« ZurückWeiter »
less, that it failed in producing any impression save disgust for the author. His allegations were promptly exposed and triumphantly refuted.
Douglas' tour over the State was a succession of triumphs such as bad rarely ever been witnessed in Illinois. Presidential aspirants in the Democratic party, who desired his defeat, hovered about Illinois, and were alarmed at the prospect. The arm of Federal power fell upon officials who dared say they would vote for Douglas. Brainard was appointed to the marine hospital in place of Dr. M‘VICKAR, an accomplished physician and a Democrat of unimpeachable integrity.
An amusing incident occurred at this time, and it is questionable whether in the history of partizanship a parallel can be found for it. A venerable gentleman was holding a small, very small Federal office in Chicago. He was the father of twenty-one children; his age, his democracy and his patriarchal character could not save him from destruction. One of the respectable statesmen who, living far off from Illinois had taken such an interest in Illinois politics, and had become so anxious for Lincoln's success, reached Chicago, and in a few days it was ascertained that the fate of the venerable officeholder was sealed. On the morning when the papers for his removal and for the appointment of his successor were about to be sent off to Washington, the old man rushed into the hotel, entered unbidden the council chamber of the Danites, and addressing the exalted dispenser of Federal patronage, exclaimed, “He has come! My wife have my twenty-second child this morning, and I bave called him
and he look very much like you !"
The prefixes to the family name of the boy were the names of Mr. Buchanan's embassador to Illinois. Human nature could not resist that appeal! He had already one boy named James Buchanan, and another Howell Cobb. Even Danito revenge yielded, and the old man was continued in office. The old man afterwards said that if Bright and Fitch would only give him ordinary time and notice he would be prepared for them when they should come to Illinois for the purpose of removing him. Since that time, however, his head has fallen, and the old gentleman is no longer an officer of the government.
MR. DOUGLAS VISITS HIS FIRST HOME IN ILLINOIS.
On August the 7th, 1858, Mr. Douglas reached Winchester. The people had taken the trouble to send all the way to Alton for a piece of artillery to add its reverberating tones to the welcome they had prepared for him. The attendance was very large. Winchester claimed Douglas as her own. The people of that little town regarded him as one whose history was to be forever identified with that of Winchester. He was greeted with the most unbounded expressions of delight. The Rev. Perry Bennett, of the Baptist church, in a chaste and eloquent speech welcomed nim to his old home-his first home in Illinois. Mr. Douglas thus responded to the address :
"Ladies and gentlemen-fellow-citizens—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 feeble expression 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, ard obtained the first regular occupation that I ever pursued. For the first time in my life I 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 bad 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 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 penniless boy stands before you with his heart full and gushing with the sentiments which such associations and recollections necessarily inspire.”
Mr. Douglas subsequently received a personal welcome from each of the vast multitude assembled at Winchester. Old times and old events were discussed familiarly; and men who had known him twenty-five years before crowded around him with an affectionate interest. He was a “Winchester boy,” and Winchester people regarded him with fraternal love and admiration. Scott County, united with Morgan, sent up two members of the Legislature pledged to vote for the re-election of Stephen A. Douglas.
During 1856, 1857, and 1858 the Democratic papers of Illinois and the Northwest, and Democratic speakers, including Mr. Douglas, in explaining and defending the Kansas-Nebraska Act, had been accustomed to quote arguments of southern statesmen to show that necessarily, in all communities, the local institutions must be sustained by the prevailing public sentiment, or it was useless to endeavor to maintain them. They had used this argument to prove that no matter what prohibitions Congress might enact against slavery in the territories, if the people desired to have slaves they would have them; and local courts and laws would lean toward and protect the wishes and desires of the people. So, on the other hand, if slavery was not desired, it would be as effectually excluded by an adverse public sentiment as it could be by positive law. Upon this point they quoted as the views of a gentleman deservedly high in the estimation of the people of the South, and particularly of his own state, the following remarks of the Hon. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made in 1856, in reference to the practical operation of the Nebraska Bill, and these views were constantly presented to the people from the stump and through the press :
OPINION OF MR. ORR IN 1856.
" I say, although I deny that squatter sovereignty exists in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a matter practically of little consequence whether it does or not; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the gentleman of that. The gentleman knows that, in every slaveholding community of this Union, we have local legislation and local police regulations appertaining to that institution, without which the institution would not only be valueless but a curse to the community. Without them the slaveholder could not enforce his rights when invaded by others. And if you had no local legislation the purpose of giving protection, the institution would be of no value. I can appeal to every gentleman upon this floor, who represents a slaveholding constituency, to attest the truth of what I have stated upon that point.
“Now, the legislative authority of a territory is invested with a discretion to vote for or against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every territory where the territory is open to settlement, and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws what is the remedy? None, sir. If the majority of the people are opposed to the institution, and if they do not desire it engrafted upon the territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the territorial Legislature for its protec
tion, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was invested in the territorial Legislature, and exercised by them to prohibit it. Now I ask the gentleman what is the practical importance to result from the agitation and discussion of this question as to whether squatter sovereignty. does or does not exist ? Practically, it is a matter of little moment."
In June, 1857, Mr. Douglas, at the invitation of the members of the Grand Jury of the United States Court, and of other visitors at Springfield, delivered a speech at the State House
upon the subject of Kansas and Utah affairs, and upon the Dred Scott decision. This speech was regarded at the time as the most thorough and complete vindication of the policy and principles of the Democratic party upon the topics embraced in it that he had ever made. The speech had a wide circulation, and was produced in most of the leading papers in the slaveholding states as the view of a high-minded, far-seeing, and national statesman. That speech has often been referred to by his enemies, even after the Lecompton difficulty had occurred, as a speech embracing the best and clearest views of constitutional law and of sound statesmanship. In that Springfield speech of June 12, 1857, a speech which has been held up as a model one, as containing nothing but sound Democratic doctrine, Mr. Douglas, in explaining what had been decided by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, used the following clear and emphatic language. That the Supreme Court had decided
“2d. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise Act, was urconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the Nebraska Act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of extinguishing a master's right to a slave in that territory.
“While the right continues in full force under the guarantee of the Constitution, and can not be divested or alienated by an act of Congress, it necessarily remains a barren and worthless right unless sustained, protected, and enforced by appropriate police regulations and local legislation presenting adequate remedies for its violation. These regulations and remedies must necessarily depend entirely upon the will and wishes of the people of the Territory, as they can only be prescribed by the local Legislature.
“Hence the great principle of popular sovereignty and self-government is sustained and firmly established by the authority of this decision."
In his Bloomington speech, July 16th, 1858, he thus repeated the declaration of the same doctrine :
"I tell you, my friends, it is impossible, under our institutions, to force slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty inserted 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, for it is of no particular consequence; slavery can not exist a day or an hour in any territory or stato 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 affirmative 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 the want of support.'
Hence, if the people of a territory want slavery, they will encourage it by passing affirmatory laws, and the necessary 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—(cheers)—especially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were opposed to it. 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 therefore, 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 was 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 it or against it, and whichever way they shall decide it in any territory or in any state will be entirely satisfactory to me. (Cheers.)"
In his speech at Springfield, July 18, 1858, he repeated substantially the same remarks upon this point—the impossibility of forcing or prohibiting slavery against the wishes of the people. Mr. Douglas and his friends also frequently quoted Mr. Buchanan's clear statement of the same doctrine, in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination, as follows:
“This legislation (Kansas-Nebraska Act) is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a territory, like those of a state, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits.”
On August 21 the first joint discussion between Lincoln and Douglas took place; this occurred at Ottawa, in La Salle county, a strong Republican district, then and now represented in Congress by Mr. Lovejoy. The crowd in attendance was a large one, and about equally divided in political sentiment—the enthusiasm of the democracy having brought