one
State, the State of Missouri, which gave him her nine
votes ; he received less than half the electoral votes of
one other State, the State of New Jersey, which gave
him but three of her seven electoral votes, making but
twelve in all. Twelve electoral votes were all that the
great Senator received.

104 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Lincoln had 180 electoral votes, Breckenridge seventy-
two, and Bell thirty-nine. Of the popular vote Lincoln
had 1,866,552.
An analysis of the popular vote shows that, while
Breckenridge received more than three times as many
electoral votes as Douglas, of the popular vote Douglas
received more than half a million more than he.
The electoral vote of Douglas was small, on account
of Lincoln's vote being just sufficient in several States
to give him a majority and carry to him the electoral
vote. With the absolute certainty of his defeat, which
was apparent before the election, it is remarkable that
Douglas should have received the enormous aggregate
of 1,376,957 votes.

CHAPTER XXXI
THE PATRIOTISM OF SENATOR DOUGLAS
SENATOR DOUGLAS devoted the remainder of
his life to efforts to save the Union. He was
then of the opinion that war would finally result
in its dissolution.
On January 3, two months after the election of Mr.
Lincoln, in a speech in the Senate he said :
" If war comes it must have an end at some time ;
and that termination I apprehend will be a final sepa
ration. Whether the war last one year, seven years, or
thirty years, the result must be the same — a cessation
of hostilities when the parties become exhausted, and a
treaty of peace recognizing the independence of each
section. The history of the world does not furnish an
instance where war has raged for a series of years
between two classes of states divided by a geographical
line under the same national Government, which has
ended in reconciliation and reunion."
Convinced that a result so appalling would be inevi
table, he devoted all his energies toward effecting a
compromise and averting war.
Being catechized while speaking at Norfolk, Virginia,
during the political campaign, as to whether the elec
tion of Lincoln would justify secession, he frankly told
the Southern people that, should Lincoln be chosen

106 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
President, he should not consider that a cause for resis
tance, but that he should adhere to and uphold the
Union. While seeking the support of the Southern
people, he gave them to understand that, should
they rebel, they would have no support nor sympathy
from him ; they knew his position, and therefore
there could be no misunderstanding after the result of
the election was announced.
Committees were appointed, — one of thirteen, of
which Senator Douglas was a member, and another con
sisting of one from each State ; and conventions were
held to formulate plans of compromise, in the hope, by
these measures, to avert war. Upon the invitation of the
Legislature of Virginia by a unanimous vote, a national
peace conference assembled. In this conference many
plans of compromise were formulated and proposed
which received the support of patriotic men. The most
noteworthy plan of compromise was that presented
in the Senate by the venerable John J. Crittenden of
Kentucky. He proposed as a plan of settlement amend
ments to the Constitution, by which the Missouri Com
promise line be restored and slavery be forever excluded
north of that line and recognized as existing south of
that line ; and which declared that slavery should not
be interfered with by Congress, but should be protected
as property by all the departments of the Territorial
Government forever; and providing that Congress
should have no power to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia, nor in places under its exclusive juris
diction ; that it should have no power to prohibit or
hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to

THE PATRIOTISM OF SENATOR DOUGLAS 107
another ; that it should make the Fugitive Slave Law
more effective, etc. With proposals of compromise
Senator Douglas was in sympathy, and he gave such
as could be considered his earnest support.
It is almost pathetic in reading the proceedings of
Congress to see with what earnestness Senator Douglas
strove to bring about a compromise of some kind and
avert war. He begged and pleaded with Republicans
of the North and Democrats of the South by concessions
to adjust their differences, each side yielding a little.
He offered even to surrender his doctrine of " popular
sovereignty " and to restore the Missouri Compromise
line on the terms proposed in the Crittenden compromise.
In his appeal to the Republicans of the North he said :
" Why cannot you Republicans accede to the reestab-
lishment and extension of the Missouri Compromise line ?
You have sung pgeans enough in its praise and uttered
imprecations and curses enough upon my head for its
repeal, one would think, to justify you now in claiming
a triumph for its reestablishment. If you are willing to
give up your party feelings — to sink the partisan in the
patriot — and help me to reestablish and extend that line
as a perpetual bond of peace between the North and the
South, I will promise you never to remind you in the
future of your denunciation of the Missouri Compromise
so long as I was supporting it, and of your praises of
the same measure when we removed it from the statute
book after you had caused it to be abandoned by render
ing it impossible for us to carry it out."
The Republicans in Congress presented the olive
branch and made every concession that was possible.

108 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Through the withdrawal of Southern members the
House of Representatives had become Republican by
a considerable majority.
The committee of thirty-three, which had devoted
itself patiently and earnestly to the work of formu
lating a plan of compromise, reported through Mr.
Corwin of Ohio a series of resolutions, the most im
portant of which were in substance as follows :
Recognizing slavery as it then existed in fifteen of
the United States by the usages and laws of those
States, and declaring that we recognize no authority,
legally or otherwise, outside of a State where it so
exists, to interfere with slaves or slavery in disregard
of the rights of their owners or the peace of society;
Recognizing the justice and propriety of a faithful
execution of the Constitution and the laws made in
pursuance thereof on the subject of fugitives from
service or labor, and discountenancing of all mobs or
hindrances to the execution of such laws ; and that the
faithful observance on the part of all the States of all
their constitutional obligations to each other and to the
Federal Government is essential to the peace of the
country ; requesting each State to revise its laws, and,
if necessary, so to amend the same as to secure, without
legislation by Congress, to citizens of other States, trav
elling through it, the same protection as citizens of
such State enjoy, etc.
Resolutions such as these formulated by the com
mittee of thirty-three were presented in the House of
Representatives and passed in a then Republican House
by an overwhelming majority, the substance of which

President James K. Polk

John J. Chittenden

THE PATRIOTISM OF SENATOR DOUGLAS 109
was to be adopted, by a convention properly called,
into the Constitution. " Both Houses united in pass
ing the joint resolve of said committee of thirty-three,
which, ratified by the required proportion of the States,
would have precluded forever any action of Congress
adverse to the perpetuation of slavery in such States
as should desire such perpetuation."
It was also proposed to admit, immediately, as a
State, New Mexico, which then included Arizona, a Ter
ritory in which slavery already existed.
These provisions would have given the South a firm
hold upon nearly every acre of our present territory
where she could rationally hope to plant slavery.

CHAPTER XXXII
STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO EFFECT A COMPROMISE
THE Republicans could not, under their platform
upon which Mr. Lincoln was elected and under
their solemn pledges, permit slavery to be intro
duced into territory where it did not then exist, but
they could consistently pledge that it should remain
in States and Territories where it did then exist and
this they consented to do. Had the South accepted this
olive branch they could have continued slavery indefi
nitely without its being disturbed.
There is no doubt that the tendency of the civilization
of the age was hostile to slavery, and that the time
would have come when it would have died out. Be
sides, by its being restricted it was placed, in the lan
guage of Mr. Lincoln, where " the public mind could
rest in the belief of its ultimate extinction." ; but this
would have been so gradual as to have entailed com
paratively little pecuniary loss to the slaveholders. In
the light of subsequent events, the slaveholders by
refusing to accept these too generous terms, made
the most colossal blunder ever made by a misguided,
unreasonable, and infatuated people.
The Republicans, as every intelligent Southerner
knew, were so committed to the doctrine of "no
more slave territory" that they could not if they

STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO EFFECT A COMPROMISE 111
would, admit slavery to any locality where it did
not then exist.
A clear and terse statement of the attitude and the
limitations of the Republicans who had supported Mr.
Lincoln in the campaign for his election will be found
in a speech of the Hon. Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio,
in the Senate. In the course of his speech Mr. Wade
said :
" I tell you frankly that we did lay down the prin
ciple in our platform that we would prohibit, if we had
the power, slavery from invading another inch of free
soil of this Government. I have argued it to half a
million of people, and they stood by it. They have
commissioned me to stand by it, and so help me, God, I
will ! I say to you, while we hold this doctrine to the
end, there is no Republican or convention of Repub
licans, or Republican paper that pretends to have
any right in your States to interfere with your pecul
iar and local institutions. On the other hand, our
platform repudiates the idea that we have any idea,
or harbor any ultimate intention, to invade or inter
fere with your institutions in your own States. . . .
" I have disowned any intention on the part of the
Republican party to harm a hair of your heads. We
hold to no doctrine that can possibly work you any
inconvenience, any wrong, any disaster. We have been
and shall remain faithful to all the laws — studiously
so. It is not, by your own confessions, that Mr. Lin
coln is expected to commit any overt act by which you
may be injured. You will not even wait for any,
you say, but, by anticipating that the Government may

STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO EFFECT A COMPROMISE 113
Government had no power to coerce a State back into
the Union if she did secede ; and my admiration was un
bounded when I found a few lines afterwards, a recom
mendation to appropriate money to purchase Cuba. It
occurred to me instantly what a brilliant achievement
it would be to pay Spain three hundred million dollars
for Cuba and immediately admit the Island into the
Union as a State, and let her secede and reannex her
self to Spain the next day, when the Spanish Queen
would be ready to sell the Island again for half price
according to the gullibility of the purchaser."
This is but one specimen of the arguments he used
in the discussions of the questions involved, in which
no one took a more prominent part.

CHAPTER XXXIII
THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY
IN the meantime the " Cotton States," led by South
Carolina, one by one adopted ordinances of seces
sion from the Union and proceeded to organize
into a Confederacy to establish an independent Govern
ment. Seven States — South Carolina, Florida, Missis
sippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas — by
their delegates assembled at Montgomery, Alabama,
and on the ninth of February proceeded to adopt a
framework of government, calling it " The Confederate
States of America."
Jefferson Davis of Mississippi was unanimously
elected President, and Alexander H. Stephens of
Georgia Vice-President.
Mr. Davis made twenty-five speeches when en route
to Montgomery, the character of which may be judged
from the following extract from that made at Ste
venson, Alabama:
"Your border States will gladly come into the
Southern Confederacy within sixty days, as we will be
their only friends. England will recognize us, and a
glorious future is before us. The grass will grow in the
Northern cities, where the pavements have been worn
off by the tread of commerce. We will carry war
where it is easy to advance, where food for the sword

THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY 115
and torch await our armies in the densely populated
cities ; and though they [the enemy] may come and
spoil our crops, we can raise them as before, while they
cannot rear the cities which took years of industry and
millions of money to build."
Mr. Davis was inaugurated as President of the
Southern Confederacy on the eighteenth of February.
In the meantime, through treachery on the part of
President Buchanan's Secretary of War, the munitions
of war, the arms and ammunition of the United States,
were quietly being transferred into the Confederate
States from Government ordnance and storehouses.
In his work entitled " The Lost Cause, a New South
ern History of the War of the Confederates," Mr.
Edward A. Pollard, the historian of the Confederacy,
says of the situation when the Confederate Government
was inaugurated :
" Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney had been occupied
by the South Carolina troops ; Fort Pulaski, the defence
of Savannah, had been taken; the arsenal at Mount
Vernon, Alabama, with twenty thousand stand of arms,
had been seized by the Alabama troops ; Fort Morgan,
in Mobile Bay, had been taken ; Forts Jackson and St.
Philip and Pike, near New Orleans, had been taken by
the Louisiana troops; the Pensacola Navy Yard and
Forts Barrancas and McRea had been taken, and the
siege of Fort Pickens commenced; the Baton Rouge
Arsenal had been surrendered to the Louisiana troops ;
the New Orleans Mint and Custom House had been
taken; the Little Rock Arsenal had been seized by
the Arkansas troops, and, on the eighteenth of February,

116 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
General Twiggs had transferred the military posts and
public property in Texas to the State authorities."
Mr. Pollard further says :
"Mr. Floyd of Virginia, when Secretary of War
under Mr. Buchanan's adminstration, had, by a single
order, effected the transfer of 115,000 stand of arms
from the Springfield Armory and Watervliet Arsenal
(at Troy, New York) to different arsenals at the
South." Fortified as she thus was for the event of war, there
was still another element in the impending crisis that
gave the South more confidence in the success of the
mighty conspiracy than the possession of forts and
arsenals and armories and munitions of war. This
confidence was inspired by the division of the people
of the North. That the North was divided, and appar
ently hopelessly, was so evident as to make assurance
doubly sure that, even if attempted, an effort to subdue
the Confederates could involve them in but little
difficulty. They had, not without reason, become convinced that
the great Democratic party of the North would never
permit the raising and equipping of an army to march
against them. On the other hand, the expressions of
Mr. Lincoln, the President elect, had been so moderate
that they had become satisfied that he would follow the
sentiment expressed by Horace Greeley in the leading
Republican newspaper of the country, which had advised
that they be permitted to " depart in peace."
As the sequel proved, the Southern people had not
properly estimated the character of Abraham Lincoln.

THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY Il7
They finally came to realize that his appeals to them to
listen to reason, and the presenting of the olive branch
in his speeches on the way to Washington — that his
pledges in his inaugural that he would enforce the
Fugitive Slave Law and all the guarantees of the Con
stitution that slavery in the States would not be inter
fered with, and all his pathetic appeals to the people
of the South — did not mean that he would quietly
look on and permit them to destroy the Government
without an effort to protect and defend it.
As they heard and read sentiments uttered through
out the North by Democrats, they did not properly
estimate the potentiality and transcendent ability of
another Illinois statesman, whom they had spurned
and. sought to trample under their feet.

CHAPTER XXXIV
A SOLID SOUTH AND A DIVIDED NORTH
THEY had reason to believe that the great Demo
cratic party of the North would, if coercion
should be attempted, take up their cause and
through a "fire in the rear" ensure their success.
By recalling some of the sentiments expressed at that
time it will be seen with how much reason they were
justified in their reliance upon the Democrats of the
North. The Bangor \_Maine~] Union declared, that " the
difficulties between the North and the South must be
compromised, or the separation of the States shall be
peaceable. If the Republican party refuse to go the full
length of the Crittenden amendment — which is the
least the South can or ought to take — then, here in
Maine, not a Democrat will be found who will raise an
arm against his brethren of the South. From one end
of the State to the other, let the cry of the Democracy
be, Compromise or peaceable separation."
The Detroit Free Press, of February 3 or 4, said:
" We can tell the Republican Legislature and the Re
publican administration of Michigan and the Republican
party, everywhere one thing ; that, if the refusal to re
peal the Personal Liberty laws shall be persisted in, and
if there shall not be a change in the present seeming
purpose to yield to no accommodation of the national

A SOLID SOUTH AND A DIVIDED NORTH HQ
difficulties, and if troops be raised in the North to march
against the people of the South, a fire in the rear will
be opened upon such troops, which will either stop their
march altogether, or wonderfully accelerate it.
" In other words, if, in the present position of the
Republican party toward the national difficulties, war
shall be waged, that war will be fought in the North.
We warn it, that the conflict which it is precipitating
will not be with the South, but with tens of thousands
of people in the North. When civil war shall come, it
will be here in Michigan, and here in Detroit, and in
every Northern State."
On the last day of January, 1861, probably the strong
est and most imposing assemblage of delegates that ever
up to that time had convened in the State of New York,
a Democratic State convention called to consider the
impending peril of disunion, was held at Albany.
While in that convention there were a few voices
raised against secession, declaring it to be treason that
should be put down, such sentiments as the following
were received with rapturous applause :
Alexander B. Johnson declared : " We are certain that
the will of a large portion of the citizens of this State
is against any armed coercion on the part of the general
or State Government to restore the Union by civil
war. ... If , therefore, we now attempt to strengthen
the Government by coercive action, which all men
know its founders would have rejected with scorn, we
are the revolutionists and not the South."
Governor Seymour held the Republicans entirely re
sponsible for the situation, urged compromise, and said :

120 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
" Let us see if successful coercion by the North is less
revolutionary than successful secession by the South.
Shall we prevent revolution by being engaged in over
throwing the principles of our Government ? "
Mr. James S. Thayer said : " If a revolution of force
is to begin, it shall be inaugurated at home. . . . When
six States, by the deliberate, formal, authoritative action
of their people, dissolve their connection with the Gov
ernment, and nine others say that that dissolution shall
be final if the seceding members so choose, announcing
to the North, ' No interference ! We stand between you
and them ' ; can you bring them back ? No ! . . . What,
then, is the duty of the State of New York ? What shall
we say to our people when we come to meet this state
of facts ? That the Union must be preserved ? But if
that cannot be, what then? Peaceable separation^
In the course of an unusually earnest address in the
convention opposing the idea of coercion, Chancellor
Reuben H. Walworth exclaimed :
" Civil war will not restore the Union, but will defeat
forever its reconstruction. It would be as brutal, in
my opinion, to send men to butcher our own brothers
of the Southern States, as it would be to massacre
them in the Northern States."
The editorials which have been quoted from Northern
Democratic papers are similar to those which appeared
in many Democratic papers in other States, East and
West ; and the speeches made in the great Democratic
convention of New York are similar in character to
those made by leading Democrats of other Northern
States. It was frequently declared in Illinois that if

Reuben H. Walworth

A SOLID SOUTH AND A DIVIDED NORTH 121
coercion should be attempted, the war would begin at
Springfield and be fought down through the State. It
is not at all remarkable that the secessionists were led
by such declarations to believe that the North would be
divided, and that the Confederacy they had inaugurated
at Montgomery with Jefferson Davis at its head need
have no apprehension of serious difficulty in disrupting
the Union ; nor was it remarkable that they should have
declared exultingly, as they did declare when the report
came of the proceedings of the great New York conven
tion : " If your President should attempt coercion, he
will have more opposition at the North than he can
overcome." Senator Douglas sought to the very last moment to
avert war. He was criticised for his efforts to effect
this purpose through overtures to the South; and there
were those who, because of the proposals he made, ap
prehended that his sympathies were so enlisted in behalf
of the Southern people that he would sustain them in
case of a conflict of arms.
He also pleaded with and begged the Republicans of
the North to yield to the demands of the South to such
a degree as to satisfy them. As he said subsequently,
he went to the " very extreme of magnanimity " in his
concessions to the South. It was all of no avail. Sup
ported as they believed themselves to be by the great
mass of the Democrats of the North, the Southern people
would seriously consider no proposition that did not in
volve the recognition of the Confederate Government
already established at Montgomery, and the dissolution
of the Union.

122 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
There was no question as to the legality of the
election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency. His major
ity in the electoral college was so great as to preclude
any possibility of cavil as to his having been chosen by
the American people as provided by the Constitution
for the office. On his way to Washington he appeared
before great audiences to express his views as to the
impending crisis and the complications which threat
ened disruption of the Government ; and every one
of his speeches breathed sentiments of good will and
generosity to the people of the South.
Notwithstanding all this, the bitterness and hostility
against the Government were augmented rather than
diminished. So intense did this become that his friends
became apprehensive for Mr. Lincoln's personal safety.
That there was reason for this apprehension was proved
by subsequent events.

CHAPTER XXXV
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN
VOLUMES have been written upon Mr. Lincoln's
first inauguration and his inaugural address.
The writer was present upon this great occa
sion and was in a position to realize how serious was
the situation.
Feverish anxiety pervaded all classes lest violence
should be shown against the President elect. Malevo
lence was manifested a few years later, which resulted
in his assassination.
So apprehensive of danger were the authorities of the
Government that precautions were taken by stationing
troops that could be made available at a moment's
notice, and thoroughly armed detectives in citizen's
clothing were scattered through the great audience.
When the President elect was introduced, as he
looked around for a place to deposit his hat, Senator
Douglas stepped forward and took it and held it, looking
over the audience with an expression in his counte
nance the significance of which could not be misunder
stood; it indicated more clearly and eloquently than
could have been expressed in words a declaration that
the man who stood before them and was about to take
the oath of office was the President of the United States,
and as such must be respected and obeyed. It was an

124 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
act on the part of the great Senator of which history
does not furnish a parallel. Never before was such a
demonstration of acquiescence in, and obedience to, the
mandate of the people. Never before did the defeated
candidate for the Presidency manifest such loyalty and
devotion to his successful rival; never before was an
emergency which demanded such a demonstration ; and
never before was one met in so simple and effectual a
manner. It indicated that whatever other Democrats
of the North might do, there was no uncertainty in the
awful crisis as to the position of the greatest, mightiest,
and most illustrious of them all.
President Lincoln's inaugural address disappointed
many men of his party, and was not received with
favor by the men of the South. Its habitual tone was
apologetic. He said in the coiirse of his address : " I
shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly en
joins upon me, that the laws of the Union shall be
faithfully executed in all the States," and added, "I
trust that this will not be regarded as a menace, but
only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will
constitutionally defend and maintain itself."
Instead of resenting and denouncing the action of the
secessionists in withdrawing from the Union and organ
izing a separate and independent Government, instead
of threatening to put the secessionists down, he pleaded
with them and even begged them to come back into the
Union. He declared that the power confided to him
would be used simply to " hold, occupy, and possess the
property and places belonging to the Government and
collect the duties and imports; but beyond what may

INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN 125
be necessary for these objects there will be no invasion,
no using of force against or among the people any
where " ; and he went so far as to declare that " where
hostility against the United States shall be so great and
so universal as to prevent competent resident citizens
from holding the Federal offices, there will be no at
tempt to force obnoxious strangers upon the people for
that object."
He said that the mails, unless repelled, would continue
to be furnished in all parts of the Union. He pledged
himself and his administration that there should be no
interference with slavery in the States where it existed,
and that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. He
indicated that he would sanction an amendment to the
Constitution providing that the " Government shall
never interfere" with slavery in the States. His
strongest argument went to prove that no State could
legally withdraw from the Union without the consent
of the other States that were parties to the compact.
The address abounded in such declarations as " To
those who love the Union may I not speak ? " " Think
if you can of a single instance in which a plainly
written provision of the Constitution has ever been
denied ! " " My countrymen, one and all, think calmly !
Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time." " Such
of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Con
stitution unimpaired." " There is no reason for precipi
tate action." " Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and
a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this
favored land are still competent to adjust in the best
way all our present difficulties." " In your hands, my

126 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the
momentous issue of civil war."
The address concluded with one of the most earnest,
eloquent, and pathetic appeals that was ever uttered.
" I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but
friends. Though passion may have strained, it must
not break, our bonds of affection. . . . The mystic
chords of affection, stretching from every battlefield
and patriotic grave to every living heart and hearth
stone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus
of the Union when touched, as surely they will be,
by the better angels of our nature."
There was much criticism by Republicans upon his
pledging himself not to invade the territory of those
who had organized a Government in hostility to the
United States, and that he would not use force against
them, and that where there was hostility against the
United States such as to prevent resident citizens from
holding Federal offices there would be no attempt to
force obnoxious strangers upon them; which, it was
said, amounted to a pledge to appoint men in rebellion
to collect the revenues and hold the Federal offices.
There were many who thought that, instead of ap
pealing to and begging the secessionists to come back,
he should have told them plainly that the Govern
ment would put them down.
Some declared that the situation was no better than
it was under Buchanan. There was much denunci
ation of Mr. Lincoln's taking so much pains to pledge
slave-holders who were in arms, that the Fugitive
Slave Law should be enforced, and even suggesting

INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN 127
that the Constitution be so amended as to preclude
forever interference with slavery in the States. Cer
tain men who had supported Mr. Lincoln went so far
as to declare that it would have been better to elect
Douglas; that he would, instead of going down upon
his knees to Jeff Davis and his Confederate Govern
ment, have marshalled an army and marched against
them and put them down.
In the light of subsequent events it is the general con
census of opinion that that inaugural address of Presi
dent Lincoln was one of the most judicious, and wise,
and able state papers that was ever promulgated.
There were other Southern slave-holders besides
those of the cotton States who had organized the
secession Government at Montgomery. These others
were slave-holders of the border States. There were
tens of thousands of people of the North who were not
then ready to enter upon a policy of coercion. More
than any one else, Mr. Lincoln realized the potenti
ality of these elements, and he knew that it would be
fatal to the Federal Government to drive them from
his support. This, as the event proved, was a matter
of the utmost importance. By his prudence and mag
nanimity he held these elements from antagonizing
him. An important, perhaps the most important, effect of
such a generous conciliatory address was, that it
proved to the whole civilized world that there was
no reason nor justification for the secessionists to turn
against the Government ; that they had no just cause
for rebellion; that not one wrong had been inflicted

128 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
upon them, nor one constitutional right invaded ; that
the door was still open for them to return to their
allegiance, and that they would be received with
open arms.
These statesmanlike views of President Lincoln and
the proofs he made had a great influence among the
peoples of the civilized world, who gave the Govern
ment their sympathy, and, more than once, their sup
port, during the war which followed.
Many times and often during the great war patri
otic men who became impatient with President Lincoln,
and went so far as to denounce him, found and
acknowledged that, after all, he had been right and
they wrong; of this, his first inaugural and the man
ner in which it was at first received was a conspicu
ous example.
Notwithstanding all the declarations and assurances
of President Lincoln, the misguided men of the Con
federacy, impelled by zeal and fanaticism which finally
resulted in overwhelming them, began hostilities against
the Union. Had they, as did President Lincoln, pa
tiently awaited events and not precipitated war, with
the divisions in the Democratic party and the general
and growing hatred of coercion, North as well as
South, the sympathy of the country at large and of
the civilized world might have in a great degree con
tinued with them.
They could not restrain themselves; and the result
was that on the twelfth of April, but little more than
a month after Mr. Lincoln's inauguration, Fort
Sumter was fired upon.

Jefferson Davis

CHAPTER XXXVI
A MOMENTOUS CONFERENCE
WHILE the guns were yet reverberating in
Charleston Harbor a great statesman was
seen making his way through the streets of
Washington to the Executive Mansion. It was Stephen
A. Douglas. It was his first visit to the President
since he had entered upon the office. The President's
voice was heard in most cordial welcome as the door
closed which closeted together the two greatest states
men and most potential personages upon the continent.
Each in his own person represented the character, the
intelligence, the patriotism of a great political party.
Less than six months before that eventful day the
loyal men of the country had assembled at their places
of voting and expressed their choice for one or the
other of these two men for chief magistrate of their
country, to direct its destinies. For the one, Abraham
Lincoln, were cast 1,866,552 votes; for the other,
Stephen A. Douglas, were cast 1,376,957 votes. The
aggregate vote cast for both was over three millions.
All the votes for these two were cast by men who
had attained to majority, men who were the devoted
followers of one or the other of these two statesmen,
and who were disposed to follow them wherever they
might lead. It was claimed at that time, as was no

130 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
doubt the case, that the supporters of Douglas were
more devoted to him than had ever been the followers
of any other American statesman.
This meeting of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A.
Douglas, held while the rebel shot and shell were
falling upon the walls of Fort Sumter, was the most
momentous conference ever held upon the western
hemisphere. Its importance and far-reaching signifi
cance may be estimated by its results. From that hour
the patriotic men of the nation, without regard to
political affiliation, became united in a common pur
pose to put down rebellion and save their country.
When Senator Douglas emerged from the Executive
Mansion he was driven at once to the office of the asso
ciated press where he dictated a telegram announcing
that he had pledged to the President his most earnest
and active cooperation toward putting down rebellion
and saving his country in the awful crisis, and calling
upon every friend he had to come forward and do the
same. This was especially addressed to men of his
party who had supported him in his candidacy for the
Presidency, and it was of the nature of a summons.
In all the leading newspapers of the United States from
Maine to California it appeared simultaneously with
the dreadful news of the attack upon Fort Sumter.
" One blast upon his bugle horn was worth a million
men." There were still men in the Democratic party who
were old enough to have been familiar with the patri
otic public services and resplendent achievements of the
Senator during his whole career. They recalled how

A MOMENTOUS CONFERENCE 131
he had vindicated their hero Andrew Jackson, whose
memory was still among the most sacred of those they
treasured ; they recalled how he had fought for the
" fifty-four forty or fight " doctrine, in which they all
believed, when the Oregon question was before the peo
ple ; they recalled how desperately he had struggled to
breast the tide of the uprising of 1840 which engulfed
and almost overwhelmed the Democratic party; they
had not forgotten how ably and eloquently he had
championed the movement in favor of the war with
Mexico, which resulted in our acquisition of a vast re
gion including California, New Mexico, and Arizona;
they remembered how he had championed American
interests upon the whole western hemisphere by assail
ing the Clayton-Bulwer treaty ; they remembered how
he had proclaimed the doctrine of popular sovereignty,
and his heroic battle against forcing slavery upon the
people of Kansas.
The Democrats of the North had not become recon
ciled and never could become reconciled to the barba
rous and inhuman treatment inflicted by the Southern
delegates upon their great leader in the national Demo
cratic convention at Charleston and Baltimore, although
he himself had twice before withdrawn his name in
national conventions to preserve harmony in the party.

CHAPTER XXXVII
DOUGLAS AROUSES HIS PARTY IN THE NORTH
AND so, upon reading the summons of their great
leader whom they had followed for so many
years, Democrats were as eager in response to
his summons to answer to the call of the President for
troops as were the men of his own party. Side by side,
shoulder to shoulder, Democrats and Republicans took
their places in the ranks and marched away to suffer
and fight and die for their country. When their ranks
were depleted, others took their places and filled up the
decimated companies.
As had always been the case in the career of the
great Senator, the rank and file of the party obeyed his
summons and the leaders found it necessary for them
selves to follow the popular mandate.
Leading Democrats, some of whom, in their zeal to
manifest their goodwill toward their Southern brethren,
had even gone so far as to censure the Senator, when
they came to realize how promptly and with what
unanimity the rank and file of the Democratic party
responded to his call, themselves joined in the general
acclaim and united with their patriotic party friends in
support of the Government. Fortunately there were
few reporters to take down and preserve their basty and
treasonable expressions, and they are remembered only

DOUGLAS AROUSES HIS PARTY IN THE NORTH 133
by those with whom the memories of long ago still
linger, who, like them, are rapidly passing away. Some
of those who were most indiscreet entered the Union
army, and proved themselves to be the noblest and
bravest of patriots, and some few of them rose to
high position.
There is no better illustration of the potentiality of
Douglas with the rank and file of his party than that
presented by the most southern of the Illinois congres
sional districts, known as " Egypt," which in the Presi
dential election had given Douglas nearly twenty
thousand majority over Lincoln. It was said that
that district furnished to the Union army more men,
in proportion to population, than any other district
in the United States.
After that memorable telegraphic summons of Sena
tor Douglas, calling upon the Democrats to enlist them
selves in the cause of their country, there was no more
talk in Illinois of the war beginning at Springfield and
being fought down through the State.
The author of these pages was at that time in a posi
tion to observe and appreciate what was going on
among public men and in public affairs. It seemed to
him that the great Senator had a premonition that,
whatever he would be able to do further in service of
his country must be entered upon and accomplished
speedily. He seemed to feel that there was a great
work for him to do, and that it must not be delayed.
From the hour of Mr. Lincoln's election he had la
bored incessantly to avert war. His appeals to the
victorious Republicans on the one hand, and to the men

134 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
of the South on the other, to make concessions in the
hope of effecting a compromise, were pathetic. He
offered as has been said to surrender his own cherished
policies, even going so far as to propose to restore the
Missouri Compromise line, if that would reconcile the
conflicting interests. He seemed to realize to a greater
degree than any other American statesman how much
of sacrifice and suffering and sorrow must come from a
conflict of arms. He took part in every effort for con
ciliation, in the committees and other organizations cre
ated in the hope of compromise.
When the flame of war burst forth and hostilities
actually began, he seemed to realize as did no other
American statesman, that there could be no further hope
of compromise and that there would be no end to the
conflict until the Confederates were overpowered and
overwhelmed in defeat ; and that all the power of the
government must be exerted by a united and deter
mined and persistent effort to accomplish this result.
Immediately after the memorable conference with
President Lincoln and the sending out of that inspiring
telegraphic proclamation summoning his supporters to
arms, Senator Douglas went before the people and ap
peared at great mass meetings exhorting his friends to
rally to the support of the Government.

Stephen A. Douglas

CHAPTER XXXVIII
SPEAKS AT SPRINGFIELD AND CHICAGO
AT Springfield, Illinois, the capital of his own
State, he was called upon to address both
Houses of the Legislature in joint session. The
chamber was crowded to its utmost capacity, and a vast
number could not gain admission. The Hon. Shelby M.
Cullom, who still survives in full intellectual vigor, was
then Speaker of the House of Representatives. He
presided and introduced the Senator, who spoke with
more emotion than he had ever before manifested, and
with great earnestness.
After calling attention to the widespread conspiracy
to overthrow the Government, and the boast of the
" Secretary of War of the so-called Confederate States,
that by the first of May the rebel army will be in pos
session of the Federal capital," and after stating that
" our great river has been closed to the commerce of
the world," and that " piratical flags under pretended
letters of marque are afloat on the ocean," he said,
" the only question for us is, whether we shall wait
supinely for the invaders, or rush as one man for the
defence of that we hold most dear." He said also:
"So long as hope of peace remained, I pleaded and
implored for compromise. Now that all else has failed
there is but one course left, to rally as one man to the

136 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
flag of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and
Franklin." He went on to show that not a single act
had been done to justify this mad attempt to overthrow
the Republic ; that not one right of the South had been
invaded ; that no attempt had been made to interfere
with slavery where it existed ; that the Fugitive Slave
Law was enforced ; and that there was no excuse for,
and that there could be no palliation of, " the prodigious
crime against the freedom of the world, to attempt to
blot the United States out of the map of Christendom."
He said to his old friends, " You will be false to, and
unworthy of, your principles if you allow political de
feat to convert you into traitors to your native land."
The climax of the address, to which the Senator led
up, was the exclamation, " The shortest way now to
peace is the most stupendous and unanimous prepara
tion for war."
From Springfield the Senator, proceeded to Chicago,
where he spoke in the great " wigwam " in which
President Lincoln was nominated.
It was pathetic for him to say : " If war must come,
if the bayonet must be used to maintain the Constitu
tion, I say before God that my conscience is clear. I
have struggled long for a peaceful solution of the diffi
culty. I have not only tendered these States what was
theirs of right, but I have gone to the very extreme of
magnanimity. " The return we receive is war ; armies marching
upon our capitol ; obstructions to our navigation ; let
ters of marque to invite pirates to prey upon our com
merce; a concerted movement to blot out the United

S. M. Cullom

SPEAKS AT SPRINGFIELD AND CHICAGO 137
States of America from the map of the globe. The
question is, Are we to maintain the country of our
fathers, or allow it to be stricken down by those who,
when they can no longer govern, threaten to destroy.
" What cause, what excuse do disunionists give us
for breaking up the best Government upon which the
sun of heaven ever shed its rays ? They are dissatisfied
with the result of the Presidential election. Did they
never get beaten before ? Are we to resort to the sword
when we get beaten at the ballot box ? I understand
that the voice of the people, expressed in the mode
appointed by the Constitution, must command the
obedience of every citizen. They assume on the elec
tion of a particular candidate that their rights are
not safe in the Union. What evidence do they pre
sent of this ? I defy any man to show any act on
which it is based. What act has been omitted to be
done ? I appeal to these assembled thousands, that, so
far as the constitutional rights of slave-holders are con
cerned, nothing has been done and nothing omitted of
which they can complain.
" There has never been a time since the days that
Washington was inaugurated first President of the
United States, when the rights of the Southern States
stood firmer under the laws of the land than they do
now. There never was a time when they had not as
good a cause for dissension as they have to-day. What
good cause have they now which has not existed under
every administration ? The only complaints that I have
heard have been of the too vigorous and faithful en
forcement of the Fugitive Slave Law.

138 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
" The slavery question is a mere excuse. The elec
tion of Lincoln is a mere pretext. The present seces
sion movement is the result of an enormous conspiracy,
formed more than a year since, formed by leaders in the
Southern Confederacy, more than twelve months ago.
" But this is no time for the detail of causes. The
conspiracy is now known. Armies have been raised,
war is levied to accomplish it. There are only two
sides to the question. Every man must be for the
United States of against it. There are to be no neu
trals in this war, only patriots and traitors.
" Thank God, Illinois is not divided on this question.
I know they expected to present a united South against
a divided North. They hoped that in the Northern
States party questions would bring civil war between
Democrats and Republicans, when the South would step
in with her cohorts, aid one party to conquer the other,
and then make easy prey of the victors. Their scheme
was carnage and civil war in the North.
" There is only one way to defeat this. In Illinois
it is being so defeated by closing up the ranks. War
will thus be prevented upon our own soil. While there
was a hope for peace I was ready for any reasonable
sacrifice or compromise to maintain it.
" Illinois has a proud position — united, firm, deter
mined never to permit the government to be destroyed.
I express to you my conviction before God that it is
the duty of every American citizen to rally around the
flag of his country."
For many years every public expression of Senator
Douglas had been printed and read far and wide. The

SPEAKS AT SPRINGFIELD AND CHICAGO 139
interest in what he then said was more intense than
ever before. His utterances appeared in every public
newspaper of the United States. The fact that he had
so recently been the standard-bearer of his party gave
his views character and potentiality that were, with the
Democratic party East and West, authoritative. This
was the case in New England, the Middle States, in the
great West, on the Pacific coast, everywhere. Despite
what The Bangor Union might now say, the Democrats
of Maine were loyal to Senator Douglas and the Union.
The Detroit Free Press, The Chicago Times, and other
papers of similar tendencies were shorn of any power
for harm, as were also Democratic conventions such as
had been held but a few weeks before at Albany. The
revulsion of feeling had its influence upon newspapers,
conventions, and orators, to such an extent as to tone
down their fulminations to such a degree that they
could make no more mischief.

CHAPTER XXXIX
THE NORTH UNITED
THE Confederacy very soon came to realize that
they could expect no sympathy from the great
Democratic party of the North, which had sup
ported Douglas for the Presidency; that, instead of
the war being fought upon Illinois, Michigan, New
York, or New England soil, it would be fought upon
their own fields, and about their own firesides ; that
instead of there being a " fire in the rear " of the Union
army, the fire would be against them, from guns in the
hands of Northern Democrats.
Speaking of the situation at that time, E. A. Pollard
says, in " The Lost Cause " :
" What was most remarkable in this display of popu
lar fury was its sudden and complete absorption of the
entire Democratic party in the North, which had so
long professed regard for the rights of the Southern
States, and even sympathy with the first movements of
secession. This party now actually rivalled the aboli
tionists in their expressions of fury and revenge. They
not only followed the tide of public opinion, but sought
to ride on its crest."
There was no more talk, nor even suggestion, of
peaceable separation.
What might have been the effect upon Douglas

Edward A. Pollard

THE NORTH UNITED 141
men, had their great leader held aloof, or even hesi
tated, in the great crisis, was a matter of speculation
at the time.
Many of them would no doubt finally have been
found upon the side of patriotism and of the Union ;
but there would have been no such unanimity and
spontaneity and enthusiasm as that which was mani
fested when he called.
It must be admitted that there were men in the
North whose sympathy and support were given to the
South, who were called "Copperheads." While they
made some considerable trouble to the Union men,
their numbers were not so great as to cause alarm.
Few, if any, of those pernicious pests were Douglas
Democrats. As he stood before that vast assemblage in Chicago,
Senator Douglas was the mightiest and most potential
figure in the galaxy of American statesmen. An ex
treme partisan during all his mature life, adored and
execrated as had never been another American, here
patriotic men of every shade of opinion and of every
political party listened with breathless interest for every
word that fell from his lips, and vied with each other
to do him honor. Such enthusiastic greeting, such rap
turous applause, had never been accorded to another
public man since the days of the fathers. Every one
who took part in the great demonstration felt that the
Senator's utterances were the expression of the emo
tions of all the patriotic people of the great nation, from
ocean to ocean, who would, had it been possible, have
been present to unite in the glad acclaim. Patriotic

142 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
men who then saw the great Senator for the last
time recalled in later days the splendors of that great
ovation; and as they realized that he had been with
drawn forever from their view and that they would
never again see his familiar face and form, they felt
that they had witnessed his transfiguration.

y permission ot the Chicago Histvrical Society

The Tremont House, Chicago
Where Douglas Died

CHAPTER XL
DOUGLAS'S LAST ADMONITION
FROM that mighty impassioned assemblage the
great Senator was driven to the old Tremont
House, his home, which he never afterwards left.
The strain upon his physical and mental faculties
was too much for him. On the third day of June, 1861,
only a few days after this, his last appearance before
his fellow-citizens whom he loved so dearly, and whom
he had served so faithfully, he died. But he had lived
to see tens of thousands of his devoted followers take
their places in the ranks of the Union army, and march
away to fight and die to save their country.
When the final summons came, his devoted wife, as
she leaned over his couch, asked him if he wished to
send any word to his sons, who were far away.
With his last expiring breath the great Senator
replied : " Tell them to obey the laws and support the
Constitution of the United States." These were his
last words.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX
(NOTE — The Speeches of Senator Douglas given in the following pages
have been abbreviated for this volume) *. b<4.
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN
VINDICATION OF ANDREW JACKSON
(Delivered January 7, 1844)
When this bill was introduced by the learned gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. C. J. Ingersoll], I entertained the hope that it would be permitted to
pass without discussion and without opposition. But the character of the
amendment submitted by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens], and
the debate which has taken place upon it and the original bill, have been
of such a nature as to justify and require the friends of the bill to go into
a discussion of the whole subject. For one, I am not disposed to shrink
from the investigation of any question connected with this subject, nor am
I prepared to acquiesce silently in the correctness of the imputations cast
upon the friends of this measure by gentlemen in the Opposition. They
have been pleased to stigmatize this act of justice to the distinguished
patriot and hero as a humbug — a party trick — a political movement,
intended to operate upon the next Presidential election. These imputa
tions are as unfounded as they are uncourteous, and I hurl them back, in
the spirit which they deserve, upon any man who is capable of harboring,
much less expressing, such a sentiment. It ill becomes gentlemen to pro
fess to be the real friends of General Jackson and the exclusive guardians
of his fame, and to characterize our effort as sinister and insincere, while
in the same breath they charge him with violating the Constitution and
laws, and trampling with ruthless violence upon the judiciary of the coun
try. They seem to act upon the principle that the most successful mode
of blackening the character of a great and good man is to profess to be his
friends while making unfounded admissions against him, which, if true,
would blast his reputation forever. If these are to be taken as the kind of
fering of friendship, well may the old hero pray God to deliver him from the
hands of his friends, and leave him to take care of his enemies. I insist that
this bill has been brought forward and supported in good faith as an act
of justice — strict, rigid, impartial justice to the American people, as well
as their bravest defender. The country has an interest in the character
10

146 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
of her public men — their unsullied fame gives brilliancy to her glory.
The history of General Jackson is so inseparably connected with the his
tory of this country that the slightest blot upon the one would fix an in
delible stain upon the other. Hence the duty, the high and patriotic duty,
of the representatives of the people to efface every unjust stigma from the
spotless character of that truly great man, and transmit his name to pos
terity adorned with all the charms which the light of truth will impart to
it. The charge of exerting arbitrary power and lawless violence over courts,
and Legislatures, and civil institutions, in derogation of the Constitution
and laws, and without the sanction of rightful authority, have been so
often made and reiterated for political effect, that doubtless many candid
men have been disposed to repose faith in their correctness, without taking
the pains to examine carefully the grounds upon which they rest.
A question involving the right of the country to use the means necessary
to its defence from foreign invasion in times of imminent and impending
danger is too vitally important to be yielded without an inquiry into the
nature and source of the fatal restriction which is to deprive a nation of the
power of self-preservation. The proposition contended for by the Opposi
tion is, that the general in command, to whose protection are committed
the country, and the lives, property, and liberties of the citizens within
his district, may not declare martial law when it is ascertained that its
exercise, and it alone, can save all from total destruction. It is gravely
contended that in such an awful conjuncture of circumstances, the general
must abandon all to the mercy of the enemy, because he is not authorized
to elevate the military above the civil authorities, and that, too, when it is
certain that nothing but the power of the military law can save the civil
laws and the Constitution of the country from complete annihilation. If
these are not the positions assumed by gentlemen in so many words, they
are unquestionably the conclusion to which their positions necessarily and
inevitably conduct us ; for no man pretends to venture the assertion that
the city of New Orleans could, by any human agency or effort, have been
saved in_any other manner than the declaration and enforcement of mar
tial lawXFor one, I maintain that, in the exercise of this power, General
Jackson dI3 not violate the Constitution, nor assume to himself any au
thority which was not fully authorized and legalized by his position, his
duty, and the unavoidable necessity of the caseT] Sir, I admit that the
declaration of martial law is the exercise of a summary, arbitrary, and
despotic power, like that of a judge punishing for contempt, without evi
dence, or trial, or jury, and without any other law than his own will, or
any limit to the punishment but his own discretion. The power in the two
cases is analogous; it rests upon the same principle, and is derivable from
the same source — extreme necessity. The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Barnard], in his legal argument to establish the right of Judge Hall
to fine General Jackson one thousand dollars for contempt of court, with
out the forms of trial, has informed us that this power is not conferred by
the common law, nor by statute, nor by any express provision, but is in
herent in every judicial tribunal and every legislative body. He has cited

APPENDIX 147
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in support of this
doctrine, and I do not deem it necessary, for the purposes of this argument,
to question its soundness. The ground upon which it is held that this ex
traordinary power is original, and inherent in all courts and deliberative
bodies, is, that it is necessary to enable them to perform the duties imposed
upon them by the Constitution and laws. It is said that the divine and
inalienable right of self-defence applies to courts and Legislatures, to com
munities, and States, and nations, as well as individuals. The power, it is
said, is coextensive with the duty, and, by virtue of this principle, each of
these bodies is authorized not only to use the means essential to the per
formance of the duty, but also to exercise the powers necessary to remove
all obstructions to the discharge of that duty. Let us apply these princi
ples to the proceedings at New Orleans, and see to what results they will
bring us. ^_
General Jackson was the legally and constitutionally authorized agent°oF
the Government and the country to defend that city and its adjacent terri
tory. His duty, as prescribed by the Constitution and laws, as well as the
instructions of the War Department, was to defend the city and country
at every hazard^ It was then conceded, and is now conceded on all sides,
that nothing but martial law would enable him to perform that duty.' If,
then, his power was commensurate with his duty, and (to follow the lan
guage of the courts) he was authorized to use the means essential to its
performance, and to exercise the powers necessary to remove all obstruc
tions necessary to its accomplishment — he had a right to declare martial
law, when it was ascertained and acknowledged that nothing but martial
law would enable him to defend the city and the country. This principle
has been recognized and acted upon by all civilized nations, and is familiar
to those who are conversant with military history. It does not imply
the right to suspend the laws and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right
grows out of the necessity; and when the necessity fails, the right ceases.
It may be absolute or qualified, general or partial, according to the exigen
cies of the case. The principle is, that the general may go so far, and no
farther, than is absolutely necessary to the defence of the city or district
committed to his protection. To this extent General Jackson was justifi
able; if he went beyond it, the law was against him. But, in point of fact,
he did not supersede the laws, nor molest the proceedings of the civil
tribunals, any farther than they were calculated to obstruct the execution
of his plans for the defence of the city. In all other respects the laws pre
vailed, and were administered as in times of peace, until the Legislature of
the State of Louisiana passed an act suspending them till the month of
May, in consequence of the impending danger that threatened the city.
There are exigencies in the history of nations as well as individuals when
necessity becomes the paramount law to which all other considerations
must yield. It is that great first law of nature, which authorizes a man to
defend his life, his person, his wife and children, at all hazards, and by
every means in his power. It is that law which authorizes this body to
repel aggression and insult, and to protect itself in the exercise of its legis-

148 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
lative functions; it is that law which enables courts to defend themselves
and punish for contempt. It was this same law which authorized General
Jackson to defend New Orleans by resorting to the only means in his power
which could accomplish the end. In such a crisis, necessity confers the
authority and defines its limits. If it becomes necessary to blow up a fort,
it is right to do it; if it is necessary to sink a vessel, it is right to sink it;
land if it is necessary to burn a city, it is right to burn it. I will not fatigue
Ithe committee with a detailed account of the occurrences of that period,
and the circumstances surrounding the general, which rendered the danger
immediate and impending, the necessity unavoidable, the duty imperative,
and temporizing ruinous. That task has been performed with such felicity
and fidelity by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell] as to make a
recital of the facts entirely unnecessary. The enemy — composed of dis
ciplined troops, exceeding our force four-fold in numbers — were in the
immediate vicinity of the city, ready for the attack at any moment. Our
own little flotilla already destroyed; the city filled with traitors, anxious
to surrender; spies transmitting information daily and nightly between
these traitors and the enemy's camp; the population mostly emigrants
from the different European countries, speaking various languages, un
known to the general in command, which prevented any accurate informa
tion of the extent of the disaffection; the dread of a servile insurrection,
stimulated by the proclamation and the promises of the enemy, of which
the firing of the first gun was to be the signal, — these were some of the
reasons which produced the conviction in the minds of all who were faith
ful to the country and desirous to see it defended, that their only salvation
depended upon the existence of martial law. The Governor, the judges,
the public authorities generally, and all the citizens who espoused the
American cause, came forward and earnestly entreated General Jackson,
for their sakes, to declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining
the supremacy of the American laws and institutions over British au
thority within the limits of our own territory. General Jackson, concur
ring with them in opinion, promptly issued the order, and enforced it by
the weight of his authority. The city was saved. The country was de
fended by a succession of the most brilliant military achievements that ever
adorned the annals of this or any other country, in this or any other age.
Martial law was continued no longer than the danger (and, consequently,
the necessity) existed. At the time when Louallier was imprisoned and
Judge Hall was sent out of the city, official news of the signing of the treaty
at Ghent had not been received; hostilities had not ceased; nor had the
enemy retired. On the very day the writ of habeas corpus for Louallier
was returnable, General Jackson received official instructions from the War
Department to raise additional troops and prepare for a vigorous prosecu
tion of the war. Hearing a rumor on the same day that a treaty of peace
had been signed, he sent a proposition to the British general for a cessation
of hostilities until official intelligence should be received, which proposition
was rejected by the English commander. It cannot be said, therefore,
that the war had closed, or the necessity for martial law had ceased. All

John Slidell

APPENDIX 149
the considerations which induced its declaration required its continuance.
If it was right to declare it, it was right to enforce and continue it. At all
events, Judge Hall and his eulogists are estopped from denying the power
or the propriety of the declaration or the enforcement of martial law. He
advised, urged, and solicited General Jackson to declare it, and subse
quently expressed his approbation of the act. Yes, even that learned,
that profound, that immaculate judge, D. A. Hall, himself advised and
approved of the proceeding. Did he not understand the Constitution
and laws which it was his duty to administer? or, understanding them, did
he advise General Jackson to do an act in direct violation of that Constitu
tion which he was sworn to support and protect? Conscientious judge!
Advise a military officer, when in the discharge of a high and responsible
duty, to violate the Constitution, and then arrest and punish him, without
evidence or trial, for that very violation !
Rare specimen of judicial integrity ! Perfidiously advise the general for
the purpose of entrapping him into the commission of an unlawful act, that
he might wreak his vengeance upon him according to the most approved
forms of the Star Chamber ! I would like to hear from his most ardent
admirers on this floor upon that point ; it is material to the formation of a
correct judgment upon the merits of this question. One of two things is
necessarily true in this matter: either he was guilty of the most infamous,
damnable perfidy, or he believed that General Jackson was acting within
the scope of his rightful authority for the defence of the country, its Con
stitution, and laws. In either event, his conduct was palpably and totally
indefensible. Having advised the course which General Jackson pursued
— even if he had changed his opinion as to the correctness of that advice,
and the legality of the acts which had been committed in pursuance of it,
and even if, under these circumstances, he had felt it his duty to vindicate
the supremacy of the laws and the authority of his court by inflicting the
penalty of the law — yet a mere nominal fine (one cent) would have ac
complished that object as effectually as one thousand dollars. In this view,
it was not a case requiring exemplary punishment. He did not doubt —
he would not doubt — that the General had acted conscientiously under
a high sense of duty; and if he had exceeded his authority, if he had com
mitted an error, it was an error into which he had been led by the advice
of that very judge, whose duty it was to know the law and advise correctly,
and who afterward, with the shameless perversity of his nature, enforced
a vindictive penalty. I boldly assert that the judgment was vindictive,
because the amount of the fine, under the circumstanees of the case, is
conclusive upon that point. But if I should grant, for the sake of argu
ment (that which I do not admit), that General Jackson exceeded his au
thority, and thereby violated the Constitution and laws, and that Judge
Hall was clothed with the competent power to punish the offence, still I
am prepared to show that, even in that event, the judgment was unjust,
irregular, and illegal. The champions of Judge Hall on this floor have de
bated the question as if the mere declaration of martial law of itself was
a contempt of court, without reference to the fact whether it actually in-

150 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
terrupted and obstructed the proceedings of the court. Was there ever a
more fatal and egregious error? Every unlawful act is not necessarily a
contempt of court. A man may be guilty of every offence upon the whole
catalogue of crime, and thus obtain for himself an unenviable immortality,
without committing a contempt of court. The doctrine of contempts only
applies to those acts which obstruct the proceedings of the court, and
against which the general laws of the land do not afford adequate protec
tion. It is this same doctrine of necessity, conferring power, and at the
same time restricting its exercise within the narrow limits of self-defence.
The rights of the citizen, the liberties of the people of this country, are
secured by that provision of the Constitution of the United States which
declares that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall
be by jury"; and also the amendment to the Constitution which requires
"a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." General Jackson, as well
as the humblest citizen and the vilest criminal, was entitled to the benefit
of these constitutional provisions. If he had violated the Constitution,
and suspended the laws, and committed crimes, Judge Hall had no right
to punish him by the summary process of the doctrine of contempts, with
out indictment, or jury, or evidence, or the forms of trial. It is incumbent
upon those who defend and applaud the conduct of the Judge to point out
the specific act done by General Jackson which constituted a contempt of
court. The mere declaration of martial law is not of that character. If it
was improperly and unnecessarily declared, the General was liable to be
tried by a court-martial, according to the rules and articles of war estab
lished by Congress for that purpose. It was a matter over which the civil
tribunals had no jurisdiction, and with which they had no concern, unless
some specific crime had been committed or injury done; and not even
then until it was brought before them according to the forms of law.^Jlome—
specifications have been made in the speeches of gentlemen against General
Jackson, which. I will notice in theirproper-or-der-. - -  —
The first is the arrest and imprisonment of Louallier on the charge of
instigating treason and mutiny in the General's camp. It is immaterial
for the purposes of this discussion whether he was actually guilty or not.
He stood charged with the commission of high crimes, the punishment of
which was death. He was believed to be guilty, and consequently there
was probable cause for his arrest and commitment for trial, according to
the doctrine of the courts. If permitted to go at large, he might have
matured and executed his plans of mutiny and treason by the aid of the
British army, which was then hovering around the city. But, supposing
this arrest to have been contrary to law, as gentlemen contend, yet it was
no contempt of court. If it was an offence at all, it was a case of fqj.se im
prisonment, which was indictable before a grand jury and triable by a petit
jury. Why did they not proceed against General Jackson according to
law, and give him a, trial by a jury of his country, and obtain a verdict ac
cording to evidence? The answer is obvious: they could not procure a
verdict of "Guilty" from an honest and patriotic jury who had fought in
defence of the city under the operation of that !' terrible martial law,"

APPENDIX 151
and who had witnessed the necessity for its declaration, and its glorious
effects in the salvation of the country.
The next specification which gentlemen make against General Jackson
is, that he did not appear before Judge Hall in obedience to a writ of habeas
corpus issued by the Judge for the liberation of Louallier, who was in
confinement on a charge of mutiny and treason. A simple statement of
the facts of this case will carry with it the General's justification. The
evidence shows that the writ was issued on the fifth of the month, and
made returnable on the sixth, before Judge Hall, at eleven o'clock in the
morning, and that it was never served on General Jackson, or shown to
him, until the evening afterward. Hence it was impossible for him to have
complied with the injunctions of that writ if he had desired to do so. The
writ had spent its force, had expired, was functus ofp.cio before it reached
General Jackson. There was no command of the court remaining that
could be obeyed, the time had elapsed. These facts were distinctly set
forth by General Jackson, under oath, in his answer to the rule of court
requiring him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt;
and they have never been denied. In fact, there is an abundance of corrob
orative evidence to the same effect. From these facts, it is clear, first,
that General Jackson had committed no contempt of court ; and, secondly,
if he had, he fully purged himself of the alleged offence.
The next specification in the catalogue of crimes which gentlemen charge
upon the hero of New Orleans is, that he forcibly seized and retained
possession of the writ, and the affidavit on which it was issued. The facts
are, that when the writ and affidavit were brought to him for service, after
the time for its return had elapsed and it had become a nullity, he dis
covered that a material alteration had been made, in the handwriting of
the Judge, not only in the writ, but also in the affidavit, without the con
sent of the man who had sworn to it. These alterations of themselves ren
dered the papers void, even if they had been originally valid, and had not
expired of their own limitation ; but, as they contained the evidence upon
their face of the crime of forgery, it was important that General Jackson
should retain possession of them, lest they should be destroyed and the
evidence lost. With this view, the General did retain the originals and
furnish certified copies to the Judge. These transactions did not occur in
the presence of the Judge or his court, nor when his court was in session,
and, of course, could not legally be punished by the summary process of
contempt. If they were illegal, why not give the benefit of a fair trial by
a jury of his country, as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws? No;
this was arbitrarily and unjustly withheld from him, thereby denying him
the privilege of proving his innocence.
The next, and the last, of these high crimes and misdemeanors imputed
to Jackson at New Orleans is that of arresting Judge Hall and sending him
beyond the limits of the city, with instructions not to return until peace
was restored. The justification of this act is found in the necessity which
required the declaration of martial law, and its continuance and enforce
ment until the enemy should have left our shores, or the treaty of peace

152 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
should have been ratified and published. The Judge had confederated
with Louallier and the rest of that band of conspirators, who were attempt
ing to defeat the efforts of the American General for the defence of the city.
Their movements were dangerous, because they were protected by the
power of civil law in the person of Judge Hall, by a perversion of the privi
leges of the writ of habeas corpus. The General was driven to an extremity,
in which he was compelled either to abandon the city to whatever fate the
conspirators might choose to consign it, or to resolutely maintain his au
thority by the exertion of his own power. He took the responsibility,
and sent the Judge beyond the lines of his camp. The question arises,
Was this act a contempt of court? The court was not in session, he did not
interrupt its proceeding, he did not obstruct its progress, but he did im
prison the man who had been exercising the powers of judge. If that im
prisonment had been unlawful, the General was liable to be indicted for
false imprisonment, and, like any other offender, to be tried and condemned
according to the forms of law. But the Judge had no right to say Vengeance
is mine, and I will visit it upon the head of my enemy until the measure of
my revenge is full.
Now, sir, I have disposed of all the specifications of crime and oppression
and tyranny which have been charged upon General Jackson by his enemies
upon this floor, in connection with his defence of New Orleans. I have en
deavored to state the facts truly, and fairly apply the principles of law to
them. I will thank the most learned and astute lawyer upon this floor to
point out which one of those acts was a contempt of court, in the legal
sense of that term, so as to authorize a summary infliction of punishment
without evidence, trial, or jury. No gentleman has yet specified the act
and explained wherein the contempt consisted; and I presume no one
will venture on so difficult a task. It is more prudent to deal in vague
generalities and high-sounding declamation, first about the horrors of ar
bitrary power and lawless violence, then the supremacy of the laws and
the glorious privileges of the writ of habeas corpus. These things sound
very well, and are right in their proper place. I do not wish to extenuate
the one or depreciate the other; but when I hear gentlemen attempting
to justify this unrighteous fine upon General Jackson upon the ground of
non-compliance with rules of court and mere formalities, I must confess
that I cannot appreciate the force of the argument. In cases of war and
desolation, in times of peril and«disaster, we should look at the substance
and not the shadow of things. I envy not the feelings of the man who can
reason coolly and calmly about the force of precedents and the tendency
of examples in the fury of the war-cry, when "booty and beauty" is the
watchword. Talk not to me about rules and forms in court when the
enemy's cannon are pointed at the door, and the flames encircle the cupola I
The man whose stoicism would enable him to philosophize coolly under
these circumstances would fiddle while the Capitol was burning, and laugh
at the horror and anguish that surrounded him in the midst of the con
flagration 1 I claim not the possession of these remarkable feelings. I
concede them all to those who think that the savior of New Orleans ought

APPENDIX 153
to be treated like a criminal for not possessing them in a higher degree.
Their course in this debate has proved them worthy disciples of the doc
trine they profess. Let them receive all the encomiums which such senti
ments are calculated to inspire.
But, sir, for the purposes of General Jackson's justification, I care not
whether his proceedings were legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitu
tional, with or without precedent, if they were necessary for the salvation
of that city. And I care as little whether he observed all the rules and
forms of court, and technicalities of the law, which some gentlemen seem
to consider the perfection of reason and the essence of wisdom. There was
but one form necessary on that occasion, and that was to point cannon and
destroy the enemy. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Barnard], to
whose speech I have had occasion to refer so frequently, has informed us
that this bill is unprecedented. I have no doubt this remark is technically
true according to the most approved forms. I presume no case can be
found on record, or traced by tradition, where a fine, imposed upon a gen
eral for saving his country, at the peril of his life and reputation, has ever
been refunded. Such a case would furnish a choice page in the history of
any country. I grant that it is unprecedented, and for that reason we de
sire on this day to make a precedent which shall command the admiration
of the world, and be transmitted to future generations as an evidence that
the people of this age and in this country were not unjust to their bene
factor. This bill is unprecedented, because no court ever before imposed
a fine under the same circumstances. In this respect Judge Hall himself
stands unprecedented.
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Dawson], who addressed the com
mittee the other day, told us that General Wilkinson declared martial law
at New Orleans and enforced it at the time of Burr's conspiracy. Where
was Judge Hall then that he did not vindicate the supremacy of the laws
and the authority of his court? Why did he not then inflict the penalty
of the law upon the perpetrator of such a gross infraction of the Constitu
tion which he was sworn to defend and support? Perhaps his admirers
here will tell us that he did not advise, and urge, and entreat General Wil
kinson to declare martial law. I believe that feature does distinguish the
two cases, and gentlemen are entitled to all the merit they can derive from
it. I am informed that in one of those trying cases during the last war,
which required great energy and nerve and self-sacrificing patriotism,
General Gaines had the firmness to declare martial law at Sackett's Harbor;
and when, after the danger had passed, he submitted himself to the civil
authorities, he received the penalty of the law in the shape of a public
dinner instead of a vindictive punishment. I doubt not many other cases
of a similar nature may be found, if any one will take the trouble of exam
ining the history of our two wars with Great Britain. But if the gentleman
from New York intended to assert that it was unprecedented for Con
gress to remunerate military and naval commanders for fines, judgments,
and damages assessed against them by courts for violating the laws in the
honest discharge of their public duties, I must be permitted to inform him

154 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
that he has not examined the legislation of his country in that respect.
If the gentleman will read the speech of the pure, noble, and lamented
Linn in the Senate, in May, 1842, he will find there a long list of cases in
which laws of this kind have been passed.
He said, "There were precedents innumerable where officers have been
found guilty of breaches of law in the discharge of their public duty, and
therefore calling for the interference of a just Government. Of these it is
only necessary to introduce a few where the Government did interpose and
give relief to the injured officer. These cases commenced as early as August,
1790, and have continued down to the present time. Thus, in April, 1818,
Major General Jacob Brown was indemnified for damages sustained under
sentence of civil law for having confined an individual found near his camp,
suspected of traitorous designs.
"At the same session Captain Austin and Lieutenant Wells were in
demnified against nine judgments, amounting to upward of six thousand
dollars, for having confined nine individuals suspected of treachery to the
country. In this case it was justly remarked by the Secretary of War
[John C. Calhoun], that 'if it should be determined that no law author
ized' the act, 'yet I would respectfully suggest that there may be cases in
the exigencies of the war in which, if the commander should transcend
his legal power, Congress ought to protect him and those who acted
under him from consequential damages.'
"In the case of General Robert Swartwout in 1823, the committee by
whom it was reported stated that 'it is considered one of those extreme
cases of necessity in which an overstepping of the established legal rules
of society stands fully justified.' "
I will not occupy the time of the committee with further quotations, but
will refer those who may wish to examine the subject to the speech itself,
and the cases there cited.
"..- These cases_fully sustain the position I_haveJ;aken, and prove that the
Government has repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine that
in cases of "extreme necessity the commander is fully justified" in super
seding the civil laws, and that Congress will always "make remuneration
when they are satisfied he acted with the sole view of promoting the public
interests confided to his command." The principle deducible from all the
cases is, that when the necessity is extreme and unavoidable, the com
mander is fully justified, provided he acted in good faith; and, in either
event, Congress will always make remuneration. Then, sir, I trust I have
shown to the satisfaction of all candid men that, instead of this bill being
unprecedented, the opposition — the fierce, bitter, vindictive opposition
to its passage — is unprecedented in the annals of American legislation.
Are gentlemen desirous of making General Jackson an exception to those
principles of justice which have prevailed in all other cases? They mistake
the character of the American people if they suppose they sever the cords
which bind them to their great benefactor by continued acts of wanton
injustice and base ingratitude.
Why this persevering resistance to the will of the people, which has been

APPENDIX 155
expressed in a manner too imperative and authoritative to be successfully
resisted ? The people demand this measure, and they will never be quieted
until their wishes shall have been respected and their will obeyed. They
will ask, they will demand, the reason why General Jackson has been
selected as the victim, and his case made an ignominious exception to the
principles which have been adopted in all other cases, from the foundation
of the Government until the present moment. Was there anything in his
conduct at New Orleans to justify this wide departure from the uniform
practice of the Government, and single him out as an outlaw who had for
feited all claim to the justice and protection of his country? Does the man
live who will have the hardihood to question his patriotism, his honesty,
the purity of his motives in every act he performed, and every power he
exercised on that trying occasion? While none dare impeach his motives,
they tell us he assumed almost unlimited power.
I commend him for it; the exigency required it. I admire that eleva
tion of soul which rises above all personal considerations, and, regardless
of consequences, stakes life, and honor, and glory upon the issue, when the
salvation of the country depends upon the result. I also admire that calm
ness, moderation, and submission to rightful authority, which should
always prevail in times of peace and security. The conduct of General
Jackson furnished the most brilliant specimens of each the world ever
witnessed. I know not which to applaud most, his acts of high responsi
bility and deeds of noble daring in the midst of peril and danger, or his
mildness, and moderation, and lamb-like submission to the laws and civil
authorities when peace was restored to his country.
Can gentlemen see nothing to admire, nothing to commend, in the closing
scenes, when, fresh from the battle-field, the victorious General — the idol
of his army and the acknowledged savior of his countrymen — stood be
fore Judge Hall, and quelled the tumult and indignant murmurs of the
multitude by telling him that "the same arm which had defended the city
from the ravages of a foreign enemy should protect him in the discharge
of his duty"? Is this the conduct of a lawless desperado, who delights in
trampling upon Constitution, and law, and right? Is there no reverence
for the supremacy of the laws and the civil institutions of the country dis
played on this occasion? If such acts of heroism and moderation, of
chivalry and submission, have no charms to excite the admiration or soften
the animosities of gentlemen in the Opposition, I have no desire to see
them vote for this bill. The character of the hero of New Orleans requires
no endorsement from such a source. They wish to fix a mark, a stigma of
reproach, upon his character, and send him to his grave branded as a
criminal. His stern, inflexible adherence to Democratic principles, his
unwavering devotion to his country, and his intrepid opposition to her
enemies, have so long thwarted their unhallowed schemes of ambition and
power, that they fear the potency of his name on earth, even after his spirit
shall have ascended to heaven.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND THE MEXICAN WAR
(Delivered May, 1846)
Mr. Chairman, if I could have anticipated the extraordinary turn which
has been given to this discussion, I could have presented to the committee
and the country a mass of evidence, from official documents, sufficient to
show that, for years past, we have had ample cause of war against Mexico,
independent of the recent bloody transactions upon the Rio del Norte. I
could have presented a catalogue of aggressions and insults; of outrages
on our national flag, on the persons and property of our citizens; of the
violation of treaty stipulations, and the murder, robbery, and imprison
ment of our countrymen, — the very recital of which would suffice to fill
the national heart with indignation. Well do I recollect that General
Jackson^ during the last year of his administration, deemed the subject of
sufficient importance at that time to send a special message to Congress,
in which he declared : "The wanton character of some of the outrages upon
the persons and property of our citizens, upon the officers and flag of the
United States, independent of recent insults to this Government and people
by the late extraordinary Mexican minister, would justify, in the eyes of
nations, immediate war." . . I have in a book before me an extract from
the report of the Secretary of State [Mr. Forsyth] to the President, to
which I will invite the attention of those who have not examined the
subject :
"Since the last session of Congress an embargo has been laid on Ameri
can vessels in the ports of Mexico. Although raised, no satisfaction has
been made or offered for the resulting injuries. Our merchant vessels have
been captured for disregarding a pretended blockade of Texas ; vessels and
cargoes, secretly proceeded against in Mexican tribunals, condemned and
sold. The captains, crews, and passengers of the captured vessels have
been imprisoned and plundered of their property; and, after enduring in
sults and injuries, have been released without remuneration or apology.
For these acts no reparation has been promised or explanations given,
although satisfaction was, in general terms, demanded in July last."
Aside from the insults to our flag, the indignity to the nation, and the
injury to our commerce, it is estimated that not less than ten millions of
dollars are due to our citizens for these and many other outrages which
Mexico has committed within the last fifteen years. When pressed by our
Government for adjustment and remuneration, she has resorted to all
manner of expedients to procrastinate and delay. She has made treaties

General W. J. Worth

APPENDIX 157
acknowledging the justice of our claims, and then refused to ratify them
on the most frivolous pretexts, and, even when ratified, has failed to com
ply with their stipulations. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate of the United States in 1837 made a report upon the subject, in
which they said, "If the Government of the United States were to exact
strict and prompt redress from Mexico, your committee might with justice
recommend an immediate resort to war or reprisal." The Committee on
Foreign Affairs on the part of the House of Representatives, at the same
session, say: "The merchant vessels of the United States have been fired
into, her citizens attacked and even put to death, and her ships of war
treated with disrespect when paying a friendly visit to a port where they
had a right to expect hospitality"; and, in conclusion, the committee ob
serve that "they fully concur with the President that ample cause exists
for taking redress into their own hands, and believe we should be justified,
in the opinion of other nations, for taking such a step." Such was the
posture of our affairs with Mexico in 1837 and 1838, and the opinion of the
several departments of our Government in regard to the character and
enormity of the outrages complained of. These transactions all occurred
years before the question of the annexation of Texas was favorably
entertained by our Government. We had been the first to recognize the
independence of Texas, as well as that of Mexico, before the national ex
istence of either had been acknowledged by the parent country. In doing
this we only exercised an undoubted right, according to the laws of nations,
and our example was immediately followed by France, England, and all
the principal powers of Europe. The question of the annexation of Texas
to this country was not then seriously mooted. The proposition had been
made by Texas, and promptly rejected by our Government. Of course,
there could be nothing growing out of that question which could have given
the slightest cause of offence to Mexico, or can be urged in palliation of the
monstrous outrages which for a long series of years previous she had been
committing upon the rights, interests, and honor of our country. But our
causes of complaint do not stop here. In 1842, Mr. Thompson, our minister
to that country, felt himself called upon to issue an address to the diplo
matic corps at Mexico, in which, after reciting our grievances, he said :
"Not only have we never done an act of an unfriendly character toward
Mexico, but I confidently assert that, from the very moment of the exist
ence of the republic, we have allowed to pass unimproved no opportunity
of doing Mexico an act of kindness. I will not now enumerate the acts of
that character, both to the Government of Mexico and to the citizens,
public and private. If this Government choose to forget them, I will not
recall them. While such has been our course to Mexico, it is with pain I
am forced to say that the open violation of the rights of American citizens
by the authorities of Mexico have been greater for the last fifteen years
than those of all the governments of Christendom united ; and yet we have
left the redress of all these multiplied and accumulated wrongs to friendly
negotiation, without having ever intimated a disposition to resort to
force,"

158 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
It should be borne in mind that all these insults and injuries were com
mitted before the annexation of Texas to the United States. . . . The first
proposition for annexation had been promptly rejected — in my opinion
very unwisely — from a false delicacy toward the feelings of Mexico.
When the question was again agitated, she gave notice to this Government
that she would regard the consummation of the measure as a declaration
of war. She made the passage of the resolution of annexation by the Con
gress of the United States the pretext for dissolving the diplomatic rela
tions between the two countries. She peremptorily recalled her minister
from Washington, and virtually dismissed ours from Mexico, permitting
him, as in the case of all his predecessors, to be robbed by her banditti,
according to the usages of the country. This was followed by the with
drawal of the Mexican consuls from our seaports, and the suspension of all
commercial intercourse. Our Government submitted to these accumulated
insults and injuries with patience and forbearance, still hoping for an
adjustment of all our difficulties without being compelled to resort to
actual hostilities. Impelled by this spirit of moderation, our Government
determined to waive all matters of etiquette, and make another effort to
restore the amicable relations of the two countries by negotiation. An
informal application was therefore made to the Government of Mexico to
know whether, in the event we should send a minister to that country,
clothed with ample powers, she would not receive him with a view to a
satisfactory adjustment. Having received an affirmative answer, Mr.
Slidell was immediately appointed and sent to Mexico. Upon his arrival
he presented his credentials and requested to be formally received. The
Government of Mexico at first hesitated, then procrastinated, and finally
refused to receive him in his capacity of minister. Here, again, the for
bearance of our Government is most signally displayed. Instead of re
senting this renewed insult by the chastisement due to her perfidy, our
Government again resolved to make another effort for peace. Accordingly,
Mr. Slidell was instructed to remain at some suitable place in the vicinity
of the city of Mexico until the result of the revolution then pending should
be known; and, in the event of success, to make application to the new
Government to be received as minister. Paredes being firmly established
in power, with his administration formed, Mr. Slidell again applied, and
was again rejected. In the mean time, while these events were occurring
at the capital of Mexico, her armies were marching from all parts of the
republic toward the boundary of the United States, and were concentrat
ing in large numbers at and near Matamoros. Of course, our Government
watched all these military movements with interest and vigilance. While
we were anxious for peace, and were using all the means in our power, con
sistent with honor, to restore friendly relations, the administration was not
idle in its preparations to meet any crisis that might arise, and, if necessary
in self-defence, to repel force by force. With this view an efficient squad
ron had been sent to the Gulf of Mexico, and a portion of the army con
centrated between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte, with positive instruc
tions to commit no act of aggression, and to act strictly on the defensive,

APPENDIX 159
unless Mexico unfortunately should commence hostilities and attempt to
invade our territory. When General Taylor pitched his camp on the
banks of the Rio del Norte, he sent General Worth across the river to ex
plain to the Mexican general and the civil authorities of Matamoros the
objects of his mission; that his was not a hostile expedition; that it was
not his intention to invade Mexico or commit any act of aggression upon
her rights; that he was instructed by his Government to act strictly on
the defensive, and simply to protect American soil and American citizens
from invasion and aggression; that the United States desired peace with
Mexico; and, if hostilities ensued, Mexico would have to strike the first
blow. When the two armies were thus posted on opposite sides of the
river, Colonel Cross, while riding alone a few miles from the American
camp, was captured, robbed, murdered, and quartered. About the same
time the Mexican general sent a notice to General Taylor that, unless he
removed his camp and retired to the east side of the Nueces, he should
compel him to do so. Subsequently General Arista sent a message to
General Taylor that hostilities already existed. On the next day a small
portion of our army, while reconnoitring the country on the American side
of the river, was surrounded, fired upon, and the greater portion of them
captured or killed. It was then discovered that the Mexican army had
crossed the river, surrounded the American camp, and interposed a large
force between General Taylor's encampment and Point Isabel, the depot
of his provisions and military stores.
HeJKJffi^h&mjfe_cause^and_origin^
The facts which I have briefly recited are accessible to, if not within the
knowledge of, every gentleman who feels an interest in examining them.
Their authenticity does not depend upon the weight of my authority. They
are to be found in full and in detail in the public documents on our tables
and in our libraries. With a knowledge of the facts, or, at least, professing
to know them, gentlemen have the hardihood to tell us that the President
has unwisely and unnecessarily precipitated the country into an unjust
and unholy war. They express great sympathy for Mexico; profess to
regard her as an injured and persecuted nation — the victim of American
injustice and aggression. They have no sympathy for the widows and
orphans whose husbands and fathers have been robbed and murdered by
the Mexican authorities; no sympathy with our own countrymen who
have dragged out miserable lives within the walls of her dungeons, without
crime and without trial; no indignation at the outrages upon our com
merce and shipping, and the insults to our national flag; no resentment
at the violation of treaties and the invasion of our territory.
I will now proceed to examine the arpimenfa^hy^wjiich the gentleman
from~OhloTMr7T>eta[ff]7'and~'fffoie*^^ their foreign sympathies. They assume that the Rio del Norte was not
the boundary line between Texas and Mexico ; that the republic of Texas
never extended beyond the Nueces, and, consequently, that our Govern
ment was under no obligation, and had no right, to protect the lives and
property of American citizens beyond that river. In support of that

160 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
assumption, the gentleman has referred to a dispute which he says once arose
between the provinces of Coahuila and Texas, and the decisions of Almonte,
and some other Mexican general, thereon, prior to the Texan revolution,
and while those provinces constituted one State in the Mexican confedera
tion. He has also referred to Mrs. Holley's History of Texas, and, perhaps,
some other works, in which we are informed that the same boundary was
assigned to the Mexican province of Texas. I am not entirely unacquainted
with the facts and authorities to which the gentleman has alluded, but I
am at a loss to discover their bearing on the question at issue. True it is
that in 1827 the provinces of Coahuila and Texas were erected into one
State, having formed for themselves a republican Constitution, similar, in
most of its provisions, to those of the several States of our Union. Their
Constitution provided that the State of Coahuila and Texas "is free and
independent of the other united Mexican States, and of every other foreign
power and dominion"; that "in all matters relating to the Mexican con
federation the State delegates its faculties and powers to the general Con
gress of the same; but in all that properly relates to the administration
and entire government of the State, it retains its liberty, independence,
and sovereignty"; that, "therefore, belongs exclusively to the same State
the right to establish, by means of its representatives, its fundamental
laws, conformable to the basis sanctioned in the constitutional act and the
general Constitution." This new State, composed of a union of the two
provinces, was admitted into the Mexican confederacy under the general
Constitution established in 1824, upon the conditions which I have recited.
The province of Coahuila lay on the west side of the Rio del Norte, and
Texas upon the east. An uncertain, undefined boundary divided them;
and, so long as they remained one State, there was no necessity for estab
lishing the true line. It is immaterial, therefore, whether the Nueces or
the Rio del Norte, or an imaginary line between the two, was the boundary
between Coahuila and Texas, while these provinces constituted one State
in the Mexican confederacy. I do not deem it necessary to go back to a
period anterior to the Texan revolution to ascertain the limits and bounds
ries of the republic of Texas. But, if the gentleman has so great a reverence
for antiquity as to reject all authorities which have not become obsolete
and inapplicable in consequence of the changed relations of that country,
I will gratify his taste in that respect. It must be borne in mind that Texas
(before her revolution) was always understood to have been a portion of
the old French province of Louisiana, whilst Coahuila was one of the Spanish
provinces of Mexico. By ascertaining the western boundary of Louisiana,
therefore, prior to its transfer by France to Spain, we discover the divid
ing line between Texas and Coahuila. I will not weary the patience of the
House by an examination of the authorities, in detail, by which this point
is elucidated and established. I will content myself by referring the gen
tleman to a document in which he will find them all collected and analyzed
in a masterly manner, by one whose learning and accuracy he will not
question. I allude to a despatch (perhaps I might with propriety call it a
book, from its great length) written by our Secretary of State in 1819 to

Zachary Taylor

APPENDIX 161
Don Onis, the Spanish minister. The document is to be found in the State
Papers in each of our libraries. He will there find a multitudinous collec
tion of old maps and musty records, histories and geographies — Spanish,
English, and French— by which it is clearly established that the Rio del
Norte was the western boundary of Louisiana, and so considered by Spain
and France both, when they owned the opposite banks of that river. The
venerable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Adams] in that famous
despatch reviews all the authorities on either side with a clearness and
ability which defy refutation, and demonstrate the validity of our title in
virtue of the purchase of Louisiana. He went farther, and expressed his
own convictions, upon a full examination of the whole question, that our
title as far as the Rio del Norte was as clear as to the island of New Orleans.
This was the opinion of Mr. Adams in 1819. It was the opinion of Messrs.
Monroe and Pinckney in 1805. It was the opinion of Jefferson and Madison
— of all our Presidents and of all administrations, from its acquisition in
1803 to its fatal relinquishment in 1819. I make no question with the gen
tleman as to the applicability and bearing of these facts upon the point
in controversy. I give them in opposition to the supposed facts upon which
he seems to rely. I give him the opinions of these eminent statesmen in
response to those of Almonte and his brother Mexican general. Will the
gentleman tell us and his constituents that those renowned statesmen,
including his distinguished friend [Mr. Adams], as well as President Polk
and the American Congress, were engaged in an unholy, unrighteous, and
damnable cause when claiming title to the Rio del Norte? I leave the
gentleman from Ohio and his venerable friend from Massachusetts to
settle the disputed point of the old boundary of Texas between themselves,
trusting that they may agree upon some basis of amicable adjustment and
compromise. But, sir, I have already said that I do not deem it necessary
to rely upon those ancient authorities for a full and complete justification
of our Government in maintaining possession of the country on the left
bank of the Rio del Norte. Our justification rests upon better and higher
evidence, upon a firmer basis — an immutable principle. The republic of
Texas held the country by a more glorious title than can be traced through
the old maps and musty records of French and Spanish courts. She held
it by the same title that our fathers of the Revolution acquired the terri
tory and achieved the independence of this republic. She held it by virtue
of a successful revolution, a declaration of independence setting forth
the inalienable rights of man, triumphantly maintained by the irresistible
power of her arms, and consecrated by the precious blood of her glorious
heroes. These were her muniments of title. By these she acquired the
empire which she has voluntarily annexed to our Union, and which we
have plighted our faith to protect and defend against invasion and dis
memberment. We received the republic of Texas into the Union with
her entire territory as an independent and sovereign State, and have no
right to alienate or surrender any portion of it. This proposition our
opponents admit, so far as respects the country on this side of the Nueces,
but they deny both the obligation and the right to go beyond that river.
11

162 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Upon what authority they assume the Nueces to have been the boundary
of the republic of Texas they have not condescended to inform us. I am
unable to conceive upon what grounds a distinction can be drawn as to
our right to the opposite sides of that stream. I know nothing in the his
tory of that republic, from its birth to its translation, that would authorize
the assumption. The same principles and evidence which, by common
consent, give us title on this side of the Nueces, establish our right to the
other. The revolution extended to either side of the river, and was alike
successful on both. Upon this point I speak with confidence, for I have
taken the precaution, within the last few minutes, to have the facts to
which I shall refer authenticated by the testimony of the two most distin
guished actors (one of whom I now recognize in my eye) of those thrilling
and glorious scenes. Upon this high authority, I assume that the first
revolutionary army in Texas, in 1835, embraced soldiers and officers who
were residents of the country between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte.
These same heroic men, or so many of them as had not been butchered by
the Mexican soldiery, were active participators in the battle of San Jacinto
on the twenty-first of April, 1836, when Santa Ana was captured and the
Mexican army annihilated.
Although few in number, and sparsely scattered over a wide surface of
country, and consequently exposed to the cruelties and barbarities of the
enemy, none were more faithful to the cause of freedom, and constant in
their devotion to the interests of the republic throughout its existence.
Immediately after the battle of San Jacinto, Santa Ana made a proposition
to the commander of the Texan army (General Houston) to make a treaty
of peace, by which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas, with
the Rio del Norte as the boundary. In May, 1836, such a treaty was made
between the Government of Texas and Santa Ana on the part of the Mexican
nation, in which the independence of Texas was acknowledged, and the
Rio del Norte recognized as the boundary. In pursuance of the provision
of this treaty, the remnant of the Mexican army was permitted, under the
orders of Santa Ana, to retire beyond the confines of the republic of Texas,
and take a position on the other side of the Rio del Norte, which they
did accordingly. ... It is immaterial whether Mexico has or has not
disavowed Santa Ana's treaty with Texas. It was executed at the time by
competent authority. She availed herself of all its benefits. By virtue of
it she saved the remnant of her army from total annihilation, and had her
captive dictator restored to liberty. Under it she was permitted to remove,
in peace and security, all her soldiers, citizens, and property, beyond the
Rio del Norte. The question is, had she a moral and legal right to repu
diate it after she had enjoyed all its advantages?
The gentleman from Massachusetts attempts to apply the legal maxims
relative to civil contracts to this, transaction. Because an individual who
enters into a contract while in duress has a right to disavow it when re
stored to his liberty, he can see no reason why Santa Ana could not do the
same thing. I shall not go into an argument to prove that the rights of
a nation, in time of war, are not identical with those of a citizen, under

Sam Houston

APPENDIX 163
the municipal laws of his own country, in a state of peace. But if I should
admit the justness of the supposed parallel, I apprehend the gentleman
would not insist upon the right to rescind the contract without placing the
parties in statu quo; for it must be borne in mind that Santa Ana was a
prisoner according to the rules of war, and consequently in lawful custody.
Is the gentleman prepared to show that the Mexican Government ever pro
posed to rescind the treaty, and place the parties in the same relative
position they occupied on the day of its execution? Did they ever offer
to send Santa Ana and his defeated army back to San Jacinto, to remain
as General Houston's prisoners until the Texan Government should dis
pose of them according to its discretion, under the laws of nations? But
I must return from this digression to the main point of my argument. I
was proceeding with my proof, when these interruptions commenced, to
snow that the Rio del Norte was the boundary between Texas and Mexico,
and has been so claimed on the one side and recognized on the other ever
since the battle of San Jacinto. I have already referred to the fact that
the country west of the Nueces had her soldiers in the Texan army during
the campaigns of 1835 and 1836, and that the treaty of peace and inde
pendence between Santa Ana and the Texan Government recognized the
Rio del Norte as the boundary. I have also referred to the fact that the
Mexican army was removed from Texas, in pursuance of that treaty, to
the west bank of that stream. I am informed by high authority that
General Filisola received instructions from the authorities in Mexico, who
were exercising the functions of government in Santa Ana's absence, to
enter into any arrangement with the Texan Government which should be
necessary to save the Mexican army from destruction, and secure its safe
retreat from that country; and that, in pursuance of those instructions,
he did ratify Santa Ana's treaty previous to marching the army beyond
the Rio del Norte. My friend from Mississippi, before me [Mr. Davis],
who has investigated the subject, assures me that such is the fact. My
own recollection accords with his statement in this respect. These facts
clearly show that Mexico, at that time, regarded the revolution as success
ful as far as the Rio del Norte, and consequently that the river must neces
sarily become the boundary whenever the independence of the new republic
should be firmly established. Subsequent transactions prove that the
two countries have ever since acted on the same supposition. Texas im
mediately proceeded to form a Constitution and establish a permanent
Government. The country between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte
was represented in the convention which formed her Constitution in 1836.
James Powers, an actual resident of the territory now in dispute, was
elected a delegate by the people residing there, and participated in the
proceedings of the convention as one of its members. The first Congress
which assembled under the Constitution proceeded to define the bounda
ries of the republic, to establish courts of jurisdiction, and the exercise of
all the powers of sovereignty over the whole territory. One of the first
acts of that Congress declares the Rio del Norte, from its mouth to its
source, to be the boundary between Texas and Mexico, and the others

164 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
provide for the exercise of jurisdiction. Counties were established, reach
ing across the Nueces, and even to the Rio del Norte, as fast as the tide
of emigration advanced in that direction. Corpus Chiisti, Point Isabel,
and General Taylor's camp, opposite Matamoros, are all within the county
of San Patricio, in the State of Texas, according to our recent maps. That
same county, from the day of its formation, constituted a portion of one
of the Congressional districts, and also of a Senatorial district in the
republic of Texas ; it now forms a portion, if not the whole, of a represen
tative district, and also a Senatorial district, for the election of represen
tatives and senators to the Texan Legislature, as well as a Congressional
district for the election of a representative to the Congress of the United
States. Colonel Kinney, who emigrated from my own State, has resided
in that country, between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte, for many years;
has represented it in the Congress of the republic of Texas, also in the
convention which formed the Constitution of the State of Texas, and now
represents it in the Texan Senate. I know not what stronger evidence
could be desired that the country in question was, in fact, a portion of the
republic of Texas, and, as a consequence, is now a portion of the United
States. If an express acknowledgment by Mexico of the Rio del Norte
as the boundary is deemed essential, and the recognition of that fact in
Santa Ana's treaty, and subsequently by Filisola, is not considered suffi
cient, I will endeavor to furnish further and more recent evidence, which,
I trust, will be satisfactory on that point. I have not the papers to which
I shall refer before me at this moment, but they are of such general notoriety
that they cannot fail to be within the recollection of the members of the
House generally. It will be remembered that when we were discussing the
propriety and expediency of the annexation of Texas some two years ago,
much was said about an armistice entered into between Mexico and Texas
for the suspension of hostilities for a limited period. Well, that armistice
was agreed to by the two governments, and in the proclamation announc
ing the fact by the Mexican Government, the Mexican forces were required
to retire from the territory of Texas to the west side of the Rio del Norte.
This proclamation was issued, as near as I recollect, in 1843 or 1844, just
before the treaty of annexation was signed by President Tyler, and at a
period when Mexico had had sufficient time to recover from the dizziness
of the shock at San Jacinto, and to ascertain to what extent the revolution
had been successful, and where the true boundary was. She was not a
prisoner of war, nor in duress, at the time she issued this proclamation.
It was her own deliberate act (so far as deliberation ever attends her
action), done of her own volition. In that proclamation she clearly recog
nizes the Rio del Norte as the boundary, and that, too, in view of a treaty
of peace, by which the independence of Texas was to be again acknowledged.
Mr. Adams. I wish to ask the gentleman from Illinois if the last Con
gress did not pass an act regulating trade and commerce to the foreign
province of Santa F6?
Mr. Douglas. I believe the last Congress did pass an act upon that sub
ject, and I will remind the gentleman that the present Congress has passed

APPENDIX 165
an act extending the revenue laws of the United States over the country
between the Rio del Norte and the Nueces, and providing for the appoint
ment of custom-house officers to reside there. As near as I recollect, the
gentleman from Massachusetts and myself voted for both of those acts.
The only difference between us, in this respect, was, that he, being a little
more zealous than myself, made a speech for the last one — for the act ex
tending our laws over and taking legal possession of the very country where
General Taylor's army is now encamped, and which he now asserts to
belong to Mexico. That act passed this Congress unanimously at the
present session, taking legal possession of the whole country in dispute,
and of course making it the sworn duty of the President to see its pro
visions faithfully executed. In the name of truth and justice, I ask the
gentleman from Massachusetts, and his followers in this crusade, how
they can justify it to their consciences to denounce the President for send
ing the army to protect the lives of our citizens there and defend the
country from invasion, after they had voted to take legal possession by
the extension of our laws? They had asserted our right to the country
by a solemn act of Congress ; had erected it into a collection district, and
the Constitution required the President to appoint the officers, and see the
laws faithfully executed. He had done so; and for this simple discharge
of a duty enjoined upon him by a law for which they voted, he is assailed,
in the coarsest terms known to our language, as having committed an act
which is unholy, unrighteous, and damnable ! But I feel it due to the
venerable gentleman from Massachusetts to respond more particularly
to his inquiry in regard to the act of the last Congress regulating commerce
and trade to Santa Fe. I do not now recollect its exact provisions, nor is
it important, inasmuch as that act was passed before Texas was annexed
to this Union. Of course Santa Fe was foreign to us at that time, whether
it belonged to Texas or Mexico. The object of that act was to regulate the
trade across our western frontier between us and foreign countries. Texas
was then foreign to us, but is no longer so since her annexation and admis
sion into the Union. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have now said all that I
intended for the purpose of showing that the Rio del Norte was the western
boundary of the republic of Texas. How far I have succeeded in estab
lishing the position, I leave to the House and the country to determine.
If that was the boundary of the republic of Texas, it has, of course, be
come the boundary of the United States by virtue of the acts of annexa
tion and admission into the Union. I will not say that I have demonstrated
the question as satisfactorily as the distinguished gentleman from Massa
chusetts did in 1819, but I will say that I think I am safe in adopting the
sentiment which he then expressed — that our title to the Rio del Norte
is as clear as to the island of New Orleans. . . .
Mr. Adams. I never said that our title was good to the Rio del Norte
from its mouth to its source.
Mr. Douglas. I know nothing of the gentleman's mental reservations.
If he means, by his denial, to place the whole emphasis on the qualification
that he did not claim that river as the boundary "from its mouth to its

166 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
source," I shall not dispute with him on that point. But if he wishes to be
understood as denying that he ever claimed the Rio del Norte, in general
terms, as our boundary under the Louisiana treaty, I can furnish him with
an official document, over his own signature, which he will find very em
barrassing and exceedingly difficult to explain. I allude to his famous
despatch as Secretary of State, in 1819, to Don Onis, the Spanish minister.
I am not certain that I can prove his handwriting, for the copy I have in
my possession I find printed in the American State Papers, published by
order of Congress. In that paper he not only claimed the Rio del Norte
as our boundary, but he demonstrated the validity of the claim by a train
of facts and arguments which rivet conviction on every impartial mind,
and defy refutation.
Mr. Adams. I wrote that despatch as Secretary of State, 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 as our boundary in its
full extent. I only claimed it a short distance up the river, and then
diverged northward some distance from the stream.
Mr. Douglas. Will the gentleman specify the point at which his line left
the river?
Mr. Adams. I never designated the point.
Mr. Douglas. Was it above Matamoros?
Mr. Adams. I never specified any particular place.
Mr. Douglas. I am well aware that the gentleman never specified any
point of departure for his northward line, which, he now informs us, was
to run a part of the way on the east side of that river; for he claimed the
river as the boundary in general terms, without any qualification. But
his present admission is sufficient for my purposes, if he will only specify
the point from which he then understood or now understands that his line
was to have diverged from the river. ... I leave it to the candor of every
honest man whether the executive did not do his duty, and nothing but
his duty, when he ordered the army to the Rio del Norte. Should he have
folded his arms, and allowed our citizens to be murdered and our territory
invaded with impunity? Have we not forborne to act, either offensively
or defensively, until our forbearance is construed into cowardice, and is
exciting contempt from those toward whom we have exercised our magna
nimity? We have a long list of grievances, a long catalogue of wrongs to
be avenged. The war has commenced; blood has been shed ; our territory
invaded ; all by the act of the enemy.
I had hoped and trusted that there would be no anti-war party after
war was declared. In this I have been sadly disappointed. I have been
particularly mortified to see one with whom I have acted on the Oregon
question, who was ready to plunge the country into immediate war, if
necessary, to maintain the rights and honor of the country in that direc
tion, now arraying himself on the side of the enemy when our country is
invaded by another portion of the Union. To me, our country and all its
parts are one and indivisible. I would rally under her standard in the
defence of one portion as soon as another — the South as soon as the

General Santa Ana

APPENDIX 167
North; for Texas as soon as Oregon. And I will here do my Southern
friends the justice to say that I firmly believe, and never doubted that,
if war had arisen out of the Oregon question, when once declared, they
would have been found shoulder to shoulder with me as firmly as I shall
be with them in this Mexican war.
Mr. Adams. I thought I understood the gentleman some time ago,
while standing on 54° 40', to tell his Southern friends that he wanted no
dodging on the Oregon question.
Mr. Douglas. I did stand on 54° 40' ; I stand there now, and never in
tend, by any act of mine, to surrender the position. I am as ready and
willing to fight for 54° 40' as for the Rio del Norte. My patriotism is not
of that kind which would induce me to go to war to enlarge one section of
the Union out of mere hatred and vengeance toward the other. I have
no personal or political griefs resulting from the past to embitter my feel
ings and inflame my resentment toward any section of our country. I
know no sections, no divisions. I did complain of a few of my Southern
friends on the Oregon question ; did tell them that I wished to see no dodg
ing ; endeavored to rally them on 54° 40' as our fighting line, regardless of
consequences, war or no war. But, while they declined to assume this posi
tion in a time of peace, they unanimously avowed their determination to
stand by the country the moment war was declared. But, since the gentle
man from Massachusetts has dragged the Oregon question into this debate,
I wish to call his attention to one of his wise sayings on that subject, and see
if he is not willing to apply it to Texas as well as Oregon, to Mexico as well
as Great Britain. He recalled to the mind of the House that passage of
history in which the great Frederick took military possession of Silesia,
and immediately proposed to settle the question of title and boundaries
by negotiation. During the Oregon debate he avowed himself in favor of
Frederick's plan for the settlement of that question, "Take possession first,
and negotiate afterward." I desire to know why the gentleman is not
willing to apply this principle to the country on the Rio del Norte as well
as Oregon? According to his own showing, that is precisely what Presi
dent Polk has done. He has taken possession, and proposed to negotiate.
In this respect the President has adopted the advice of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and followed the example of the great Frederick. The only
difference in the two cases is that the President was maintaining a legal
possession, which Congress had previously taken by the extension of our
laws. For this he is also abused. He is condemned alike for using the
sword and the olive branch. His enemies object to his efforts for amicable
adjustment as well as to the movements of the army. All is wrong in their
eyes. Their country is always wrong, and its enemies right. It has ever
been so. It was so in the last war with Great Britain. Then it was unbe
coming a moral and religious people to rejoice at the success of American
arms. We were wrong, in their estimation, in the French Indemnity case,
in the Florida war, in all the Indian wars, and now in the Mexican war.
I despair of ever seeing my country again in the right, if they are to be the
oracles.

ON THE OREGON BOUNDARY
(Extracts from two speeches)
It therefore becomes us to put this nation in a state of defence; and,
when we are told that this will lead to war, all I have to say is this, violate
no treaty stipulations, nor any principle of the law of nations; preserve
the honor and integrity of the country, but, at the same time, assert our
right to the last inch, and then, if war comes, let it come. We may regret
the necessity which produced it, but when it does come, I would administer
to our citizens Hannibal's oath of eternal enmity, and not terminate the
war until the question was settled forever. I would blot out the lines on
the map which now mark our national boundaries on this continent, and
make the area of liberty as broad as the continent itself. I would not
suffer petty rival republics to grow up here, engendering jealousy of each
other, and interfering with each other's domestic affairs, and continually
endangering their peace. I do not wish to go beyond the great ocean —
beyond those boundaries which the God of nature has marked out, I would
limit myself only by that boundary which is so clearly defined by nature.

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 au
thority 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.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON OUR POLICY WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS — CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY
(Delivered February 14, 1853)
Thirty years ago, J^J^gpji^MiJr1.]1'^ message to Congress, made a mem
orable declaration with respect to European colonization upon this con
tinent. That declaration has ever since been a favorite subject of eulogism
with orators, politicians, and statesmen. Recently it has assumed the
dignified appellation of the "Monroe doctrine." It seems to be the part
of patriotism for all to profess that doctrine, while our Government has
scarcely ever failed to repudiate it practically whenever an opportunity
for its observance has been presented. The Oregon treaty is a noted case
in point. Prior to that convention there was no British colony on this
continent west of the Rocky Mountains. The Hudson's Bay Company was
confined by its charter to the shores of the bay, and to the streams flowing
into it, and to the country drained by them. The western boundary of
Canada was hundreds of miles distant ; and there was no European colony
to be found in all that region on the Pacific coast stretching from California
to the Russian possessions. We had a treaty of non-occupancy with Great
Britain, by the provisions of which neither party was to be permitted to
colonize or assume dominion over any portion of that territory. We
abrogated that treaty of non-occupancy, and then entered into a conven
tion, by the terms of which the country in question was divided into two
nearly equal parts, by the parallel of the forty-ninth degree of latitude,
and all on the north confirmed to Great Britain, and that on the south
to the United States. By that treaty Great Britain consented that we
might establish Territories and States south of the forty-ninth parallel,
and the United States consented that Great Britain might, to the north
of that parallel, establish new European colonies, in open and flagrant
violation of the Monroe doctrine. It is unnecessary for me to remind the
country, and especially my own constituents, with what energy and em
phasis I protested against that convention, upon the ground that it car
ried with it the undisguised repudiation of the Monroe declaration, and the
consent of this republic that new British colonies might be established on
that portion of the North American continent where none existed before.
Again : as late as 1850 a convention was entered into between the Gov
ernment of the United States and Great Britain, called the Clayton and
Bulwer treaty, every article and provision of which is predicated upon a
practical negation and repudiation of what is known as the Monroe doc
trine, as I shall conclusively establish before I close these remarks. Since

170 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
the ratification of that treaty and in defiance of its express stipulations,
as well as of the Monroe declaration, Great Britain has planted a new
colony in Central America, known as the colony of the Bay Islands. In
view of this fact, and with the colony of the Bay Islands in his mind's eye,
the venerable senator from Michigan lays upon the table of the Senate,
and asks us to affirm by our votes, a resolution in which it is declared that
"while existing rights should be respected, and will be by the
United States," the American continents "are henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power,"
and "that no future European colony or dominion shall, with their consent,
be planted or established on any part of the North American continent."
Now, sir, before I vote for this resolution, I desire to understand, with
" clearness and precision, its purport and meaning. Existing rights are to
be respected ! What is to be the construction of this clause ? Is it that all
colonies established in America by European powers prior to the passage
of this resolution are to be respected by the United States as "existing
rights " ? Is this resolution to be understood as a formal and official declar
ation, by the Congress of the United States, of our acquiescence in the
seizure of the islands in the Bay of Honduras, and the erection of them
into a new British colony? When, in connection with this clause respect
ing "existing rights," we take into consideration the one preceding it, in
which it is declared that "henceforth" the American continents are not
open to European colonization; and the clause immediately succeeding
it, which says that "no future European colony or dominion" sl^all, with
our consent, be planted on the North American continent, who can doubt
that Great Britain will feel herself authorized to construe the resolution
into a declaration on our part of unconditional acquiescence in her right
to hold all the colonies and dependencies she at this time may possess in
America? Is the Senate of the United States prepared to make such a
declaration ? Is this republic, in view of our professions for the last thirty
years, and of our present and prospective position, prepared to submit to
such a result? If we are, let us seal our lips, and talk no more about Euro
pean colonization upon the American continents. What is to redeem our
declarations upon this subject in the future from utter contempt, if
we fail to vindicate the past, and meekly submit to the humiliation of the
present? With an avowed policy, of thirty years' standing, that no future
European colonization is to be permitted in America — affirmed when
there was no opportunity for enforcing it, and abandoned whenever a
case was presented for carrying it into practical effect — is it now pro
posed to beat another retreat under cover of terrible threats of awful con
sequences when the offence shall be repeated? "Henceforth" no "future"
European colony is to be planted in America "with our consent"! It is
gratifying to learn that the United States are never going to "consent"
to the repudiation of the Monroe doctrine again. No more Clayton and
Bulwer treaties; no more British "alliances" in Central America, New
Granada, or Mexico; no more resolutions of oblivion to protect "existing
rights"! Let England tremble, and Europe take warning, if the offence

APPENDIX 171
is repeated. "Should the attempt be made," says the resolution, "it will
leave the United States free to adopt such measures as an independent
nation may justly adopt in defence of its rights and honor." Are not the
United States now free to adopt such measures as an independent nation
may justly adopt in defence of its rights and honor f Have we not given the
notice ? Is not thirty years sufficient notice ? And has it not been repeated
within the last eight years? And yet the deed is done in contempt of not
only the Monroe doctrine, but of solemn treaty stipulations. Will you
ever have a better opportunity to establish the doctrine — a clearer right
to vindicate, or a more flagrant wrong to redress? If you do not do it
now, your "henceforth" resolutions, in respect to "future" attempts,
may as well be dispensed with. I have no resolutions to bring forward
in relation to our foreign policy. Circumstances have deprived me of the
opportunity or disposition to participate actively in the proceedings of
the Senate this session. I know not what the present administration has
done or is doing in reference to this question; and I am willing to leave
the incoming administration free to assume its own position, and to take
the initiation unembarrassed by the action of the Senate.
My principal object in addressing the Senate to-day_is to avail myself
of tiro;_oppoTtunity, now for the first time presented by the removal^ofThe
injunction of secrecy, oi explaining my reasons for opposing the ratifica
tion of the Clayton and .Bulwer -treaty. In order to clearly understand
the question in all its bearings, it is necessary to advert to the circum
stances under which it was presented. The Oregon boundary had been
established, and important interests had grown up in that Territory;
California had been acquired, and an immense commerce had sprung into
existence; lines of steamers had been established from New York and
New Orleans to Chagres, and from Panama to California and Oregon;
American citizens had acquired the right of way, and were engaged in
the construction of a railroad across the Isthmus of Panama, under the
protection of treaty stipulations with New Granada; other American
citizens had secured the right of way, and were preparing to construct a
canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through Lake Nicaragua; and
still other American citizens had procured the right of way, and were
preparing to commence the construction of a railroad, under a grant from
Mexico, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Thus the right of transit on
all the routes across the isthmus had passed into American hands, and
were within the protection and control of the American Government.
In view of this state of things, Mr. Hise, who had been appointed charge
d'affaires, under the administration of Mr. Polk, to the Central American
States, negotiated a treaty with the State of Nicaragua which secured to
the United States forever the exclusive privilege of opening and using all
canals, railroads, and other means of communication, from the Atlantic
to the Pacific, through the territory of that republic. The rights, privi
leges, and immunities conceded by that treaty were all that any American
could have desired. Its provisions are presumed to be within the knowl
edge of every senator, and ought to be familiar to the people of this country.

172 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
The grant was to the United States, or to such companies as should be or
ganized under its authority, or received under its protection. The privi
leges were exclusive in their terms and perpetual in their tenure. They
were to continue forever as inahenable American rights. In addition to
the privilege of constructing and using all roads and canals through the
territory of Nicaragua, Mr. Hise's treaty also secured to the United States
the right to erect and garrison such fortifications as we should deem neces
sary at the termini of such communication on each ocean, and at inter
mediate points along the lines of the works, together with a grant of lands
three miles square at the termini for the establishment of towns with free
ports and free institutions. I do not deem it necessary to detain the Senate
by reading the provisions of this treaty. It is published in the document
I hold in my hand, and is open to every one who chooses to examine it.
It was submitted to the Department of State in Washington on the fif
teenth of September, 1849, but never sent to the Senate for ratification.
In the meantime, the administration of General Taylor had superseded
Mr. Hise by the appointment of another representative to the Central
American States, and instructed him, in procuring a grant for a canal, to
"CLAIM NO PECULIAR PRIVILEGE — NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT  NO MONOPOLY
OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE."
After having thus instructed Mr. Squier as to the basis of the treaty
which he was to conclude, Mr. Clayton seems to have been apprehensive
that Mr. Hise might already have entered into a convention by which the
United States had secured the exclusive and perpetual privilege, and in
order to guard against such a contingency, he adds, at the conclusion of
the same letter of instructions, the following :
"If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously
or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it
properly modified to answer the ends we have in view."
In other words, if Mr. Hise shall have made a treaty by which he may
have secured all the desired privileges to the United States exclusively,
"seek to have it properly modified," so as to form a partnership with Eng
land and other monarchical powers of Europe, and thus lay the foundation
for an alliance between the New and Old World, by which the right of
European powers to intermeddle with the affairs of American States will
be established and recognized. With these instructions in his pocket,
Mr. Squier arrived in Nicaragua, and before he reached the seat of gov
ernment, learned, by a "publication in the Gazette of the Isthmus," that
Mr. Hise was already negotiating a treaty in respect to the contemplated
canal. Without knowing the provisions of the treaty, but taking it for
granted that it was in violation of the principles of General Taylor's ad
ministration, as set forth in his instructions, Mr. Squier immediately de
spatched a notice to the Government of Nicaragua, that "Mr. Hise was
superseded on the second of April last, upon which date I [Mr. Squier]
received my commission as his successor"; "that Mr. Hise was not em
powered to enter upon any negotiations of the character referred to";
and concluding with the following request :

APPENDIX 173
" / have, therefore, to request that no action will be taken by the Government
of Nicaragua upon the inchoate treaty which may have been negotiated at
Guatemala, but that the same may be allowed to pass as an unofficial
act." On the same day, Mr. Squier, with commendable promptness, sends
a letter to Mr. Clayton, informing our Government of what he had learned
in respect to the probable conclusion of the Hise treaty, and expressing
his apprehension that the information may be true, and adds :
"If so, I shall be placed in a situation of some embarrassment, as I
conceive that Mr. Hise has no authority for the step he has taken, and is
certainly not informed of the present views and desires of our
government." He also adds :
"Under these circumstances, I have addressed a note [B] to the Govern
ment of this republic [Nicaragua], requesting that the treaty made at Gua
temala (if any such exists) may be allowed to pass as an unofficial act, and
that new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of government."
Having communicated this important intelligence to his own Govern
ment, Mr. Squier proceeded on his journey with a patriotic zeal equal to
the importance of his mission, and on his arrival upon the theatre of his
labors opened negotiations for a new treaty in accordance with the "present
views and desires of our Government," as contained in his instructions.
The new treaty was concluded on the third of September, 1849, and trans
mitted to the Government, with a letter explanatory of the negotiation,
bearing date the tenth of the same month. Mr. Squier's treaty, so far as
I can judge from the published correspondence — for the injunction of
secrecy forbids a reference to more authentic sources of information —
is in strict accordance with his instructions, and entirely free from any
odious provisions which might secure "peculiar privileges or exclusive
rights" to the United States.
These two treaties — the one negotiated by Mr. Hise and the other by
Mr. Squier — were in the State Department in this city when Congress
met in December, 1849. The administration of General Taylor was at
liberty to choose between them, and submit the one or the other to the
Senate for ratification. The Hise treaty was suppressed, without giving
the Senate an opportunity of ratifying it or advising its rejection.
I was unwilling to enter into treaty stipulations with Great Britain or
any other European power in respect to the American continent, by the
terms of which we should pledge the faith of this republic not to do in all
coming time that which in the progress of events our interests, duty, and
even safety may compel us to do. I have already said, and now repeat,
that every article, clause, and provision of that treaty is predicated upon
a virtual negation and repudiation of the Monroe declaration in relation to
European colonization on this continent. The article inviting any power
on earth with which England and the United States are on terms of friendly
intercourse to enter into similar stipulations, and which pledges the good

174 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
offices of each, when requested by the other, to aid in the new negotia
tions with the other Central American States, and which pledges the good
offices of all the nations entering into the alliance to settle disputes between
the states and governments of Central America, not only recognizes the
right of European powers to interfere with the affairs of the American
continent, but invites the exercise of such right, and makes it obligatory
to do so in certain cases. It establishes, in terms, an alliance between the
contracting parties, and invites all other nations to become parties to it.
I was opposed also to the clause which stipulates that neither Great Brit
ain nor the United States will ever occupy, colonize, or exercise dominion
over any portion of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any
part of Central America. I did not desire then, nor do I now, to annex
any portion of that country to this Union. I do not know that the time
will ever come in my day when I would be willing to do so. Yet I was un
willing to give the pledge that neither we nor our successors ever would.
This is an age of rapid movements and great changes. How long is it
since those who made this treaty would have told us that the time would
never come when we would want California or any portion of the Pacific
coast? California being a State of the Union, who is authorized to say x
that the time will not arrive when our interests and safety may require
us to possess some portion of Central America, which lies half way between
our Atlantic and Pacific possessions, and embraces the great water lines
of commerce between the two oceans? I think it the wiser and safer
policy to hold the control of our own action, and leave those who are to
come after us untrammelled and free to do whatever they may deem their
duty, when the time shall arrive. They will have a better right to deter
mine for themselves when the necessity for action may arise, than we have
now to prescribe the line of duty for them. I was equally opposed to that
other clause in the same article, which stipulates that neither party will
ever fortify any portion of Central America, or any place commanding the
entrance to the canal, or in the vicinity thereof. It is not reciprocal, for
the reason that it leaves the island of Jamaica, a British colony, strongly
fortified, the nearest military and naval station to the line of the canal.
It is, therefore, equivalent to a stipulation that the United States shall
never have or maintain any fortification in the vicinity of, or commanding
the line of navigation and commerce through said canal, while England
may keep and maintain those she now has.
But there was another insuperable objection to the Clayton and Bulwer
treaty which increases, enlarges, and extends the force of all the obnoxious
provisions I have pointed out. I allude to the article in which it is pro
vided that:
"The Government of the United States and Great Britain, having not
only desired to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a
general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection,
by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable communications,
whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and

APPENDIX 175
South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the
same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now pro
posed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama."
The "particular object" which the parties had in view being thus ac
complished — the Hise treaty defeated, the exclusive privilege to the
United States surrendered and abandoned, and the European partner
ship established — yet they were not satisfied. They were not content to
"accomplish a particular object," but desired to "establish a general
principle"! That which, by the terms of the treaty, was particular and
local to the five States of Central America, is, in this article, extended to
Mexico on the north, and to New Granada on the south, and declared to
be a general principle by which any and all other practicable routes of
communication across the isthmus between North and South America are
to be governed and protected by the allied powers. New and additional
treaty stipulations are to be entered into for this purpose, and the net
work which had been prepared and spread over all Central America is to
be extended far enough into Mexico and New Granada to cover all the
lines of communication, whether by railway or canal, and especially to
include Tehuantepec and Panama. When it is remembered that the
treaty in terms establishes an alliance between the United States and
Great Britain and engages to invite all other powers, with which either
is on terms of friendly intercourse, to become parties to its provisions, it
will be seen that this article_s£eJts-i^-mak^-4he-priaciples-of-the "Clayton
and Bulwer treaty the-law-of-nations-in- respect to American Affairs. The
general principle is established; the right of European powers to inter
vene in the affairs of American States is recognized; the propriety of the
exercise of that right is acknowledged; and the extent to which the allied
powers shall carry their protection, and the limits within which they shall
confine their operations, are subject to treaty stipulations in the future.
When the American continent shall have passed under the protectorate
of the allied powers, and her future made dependent upon treaty stipula
tions for carrying into effect the object of the alliance, Europe will no
longer have cause for serious apprehensions at the rapid growth, expan
sion, and development of our federal Union. She will then console herself
that limits have been set and barriers erected beyond which the territories
of this republic can never extend, nor its principles prevail. In confirma
tion of this view, she will find additional cause for congratulation when
she looks into the treaty of peace with Mexico, and there sees the sacred
honor of this republic irrevocably pledged that we will never, in all coming
time, annex any more Mexican territory in the mode in which Texas was
acquired. The fifth article contains the following extraordinary provision :
"The boundary-line established by this article shall be religiously re
spected 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." One would naturally suppose that, for all the ordinary purposes of a

176 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
treaty of peace, the first clause of the paragraph would have been entirely
sufficient. It declares that "the boundary-line established by this article
shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics." Why depart
from the usual course of proceeding in such cases, and add, that "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." What is the meaning of this peculiar phraseology? The
history of Texas furnishes the key by which the hidden meaning can be
unlocked. The Sabine was once the boundary between the republics of
the United States and Mexico. By the revolt of Texas and the establish
ment of her independence, and the acknowledgment thereof by the great
powers of the world, and her annexation to the United States, the bound
ary between the two republics was changed from the Sabine to the Rio
Grande without "the .express and free consent of both nations, lawfully
given by the general Government of each, in conformity with its own Con
stitution." Mexico regarded that change a just cause of war, and accord
ingly invaded Texas with a view to the recovery of the lost territory. A
protracted war ensued, in which thousands of lives were lost, and millions
of money expended, when peace is concluded upon the express condition
that the treaty should contain an open and frank avowal that the United
States has been wrong in the causes of the war, by the pledge of her honor
never to repeat the act which led to hostilities.
Wherever you turn your eye, whether to your own record, to the statute-
books, to the history of this country or of Mexico, or to the diplomatic
history of the world, this humiliating and degrading acknowledgment
stares you in the face, as a monument of your own creation, to the dis
honor of our common country. Well do I remember the determined and
protracted efforts of the minority to expunge this odious clause from the
treaty before its ratification, and how, on the fourth of March, 1848,
we were voted down by forty-two to eleven. The stain which that clause
fastened upon the history of our country was not the only objection I
urged to its retention in the treaty. 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.
I do not meditate or look with favor upon any aggression upon Mexico.
I do not desire, at this time, to annex any portion of her territory to this
Union; nor am I prepared to say that the time will ever come, in my day,
when I would be willing to sanction such a proposition. But who can say
that, amid the general wreck and demoralization in Mexico, a state of
things may not arise in which a just regard for our own rights and safety,
and for the sake of humanity and civilization, may render it imperative
for us to do that which was done in the case of Texas, and thereby change
the boundary between the two republics, without the free consent of
the general Government of Mexico, lawfully given in conformity with her
Constitution? Recent events in Sonora, Chihuahua, and Tamaulipas do
not establish the wisdom and propriety of that line of policy which ties

APPENDIX 177
our hands in advance, and deprives the Government of the right, in the
future, of doing whatever duty and honor may require, when the necessity
for action may arrive.
Mr. President, one of the resolutions under consideration makes a
declaration in relation to the island of Cuba, which requires a passing
notice. It is in the following words :
"That, while the United States disclaim any designs upon the island of
Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain,
they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject to make known,
in this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any
other power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that
island, which, as a naval or military position, must, under, circumstances
easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf
of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts, directed
against them, to be resisted by all the means in their power."
I confess I have not formed a very high appreciation of the value of
these disclaimers of all intention of committing crimes against our neigh
bors. I do not think I should deem my house any more secure in the night
in consequence of the thief having pledged his honor not to steal my
property. If I am surrounded by honest men, there is no necessity for the
"friendly assurance"; and if by rogues, it would not relieve my appre
hensions or afford much security to my rights. I am unwilling, therefore,
to make any disclaimer as to our purposes upon Cuba, or to give any pledge
in respect to existing rights upon this continent. The nations of Europe
have no right to call upon us for a disclaimer of the one, or for a pledge to
protect the other.

CUBA
Now, sir, a few words with regard to the island of Cuba. If any man
desires my opinions upon that question, he can learn them very easily.
They have been proclaimed frequently for the last nine years, and still
remain unchanged. I have often said, and now repeat, that, so long as
the island of Cuba is content to remain loyal to the crown of Spain, be it
so. I have no desire, no wish, to disturb that relation. I have always said,
and now repeat, that, whenever the people of the island of Cuba shall show
themselves worthy of freedom by asserting and maintaining their inde
pendence and establishing republican institutions, my heart, my sympa
thies, my prayers, are with them for the accomplishment of the object. I
have often said, and now repeat, that, when that independence shall have
been established, if it shall be necessary to their interest or safety to apply
as Texas did for annexation, I shall be ready to do by them as we did by
Texas, and receive them into the Union. I have said, and now repeat, that,
whenever Spain shall come to the conclusion that she cannot much longer
maintain her dominion over the island, and that it is better for her to
12

178 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
transfer it to us upon fair and reasonable terms, I am one of those who
would be ready to accept the transfer. I have said, and now repeat, that,
whenever Spain shall refuse to make such transfer to us, and shall make
it to England or any other European power, I would be among those who
would be in favor of taking possession of the island, and resisting such
transfer at all hazards.
Thus far I have often gone; thus far I now go. These are my indi
vidual opinions; not of much consequence, I admit, but any one who
desires to know them is welcome to them. But it is one thing for me to
entertain these individual sentiments, and it is another and very different
thing to pledge forever and unalterably the policy of this Government in
a particular channel, in defiance of any change in the circumstances that
may hereafter take place. I do not deem it necessary to affirm by a resolu
tion, in the name of the republic, every opinion that I may entertain and
be willing to act upon as the representative of a local constituency. I am
not, therefore, prepared to say that it is wise policy to make any declara
tion upon the subject of the island of Cuba. Circumstances not within
our control, and originating in causes beyond our reach, may precipitate
a state of things that would change our action and reverse our whole line
of policy. Cuba, in the existing position of affairs, does not present a
practical issue. All that we may say or do is merely speculative, and de
pendent upon contingencies that may never happen.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON TERRITORIAL EXPANSION
AND FOREIGN AGGRESSION
(Delivered March 10, 1853)
I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of the senator from
Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the pledge in the Clayton^
and Bulwer treaty never to annex any portion of that country. I objected "
to that clause in the treaty upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter
into a treaty stipulation with any European power in respect to this con
tinent, that we would not do, in the future, whatever our duty, interest,
honor, and safety might require in the course of events. The senator
infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to
give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there
was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipulation that, in
certain contingencies, we would never annex any portion of that country.
Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision. He
has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clause out of the treaty,
where it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the senator given me
his aid then to defeat that provision in the Mexican treaty, I would be
better satisfied now with his excuse for having inserted a, still stronger
pledge in his treaty. But, having advocated that pledge then, he should
not attempt to avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing it as a
precedent. I was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to
come never to annex any more territory. I am content for the present
with the territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico
now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, nor do
I at this time.
But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country for the last
hair century. .Fifty .years -ago the question was being debated "in this
Senate -whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west
bank of the Mississippi, and it was then contended that we could never
with safety extend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously con
sidered whether the Alleghany Mountains should not be the barrier beyond
which we should never pass. At a subsequent date, after we had acquired
Louisiana and Florida, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was
thought that perhaps we might venture to establish one tier of States
west of the Mississippi; but, in order to prevent the sad calamity of an
undue expansion of our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing
an Indian Territory, with titles in perpetuity, all along the western borders
of those States, so that no more new States could possibly be created in

180 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward progress of our
people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky Mountains, and
were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. Who, then, is prepared
to say that in the progress of events, having met with the barrier of the
ocean in our western course, we may not be compelled to turn to the
north and to the south for an outlet? . . .
You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limbs of this
giant republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will
be onward to a limit which I will not venture to prescribe. Why the
necessity of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of
Mexico? Do you not know that you will be compelled to do it; that you
cannot help it; that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only
effect it will have will be to enable European powers to accuse us of bad
faith when the act is done, and associate American faith and Punic faith
as synonymous terms? What is the use of your guarantee that you will
never erect any fortifications in Central America; never annex, occupy,
or colonize any portion of that country? How do you know that ^ou
can avoid doing it? If you make the canal, I ask you if American citizens
will not settle along its line ; whether they will not build up towns at each
terminus; whether they will not spread over that country, and convert
it into an American State; whether American principles and American
institutions will not be firmly planted there? And I ask you how many
years you think will pass away before you will find the same necessity to
extend your laws over your own kindred that you found in the case of
Texas? How long will it be before that day arrives? It may not occur
in the senator's day, nor mine. But, so certain as this republic exists, so
certain as we remain a united people, so certain as the laws of progress
which have raised us from a mere handful to a mighty nation shall
continue to govern our action, just so certain are these events to be
worked out, and you will be compelled to extend your protection in that
direction. Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient of the
time when it shall be realized. I do not wish to give any additional im
pulse to our progress. We are going fast enough. But I wish our policy,
our laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance in science, in
the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and in every thing that tends to make
us a great and powerful nation. Let us look the future in the face, and
let us prepare to meet that which cannot be avoided. Hence I was un
willing to adopt that clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neither party
would ever annex, colonize, or occupy any portion of Central America.
I was opposed to it for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great
Britain had possession of the island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest
armed and fortified point to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present
commands the entrance of the canal; and all that Great Britain desired
was, inasmuch as she had possession of the only place commanding the
canal, to procure a stipulation that no other power would ever erect a fortifi
cation nearer its terminus. That stipulation is equivalent to an agreement

APPENDIX 181
that England may fortify, but that we never shall. Sir, when you look at
the whole history of that question, you will see that England, with her
far-seeing, sagacious policy, has attempted to circumscribe, and restrict,
and restrain the free action of this Government. When was it that Great
Britain seized the possession of the terminus of this canal? Just six days
after the signing of the treaty which secured to us California ! The moment
England saw that, by the pending negotiations with Mexico, California
was to be acquired, she collected her fleets and made preparations for the
seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might be gate-keeper on
the public highway to our new possessions on the Pacific. Within six
days from the time we signed the treaty, England seized by force and vio
lence the very point now in controversy. Is not this fact indicative of
her motives? Is it not clear that her object was to obstruct our passage
to our new possessions? Hence I do not sympathize with that feeling
which the senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pity to have a differ
ence with a nation so friendly to us as England. Sir, I do not see the
evidence of her friendship. It is not in the nature of things that she can
be our friend. It is impossible she can love us. I do not blame her for not
loving us. Sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride. She
can never forgive us. But for us, she would be the first power on the face
of the earth. But for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that
proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way.
She is jealous of us, and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. England
does not love us; she cannot love us ; and we do not love her either. We
have some things in the past to remember that are not agreeable. She
has more in the present to humiliate her that she cannot forgive.
I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that
exists between us and England. I wish to soften and allay it as much as
possible; but why close our eyes to the fact that friendship is impossible
while jealousy exists? Hence England seizes every island in the sea and
rock upon our coast where she can plant a gun to intimidate us or to annoy
our commerce. Her policy has been to seize every military and naval
station the world over. Why does she pay such enormous sums to keep
her post at Gibraltar, except to hold it in terrorem over the commerce of
the Mediterranean? Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison
at the Cape of Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the
way to the Indies? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on the
little barren islands Bermuda and the miserable Bahamas, and all the other
islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions? Does Eng
land hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her? Has she any other
motive for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates hostility to us?
Is it not the case with all her possessions along our coast? Why, then,
talk about the friendly bearing of England toward us when she is extend
ing that policy every day? New treaties of friendship, seizure of islands,
and erection of new colonies in violation of her treaties seem to be the
order of the day. In view of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting
England as we meet a rival; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly,

vA

182 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
but make no humiliating concession even for the sake of peace. She has
as much reason to make concessions to us as we have to make them to
her. I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world, but, sir, the Bay
Island colony must be discontinued. It violates the treaty.
[At a subsequent part of the debate he quoted the letter of Mr. Everett
(Secretary of State under Mr. Fillmore), declining, on the part of the United
States Government, the agreement proposed by England and France, that
neither nation should ever annex or take possession of Cuba. Mr. Everett,
in declining that proposition, said :
"But, whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem
impossible for anyone who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note
to mistake the law of American growth and progress, or think it can be
ultimately arrested by a convention like that proposed. In the judgment
of the President, it would be as easy to throw a dam from Cape Florida to
Cuba, in the hope of stopping the flow of the Gulf Stream, as to attempt,
by a compact like this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba, now and for hereafter,
or, as is expressed in the French text of the convention, 'pour le present
comme pour I'avenir ' — that is, for all coming time."
Mr. Douglas, in commenting upon this, said :]
There the senator is told that such a stipulation (to annex no more
territory) might be applicable to European politics, but would be unsuited
and unfitted to American affairs ; that he has mistaken entirely the system
of policy which should be applied to our own country; that he has predi
cated his action upon those old antiquated notions which belong to the
stationary and retrograde movements of the Old World, and find no sym
pathy in the youthful, uprising aspirations of the American heart. I en
dorse fully the sentiment. I insist that there is a difference, a wide differ
ence, between the system of policy which should be pursued in America
and that which would be applicable to Europe. Europe is antiquated,
decrepit, tottering on the verge of dissolution. When you visit her, the
objects which enlist your highest admiration are the relics of past great
ness; the broken columns erected to departed power. It is one vast grave
yard, where you find here a tomb indicating the burial of the arts; there
a monument marking the spot where liberty expired; another to the
memory of a great man whose place has never been filled. The choicest
products of her classic soil consist in relics, which remain as sad memorials
of departed glory and fallen greatness ! They bring up the memories of
the dead, but inspire no hope for the living ! Here every thing is fresh,
blooming, expanding, and advancing. We wish a wise, practical policy
adapted to our condition and position. Sir, the statesman who would
shape the policy of America by European models, has failed to perceive
the antagonism which exists in the relative position, history, institutions —
in every thing pertaining to the Old and the New World.
THE FRIENDSHIP OF ENGLAND
I cannot go as far as the senator from South Carolina. I cannot recog
nize England as our mother. If so, she is and ever has been a cruel and

APPENDIX 183
unnatural mother. I do not find the evidence of her affection in her
watchfulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride at our ever-
blooming prosperity and swelling power since we assumed an independent
position. The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were not all of
English origin. They were of Scotch, Irish, German, French, and of Nor
man descent as well as English. In short, we inherit from every branch
of the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and policy to profit by their
example — to reject their errors and follies — and to retain, imitate,
cultivate, perpetuate, all that was valuable and desirable. So far as any
portion of the credit may be due to England and Englishmen — and much
of it is — let it be freely awarded and recorded in her ancient archives,
which seem to have been long since forgotten by her, and the memory of
which her present policy toward us is not well calculated to revive. But,
that the senator from South Carolina, in view of our present position and
of his location in this confederacy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent
eulogiums of England for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and
is still lavishing upon us, and urge these considerations in palliation of
the wrongs she is daily perpetrating, is to me amazing. He speaks in terms
of delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshing streams which Eng
lish literature and science are pouring into our country and diffusing
throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearly every English book
circulated and read in this country contains lurking and insidious slanders
and libels upon the character of our people and the institutions and policy
of our Government? Does he not know that abolitionism, which has so
seriously threatened the peace and safety of this republic, had its origin
in England, and has been incorporated into the policy of that Government
for the purpose of operating upon the peculiar institutions of some of the
States of this confederacy, and thus render the Union itself insecure?
Does she not keep her missionaries perambulating this country, deliver
ing lectures, and scattering broadcast incendiary publications, designed to
incite prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections of this
Union? I had supposed that South Carolina and the other slaveholding
States of this confederacy had been sufficiently refreshed and enlightened
by a certain species of English literature, designed to stir up treason and
insurrection around his own fireside, to have excused the senator from
offering up praises and hosannas to our English mother ! Is not the heart,
intellect, and press of England this moment employed in flooding America
with this species of English literature? Even the wives and daughters of
the nobility and the high officers of government have had the presumption
to address the women of America, and in the name of philanthropy ap
peal to them to engage in the treasonable plot against the institutions and
government of their own choice in their native land, while millions are
being expended to distribute " Uncle Tom's Cabin " throughout the world,
with the view of combining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all
the nations of the earth in a common crusade against the peculiar institu
tions of the State and section of this Union represented by the senator

184 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
from South Carolina ; and he unwittingly encourages it by giving vent to
his rapturous joy over these copious and refreshing streams with which
England is irrigating the American intellect.
REPELLING FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS
I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend from
Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and especially that we ought to determine what
we are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in the Gulf of Mexico
and the West Indies, before we decide the amount of money we shall vote
for war purposes. If we are going to content ourselves with simple resolu
tions that we will not submit to that which we have resolved for half a
century should never be repeated, I see no use in additional appropriations
for navy or for army. If we are going to be contented with loud-sounding
speeches, with defiances to the British lion, with resolutions of the Senate
alone, not concurred in by the other House, conferring no power on the
executive, — merely capital for the country, giving no power to the execu
tive to avenge insults or prevent their repetition, — what is the use of voting
money? I find that patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk loud, resolve
strong; but are they willing to appropriate the money? Are they wiUing
to confer on the executive power to repel these insults, and to avenge them
whenever they may be perpetrated? Let us know whether we are to sub
mit and protest, or whether we are to authorize the President to resist
and to prevent the repetition of these offences. If senators are prepared
to vote for a law reviving the act of 1839, putting the army, the navy,
volunteers, and money at the disposal of the President to prevent the
repetition of these acts, and to punish them if repeated, then I am ready
to give the ships and the money; but I desire to know whether we are to
submit to these insults with a simple protest, or whether we are to repel
them. Gentlemen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us about
the necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tampico, and dis
turbances in South America, and Indian difficulties in Puget's Sound.
Every enemy that can be found on the face of the earth is defied except
the one that defies us. Bring in a proposition here to invest the President
with power to repel British aggressions on American ships, and what is
the response? High-sounding resolutions, declaring in effect, if not in
terms, that whereas Great Britain has perpetrated outrages on our flag
and our shipping which are intolerable and insufferable, and must not be
repeated, therefore, if she does so again, we will whip Mexico, or we will
pounce down upon Nicaragua, or we will get up a fight with Costa Rica,
or we will chastise New Granada, or we will punish the Chinese, or we will
repel the Indians from Puget's Sound, but not a word about Great Britain.
What I desire to know is whether we are to meet this issue with Great
Britain? I am told we shall do it when we are prepared. Sir, when will
you be prepared to repel an insult unless when it is given ?

^J\

Sir, I tremble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her

Henry Clay
Statesman and Abolitionist

APPENDIX 185
character, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages, and
avenge ourselves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grappling
with the stronger. I never did fancy that policy nor admire that chivalry
which induced a man, when insulted by a strong man of his own size, to say
that he would whip the first boy he found in the street in order to vindicate
his honor, or, as is suggested by a gentleman behind me, that he would
go home and whip his wife in order to show his courage, inasmuch as he was
afraid to tackle the full-grown man who had committed the aggression.
Sir, these outrages cannot be concealed; they cannot have the go-by;
we must meet them face to face. Now is the time when England must give
up her claim to search American vessels, or we must be silent in our pro
tests, and resolutions, and valorous speeches against that claim. It will
not do to raise a navy for the Chinese seas, nor for Puget's Sound, nor for
Mexico, nor for the South American republics. It may be used for those
purposes, but England must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall be looked
upon as showing the white feather if we strike a blow at any feeble power
until these English aggressions and insults are first punished, and security
is obtained that they are not to be repeated.
Besides, sir, as has been intimated by the senator from Massachusetts,
England has given pledges for her good behavior on this continent. She
is bound over to keep the peace. She has large possessions upon this con
tinent of which she could be deprived in ninety days after war existed;
and she knows that, the moment she engages in war with us, that moment
her power upon the American continent and upon the adjacent islands
ceases to exist. While I am opposed to war — while I have no idea of any
breach of the peace with England, yet I confess to you, sir, if war should
come by her act and not ours — by her invasion of our right and our vin
dication of the same, I would administer to every citizen and every child
Hannibal's oath of eternal hostility as long as the English flag waved or
their Government claimed a foot of land upon the American continent or
the adjacent islands. Sir, I would make it a war that would settle our
disputes forever, not only of the right of search upon the seas, but the right
to tread with a hostile foot upon the soil of the American continent or its
appendages. England sees that these consequences would result. Her
statesmen understand these results as well as we, and much better. Her
statesmen have more respect for us in this particular than we have for
ourselves. They will never push this question to the point of war. They
will look you in the eye, march to you steadily, as long as they find it is
prudent. If you cast the eye down she will rush upon you. If you look
her in the eye steadily, she will shake hands with you as friends, and have
respect for you. . . . We do not wish to bully England. She is resisting
no claim of ours. She sets up the claim to search our vessels, stop them
on the high seas, invade our rights, and we say to her that we will not sub
mit to that aggression. I would ask to have the United States act upon
the defensive in all things — make no threat, indulge in no bullying,
but simply assert our right; then maintain the assertion with whatever

186 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
power may be necessary, and the God of our fathers may have imparted
to us for maintaining it ; that is all. I believe that is the true course to
peace. I repeat that, if war with England comes, it will result from our
vacillation, our division, our hesitation, our apprehensions lest we might
be whipped in the fight. Perhaps we might. I do not believe it. I believe
the moment England declares war against the United States, the prestige
of her power is gone. It will unite our own people ; it will give us the sym
pathy of the world; it will destroy her commerce and her manufactures,
while it will extend our own. It will sink her to a second-rate power upon
the face of the globe, and leave us without a rival who can dispute our
supremacy. We shall, however, come to that point early through the paths
of peace. Such is the tendency of things now. I would rather approach
it by peaceable, quiet means, by the arts and sciences, by agriculture, by
commerce, by immigration, by natural growth and expansion, than by
warfare. But if England is impatient of our rising power, if she desires
to hasten it, and should force war upon us, she will seal her doom now;
whereas Providence might extend to her, if not a pardon, at least a reprieve
for a few short years to come.

/ SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON THE KANSAS-
NEBRASKA BILL
(Delivered March 3, 1854)
It has been urged in debate that there is no necessity for these Terri
torial organizations ; and I have been called upon to point out any public
and national considerations which require action at this time. Senators
seem to forget that our immense and valuable possessions on the Pacific are
separated from the States and organized Territories, on this side of the
Rocky Mountains, by a vast wilderness, filled by hostile savages; that
nearly a hundred thousand emigrants pass through this barbarous wilder
ness every year, on their way to California and Oregon; that these emi
grants are American citizens, our own constituents, who are entitled to
the protection of law and government; and that they are left to make their
way, as best they may, without the protection or aid of law or government.
The United States mails for New Mexico and Utah, and all official com
munications between this Government and the authorities of those Terri
tories, are required to be carried over these wild plains, and through the
gorges of the mountains, where you have made no provision for roads,
bridges, or ferries, to facilitate travel or forts or other means of safety to
protect life. As often as I have brought forward and urged the adoption
of measures to remedy these evils and afford security against the dangers
to which our people are constantly exposed, they have been promptly
voted down as not being of sufficient importance to command the favorable
consideration of Congress. Now, when I propose to organize the Territories,
and allow the people to do for themselves what you have so often refused
to do for them, I am told that there are not white inhabitants enough
permanently settled in the country to require and sustain a Government.
True there is not a very large population there, for the very good reason
that your Indian code and intercourse laws exclude the settlers, and forbid
their remaining there to cultivate the soil. You refuse to throw the country
open to settlers, and then object to the organization of the Territories upon
the ground that there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants.
The senator from Connecticut [Mr. Smith] has made a long argument
to prove that there are no inhabitants in the proposed Territories because
nearly all of those who have gone and settled there have done so in viola
tion of certain old acts of Congress which forbid the people to take posses
sion of and settle upon the public lands until after they should be surveyed
and brought into market.
I do not propose to discuss the question whether these settlers are

188 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
technically legal inhabitants or not. It is enough for me that they are a
part of our own people ; that they are settled on the public domain ; that
the public interests would be promoted by throwing that public domain
open to settlement; and that there is no good reason why the protection
of law and the blessings of government should not be extended to them.
I must be permitted to remind the senator that the same objection existed
in its full force to Minnesota, to Oregon, and to Washington, when each
of those Territories was organized ; and that I have no recollection that he
deemed it his duty to call the attention of Congress to the objection, or
considered it of sufficient importance to justify him in recording his own
vote against the organization of either of those Territories.
Mr. President, I do not feel called upon to make any reply to the argu
ment which the senator from Connecticut has urged against the passage
of this bill upon the score of expense in sustaining these Territorial Gov
ernments, for the reason that, if the public interests require the enactment
of the law, it follows as a natural consequence that all the expenses neces
sary to carry it into effect are wise and proper.
I will now proceed to the consideration of the great principle involved
in the bill, without omitting, however, to notice some of those extraneous
matters which have been brought into this discussion with the view of
producing another anti-slavery agitation. We have been told by nearly
every senator who has spoken in opposition to this bill, that at the time
of its introduction the people were in a state of profound quiet and repose;
that the anti-slavery agitation had entirely ceased; and that the whole
country was acquiescing cheerfully and cordially in the Compromise meas
ures of 1850 as a final adjustment of this vexed question.
Sir, it is truly refreshing to hear senators, who contested every inch of
ground in opposition to those measures when they were under discussion,
who predicted all manner of evils and calamities from their adoption, and
who raised the cry of repeal, and even resistance to their execution, after
they had become the laws of the land — I say it is really refreshing to hear
these same senators now bear their united testimony to the wisdom of
those measures, and to the patriotic motives which induced us to pass
them in defiance of their threats and resistance, and to their beneficial
effects in restoring peace, harmony, and fraternity to a distracted country.
. . . The two great political parties of the country stood solemnly pledged
before the world to adhere to the Compromise measures of 1850, in principle
and substance. A large majority of the Senate, indeed, every member of
the body, I believe, except the two avowed Abolitionists [Mr. Chase and
Mr. Sumner], profess to belong to the one or the other of these parties, and
hence were supposed to be under a high moral obligation to carry out the
principle and substance of those measures in all the new Territorial organi
zations. The report of the committee was in accordance with this obliga
tion. I am arraigned, therefore, for having endeavored to represent* the
opinions and principles of the Senate truly ; for having performed my duty
in conformity with the parliamentary law; for having been faithful to
the trust reposed in me by the Senate. Let the vote this night determine

APPENDIX 189
whether I have thus faithfully represented your opinions. When a majority
of the Senate shall have passed the bill; when a majority of the States
shall have endorsed it through their representatives upon this floor; when
a majority of the South and a majority of the North shall have sanctioned
it; when a majority of the Whig party and a majority of the Democratic
party shall have voted for it; when each of these propositions shall be
demonstrated by the vote this night on the final passage of the bill, I shall
be willing to submit the question to the Country, whether, as the organ of
the committee, I performed my duty in the report and bill which have
called down upon my head so much denunciation and abuse.
Mr. President, the opponents of this measure have had much to say
about the mutations and modifications which this bill has undergone since
it was first introduced by myself, and about the alleged departure of the
bill, in its present form, from the principle laid down in the original report
of the committee as a rule of action in all future Territorial organizations.
Fortunately there is no necessity, even if your patience would tolerate
such a course of argument at this late hour of the night, for me to examine
these speeches in detail, and to reply to each charge separately. Each
speaker seems to have followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader —
in the path marked out by the Abolition confederates in their manifesto,
which I exposed on a former occasion. You have seen them on their wind
ing way, meandering the narrow and crooked path in Indian file, each
treading close upon the heels of the other, and neither venturing to take
a step to the right or left, or to occupy one inch of ground which did not
bear the foot-print of the Abolition champion. To answer one, therefore,
is to answer the whole. The statement to which they seem to attach the
most importance, and which they have repeated oftener perhaps than any
other, is that, pending the compromise measures of 1850, no man in or
out of Congress ever dreamed of abrogating the Missouri Compromise;
that from that period down to the present session nobody supposed that
its validity had been impaired, or any thing done which rendered it obliga
tory upon us to make it inoperative hereafter; that at the time of sub
mitting the report and bill to the Senate, on the fourth of January
last, neither I nor any member of the committee ever thought of such
a thing; and that we could never be brought up to the point of abrogat
ing the eighth section of the Missouri act until after the senator from
Kentucky introduced his amendment to my bill.
Mr. President, before I proceed to expose the many misrepresentations
contained in this complicated charge, I must call the attention of the
Senate to the false issue which these gentlemen are endeavoring to impose
upon the country, for the purpose of diverting public attention from the
real issue contained in the bill. They wish to have the people believe that
the abrogation of what they call the Missouri Compromise was the main
object and aim of the bill, and that the only question involved is, whether
the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30' shall be repealed or not? That
which is a mere incident they choose to consider the principle. They
make war on the means by which we propose to accomplish an object,

190 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
instead of openly resisting the object itself. The principle which we pro
pose to carry into effect by the bill is this: That Congress shall neither
legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor out of the same; but the peo
ple shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of the United States.
In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes
necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the way
of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out this great
fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders the eighth
section of the Missouri act inoperative and void.
Mr. President, I could go on and multiply extract after extract from my
speeches in 1850, and prior to that date, to show that this doctrine of
leaving the people to decide these questions for themselves is not an after
thought with me, seized upon this session for the first time, as my calum
niators have so frequently and boldly charged in their speeches during
this debate, and in their manifesto to the public. I refused to support
the celebrated Omnibus Bill in 1850 until the obnoxious provision was
stricken out, and the principle of self-government restored, as it existed
in my original bill. No sooner were the compromise measures of 1850
passed, than the Abolition confederates, who lead the opposition to this
bill now, raised the cry of repeal in some sections of the country, and in
others forcible resistance to the execution of the law. In order to arrest
and suppress the treasonable purposes of these Abolition confederates,
and avert the horrors of civil war, it became my duty, on the twenty-
third of October, 1850, to address an excited and frenzied multitude at
Chicago, in defence of each and all the compromise measures of that year.
I will read one or two sentences from that speech, to show how those
measures were then understood and explained by their advocates :
"These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle
that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating
their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own way."
Again :
"These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to
decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should
not be confided to the Territories."
In this speech it will be seen that I lay down a general principle of uni
versal application, and make no distinction between Territories North or
South of 36° 30'.
I am aware that some of the Abolition confederates have perpetrated
a monstrous forgery on that speech, and are now circulating through the
Abolition newspapers the statement that I said that I would "cling with
the tenacity of life to the compromise of 1850." This statement, false
as it is — a deliberate act of forgery, as it is known to be by all who have
ever seen or read the speech referred to — constitutes the staple article out
of which most of the Abolition orators at the small anti-Nebraska meet
ings manufacture the greater part of their speeches. I now declare that

APPENDIX 191
there is not a sentence, or a line, nor even a word in that speech, which
imposes the slightest limitation on the application of the great principle
embraced in this bill in all new Territorial organizations, without the
least reference to the line of 36° 30'.
At the session of 1850-51, a few weeks after this speech was made at
Chicago, and when it had been published in pamphlet form and circulated
extensively over the States, the Legislature of Illinois proceeded to re
vise its action upon the slavery question, and define its position on the
compromise of 1850. After rescinding the resolutions adopted at a pre
vious session, instructing my colleague and myself to vote for a proposi
tion prohibiting slavery in the Territories, resolutions were adopted
approving the compromise measures of 1850. I will read one of the
resolutions, which was adopted in the House of Representatives, by a vote
of 61 yeas to 4 nays:
"Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right
of the people to form for themselves such a Government as they may
choose ; that this great privilege — the birthright of freemen, the gift
of heaven, secured to us by the blood of our ancesters — ought to be ex
tended to future generations ; and no limitation ought to be applied to this
power, in the organization of any Territory of the United States, of either
a Territorial Government or a State Constitution: Provided, the Govern
ment so established shall be republican, and in conformity with the Con
stitution." Another series of resolutions having passed the Senate almost unani
mously, embracing the same principle in different language, they were
concurred in by the House. Thus was the position of Illinois, upon the
slavery question, defined at the first session of the Legislature after
the adoption of the compromise of 1850.
But my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue, and thereby divert
public attention from the real one, by the cry that the Missouri Com
promise is to be repealed or violated by the passage of this bill. Well,
if the eighth section of the Missouri Act, which attempted to fix the desti
nies of future generations in those Territories for all time to come, in utter
disregard of the rights and wishes of the people when they should be re
ceived into the Union as States, be inconsistent with the great principle
of self-government and the Constitution of the United States, it ought to
be abrogated. The legislation of 1850 abrogated the Missouri Compromise,
so far as the country embraced within the limits of Utah and New Mexico
was covered by the slavery restriction. It is true, that those acts did not
in terms and by name repeal the act of 1820, as originally adopted, or as
extended by the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845, any more than the
report of the Committee on Territories proposes to repeal the same acts
this session. But the acts of 1850 did authorize the people of those Terri
tories to exercise "all rightful powers of legislation consistent with the
Constitution," not excepting the question of slavery; and did provide
that, when those Territories should be admitted into the Union, they

192 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
should be received with or without slavery, as the people thereof might
determine at the date of their admission. These provisions were in direct
conflict with a clause in a former enactment, declaring that slavery should
be forever prohibited in any portion of said Territories, and hence rendered
such clause inoperative and void to the extent of such conflict. This
was an inevitable consequence, resulting from the provisions in those
acts which gave the people the right to decide the slavery question for
themselves, in conformity with the Constitution. It was not necessary
to go further and declare that certain previous enactments, which were
incompatible with the exercise of the powers conferred in the bills, "are
hereby repealed." The very act of granting those powers and rights has
the legal effect of removing all obstructions to the exercise of them by the
people, as prescribed in those Territorial bills. Following that example,
the Committee on Territories did not consider it necessary to declare the
eighth section of the Missouri Act repealed. We were content to organize
Nebraska in the precise language of the Utah and New Mexican bills.
Our object was to leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, under the
Constitution; and we deemed it wise to accomplish that object in the
exact terms in which the same thing had been done in Utah and New
Mexico by the acts of 1850. This was the principle upon which the com
mittee reported ; and our bill was supposed, and is now believed, to have
been in accordance with it. When doubts were raised whether the bill
did fully carry out the principles laid down in the report, amendments
were made, from time to time, in order to avoid all misconstruction, and
make the true intent of the act more explicit. The last of these amend
ments was adopted yesterday, on the motion of the distinguished senator
from North Carolina [Mr. Badger], in regard to the revival of any laws
or regulations which may have existed prior to 1820. That amendment
was not intended to change the legal effect of the bill. Its object was to
repel the slander which had been propagated by the enemies of the measure
in the North, that the Southern supporters of the bill desired to legislate
slavery into these Territories. The South denies the right of Congress
either to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or out of any Ter
ritory or State. Non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States
or Territories is the doctrine of the bill, and all the amendments which
have been agreed to have been made with the view of removing all doubt
and cavil as to the true meaning and object of the measure.
Well, sir, what is this Missouri Compromise, of which we have heard
so much of late? It has been read so often that it is not necessary to
occupy the time of the Senate in reading it again. It was an act of Con
gress, passed on the sixth of March, 1820, to authorize the people of Missouri
to form a Constitution and a State Government, preparatory to the ad
mission of such State into the Union. The first section provided that
Missouri should be received into the Union "on an equal footing with the
original States in all respects whatsoever." The last and eighth section

APPENDIX 193
provided that slavery should be "forever prohibited" in all the Terri
tories which had been acquired from France north of 36° 30', and not
included within the limits of the State of Missouri. There is nothing in
the terms of the law that purports to be a compact, or indicates that it
was anything more than an ordinary act of legislation. To prove that
it was more than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must produce
other evidence, and prove that there was such an understanding as to
create a moral obligation in the nature of a compact. Have they shown it?
I have heard but one item of evidence produced during this whole de
bate, and that was a short paragraph from Niles's Register, published a
few days after the passage of the act. But gentlemen aver that it was a
solemn compact, which could not be violated or abrogated without dis
honor. According to their understanding, the contract was that, in con
sideration of the admission of Missouri into the Union, on an equal
footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever, slavery should
be prohibited forever in the Territories north of 36° 30'. Now, who were
the parties to this alleged compact? They tell us that it was a stipula
tion between the North and the South. Sir, I know of no such parties
under the Constitution. I am unwilling that there shall be any such par
ties known in our legislation. If there is such a geographical line, it ought
to be obliterated forever; and there should be no other parties than
those provided for in the Constitution, namely, the States of this Union.
These are the only parties capable of contracting under the Constitution
of the United States.
Now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into. The
bill originated in the House of Representatives, and passed that body
without a Southern vote in its favor. It is proper to remark, however,
that it did not at that time contain the eighth section, prohibiting slavery
in the Territories; but, in lieu of it, contained a provision prohibiting
slavery in the proposed State of Missouri. In the Senate, the clause pro
hibiting slavery in the State was stricken out, and the eighth section added
to the end of the bill, by the terms of which slavery was to be forever
prohibited in the territory not embraced in the State of Missouri north
of 36° 30'. The vote on adding this section stood, in the Senate, 34 in
the affirmative, and 10 in the negative. Of the Northern senators, 20
voted for it and 2 against it. On the question of ordering the bill to a
third reading as amended, which was the test vote on its passage, the vote
stood 24 yeas and 20 nays. Of the Northern senators, 4 only voted in the
affirmative, and 18 in the negative. Thus it will be seen that, if it was
intended to be a compact, the North never agreed to it. The Northern
senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in the Territories ; and
then, in the proportion of more than four to one, voted against the pas
sage of the bill. The North, therefore, never signed the compact, never
consented to it, never agreed to be bound by it. This fact becomes very
important in vindicating the character of the North for repudiating this
alleged compromise a few months afterwards. The act was approved
and became a law on the sixth of March, 1820. In the Summer of that
13

194 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
year, the people of Missouri formed a Constitution and State Government
preparatory to admission into the Union, in conformity with the act. At
the next session of Congress the Senate passed a joint resolution, declaring
Missouri to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal footing with
the original States. This resolution was sent to the House of Repre
sentatives, where it was rejected by Northern votes, and thus Missouri
was voted out of the Union, instead of being received into the Union
under the act of the sixth of March, 1820, now known as the Missouri
Compromise. I undertake to maintain that the North objected to Missouri be
cause she allowed slavery, and not because of the free-negro clause alone.
Mr. Seward. No, sir.
Mr. Douglas. Now I will proceed to prove that the North did not ob
ject, solely on account of the free-negro clause ; but that, in the House of
Representatives at that time, the North objected as well because of slavery
as in regard to free negroes. Here is the evidence. In the House of Repre
sentatives, on the twelfth of February, 1821, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont,
moved to amend the Senate joint resolution for the admission of Missouri,
as follows :
"To amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after the
word respects, and inserting the following: 'Whenever the people of the
said State, by a convention, appointed according to the manner provided
by the act to authorize the people of Missouri to form a Constitution and
State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on
an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in cer
tain Territories, approved March 6, 1820, adopt a Constitution conform
ably to the provisions of said act, and shall, in addition to said provision,
further provide, in and by said Constitution, that neither slavery nor involun
tary servitude shall ever be allowed in said State of Missouri, unless inflicted
as a punishment for crimes committed against the laws of said State,
whereof the party accused shall be duly convicted: Provided, That the
civil condition of those persons who now are held to service in Missouri
shall not be affected by this last provision."
Here I show, then, that the proposition was made that Missouri should
not come in unless, in addition to complying with the Missouri Compromise,
she would go further, and prohibit slavery within the limits of the State.
Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who violated
it almost immediately after it was formed? I say it was a calumny upon
the North to say that it was a compact. I should feel a flush of shame
upon my cheek, as a Northern man, if I were to say that it was a compact,
and that the section of country to which I belong received the considera
tion, and then repudiated the obligation in eleven months after it was en
tered into. I deny that it was a compact in any sense of the term. But if
it was, the record proves that faith was not observed ; that the contract was
never carried into effect; that after the North had procured the passage

APPENDIX 195
of the act prohibiting slavery in the Territories, with a majority in the
House large enough to prevent its repeal, Missouri was refused admission
into the Union as a slaveholding State, in conformity with the act of
March 6, 1820. If the proposition be correct, as contended for by the
opponents of this bill, that there was a solemn compact between the
North and South that, in consideration of the prohibition of slavery in
the Territories, Missouri was to be admitted into the Union in conformity
with the act of 1820, that compact was repudiated by the North and re
scinded by the joint action of the two parties within twelve months from
its date. Missouri was never admitted under the act of the sixth of March,
1820. She was refused admission under that act. She was voted out of
the Union by Northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she
should be received; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise
was rendered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri was to be admitted
into the Union conditionally — - admitted on a condition not embraced in
the act of 1820, and, in addition, to a full compliance with all the provisions
of said act. If, then, the act of 1820, by the eighth section of which slavery
was prohibited in the Territories, was a compact, it is clear to the com
prehension of every fair-minded man that the refusal of the North to admit
Missouri, in compliance with its stipulations and without further condi
tions, imposes upon us a high moral obligation to remove the prohibition
of slavery in the Territories, since it has been shown to have been procured
upon a condition never performed.
Mr. President, inasmuch as the senator from New York has taken great
pains to impress upon the public mind of the North the conviction that
the act of 1820 was a solemn compact, the violation or repudiation of
which by either party involves perfidy and dishonor, I wish to call the
attention of that senator [Mr. Seward] to the fact that his own State was
the first to repudiate the compact and to instruct her senators in Congress
not to admit Missouri into the Union in compliance with it, nor unless
slavery should be prohibited in the State of Missouri.
Mr. Seward. That is so.
Mr. Douglas. I have the resolutions before me, in the printed Journal
of the Senate. The senator from New York is familiar with the fact, and
frankly admits it :
"State of New York, )
"In Assembly, November 13, 1820.)
"Whereas, the Legislature of this State, at the last session, did instruct
their senators and request their representatives in Congress to oppose the
admission, as a State, into the Union, of any Territory not comprised
within the original boundaries of the United States, without making the
prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission;
and whereas this Legislature is impressed with the correctness of the sen
timents so communicated to our senators and representatives : Therefore,
"Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That this Legis
lature does approve of the principles contained in the resolutions of the

196 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
last session ; and further, if the provisions contained in any proposed Con
stitution of a new State deny to any citizens of the existing States, the
privileges and immunities of citizens of such new State, that such proposed
Constitution should not be accepted or confirmed; the same, in the opinion
of this Legislature, being void by the Constitution of the United States.
And that our senators be instructed, and our representatives in Congress
be requested, to use their utmost exertions to prevent the acceptance and
confirmation of any such Constitution."
It will be seen by these resolutions that at the previous session the
New York Legislature had "instructed" the senators from that State "to
oppose the admission, as a state, into the Union of ANY territory
not comprised within the original boundaries of the United States, with
out MAKING THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY THEREIN AN INDISPENSABLE
CONDITION OF ADMISSION."
These instructions are not confined to territory north of 36° 30'. They
apply, and were intended to apply, to the whole country west of the
Mississippi, and to all territory which might hereafter be acquired. They
deny the right of Arkansas to admission as a slaveholding State, as well
as Missouri. They lay down a general principle to be applied and insisted
upon everywhere, and in all cases, and under all circumstances. These
resolutions were first adopted prior to the passage of the act of March 6,
1820, which the senator now chooses to call a compact. But they were
renewed and repeated on the thirteenth of November, 1820, a little more
than eight months after the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, as
instructions to the New York senators to resist the admission of Missouri
as a slaveholding State, notwithstanding the stipulations in the alleged
compact. But since the senator [Mr. Seward] has chosen to make an issue with
me in respect to the action of New York, with the view of condemning my
conduct here, I will invite the attention of the senator to another portion
of these resolutions. Referring to the fourteenth section of the Nebraska
Bill, the Legislature of New York says :
"That the adoption' of this provision would be in derogation of the
truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity
upon the free States of the Union, whose assent has been yielded to the
admission into the Union of Missouri and of Arkansas, with slavery, in
reliance upon the faithful observance of the provision (now sought to be
abrogated) known as the Missouri Compromise, whereby slavery was de
clared to be "forever prohibited in all that territory ceded by France to
the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30'
north latitude, not included within the limits of the State of Missouri."
I have no comments to make upon the courtesy and propriety exhibited
in tliis legislative declaration, that a provision in a bill, reported by a
regular committee of the Senate of the United States, and known to be
approved by three-fourths of the body, and which has since received the
sanction of their votes, is "in derogation of truth, a gross violation of

APPENDIX 197
plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity," etc. The opponents of this
measure claim a monopoly of all the courtesies and amenities which should
be observed among gentlemen, and especially in the performance of official
duties; and I am free to say that this is one of the mildest and most re
spectful forms of expression in which they have indulged. But there is
a declaration in this resolution to which I wish to invite the particular
attention of the Senate and the country. It is the distinct allegation that
the free States of the Union, including New York, yielded their "assent
to the admission into the Union of Missouri and Arkansas, with slavery,
in reliance upon the faithful observance of the provision known as the
Missouri Compromise."
Now, sir, since the Legislature of New York has gone out of its way to
arraign the State on matters of truth, I will demonstrate that this para
graph contains two material statements in direct derogation of truth. I
have already shown, beyond controversy, by the records of the Legisla
ture and by the Journals of the Senate, that New York never did give her
assent to the admission of Missouri with slavery ! Hence, I must be per
mitted to say, in the polite language of her own resolutions, that the
statement that New York yielded her assent to the admission of Missouri
with slavery is in derogation of truth ! And secondly, the statement that
such assent was given "in reliance upon the faithful observance of the
Missouri Compromise" is equally in derogation of truth. New York never
assented to the admission of Missouri as a slave State, never assented to
what she now calls the Missouri Compromise, never observed its stipu
lations as a compact, never has been willing to carry it out; but, on the
contrary, has always resisted it, as I have demonstrated by her own
records. Mr. President, I have before me other journals, records, and instructions,
which prove that New York was not the only free State that repudiated
the Missouri Compromise of 1820, within twelve months from its date.
I will not occupy the time of the Senate at this late hour of the night by
referring to them, unless some opponent of the bill renders it necessary.
In that event, I may be able to place other senators and their States in
the same unenviable position in which the senator from New York has
found himself and his State.
I think I have shown, that to call the act of the sixth of March, 1820,
a compact, binding in honor, is to charge the Northern States of this
Union with an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of legislation or
of civilization. I have already adverted to the facts, that in the Summer
of 1820 Missouri formed her Constitution, in conformity with the act of
the sixth of March; that it was presented to Congress at the next session;
that the Senate passed a joint resolution declaring her to be one of the States
of the Union, on an equal footing with the original States; and that the
House of. Representatives rejected it, and refused to allow her to come into
the Union, because her Constitution did not prohibit slavery.
These facts created the necessity for a new compromise, the old one
having failed of its object, which was to bring Missouri into the Union.

198 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
At this period in the order of events — in February, 1821, when the ex
citement was almost beyond restraint, and a great fundamental principle,
involving the right of the people of the new States to regulate their own
domestic institutions, was dividing the Union into two great hostile par
ties — Henry Clay, of Kentucky, came forward with a new compromise,
which had the effect to change the issue, and make the result of the con
troversy turn upon a different point. He brought in a resolution for the
admission of Missouri into the Union, not in pursuance of the act of 1820,
not in obedience to the understanding when it was adopted, and not with
her Constitution as it had been formed in conformity with that act, but
he proposed to admit Missouri into the Union upon a "fundamental con
dition," which condition was to be in the nature of a solemn compact
between the United States on the one part and the State of Missouri on
the other part, and to which "fundamental condition" the State of Missouri
was required to declare her assent in the form of "a solemn public act."
This joint resolution passed, and was approved March 2, 1821, and is
known as Mr. Clay's Missouri compromise, in contradistinction to that
of 1820, which was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Thomas of Illinois.
In the month of June, 1821, the Legislature of Missouri assembled and
passed the "solemn public act," and furnished an authenticated copy
thereof to the President of the United States, in compliance with Mr.
Clay's compromise, or joint resolution. On August 10, 1821, James Mon
roe, President of the United States, issued his proclamation, in which,
after reciting the fact that on the second of March, 1821, Congress had
passed a joint resolution "providing for the admission of the State of
Missouri into the Union, on a certain condition"; and that the general
assembly of Missouri, on the twenty-sixth of June, having, "by a solemn
public act, declared the assent of said State of Missouri to the fundamental
condition contained in said joint resolution," and having furnished him
with an authenticated copy thereof, he, "in pursuance of the resolution of
Congress aforesaid," declared the admission of Missouri to be complete.
I do not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the conditions
upon which Missouri was admitted were wise or unwise. It is sufficient
for my present purpose to remark that the "fundamental condition"
of her admission related to certain clauses in the Constitution of Missouri
in respect to the migration of free negroes into that State ; clauses similar
to those now in force in the Constitutions of Illinois and Indiana, and
perhaps other States; clauses similar to the provisions of law in force at
that time in many of the old States of the Union; and, I will add, clauses
which, in my opinion, Missouri had a right to adopt under the Constitu
tion of the United States. It is no answer to this position to say, that
those clauses in the Constitution of Missouri were in violation of the Con
stitution. If they did conflict with the Constitution of the United States,
they were void; if they were not in conflict, Missouri had a right to put
them there, and to pass all laws necessary to carry them into effect.
Whether such conflict did exist is a question which, by the Constitution,
can only be determined authoritatively by the Supreme Court of the

APPENDIX 199
United States. Congress is not the appropriate and competent tribunal
to adjudicate and determine questions of conflict between the Consti
tution of a State and that of the United States. Had Missouri been
admitted without any condition or restriction, she would have had an
opportunity of vindicating her Constitution and rights in the Supreme
Court — the tribunal created by the Constitution for that purpose.
By the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress not only deprived that
State of a right which she believed she possessed under the Constitution
of the United States, but denied her the privilege of vindicating that
right in the appropriate and constitutional tribunals, by compelling her,
"by a solemn public act," to give an irrevocable pledge never to exercise
or claim the right. Therefore Missouri came under a humiliating condi
tion — a condition not imposed by the Constitution of the United States,
and which destroys the principle of equality which should exist, and by
the Constitution does exist, between all the States of this Union. This
inequality resulted from Mr. Clay's compromise of 1821, and is the principle
upon which that compromise was constructed. I own that the act is
couched in general terms and vague phrases, and therefore may possibly
be so construed as not to deprive the State of any right she might possess
under the Constitution. Upon that point I wish only to say, that such
a construction makes the "fundamental condition" void, while the oppo
site construction would demonstrate it to be unconstitutional. I have
before me the "solemn public act" of Missouri to this fundamental con
dition. Whoever will take the trouble to read it will find it the richest
specimen of irony and sarcasm that has ever been incorporated into a
solemn public act.
Mr. President, it was a mortifying reflection to me, as a Northern man,
that we had not been able, in consequence of the abolition excitement at
the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith in the observance of legis
lation, which has been denominated a compromise. There were a few
men then, as there are now, who had the moral courage to perform their
duty to the country and the Constitution, regardless of consequences
personal to themselves. There were ten Northern men who dared to
perform their duty by voting to admit Missouri into the Union on an equal
footing with the original States, and with no other restriction than that
imposed by the Constitution. I am aware that they were abused and
denounced as we are now ; that they were branded as dough-faces, traitors
to freedom, and to the section of the country whence they come.
Mr. Geyer. They honored Mr. Lanman, of Connecticut, by burning him
in effigy.
Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir; these Abolitionists honored Mr. Lanman in Con
necticut just as they are honoring me in Boston, and other places, by
burning me in effigy.
Mr. Cass. It will do you no harm.
Mr. Douglas. Well, sir, I know it will not; but why this burning in
effigy? It is the legitimate consequences of the address which was sent
forth to the world by certain senators whom I denominated, on a former

200 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
occasion, as the Abolition confederates. The senator from Ohio presented
here the other day a resolution — he says unintentionally, and I take it
so — declaring that every senator who advocated this bill was a traitor
to his country, to humanity, and to God ; and even he seemed to be shocked
at the results of his own advice when it was exposed. Yet he did not seem
to know that it was, in substance, what he had advised in his address,
over his own signature, when he called upon the people to assemble in
public meetings and thunder forth their indignation as the criminal be
trayal of precious rights; when he appealed to ministers of the gospel to
desecrate their holy calling, and attempted to inflame passions, and fanat
icism, and prejudice against senators who would not consider themselves
very highly complimented by being called his equals. And yet, when the
natural consequences of his own action and advice come back upon him,
and he presents them here, and is called to an account for the indecency
of the act, he professes his profound regret and surprise that anything
should have occurred which could possibly be deemed unkind or disre
spectful to any member of this body !
Mr. Sumner. I rise merely to correct the senator in a statement in re
gard to myself, to the effect that I had said that Missouri came into the
Union under the act of 1820, instead of the act of 1821. I forbore to
designate any particular act under which Missouri came into the Union,
but simply asserted, as the result of the long controversy with regard to
her admission, and as the end of the whole transaction, that she was re
ceived as a slave State ; and that on being so received, whether sooner or
later, whether under the act of 1820 or 1821, the obligations of the com
pact were fixed — irrevocably fixed — so far as the South is concerned.
Mi. Douglas. The senator's explanation does not help him at all. He
says he did not state under what act Missouri came in; but he did say,
as I understood him, that the act of 1820 was a compact, and that, accord
ing to that compact, Missouri was to come in with slavery, provided
slavery should be prohibited in certain Territories, and did come in in
pursuance of the compact. He now uses the word "compact." To what
compact does he allude ? Is it not to the act of 1820? If he did not, what
becomes of his conclusion that the eighth section of that act is irrepeal-
able? He will not venture to deny that his reference was to the act of
1820. Did he refer to the joint resolution of 1821, under which Missouri
was admitted? If so, we do not propose to repeal it. We admit that it
was a compact, and that its obligations are irrevocably fixed. But that
joint resolution does not prohibit slavery in the Territories. The Nebraska
Bill does not propose to repeal it, or impair its obligation in any way.
Then, sir, why not take back your correction, and admit that you did mean
the act of 1820, when you spoke of irrevocable obligations and compacts?
Assuming, then, that the senator meant what he is now unwilling either
to admit or deny, even while professing to correct me, that Missouri came
in under the act of 1820, I aver that I have proven that she did not come
into the Union under that act. I have proven that she was refused admis
sion under that alleged compact. I have, therefore, proven incontestably

APPENDIX 201
that the material statement upon which his argument rests is wholly
without foundation, and unequivocally contradicted by the record.
Sir, I believe I may say the same of every speech which has been made
against the bill, upon the ground that it impaired the obligation of com
pacts. There has not been an argument against the measure, every word
of which in regard to the faith of compacts is not contradicted by the
public records. What I complain of is this: The people may think that
a senator, having the laws and journals before him, to which he could
refer, would not make a statement in contravention of those records.
They make the people believe these things, and cause them to do great
injustice to others, under the delusion that they have been wronged and
their feelings outraged. Sir, this address did for a time mislead the whole
country. It made the Legislature of New York believe that the act of
1820 was a compact which it would be disgraceful to violate; and, acting
under that delusion, they framed a series of resolutions, which, if true and
just, convict that State of an act of perfidy and treachery unparalleled in
the history of free Governments. You see, therefore, the consequences of
these misstatements. You degrade your own State, and induce the peo
ple, under the impression that they have been injured, to get up a violent
crusade against those whose fidelity and truthfulness will in the end com
mand their respect and admiration. In consequence of arousing passions
and prejudices, I am now to be found in effigy, hanging by the neck, in
all the towns where you have the influence to produce such a result. In
all these excesses, the people are yielding to an honest impulse, under
the impression that a grievous wrong has been perpetrated. You have
had your day of triumph. You have succeeded in directing upon the heads
of others a torrent of insult and calumny from which even you shrink
with horror, when the fact is exposed that you have become the conduits
for conveying it into this hall. In your State, sir [addressing himself to
Mr. Chase], I find that I am burnt in effigy in your Abolition towns. All
this is done because I have proposed, as it is said, to violate a compact !
Now, what will those people think of you when they find out that you have
stimulated them to those acts, which are disgraceful to your State, dis
graceful to your party, and disgraceful to your cause, under a misrepre
sentation of the facts, which misrepresentation you ought to have been
aware of, and should never have been made ?
Mr. Chase. Will the senator from Illinois permit me to say a few words?
Mr. Douglas. Certainly.
Mr. Chase. Mr. President, I certainly regret that anything has oc
curred in my State which should be otherwise than in accordance with the
disposition which I trust I have ever manifested to treat the senator from
Illinois with entire courtesy. I do not wish, however, to be understood
here, or elsewhere, as retracting any statement which I have made, or
being unwilling to reassert that statement when it is directly impeached.
I regard the admission of Missouri, and the facts of the transaction con
nected with it as constituting a compact between the two sections of the
country, a part of which was fulfilled in the admission of Missouri, another

202 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
part in the admission of Arkansas, and other parts of which have been
fulfilled in the admission of Iowa, and the organization of Minnesota, but
which yet remains to be fulfilled in respect to the Territory of Nebraska,
and which, in my judgment, will be violated by the repeal of the Missouri
prohibition. That is my judgment. I have no quarrel with senators who
differ with me; but upon the whole facts of the transaction, however, I
have not changed my opinion at all, in consequence of what has been said
by the honorable senator from Illinois. I say that the facts of the transac
tion, taken together, and as understood by the country for more than
thirty years, constitute a compact binding in moral force; though, as I
have always said, being embodied in a legislative act, it may be repealed
by Congress, if Congress see fit.
Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I am sorry the senator from Ohio has
repeated the statement that Missouri came in under the compact which
he says was made by the act of 1820. How many times have I to disprove
the statement? Does not the vote to which I have referred show that
such was not the case? Does not the fact that there was a necessity for a
new compromise show it? Have I not proved it three times over? and
is it possible that the senator from Ohio will repeat it in the face of the
record, with the vote staring him in the face, and with the evidence which
I have produced? Does he suppose that he can make his own people be
lieve that his statement ought to be credited in opposition to the solemn
record? I am amazed that the senator should repeat the statement again
unsustained by the fact, by the record, and by the evidence, and over
whelmed by the whole current and weight of the testimony which I have
produced. The senator says, also, that he never intended to do me injustice, and
he is sorry that the people of his State have acted in the manner to which
I have referred. Sir, did he not say, in the same document to which I
have already alluded, that I was engaged, with others, in "a criminal be
trayal of precious rights," in an "atrocious plot"? Did he not say that
I and others were guilty of "meditated bad faith"? Are not these his
exact words? Did he not say that "servile demagogues" might make the
people believe certain things, or attempt to do so? Did he not say every
thing calculated to produce and bring upon my head all the insults to
which I have been subjected, publicly and privately — not even except
ing the insulting letters which I have received from his constituents, re
joicing at my domestic bereavements, and praying that other and similar
calamities may befall me ? All these have resulted from that address. I
expected such consequences when I first saw it. In it he called upon the
preachers of the gospel to prostitute the sacred desk in stimulating ex
cesses; and then, for fear that the people would not know who it was that
was to be insulted and calumniated, he told them in a postscript, that Mr.
Douglas was the author of all this iniquity, and that they ought not to
allow their rights to be made the hazard of a Presidential game ! After
having used such language, he says he meant no disrespect — he meant
nothing unkind 1 He was amazed that I said in my opening speech that

APPENDIX 203
there was anything offensive in this address; and he could not suffer
himself to use harsh epithets, or to impugn a gentleman's motives ! No,
not he ! After having deliberately written all these insults, impugning
motive and character, and calling upon our holy religion to sanctify the
calumny, he could not think of losing his dignity by bandying epithets,
or using harsh and disrespectful terms !
Mr. President, I expected all that has occurred, and more than has
come, as the legitimate result of that address. The things to which I re
ferred are the natural consequences of it. The only revenge I seek is to
expose the authors, and leave them to bear, as best they may, the just
indignation of an honest community, when the people discover how their
sympathies and feelings have been outraged by making them the instru
ments in performing such desperate acts.
Sir, even in Boston I have been hung in effigy. I may say that I ex
pected it to occur even there, for the senator from Massachusetts lives
there. He signed his name to that address ; aild for fear the Boston Abo
litionists would not know that it was he, he signed it "Charles Sumner,
senator from Massachusetts." The first outrage was in Ohio, where the
address was circulated under the signature of "Salmon P. Chase, senator
from Ohio.'" The next came from Boston — the same Boston, sir, which,
under the direction of the same leaders, closed Fanueil Hall to the im
mortal Webster in 1850, because of his support of the compromise measures
of that year, which all now confess have restored peace and harmony to
a distracted country. Yes, sir, even Boston, so glorious in her early his
tory, — Boston, around whose name so many historical associations cling,
to gratify the heart and exalt the pride of every American, — could be led
astray by Abolition misrepresentations so far as to deny a hearing to her
own great man, who had shed so much glory upon Massachusetts and her
metropolis ! I know that Boston now feels humiliated and degraded by
the act. And, sir [addressing himself to Mr. Sumner], you will remember
that when you came into the Senate, and sought an opportunity to put
forth your Abolition incendiarism, you appealed to our sense of justice by
the sentiment, "Strike, but hear me first." But when Mr. Webster went
back in 1850 to speak to his constituents in his own self-defence, to tell
the truth, and to expose his slanderers, you would not hear him, but you
struck first!
Again, sir, even Boston, with her Fanueil Hall consecrated to liberty,
was so far led astray by Abolitionism that when one of her gallant sons,
gallant by his own glorious deeds, inheriting a heroic revolutionary name,
had given his life to his country upon the bloody field of Buena Vista, and
when his remains were brought home, even that Boston, under Abolition
guidance and Abolition preaching, denied him a decent burial, because he
lost his life in vindicating his country's honor upon the Southern frontier !
Even the name of Lincoln and the deeds of Lincoln could not secure for
him a decent interment, because Abolitionism follows a patriot beyond
the grave.
Mr. President, with these facts before me, how could I hope to escape

204 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
the fate which had followed these great and good men? While I had no
right to hope that I might be honored as they had been under Abolition
auspices, have I not a right to be proud of the distinction and the asso
ciation? Mr. President, I regret these digressions. I have not been able
to follow the line of argument which I had marked out for myself, because
of the many interruptions. I do not complain of them. It is fair that
gentlemen should make them, inasmuch as they have not the opportunity
of replying; hence I have yielded the floor, and propose to do so cheer
fully whenever any senator intimates that justice to him or his position
requires him to say anything in reply.
Returning to the point from which I was diverted :
I think I have shown that if the act of 1820, called the Missouri Com
promise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a solemn vote
of the House of Representatives in 1821, within eleven months after it
was adopted. It was repudiated by the North by a majority vote, and
that repudiation was so complete and successful as to compel Missouri to
make a new compromise, and she was brought into the Union under the
new compromise of 1821, and not under the act of 1820. This reminds
me of another point made in nearly all the speeches against this bill, and,
if I recollect right, was alluded to in the abolition manifesto; to which,
I regret to say, I had occasion to refer so often. I refer to the significant
hint that Mr. Clay was dead before any one dared to bring forward a propo
sition to undo the greatest work of his hands. The senator from New
York [Mr. Seward] has seized upon this insinuation and elaborated it,
perhaps more fully than his compeers; and now the Abolition press sud
denly, and, as if by miraculous conversion, teems with eulogies upon Mr.
Clay and his Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Now, Mr. President, does not each of these senators know that Mr.
Clay was not the author of the act of 1820? Do they not know that he
disclaimed it in 1850 in this body? Do they not know that the Missouri
restriction did not originate in the House of which he was a member? Do
they not know that Mr. Clay never came into Missouri controversy as a
compromiser until after the compromise of 1820 was repudiated, and it
became necessary to make another? I dislike to be compelled to repeat
what I have conclusively proven, that the compromise which Mr. Clay
effected was the act of 1821, under which Missouri came into the Union,
and not the act of 1820. Mr. Clay made that compromise after you had
repudiated the first one. How, then, dare you call upon the spirit of that
great and gallant statesman to sanction your charge of bad faith against
the South on this question?
Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to Mr. Clay on this
question, perhaps I may as well do justice to another great man, who
was associated with him in carrying through the great measures of 1850
which mortified the senator from New York so much, because they defeated
his purpose of carrying on the agitation. I allude to Mr. Webster. The
authority of his great name has been quoted for the purpose of proving
that he regarded the Missouri act as a compact — an irrepealable compact.

APPENDIX 205
Evidently the distinguished senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Everett]
supposed he was doing Mr. Webster entire justice when he quoted the
passage which he read from Mr. Webster's speech of the seventh of March,
1850, when he said that he stood upon the position that every part of the
American continent was fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepealable
law. The senator says that by the expression "irrepealable law," Mr. Webster
meant to include the compromise of 1820. Now, I will show that that
was not Mr. Webster's meaning — that he was never guilty of the mis
take of saying that the Missouri act of 1820 was an irrepealable law. Mr.
Webster said in that speech, that every foot of territory in the United
States was fixed as to its character for freedom or slavery by an irrepeal
able law. He then inquired if it was not so in regard to Texas. He went
on to prove that it was; because, he said, there was a compact in express
terms between Texas and the United States. He said the parties were
capable of contracting, and that there was a valuable consideration; and
hence, he contended, that in that case there was a contract binding in
honor, and morals, and law; and that it was irrepealable without a breach
of faith.
He went on to say:
"Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded
from those Territories by a law even superior to that which admits and
sanctions it in Texas — I mean the law of nature, of physical geography,
the law of the formation of the earth."
That was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in the
territories of Utah and New Mexico. He next went on to speak of the
prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said it was an "entirely useless,
and in that connection, senseless proviso."
He went further, and said :
"That the whole territory of the States in the United States, or in the
newly-acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled
character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in the
case of Texas without a, violation of public faith, and cannot be repealed
by any human power in regard to California or New Mexico; that, under
one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the States, or in the
Territories, has now received a fixed and decided character."
What irrepealable laws? One or the other of those which he had stated.
One was the Texas compact, the other the law of nature and physical
geography; and he contends that one or the other fixed the character of
the whole American continent for freedom or for slavery. He never
alluded to the Missouri Compromise, unless it was by the allusion to the
Wilmot Proviso in the Oregon bill, and there he said it was a useless,
and, in that connection, senseless thing. Why was it a useless and a sense
less thing? Because it was reenacting the law of God; because slavery
had already been proliibited by physical geography. Sir, that was the
meaning of Mr. Webster's speech. My distinguished friend from Massa
chusetts [Mr. Everett], when he reads the speech again, will be utterly

206 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
amazed to see how he fell into such an egregious error as to suppose that
Mr. Webster had so far fallen from his high position as to say that the
Missouri act of 1820 was an irrepealable law.
Mr. President, I am sorry that I have taken up so much time; but I
must notice one or two points more. So much has been said about the
Missouri Compromise act, and about a faithful compliance with it by the
North, that I must follow that matter a little further. The senator from
Ohio [Mr. Wade] has referred, to-night, to the fact that I went for carry
ing out the Missouri Compromise in the Texas resolutions of 1845, and in
1848, on several occasions; and he actually proved that I never abandoned
; it until 1850. He need not have taken the pains to prove that fact; for
he got all his information on the subject from my opening speech upon
this bill. I told you then that I was willing, as a Northern man, in 1845,
; when the Texas question arose, to carry the Missouri Compromise line
I through that State, and in 1848 I offered it as an amendment to the Oregon
! bill. Although I did not like the principle involved in that act, yet I was
willing, for the sake of harmony, to extend it to the Pacific, and abide by
it in good faith, in order to avoid the slavery agitation. The Missouri
Compromise was defeated then by the same class of politicians who are
now combined in opposition to the Nebraska bill. It was because we were
unable to carry out that compromise, that a necessity existed for making
a new one in 1850. And then we established this great principle of self-
government which lies at the foundation of all our institutions. What
does his charge amount to? He charges it, as a matter of offence, that I
struggled in 1845 and in 1848 to observe good faith; and he and his asso
ciates defeated my purpose and deprived me of the ability to carry out
what he now says is the plighted faith of the nation.
Mr. Wade. I did not charge the senator with anything except with
making a very excellent argument on my side of the question, and I wished
he would make it again to-night. That was all.
Mr. Douglas. What was the argument which I made? A Southern
senator had complained that the Missouri Compromise was a matter of
injustice to the South. I told him he ought not to complain of that when
his Southern friends were here proposing to accept it; and if we could
carry it out, he had no right to make such a complaint. I was anxious to
carry it out. It would not have done for a Northern man who was opposed
to the measure, and unwilling to abide it, to take that position. It would
not have become the senator from Ohio, who then denounced the very
measure which he now calls a sacred compact, to take that position. But,
as one who has always been in favor of carrying it out, it was legitimate
and proper that I should make that argument in reply.
Sir, as I have said, the South was willing to agree to the Missouri Com
promise in 1848. When it was proposed by me to the Oregon bill, as an
amendment, to extend that line to the Pacific, the South agreed to it.
The Senate adopted that proposition, and the House voted it down. In
1850, after the Omnibus bill had broken down, and we proceeded to pass

APPENDIX 207
the compromise measures separately, I proposed, when the Utah bill
was under discussion, to make a slight variation of the boundary of that
Territory, so as to include the Mormon settlements, and not with refer
ence to any other question; and it was suggested that we should take
the line of 36° 30'. That would have accomplished the local objects of
the amendment very well. But when I proposed it, what did these Free-
soilers say? What did the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale],
who was then their leader in this body, say ? Here are his words :
"I wish to say a word as a reason why I shall vote against the amend
ment. I shall vote against 36° 30' because I think there is an implication in
it. I will vote for 37° or 36° either, just as it is convenient; but it is idle
to shut our eyes to the fact that here is an attempt in this bill — I will
not say it is the intention of the mover — to pledge this Senate and Con
gress to the imaginary line of 36° 30', because there are some historical
recollections connected with it in regard to this controversy about slavery,
I will content myself with saying that I never will, by vote or speech,
admit or submit to anything that may bind the action of our legislation
here to make the parallel of 36° 30' the boundary line between slave
and free territory. And when I say that, I explain the reason why I
go against the amendment."
These remarks of Mr. Hale were not made on a proposition to extend the
Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, but on a proposition to fix 36° 30'
as the Southern boundary line of Utah, for local reasons. He was against
it because there might be, as he said, an implication growing out of histor
ical recollections in favor of the imaginary line between slavery and free
dom. Does that look as if his object was to get an implication in favorof
preserving sacred this line, in regard to which gentlemen now say there
was a solemn compact? That proposition may illustrate what I wish to
say in this connection upon a point which has been made by the opponents
of this bill as to the effect of an amendment inserted on the motion of
the senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] into the Texas boundary bill. The
opponents of this measure rely upon that amendment to show that the
Texas compact was preserved by the acts of 1850. I have already shown,
in my former speech, that the object of the amendment was to guarantee
to the State of Texas, with her circumscribed boundaries, the same number
of States which she would have had under her larger boundaries, and
with the same right to come in with or without slavery, as they please.
We have been told over and over again that there was no such thing
intimated in debate as that the country cut off from Texas was to be
relieved from the stipulation of that compromise. This has been asserted
boldly and unconditionally, as if there could be no doubt about it. The
senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] in his speech showed that, in his
address to his constituents of that State, he had proclaimed to the world
that the object was to establish a principle which would allow the people
to decide the question of slavery for themselves, North as well as South
of 36° 30'. The line of 36° 30' was voted down as the boundary of Utah,
so that there should not be even an implication in favor of an imaginary

208 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
line to divide freedom and slavery. . . . The debate goes upon the sup
position that the effect was to release the country north of 36° 30' from
the obligation of the prohibition; and the only question was whether the
declaration that it should be received into the Union "with or without
slavery " should be inserted in the Texas bill or the Territorial bill.
Now, sir, have I not shown conclusively that it was the understanding
in that debate that the effect was to release the country north of 36° 30',
which formerly belonged to Texas, from the operation of that restriction,
and to provide that it should come into the Union with or without slavery,
as its people should see proper?
Mr. President, frequent reference has been made in debate to the ad
mission of Arkansas as a. slaveholding State, as furnishing evidence that
the Abolitionists and Free-soilers, who have recently become so much
enamored with the Missouri Compromise, have always been faithful to
its stipulations and implications. I will show that the reference is un
fortunate for them. When Arkansas applied for admission in 1836, ob
jection was made in consequence of the provisions of her Constitution in
respect to slavery. When the Abolitionists and Free-soilers of that day
were arraigned for making that objection, upon the ground that Arkansas
was south of 36° 30', they replied that the act of 1820 was never a
compromise, much less a compact, imposing any obligation upon the suc
cessors of those who passed the act to pay any more respect to its pro
visions than to any other enactment of ordinary legislation. I have the
debates before me, but will occupy the attention of the Senate only to
read one or two paragraphs. Mr. Hand, of New York, in opposition to
the admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, said :
"I am aware it will be, as it has already been, contended, that by the
Missouri Compromise, as it has been preposterously termed, Congress has
parted with its right to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the terri
tory south of 36° 30' north latitude."
He acknowledged that by the Missouri Compromise, as he said it was
preposterously termed, the North was estopped from denying the right to
hold slaves south of that line ; but, he added :
"There are, to my mind, insuperable objections to the soundness of that
proposition." Here they are :
" In the first place, there was no compromise or compact whereby Con
gress surrendered any power, or yielded any jurisdiction; and, in the
second place, if it had done so, it was a mere legislative act, that could
not bind their successors; it would be subject to a repeal at the will of
any succeeding Congress."
I give these passages as specimens of the various speeches made in op
position to the admission of Arkansas by the same class of politicians who
now oppose the Nebraska bill, upon the ground that it violates a solemn
compact. So much for the speeches. Now for the vote. The journal

APPENDIX 209
which I hold in my hand shows that forty-nine Northern votes were re
corded against the admission of Arkansas.
Yet, sir, in utter disregard — and charity leads me to hope, in profound
ignorance — of all these facts, gentlemen are boasting that the North
always observed the contract, never denied its validity, never wished to
violate it; and they have even referred to the cases of the admission of
Missouri and Arkansas as instances of their good faith.
Now, is it possible that gentlemen could suppose these things could be
said and distributed in their speeches without exposure? Did they pre
sume that, inasmuch as their lives were devoted to slavery agitation,
whatever they did not know about the history of that question did not
exist? I am willing to believe, I hope it may be the fact, that they were
profoundly ignorant of all these records, all these debates, all these facts,
which overthrow every position they have assumed. I wish the senator
from Maine [Mr. Fessenden], who delivered his maiden speech here to
night, and who made a great many sly stabs at me, had informed himself
upon the subject before he repeated all these groundless assertions. I
can excuse him, for the reason that he has been here but a few days, and,
having enlisted under the banner of the Abolition confederates, was un
wise and simple enough to believe that what they had published could
be relied upon as stubborn facts. He may be an innocent victim. I hope
he can have the excuse of not having investigated the subject. I am will
ing to excuse him on the ground that he did not know what he was talking
about, and it is the only excuse which I can make for him. I will say, how
ever, that I do not think he was required by his loyalty to the Abolitionists
to repeat every disreputable insinuation which they made. Why did he
throw into his speech that foul innuendo about "a Northern man with
Southern principles," and then quote the senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. Sumner] as his authority? Ay, sir, I say that foul insinuation. Did
not the senator from Massachusetts who first dragged it into this debate
wish to have the public understand that I was known as a Northern man
with Southern principles ? Was not that the allusion? If it was, he availed
himself of a cant phrase in the public mind, in violation of the truth of
history. I know of but one man in this country who ever made it a boast
that he was a Northern man with Southern principles, and he [turning to
Mr. Sumner] was your candidate for the Presidency in 1848. If his sarcasm
was intended for Martin Van Buren, it involves a family quarrel, with
which I have no disposition to interfere. I will only add that I have been
able to discover nothing in the present position or recent history of that
distinguished statesman which would lead me to covet the sobriquet by
which he is known — "a Northern man with Southern principles."
Mr. President, the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts [Mr. Chase
and Mr. Sumner] have taken the liberty to impeach my motives in bring
ing forward this measure. I desire to know by what right they arraign
me, or by what authority they impute to me other and different motives
than those which I have assigned. I have shown from the record that
1 advocated and voted for the same principles and provisions in the
14

210 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
compromise acts of 1850 which are embraced in this bill. I have proven
that I put the same construction upon those measures immediately after
their adoption that is given in the report which I submitted this session
from the Committee on Territories. I have shown that the Legislature
of Illinois at its first session, after those measures were enacted, passed
resolutions approving them, and declaring that the same great principles
of self-government should be incorporated into all Territorial organiza
tions. Yet, sir, in the face of these facts, these senators have the hardi
hood to declare that this was all an "after-thought " on my part, conceived
for the first time during the present session; and that the measure is
offered as a bid for Presidential votes ! Are they incapable of conceiv
ing that an honest man can do a right thing from worthy motives? I
must be permitted to tell those senators that their experience in seeking
political preferment does not furnish a safe rule by which to judge the
character and principles of other senators !
I must be permitted to tell the senator from Ohio that I did not obtain
my seat in this body either by a corrupt bargain or a dishonorable coali
tion I I must be permitted to remind the senator from Massachusetts
that I did not enter into any combinations or arrangements by which my
character, my principles, and my honor were set up at public auction or
private sale, in order to procure a seat in the Senate of the United States !
I did not come into the Senate by any such means.
Mr. Chase. Will the senator from Illinois allow me? Does he say that
I came into the Senate by a corrupt bargain?
Mr. Douglas. I cannot permit the senator to change the issue. He
has arraigned me on the charge of seeking high political station by un
worthy means. I tell him there is nothing in my history which would
create the suspicion that I came into the Senate by a corrupt bargain or
a disgraceful coalition.
Mr. Chase. Whoever says that I came here by a corrupt bargain states
what is false.
Mr. Wetter. Mr. President —
Mr. Douglas. My friend from California will wait till I get through, if
he pleases.
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Illinois is entitled to the
floor. Mr. Douglas. It will not do for the senator from Ohio to return offen
sive expressions after what I have said and proven. Nor can I permit
him to change the issue, and thereby divert public attention from the
enormity of his offence, in charging me with unworthy motives, while
performing a high public duty, in obedience to the expressed wish and
known principles of my State. I choose to maintain my own position,
and leave the public to ascertain, if they do not understand, how and by
what means he was elected to the Senate.
Mr. Chase. If the senator will allow me, I will say, in reply to the
remarks which the senator has just made, that I did not understand him
as calling upon me for any explanation of the statement which he said

APPENDIX 211
was made in regard to a Presidential bid. The exact statement in the
address was this — it was a question addressed to the people: "Would
they allow their dearest rights to be made the hazards of a Presidential
game?" That was the exact expression. Now, sir, it is well known that
all these great measures in the country are influenced, more or less, by
reference to the great public convasses which are going on from time to
time. I certainly did not intend to impute to the senator from Illinois —
and I desire always to do justice — in that any improper motive. I do
not think it is an unworthy ambition to desire to be a President of the
United States. I do not think that the bringing forward of a measure
with reference to that object would be an improper thing, if the meas
ure be proper in itself. I differ from the senator in my judgment of the
measure. I do not think the measure is a right one. In that I express
the judgment which I honestly entertain. I do not condemn his judg
ment; I do not make, and I do not desire to make, any personal imputa
tions upon him in reference to a great public question.
Mr. Wetter. Mr. President —
Mr. Douglas. I cannot allow my friend from California to come into
the debate at this time, for this is my peculiar business. I may let him
in after a while. I wish to examine the explanation of the senator from
Ohio, and see whether I ought to accept it as satisfactory. He has quoted
the language of the address. It is undeniable that that language clearly
imputed to me the design of bringing forward this bill with a view of secur
ing my own election to the Presidency. Then, by way of excusing himself
for imputing to me such a purpose, the senator says that he does not con
sider it "an unworthy ambition"; and hence he says that, in making the
charge, he does not impugn my motives. I must remind him that, in
addition to that insinuation, he only said in the same address, that my
bill was a "criminal betrayal of precious rights"; he only said it was
"an atrocious plot against freedom and humanity"; he only said that it
was "meditated bad faith"; he only spoke significantly of "servile dema
gogues " ; he only called upon the preachers of the gospel and the people
at their public meetings to denounce and resist such a monstrous iniquity.
In saying all this, and much of the same sort, he now assures me, in the
presence of the Senate, that he did not mean the charge to imply an "un
worthy ambition"; that it was not intended as a "personal imputation"
upon my motives or character; and that he meant "no personal disre
spect" to me as the author of the measure. In reply, I will content my
self with the remark, that there is a very wide difference of opinion between
the senator from Ohio and myself in respect to the meaning of words, and
especially in regard to the line of conduct which, in a public man, does not
constitute an unworthy ambition.
Mr. Sumner. Will the senator from Illinois yield the floor to me for
a moment? Mr. Douglas. As I presume it is on the same point, I will hear the
testimony.

212 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Mr. Sumner. Mr. President, I shrink always instinctively from any
effort to repel a personal assault. I do not recognize the jurisdiction of
this body to try my election to the Senate ; but I do state, in reply to the
senator from Illinois, that if he means to suggest that I came into the body
by any waiver of principles; by any abandonment of my principles of
any kind; by any effort or activity of my own, in any degree, he states
that which cannot be sustained by the facts. I never sought, in any way,
the office which I now hold; nor was I a party, in any way, directly or
indirectly, to those efforts which placed me here.
Mr. Douglas. I do not complain of my friend from California for in
terposing in the manner he has; for I see that it was very appropriate in
him to do so. But, sir, the senator from Massachusetts comes up with
a very bold front, and denies the right of any man to put him on defence
for the manner of his election. He says it is contrary to his principles to
engage in personal assaults. If he expects to avail himself of the benefit
of such a plea, he should act in accordance with his professed principles,
and refrain from assaulting the character and impugning the motives of
better men than himself. Everybody knows that he came here by a coali
tion or combination between political parties holding opposite and hostile
opinions. But it is not my purpose to go into the morality of the matters
involved in his election. The public know the history of that notorious
coalition, and have formed its judgment upon it. It will not do for the
senator to say that he was not a party to it, for he thereby betrays a
consciousness of the immorality of the transaction without acquitting him
self of the responsibilities which justly attach to him. As well might the
receiver of stolen goods deny any responsibility for the larceny, while
luxuriating in the proceeds of the crime, as the senator to avoid the con
sequences resulting from the mode of his election, while he clings to the
office. I must be permitted to remind him of what he certainly can never
forget, that when he arrived here to take his seat for the first time, so
firmly were senators impressed with the conviction that he had been elected
by dishonorable and corrupt means, there were very few who, for a long
time, could deem it consistent with personal honor to hold private inter
course with him. So general was that impression, that for a long time he
was avoided and shunned as a person unworthy of the association of
gentlemen. Gradually, however, these injurious impressions were worn
away by his bland manners and amiable deportment; and I regret that
the senator should now, by a violation of all the rules of courtesy and pro
priety, compel me to refresh his mind upon these unwelcome reminiscences.
Mr. President, I have done with these personal matters. I regret the
necessity which compelled me to devote so much time to them. All I
have done and said has been in the way of self-defence, as the Senate can
bear me witness.
Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of time in exposing the
cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri Compromise,
and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith. I have

APPENDIX 213
exposed these matters in order to show that the object of these men is to
withdraw from public attention the real principle involved in the bill.
They well know that the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise is the
incident and not the principle of the bill. They well understand that the
report of the committee and the bill propose to establish the principle in
all Territorial organizations, that the question of slavery shall be referred
to the people to regulate for themselves, and that such legislation should
be had as was necessary to remove all legal obstructions to the free ex
ercise of this right by the people.
The eighth section of the Missouri act standing in the way of this great
principle must be rendered inoperative and void, whether expressly
repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regulating
their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution. Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correctness of
their own position, why do they not meet the issue boldly and fairly, and
controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignty
in obedience to the Constitution? They know full well that this was the
principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great
Britain, the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution were
fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded.
They cannot be ignorant of the fact that the Revolution grew out of the
assertion of the right on the part of the Imperial Government to interfere
with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the colonies.
Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right and extinguish the principle
for which our forefathers waged a seven years' bloody war, and upon which
our whole system of free government is founded. They not only deny
the application of this principle to the Territories, but insist upon fasten
ing the prohibition upon all the States to be formed out of those Territo
ries. Therefore, the doctrine of the Abolitionists — the doctrine of the
opponents of the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, and of the advocates of the
Missouri restriction — demand Congressional interference with slavery,
not only in the Territories, but in all the new States to be formed there
from. It is the same doctrine, when applied to the Territories and new
States of this Union, which the British Government attempted to enforce
by the sword upon the American colonies. It is this fundamental prin
ciple of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of
the Nebraska bill. The opponents of the principle are consistent in op
posing the bill. I do not blame them for their opposition. I only ask
them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they
are opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to carry into
operation. It seems that there is no power on earth, no intellectual power,
no mechanical power, that can bring them to a fair discussion of the true
issue. If they hope to delude the people and escape detection for any
considerable length of time under the catch-words, "Missouri Com
promise," and "faith of compacts," they will find that the people of this

214 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
country have more penetration and intelligence than they have given
them credit for.
Mr. President, there is an important fact connected with this slavery
resolution which should never be lost sight of. It has always arisen from
one and the same cause. Whenever that cause has been removed, the
agitation has ceased; and whenever the cause has been renewed, the agi
tation has sprung into existence. That cause is, and ever has been, the
attempt on the part of Congress to interfere with the question of slavery in
the Territories and new States formed therefrom. Is it not wise, then,
to confine our action within the sphere of our legitimate duties, and leave
this vexed question to take care of itself in each State and Territory, ac
cording to the wishes of the people thereof, in conformity to the forms
and in subjection to the provisions of the Constitution?
The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their policy,
that their great desire is peace and harmony; and they complain bitterly
that I should have disturbed the repose of the country by the introduction
of this measure. Let me ask these professed friends of peace and avowed
enemies of agitation, how the issue could have been avoided? They tell
me that I should have let the question alone — that is, that I should have
left Nebraska unorganized, the people unprotected, and the Indian barrier
in existence, until the swelling tide of emigration should burst through,
and accomplish by violence what it is the part of wisdom and statesman
ship to direct and regulate by law. How long could you have postponed
action with safety? How long could you maintain that Indian barrier,
and restrain the onward march of civilization, Christianity, and free gov
ernment by a barbarian wall ? Do you suppose that you could keep that
vast country a howling wilderness in all time to come, roamed over by
hostile savages, cutting off all safe communication between our Atlantic
and Pacific possessions? I tell you that the time for action has come,
and cannot be postponed. It is a case in which the "let-alone" policy
would precipitate a crisis which must inevitably result in violence, anarchy,
and strife.
You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this great and growing
country. You cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant. He will burst
all your chains. He will expand, and grow, and increase, and extend
civilization, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, if you cannot
check the growth of the country in that direction, is it not the part of
wisdom to look the danger in the face, and provide for an event which
you cannot avoid? I tell you, sir, you must provide for continuous lines
of settlement from the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific Ocean. And in
making this provision you must decide upon what principles the Terri
tories shall be organized; in other words, whether the people shall be
allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, accord
ing to the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of
Congressional interference is to prevail. Postpone it, if you will; but
whenever you do act, this question must be met and decided.
The Missouri Compromise was interference; the compromise of 1850

APPENDIX 215
was non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights under the
Constitution. The Committee on Territories were compelled to act on
this subject. I, as their chairman, was bound to meet the question. I
chose to take the responsibility, regardless of consequences personal to
myself. I should have done the same thing last year, if there had been
time; but we know, considering the late period at which the bill then
reached us from the House, that there was not sufficient time to consider
the question fully, and to prepare a report upon the subject. I was, there
fore, persuaded by friends to allow the bill to be reported to the Senate,
in order that such action might be taken as should be deemed wise and
proper. The bill was never taken up for action, the last night of the session
having been exhausted in debate on the motion to take up the bill. This
session the measure was introduced by my friend from Iowa [Mr. Dodge],
and referred to the territorial committee during the first week of the
session. We have abundance of time to consider the subject; it was a
matter of pressing necessity, and there was no excuse for not meeting it
directly and fairly. We were compelled to take our position upon the doc
trine either of intervention or non-intervention. We chose the latter,
for two reasons: first, because we believed that the principle was right;
and, second, because it was the principle adopted in 1850, to which the
two great political parties of the country were solemnly pledged.
There is another reason why I desire to see this principle recognized as
a rule of action in all time to come. It will have the effect to destroy all
sectional parties and sectional agitations. If, in the language of the re
port of the committee, you withdraw the slavery question from the halls
of Congress and the political arena, and commit it to the arbitrament of
those who are immediately interested in and alone responsible for its con
sequences, there is nothing left out of which sectional parties can be or
ganized. It never was done, and never can he done, on the bank, tariff,
distribution, or any other party issue which has existed, or may exist,
after this slavery question is withdrawn from politics. On every other
political question these have always supporters and opponents in every
portion of the Union — in each State, county, village, and neighborhood —
residing together in harmony and goodfellowship, and combating each
other's opinions and correcting each other's errors in a spirit of kindness
and friendship. These differences of opinion between neighbors and friends,
and the discussions that grow out of them, and the sympathy which each
feels with the advocates of his own opinions in every other portion of this
widespread republic, adds an overwhelming and irresistible moral weight
to the strength of the confederacy.
Affection for the Union can never be alienated or diminished by any
other party issues than those which are joined upon sectional or geo
graphical lines. When the people of the North shall all be rallied under
one banner, and the whole South marshalled under another banner, and
each section excited to frenzy and madness by hostility to the institu
tions of the other, then the patriot may well tremble for the perpetuity

216 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
of the Union. Withdraw the slavery question from the political arena,
and remove it to the States and Territories, each to decide for itself, such
a catastrophe can never happen. Then you will never be able to tell,
by any senator's vote for or against any measure, from what State or
section of the Union he comes.
Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from politics?
Why can we not adopt the principle of this bill as a rule of action in all
new Territorial organizations? Why can we not deprive these agitators
of their vocation, and render it impossible for senators to come here upon
bargains on the slavery question? I believe that the peace, the harmony,
and perpetuity of the Union require us to go back to the doctrines of the
Revolution, to the principles of the Constitution, to the principles of the
compromise of 1850, and leave the people, under the Constitution, to do
as they may see proper in respect to their own internal affairs.
Mr. President, I have not brought this question forward as a Northern
man or as a Southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions
and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an American senator,
representing a State which is true to this principle, and which has ap
proved of my action in respect to the Nebraska bill. I have brought it
forward not as an act of justice to the South more than to the North. I
have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those
Territories, and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all time
to come.
I have nothing to say about Northern rights or Southern rights. I
know of no such divisions or distinctions under the Constitution. The
bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every part of it;
it violates the rights of no State or Territory, but places each on a perfect
equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free enjoyment of all their
rights under the Constitution.
Now, sir, I wish to say to our Southern friends, that if they desire to see
this great principle carried out, now is their time to rally around it, to
cherish it, preserve it, make it the rule of action in all future time. If they
fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of interference to prevail',
upon their heads the consequence of that interference must rest. To our
Northern friends, on the other hand, I desire to say, that from this day
henceforward, they must rebuke the slander which has been uttered
against the South, that they desire to legislate slavery into the Territo
ries. The South has vindicated her sincerity, her honor, on that point,
by bringing forward a provision, negativing, in express terms, any such
effect as a result of this bill. I am rejoiced to know that, while the propo
sition to abrogate the eighth section of the Missouri act comes from a
free State, the proposition to negative the conclusion that slavery is thereby
introduced comes from a slaveholding State. Thus, both sides furnish
conclusive evidence that they go for the principle, and the principle only,
and desire to take no advantage of any possible misconstruction.
Mr. President, I feel that I owe an apology to the Senate for having
occupied their attention so long, and a still greater apology for having

APPENDIX 217
discussed the question in such an incoherent and desultory manner. But
I could not forbear to claim the right of closing this debate. I thought
gentlemen would recognize its propriety when they saw the manner in
which I was assailed and misrepresented in the course of this discussion,
and especially by assaults still more disreputable to some portions of the
country. These assaults have had no other effect upon me than to give
me courage and energy for a still more resolute discharge of duty. I say
frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North
as at the South, when its provisions and principles shall have been fully
developed and become well understood. The people at the North are at
tached to the principles of self-government; and you cannot convince
them that that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of
legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which are
forced upon them by a Legislature in which they are not represented.
We are willing to stand upon this great principle of self-government every
where; and it is to us a proud reflection that, in this whole discussion,
no friend of the bill has urged an argument in its favor which could not
be used with the same propriety in a free State as in a slave State, and
vice versa. But no enemy of the bill has used an argument which would
bear repetition one mile across Mason and Dixon's line. Our opponents
have dealt entirely in sectional appeals. The friends of the bill have dis
cussed a great principle of universal application, which can be sustained
by the same reasons, and the same arguments, in every time and in every
corner of the Union.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON THE LECOMPTON
CONSTITUTION
(Delivered March 22, 1857)
The proposition offered by me to extend the Missouri Compromise line
to the Pacific Ocean in the same sense and with the same understanding
with which it was originally adopted, was agreed to by the Senate by a
majority of twelve. When the bill was sent to the House of Representa
tives, that provision was stricken out, I think, by thirty-nine majority.
By that vote the policy of separating free territory from slave territory
by a geographical line was abandoned by the Congress of the United
States. It is not my purpose on this occasion to inquire whether the policy
was right or wrong; whether its abandonment at that time was wise or
unwise; that is a question long since consigned to history, and I leave it
to that tribunal to determine. I only refer to it now for the purpose of
showing the view which I then took of the question. It will be seen, by
reference to the votes in the Senate and House of Representatives, that
Southern men in a body voted for the extension of the Missouri Com
promise line, and a very large majority of the Northern men voted against
it. The argument then made against the policy of a geographical line
was one which upon principle it was difficult to answer. It was urged
that if slavery was wrong north of the line, it could not be right south
of the line; that if it was unwise, impolitic, and injurious on the one side,
it could not be wise, politic, and judicious upon the other; that if the peo
ple should be left to decide the question for themselves on the one side,
they should be entitled to the same privilege on the other. I thought
these arguments were difficult to answer upon principle. The only answer
urged was, that the policy had its origin in patriotic motives, in fraternal
feeling, in that brotherly affection which ought to animate all the citizens
of a common country; and that, for the sake of peace, and harmony, and
concord, we ought to adhere to and preserve that policy. Under these
considerations, I not only voted for it, but moved it, and lamented as much
as any man in the country its failure, because that failure precipitated
us into a sectional strife and agitation, the like of which had never before
been witnessed in the United States, and which alarmed the wisest, the
purest, and the best patriots in the land for the safety of the republic.
You all recollect the agitation which raged through this land from 1848
to 1850, and which was only quieted by the compromise measures of the
latter year. You all remember how the venerable sage and patriot of
Ashland was called forth from his retirement for the sole purpose of being

APPENDIX 219
able to contribute, by his wisdom, by his patriotism, by his experience,
by the weight of his authority, something to calm the troubled waters and
restore peace and harmony to a distracted country. That contest waged
fiercely, almost savagely, threatening the peace and existence of the Union,
until at last, by the wise counsels of a Clay, a Webster, and a Cass, and
the other leading spirits of the country, a new plan of conciliation and
settlement was agreed upon, which again restored peace to the Union.
The policy of a geographical line separating free territory from slave
territory was abandoned by its friends only because they found them
selves without the power to adhere to it, and carry it into effect in good
faith. If that policy had been continued, if the Missouri line had been
extended to the Pacific Ocean, there would have been an end to the slavery
agitation forever — for on one side, as far west as the Continent extended,
slavery would have been prohibited, while on the other, by legal implica
tion, it would have been taken for granted that the institution of slavery
would have existed and continued, and emigration would have sought
the one side of the line or the other, as it preferred the one or the other
class of domestic and social institutions. I confess, sir, that it was my
opinion then, and is my opinion now, that the extension of that line would
have been favorable to the South, so far as any sectional advantage
would have been obtained, if it be an advantage to any section to ex
tend its peculiar institutions. Southern men seemed so to consider it,
for they voted almost unanimously' in favor of that policy prohibiting
slavery on one side, contented with a silent implication in its favor on
the other. Northern representatives and senators seemed to take the
same view of the subject, for a large majority of them voted against this
geographical policy, and in lieu of it insisted upon a law prohibiting
slavery everywhere within the Territories of the United States, north as
well as south of the line; and not only in the Territories, but in the
dock-yards, the navy-yards, and all other public places over which the
Congress of the United States had exclusive jurisdiction.
Such, sir, was the state of public opinion, as evidenced by the acts of
representatives and senators on the question of a geographical line by the
extension of the Missouri Compromise, as it is called, from 1848 to 1850,
which caused it to be abandoned, and the compromise measures of 1850
to be substituted in its place. Those measures are familiar to the Senate
and to the country. They are predicated upon the abandonment of a
geographical line, and upon the great principle of self-government in the
Territories, and the sovereignty of the States over the question of slavery,
as well as over all other matters of local and domestic concern. Inasmuch as
the time-honored and venerated policy of a geographical line had been
abandoned, the great leaders of the Senate, and the great commoners in
the other House of Congress, saw no other remedy but to return to the
true principles of the Constitution — to those great principles of self-
government and popular sovereignty upon which all free institutions rest,
and to leave the people of the Territories and of the States free to decide
the slavery question, as well as all other questions, for themselves.

220 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Mr. President, I am one of those who concurred cheerfully and heartily
in this new line of policy marked out by the compromise measures of
1850. Having been compelled to abandon the former policy of a geo
graphical line, for want of ability to carry it out, I joined with the great
patriots to whom I have alluded, to calm and quiet the country by the
adoption of a policy more congenial to my views of free institutions, not
only for the purpose of healing and harmonizing the strife and controversy
which then existed, but for the farther purpose of providing a rule of
action in all time to come which would avoid sectional strife and sectional
controversy in the future. It was one of the great merits of the compromise
measures of 1850 — indeed, it was their chief merit — that they furnished
a principle, a rule of action which should apply everywhere — north and
south of 36° 30' — not only to the territory which we then had, but to all
that we might afterward acquire, and thus, if that principle was adhered
to, prevent any strife, any controversy, any sectional agitation in the
future. The object was to localize, not to nationalize, the controversy
in regard to slavery; to make it a question for each State and each Terri
tory to decide for itself, without any other State, or any other Territory,
or the Federal Government, or any outside power interfering, directly or
indirectly, to influence or control the result.
My course upon those measures created at first great excitement, and
I may say great indignation, at my own home, so that it became necessary
for me to go before the people and vindicate my action. I made a speech
at Chicago upon my return home, in which I stated the principles of the
compromise measures of 1850 as I have now stated them here, and vindi
cated them to the best of my ability. It is enough to say that, upon sober
reflection, the people of Illinois approved the course which I then pursued;
and when the Legislature came together, they passed, with great unanimity,
resolutions endorsing emphatically the principle of those measures.
In 1854, when it became necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas
and Nebraska, the question arose, What principle was to apply to those
Territories? It was true they both lay north of the line of 36° 30'; but
it was also true that, four years before, the policy of a geographical line
had been abandoned and repudiated by the Congress of the United States,
and in lieu of it the plan of leaving each Territory free to decide the ques
tion for itself had been adopted. I felt it to be my duty, as a senator from
the State of Illinois, and I will say as a member of the Democratic party,
to adhere in good faith to the principles of the compromise measures of
1850, and to apply them to Kansas and Nebraska, as well as to the other
Territories. To show that I was bound to pursue this course, it is only
necessary to refer to the public incidents of those times. In the Presiden
tial election of 1852, the great political parties of that day each nominated
its candidate for the Presidency upon a platform which endorsed the com
promise measures of 1850, and both pledged themselves to carry them
out in good faith in all future times in the organization of all new Terri
tories. The Whig party adopted that platform at Baltimore, and placed
General Scott, their candidate, upon it. The Democratic party adopted

APPENDIX 221
a platform identical in principles, so far as this question was concerned,
and elected General Pierce, President of the United States, upon it. Thus
the Whig party and the Democratic party each stood pledged to apply
this principle in the organization of all new Territories. Not only was I
as a Democrat — as a senator who voted for their adoption — bound to
apply their principle to this case, but, as a senator from Illinois, I was
under an imperative obligation, if I desired to obey the will and carry out
the wishes of my constituents, to apply the same principle.
Now, sir, the question arises whether the Lecompton Constitution, which
has been presented here for our acceptance, is in accordance with this
principle embodied in the compromise measures, and clearly defined in
the organic act of Kansas. Have the people of Kansas been left perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,
subject only to the Constitution? Is the Lecompton Constitution the
act and deed of the people of Kansas? Does it embody their will ? If not,
you have no constitutional right to impose it upon them. If it does em
body their will, if it is their act and deed, you have, then, a right to waive
any irregularities that may have occurred, and receive the State into the
Union. This is the main point, in my estimation, upon which the vote of
the Senate and the House of Representatives ought to depend in the de
cision of the Kansas question. Now, is there a man within the hearing
of my voice who believes that the Lecompton Constitution does embody
the will of a majority of the bona fide inhabitants of Kansas? Where is
the evidence that it does embody that will ?
We are told that it was made by a convention assembled at Lecompton
in September last, and has been submitted to the people for ratification
or rejection. How submitted? In a manner that allowed every man to
vote for it, but precluded the possibility of any man voting against it. We
are told that there is a majority of about five thousand five hundred votes
recorded in its favor under these circumstances. I refrain from going into
the evidence which has been taken before the commission recently held
in Kansas to show what proportion of these votes were fraudulent; but,
supposing them all to have been legal, bona fide residents, what does that
fact prove, when the people on that occasion were allowed only to vote
for, and could not vote against, the Constitution? On the other hand, we
have a vote of the people in pursuance of law, on the fourth of January
last, when this Constitution was submitted by the Legislature to the peo
ple for acceptance or rejection, showing a majority of more than ten thou
sand against it. If you grant that both these elections were valid, if you
grant that the votes were legal and fair, yet the majority is about two
to one against this Constitution. Here is evidence to my mind conclusive
that this Lecompton Constitution is not the embodiment of the popular
will of Kansas. How is this evidence to be rebutted ? By the assumption
that the election on the twenty-first of December, where the voters were
allowed to vote for it, but not against it, was a legal election; and that
the election of the fourth of January, where the people were allowed to

222 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
vote for or against the Constitution as they chose, was not a legal and valid
election. Sir, where do you find your evidence of the legality of the election of
the twenty-first of December? Under what law was that election held?
Under no law except the decree of the Lecompton convention. Did that
convention possess legislative power? Did it possess any authority to
prescribe an election law? That convention possessed only such power
as it derived from the Territorial Legislature in the act authorizing the
assembling of the convention; and I submit that the same authority,
the same power, existed in the Territorial Legislature to order an election
on the fourth of January as existed in the convention to order one on the
twenty-first of December. The Legislature had the same power over the
whole subject on the seventeenth of December, when it passed a law for
the submission of the Constitution to the people, that it had on the nine
teenth of February, when it enacted the statute for the assembling of the
convention. The convention assembled under the authority of the Territorial Legisla
ture alone, and hence was bound to conduct all its proceedings in con
formity with, and in subordination to, the authority of the Legislature.
The moment the convention attempted to put its Constitution into opera
tion against the authority of the Territorial Legislature, it committed an
act of rebellion against the Government of the United States. But we are
told by the President that at the time the Territorial Legislature passed
the law submitting the whole Constitution to the people, the Territory had
been prepared for admission into the Union as a State. How prepared?
By what authority prepared ? Not by the authority of any act of Congress
— by no other authority than that of the Territorial Legislature ; and
clearly a convention assembled under that authority could do no act to
subvert the Territorial Legislature which brought the convention into
existence. But gentlemen assume that the organic act of the Territory was an
enabling act; that it delegated to the Legislature all the power that Con
gress had to authorize the assembling of a convention. Although I dissent
from this doctrine, I am willing, for the sake of the argument, to assume
it to be correct; and if it be correct, to what conclusion does it lead us?
It only substitutes the Territorial Legislature for the authority of Congress,
and gives validity to the convention; and therefore the Legislature would
have just the same right that Congress otherwise would have had, and no
more, and no less. Suppose, now, that Congress had passed an enabling
act, and a convention had been called, and a Constitution framed under
it; but three days before that Constitution was to take effect, Congress
should pass another act repealing the convention law, and submitting the
Constitution to the vote of the people; would it be denied that the act
of Congress submitting the Constitution would be a valid act? If Congress
would have authority thus to interpose, and submit the Constitution to
the vote of the people, it clearly follows that if the Legislature stood in the
place of Congress, and was vested with the power which Congress had on

APPENDIX 223
the subject, it had the same right to interpose, and submit this Constitu
tion to the people for ratification or rejection.
Therefore, sir, if you judge this Constitution by the technical rules of law,
it was voted down by an overwhelming majority of the people of Kansas,
and it became null and void ; and you are called upon now to give vitality
to a void, rejected, repudiated Constitution. If, however, you set aside
the technicalities of law, and approach it in the spirit of statesmanship,
in the spirit of justice and of fairness, with an eye single to ascertain what
is the wish and the will of that people, you are forced to the conclusion
that the Lecompton Constitution does not embody that will.
Sir, we have heard the argument over and over again that the Lecompton
convention was justified in withholding this Constitution from submission
to the people, for the reason that it would have been voted down if it had
been submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. We are told
that there was a large majority of free-state men in the Territory, who
would have voted down the Constitution if they had got a chance, and
that is the excuse for not allowing the people to vote upon it. That is an
admission that this Constitution is not the act and deed of the people of
Kansas; that it does not embody their will; and yet you are called upon
to give it force and vitality; to make it the fundamental law of Kansas
with a knowledge that it is not the will of the people, and misrepresents
their wishes. I ask you, sir, where is your right, under our principles of
government, to force a Constitution upon an unwilling people ? You may
resort to all the evidence that you can obtain, from every source that you
please, and you are driven to the same conclusion.
If further evidence were necessary to show that the Lecompton Con
stitution is not the will of the people of Kansas, you find it in the action
of the Legislature of that Territory. On the first Monday in October an
election took place for members of the Territorial Legislature. It was a
severe struggle between the two great parties in the Territory. On a fair
test, and at the fairest election, as is recorded on all hands, ever held in
the Territory, a Legislature was elected. That Legislature came together
and remonstrated, by an overwhelming majority, against this Constitu
tion, as not being the act and deed of that people, and not embodying their
will. Ask the late Governor of the Territory, and he will tell you that it
is a mockery to call this the act and deed of the people. Ask the secretary
of the Territory, ex-Governor Stanton, and he will tell you the same thing.
I will hazard the prediction, that if you ask Governor Denver to-day, he
will tell you, if he answers at all, that it is a mockery, nay, a crime, to at
tempt to enforce this Constitution as an embodiment of the will of that
people. Ask, then, your official agents in the Territory; ask the Legisla
ture elected by the people at the last election; consult the poll-books on
a fair election held in pursuance of law; consult private citizens from
there; consult whatever sources of information you please, and you get
the same answer — that this Constitution does not embody the public
will, is not the act and deed of the people, does not represent their wishes;
and hence I deny your right, your authority, to make it their organic law.

224 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
If the Lecompton Constitution ever becomes the organic law of the State
of Kansas, it will be the act of Congress that makes it so, and not the act
or will of the people of Kansas.
This Constitution provides that after the year 1864 it may be changed
by the Legislature by a two-thirds vote of each House, submitting to the
people the question whether they will hold a convention for the purpose of
amending the Constitution. I hold that, when a Constitution provides
one time of change, by every rule of interpretation it excludes all other
times; and when it prescribes one mode of change, it excludes all other
modes. I hold that it is the fair intendment and interpretation of this
Constitution that it is not to be changed until after the year 1864, and then
only in the manner prescribed in the instrument. If it were true that this
Constitution was the act and deed of the people of Kansas — if it were
true that it embodied their will — I hold that such a provision against
change for a sufficient length of time to enable the people to test its
practical workings would be a wise provision, and not liable to objection.
That people are not capable of self-government who cannot make a Con
stitution under which they are willing to live for a period of six years
without change. I do not object that this Constitution cannot be
changed until after 1864, provided you show me that it be the act and
deed of the people, and embodies their will now. If it be not their act
and deed, you have no right to fix it upon them for a day — not for an
hour — not for an instant; for it is a violation of the great principle of free
government to force it upon them.
The President of the United States tells us that he sees no objection to
inserting a clause in the act of admission declaratory of the right of the
people of Kansas, with the consent of the first Legislature, to change this
Constitution, notwithstanding the provision which it contains that it shall
not be changed until after the year 1864. Where does Congress get power
to intervene and change a provision in the Constitution of a State? If
this Constitution declares, as I insist it does, that it shall not be changed
until after 1864, what right has Congress to intervene to alter or annul
that provision prohibiting alteration? If you can annul one provision,
you may another, and another, and another, until you have destroyed
the entire instrument. I deny your right to annul; I deny your right to
change, or even to construe the meaning of a single clause of this Constitu
tion. If it be the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and becomes their
fundamental law, it is sacred; you have no right to touch it, no right to
construe it, no right to determine its meaning; it is theirs, not yours.
You must take it as it is, or reject it as a whole; but put not your sacri
legious hands upon the instrument if it be their act and deed. Whenever
this Government undertakes to construe State Constitutions and to recog
nize the right of the people of a State to act in a different manner from
that provided in their Constitution; whenever it undertakes to give a
meaning to a clause of a State Constitution, which that State has not given ;
whenever it undertakes to do that, and its right is acknowledged, farewell

APPENDIX 225
to State rights, farewell to State sovereignty; your States become mere
provinces, dependencies, with no more independence and no more rights
than the counties of the different States. This doctrine, that Congress
may intervene, and annul, construe, or change a clause in a State Constitu
tion, subverts the fundamental principles upon which our complex system
of government rests.
Upon this point, the Committee on Territories, in the majority report,
find themselves constrained to dissent from the doctrine of the President.
They see no necessity, and, if I understand the report, no legal authority
on the part of Congress to intervene and construe this or any other pro
vision of the Constitution; but the distinguished gentleman who makes
the report from the Committee on Territories has, in his own estimation,
obviated all objection by finding a clause in the Constitution of Kansas
which he thinks remedies the whole evil. It is in the Bill of Rights, and
is in these words :
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free Governments
are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and,
therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to
alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such a manner as
they may think proper."
But, sir, this article from the Bill of Rights proves entirely too much.
The President says you may put into this bill a clause recognizing the right
of the people of Kansas to change their Constitution by the consent of the
first Legislature. What does the Bill of Rights say? That it is the ina
lienable and indefeasible right of the people, at all times, to alter, abolish,
or reform their form of government in such manner as they may think
proper, not in such manner as the Legislature shall prescribe, nor at such
time as the legislative authority or the existing government may provide,
but in such manner as the people think proper in town meeting, in conven
tion, through the Legislature, in popular assemblages, at the point of the
bayonet, in any manner the people themselves may determine. That is
the right and the nature of the right authorized by this Bill of Rights.
It is the revolutionary remedy, not the lawful mode. There are two modes
of changing the Constitution of a State — one lawful, the other revolu
tionary. The lawful mode is the one prescribed in the instrument. The
revolutionary mode is one in violation of the instrument. The revolutionary
mode may be peaceful or may be forcible ; that depends on whether there
is resistance. If a people are unanimous in favor of a change, if nobody
opposes it, the revolutionary means may be a peaceful remedy; but if,
in the progress of the revolution, while you are making the change, you
meet with resistance, then it becomes civil war, treason, rebellion, if you
fail, and a successful revolution if you succeed.
I say, then, the mode pointed out in the Bill of Rights is the revolution
ary mode, and not the lawful means provided in the instrument; but
if the Committee on Territories be right in saying that this is a lawful
mode, then the recommendation of the President, that Congress should
15

226 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
recognize the right to do it by the first Legislature, violates this Con
stitution. Why? The President recommends us to recognize their rights
through the Legislature, and in that mode alone. The Bill of Rights
says the people shall do it in such manner as they please. If the con
struction given by the Committee on Territories be right, you dare not
vote for the President's proposition to recognize the right of the first
Legislature to do it, for you give a construction to the instrument in vio
lation of its terms.
Mr. President, I come back to the question, Ought we to receive Kansas
into the Union with the Lecompton Constitution? Is there satisfactory
evidence that it is the act and deed of that people — that it embodies
their will? Is the evidence satisfactory that the people of that Territory
have been left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu
tions in their own way? I think not. I do not acknowledge the propriety,
or justice, or force of that special pleading which attempts, by technicali
ties, to fasten a Constitution upon a people which, it is admitted, they
would have voted down if they had had a chance to do so, and which does
not embody their will. Let me ask gentlemen from the South, if the case
had been reversed, would they have taken the same view of the subject?
Suppose it were ascertained, beyond doubt or cavil, that three-fourths of
the people of Kansas were in favor of a slaveholding State, and a conven
tion had been assembled by just such means and under just such circum
stances as brought the Lecompton Convention together; and suppose
that when it assembled it was ascertained that three-fourths of the con
vention were Free-soilers, while three-fourths of the people were in favor
of a slaveholding State; suppose an election took place in the Territory
during the sitting of the convention, which developed the fact that the
convention did not represent the people ; suppose that convention of Free-
soilers had proceeded to make a Constitution and allowed the people to
vote for it, but not against it, and thus forced a Free-soil Constitution
upon a slaveholding people against their will — would you, gentlemen
from the South, have submitted to the outrage? Would you have come
up here and demanded that the Free-soil Constitution, adopted at an
election where all the affirmative votes were received, and all the nega
tive votes rejected, for the reason that it would have been voted down if
the negative votes had been received, should be accepted? Would you
have said that it was fair, that it was honest, to force an Abolition Con
stitution on a slaveholding people against their will? Would you not have
come forward and have said to us that you denied that it was the embodi
ment of the public will, and demanded that it should be sent back to the
people to be voted upon, so as to ascertain the fact? Would you not have
said to us that you were willing to live up to the principle of the Nebraska
bill, to leave the people perfectly free to form such institutions as they
please; and that, if we would only send that Constitution back and let
the people have a fair vote upon it, you would abide the result? Suppose
we, being a Northern majority, had said to you, "No; we have secured

APPENDIX 227
a sectional advantage, and we intend to hold it ; and we will force this Con
stitution upon an unwilling people merely because we have the power to
do it"; would you have said that was fair?
If you admit Kansas with the Lecompton Constitution, you also admit
her with the State Government which has been brought into existence
under it. Is the evidence satisfactory that that State Government has
been fairly and honestly elected? Is the evidence satisfactory that the
elections were fairly and honestly held, and fairly and honestly returned?
You have all seen the evidence showing the fraudulent voting; the forged
returns, from precinct after precinct, changing the result not only upon
the legislative ticket, but also upon the ticket for Governor and State
officers. The false returns in regard to Delaware Crossing, changing the
complexion of the Legislature, are admitted. The evidence is equally
conclusive as to the Shawnee precinct, the Oxford precinct, the Kickapoo
precinct, and many others, making a difference of some three thousand
votes in the general aggregate, and changing the whole result of the elec
tion. Yet, sir, we are called upon to admit Kansas with the State Govern-
ment thus brought into existence not only by fraudulent voting, but
forged returns, sustained by perjury. The Senate well recollects the
efforts that I made before the subject was referred to the committee, and
since, to ascertain to whom the certificates of election were awarded, that
we might know whether they were given to the men honestly elected, or
to the men whose elections depended upon forgery and perjury. Can
any one tell me now to whom those certificates have been issued, if they
have been issued at all? Can any man tell me whether we are installing,
by receiving this State Government, officers whose sole title depends upon
forgery, or those whose title depends upon popular votes? We have been
calling for that information for about three months, but we have called
in vain. One day the rumor would be that Mr. Calhoun would declare the
free-state ticket elected, and next day that he would declare the pro-
slavery ticket elected. So it has alternated, like the chills and fever, day
after day, until within the last three days, when the action of Congress
became a little dubious, when it was doubtful whether Northern men were
willing to vote for a State Government depending upon forgery and per
jury, and then we find that the president of the Lecompton convention
addresses a letter to the editor of The Star, a newspaper in this city, tell
ing what he thinks is the result of the election. He says it is true that he
has received no answer to his letters of inquiry to Governor Denver; he
has no official information on the subject; but, from rumors and unofficial
information, he is now satisfied that the Delaware Crossing return was
a fraud; that it will be set aside; and that, accordingly, the result will
be that certificates will be issued to the free-state men. I do not mean to
deny that Mr. Calhoun may think such will be the result ; but, while he
may think so, I would rather know how the fact is. His thoughts are
not important, but the fact is vital in establishing the honesty or dis
honesty of the State Government which we are about to recognize. It

228 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
so happens that Mr. Calhoun has no more power, no more authority
over that question now than the senator from Missouri, or any other
member of this body. The celebrated Lecompton schedule provides that,
"In case of removal, absence, or disability of the president of this
convention to discharge the duties herein imposed on him, the president
pro tempore of this convention shall perform said duties; and in case of
absence, refusal, or disability of the president pro tempore, a committee
consisting of seven, or a majority of them, shall discharge the duties re
quired of the president of this convention."
As Mr. Calhoun is absent from the Territory, and, by reason of that
absence, is deprived of all authority over the subject-matter, and as the
president pro tempore has succeeded to his powers, is it satisfactory for the
deposed president to address a letter to the editor of The Star announcing
his private opinion as to who has been elected? I should like to know
who the president pro tempore is, and where he is; and if he is in Kansas,
whether he has arrived at the same conclusion which the ex-president
Calhoun has announced. I should like to know whether that president
pro tempore has already issued his certificate to the pro-slavery men in
Kansas, while Mr. Calhoun expresses the opinion in The Star that the cer
tificates will be issued to the free-state men? If that president pro tempore
has become a fugitive from justice, and escaped from the Territory, I
should like then to know who are the committee of seven that were to take
his place; and whether they, or a majority of them, have arrived at the
same conclusion to which Mr. Calhoun has come ? Inasmuch as this opinion
is published to the world just before the vote is to be taken here, and is
expected to catch the votes of some green members of one body or the
other, I should like to know whether certificates have been issued? and,
if so, by whom, and to whom? where the president pro tempore is? where
the committee of seven may be found? and then we might know who
constitute the Legislature, and who constitute the State Government
which we are to bring into being. We are not only to admit Kansas with
a Constitution, but with a State Government; with a Governor, a Legisla
ture, a judiciary; with executive, legislative, judicial, and ministerial
officers. Inasmuch as we are told by the President that the first Legisla
ture may take steps to call a convention to change the Constitution, I
should like to know of whom that Legislature is composed? Inasmuch
as the Governor would have the power to veto an act of the Legislature
calling a convention, I should like to know who is Governor, so that I
may judge whether he would veto such an act? Cannot our good friends
get the president pro tempore of the convention to write a letter to The
Star? Can they not procure a letter from the committee of seven? Can
they not clear up this mystery, and relieve our suspicious minds of any
thing unfair or foul in the arrangement of this matter? Let us know how
the fact is.
This publication of itself is calculated to create more apprehension than
there was before. As long as Mr. Calhoun took the ground that he would
never declare the result until Lecompton was admitted, and that, if it was

APPENDIX 229
not admitted, he would never make the decision, there seemed to be some
reason in his course; but when, after taking that ground for months, it
became understood that Lecompton was dead, or was lingering and lan
guishing, and likely to die, and when a few more votes were necessary,
and a pretext was necessary to be given in order to secure them, we find
this letter published by the deposed ex-president, giving his opinion when
he had no power over the subject; and when it appears by the Constitu
tion itself that another man or another body of men has the decision in
their hands, it is calculated to arouse our suspicions as to what the result
will be after Lecompton is admitted.
Mr. President, in the course of the debate on this bill, before I was com
pelled to absent myself from the Senate on account of sickness (and I pre
sume the same has been the case during my absence), much was said on
the slavery question in connection with the admission of Kansas. Many
gentlemen have labored to produce the impression that the whole opposi
tion to the admission arises out of the fact that the Lecompton Constitu
tion makes Kansas a slave State. I am sure that no gentleman here will
do me the injustice to assert or suppose that my opposition is predicated
on that consideration, in view of the fact that my speech against the ad
mission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution was made on the
ninth of December, two weeks before the vote was taken upon the slavery
clause in Kansas, and when the general impression was that the pro-
slavery clause would be excluded. I predicated my opposition then, as
I do now, upon the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental
principles of government, a violation of popular sovereignty, a violation
of the Democratic platform, a violation of all party platforms, and a fatal
blow to the independence of the new States. I told you then, that you had
no more right to force a free-state Constitution upon a people against their
will, than you had to force a slave-state Constitution. Will gentlemen say,
that, on the other side, slavery has no influence in producing that united,
almost unanimous support which we find from gentlemen living in one
section of the Union in favor of the Lecompton Constitution? If slavery
had nothing to do with it, would there have been so much hesitation about
Mr. Calhoun's declaring the result of the election prior to the vote in Con
gress? I submit, then, whether we ought not to discard the slavery ques
tion altogether, and approach the real question before us fairly, calmly,
dispassionately, and decide whether, but for the slavery clause, this Le
compton Constitution could receive a single vote in either house of Congress.
Were it not for the slavery clause, would there be any objection to sending
it back to the people for a vote? Were it not for the slavery clause, would
there be any objection to letting Kansas wait until she had ninety thou
sand people, instead of coming into the Union with not over forty-five or
fifty thousand? Were it not for the slavery question, would Kansas have
occupied any considerable portion of our thoughts ? would it have divided
and distracted political parties so as to create bitter and acrimonious
feelings? I say, now, to our Southern friends, that I will act, on this ques
tion on the right of the people to decide for themselves, irrespective of the

230 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
fact whether they decide for or against slavery, provided it be submitted
to a fair vote at a fair election, and with honest returns.
In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I
seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which they
publish in regard to myself; but the course of The Washington Union has
been so extraordinary for the last two or three months, that I think it
well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Demo
cratic party every other day, at least, for two or three months, and keeps
reading me out; and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read
me out, using such terms as "traitor," "renegade," "deserter," and other
kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make
of my Democracy against The Washington Union, or any other newspaper.
I am willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to
speak for themselves as to my political principles and my fidelity to political
obligations. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. When its
editor was nominated for public printer I declined to vote for him, and
stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I
declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and con
stant attacks, have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend
from Michigan read the article to which I allude?
[Mr. Stuart read the editorial article from The Washington Union of
November 17, 1857.]
Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions
advanced boldly by The Washington Union editorially and apparently
authoritatively, and every man who questions any of them is denounced
as an Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first,
that the primary object of all government at its original institution is the
protection of person and property; second, that the Constitution of
the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and
that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which
prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave
property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the
original intention of the Government and Constitution of the United
States; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern
States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was
involuntarily done on the part of the owners.
Remember that this article was published in The Union on the seven
teenth of November, and on the eighteenth appeared the first article giving
the adhesion of The Union to the Lecompton Constitution.
The proposition is advanced that the emancipation acts of New York,
of New England, of Pennsylvania, and of New Jersey, were unconstitu
tional, were outrages upon the right of property, were violations of the
Constitution of the United States. The proposition is advanced that a
Southern man has a right to move from South Carolina, with his negroes,
into Illinois, to settle there and hold them there; as slaves, anything in

APPENDIX 231
the Constitution and laws of Illinois to the contrary notwithstanding.
The proposition is, that a citizen of Virginia has rights in a free State which
a citizen of a free State cannot himself have. We prohibit ourselves from
holding slaves within our own limits, and yet, according to this doctrine,
a citizen of Kentucky can move into our State, bring in one hundred slaves
with him, and hold them as such in defiance of the Constitution and laws
of our own State. If that proposition is true, the creed of the Democratic
party is false. The principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill is, that "each
State and each Territory shall be left perfectly free to form and regulate
its domestic institutions in its own way, subject only to the Constitution
of the United States." I claim that Illinois has the sovereign right to pro
hibit slavery, a right as undeniable as that the sovereignty of Virginia
may authorize its existence. We have the same right to prohibit it that
you have to recognize and protect it. Each State is sovereign within its
own sphere of powers, sovereign in respect to its own domestic and local
institutions and internal concerns. So long as you regulate your local
institutions to suit yourselves, we are content; but when you claim the
right to override our laws and our Constitution, and deny our right to form
our institutions to suit ourselves, I protest against it. The same doctrine
is asserted in this Lecompton Constitution. There it is stated that the
right of property in slaves is "before and higher than any constitutional
sanction." Mr. President, I recognize the right of the slaveholding States to regu
late their local institutions, to claim the services of their slaves under their
own State laws, and I am prepared to perform each and every one of my
obligations under the Constitution of the United States in respect to them ;
but I do not admit, and I do not think they are safe in asserting, that their
right of property in slaves is higher than and above constitutional sanc
tion, is independent of constitutional obligations. When you rely upon
the Constitution and upon your own laws, you are safe. When you go
beyond and above constitutional obligations, I know not where your
safety is. If this doctrine be true, that slavery is higher than the Constitu
tion, and above the Constitution, it necessarily follows that a State can
not abolish it, cannot prohibit it, and the doctrine of The Washington
Union, that the emancipation laws were outrages on the rights of property
and violations of the Constitution, becomes the law.
When I saw that article in The Union of the seventeenth of November,
followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the eigh
teenth of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doc
trine that no State has a right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw
that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States
of this Union, a death-blow to State rights, subversive of the Democratic
platform and of the principles upon which the Democratic party have ever
stood, and upon which I trust they ever will stand. Because of these ex
traordinary doctrines, I declined to vote for the editor of The Washington
Union for public printer, and for that refusal, as I suppose, I have been
read out of the party by the editor of The Union at least every other day

232 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
from that time to this. Sir, I submit the question : Who has deserted the
Democratic party and the Democratic platform — he who stands by the
sovereign rights of the State to abolish and prohibit slavery as it pleases,
or he who attempts to strike down the sovereignty of the States, and com
bine all power in one central Government, and establish an empire instead
of a confederacy?
The principles upon which the Presidential campaign of 1856 was fought
are well known to the country. At least in Illinois I think I am authorized
to state that they were with clearness and precision, so far as the slavery
question is concerned. The Democracy of Illinois are prepared to stand
on the platform upon which the battle of 1856 was fought. It was,
First. The migration or importation of negroes into the country hav
ing been prohibited since 1808, never again to be renewed, each State will
take care of its own colored population.
Second. That while negroes are not citizens of the United States, and
hence not entitled to political equality with whites, they should enjoy all
the rights, privileges, and immunities which they are capable of exercising,
consistent with the safety and welfare of the community where they live.
Third. That each State and Territory must judge and determine for
itself of the nature and extent of its rights and privileges.
Fourth. That while each free State should and will maintain and pro
tect all the rights of the slaveholding States, they will, each for itself, main
tain and defend its sovereign right within its own limits to form and regu
late their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States.
Fifth. That in the language of Mr. Buchanan's letter of acceptance of
the Presidential nomination, the Nebraska-Kansas Act does no more than
give the form of law to this elementary principle of self-government when
it declares "that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall de
cide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their
limits." These were the general propositions on which we maintained the canvass
on the slavery question — the right of each State to decide for itself; that
a negro should have such rights as he was capable of enjoying, and could
enjoy, consistently with the safety and welfare of society; and that each
State should decide for itself the nature, and extent, and description of
those rights and privileges. Hence, if you choose in North Carolina to
have slaves, it is your business, and not ours. If we choose in Illi
nois to prohibit slavery, it is our right, and you must not interfere
with it. If New York chooses to give privileges to the negro which we
withhold, it is her right to extend them, but she must not attempt to force
us to do the same thing. Let each State take care of its own affairs, mind
its own business, and let its neighbors alone, then there will be peace in
the country. Whenever you attempt to enforce uniformity, and, judging
that a peculiar institution is good for you, and therefore good for every
body else, try to enforce it on everybody, you will find that there will be
resistance to the demand. Our Government was not formed on the idea

APPENDIX 233
that there was to be uniformity of local laws or local institutions. It was
founded upon the supposition that there must be diversity and variety
in the institutions and laws. Our fathers foresaw that the local institu
tions which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be ill
adapted to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They foresaw that
the institutions which would be well adapted to the mountains and valleys
of Pennsylvania would not suit the plantation interests of Virginia. They
foresaw that the great diversity of climate, of production, of interests,
would require a corresponding diversity of local laws and local institutions.
For this reason they provided for thirteen separate States, each with a
separate Legislature, and each State sovereign within its own sphere, with
the right to make all its local laws and local institutions to suit itself, on
the supposition that they would be as different and as diversified as the
number of States themselves. Then the general Government was made,
with a Congress having limited and specified powers, extending only to
those subjects which were national and not local, which were federal and
not State.
I do not recognize the right of the President or his cabinet, no matter
what my respect may be for them, to tell me my duty in the Senate Cham
ber. The President has his duties to perform under the Constitution, and
he is responsible to his constituency. A senator has his duties to perform
here under the Constitution and according to his oath, and he is responsi
ble to the sovereign State which he represents as his constituency. A
member of the House of Representatives has his duties under the Con
stitution and his oath, and he is responsible to the people that elected him.
The President has no more right to prescribe tests to senators than senators
have to the President; the President has no more right to prescribe tests
to the representatives than the representatives have to the President.
Suppose we here should attempt to prescribe a test of faith to the Presi
dent of the United States, would he not rebuke our impertinence and im
pudence as subversive of the fundamental principle of the Constitution?
Would he not tell us that the Constitution, and his oath, and his conscience
were his guides; that we must perform our duties, and he would perform
his, and let each be responsible to his own constituency?
Sir, whenever the time comes that the President of the United States
can change the allegiance of the senators from the States to himself, what
becomes of the sovereignty of the States? When the time comes that a
senator is to account to the executive and not to his State, whom does he
represent? If the will of my State is one way and the will of the President
is the other, am I to be told that I must obey the executive and betray my
State, or else be branded as a traitor to the party, and hunted down by all
the newspapers that share the patronage of the Government? and every
man who holds a petty office in any part of my State to have the question
put to him, "Are you Douglas's enemy? If not, your head comes off"?
Why? " Because he is a recreant senator; because he chooses to follow
his judgment and his conscience, and represent his State instead of obeying

234 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
my executive behest." I should like to know what is the use of Congresses ;
what is the use of Senates and Houses of Representatives, when their
highest duty is to obey the executive in disregard of the wishes, rights,
and honor of their constituents? What despotism on earth would be equal
to this, if you establish the doctrine that the executive has a right to com
mand the votes, the consciences, the judgment of the senators and of the
representatives, instead of their constituents? In old England, whose
oppressions we thought intolerable, an administration is hurled from power
in an hour when voted down by the representatives of the people upon a
Government measure. If the rule of old England applied here, this cabinet
would have gone out of office when the Army Bill was voted down, the
other day, in the House of Representatives. There, in that monarchical
country, where they have a queen by divine right, and lords by the grace
of God, and where Republicanism is supposed to have but a slight foot
hold, the representatives of the people can check the throne, restrain the
Government, change the ministry, and give a new direction to the policy
of the Government, without being accountable to the King or the Queen.
There the representatives of the people are responsible to their consti
tuents. Across the Channel, under Louis Napoleon, it may be otherwise;
yet I doubt whether it would be so boldly proclaimed there that a man
is a traitor for daring to vote according to his sense of duty, according to
the will of his State, according to the interests of his constituents.
For my own part, Mr. President, come what may, I intend to vote,
speak, and act according to my own sense of duty so long as I hold a seat
in this chamber. I stand firmly, immovably upon those great principles
of self-government and State sovereignty upon which the campaign was
fought and the election won. I stand by the time-honored principles of
the Democratic party, illustrated by Jefferson and Jackson — those prin
ciples of State rights, of State sovereignty, of strict construction, on which
the great Democratic party has ever stood. I will stand by the Constitu
tion of the United States, with all its compromises, and perform all my
obligations under it. I will stand by the American Union as it exists under
the Constitution. If, standing firmly by my principles, I shall be driven
into private life, it is a fate that has no terrors for me. I prefer private
life, preserving my own self-respect and manhood, to abject and servile
submission to executive will. If the alternative be private life or servile
obedience to executive will, I am prepared to retire. Official position has
no charms for me when deprived of that freedom of thought and action
which becomes a gentleman and a senator.

LETTER TO GOVERNOR MATTESON ON INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENTS Washington, January 2d, 1854.
Sir, — I learn from the public press that yoU have under consideration
the proposition to convene the Legislature in special session. In the event
such a step shall be demanded by the public voice and necessities, I desire
to invite your attention to a subject of great interest to our people, which
may require legislative action. I refer to the establishment of some effi
cient and permanent system for river and harbor improvements. Those
portions of the Union most deeply interested in internal navigation nat
urally feel that their interests have been neglected, if not paralyzed, by
an uncertain, vacillating, and partial policy. Those who reside upon the
banks of the Mississippi, or on the shores of the great Northern Lakes,
and whose lives and property are frequently exposed to the mercy of the
elements for want of harbors of refuge and means of safety, have never
been able to comprehend the force of that distinction between fresh and
salt water, which affirms the power and duty of Congress, under the Con
stitution, to provide security to navigation so far as the tide ebbs and
flows, and denies the existence of the right beyond the tidal mark. Our
lawyers may have read in English books that, by the common law, all
waters were deemed navigable so far as the tide extended and no farther;
but they should also have learned from the same authority that the law
was founded upon reason, and where the reason failed the rule ceased to
exist. In England, where they have neither lake nor river, nor other
water which is, in fact, navigable, except where the tide rolls its briny
wave, it was natural that the law should conform to the fact, and estab
lish that as a rule which the experience of all men proved to be founded
in truth and reason. But it may well be questioned whether, if the common
law had originated on the shores of Lake Michigan — a vast inland sea
with an average depth of six hundred feet — it would have been deemed
"not navigable," merely because the tide did not flow, and the water was
fresh and well adapted to the uses and necessities of man. We therefore
feel authorized to repudiate, as unreasonable and unjust, all injurious dis
crimination predicated upon salt water and tidal arguments, and to insist
that if the power of Congress to protect navigation has any existence in
the Constitution, it reaches every portion of this Union where the water
is in fact navigable, and only ceases where the fact fails to exist. This
power has been affirmed in some form, and exercised to a greater or less
extent, by each successive Congress and every administration since the

236 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
adoption of the Federal Constitution. All acts of Congress providing for
the erection of lighthouses, the placing of buoys, the construction of piers,
the removal of snags, the dredging of channels, the inspection of steam
boat boilers, the carrying of life-boats, — in short, all enactments for the
security of navigation, and the safety of life and property within our navi
gable waters, assert the existence of this power and the propriety of its
exercise in some form.
The great and growing interest of navigation is too important to be
overlooked or disregarded. Mere negative action will not answer. The
irregular and vacillating policy which has marked our legislation upon
this subject is ruinous. Whenever appropriations have been proposed
for river and harbor improvements, and especially on the Northern lakes
and the Western rivers, there has usually been a death-struggle and a
doubtful issue. We have generally succeeded with an appropriation once
in four or five years; in other words, we have, upon an average, been
beaten about four times out of five in one house of Congress or the other,
or both, or by the Presidential veto. When we did succeed, a large portion
of the appropriation was expended in providing dredging-machines and
snag-boats and other necessary machinery and implements; and by the
time the work was fairly begun, the appropriation was exhausted, and
further operations suspended. Failing to procure an additional appro
priation at the next session, and perhaps for two, three, or four successive
sessions, the administration has construed the refusal of Congress to pro
vide the funds for the prosecution of the works into an abandonment of
the system, and has accordingly deemed it a duty to sell at public auction
the dredging-machines and snag-boats, implements and materials on
hand, for whatever they would bring. Soon the country was again startled
by the frightful accounts of wrecks and explosions, fires and snags upon
the rivers, the lakes, and the sea-coast. The responsibility of these appal
ling sacrifices of life and property were charged upon those who defeated
the appropriations for the prosecution of the works. Sympathy was ex
cited, and a concerted plan of agitation and organization formed by the
interested sections and parties to bring their combined influence to bear
upon Congress in favor of the reestablishment of the system on an enlarged
scale, sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the local interests and in
fluences in a majority of the Congressional districts of the Union. A
legislative omnibus was formed, in which all sorts of works were crowded
together, good and bad, wise and foolish, national and local, all crammed
into one bill, and forced through Congress by the power of an organized
majority, after the fearful and exhausting struggle of a night session. The
bill would receive the votes of a majority in each House, not because any
one senator or representative approved all the items contained in it, but
for the reason that humanity, as well as the stern demands of an injured
and suffering constituency, required that they should make every needful
sacrifice of money to diminish the terrible loss of human life by the perils
of navigation. The result was a simple reenactment of the former scenes.
Machinery, implements, and materials purchased, the works recommenced

APPENDIX 237
— the money exhaustea — subsequent appropriations withheld — and
the operations suspended, without completing the improvements, or con
tributing materially to the safety of navigation. Indeed, it may well be
questioned whether, as a general rule, the money has been wisely and
economically applied, and in many cases whether the expenditure has
been productive of any useful results beyond the mere distribution of so
much money among contractors, laborers, and superintendents in the
favored localities ; and in others, whether it has not been of positive detri
ment to the navigating interest.
I see no hope for any more favorable results from national appropria
tions than we have heretofore realized. If, then, we are to judge the system
by its results, taking the past as a fair indication of what might reasonably
be expected in the future, those of us who have struggled hardest to render
it efficient and useful are compelled to confess that it has proven a miserable
failure. It is even worse than a failure, because, while it has failed to ac
complish the desired objects, it has had the effect to prevent local and
private enterprise from making the improvements under State authority,
by holding out the expectation that the Federal Government was about
to make them.
Let the history of internal improvements by the Federal Government be
fairly written, and it will furnish conclusive answers to these interrogato
ries. For more than a quarter of a century the energies of the national
Government, together with all the spare funds in the treasury, were directed
to the construction of a macadamized road from Cumberland, in the State
of Maryland, to Jefferson City, in the State of Missouri, without being able
to complete one-third of the work. If the Government was unable to make
three hundred miles of turnpike road in twenty-five years, how long would
it take to construct a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, and to make all the
harbor and river improvements necessary to protect our widely-extended
and rapidly-increasing commerce on a sea^coast so extensive that in forty
years we have not been able to complete even the survey of one-half of it,
and on a lake and river navigation more than four times as extensive as
that sea-coast? These questions are worthy of the serious consideration
of those who think that improvements should be made for the benefit of
the present generation as well as for our remote posterity; for I am not
aware that the Federal Government ever completed any work of internal
improvement commenced under its auspices.
The operations of the Government have not been sufficiently rapid to
keep pace with the spirit of the age. The Cumberland Road, when com
menced, may have been well adapted for the purposes for which it was
designed; but after the lapse of a quarter of a century, and before any
considerable portion of it could be finished, the whole was superseded
and rendered useless by the introduction of the railroad system.
I repeat that the policy heretofore pursued has proved worse than a

238 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
failure. If we expect to provide facilities and securities for our navigating
interests, we must adopt a system commensurate with our wants — one
which will be just and equal in its operations upon lake, river, and ocean,
wherever the water is navigable, fresh or salt, tide or no tide — a sys
tem which will not depend for its success upon the dubious and fluctuating
issues of political campaigns and Congressional combinations — one which
will be certain, uniform, and unvarying in its results. I know of no system
better calculated to accomplish these objects than that which commanded
the approbation of the founders of the republic, was successively adopted
on various occasions since that period, and directly referred to in the
message of the President. It is evidently the system contemplated by
the framers of the Constitution when they incorporated into that in
strument the clause in relation to tonnage duties by the States with the
assent of Congress. The debates show that this provision was inserted for
the express purpose of enabling the States to levy duties of tonnage to
make harbor and other improvements for the benefit of navigation. It
was objected that the power to regulate commerce having already been
vested exclusively in Congress, the jurisdiction of the States over harbor
and river improvements, without the consent or supervision of the Federal
Government, might be so exercised as to conflict with the Congressional
regulations in respect to commerce. In order to avoid this objection, and
at the same time reserve to the States the power of making the necessary
improvements, consistent with such rules as should be prescribed by Con
gress for the regulation of commerce, the provision was modified and
adopted in the form in which we now find it in the Constitution, to wit:
"no State shall lay duties of tonnage except by the consent of Congress." It
is evident from the debates that the framers of the Constitution looked to
tonnage duties as the source from which funds were to be derived for im
provements in navigation. The only diversity of opinion among them
arose upon the point whether those duties shoud be levied and the works
constructed by the Federal Government or under State authority. These
doubts were solved by the clause quoted, providing, in effect, that while
the power was reserved to the States, it should not be exercised except by
the consent of Congress, in order that the local legislation for the improve
ment of navigation might not conflict with the general enactments for the
regulation of commerce. Yet the first Congress which assembled under
the Constitution commenced that series of contradictory and partial enact
ments which has continued to the present time, and proven the fruitful
source of conflict and dissension.
The first of these acts provided that all expenses for the support of light
houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers should be paid out of the national
treasury, on the condition that the States in which the same should be
situated respectively should cede to the United States the said works,
"together with the lands and tenements thereunto belonging, and together
with the jurisdiction of the same." A few months afterward the same
Congress passed an act consenting that the States of Rhode Island, Mary
land, and Georgia might levy tonnage duties for the purpose of improving

APPENDIX 239
certain harbors and rivers within their respective limits. This contra
dictory legislation upon a subject of great national importance, although
commenced by the first Congress, and frequently suspended and renewed
at uncertain and irregular periods, seems never to have been entirely
abandoned. While appropriations from the national treasury have been
partial and irregular — sometimes granted and at others withheld — stimu
lating hopes only to be succeeded by disappointments, tonnage duties
have also been collected by the consent of Congress, at various times and
for limited periods, in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and per
haps other States. Indeed, there has never been a time, since the Declara
tion of Independence, when tonnage duties have not been collected under
State authority for the improvement of rivers or harbors, or both. The
last act giving the consent of Congress to the collection of these duties was
passed for the benefit of the port of Baltimore in 1850, and will not expire
until 1861.
Thus it will be seen that the proposition to pass a general law giving the
consent of Congress to the imposition of tonnage duties according to a uni
form rule, and upon equal terms in all the States and Territories of the
Union, does not contemplate the introduction of a new principle into our
legislation upon this subject. It only proposes to convert a partial and
fluctuating policy into a permanent and efficient system.
If this proposition should receive the sanction of Congress, and be car
ried into successful operation by the States, it would withdraw river and
harbor improvements from the perils of the political arena, and commit
them to the fostering care of the local authorities, with a steady and un
ceasing source of revenue for their prosecution. The system would be plain,
direct, and simple in respect to harbor improvements. Each town and
city would have charge of the improvement of its own harbor, and would
be authorized to tax its own commerce to the extent necessary for its con
struction. The money could be applied to no other object than the im
provement of the harbor, and no higher duties could be levied than were
necessary for that purpose. There would seem to be no danger of the power
being abused; for, in addition to the restrictions, limitations, and condi
tions which should be embraced in the laws conferring the consent of Con
gress, self-interest will furnish adequate and ample assurances and motives
for the faithful execution of the trusts. If any town whose harbor needs im
provement should fail to impose the duties and make the necessary works,
such neglect would inevitably tend to drive the commerce to some rival
port, which would use all the means in its power to render its harbor safe
and commodious, and afford all necessary protection and facilities to
navigation and trade. If, on the other hand, any place should attempt
to impose higher duties than will be absolutely necessary for the construc
tion of the requisite improvements, this line of policy, to the extent of the
excess, would have the same deleterious effects upon its prosperity. The
same injurious influences would result from errors and blunders in the plan
of the work, or from extravagance and corruption in the expenditure of

240 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
the money. Hence each locality, and every citizen and person interested
therein, would have a direct and personal interest in the adoption of a wise
plan, and in securing strict economy and entire fidelity in the expenditure
of the money. While upon the rivers the plan of operations would not be
so direct and simple as in the improvement of harbors, yet even there it
is not perceived that any serious inconvenience or obstacle would arise to
the success of the system. It would be necessary that the law, which shall
grant the consent of Congress to the imposition of the duties, shall also
give a like consent in conformity with the same provision of the Constitu
tion, that where the river to be improved shall form the boundary of, or
be situated in two or more States, such States may enter into compacts
with each other, by which they may, under their joint authority, levy the
duties and improve the navigation.
In this manner Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey could enter
into a compact for the improvement of the Delaware River, by which each
would appoint one commissioner, and the three commissioners constitute
a board, which would levy the duties, prescribe the mode of their collec
tion, devise the plan of the improvement, and superintend the expenditure
of the money. The six States bordering on the Ohio River, in like manner,
could each appoint a commissioner, and the six constitute a board for the
improvement of the navigation of that river from Pittsburg to the Miss
issippi. The same plan could be applied to the Mississippi, by which the
nine States bordering upon that stream could each appoint one commis
sioner, and the nine form a board for the removal of snags and other ob
structions in the channel from the Falls of St. Anthony to the Gulf of
Mexico. There seems to be no difficulty, therefore, in the execution of
the plan where the water-course lies in two or more States, or forms the
boundary thereof in whole or in part; and where the river is entirely
within the limits of any one State, like the Illinois or Alabama, it may be
improved in such manner as the Legislature may prescribe, subject only
to such conditions and limitations as may be contained in the act of Con
gress giving its consent. AH the necessities and difficulties upon this
subject seem to have been foreseen and provided for in the same clause
of the Constitution, wherein it is declared, in effect, that, with the con
sent of Congress, tonnage duties may be levied for the improvement of
rivers and harbors, and that the several States may enter into compacts
with each other for that purpose whenever it shall become necessary,
subject only to such rules as Congress shall prescribe for the regulation of
commerce. It only remains for me to notice some of the objections which have been
urged to this system. It has been said that tonnage duties are taxes upon
the commerce of the country, which must be paid in the end by the con
sumers of the articles bearing the burden. I do not feel disposed to ques
tion the soundness of this proposition. I presume the same is true of all
the duties, tolls, and charges upon all public works, whether constructed
by Government or individuals. The State of New York derives a revenue
of more than two millions of dollars a year from her canals. Of course this

APPENDIX 241
is a tax upon the commerce of the country, and is borne by those who are
interested in and benefited by it. This tax is a blessing or a burden, de
pendent upon the fact whether it has the effect to diminish or increase
the cost of transportation. If we could not have enjoyed the benefit of the
canal without the payment of the tolls, and if, by its construction and
the payment, the cost of transportation has been reduced to one-tenth the
sum which we would have been compelled to have paid without it, who
would not be willing to make a still further contribution to the security
and facilities of navigation, if thereby the price of freights is to be reduced
in a still greater ratio ? The tolls upon our own canal are a tax upon com
merce, yet we cheerfully submit to the payment for the reason that they
were indispensable to the construction of a great work, which has had the
effect to reduce the cost of transportation between the Lakes and the Miss
issippi far below what it would have been if the canal had not been made.
All the charges on the fourteen thousand miles of railroad now in opera
tion in the different States of this Union are just so many taxes upon com
merce and travel, yet we do not repudiate the whole railroad system on
that account, nor object to the payment of such reasonable charges as are
necessary to defray the expenses of constructing and operating them.
But it may be said that if all the railroads and canals were built with funds
from the national treasury, and were then thrown open to the uses of com
merce and travel free of charge, the rates of transportation would be less
than they now are. It may be that the rates of transportation would be
less, but would our taxes be reduced thereby? No matter who is intrusted
with the construction of the works, somebody must foot the bill. If the
Federal Government undertake to make railroads and canals, and river
and harbor improvements, somebody must pay the expenses. In order
to meet this enlarged expenditure, it would be necessary to augment the
revenue by increased taxes upon the commerce of the country. The whole
volume of revenue which now fills and overflows the national treasury,
with the exception of the small item resulting from the sales of public
lands, is derived from a system of taxes imposed upon commerce and col
lected through the machinery of the custom-houses. No matter, therefore,
whether these works are made by the Federal Government, or by stimu
lating and combining local and individual enterprise under State authority;
in any event, they remain a tax upon commerce to the extent of the ex
penditure. That system which will insure the construction of the improvements
upon the best plan and at the smallest cost will prove the least oppres
sive to the tax-payer and the most useful to commerce. It requires no
argument to prove — for every day's experience teaches us — that public
works of every description can be made at a much smaller cost by private
enterprise, or by the local authorities directly interested in the improve
ment, than when constructed by the Federal Government. Hence, inas
much as the expenses of constructing river and harbor improvements
must, under either plan, be defrayed by a tax upon commerce in the first
instance, and finally upon the whole people interested in that commerce,
16

242 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
I am of the opinion that the burdens would be less under this system re
ferred to in the message than by appropriations from the federal treasury.
In conclusion, I will state that my object in addressing you this communi
cation is to invite your special attention to so much of the President's Mes
sage as relates to river and harbor improvements, with the view that when
the Legislature shall assemble, either in special or general session, the sub
ject may be distinctly submitted to their consideration for such action as
the great interests of commerce may demand.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your friend and fellow-citizen,
S. A. Douglas.
Joel A. Matteson, Governor of the State of Illinois.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON THE PACIFIC RAILWAY
(Delivered April 17, 1858)
Various objections have been raised to this bill, some referring to the route,
involving sectional consideration ; others to the form of the bill ; others to
the present time as inauspicious for the construction of such a railroad
under any circumstances. Sir, I have examined this bill very carefully. I
was a member of the committee that framed it, and I gave my cordial
assent to the report. I am free to say that I think it is the best bill that
has ever been reported to the Senate of the United States for the construc
tion of a Pacific railroad. I say this with entire disinterestedness, for I
have heretofore reported several myself, and I believe I have invariably
been a member of the committees that have reported such bills. I am
glad to find that we have progressed to such an extent as to be able to im
prove on the former bills that have, from time to time, been brought before
the Senate of the United States. This may not be perfect. It is difficult
to make human legislation entirely perfect; at any rate, to so construct it
as to bring about an entire unanimity of opinion upon a question that in
volves, to some extent, selfish, sectional, and partisan considerations. But,
sir, I think this bill is fair. First, it is fair in the location of the route, as
between the different sections. The termini are fixed. Then the route
between the termini is to be left to the contractors and owners of the
road, who are to put their capital into it, and, for weal or for woe, are to
be responsible for its management.
What is the objection to these termini? San Francisco, upon the Pacific,
is not only central, but it is the great commercial mart, the great concen
trating point, the great entrepot for the commerce of the Pacific, not only
in the present, but in the future. That point was selected as the western
terminus for the reason that there seemed to be a unanimous sentiment
that whatever might be the starting-point on the east, the system would
not be complete until it should reach the city of San Francisco on the
west. I suggested, myself, in the committee, the selection of that very
point; not that I had any objection to other points; not that I was any
more friendly to San Francisco and her inhabitants than to any other port
on the Pacific; but because I believe that to be the commanding port,
the large city where trade concentrates, and its position indicated it as
the proper terminus on the Pacific Ocean.
Then, in regard to the eastern terminus, a point on the Missouri River is
selected for various reasons. One is, that it is central as between the North
and South — as nearly central as could be selected. It was necessary to

244 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
commence on the Missouri River, if you were going to take a central route,
in order that the starting-point might connect with navigation, so that
you might reach it by boats in carrying your iron, your supplies, and your
materials for the commencement and the construction of the road. It was
essential that you should commence at a point of navigation so that you
could connect with the sea-board. If you start it at a point back in the
interior five hundred or a thousand miles — as it is proposed, at El Paso
— from the navigable waters of the Mississippi, it would cost you more
money to carry the iron, provisions, supplies, and men to that starting-
point, than it would to make a road from the Mississippi to the starting-
point, in order to begin the work. In that case it would be a matter of
economy to make a road to your starting-point in order to begin. Hence,
in my opinion, it would be an act of folly to think of starting a railroad
to the Pacific at a point eight hundred or a thousand miles in the interior,
away from any connection with navigable water, or with other railroads
already in existence.
For these reasons, we agreed in the bill to commence on the Missouri
River. When you indicate that river, a little diversity of opinion arises as
to what point on the river shall be selected. There are various respectable,
thriving towns on either bank of the river, each of which thinks it is the
exact position where the road ought to commence. I suppose that Kansas
City, Wyandotte, Weston, Leavenworth, Atchison, Plattsmouth city,
Omaha, De Soto, Sioux City, and various other towns whose names have
not become familiar to us, and have found no resting-place on the map,
each thinks that it has the exact place where the road should begin. Well,
sir, I do not desire to show any preference between these towns; either of
them would suit me very well; and we leave it to the contractors to say
which shall be the one. We leave the exact eastern terminus open for the
reason that the public interests will be substantially as well served by the
selection of one as another. It is not so at the western terminus. San
Francisco does not occupy that relation to the towns on the Pacific coast
that these little towns on the Missouri River do to the country east of
the Missouri. The public have no material interest in the question whether
it shall start at the mouth of the Kansas, at Weston, at Leavenworth, at
St. Joseph, at Plattsmouth, or at Sioux City. Either connects with the
great lines; either would be substantially central as between North and
South. So far as I am concerned, I should not care a sixpence which of
those towns was selected as the starting-point, because they start there
upon a plain that stretches for eight hundred miles, and can connect with
the whole railroad system of the country. You can go directly west. You
can bend to the north and connect with the northern roads, or bend to
the south and connect with the southern roads.
The senator from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] would be satisfied, as I under
stand, with the termini, if we had selected one intermediate point, so as to
indicate the route that should be taken between the termini. I understand
that he would be satisfied if we should indicate that it should go south of
Santa Fe, so as to include as the probable line the Albuquerque route, or

APPENDIX 245
the one on the thirty-fifth parallel, or the one south of it. Sir, I am free to
say that, individually, I should have no objection to the route indicated
by the senator from Georgia. I have great faith that the Albuquerque
route is an exceedingly favorable one; favorable in its grades, in the short
ness of its distances, in its climate, the absence of deep snow, and in the
topography of the country. While it avoids very steep grades, it fur
nishes, perhaps, as much of grass, of timber, of water, of materials neces
sary for the construction and repair of the road, if not more, than any other
route. As a Northern man, living upon the great line of the lakes, you can
not indicate a route that I think would subserve our interests, and
the great interests of this country, better than that; yet, if I expressed the
opinion that the line ought to go on that route between the termini, some
other man would say it ought to go on Governor Stevens's extreme north
ern route; some one else would say it ought to go on the South Pass
route ; and we should divide the friends of the measure as to the point at
which the road should pass the mountains — whether at the extreme
north, at the centre, the Albuquerque route, or the further southern one
down in Arizona — and we should be unable to decide between ourselves
which was best.
I have sometimes thought that the extreme northern route, known as
the Stevens route, was the best, as furnishing better grass, more timber,
more water, more of those elements necessary in constructing, repairing,
operating, and maintaining a road, than any other. I think now that the
preference, merely upon routes, is between the northern or Stevens route
on the one side, and the Albuquerque route on the other. Still, as I never
expect to put a dollar of money into the road, as I never expect to have
any agency or connection with or interest in it, I am willing to leave the
selection of the route between the termini to those who are to put their
fortunes and connect their character with the road, and to be responsible
in the most tender of all points, if they make a mistake in the selection.
But for these considerations, I should have cheerfully yielded to the sug
gestion of the senator from Georgia to fix the crossing-point on the Rio
Grande River.
But, sir, I am unwilling to lose this great measure merely because of a
difference of opinion as to what shall be the pass selected in the Rocky
Mountains through which the road shall run. I believe it is a great national
measure. I believe it is the greatest practical measure now pending before
the country. I believe that we have arrived at that period in our history
when our great substantial interests require it. The interests of commerce,
the great interests of travel and communication — those still greater in
terests that bind the Union together, and are to make and preserve the
continent as one and indivisible — all demand that this road shall be com
menced, prosecuted, and completed at the earliest practicable moment.
I am unwilling to postpone the bill until next December. I have seen
these postponements from session to session for the last eight or ten years,
with the confident assurance every year that at the next session we should
have abundance of time to take up the bill and act upon it. Sir, will you

246 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
be better prepared at the next session than now? We have now the whole
summer before us, drawing our pay, and proposing to perform no service.
Next December you will have but ninety days, with all the unfinished busi
ness left over, your appropriation bills on hand, and not only the regular
bills, but the new deficiency bill ; and you will postpone this measure again
for the want of time to consider it then. I think, sir, we had better grapple
with the difficulties that surround this question now, when it is fairly before
us, when we have time to consider it, and when I think we can act upon it
as dispassionately, as calmly, as wisely, as we shall ever be able to do.
I have regretted to see the question of sectional advantages brought into
this discussion. If you are to have but one road, fairness and justice would
plainly indicate that that one should be located as near the centre as prac
ticable. The Missouri River is as near the centre and the line of this road
is as near as it can be made ; and if there is but one to be made, the route
now indicated, in my opinion, is fair, is just, and ought to be taken. I have
heretofore been of the opinion that we ought to have three roads: one in
the centre, one in the extreme south, and one in the extreme north. If I
thought we could carry the three, and could execute them in any reason
able time, I would now adhere to that policy and prefer it ; but I have seen
enough here during this session of Congress to satisfy me that but one can
pass, and to ask for three at this time is to lose the whole. Believing that
that is the temper, that that is the feeling, and, I will say, the judgment
of the members of both houses of Congress, I prefer to take one road rather
than to lose all in the vain attempt to get three. If there were to be three,
of course the one indicated in this bill would be the central ; one would be
north of it, and another south of it. But if there is to be but one, the cen
tral one should be taken; for the north, by bending a little down south,
can join it; and the south, by leaning a little to the north, can unite with
it too ; and our Southern friends ought to be able to bend and lean a little
as well as to require us to bend and lean all the time, in order to join them.
The central position is the just one, if there is to be but one road. The
concession should be as much on the one side as on the other. I am ready
to meet gentlemen half way on every question that does not violate prin
ciple, and they ought not to ask us to meet them more than half way
where there is no principle involved, and nothing but expediency.
Then, sir, why not unite upon this bill? We are told it is going to in
volve the Government of the United States in countless millions of expen
diture. How is that? Certainly not under this bill, not by authority of
this bill, not without violating this bill. The bill under consideration
provides that when a section of the road shall be made, the Government
may advance a portion of the lands, and $12,500 per mile in bonds on the
section thus made, in order to aid in the construction of the next, holding
a lien upon the road for the refunding of the money thus advanced. Under
this bill it is not possible that the contractors can ever obtain more than
$12,500 per mile on each mile of the road that is completed. It is, there
fore, very easy to compute the cost to the Government. Take the length
of the road in miles, and multiply it by $12,500, and you have the cost,

APPENDIX 247
If you make the computation, you will find it will come to a fraction over
$20,000,000. The limitation in the bill is, that in no event shall it exceed
$25,000,000. Therefore, by the terms of the bill, the undertaking of the
Government is confined to $25,000,000; and, by the calculation, it will be
less than that sum. Is that a sum that would bankrupt the treasury of
the United States?
I predict to you now, sir, that the Mormon campaign has cost, and has
led to engagements and undertakings that, when redeemed, will cost more
than $25,000,000, if not double that sum. During the last six months, on
account of the Mormon rebellion, expenses have been paid and undertak
ings have been assumed which will cost this Government more than the
total expenditure which can possibly be made in conformity with the pro
visions of this bill. If you had had this railroad made you would have
saved the whole cost which the Government is to advance in this little
Mormon war alone. If you have a general Indian war in the mountains, it
will cost you twice the amount called for by this bill. If you should have
a war with a European power, the construction of this road would save
many fold its cost in the transportation of troops and munitions of war
to the Pacific Ocean, in carrying on your operations.
In an economical point of view I look upon it as a wise measure. It is
one of economy as a war measure alone, or as a peace measure for the pur
pose of preventing a war. Whether viewed as a war measure, to enable
you to check rebellion in a Territory, or hostilities with the Indians, or to
carry on vigorously a war with a European power, or viewed as a peace
measure, it is a wise policy, dictated by every consideration of convenience
and public good.
Again, sir, in carrying the mails, it is an economical measure. As the
senator from Georgia has demonstrated, the cost of carrying the mails alone
to the Pacific Ocean for thirty years, under the present contracts, is double
the amount of the whole expenditure under this bill for the same time in
the construction and working of the road. In the transportation of mails,
then, it would save twice its cost. The transportation of army and navy
supplies would swell the amount to three or four fold. How many years
will it be before the Government will receive back, in transportation, the
whole cost of this advance of aid in the construction of the road?
But, sir, some gentlemen think it is an unsound policy, leading to the
doctrine of internal improvements by the Federal Government within the
different States of the Union. We are told we must continue the road to
the limits of the Territories, and not extend it into the States, because it is
supposed that entering a State with this contract violates some great prin
ciple of State-rights. Mr. President, the committee considered that propo
sition, and they avoided that objection in the estimation of the most strict,
rigid, tight-laced State-rights men that we have in the body. We struck
out the provision in the bill first drawn, that the President should contract
for the construction of a railroad from the Missouri River to the Pacific
Ocean, and followed an example that we found on the statute-book for
carrying the mails from Alexandria to Richmond, Virginia — an act passed

248 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
about the time when the resolutions of 1798 were adopted, and the report
of 1799 was made — an act that we thought came exactly within the
spirit of those resolutions. That act, according to my recollection, was,
that the Department be authorized to contract for the transportation of
the United States mail by four-horse post-coaches, with closed backs, so
as to protect it from the weather and rain, from Alexandria to Richmond,
in the State of Virginia. It occurred to this committee that if it had been
the custom, from the beginning of this Government to this day, to make
contracts for the transportation of the mails in four-horse post-coaches,
built in a particular manner, and the contractor left to furnish his own
coaches and his own horses, and his own means of transportation, we
might make a similar contract for the transportation of the mails by rail
road from one point to another, leaving the contractor to make his own
railroad, and furnish his own cars, and comply with the terms of the
contract. There is nothing in this bill that violates any one principle which has
prevailed in every mail contract that has been made, from the days of
Dr. Franklin down to the elevation of James Buchanan to the Presidency.
Every contract for carrying the mail by horse, from such a point to
such a point, in saddle-bags, involves the same principle. Every contract
for carrying it from such a point to such a point in two-horse hacks, with a
covering to protect it from the storm, involves the same principle. Every
contract to carry it from such a point to such a point in four-horse coaches
of a particular description, involves the same principle. You contracted to
carry the mails from New York to Liverpool in ships of two thousand tons
each, to be constructed according to a model prescribed by the Navy De
partment, leaving the contractor to furnish his own ships, and receive so
much pay. That involves the same principle.
You have, therefore, carried out the principle of this bill in every con
tract you have ever had for mails, whether it be upon the land or upon the
water. In every mail contract you have had, you have carried out the
identical principle involved in this bill — simply the right to contract for
the transportation of the United States mails, troops, munitions of war,
army and navy supplies, at fair prices, in the manner you prescribed, leav
ing the contracting party to furnish the mode and means of transportation.
That is all there is in it. I do not see how it can violate any party creed;
how it can violate any principle of State-rights; how it can interfere with
any man's conscientious scruples. Then, sir, where is the objection?
If you look on this as a measure of economy and a commercial measure,
the argument is all in favor of the bill. It is true, the senator from Massa
chusetts has suggested that it is idle to suppose that the trade of China
is to centre in San Francisco, and then pay sixty dollars a ton for transpor
tation across the continent by a railroad to Boston. It was very natural
that he should indicate Boston, as my friend from Georgia might, perhaps,
have thought of Savannah, or my friend from South Carolina might have
indicated Charleston, or the senator from Louisiana might have indicated
New Orleans. But I, living at the head of the great lakes, would have

APPENDIX 249
made the computation from Chicago, and my friend from Missouri would
have thought it would have been very well, perhaps, to take it from St. Louis.
When you are making this computation, I respectfully submit you must
make the calculation from the sea-board to the centre of the continent,
and not charge transportation all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific;
for suppose you do not construct this road, and these goods come by ship
to Boston, it will cost something to take them by railroad to Chicago, and
a little more to take them by railroad to the Missouri River, half way back
to San Francisco again. If you select the centre of the continent, the great
heart and centre of the Republic — the Mississippi Valley — as the point
at which you are to concentrate your trade, and from which it is to diverge,
you will find that the transportation of it by railroad would not be much
greater from San Francisco than from Boston. It would be nearly the
same from the Pacific that it is from the Atlantic; and the calculation
must be made in that point of view. There is the centre of consump
tion, and the centre of those great products that are sent abroad in all
quarters to pay for articles imported. The centre of production, the
centre of consumption, the future centre of the population of the con
tinent, is the point to which, and from which, your calculation should be
made. Then, sir, if it costs sixty dollars per ton for transportation from San
Francisco to Boston by railroad, half way you may say it will cost thirty
dollars a ton. The result, then, of coming from San Francisco to the
centre by railroad would be to save transportation by ship from San
Francisco to Boston, in addition to the railroad transportation into the
interior. But, sir, I dissent from a portion of the gentleman's argument, so far as
it relates to the transportation even from San Francisco to Boston. I
admit that heavy articles of cheap value and great bulk would go by ship,
that being the cheapest mode of communication; but light articles, costly
articles, expensive articles, those demanded immediately, and subject to
decay from long voyages and delays, would come directly across by rail
road, and what you would save in time would be more than the extra
expense of the transportation. You must add to that the risk of the tropics,
which destroys many articles ; and the process which is necessary to be
gone through with to prepare articles for the sea-voyage is to be taken
into the account. I have had occasion to witness that evil in one article of
beverage very familiar to you all. Let any man take one cup of tea that
came from China to Russia overland, without passing twice under the
equator, and he will never be reconciled to a cup of tea that has passed
under the equator. The genuine article, that has not been manipulated
and prepared to pass under the equator, is worth tenfold more than that
which we receive here. Preparation is necessary to enable it to pass the
tropics, and the long, damp voyage makes as much difference in the article
of tea as the difference between a green apple and a dried apple, green
corn and dried corn, sent abroad. So you will find it to be with fruits; so
it will be with all the expensive and precious articles, and especially those

250 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
liable to decay and to injury, either by exposure to a tropical climate or
to the moisture of a long sea-voyage.
Then, sir, in a commercial point of view, this road will be of vast import
ance. There is another consideration that I will allude to for a moment.
It will extend our trade more than any other measure that you can devise,
certainly more than any one that you now have in contemplation. The
people are all anxious for the annexation of Cuba as soon as it can be ob
tained on fair and honorable terms — and why ? In order to get the small,
pitiful trade of that island. We all talk about the great importance of
Central America in order to extend our commerce; it is valuable to the
extent it goes. But Cuba, Central America, and all the islands surrounding
them put together, are not a thousandth part of the value of the great East
India trade that would be drawn first to our western coast, and then across
to the Valley of the Mississippi, if this railroad be constructed. Sir, if we
intend to extend our commerce — if we intend to make the great ports of
the world tributary to our wealth, we must prosecute our trade eastward
or westward, as you please ; we must penetrate the Pacific, its islands, and
its continent, where the great mass of the human family reside — where the
articles that have built up the powerful nations of the world have always
come from. That is the direction in which we should look for the expan
sion of our commerce and of our trade. That is the direction our public
policy should take — a direction that is facilitated by the great work now
proposed to be made.
I care not whether you look at it in a commercial point of view, as a
matter of administrative economy at home, as a question of military de
fence, or in reference to the building up of the national wealth, and power,
and glory; it is the great measure of the age — a measure that in my
opinion has been postponed too long — and I frankly confess to you that
I regard the postponement to next December to mean till after the next
Presidential election. No man hopes or expects, when you have not time
to pass it in the early spring, at the long session, that you are going to
consider it at the short session. When you come here at the next session,
the objection will be that you must not bring forward a measure of this
magnitude, because it will affect the political relations of parties, and it
will be postponed then, as it was two years ago, to give the glory to the
incoming administration, each party probably thinking that it would have
the honor of carrying out the measure. Hence, sir, I regard the proposi
tion of postponement till December to mean till after the election of 1860.
I desire to see all the pledges made in the last contest redeemed during
this term, and let the next President, and the parties under him, redeem
the pledges and obligations assumed during the next campaign. The people
of all parties at the last Presidential election decreed that this road was to
be made. The question is now before us. We have time to consider it.
We have all the means necessary, as much now as we can have at any
other time. The senator from Massachusetts intimates that, the treasury
being bankrupt now, we cannot afford the money. That senator also re
marked that we were just emerging from a severe commercial crisis — a

APPENDIX 251
great commercial revulsion — which had carried bankruptcy in its train.
If we have just emerged from it, if we have passed it, this is the very time
of all others when a great enterprise should be begun. It might have been
argued when we saw that crisis coming, before it reached us, that we should
furl our sails and trim our ships for the approaching storm ; but when it
has exhausted its rage, when all the mischief has been done that could be
inflicted, when the bright sun of day is breaking forth, when the sea is be
coming calm, and there is but little visible of the past tempest, when the
nausea of sea-sickness is succeeded by joyous exhilaration, inspired by the
hope of a fair voyage, let men feel elated and be ready to commence a
great work like this, so as to complete it before another commercial crisis
or revulsion shall come upon us.
Sir, if you pass this bill, no money can be expended under it until one
section of the road has been made. The surveys must be completed, the
route must be located, the land set aside and surveyed, and a section of
the road made, before a dollar can be drawn from the treasury. If you
can pass the bill now, it cannot make any drain on the treasury for at
least two years to come; and who doubts that all the effects of the late
crisis will have passed away before the expiration of those two years.
Mr. President, this is the auspicious time, either with a view to the in
terests of the country, or to that stagnation which exists between political
parties, which is calculated to make it a measure of the country rather
than a partisan measure, or to the commercial and monetary affairs of the
nation, or with reference to the future. Look upon it in any point of view,
now is the time; and I am glad that the senator from Louisiana has indi
cated, as I am told he has, that the motion for postponement is a test
question; for I confess I shall regard it as a test vote on a Pacific railroad
during this term, whatever it may be in the future. I hope that we shall
pass the bill now.

LAST SPEECH IN CONGRESS — FINAL PLEA
FOR THE UNION
(Delivered in the Senate, January 3, 1861)
Mr. President: No act of my public life has ever caused me so much
regret as the necessity of voting in the special committee of thirteen for
the resolution reporting to the Senate our inability to agree upon a general
plan of adjustment which would restore peace to the country and insure
the integrity of the Union. If we wish to understand the real causes which
have produced such widespread and deep-seated discontent in the slave-
holding States, we must go back beyond the recent Presidential election,
and trace the origin and history of the slavery agitation from the period
when it first became an active element in Federal politics. Without
fatiguing the Senate with tedious details, I may be permitted to assume,
without the fear of successful contradiction, that whenever the Federal
Government has attempted to decide and control the slavery question
in the newly acquired Territories, regardless of the wishes of the inhabi
tants, alienation of feeling, sectional strife, and discord have ensued; and
whenever Congress has refrained from such interference, harmony and
fraternal feeling have been restored. The whole volume of our nation's
history may be confidently appealed to in support of this proposition.
The most memorable instances are the fearful sectional controversies
which brought the Union to the verge of disruption in 1820 and again in
1850. It was the Territorial question in each case which presented the
chief points of difficulty, because it involved the irritating question of the
relative political power of the two sections. All the other questions, which
entered into and served to increase the slavery agitation, were deemed of
secondary importance, and dwindled into insignificance so soon as the
Territorial question was definitely settled.
From the period of the organization of the Federal Government, under
the Constitution in 1789, down to 1820, all the Territorial Governments
had been organized on the basis of non-interference by Congress with the
domestic institutions of the people. During that period several new Terri
tories were organized, including Tennessee, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ala
bama. In no one of the Territories did Congress attempt to interfere with
the question of slavery, either to introduce or exclude, protect or pro
hibit it. During all this period there was peace and good-will between
the people of all parts of the Union, so far as the question of slavery was
concerned. But the first time Congress ever attempted to interfere with and

APPENDIX 253
control that question regardless of the wishes of the people interested in
it, the Union was put in jeopardy, and was only saved from dissolution
by the adoption of the compromise of 1820. In the famous Missouri con
troversy, the majority of the North demanded that Congress should pro
hibit slavery forever in all the territory acquired from France, extending
from the State of Louisiana to the British possessions on the north, and
from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains. The South, and the conser
vative minority of the North, on the contrary, stood firm upon the ground
of non-intervention, denying the right of Congress to touch the subject.
They did not ask Congress to interfere for protection, nor for any purpose,
while they opposed the right and justice of exclusion. Thus, each party,
with their respective positions distinctly defined — the one for, the other
against, Congressional intervention — maintained its position with des
perate persistency, until disunion seemed inevitable, when a compromise
was effected by an equitable partition of the territory between the two
sections on the line of 36° 30', prohibiting slavery on the one side and per
mitting it on the other.
In the adoption of this compromise, each party yielded one half of its
claim for the sake of the Union. It was designed to form the basis of per
petual peace on the slavery question, by establishing a rule in accordance
with which all future controversy would be avoided. The line of partition
was distinctly marked so far as our territory might extend, and by irre
sistible inference, the spirit of the compromise required the extension of
the line on the same parallel whenever we should extend our Territorial
limits. The North and the South — although each was dissatisfied with
the terms of the settlement, each having surrendered one half of its claim
— by common consent agreed to acquiesce in it, and abide by it as a per
manent basis of peace on the slavery question. It is true, that there were
a few discontented spirits in both sections who attempted to renew the
controversy from time to time; but the deep Union feeling prevailed,
and the masses of the people were disposed to stand by the settlement as
the surest means of averting future difficulties.
Peace was restored, fraternal feeling returned, and we were a happy
and united people so long as we adhered to, and carried out in good faith,
the Missouri Compromise, according to its spirit as well as its letter. In
1845, when Texas was annexed to the Union, the policy of an equitable
partition, on the line of 36° 30', was adhered to, and carried into effect by
the extension of the line so far westward as the new acquisition might
reach. It is true, there was much diversity of opinion as to the propriety
and wisdom of annexing Texas. In the North the measure was opposed
by large numbers upon the distinct ground that it was enlarging the area
of slave territory within the Union; and in the South it probably received
much additional support for the same reason ; but, while it may have been
opposed and supported, in some degree, north and south, from these con
siderations, no considerable number in either section objected to it upon
the ground that it extended and carried out the policy of the Missouri
Compromise. The objection was solely to the acquisition of the country,

254 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
and not to the application of the Missouri Compromise to it, if acquired.
No fair-minded man could deny that every reason that induced the adop
tion of the line in 1820 demanded its extension through Texas, and every
new acquisition, whenever we enlarged our territorial possessions in that
direction. No man would have been deemed faithful to the obligations of
the Missouri Compromise at that day, who was opposed to its application
to future acquisitions.
The record shows that Texas was annexed to the Union upon the ex
press condition that the Missouri Compromise should be extended, and
made applicable to the country, so far as our new boundaries might reach.
The history of that acquisition will show that I not only supported the
annexation of Texas, but that I urged the necessity of applying the Missouri
Compromise to it, for the purpose of extending it through New Mexico
and California to the Pacific Ocean, whenever we should acquire those
Territories, as a means of putting an end to the slavery agitation forever.
The annexation of Texas drew after it the war with Mexico, and the
treaty of peace left us in possession of California and New Mexico. This
large acquisition of new territory was made the occasion for renewing the
Missouri controversy. The agitation of 1849-50 was a second edition of
that of 1819-20. It was stimulated by the same motives, aiming at the
same ends, and enforced by the same arguments. The Northern majority
invoked the intervention of Congress to prohibit slavery everywhere in
the Territories of the United States, — both sides of the Missouri line, —
south as well as north of 36° 30'. The South together with a conservative
minority in the North, stood firmly upon the ground of non-intervention,
denying the right of Congress to interfere with the subject, but avowing
a willingness, in the spirit of concession, for the sake of peace and the
Union, to adhere to and carry out the policy of an equitable partition on
the line of 36° 30' to the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense in which it was
adopted in 1820, and according to the understanding when Texas was
annexed in 1845. Every argument and reason, every consideration of
patriotism and duty, which induced the adoption of the policy in 1820,
and its application to Texas in 1845, demanded its application to Cali
fornia and New Mexico in 1848. The peace of the country, the fraternal
feelings of all its parts, the safety of the Union, all were involved.
Under these circumstances, as Chairman of the Committee on Territo
ries, I introduced into the Senate the following proposition, which was
adopted by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-one in the Senate, but re
jected in the House of Representatives:
"That the line of 36° 30' of north latitude, known as the Missouri Com
promise line as defined by the eighth section of an Act entitled an Act to
authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and
State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on
an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain
Territories, approved March 6, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declared
to extend to the Pacific Ocean; and the said eighth section, together with
the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in

APPENDIX 255
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."
It was the rejection of that proposition — the repudiation of the policy
of an equitable partition of the Territory between the two sections, on
the line of 36° 30' — which reopened the floodgates of slavery agitation
and deluged the whole country with sectional strife and bitterness, until
the Union was again brought to the verge of disruption, before the swell
ing tide of bitter waters could be turned back, and passion and prejudice
could be made to give place to reason and patriotism.
Such was the condition of things at the opening of the session of 1849-50,
when Mr. Clay resumed his seat in this body.
The purest patriots in the land had become alarmed for the safety of
the republic. The immortal Clay, whose life had been devoted to the
rights, interests, and glory of his country, had retired to the shades of
Ashland to prepare for another and better world. When, in his retire
ment, hearing the" harsh and discordant notes of sectional strife and
disunion, he consented, at the earnest solicitation of his countrymen, to
resume his seat in the Senate, the theatre of his great deeds, to see if, by
his experience, his wisdom, the renown of his great name, and his strong
hold upon the confidence and affections of the American people, he could
not do something to restore peace to a distracted country. From the mo
ment of his arrival among us, he became, by common consent and as a
matter of course, the leader of the Union men. His first idea was to re
vive and extend to the Pacific Ocean the Missouri Compromise line, with
the same understanding and legal effect in which it had been adopted in
1820, and continued through Texas in 1845. I was one of his humble
followers and trusted friends in endeavoring to carry out that policy, and,
in connection with others, at his special request, carefully canvassed both
Houses of Congress to ascertain whether it was possible to obtain a majority
vote in each House for the measure. We found no difficulty with the
Southern Senators and Representatives, and could secure the cooperation
of a minority from the North; but not enough to give us a majority in
both Houses. Hence, the Missouri Compromise was abandoned by its
friends, not from choice, but from inability to carry it into effect in good faith.
It was with extreme reluctance that Mr. Clay, and those of us who acted
with him and shared his confidence, were brought to the conclusion that
we must abandon, from inability to carry out, the line of policy which had
saved the Union in 1820, and given peace to the country for many happy
years. Finding ourselves unable to maintain that policy, we yielded to a stern
necessity, and turned our attention to the discovery of some other plan
by which the existing difficulties could be settled and future troubles
avoided. I need not detail the circumstances under which Mr. Clay brought
forward his plan of adjustment, which received the sanction of the two
Houses of Congress and the approbation of the American people, and is

256 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
familiarly known as the compromise measures of 1850. These measures
were designed to accomplish the same results as the act of 1820, but in a
different mode. The leading feature and chief merit of each was to banish
the slavery agitation from the halls of Congress and the arena of Federal
politics. The act of 1820 was intended to attain this end by an equitable
partition of the Territories between the contending sections. The acts
of 1850 were designed to attain the same end, by remitting the whole ques
tion of slavery to the decision of the people of the Territories, subject to
the limitations of the Constitution, and let the Federal courts determine
the validity and constitutionality of the Territorial enactments from time
to time, as cases should arise and appeals should be taken to the Supreme
Court of the United States. The one, proposed to settle the question by
a geographical line and equitable partition; and the other by the princi
ples of popular sovereignty, in accordance with the Constitution. The
object of both being the same, I supported each in turn, as a means of
attaining a desirable end.
After the compromise measures of 1850 had become the law of the
land, those who had opposed their enactment appealed to their constitu
ents to sustain them in their opposition, and implored them not to
acquiesce in the principles upon which they were founded, and never to
cease to war upon them until they should be annulled and effaced from
the statute-book. The contest before the people was fierce and bitter,
accompanied sometimes with acts of violence and intimidation; but,
fortunately, Mr. Clay lived long enough to feel and know that his last
great efforts for the peace of the country and the perpetuity of the
Union — the crowning acts of a brilliant and glorious career in the pub
lic service — had met the approval and received the almost unanimous
endorsement of his grateful countrymen. The repose which the country
was permitted to enjoy for a brief period proved to be a temporary
truce in the sectional conflict, and not a permanent peace upon the
slavery question. The purpose of reopening the agitation for a Congres
sional prohibition of slavery in all the Territories whenever an oppor
tunity or excuse could be had, seems never to have been abandoned by
those who originated the scheme for partisan purposes in 1819 and were
baffled in their designs by the adoption of the Missouri Compromise in
1820, and who renewed the attempt in 1848, but were again doomed to
suffer a mortifying defeat in the adoption of the compromise measures
of 1850. The opportunity and pretext for renewing the agitation was
discovered by those who had never abandoned the design, when it be
came necessary, in 1854, to pass the necessary laws for the organization
of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The necessity for the organ
ization of these Territories, in order to open and protect the routes of
emigration and travel to California and Oregon, could not be denied.
The measure could not be postponed longer without endangering the
peace of the frontier settlements, and incurring the hazards of an Indian
war, growing out of the constant collisions between the emigrants and
the Indian tribes through whose country they were compelled to pass.

APPENDIX 257
Early in December, 1853, Senator Dodge, of Iowa, introduced a bill
for the organization of the Territory of Nebraska, which was referred to
the committee on Territories, of which I was chairman. The committee
did not volunteer their services on the occasion. The bill was referred to
us by the vote of the Senate, and our action was in discharge of a plain
duty imposed upon us by an express command of that body.
The first question which addressed itself to the calm and deliberate
consideration of the committee, was — Upon what basis shall the organi
zation of the Territory be formed? whether upon the theory of a geo
graphical line and an equitable partition of the Territory in accordance
with the compromise of 1820, which had been abandoned by its sup
porters, not from choice, but from our inability to carry it out, or upon
the principle of non-intervention and popular sovereignty, aocording to
the compromise measures of 1850, which had taken the place of the
Missouri Compromise?
The committee, upon mature deliberation, and with great unanimity,
decided that all future Territorial organizations should be formed upon
the principles and model of the compromise measures of 1850, inasmuch
as in the recent Presidential election [1852] both of the great political
parties of the country [Whig and Democratic] of which the Senate was
composed stood pledged to those measures as a substitute for the act of
1820; and the committee instructed me, as their organ, to prepare a re
port and draft a substitute for Mr. Dodge's bill in accordance with these
views. No sooner was this report and bill printed and laid upon the tables of
Senators, than an address was prepared and issued over the signatures
of those party leaders who had always denounced the Missouri Com
promise as "a crime against freedom and a compact with infamy" in which
this bill was arraigned as "a gross violation of a sacred pledge," as "a
criminal betrayal of precious rights"; and the report denounced as "a
mere invention designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated
bad faith."
The Missouri Compromise was infamous in their estimation, so long as
it remained upon the statute-book and was carried out in good faith as a
means of preserving the peace of the country and preventing the slavery
agitation in Congress. But it suddenly became a "sacred pledge," a
"solemn compact for the preservation of precious rights," the moment
they had succeeded in preventing its faithful execution and in causing
it to be abandoned when it ceased to be an impregnable barrier against
slavery agitation and sectional strife. The bill against which the hue and
cry was raised, and the crusade preached, did not contain a word about
the Missouri Compromise, nor in any manner refer to it. It simply allowed
the people of the Territory to legislate for themselves on all rightful sub
jects of legislation, and left them free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution.
So far as the Missouri act, or any other statute, might be supposed to
conflict with the right of self-government in the Territories, it was, by
17

258 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
inference, rendered null and void to that extent, and for no other purpose.
Several weeks afterwards, when a doubt was suggested whether under
the bill as it stood the people of the Territory would be authorized to ex
ercise this right of self-government upon the slavery question during the
existence of the Territorial Government, an amendment was adopted, on
my motion, for the sole and avowed purpose of removing that doubt and
securing that right, in accordance with the compromise measures of 1850,
as stated by me and reported in the debates at the time.
This sketch of the origin, and progress of the slavery agitation as an
element of political power and partisan warfare covers -the_entire period
from the organization of the Federal Government under the Constitution
r in 1789 to the present, and is naturally divided into three parts :
First. From 1789, when the Constitution went into operation, to
1819-20, when the Missouri controversy arose. The Territories were all
organized upon the basis of non-intervention by Congress with the domestic
affairs of the people, and especially upon the question of African slavery.
During the whole of this period domestic tranquillity and fraternal feel
ing prevailed.
i Second. From 1820, when the Missouri Compromise was adopted, to
1848 and 1850, when it was repudiated and finally abandoned, all the
Territories were organized with reference to the policy of an equitable
partition between the two sections upon the line of 36° 30'. During this
period there was no serious difficulty upon the Territorial question, so
long as the Missouri Compromise was adhered to and carried out in
good faith.
Third. From 1850, when the original doctrine of non-intervention, as
it prevailed during the first thirty years, was reestablished as the policy
of the Government in the organization of Territories and the admission of
new States, to the present time, there has been a constant struggle, except
for a short interval, to overthrow and repudiate the policy and the princi
ples of the compromise measures of 1850, for the purpose of returning to
the old doctrine of Congressional intervention for the prohibition of slavery
in all the Territories, south as well as north of the Missouri line, regardless
of the wishes and condition of the people inhabiting the country.
"In view of these facts, I feel authorized to reaffirm the proposition with
which I commenced my remarks, that whenever the Federal Government
has attempted to control the slavery question in our newly-acquired Terri
tories, alienation of feeling, discord, and sectional strife have ensued ; and
whenever Congress has refrained from such interference, peace, harmony,
and good-will have returned. The conclusion I draw from these premises
is, that the slavery question should be banished forever from the halls of
Congress and the arena of Federal politics, by an irrepealable Constitu
tional provision. I have deemed this exposition of the origin and progress
of the slavery agitation essential to a full comprehension of the difficulties
with which we are surrounded, and the remedies for the evils which threaten
the disruption of the republic. The immediate causes which have

APPENDIX 259
precipitated the southern country into revolution, although inseparably con
nected with, and flowing from, the slavery agitation whose history I have
portrayed, are to be found in the result of the recent Presidential election.
I hold that the election of any man, no matter who, by the American peo
ple, according to the Constitution, furnishes no cause, no justification, for
the dissolution of the Union. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that
the Southern people have received the result of that election as furnishing
conclusive evidence that the dominant party of the North, which is soon
to take possession of the Federal Government under that election, are
determined to invade and destroy their Constitutional rights. Believing
that their domestic institutions, their hearthstones and their family altars,
are to be assailed, at least by indirect means, and that the Federal Gov
ernment is to be used for the inauguration of a line of policy which shall
have for its object the ultimate extinction of slavery in all the States, old
as well as new, South as well as North, the Southern people are prepared
to rush wildly, madly, as I think, into revolution, disunion, war, and defy
the consequences, whatever they may be, rather than to wait for the de
velopment of events, or submit tamely to what they think is a fatal blow
impending over them and over all they hold dear on earth. It matters
not, so far as we and the peace of the country and the fate of the Union
are concerned, whether these apprehensions of the Southern people are
real or imaginary, whether they are well founded or wholly without founda
tion, so long as they believe them and are determined to act upon them.
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade], whose speech was received with so
much favor by his political friends the other day, referred to these serious
apprehensions, and acknowledged his belief that the Southern people were
laboring under the conviction that they were well founded. He was kind
enough to add that he did not blame the Southern people much for what
they were doing under this fatal misapprehension, but cast the whole
blame upon the Northern Democracy; and referred especially to his col
league and myself, for having misrepresented and falsified the purposes
and policy of the Republican party, and for having made the Southern
people believe our misrepresentations I He does not blame the Southern
people for acting on their honest convictions in resorting to revolution to
avert an impending but imaginary calamity. No, he does not blame
them, because they believe in the existence of the danger; yet he will do
no act to undeceive them ; will take no step to relieve their painful appre
hensions; and will furnish no guarantees, no security, against the dangers
which they believe to exist, and the existence of which he denies. But,
on the contrary, he demands unconditional submission, threatens war,
and talks about armies, navies, and military force for the purpose of pre
serving the Union and enforcing the laws! I submit whether this mode
of treating the question is not calculated to confirm the worst apprehen
sions of the Southern people and force them into the most extreme meas
ures of resistance.
I regret that the Senator from Ohio, or any other Senator, should have
deemed it consistent with his duty, under present circumstances, to

260 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
introduce partisan politics, and attempt to manufacture partisan capital
out of a question involving the peace and safety of the country. I repeat
what I have said on another occasion, that, if I know myself, my action
will be influenced by no partisan considerations until we shall have rescued
the country from the perils which environ it. But since the Senator has
attempted to throw the whole responsibility of the present difficulties
upon the Northern Democracy, and has charged us with misrepresenting
and falsifying the purposes and policy of the Republican party, and thereby
deceiving the Southern people, I feel called upon to repel the charge, and
show that it is without a shadow of foundation.
No man living would rejoice more than myself in the conviction, if I
could only be convinced of the fact, that I have misunderstood and con
sequently misrepresented the policy and designs of the Republican party.
Produce the evidence and convince me of my error, and I will take more
pleasure in making the correction and repairing the injustice than I ever
have taken in denouncing what I believed to be an unjust and ruinous
policy. With the view of ascertaining whether I have misapprehended or mis
represented the policy and purposes of the Republican party, I will now
inquire of the Senator, and yield the floor for an answer, whether it is not
the policy of his party to confine slavery within its present limits by the
action of the Federal Government? Whether they do not intend to abolish
and prohibit slavery by act of Congress, notwithstanding the decision of
the Supreme Court to the contrary, in all the Territories we now possess
or may hereafter acquire? In short, I will give the Senator an opportunity
now to say —
Mr. Wade. Mr. President.
Mr. Douglas. One other question, and I will give way.
Mr. Wade. Very well.
Mr. Douglas. I will give the Senator an opportunity of saying now
whether it is not the policy of his party to exert all the powers of the
Federal Government under the Constitution, according to their interpre
tation of the instrument, to restrain and cripple the institution of slavery,
with a view to its ultimate extinction in all the States, old as well as new,
south as well as north.
Are not these the views and purposes of the party, as proclaimed by
their leaders, and understood by the people, in speeches, addresses, ser
mons, newspapers, and public meetings ? Now, I will hear his answer.
Mr. Wade. Mr. President, all these questions are most pertinently an
swered in the speech the Senator is professing to answer. I have nothing
to add to it. If he will read my speech, he will find my sentiments upon
all these questions.
Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I did not expect an unequivocal answer.
I know too well that the Senator will not deny that each of these interroga
tories does express his individual policy and the policy of the Republican
party as he understands it. I should not have propounded the interroga
tories to him if he had not accused me and the Northern Democracy of

APPENDIX 261
having misrepresented the policy of the Republican party, and with hav
ing deceived the Southern people by such misrepresentations. The most
obnoxious sentiments I ever attributed to the Republican party, and
that not in the South, but in Northern Illinois and in the strongholds of
Abolitionism, was that they intended to exercise the powers of the Federal
Government with a view to the ultimate extinction of slavery in the
Southern States. I have expressed my belief, and would be glad to be
corrected if I am in error, that it is the policy of that party to exclude
slavery from all the Territories we now possess or may acquire, with a,
view of surrounding the slave States with a cordon of Abolition States,
and thus confine the institution within such narrow limits, that when the
number increases beyond the capacity of the soil to raise food for their
subsistence, the institution must end in starvation, colonization, or servile
insurrection. I have often exposed the enormities of this policy, and ap
pealed to the people of Illinois to know whether this mode of getting rid
of the evils of slavery could be justified in the name of civilization, human
ity, and Christianity ? I have often used these arguments in the strongest
abolition portions of the North, but never in the South. The truth is, I
have always been very mild and gentle upon the Republicans when ad
dressing a Southern audience; for it seemed ungenerous to say behind
their backs, and where they dare not go to reply to me, those things which
I was in the habit of saying to their faces and in the presence of their leaders
where they were in the majority.
But inasmuch as I do not get a direct answer from the Senator who
makes this charge against the Northern Democracy, as to the purposes
of that party to use the power of the Federal Government under their
construction of the Constitution, with a view to the ultimate extinction
of slavery in the States, I will turn to the record of their President elect,
and see what he says on that subject.
Mr. Lincoln was nominated for United States Senator by a Republican
State Convention at Springfield in June, 1858. Anticipating the nomina
tion, he had carefully prepared a written speech, which he delivered on the
occasion, and which, by order of the convention, was published among
the proceedings as containing the platform of principles upon which the
canvas was to be conducted. . . . You are told by the President elect
that this Union cannot permanently endure, divided into free and slave
States; that these States must all become free or all slave, all become one
thing or all the other; that this agitation will never cease until the oppo
nents of slavery have restrained its expansion, and have placed it where
the public mind will be satisfied that it will be in the course of ultimate
extinction. Mark the language :
"Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it."
We are now told that the object of the Republican party is to prevent
the extension of slavery. What did Mr. Lincoln say? That the oppo
nents of slavery must first prevent the further spread of it. But that is
not all. What else must they do?

262 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
"And place it where the public mind can rest in the belief that it is in
the course of ultimate extinction."
The ultimate extinction of slavery, of which Mr. Lincoln was then speak
ing, related to the States of this Union. He had reference to the Southern
States of this Confederacy ; for in the next sentence he says that the States
must all become one thing, or all the other — "old as well as new, North
as well as South " — showing that he meant that the policy of the Repub
lican party was to keep up this agitation in the Federal Government until
slavery in the States was placed in the process of ultimate extinction.
Now, sir, when the Republican committee have published an edition of
Mr. Lincoln's speeches containing sentiments like these, and circulating
it as a campaign document, is it surprising that the people of the South
should suppose that he was in earnest, and intended to carry out the policy
which he had announced ?
I regret the necessity which has made it my duty to reproduce these
dangerous and revolutionary opinions of the President elect. No consid
eration could have induced me to have done so but the attempt of his
friends to denounce the policy which Mr. Lincoln has boldly advocated, as
gross calumnies upon the Republican party, and as base inventions by the
Northern Democracy, to excite rebellion to the southern country. I should
like to find one senator on that side of the Chamber, in the confidence of
the President elect, who will have the hardihood to deny that Mr. Lincoln
stands pledged by his public speeches, to which he now refers constantly
as containing his present opinions, to carry out the policy indicated in the
speech from which I have read. I take great pleasure in saying, however,
that I do not believe the rights of the South will materially suffer under
the administration of Mr. Lincoln. I repeat what I have said on another
occasion, that neither he nor his party will have the power to do any act
prejudicial to Southern rights and interests, if the Union shall be preserved,
and the Southern States shall retain a full delegation in both Houses of
Congress. With a majority against them in this body, and in the House
of Representatives, they can do no act, except to enforce the laws, without
the consent of those to whom the South has confided her interests; and
even his appointments for that purpose are subject to our advice and con
firmation. Besides, I still indulge the hope that when Mr. Lincoln shall
assume the high responsibilities which will soon devolve upon him, he will
be fully impressed with the necessity of sinking the politician in the states
man, the partisan in the patriot, and regard the obligations which he owes
to his country as paramount to those of his party. In view of these con
siderations, I had indulged the fond hope that the people of the Southern
States would have been content to have remained in the Union and defend
their rights under the Constitution, instead of rushing madly into revolu
tion and disunion, as a refuge from the apprehended dangers which may
not exist.
But this apprehension has become widespread and deep-seated in the
Southern people. It has taken possession of the Southern mind, sunk
deep in the Southern heart, and filled them with the conviction that their

APPENDIX 263
firesides, their family altars, and their domestic institutions are to be ruth
lessly assailed through the machinery of the Federal Government. The
Senator from Ohio says he does not blame you Southern Senators, nor the
Southern people, for believing those things; and yet, instead of doing those
acts which will relieve your apprehensions and render it impossible that
your rights should be invaded by Federal power under any administration,
he threatens you with war, armies, military force, under pretext of enforc
ing the laws, and preserving the Union. We are told that the authority of
Government must be vindicated ; that the Union must be preserved ; that
rebellion must be put down ; that insurrection must be suppressed, and the
laws must be enforced. I agree to all this. I am in favor of doing all these
things according to the Constitution and laws. No man shall go further
than I to maintain the just authority of the Government, to preserve the
Union, to put down rebellion, to suppress insurrection, and enforce the
laws. I would use all the powers conferred by the Constitution for this
purpose. But, in the performance of these important and delicate duties,
it must be borne in mind that those powers only must be used, and such
measures employed, as are authorized by the Constitution and laws. Things
should be called by their right names; and facts whose existence can no
longer be denied should be acknowledged.
May Divine Providence, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, save our
country from the humiliation and calamities which now seem almost in
evitable ! South Carolina has already declared her independence of the
United States — has expelled the Federal authorities from her limits, and
established a Government de facto, with a military force to sustain it. The
revolution is complete, there being no man within her limits who denies
the authority of the Government or acknowledges allegiance to that of the
United States. There is every reason to believe that seven other States will
soon follow her example; and much ground to apprehend that the other
slaveholding States will follow them.
How are we going to prevent an alliance between these seceding States,
by which they may establish a Federal Government, at least de facto, for
themselves? If they shall do so, and expel the authorities of the United
States from their limits, as South Carolina has done, and others are about
to do, so that there shall be no human being within their boundaries who
acknowledges allegiance to the United States, how are we going to enforce
the laws? Armies and navies can make war, but cannot enforce laws in
this country. The laws can be enforced only by the civil authorities,
assisted by the military as a posse eomitatus when resisted in executing
judicial process. Who is to issue the judicial process in a State where there
is no judge, no court, no judicial functionary? Who is to perform the
duties of marshal in executing the process where no man will or dare ac
cept office? Who are to serve on juries while every citizen is particeps
criminis with the accused? How are you going to comply with the Con
stitution in respect to a jury trial where there are no men qualified to
serve on the jury? I agree that the laws should be enforced. I hold that

264 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
our Government is clothed with the power and duty of using all the means
necessary to the enforcement of the laws, according to the Constitution and
laws. The President is sworn to the faithful performance of this duty. I
do not propose to inquire, at this time, how far and with what fidelity the
President has performed that duty. His conduct and duty in this regard,
including acts of commission and omission, while the rebellion was in its
incipient stages, and when confined to a few individuals, present a very
different question from that which we are now discussing, after the revo
lution has become complete, and the Federal authorities have been ex
pelled, and the Government de facto put into practical operation and in
the unrestrained and unresisted exercise of all the powers and functions of
Government, local and national.
But we are told that secession is wrong, and that South Carolina had no
right to secede. I agree that it is wrong, unlawful, unconstitutional, crimi
nal. In my opinion South Carolina had no right to secede; but she has
done it. She has declared her independence of us, effaced the last vestige
of our civil authority, established a foreign Government, and is now en
gaged in the preliminary steps to open diplomatic intercourse with the
great powers of the world. What next? If her act was illegal, unconsti
tutional, and wrong, have we no remedy? Unquestionably we have the
right to use all the power and force necessary to regain possession of that
portion of the United States, in order that we may again enforce our Con
stitution and laws upon the inhabitants. We can enforce our laws in those
States, Territories, and places only which are within our possession. It
often happens that the territorial rights of a country extend beyond the
limits of their actual possessions. That is our case at present in respect
to South Carolina. Our right of jurisdiction over that State for Federal
purposes, according to the Constitution, has not been destroyed or im
paired by the ordinance of secession, or any act of the convention, or of
the de facto Government. The right remains ; but the possession is lost for
the time being. "How shall we regain the possession?" is the pertinent
inquiry. It may be done by arms, or by a peaceable adjustment of the
/matters in controversy.
Are we prepared for war? I do not mean that kind of preparation which
consists of armies and navies, and supplies and munitions of war; but are
we prepared in our hearts for war with our own brethren and kindred?
I confess I am not. While I affirm that the Constitution is, and was in
tended to be, a bond of perpetual Union ; while I can do no act and utter
no word that will acknowledge or countenance the right of secession; while
I affirm the right and the duty of the Federal Government to use all legit
imate means to enforce the laws, put down rebellion, and suppress insur
rection, I will not meditate war, nor tolerate the idea, until effort at peace
ful adjustment shall have been exhausted, and the last ray of hope shall
have deserted the patriot's heart. Then, and not till then, will I consider
and determine what course my duty to my country may require me to
pursue in such an emergency. In my opinion, war is disunion, certain,
inevitable, irrevocable. I am for peace to save the Union.

APPENDIX 265
I have said that I cannot recognize nor countenance the right of seces
sion. Illinois, situated in the interior of the continent, can never acknowl
edge the right of the States bordering on the seas to withdraw from the
Union at pleasure, and form alliances among themselves and with other
countries, by which we shall be excluded from all access to the ocean,
from all intercourse or commerce with foreign nations. We can never
consent to be shut up within the circle of a Chinese wall, erected and con
trolled by others without our permission; or to any other system of iso
lation by which we shall be deprived of any communication with the rest
of the civilized world. Those States which are situated in the interior of
the continent can never assent to any such doctrine. Our rights, our inter
ests, our safety, our existence as a free people, forbid it ! The Northwestern
States were ceded to the United States before the Constitution was made,
on condition of perpetual union with the other States. The Territories
were organized, settlers invited, lands purchased, and homes made, on
the pledge of your plighted faith of perpetual union.
When there were but two hundred thousand inhabitants scattered over
that vast region, the navigation of the Mississippi was deemed by Mr. Jef
ferson so important and essential to their interests and prosperity, that he
did not hesitate to declare that if Spain or France insisted upon retaining
possession of the mouth of that river, it would become the duty of the
United States to take it by arms, if they failed to acquire it by treaty. If
the possession of that river, with jurisdiction over its mouth and channel,
was indispensable to the people of the Northwest when we had two hun
dred thousand inhabitants, is it reasonable to suppose that we will volun
tarily surrender it now when we have ten millions of people? Louisiana
was not purchased for the exclusive benefit of the few Spanish and French
residents in the territory, nor for those who might become residents. These
considerations did not enter into the negotiations and found no induce
ments to the acquisition. Louisiana was purchased with the National
treasure, for the common benefit of the whole Union in general, and for
the safety, convenience, and prosperity of the Northwest in particular. We
paid fifteen million dollars for the territory. We have expended much
more than that sum in the extinguishment of Indian titles, the removal of
Indians, the survey of lands, the erection of custom-houses, lighthouses,
forts, and arsenals. We admitted the inhabitants into the Union on an
equal footing with ourselves. Now we are called upon to acknowledge the
moral and Constitutional right of those people to dissolve the Union with
out the consent of the other States; to seize the forts, arsenals, and other
public property, and appropriate them to their own use; to take posses
sion of the Mississippi River, and exercise jurisdiction over the same, and
to reannex herself to France, or remain an independent nation, or to form
alliances with such other Powers as she, in the plenitude of her sovereign
will and pleasure, may see fit. If this thing is to be done — peaceably if
you can, and forcibly if you must — all I propose to say at this time is,
that you cannot expect us of the Northwest to yield our assent to it, nor
to acknowledge your right to do it, or the propriety and justice of the act

266 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
The respectful attention with which my friend from Florida [Mr. Yulee]
is listening to me, reminds me that his State furnishes an apt illustration
of this modern doctrine of secession. We paid five million for the territory.
We spent marvellous sums in subduing the Indians, extinguishing Indian
titles, removal of Indians beyond her borders, surveying the lands, build
ing lighthouses, navy-yards, forts, and arsenals, with untold millions for
the never-ending Florida claims. I assure my friend that I do not refer
to these things in an offensive sense, for he knows how much respect I have
for him, and has not forgotten my efforts in the House many years ago, to
secure the admission of his State into the Union, in order that he might
represent her, as he has since done with so much ability and fidelity in this
body. But I will say that it never occurred to me at that time that the
State whose admission into the Union I was advocating would be one of
the first to join in a scheme to break up the Union. I submit it to him
whether it is not an extraordinary spectacle to see that State which has
cost us so much blood and treasure, turn her back on the Union which has
fostered and protected her when she was too feeble to protect herself, and
seize the lighthouses, navy-yards, forts, and arsenals, which, although
within her boundaries, were erected with National funds, for the benefit
and defence of the whole Union.
I do not think I can find a more striking illustration of this doctrine of
secession than was suggested to my mind when reading the President's
last annual message. My attention was first arrested by the remarkable
passage that the Federal Government had no power to coerce a State back
into the Union if she did secede; and my admiration was unbounded when
I found, a few lines afterwards, a recommendation to appropriate money to
purchase the island of Cuba. It occurred to me instantly what a brilliant
achievement it would be to pay Spain three hundred million dollars for
Cuba, and immediately admit the island into the Union as a State, and let
her secede and reannex herself to Spain the next day, when the Spanish
Queen would be ready to sell the island again for half price, according to
the gullibility of the purchaser !
During my service in Congress it was one of my pleasant duties to take
an active part in the annexation of Texas ; and at a subsequent session to
write and introduce the bill which made Texas one of the States of the
Union. Out of that annexation grew the war with Mexico, in which we
expended one hundred million dollars, and were left to mourn the loss of
about ten thousand as gallant men as ever died upon a battlefield for the
honor and glory of their country ! We have since spent millions of money
to protect Texas against her own Indians, to establish forts and fortifica
tions to protect her frontier settlements and to defend her against the
assaults of all enemies until she became strong enough to protect herself.
We are now called upon to acknowledge that Texas has a moral, just, and
constitutional right to rescind the act of admission into the Union; repu
diate her ratification of the resolutions of annexation ; seize the forts and
public buildings which were constructed with our money; appropriate the
same to her own use, and leave us to pay one hundred million dollars and

APPENDIX 267
to mourn the death of the brave men who sacrificed their lives in defending
the integrity of her soil. In the name of Hardin and Bissell and Harris, and
the seven thousand gallant spirits from Illinois, who fought bravely upon
every battlefield of Mexico, I protest against the right of Texas to sepa
rate herself from this Union without our consent.
Mr. Hemphill. Mr. President, if the Senator from Illinois will allow
me, I will inquire whether there were no other causes assigned by the
United States for the war with Mexico than simply the defence of Texas?
Mr. Douglas. I will answer the question. We undoubtedly did assign
other acts as causes for war which had existed for years, if we had chosen
to treat them so ; but we did not go to war for any other cause than the
annexation of Texas, as is shown in the act of Congress recognizing the
existence of war with Mexico, in which it is declared that "war exists by
the act of the Republic of Mexico." The sole cause of grievance which
Mexico had against us, and for which she commenced the war, was our
annexation of Texas. Hence, none can deny that the Mexican war was
solely and exclusively the result of the annexation of Texas.
Mr. Hemphill. I will inquire further, whether the United States paid
anything to Texas for the annexation of her three hundred and seventy
thousand square miles of territory; whether the United States has not
got five hundred million dollars by the acquisition of California through
that war with Mexico?
Mr. Douglas. Sir, we did not pay anything for bringing Texas into
the Union ; for we did not get any of her lands, except that we purchased
some poor lands from her afterwards, which she did not own, and paid
her ten million dollars for them. But we did spend blood and treasure
in the acquisition and subsequent defence of Texas.
Now, sir, I will answer his question in respect to California. The treaty
of peace brought California and New Mexico into the Union. Our people
moved there, took possession of the lands, settled up the country, and
erected a State of which the United States have a right to be proud. We
have expended millions upon millions for fortifications in California, and
for navy-yards, and mints, and public buildings, and land surveys, and
feeding the Indians, and protecting her people. I believe the public land
sales do not amount to more than one-tenth of the cost of surveys, accord
ing to the returns that have been made. It is true that the people of Cali
fornia have dug a large amount of gold (principally out of the lands be
longing to the United States), and sold it to us; but I am not aware that
we are under any more obligations to them for selling it to us than they
are to us for buying it of them. The people of Texas, during the same
time, have probably made cotton and agricultural productions to a much
larger value, and sold some of it to New England, and some to old Eng
land. I suppose the benefits of the bargain were reciprocal, and the one
was under just as much obligation as the other for the mutual benefits of
the sale and purchase.
The question remains whether, after paying fifteen million dollars
for California — as the Senator from Texas has called my attention to

268 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
that State — and perhaps as much more in protecting and defending her,
she has any moral or constitutional right to annul the compact between
her and the Union, and form alliances with foreign Powers, and leave us
to pay the cost and expenses? I cannot recognize any such doctrine. In
my opinion the Constitution was intended to be a bond of perpetual Union.
It begins with the declaration in the preamble, that it is made in order
"to form a more perfect Union," and every section and paragraph in the
instrument implies perpetuity. It was intended to last forever, and was
so understood when ratified by the people of the several States. New
York and Virginia have been referred to as having ratified with the reserved
right to withdraw or secede at pleasure. This is a mistake. The corre
spondence between General Hamilton and Mr. Madison at the time is con
clusive on this point. After Virginia had ratified the Constitution, General
Hamilton, who was a member of the New York convention, wrote to Mr.
Madison that New York would probably ratify the Constitution for a term
of years, and reserve the right to withdraw after that time, if certain
amendments were not sooner adopted ; to which Mr. Madison replied that
such a ratification would not make New York a member of the Union;
that the ratification must be unconditional, in toto and forever, or not at
all; that the same question was considered at Richmond and abandoned
when Virginia ratified the Constitution. Hence, the declaration of Virginia
and New York, that they had not surrendered the right to resume the
delegated powers, must be assumed as referring to the right of revolution,
which nobody acknowledges more freely than I do, and not to the right
of secession.
The Constitution being made as a bond of perpetual Union, its framers
proceeded to provide against the necessity of revolution by prescribing
the mode in which it might be amended; so that if, in the course of time,
the condition of the country should so change as to require a different
fundamental law, amendments might be made peaceably, in the manner
prescribed in the instrument, and thus avoid the necessity of ever resort
ing to revolution. Having provided for a perpetual Union, and for amend
ments to the Constitution, they next inserted a clause for admitting new
States, but no provision for the withdrawal of any of the other States. I will
not argue the question of the right of secession any further than to enter
my protest against the whole doctrine. I deny that there is any founda
tion for it in the Constitution, in the nature of the compact, in the princi
ples of the Government, or in justice, or in good faith.
Nor do I sympathize at all in the apprehensions and misgivings I hear
expressed about coercion. We are told that inasmuch as our Government
is founded on the will of the people, or the consent of the governed, there
fore coercion is incompatible with republicanism. Sir, the word Govern
ment means coercion. There can be no Government without coercion. Coercion
is the vital principle upon which all Governments rest. Withdraw the
right of coercion, and you dissolve your Government. If every man
would do his duty and respect the rights of his neighbors voluntarily,
there would be no necessity for any Government on earth. The necessity

APPENDIX 269
of Government is found to consist in the fact that some men will not do
right unless coerced to do so. The object of all Government is to coerce
and compel every man to do his duty, who would not otherwise perform
it. Hence I do not subscribe at all to this doctrine that coercion is not to
be used in a free Government. It must be used in all Governments, no
matter what their form or what their principles.
But coercion must be always used in the mode prescribed in the Con
stitution and laws. I hold that the Federal Government is, and ought to
be, clothed with the power and duty to use all the means necessary to
coerce obedience to all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. But
the proposition to subvert the de facto Government of South Carolina, and
to reduce the people of that State into subjection to our Federal authority,
no longer involves the question of enforcing the laws in a country within
our possession; but it does involve the question whether we will make
war on a State which has withdrawn her allegiance and expelled our au
thorities, with a view of subjecting her to our possession for the purpose of
enforcing our laws within her limits.
We are bound, by the usages of nations, by the laws of civilization, by
the uniform practice of our Government, to acknowledge the existence of
a Government de facto, so long as it maintains its undivided authority.
When Louis Philippe fled from the throne of France, Lamartine suddenly
one morning found himself the head of a provisional Government; I be
lieve it was but three days until the American Minister recognized the
Government de facto. Texas was a Government de facto, not recognized
by Mexico, when we annexed her; not recognized by Spain, when Texas
revolted. The laws of nations recognize Governments de facto where they
exercise and maintain undivided sway, leaving the question of their au
thority de jure to be determined by the people interested in the Govern
ment. Now, as a man who loves the Union, and desires to see it main
tained forever, and to see the laws enforced, and rebellion put down, and
insurrection repressed, and order maintained, I desire to know of my
Union-loving friends on the other side of the Chamber how they intend
to enforce the laws in the seceding States, except by making war, con
quering them £rst,.and administering the laws in them afterwards.
In my opinion, we have reached a point where disunion is inevitable,
unless some; compromise founded on mutual concession, can be made.
I prefer compromise to war. I prefer concession to a dissolution of the
Union. When I avow myself in favor of compromise, I do not mean that
one side should give up all that it has claimed, nor that the other side
should give up everything for which it has contended. Nor do I ask any
man to come to my standard; but I simply say that I will meet any one
half way who is willing to preserve the peace of the country, and save the
Union from disruption upon principles of compromise and concession.
In my judgment no system of compromise can be effectual and per
manent which does not banish the slavery question from the Halls of Con
gress and the arena of Federal politics, by irrepealable constitutional pro
vision. We have tried compromise by law, compromise by act of Congress,

270 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
and now we are engaged in the small business of crimination and recrimina
tion, as to who is responsible for not having lived up to them in good faith,
and for having broken faith. I want whatever compromise is agreed to,
placed beyond the reach of party politics and partisan policy, by being
made irrevocable in the Constitution itself, so that every man that holds
office will be bound by his oath to support it.
Why cannot you Republicans accede to the reestablishment and exten
sion of the Missouri Compromise line? You have sung pasans enough in its
praise, and uttered imprecations and curses enough upon my head for
its repeal, one would think, to justify you now in claiming a triumph by its
reestablishment. If you are willing to give up your party feelings — to
sink the partisan in the patriot — and help me to reestablish and extend
that line, as a perpetual bond of peace between the North and the South,
I will promise you never to remind you in future of your denunciations
of the Missouri Compromise, so long as I was supporting it, and of your
praises of the same measure when we removed it from the statute-book,
after you had caused it to be abandoned, by rendering it impossible for us
to carry it out. I seek no partisan advantage ; I desire no personal triumph.
I am willing to let by-gones be by-gones with every man who in this exi
gency will show by his vote that he loves his country more than his party.
I presented to the committee of thirteen and also introduced into the
Senate another plan by which the slavery question may be taken out of
Congress, and the peace of the country maintained. It is that Congress
shall make no law on the subject of slavery in the Territories, and that
the existing status of each Territory on that subject, as it now stands by
law, shall remain unchanged until it has fifty thousand inhabitants, when
it shall have the right of self-government as to its domestic policy; but
with only a delegate in each House of Congress until it has the population
required by the Federal ratio for a representative in Congress, when it
shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original
States. I put the number of the inhabitants at fifty thousand before the
people of the Territory shall change the status in regard to slavery as a
fair compromise between the conflicting opinions on this subject. The
two extremes, North and South, unite in condemning the doctrine of
popular sovereignty in the Territories upon the ground that the first few
settlers ought not to be permitted to decide so important a question for
those who are to come after them. I have never considered that objection
well taken, for the reason that no Territory should be organized with the
right to elect a Legislature and make its own laws upon all rightful sub
jects of legislation, until it contains a sufficient population to constitute
a political community; and whenever Congress should decide that there
was a sufficient population, capable of self-government, by organizing the
Territory, to govern themselves upon all other subjects, I could never
perceive any good reason why the same political community should not
be permitted to decide the slavery question for themselves.
But since we are now trying to compromise our difficulties upon the

APPENDIX 271
basis of mutual concessions, I propose to meet both extremes half way,
by fixing the number at fifty thousand. This number, certainly, ought
to be satisfactory to those States which have been admitted into the
Union with less than fifty thousand inhabitants. Oregon, Florida, Arkan
sas, Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, were each admitted
into the Union, I beheve, with less than that number of inhabitants. Surely
the senators and representatives from those States do not doubt that
fifty thousand people were enough to constitute a political community,
capable of deciding the slavery question for themselves. I now invite
attention to the next proposition.
In order to allay all apprehension, North or South, that territory would
be acquired in the future for sectional or partisan purposes, by adding a
large number of free States on the North, or slave States on the South,
with the view of giving the one section or the other a dangerous political
ascendency, I have inserted the provision that "no more territory shall
be acquired by the United States except by treaty on the concurrent vote
of two-thirds in each House of Congress." If this provision should be in
corporated into the Constitution, it would be impossible for either section
to annex any territory without the concurrence of a large portion of the
other section; and hence there need be no apprehension that any terri
tory would be hereafter acquired for any other than such National con
siderations as would commend the subject to the approbation of both
sections. I have also inserted a provision confirming the right of suffrage and
of holding office to white men, excluding the African race. I have also
inserted a provision for the colonization of free negroes from such States
as may desire to have them removed, to districts of country to be ac
quired in Africa and South America. In addition to these I have adopted
the various provisions contained in the proposition of the Senator from
Kentucky, in reference to fugitive slaves, the abolition of slavery in the
forts, arsenals, and dockyards in the slave States and in the District of
Columbia, and the other provisions for the safety of the South. I believe
this to be a fair basis of amicable adjustment. If you of the Republican
side are not willing to accept this, nor the proposition of the Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden], pray tell us what you are willing to do. I
address the inquiry to the Republicans alone, for the reason that in the
committee of thirteen, a few days ago, every member from the South,
including those from the cotton States [Messrs. Toombs and Davis], ex
pressed their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerable friend
from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] as a final settlement of the controversy,
if tendered and sustained by the Republican members. Hence, the sole
responsibility of our disagreement, and the only difficulty in the way of
our amicable adjustment, is with the Republican party.
At first I thought your reason for declining to adjust this question
amicably was that the Constitution, as it stands, was good enough, and
that you would make no amendment to it. That proposition has already
been waived. The great leader of the Republican party [Mr. Seward] by

272 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
the unanimous concurrence of his friends, brought into the committee of
thirteen a proposition to amend the Constitution. Inasmuch, therefore,
as you are willing to amend the instrument, and to entertain proposi
tions of adjustment, why not go further and relieve the apprehensions of
the Southern people on all points where you do not intend to operate
aggressively? You offer to amend the Constitution by declaring that no
future amendments shall be made which shall empower Congress to in
terfere with slavery in the States.
Now, if you do not intend to do any other act prejudicial to their con
stitutional rights and safety, why not relieve their apprehensions by
inserting in your own proposed amendment to the Constitution, such
further provisions as will, in like manner, render it impossible for you to do
that which they apprehend you intend to do, and which you have no pur
pose of doing, if it be true that you have no such purpose? For the purpose
of removing the apprehensions of the Southern people, and for no other
purpose, you propose to amend the Constitution, so as to render it im
possible, in all future time, for Congress to interfere with slavery in the
States where it may exist under the laws thereof. Why not insert a similar
amendment in respect to slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the
navy-yards, forts, arsenals, and other places within the limits of the slave-
holding States, over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction? Why not
insert a similar provision in respect to the slave trade between the slave-
holding States? The Southern people have more serious apprehensions on
these points than they have of your direct interference with slavery.
If their apprehensions on these several points are groundless, is it not
a duty you owe to God and your country to relieve their anxiety and
remove all causes of discontent? Is there not quite as much reason for re
lieving their apprehensions upon these points, in regard to which they are
much more sensitive, as in respect to your direct interference in the States,
where they know you acknowledge that you have no power to interfere
as the Constitution now stands? The fact that you propose to give the
assurance on one point and peremptorily refuse to give it on the others,
seems to authorize the presumption that you do intend to use the powers
of the Federal Government for the purpose of direct interference with
slavery and the slave trade everywhere else, with the view to its indirect
effects upon slavery in the States; or, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, with
the view of its "ultimate extinction in all the States, old as well as new,
North as well as South."
If you had exhausted your ingenuity in devising a plan for the express
purpose of increasing the apprehensions and inflaming the passions of the
Southern people, with the view of driving them into revolution and dis
union, none could have been contrived better calculated to accomplish
the object than the offering of that one amendment to the Constitution,
and rejecting all others which are infinitely more important to the safety
and tranquillity of the slaveholding States.
In my opinion, we have now reached a point where this agitation must
close, and all the matters in controversy be finally determined by consti-

APPENDIX 273
tutional amendments, or civil war and the disruption of the Union are
inevitable. My friend from Oregon [Mr. Baker], who has addressed the
Senate for the last two days, will fail in his avowed purpose to "evade"
the question. He claims to be liberal and conservative; and I must con
fess that he seems to be the most liberal of any gentleman on that side of
the Chamber, always excepting the noble and patriotic speech of the
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dixon], and the utmost extent to which
the Senator from Oregon would consent to go was to devise a scheme by
which the real question at issue could be evaded.
I regret the determination to which I apprehend the Republican senators
have come, to make no adjustment, entertain no proposition, and listen
to no compromise of the matters in controversy.
I fear, from all the indications, that they are disposed to treat the matter
as a party question, to be determined in caucus with reference to its effects
upon the prospects of their party, rather than upon the peace of the coun
try and the safety of the Union. I invoke their deliberate judgment
whether it is not a dangerous experiment for any political party to demon
strate to the American people that the unity of their party is dearer to
them than the Union of these States. The argument is, that the Chicago
platform having been ratified by the people in a majority of the States
must be maintained at all hazards, no matter what the consequences to
the country. I insist that they are mistaken in the fact when they assert
that this question was decided by the American people in the late election.
The American people have not decided that they preferred the disruption
of this Government, and civil war with all its horrors and miseries, to
surrendering one iota of the Chicago platform. If you believe that the
people are with you on this issue, let the question be submitted to the
people on the proposition offered by the Senator from Kentucky, or mine,
or any other fair compromise, and I will venture the prediction that
your own people will ratify the proposed amendments to the Constitu
tion, in order to take this slavery question out of Congress, and restore
peace to the country, and insure the perpetuity of the Union.
Why not give the people a chance? It is an important crisis. There
is nowaT^aiflerentTssui^e^ented from that in the Presidential election.
I have no doubt that the people of Massachusetts, by an overwhelming
majority, are in favor of a prohibition of slavery in the Territories by an
act of Congress. An overwhelming majority of the same people were in
favor of the instant prohibition of the African slave trade, on moral and
religious grounds, when the Constitution was made. When they found
that the Constitution could not be adopted and the Union preserved,
without surrendering their objections on the slavery question, they, in
the spirit of patriotism and Christian feeling, preferred the lesser evil to
the greater, and ratified the Constitution without their favorite provision
in regard to slavery. Give them a chance to decide now between the
ratification of these proposed amendments to the Constitution and the
consequences which your policy will inevitably produce.
Whv not allow the people to pass on these questions? All we have to
J 18

274 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
do is to submit them to the States. If the people reject them, theirs will
be the responsibility, and no harm will have been done by the reference!
If they accept them, the country will be safe and at peace. The political
party which shall refuse to allow the people to determine for themselves
at the ballot-box the issue between revolution and war on the one side,
and obstinate adherence to party platform on the other, will assume a
fearful responsibility. A war upon a political issue, waged by the people
of eighteen States against the people and domestic institutions of fifteen
sister States, is a fearful and revolting thought. The South will be a
unit, and desperate, under the belief that your object in waging war is
their destruction, and not the preservation of the Union; that you medi
tate servile insurrection, and the abolition of slavery in the Southern
States, by fire and sword, in the name and under pretext of enforcing the
laws and vindicating the authority of the Government. You know that
such is the prevailing, and I may say, unanimous, opinion at the South;
and that ten millions of people are preparing for the terrible conflict under
that conviction.
When there is such an irrepressible discontent pervading ten million
people, penetrating the bosom of every man, woman, and child, and, in
their estimation, involving everything that is valuable and dear on earth,
is it not time to pause and reflect whether there is not some cause, real or
imaginary, for apprehension? If there be a just cause for it, in God's name,
in the name of humanity and civilization, let it be removed. Will we not
be guilty in the sight of Heaven and of posterity, if we do not remove all
just cause before proceeding to extremes? If, on the contrary, there be
no real foundation for these apprehensions; if it be all a mistake, and
yet they, believing it to be a solemn reality, are determined to act on that
belief, is it not equally our duty to remove the misapprehension? Hence
the obligation to remove the causes of discontent, whether real or imag
inary, is alike imperative upon us, if we wish to preserve the peace of the
country and the Union of the States.
It matters not, so far as the peace of the country and the preservation
of the Union are concerned, whether the apprehensions of the Southern
people are well founded or not, so long as they believe them, and are de
termined to act upon that belief. If war comes, it must have an end at
sometime; and that termination, I apprehend, will be a final separation.
Whether the war last one year, seven years, or thirty years, the result
must be the same — a cessation of hostilities when the parties become ex
hausted, and a treaty of peace recognizing the separate independence of
each section. The history of the world does not furnish an instance where
war has raged for a series of years between two classes of States, divided
by a geographical line under the same National Government, which has
ended in reconciliation and reunion. Extermination, subjugation, or sepa
ration, one of the three, must be the result of war between the Northern
and Southern States. Surely, you do not expect to exterminate or subju
gate ten million people, the entire population of one section, as a means
of preserving amicable relations between the two sections?

APPENDIX 275
I repeat, then, my solemn conviction, that war means disunion, — final,
irrevocable, eternal separation. I see no alternative, therefore, but a fair
compromise, founded on the basis of mutual concessions, alike honorable,
just, and beneficial to all parties, or civil war and disunion. Is there any
thing humiliating in a fair compromise of conflicting interests, opinions,
and theories, for the sake of peace, Union, and safety? Read the debates
of the Federal convention, which formed our glorious Constitution, and
you will find noble examples worthy of imitation; instances where sages
and patriots were willing to surrender cherished theories and principles
of government, believed to be essential to the best form of society, for the
sake of peace and unity.
It seems that party platforms, pride of opinion, personal consistency,
or fear of political martyrdom are the only obstacles to a satisfactory ad
justment. Have we nothing else to live for but political position? Have
we no other inducement, no other incentive to our efforts, our toils, and
our sacrifices? Most of us have children, the objects of our tenderest
affections and deepest solicitude, whom we hope to leave behind us to
enjoy the rewards of our labors in a happy, prosperous, and united country,
under the best Government the wisdom of man ever devised or the sun of
Heaven ever shone upon. Can we make no concessions, no sacrifices, for
the sake of our children, that they may have a country to live in and a
Government to protect them when party platforms and political honors
shall avail us nothing in the day of final reckoning?
In conclusion, I have only to renew the assurance that I am prepared
to cooperate cordially with the friends of a fair, just, and honorable com
promise, in securing such amendments to the Constitution as will expel
the slavery agitation from Congress and the arena of Federal politics for
ever, and restore peace to the country, and preserve our liberties and
Union as the most precious legacy we can transmit to our posterity.

THE SO-CALLED "FREEPORT DOCTRINE"
The author of this work long ago wrote an article showing that the so-
called "Freeport Doctrine" was enunciated by Senator Douglas long
before the joint debates were entered upon, and was, in Mr. Lincoln's
presence, proclaimed at Bloomington by the Senator, six weeks before the
joint debate at Freeport, and repeated by him on the next day at
Springfield, and that the published statements in regard to the matter
did the Senator great injustice.
The article appeared in the Chicago Record-Herald of December 22,
1909, and is reproduced here as follows:
Mr. Editor, —
At the second of the Lincoln and Douglas joint debates, which was held
at Freeport, Illinois, on the twenty-seventh of August, 1858, Mr. Lincoln
propounded to Senator Douglas four questions, the second of which was
as follows:
"Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against
the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits
prior to the formation of a State Constitution? "
It is not proposed in this article to consider the legal proposition involved
in this question. This was fully done by the principals in the great con
troversy. It is simply at this time proposed to consider what has seemed
to be throughout the country a general misapprehension in regard to the
circumstances of propounding this question, which does great injustice to
Senator Douglas.
It is understood that by propounding this question Mr. Lincoln forced
the Senator into a position which he reluctantly found himself obliged to
assume, and wrung from him a reply which he was loath to give. It is
further understood that Mr. Lincoln, in propounding the question, could
only surmise what position the Senator would take, but that he believed
that the Senator would be driven to answer the question in the affirmative
in order to keep his hold upon the people of Illinois and retain his seat in
the Senate, and that for the purpose of forcing the Senator to this position
Mr. Lincoln deliberately placed in jeopardy his own chances of election.
It is believed that Mr. Lincoln was warned by his political friends against
asking this question, but that he persisted in his determination to do so
(although by so doing he imperilled his own chances of being elected to
the Senate), with the deliberate purpose of forcing Senator Douglas, as
the only hope of his being reelected to the Senate, into a position that
would defeat him for the Presidency.
This view of this matter is supported by so much authority and so
generally accepted as to make it seem like presumption to question its
correctness. Arnold in his "Life of Lincoln," page 151, says that a friend to whom

APPENDIX 277
the question was shown said to Mr. Lincoln: "Douglas will adhere to his
doctrine of 'squatter sovereignty' and declare that a Territory may ex
clude slavery."
"Ii he does that," said Mr. Lineoln, "he can never be President."
"But," said the friend, "he may be Senator."
"Perhaps," replied Lincoln, "but I am after larger game — the battle
of 1860 is worth a hundred of this."
Horace White, the distinguished editor, at the time of the contest was
a young newspaper correspondent, and wrote the most graphic and inter
esting accounts of the campaign. In an article written in 1890, which may
be found in Herndon's life of Lincoln, Mr. White tells of a conference held
at Dixon, just before the Freeport debate, between Mr. Lincoln and a num
ber of his friends from Chicago, among whom were Norman B. Judd and
Dr. C. H. Ray, the latter the chief editor of The Tribune. "I was not
present," says Mr. White, "but Dr. Ray told me that all who were there
counselled Mr. Lincoln not to put that question to Douglas, because he
would answer it in the affirmative, and thus probably secure his
reelection. "
It was their opinion that Lincoln should argue strongly from the Dred
Scott decision, which Douglas indorsed, that the people of the Territories
could not lawfully exclude slavery prior to the formation of a State Consti
tution, but that he should not force Douglas to say yes or no. They be
lieved that the latter would let the subject alone as much as possible, in
order not to offend the South, unless driven into a corner.
Mr. Lincoln replied that to draw an affirmative answer from Douglas on
this question was exactly what he wanted, and that his object was to make
it impossible for Douglas to get the vote of the Southern States in the next
Presidential election.
In the same article, near its close, Mr. White says: "Perhaps the Charles
ton schism would have taken place, even if Douglas had not been driven
into a corner at Freeport and compelled to proclaim the doctrine of 'un
friendly legislation,' but it is more likely that the break would have been
postponed a few years longer."
Nicolay and Hay, in their exhaustive history of Abraham Lincoln,
make the following statement:
"There is a tradition that on the night preceding the Freeport debate
Lincoln was catching a few hours' rest at a railroad centre named Mendota,
to which place the converging trains brought, after midnight, a number of
excited Republican leaders on their way to attend the great meeting at
the neighboring town of Freeport. Notwithstanding the late hour, Mr.
Lincoln's bedroom was invaded by an improvised caucus, and the omi
nous question was once more brought under consideration.
"The whole drift of advice ran against putting the interrogatory to
Douglas but Lincoln persisted in his determination to force him to an
swer it.
"Finally his friends in a chorus cried: 'If you do you can never be
Senator.'

278 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
"'Gentlemen,' replied Lincoln, 'I am killing larger game. If Douglas
answers he can never be President, and the battle of 1860 is worth a hun
dred of this.'"
These quotations from the writers of the highest character might be
supplemented by many similar quotations from others. The truth of
these statements, so far as the writer knows, has never heretofore been
questioned. A novel by Winston Churchill, entitled "The Crisis," which has been
recently published, attempts to give an account of the alleged interview
between Mr. Lincoln and his friends on the eve of the Freeport debate.
In this account the interview is assumed to have taken place on a rail
way train, and the parties, as stated, were Mr. Lincoln, Joseph Medill,
Norman B. Judd, and Mr. Hill (the last meaning probably Robert R. Hitt),
and Stephen Brice, the hero of the story.
The writer tells of Mr. Lincoln reading to the gentlemen the four ques
tions he intended to propound at Freeport, and proceeds with his account
of the interview as follows:
"'We don't care about any of the others,' answered Mr. Medill, 'but I
tell you this, if you ask that second one you will never see the United States
Senate.' "'And the Republican party of this State will have a blow from which
it cannot recover,' added Mr. Judd, chairman of the committee.
"Mr. Lincoln did not appear to hear them. His eyes were far away
over the wet prairie.
"Stephen held his breath, but neither he nor Medill nor Judd nor
Hill guessed at the pregnancy of that moment. How were they to know
that the fate of the United States of America was concealed in that ques
tion — was to be decided that day on a rough wooden platform at Free-
port, Illinois?"
After some further rhapsodies of the author of this story, he makes
"Abe and Joe and Judd " continue the conversation in a similar strain,
and Mr. Lincoln reads to them the question under consideration:
'.' 'Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against
the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits
prior to the formation of a State Constitution?'"
This evoked, according to the author of "The Crisis," more warnings and
protests from "Joe and Judd," to which Mr. Lincoln offered a reply, in the
course of which he is made to say :
" ' I '11 tell you why I 'm in this campaign — to catch Douglas now, and
keep him out of the White House in 1860 ; to save this country of ours.
Joe, she 's sick.'
" ' Suppose he answers yes — that slavery can be excluded ' ? questioned
Mr. Judd.
f'Then,' said Mr. Lincoln, 'then Douglas loses the vote of the great
slaveholders, the vote of the solid South, that he has been fostering ever
since he has had the itch to be President. Without the solid South, the
little giant will never live in the White House. And unless I 'm mightily

APPENDIX 279
mistaken Steve Douglas has had his eye as far ahead as 1860 for some
time.'" Not satisfied with all this the author in commenting upon the question
and answer as they were heard at Freeport, exclaims :
"What man amongst those who heard and stirred might say that these
minutes, even now lasting into eternity, held the crisis of a nation that is
the hope of the world? Not you, Judge Douglas, who sits there smiling.
Consternation is a stranger in your heart — but answer that question if
you can. Yes, your nimble wit has helped you out of many a tight corner.
You do not feel the noose — as yet. Can you not guess that your reply
will make or mar the fortunes of your country?"
With all that has been quoted and much more, for which we have not
space, giving the same understanding of the matter under consideration,
it may, as has been said, seem presumptuous to question the correctness
of views so generally accepted. It is important, however, that the truth
be known. This is due to the memory of Senator Douglas, to that of Mr.
Lincoln, and of all the others whose names have been mentioned, and, if
there has been a mistake, it ought to be corrected. We are convinced
that there has been a mistake — that injustice has been done, and there
fore we ask that the matter be reconsidered.
The answer of Senator Douglas at Freeport to the question under con
sideration was, after repeating it, as follows :
"I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred
times from every stump in Illinois, that, in my opinion, a Territory can,
by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation
of a State Constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that ques
tion over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that
issue in 1854, in 1855, in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be
in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what the
Supreme Court may hereafter decide, as to the abstract question whether
slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the
people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please,
for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere unless
it is supported by local police regulations.
"Those police regulations can only be established by the local Legislature,
and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect members to that
body who will, by unfriendly legislation, effectually prevent the introduc
tion of it in their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, then legis
lation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the
Supreme Court may be upon that abstract question, still the right of the
people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and com
plete under the Nebraska bill."
Thus we see that the Senator answered, as it is claimed was predicted by
Mr. Lincoln's friends, at the alleged conferences held at Mendota and Dixon,
and on a flying railway train.
It will be observed that in this reply the Senator says :
!'I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me a hundred time*

280 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
from every stump in Illinois. ... He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on
that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, in 1856," etc.
This of itself should have satisfied every one that ever knew Senator
Douglas that in replying to the question he had enunciated no new doctrine,
but the same he had proclaimed many times before. Every one who knew
Senator Douglas knew that he was incapable of making that statement
unless it had been substantially true. In the three years that had elapsed
he had probably enunciated that doctrine more than a hundred times —
certainly many times.
Fortunately we are not left to rely upon the Senator's unsupported
statement in regard to this matter. We have — I will not say the evidence
— we have the proof that in the same campaign, six weeks before the ques
tion was asked him at Freeport, Senator Douglas, in the presence of Mr.
Lincoln and a large audience, proclaimed the same doctrine enunciated at
Freeport, and we also have the proof that on the following day before an
other audience he again proclaimed the same doctrine.
That campaign of 1858 between Lincoln and Douglas was opened by
Mr. Lincoln with his prophetic address before the Illinois State Republican
convention on June 17, in which, after exclaiming that "a house divided
against itself cannot stand," he declared: "This Government cannot en
dure permanently half slave and half free," etc.
Upon his coming home from Washington some time thereafter, Senator
Douglas was, on July 9, given a public reception at Chicago, when he re
plied to Mr. Lincoln's Springfield address. Mr. Lincoln was present and
heard this Chicago address, and on the next evening, the tenth, he made
a speech in Chicago replying to the Senator.
On Friday, July 16, Senator Douglas spoke at Bloomington, and Mr.
Lincoln was present. On the next day, Saturday the seventeenth, Senator
Douglas spoke at Springfield in the afternoon. Mr. Lincoln was not present,
but he himself spoke at the same place in the evening. (That Springfield
speech, in which the Senator used almost the precise language upon this
matter as at Bloomington, was published in full in The Illinois State Reg
ister on Monday, the nineteenth. See files of The Illinois State Register in
the State library at Springfield.)
Senator Douglas's speech at Bloomington, it will be observed, was made
on the sixteenth of July. The Freeport debate was held on the twenty-
seventh of August, six weeks later. Not being limited in time at Bloom
ington and Springfield as in the joint debates, the Senator could elaborate
bis views fully.
Let us see what Senator Douglas said upon the question under considera
tion six weeks before it was propounded to him at Freeport in the presence
of Mr. Lincoln and a large audience at Bloomington, and which he repeated
on the next day at Springfield. This is what he said :
"Mr. Lincoln is alarmed for fear that under the Dred Scott decision
slavery will go into all the Territories of the United States. All I have to
say is that, with or without that decision, slavery will go just where the
people want it, and not one inch further. You have had experience upon

APPENDIX 281
that subject in the case of Kansas. You have been told by the Republican
party that from 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, down to
last winter, that slavery was sustained and supported in Kansas by the
laws of what they call a ' bogus ' Legislature. And how many slaves were
there in the Territory at the end of last winter? Not as many at the end
of that period as there were on the day the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed.
There was quite a number of slaves in Kansas, taken there under the
Missouri Compromise, and in spite of it, before the Kansas-Nebraska bill
passed, and now it is asserted that there are not as many there as there
were before the passage of the bill, notwithstanding that they had local
laws sustaining and encouraging it, enacted, as the Republicans say, by
a 'bogus' Legislature, imposed upon Kansas by an invasion from Missouri.
"Why has not slavery obtained a foothold in Kansas under these cir
cumstances? Simply because there was a majority of her people opposed
to slavery, and every slaveholder knew that if he took his slaves there
the moment that majority got possession of the ballot boxes, and a fair
election was held, that moment slavery would be abolished and he
would lose them. For that reason, such owners as took their slaves there
brought them back to Missouri, fearing that if they remained they would
be emancipated.
"Thus you see that under the principle of popular sovereignty, slavery
has been kept out of Kansas, notwithstanding the fact that for the first
three years they had a legislature in that Territory favorable to it.
"I tell you, my friends, it is impossible under our institutions to force
slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty
asserted in the Nebraska bill be fairly carried out, by letting the people
decide the question for themselves, by a fair vote, at a fair election, and
with honest returns, slavery will never exist one day, or one hour, in any
Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people.
"I care not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled the abstract
question so far as the practical result is concerned, for, to use the language
of an eminent Southern senator, on this very question :
." I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, but it is of no par
ticular consequence; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour, in any Terri
tory or State, unless it has affirmative laws, sustaining and supporting it,
furnishing police regulations and remedies; and an omission to furnish
them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. Without affirma
tive legislation in its favor slavery could not exist any longer than a
new-born infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a barren
rock, without protection. It would wilt and die for want of support.'
"Hence," continued Senator Douglas, "if the people of a Territory want
slavery they will encourage it by passing affirmatory laws and the neces
sary police regulations, patrol laws, and slave code ; if they do not want
it, they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slavery is as
dead as if it was prohibited by a constitutional prohibition, especially if
in addition their legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were op
posed to it.

282 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
"They could pass such local laws and police regulations as would drive
slavery out in one day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it, and there
fore, so far as the question of slavery in the Territories is concerned, so
far as the principle of popular sovereignty is concerned, in its practical
operation, it matters not how the Dred Scott case may be decided with
reference to the Territories. My own opinion on that law point is well
known. It is shown by my votes and speeches in Congress.
"But, be it as it may, the question is an abstract question, inviting no
practical results, and whether slavery shall exist or shall not exist in any
State or Territory will depend upon whether the people are for or against
it, and whichever way they shall decide it in any Territory or in any
State will be entirely satisfactory to me."
[See "Political Debates and Speeches of Lincoln and Douglas," Follett,
Foster & Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1860, page 34, which presents Mr. Lincoln's
speeches as they appeared in The Chicago Tribune and Mr. Douglas's as
they appeared in The Chicago Times.]
It must be apparent to every candid person who has before him these
words spoken by Senator Douglas at Bloomington and Springfield that
there has been some mistake about Senator Douglas having been at Free-
port, six weeks afterward, "forced" or "driven" into a corner and "com
pelled to proclaim the doctrine of 'unfriendly legislation.'"
With the speeches of Senator Douglas at Bloomington and Springfield
before us is it not apparent to every candid mind that great and cruel in
justice has been done to Senator Douglas?
In the light of those speeches at Bloomington and at Springfield is it not
likewise apparent that a wrong has been also inflicted upon Mr. Lincoln?
After having heard that Bloomington speech and read it in the newspapers
where it was published, how could Mr. Lincoln, honest man that he was,
have said what has been attributed to him in those alleged conferences,
and how could he have silently listened to what has been attributed to
others who are alleged to have taken part in the discussion? Does it not
convict him of being guilty of disingenuousness, or of somethng worse,
which every one who knew Mr. Lincoln knows was impossible? To say
that Mr. Lincoln was not perfectly familiar with and that he did not un
derstand and had not weighed the effect of every sentence and line of
Senator Douglas's Bloomington and Springfield speeches, is to assume that
he was entirely unequal to the great contest in which he was engaged.
To say that Senator Douglas could have been so easily "driven into a
corner and compelled to proclaim the doctrine of 'unfriendly legislation'"
is to assume that the foremost statesman and the ablest debater in Con
gress was a person of very ordinary ability. It is to detract from the high
estimation in which are held both of the mighty contestants and to rob
them of the laurels they so richly earned.
With Senator Douglas's Bloomington and Springfield speeches before
us, to say that such a conference as is alleged, was held on the day before
the Freeport debate, is a reflection upon Joseph Medill, C. A. Ray, Norman
B. Judd, Robert R. Hitt and others — the ablest men in Illinois of that

APPENDIX 283
day, — who were watching with intense interest and anxiety every move of
Senator Douglas. That some of them, years after the death of both Lin
coln and Douglas, thought they could recall such a conference simply
shows a defective memory in having forgotten the speeches at Bloom
ington and Springfield.
But why, it may be asked, if not for the purpose of driving the Senator
into a corner and of wringing from him an unwilling answer, did Mr. Lin
coln propound the second interrogatory?
The same question might be asked in regard to either of the three other
interrogatories. Why did Mr. Lincoln propound the first, the third, or
the fourth? A more relevant question would be, how did Mr. Lincoln
with such consummate wisdom formulate the four interrogatories? If
one will study these together he will find that, with the sagacity of a philos
opher and the instinct of the keen and discriminating lawyer he was, Mr.
Lincoln made and arranged those interrogatories, following one another
in logical sequence, each relating directly to and necessary to the other,
in order to attain the result for which they were intended, which was to
make up and so plainly define the issues of the campaign that they would
be clear to everybody. With this end in view, neither interrogatory could
be omitted. It was in the quality of mind that enabled him to marshal,
combine and make the most of interrogatories, syllogisms, metaphors,
anecdotes, and, indeed, every kind and form of reasoning and illustration,
that Mr. Lincoln excelled Senator Douglas. This is apparent throughout
all the debates, from the first meeting at Ottawa to the last one at Alton.
But all this is irrelevant to the question under consideration. If it is
true that Senator Douglas had in as public a manner, before thousands
of people, repeatedly, long before the Freeport debate, declared himself as
fully and freely and explicitly upon the question under consideration, as
he did at Freeport, and that Mr. Lincoln had heard that declaration as it
fell from the lips of the Senator, and that all persons interested in the con
test must have known his position, it is cruel and outrageous to say that
he "was driven into a corner at Freeport and compelled to proclaim the
doctrine of ' unfriendly legislation ' " — that he was forced to say "yes" or
"no" — that he had been driven to put his head into a "noose" and could
only hope to extricate himself through his "nimble wit," etc.
There seems to be a disposition in some quarters to belittle Senator
Douglas. There are those who seem to think that by so doing they exalt
Mr. Lincoln. By so doing they are really depreciating Mr. Lincoln.
It was because Mr. Lincoln manfully met and, according to the judg
ment of the American people, overcame the mightiest debater and orator
in public life, the majesty of whose forensic power moved and controlled
the United States Senate and vast assemblages of people and great repre
sentative conventions, and dictated the policy of the nation; it was
because Mr. Lincoln bravely met and successfully coped with such a
personage, that he was held in such estimation as to be accorded the
highest honors the people could bestow.
The character of Abraham Lincoln was so exalted that after we have

284 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
freely and generously given the full meed of glory they earned to all those
with whom he came in contact or was associated, whether adversaries with
whom he contended or statesmen he called into his cabinet, he still majes
tically towers above them all. The whole civilized world enshrines him
among the immortals. His glory can neither be illumined nor dimmed by
anything we may put forth or withhold. As with devotion akin to worship
we recall his resplendent personality, sublime, benignant, considerate, let
us not be unmindful of what is due to those with whom he lived and moved
and acted. There was no envy, nor hatred, nor malice in his nature. He
was always just. We can in no better way manifest our high apprecia
tion of his resplendent virtues than by doing justice to his illustrious
adversary.

INDEX

INDEX

Abolition, 45
Adams, John, 14
 , John Quincy, 14-19, 22
Alabama, secession of, 114
 troops, 115
Alaska, 20, 28
Alleghany Mountains as western
boundary, 34
Alton debate, 80
American Fur Company, 20
Arizona, acquisition of, 16, 28, 73,
131 ; included in New Mexico, 109
Arkansas troops, 115
Ashburton Treaty, 21
Asia, foreign powers in, 36
Auction, Douglas clerk of, 1

B

Baltimore, Charleston convention
adjourned to, 96, 97, 131
 , Constitutional Union party
convention at, 98
 Democratic convention (1852),
94
Bangor [Maine] Union, The, 118,
139
Barnett, Squire, 47
Barrancas, Fort, 115
Baton Rouge Arsenal, 115
Bell, John, 98, 104
Bloomington speech, 79, 81, 82, 91
Brandon, Vt., birthplace of Doug
las, 3
Breckenridge, John C, 97, 98, 101,
104
Breese, Judge Sidney, 23
Brougham, Speeches of, 87
Browning, Orville H., 43
Buchanan's administration, 60-64,
67, 88, 90, 91, 94, 100, 101, 113,
126
Bulwer, Sir Henry, British Minister,
36
Burke, speeches of, 87

C
Cabinet-making, Douglas's trade, 3
Calhoun, John C, 74, 77
California, acquisition of, 16, 28, 35,
73, 131 ; western coast to, claimed
by Great Britain, 20; "Central
America on road to," 36; in
Compromise Measures of 1850,
39; act organizing, 91
Campaign of 1840, 10, 11
Canal, isthmian, projects, 30-33
Canandaigua, N. Y., Douglas in, 3
Candidacy, direct, 9
Central America, Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty concerning, 29, 31, 32, 35,
36
Charleston debate, 80
 Democratic convention (1860),
94—97 131
Chicago,' 39, 44, 46, 47, 52, 79, 98,
136, 141, 143
Chicago Times, The, 139
Chicago, University of, 50-52
Civil War, legal precedent in the, 13 ;
interrupted building of Pacific
railway, 25; division as to Doug
las a step toward, 90, 95; South
ern sentiment since the, 95;
Douglas's forecast of the, 105;
outbreak of the, 115, 134
Clay, Henry, 38, 53, 74, 77, 99
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, 28, 29, 31-
33, 35, 36, 73, 131; speech on,
169-178
Coahuila, one of Spanish provinces
of Mexico, 18
Columbia, District of, 39, 106
Compromise between North and
South, efforts to effect a, 105-112,
121, 134; speech on, 252-275
Compromise measures of 1820 (Mis
souri Compromise), 54, 78
Compromise measures of 1850, 38,
39, 73, 78
Confederacy, the, 114-116, 121, 128,
134, 135, 138, 140
Congress, Douglas in, 2, 12, 15, 24,

288

INDEX

25, 27, 31, 39, 43, 53, 57, 60, 73,
74, 91, 102; John Quincy Adams
in, 14, 15; division of, on Oregon
boundary question, 21; Illinois
Central Railway measure in, 23,
24; question of extension of slave
territory in, 54, _ 55; agitation
over slavery question in, 56
Connecticut in Douglas campaign,
93
Constitutional Union party, 98
Coon-skin emblems in campaign of
1840, 10, 11
"Copperheads," 141
Corwm, Mr., of Ohio, 108
"Cotton States," 114, 127
Crittenden, John J., and Crittenden
amendment, 106, 107, 118
Cuba, 34, 35, 113
Cullom, Hon. Shelby M., 135
Cutts, Adele (Mrs. Stephen A.
Douglas), 49
 James Madison, 49

D
Davis, Jefferson, 96, 114, 115, 121,
127
Debates between Lincoln and Doug
las, 2, 44-46, 51, 76, 80-89, 99,
100
Democracy, Douglas the embodi
ment of, 7
Democratic party, 4, 7, 10, 11, 22,
40, 57, 96, 98, 116, 118, 128, 131,
132, 140
 politicians, excessive convivi
ality among, 46
Denver, Governor, 67
Detroit Free Press, The, 118, 139
Dickinson, Daniel S., 96
Dixon, Senator Archibald, 56
Douglas, Dr., father of Stephen A.
Douglas, 3
 , Mrs., mother of Stephen A.
Douglas, 3
 , Hon. Robert M., 24, 49, 58,
59
 , Stephen A., personal appear
ance of, 1, 7, 41, 42; financial
condition of, in 1833, 1, 8; arrival
of, in Winchester, 111., 1, 3, 5, 8,
12, 74, 92; first money earned
by, 1; school opened by, 1, 2, 6,
7; his study of law, 2, 7; his
progress in first ten years, 2;
offices held by, 2, 10, 24, 74; in

Congress, 2, 12, 15, 24, 25, 27,
31, 39, 43, 53, 57, 60, 73, 74, 91,
102; his debates with Lincoln,
2, 44-46, 51, 76, 80-89, 99, 100;
death of, 2, 143; birth, educa
tion, and apprenticeship of, 3;
at Canandaigua, N. Y., 3; his
candidacy for President, 4, 40, 53,
57, 90-104, 124, 129-131, 133, 140;
as statesman, 4, 74; Jackson
ideal hero of, and his champion
ship of Jackson's cause, 5-7, 9,
10, 12, 73, 131; law practice of,
7; first political speech of, 7, 8;
best informed and ablest Demo
crat in Illinois, 7 ; known through
out State, 7, 8, 10, 11; described
by Rev. Wm. H. Milburn, 8;
canvassed Illinois for Van Buren,
9-11; no political scandals in
career of, 10; called "Little
Giant," 11, 41, 42; debates in
defence of Gen. Jackson, 12, 13;
his interpretation of the law es
tablished precedent, 13; impres
sion produced upon John Quincy
Adams by, 14-16; his manner of
public speaking, 15, 85; his
triumph over Mr. Adams, 15-19;
supporter of President Polk and
advocate of Mexican War, 16-19,
73, 131; his position on Oregon
boundary question, 21, 22, 73,
131; under leadership of J. Q.
Adams, 22; his part in Illinois
Central Railway legislation, 23,
24, 73; his eldest son, 24, 58;
his attitude toward proposed
Pacific railway, 25, 26, 73; toward
inland waterway legislation, 27,
73; toward foreign acquisition
and Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, 28-
37, 73, 131 ; John Hay a student
and disciple of, 33; his relation
with Compromise Measures of
1850, 38, 39, 45, 54-58, 73, 75
(see "in opposition to Lecompton
Constitution ") ; his Chicago
speech (Oct. 23, 1850), 39; his
influence in Illinois, 39, 61; his
debates with Whigs, 39; leader
of Democratic party, 40, 63; a
"good mixer," 42; character
istics of, 42-47; as a presiding
judge, 42; his voice, 43, 85, 86;
loyal to friends, 43; dignity of,
43, 44, 85; in campaign against
O. H. Browning, 43; eontrasted

INDEX

289

with Lincoln, 44, 46, 86; his first
Chicago speech in campaign
against Lincoln, 44, 79; his de
bate with anti-slavery orator,
45 ; charged with drinking habits,
46; an incessant smoker, 46; his
increasing embonpoint, 46; his
habits of dress, 46; his readiness
in emergency, 46, 47 ; considerate
toward young men, 47; family
of, 49, 58, 59 ; his connection with
University of Chicago, 50-52;
with Chicago, 52; tomb of, 52;
popularity of, 53, 56, 57, 61, 63;
mistake of, 53-57; his position
on slavery, 58-61, 75; com
mitted to the South, 58, 60, 61;
in opposition to Lecompton Con
stitution, 61-70, 72, 73, 75, 77,
79, 90, 98, 131; his break with
the administration, 62, 63, 70-
72, 88, 89, 91, 100, 101 ; his great
speech in Senate, 1858, 65-68;
not recreant to popular sov
ereignty principles in Nebraska
bill, 68, 77 ; his campaign for
second term in Senate, 70, 72,
75, 77, 79, 88; his attitude on
presidential dictation, 70-72 ;
knew Constitution by heart, 74;
his utterances widely read, 79,
138, 139 ; not a man to be driven
into a corner, 82; his speech at
Winchester, 111., 92; the fore
most American, 102; his efforts
to save the Union, 105-109, 112,
113, 121, 140, 141; at Lincoln's
inaugural, 123, 124; sentiment
toward, after Lincoln's inaugural,
127; his conference with Lincoln,
129, 130, 134; his loyal support
of Lincoln, 130, 132-134; his
address before Illinois Legisla
ture, 135, 136; his address at
Chicago, 136-138, 141, 142; his
last words, 143
 , Stephen A., Jr., 49
Draper, John W., 78
Dred Scott decision, 44, 81, 85, 87,
90 E
Egypt (southern Illinois), 88, 133
Emerson, quoted, 78
Everett, speeches of, 87
Expansion, Douglas's views on, 34-
37,73

Father of Stephen A. Douglas, 3
"Fifty-four forty or fight," watch
word of Democratic party, 20,
22, 28, 73, 131
Fine imposed by Federal Judge Hall
on Gen. Jackson, 5, 6, 12
Florida, acquisition of, 34, 35; se
cession of, 114
Floyd, Mr., Secretary of War under
Buchanan, 115, 116
Foreign policy of Douglas, 28, 29,
31, 32, 73; speech on, 169-178
Fox, speeches of, 87
France in transfer of Louisiana, 18
Franklin, Benjamin, 136
Frederick the Great, 22
Freeport debate, 80, 82, 88, 91
"Freeport Doctrine," the so-called,
276-284
Free Soil party, 68
Fugitive Slave Law, 39, 66, 107, 117,
125, 126, 136, 137 G
Galesburg, debate at, 44, 80 ; Doug
las's friends at, 47
Georgia, Gulf of, 21
 , secession of, 112, 114
Goethe, quoted, 30, 32
"Governor of Illinois," 47, 48
Grant, Ulysses S., 57
Great Britain, its claims in Oregon
boundary question, 20-22, 28;
value placed upon Oregon coun
try by, 21; understood situation
between North and South, 22;
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with, 28,
29, 32, 33, 35, 36; Confederacy
expected to be recognized by. 114
"Great Pacificator" (Henry Clay),
38
Greeley, Horace, 72, 116
Guthrie, James, 96

Hall, Judge, of Federal Court, New
Orleans, 5, 12
Hamilton, Alexander, 77, 136
Hard cider campaign, 10, 11
Hardin, Col. John J., 8
Harrison, William Henry, 11
Harvard, J. Q. Adams a professor at,
14
Hay, John, 32, 33
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, 33

19

290

INDEX

Hermitage, the, Gen. Jackson's
home, 10
Hudson's Bay Company, 20
Humboldt, Alexander von, 30
Hunter, R. M. T., 96

Illinois, Douglas's arrival in, 1, 3, 5,
12, 74, 92; offices held by Doug
las in, 2, 74; presented Douglas
as candidate for Presidency, 4;
most cultivated and only college
town in, 7 ; Douglas ablest cham
pion of Democratic party in, 7, 10 ;
method of announcing candidacy
in, 9; Douglas best-known man
in, 10; saved to Democratic
party by Douglas, 11; Douglas
foremost orator in, 11; gave
electoral vote to Van Buren, 11;
compared with disputed Oregon
country, 21; revenue to, from
Illinois Central Railway, 23, 24;
Douglas's control of, 39, 61;
Douglas's regard for, 52; ably
represented in Senate by Douglas,
69; attacks upon Douglas by ad
ministration in, 70; campaign for
senatorship in, 70, 72, 75, 77, 79,
88, 91; distinction conferred by
Douglas upon, 75; enthusiasm
over debates in, 83; Lincoln at
time of opening of debates known
only in, 87, 102; Douglas sup
ported for Presidency in, 93, 94
101; Lincoln's majority in, 101
threatened war in, 120, 121, 133
Union army men from, 133; last
speeches in, 135-139, 141-143.
Illinois Central Railway, 23-25, 73
Illinois State Register, The, 82
Inaugural address, President Lin
coln's, 124-128
Indiana in Douglas campaign, 93,
100
Ingersoll, speeches of, 87
Internal improvements, Douglas's
attitude toward, 27, 73; speech
on, 235-242
Iowa in Douglas campaign, 93
Isthmian canal projects, 30-33

Jackson, Andrew, 5-7, 9-12, 62, 73,
131; speech in vindication of,
145-155
 , Fort, 115

Jacksonville, 111., 7, 8
Jay, John, 77
Jefferson, Thomas, 19, 77, 136
Johnson, Alexander B., 119
Jonesboro debate, 80
Juan de Fuca, Straits of, 21, 22
K
Kansas, 55, 56, 58, 60-64, 66-69,
73, 75, 77, 81, 90, 91, 95, 98, 131
Kansas-Nebraska bill, 55, 59, 73;
speech on, 187-217
Knoxville, Douglas in, 43

Land-grant railways of various
States, 24
Land, price of, raised by railway, 23
Lane, Joseph, 96
Lanphere, Judge, 47
Law, Douglas's study of, 2, 3, 7;
his practice of, 7; an important
precedent established in, 13
Lecompton Constitution, 60-64, 66-
70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 90; speech on,
218-234
Lincoln, Abraham, 2, 4, 33, 44-47,
57, 69, 76-89, 91, 92, 98-105, 110,
111, 116, 117, 122-130, 133, 134,
136, 138
"Little Giant, The" (Stephen A.
Douglas), 11, 41, 42, 87, 88, 102
Little Rock Arsenal, 115
"Lost Cause, The, a New Southern
History of the War of the Con
federates," E. A. Pollard, 115,
140
Louisiana, 5, 18, 114
 Purchase, 16, 19, 34, 35
 troops, 115 M
Madison, James, 19, 77, 136
Mails throughout North and South,
125
Maine in Douglas campaign, 93, 100
Market House, Jacksonville, 111., 8
Marshall, Chief Justice, 77
Martial law declared by Gen. Jack
son at New Orleans, 5, 12
Martin, Martha (Mrs. Stephen A.
Douglas), 49, 59
 , Col. Robert, 49, 59
Massachusetts represented in House
by J. Q. Adams, 14

INDEX

291

Mattison, Governor, of Illinois, 27
McMurtry, Governor, 43, 47
McRea, Fort, 115
Mexican Gulf, 30
 War, 16-19, 26, 28, 73, 131;
speech on, 156-167
Mexico, 35, 55
Michigan in Douglas campaign, 93
 , Lake, 52
Milburn, Rev. Wm. H., 8
Milton, highest merit ascribed to, 78
Minnesota in Douglas campaign, 93
Mississippi River, as western bound
ary, 34 ; in heart of continent, 35
 , secession of, 114
Missouri, 54, 103
 Compromise, 45, 51, 54-57, 75,
78, 107
 Compromise line, 54-56, 58, 74,
75, 98, 106, 107, 134
 River, 26
Mobile Bay, 115
Monroe, President James, 17, 19
Montgomery, Ala., Confederacy or
ganized at, 114, 121, 127
Morgan Co., 111., 8
 , Fort, 115
Moses, highest merit ascribed to, 78
Mother of Stephen A. Douglas, 3
Moultrie, Fort, 115
Mount Vernon, Ala., 115
N
National Bank under President Jack
son, 7
National peace conference, 106
Nebraska, 55, 56, 58, 91, 98
 bill, 45, 56, 57, 66, 68
Negro, how regarded by Douglas,
58; by Lincoln, 82, 85
New England Northern sentiment
opposed to Mexican War, 16
New Hampshire voted for Van
Buren, 11; in Douglas campaign,
93
New Jersey in Douglas campaign,
103
New Mexico, acquisition of, 16, 28,
73, 131 ; in Compromise Measures
of 1850, 39; act organizing, 91;
proposition to admit as State, 109
New Orleans, 5, 12, 115
 , battle of, 5
 , Island of, 19
New York, in Douglas campaign,
93, 101; Democratic State con
vention (1861) in, 119-121, 139

New York Times, 41
North America under one flag,
Douglas's hope, 28
North, the, interest in free Oregon
territory in, 22, 26; attitude of,
on breaking down Missouri Com
promise fine, 58; Democratic
party in the, 90, 91, 98, 99, 101,
103, 116-121, 131, 140; senti
ment in, since Civil War, 95;
Douglas's appeal to Republicans
of, 107, 112, 121; Jefferson
Davis's prophecy as to, 114;
division of, 116, 121, 127, 128;
Southern sympathizers in, 141
Northeastern boundary question be
tween Great Britain and United
States, 21
Nueces River, 17, 18
O
Ohio in Douglas campaign, 93, 100,
101
"Old Man Eloquent, The" (John
Quincy Adams), 14, 22
Onis, Don, Spanish Minister (1819),
18
Oregon boundary question, 20-22,
26, 28, 73, 131; extracts from
two speeches on, 168
Orient, commerce with the, 22
Ottawa debate, 80, 88

Pacific coast, British vessels on the,
20; United States claim on, 28
 Ocean, proposed connection
of, with Mexican Gulf by canal, 30
 railway, Douglas's attitude
toward, 25, 26, 73; speech on,
243-251
Panama Canal, 32, 33
Pennsylvania in Douglas campaign,
100
Pensacola Navy Yard, 115
Personal Liberty laws, 118
Phillips, speeches of, 87
Pickens, Fort, 115
Pierce, Franklin, 94
Pike, Fort, 115
Pinckney, C. C, 19
 , Fort, 115
Pitt, speeches of, 87
Plato, highest merit ascribed to, 78
Polk, President, 16, 22
Pollard, Edward A., 115, 116, 140

292

INDEX

Popular sovereignty, 45, 59, 60, 68,
77, 107, 131
Presidency, Douglas's candidacy for
the, 4, 40, 53, 57, 90-104, 124,
129-131, 133, 140; Jackson's
candidacy for the, 6; Lincoln's
candidacy for the, 98-104, 122,
129
President, qualifications for, 53
Presidential dictation to members
of Congress, 70-72
Progress of United States as ex
pressed by Douglas, 32
Puget Sound, 21
Pulaski, Fort, 115

Q
Quincy debate, 80

Railway-building, 24, 25
Reid, Governor David S., 59
Republican party, 57, 89, 99, 110,
111, 118, 119
Rio del Norte, 19
Rio Grande River, 17, 18
River and harbor appropriations
and inland waterways, 27
Rockefeller, John D., 50
Rocky Mountains, 34

S
"Sage of Ashland" (Henry Clay), 38
St. Philip, Fort, 115
Savannah, 115
Secession of South, 95, 96, 103, 112-
114, 119-121, 124-127, 138
Secretary of War under President
Buchanan, see Floyd, Mr.
Senate chamber, those admitted to,
47
Senate, dignity of the, 65
Seymour, Governor, 119
Silesia, Frederick the Great's atti
tude toward, 22
Slaveholders, loss to, might have
been averted, 95, 110; of border
States, 127; constitutional rights
of, 137
Slavery, 54-60, 62, 63, 66, 68, 74,
75, 77-82, 85, 90, 91, 95, 98, 99,
106, 108-111, 117, 125, 131, 136,
137

Slaves, Douglas's attitude toward,
58, 59
Soule, Mr., 35
South Carolina, secession of, 114
 troops, 115
South, the, sentiment opposed to
ascendency of, 16; opposed to
extension of free territory, 22,
26; Douglas committed to, 58,
60; administration under con
trol of, 60; urged Lecompton Con
stitution for Kansas, 61 ; Douglas
adored in, 63; did not support
Douglas for President, 90, 91,
95-99, 101, 103, 131; sentiment
of, since war, 95; steps toward
secession of, 95, 96; Douglas's
attitude toward, 106; result to,
if compromise had been effected,
110; organization of, into Con
federacy, 114-116; confidence of,
116-121; Lincoln's good will
toward, 122; reception of Lin
coln's inaugural in, 124; security
of rights of, 137
Spain, in transfer of Louisiana, 18;
of Cuba, 113
Springfield Armory, 116
 speeches, 79, 82, 91, 135
Squatter sovereignty, 59, 98
Stanton, ex-Governor, 67
State sovereignty, 71
Stephens, Alexander H., 112, 114
Stevenson, Ala., Jefferson Davis's
speech at, 114
Sumter, Fort, 128, 130

Territorial expansion and foreign
aggression, speech on, 179-186
Territories, slave and free, 54-56,
58-61, 66-68, 75, 77, 81, 90, 91,
98, 110
Texas, boundary of, 17-19, 31, 39;
acquisition of, 35; secession of,
114; transfer of, to Confederacy,
116; speech on annexation of,
156-167
Thayer, James S., 120
Thomas, Senator Jesse B., 55
"Tippecanoe and Tyler too," 10,
Tremont House, Chicago, 143
Troy, N. Y., arsenal, 116
Twiggs, General, 116

INDEX

293

u
United State's, foreign policy of,
28, 29, 35-37; in Isthmian canal
projects, 30-33
Utah, in Compromise Measures of
1850, 39; act organizing, 91

V
Van Buren, Martin, 9-11
Vermont in Douglas campaign, 93
Virginia resolutions of 1798, 96

W
Wade, Hon. Benjamin F., Ill
Walker, Robert J., 67

Walworth, Chancellor Reuben H.,
120
War, Douglas's efforts to avert, 105-
109, 112, 113, 121, 130, 132-141
Washington, George, 136, 137
Watervliet Arsenal, Troy, N. Y.,
116
Waterway improvements, Douglas's
advocacy of, 27, 73
Webster, Daniel, 74, 77, 85, 87
West, the, Douglas's attitude toward,
16
Whig party, 8, 39, 57
"Wild-cat" times, 46
Williams, Gen. Robert, 49
Winchester, Scott Co., 111., 1, 3, 8,
92
Wisconsin in Douglas campaign, 93

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY