History of the United States, v.2, by James Ford Rhodes, 1910 [c1892].

Chapter 10, Part 1: Republican Prospects through Jefferson Davis

CHAPTER X

In the summer and fall of 1857, the prospects of the Republican party did not seem bright. There was a natural reaction from the high enthusiasm which characterized the campaign of the preceding year. The Tribune argued elaborately to prove that the Republican party was not dead, but admitted that the failure to achieve success in 1856 had caused a dropping-off of those who had gone into the movement, thinking it would carry the country and give them a chance at the offices.1 In the Northwest, the outlook for the new party was especially gloomy.2 The result of the fall elections all over the North was discouraging. A large falling-off of the Republican vote, due to apathy and the engrossing attention caused by the financial stringency, was nearly everywhere noted. It is undeniable that, until it became known that Douglas intended to oppose the policy of the administration, the future looked very unpromising for the Republicans. But after the contest was fairly entered upon, a general cheerfulness might be observed in Republican circles. Senator Wade wrote to Pike: "My opinion is that the end of the old Locofoco party is at hand. It gives 'signs of woe that all is lost.' They are hopelessly broken and must die. The party is in the same fix that the old Whig party was in on the repeal of the compromise—divided in the middle, North and South. I hope to be able, during the session, to preach its funeral sermon."3 No matter

_______________
1 See New York WeeklyTribune, August 6th.
2 Life of Douglas, Sheahan, p. 383.
3 January 10th, 1858, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 378.

what might be the result, the fight could only inure to the benefit of the Republicans. The Republican party, said a New Orleans journal," seemed on the brink of dissolution, but has recently been galvanized into renewed symptoms of vitality and vigor" by the apostasy of Stephen A. Douglas. And another said, "Only the other day the hopes of the Black Republicans were down to zero; now they are apparently up to vernal heat."1

When Republicans gathered together, president-making became a favorite topic of discussion. The names in every one's mouth, as possible candidates in 1860, were Seward, Fremont, Banks, Chase, or Bissell.2 It was quite apparent that Seward thought the Republican nomination worth striving for; yet his course during the winter leaves one in doubt as to the theory upon which he was working. Indeed his career is full of inconsistencies. In 1850 he was the radical of radicals, and in the higher-law doctrine reached a more extreme position than he ever afterwards took; in 1854 he held back from the formation of the Republican party; with the advance in 1855 and 1856, he now veered round to the conservative side.

His course on the army bill was a surprise. On account of difficulties with the Mormons in Utah, that seemed to require an additional military force, it was proposed to increase the army. Seward, separating himself from all of his Republican friends except Cameron, supported the bill for this purpose. The main objection of the Republicans arose from the fear that the army would be improperly employed in Kansas. Seward's remarks in favor of the bill drew an indignant rebuke from Hale. "I have listened," Hale said, "with extreme pain and disappointment and mortification
__________________
1 The New Orleans Bee and the New Orleans Delta, cited by Von Hoist, vol. vi. p. 177.
2 New York Courier and Enquirer, cited by the New York Times, January 1st, 1858. Bissell had been elected governor of Illinois over Richardson in 1856.

to the speech which he has made—a pain equal to that with which I heard the great statesman of New England, Daniel Webster, some eight years ago, with the ripe honors of nearly threescore and ten years, bring himself and his fame and his reputation, and lay them down as an offering at the footstool of the slave power. ... Is it a time for my friends, is it a time for the distinguished senator from New York, upon whom the eyes and the hearts of the friends of liberty have centred and clustered, when such dangerous and fatal and damnable doctrines are proclaimed and practised upon by the Executive of the United States, to vote seven thousand extra men to him?"

Seward said in reply: "I know nothing, I care nothing— I never did, I never shall—for party;" and then his optimism, ever a prominent feature of his character, broke forth. "I am very sorry," he exclaimed," that the faith of the honorable senator from New Hampshire is less than my own. He apprehends continual disaster. He wants this battle continued and fought by skirmishes, and to deprive the enemy of every kind of supplies. Sir, I regard this battle as already fought; it is over. All the mistake is that the honorable senator and others do not know it. We are fighting for a majority of free States. They are already sixteen to fifteen; and whatever the administration may do—whatever anybody may do—before one year from this time we shall be nineteen to fifteen."1

Fessenden was disgusted, and on the day of this debate wrote confidentially: "Seward, I understand, is to make a speech for the bill. He is perfectly bedeviled. He will vote alone, so far as the Republicans are concerned; but he thinks himself wiser than all of us." 2
______________
1 Seward reckoned on the admission of Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas. This debate took place February 2d.
2 Fessenden to Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 379. Seward wrote his son, February 5th: "The onslaught upon me was a breaking-out of discontent among my associates. I treated it with kindness and without feeling in my private conversation and bearing, and, on the whole, it has done no harm and much good. It needed this to avert the tendency of our party to make a false issue on this Mormon question."—Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 335.

Whether the course of Seward was dictated by a noble independence of party trammels, or whether he was trimming to catch the moderate element among the Republicans and Democrats at the North, it seems impossible to decide. In his speech on the Lecompton question, he gave his adhesion to the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and said that he would cheerfully co-operate with Douglas, Stuart, and Broderick, "these new defenders of the sacred cause in Kansas."1

This speech drew from Chase a mild protest. "I regretted," he wrote," the apparent countenance you gave to the idea that the Douglas doctrine of popular sovereignty will do for us to stand upon for the present." 2 The expressions of Seward indicated a harmony of feeling between Douglas and the Republicans that at one time promised an important combination and perhaps a new party. Greeley was willing to go a great way in that direction, and possibly among the mixed motives for his course was the desire to head off Seward from the presidency. The letter of Greeley dissolving the firm of Seward, Weed, and Greeley had been written and delivered, but it had not been made public; yet one might see in the columns of the Tribune a studied distrust of the New York senator.3 An inside rumor at Washington was current that the Tribune was for Douglas for President.4 Those who knew Greeley's despair of electing a candidate on the straight Republican issue, and his intense predilection for an available man,5 were quite ready to
___________________
1 March 3d, Seward's Works, vol. iv. p. 596.
2 Letter of March 11th, Life of Chase, Warden, p. 343.
3 See editorial in the New York Times, February 9th.
4 Letter of Israel Washburn to Pike, March 16th, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 403.
5 Illustrating this, see letter of Greeley to George E. Baker, Life of Thurlow Weed, vol. ii. p. 255.

believe the report. Many Southerners were of the opinion that Douglas was willing to be the candidate of the Republicans.1

But Douglas was practical. A legislature was to be elected in Illinois this fall to choose a senator in his place, while the presidential contest was two years off. The friendly relations that existed during the winter between him and the Republicans, and their frequent conferences, had for a result that all the leading Eastern Republicans, nearly every senator, and many representatives were anxious that their party should make no opposition to Douglas in Illinois. Wilson, Burlingame, and Colfax were especially active in urging this policy.2 Israel Washburn, a congressman from Maine, wrote confidentially that he was willing Douglas should be anything else but President.3 Greeley and Bowles, with their powerful journals, warmly favored his return to the Senate, unopposed by the Republicans.4

The Times, which had been the New York city organ of Seward, thought the formation of a new party probable. It would be composed of Douglas Democrats and Republicans, who were not abolitionists, and Douglas would be its leader. This journal approved the purpose of Seward to act cordially with Douglas, and maintained that the recognition of the principle of popular sovereignty was all that was needed to allay the slavery agitation.5
___________________
1 Speeches and writings of Clingman, p. 450.
2 Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. p. 567; Life of Bowles, Merriam, vol. i. pp. 229 and 232; Life of Lincoln, Herndon, p. 394; Life of Colfax, Hollister, p. 119. See also speech of Kellogg, of Illinois, in the House, March 13th, 1860, Appendix to Congressional Globe, 1st Session 36th Congress, cited by Von Hoist.
3 Washburn to Pike, March 16th, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 403. 4 Life of Bowles, Merriam, vol. i. p. 229; Recollections of a Busy Life, Greeley, p. 358; New York Tribune, June 24th; see also Life of J. R. Giddings, Julian, p. 351.
5 See New York Times, March 5th, February 9th, and April 27th.

Seward, however, had no mind to stand aside for Douglas; but the notion then prevalent, that success could not be achieved on the radical platform of 1856, had probably lodged in his brain. Moreover, no lawyer could have the same confidence in the principle of congressional prohibition of slavery in the territories, after the Dred Scott decision, that he had before. It may be that Seward thought he could use Douglas for his own benefit and that of the country. He told Herndon there was no danger of the Republicans taking up Douglas, for they could not "place any reliance on a man so slippery;"1 and his personal friend, James Watson Webb, denied in June that Seward was in favor of the return of Douglas to the Senate. 2

It is nevertheless true that in the spring of 1858, Douglas was the best-known and most popular man at the North, where his popular-sovereignty doctrine was deemed a wonderful political invention that was certain to settle the slavery question in the interest of freedom. 3

Chase, who had the preceding year been elected a second time governor of Ohio, protested, in an emphatic letter, against the tendency of the prominent Eastern Republicans. "That Douglas acted boldly, decidedly, effectively, I agree," he wrote; "that he has acted in consistency with his own principle of majority-sovereignty, I also freely admit. For his resistance to the Lecompton bill as a gross violation of his principle, and to the English bill for the same reason, he has my earnest thanks. I cannot forget, however, that he has steadily avowed his equal readiness to vote for the admission of Kansas as a slave or a free State, . . . and that he has constantly declared his acquiescence in the Dred Scott decision."4
____________________
1 This was probably some time in March. See Life of Lincoln, Herndon, p. 394.
2 History of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay, vol. ii. p. 139.
3 As illustrating this, see Political Recollections, Julian, p. 166.
4 Chase to Pike, May 12th, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 419.

But more important still, the Republicans of Illinois, under the lead of Abraham Lincoln, their candidate for senator, protested.

We have already had glimpses of Lincoln; it is now time to describe him more fully. His mother, a daughter of a Virginia and Kentucky planter, was a woman of strong intellect. Herndon reports a conversation, in which Lincoln said that she was a natural child and he had inherited from her his mental power; but there is good reason for believing that she was born in wedlock. His father was a shiftless, poor white of Kentucky, who was taught by his wife to read painfully and write clumsily. Abraham Lincoln's family moved to Indiana when he was seven; when he had just passed his twenty-first birthday, they forsook Indiana and settled in Illinois.

When he was nominated for President, a Chicago journalist, desiring to write a campaign biography, asked him for facts concerning his early life. "It can all be condensed," he replied, "into a single sentence, and that sentence you will find in Gray's 'Elegy':

'"The short and simple annals of the poor.' " 2

His school education was meagre, his business ventures unprofitable. He neglected his shop to read Shakespeare and Burns, and preferred discussing politics with his customers to selling them goods; but he had a fine sense of honor in money matters, and was scrupulous in discharging debts which the mismanagement and misfortune of others threw upon him. He studied law, and at the age of twenty-eight began practice; but he loved politics better than law. In his study of the one and his devotion to the other may be seen the efforts at self-education that made up in some degree his lack of scholastic training. Lincoln was not a reader of wide range, but he studied thoroughly the Bible and Shakespeare. The moral, philosophic, and literary quality of these works so permeated his
___________________________
1 Nancy Hanks, Hitchcock. 2 Herndon, p. 2.

soul and gave such vigor to his speech that it might be said of him," Beware of the man of one book." Learning the surveyor's art as a means of livelihood, he nurtured at the same time his innate love of mathematics, and later, in private study, he mastered the six books of Euclid. The Bible, Shakespeare, and Euclid furnished strong mental discipline, and were perhaps the best of all books for self-education. Lincoln's emotional nature was touched by the poems of Burns, and by others written in his own day. He delighted in the physical sciences, and liked fiction, but cared little for history, and thought biographies were lies.

"The life of the streets" taught Lincoln, as it did Socrates.' He loved and believed in the common people, but the common people whom he amused with his anecdotes were American-born and country and village residents. Thinking that the finest humor could be found among the lower orders of the country people, he garnered up their jokes for use on a larger stage. The stories he told to the admiring and gaping crowd of the tavern were of the bar-room order; if witty, it mattered not to him that they were broad. Loving leisure, he might have been called in those days (1830-1835) a loafer; but his personal morals remained unscathed. He used neither liquor nor tobacco, although he took pleasure in a horse-race and a cock-fight.

Lincoln, like Socrates, was odd in his personal appearance, though with a different grotesqueness of exterior. And to Lincoln, as to Socrates, were denied the felicity of domestic life and the pleasures of a quiet home. He loved the practice of law on the circuit, where he had the constant and congenial society of brother attorneys; and when Sunday came, instead of going home as did his companions, he lingered to pursue his Socratic studies among the loungers of the tavern. But after beginning the study of law and interesting himself in politics, he found that while he had
______________
1 This comparison is suggested by a thoughtful review in the Nation of the Life of Lincoln by Herndon, vol. xlix. p. 173.

ideas, it was necessary to grope about for words to express them. He therefore took time from his beloved mathematics to give to the study of grammar.

Devotion to politics made him a member of the Illinois legislature; and in 1837, with one associate only, he made a protest against certain resolutions which had passed maintaining " that the right of property in slaves is sacred to the slave-holding States." These two caused to be spread upon the journal their opinion that slavery was" founded on both injustice and bad policy." Six years before, Lincoln made his second visit to New Orleans, and while the remarks put into his mouth, that the iron of slavery had run into him then and there, and when he got a chance he would hit it hard, are apocryphal, he was without doubt profoundly moved by his glimpses of chattel slavery.1

Keenly appreciating humor, he was yet subject to deep fits of melancholy. The humorist afterwards known as Petroleum V. Nasby saw him for the first time in 1858, and thought his the saddest face he had ever looked upon. In spite of his life passing, as it were, open to public gaze, Lincoln was reticent about the deepest feelings of his nature, and had hardly a friend to whom he opened his whole soul. His searching self-examination calls to mind Marcus Aurelius. He was simple, candid, kind, but rarely praised another. Deemed physically lazy, he was intellectually energetic, and had great power of application. Reading few books, he thought long and carefully on what he read; his opinions were wrought out by severe study and patient reflection.

In 1846 he was elected to Congress, and gratified his hatred of slavery, during the single term he served, by voting for the Wilmot proviso forty-two times. His two years at Washington made him realize the power which a knowledge of literature gives a man in public life. Afterwards, in travelling on the circuit, he carried, besides his constant
____________
1 Miss Tarbell's Early Life of Lincoln, p. 112; Lincoln, CompleteWorks, Vol. I., p. 641.

companion Euclid, a copy of Shakespeare, to the study of which he again assiduously devoted himself.

He reached eminent rank in his profession, being esteemed the strongest jury-lawyer in the State; but he was a bad advocate in an unjust cause. His clearness of statement was remarkable, and his undoubted sincerity carried conviction.

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise diverted Lincoln's attention from law to politics. Prominent in the Illinois canvass of 1854, he became, on the election of an anti-Nebraska legislature, a candidate for United States senator. But there were five anti-Nebraska Democrats whose choice was Lyman Trumbull. These would not, under any circumstances, vote for Lincoln or another Whig. Although he could control forty-seven votes, which was within four of the necessary number to elect, yet, rather than risk the election of a Democrat, he, with rare judgment and magnanimity, advised his friends to go for Trumbull, who accordingly was chosen on the tenth ballot.

Lincoln felt deep disappointment at failing to secure the coveted place, for his ambition was great. When a young man, in a fit of profound depression, he said to the most intimate friend he ever had: "I have done nothing to make any human being remember that I have lived. To connect my name with events of my day and generation, and so impress myself upon them as to link my name with something that will redound to the interest of my fellow-men, is all that I desire to live for."1 From that time on he had thirsted for fame. He would gladly feed on popularity, and had confidence in his ability to do mighty things, should the opportunity offer. Yet his speech was modest. In the debates of 1858 with Douglas, when seemingly overtopped by the greatness of his rival, his expressions of self-depreciation were so marked as now to strike one painfully, even as with a dim suggestion of the humbleness of Uriah Heep.

How keenly he felt his failure to obtain a hearing is
___________
1 Herndon, p. 217.

illustrated by an occurrence in 1857. Associated with Edwin M. Stanton and George Harding in a case of great importance that was to be tried in the United States Circuit Court before Judge McLean at Cincinnati, it lay between Lincoln and Stanton as to who should make the second argument. It was finally decided in favor of the Pennsylvanian. Lincoln thought Stanton purposely ignored him and treated him with rudeness; while Stanton was little impressed with the ability of the other, whose appearance, manner, and garb, suited perhaps to the prairie, were but ill adapted for intercourse with the serious attorneys and grave judges of the East.1

Ungainly as Lincoln appeared, he had the instincts of a gentleman. In a speech at Springfield this year he said: I shall never be a gentleman "in the outside polish, but that which constitutes the inside of a gentleman I hope I understand, and am not less inclined to practise than others." 2

When Lincoln entered upon political life he became reticent regarding his religious opinions, for at the age of twenty-five, influenced by Thomas Paine and Volney, he had written an extended essay against Christianity with a view to its publication. A far-seeing friend, however, took the manuscript from him and consigned it to the flames. At the period that our story covers, Lincoln did not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures or the divinity of Christ, and in moments of gloom, or when wrestling with deep reflection, he doubted the existence of a personal God and a future life. The religious writer whom he chiefly read, and whose influence he felt most, was Theodore Parker. The argument in Chambers's " Vestiges of the Creation" struck him with force; his scientific mind laid fast hold of the doctrine of evolution hinted at in that famous work. Standing out beyond all other characteristics of Lincoln, manifesting itself in private life, in business, during legal
_______________
1 See Herndon, p. 353. The case involved the McCormick Reaper patent, and it had been understood by Lincoln that Harding, a very eminent patent lawyer of Philadelphia, was to make the "mechanical argument."
2 Speech at Springfield, July 17th, 1858.

consultation, in forensic contest, and illuminating his strife for political place and power, is his love of truth and justice. When twenty-four years old he was called "honest Abe." At no time, and in no circumstances of his life, did he do aught that threw the faintest taint of suspicion upon this title spontaneously given in a rude village of Illinois.

Such was Lincoln at the age of forty-nine, when he stood forth to contest the senatorship with the most redoubtable debater of the country. He and Douglas had first met in 1834, and the rivalry between them, begun early, did not end until 1860. Both aspired to the hand of the same woman, and Lincoln's manly and rugged qualities proved more attractive than the fascinations of the eloquent and dashing Douglas. Yet in the race for political preferment, Douglas far outstripped the other. Though four years younger, he went to Congress four years earlier; and when Lincoln was a representative, he was a senator, with apparently many years of political honors before him. This greater success was largely due to the fact that Douglas belonged to the dominant party in Illinois. In 1858, Douglas had a great national reputation, while Lincoln's name had only begun to reach beyond the confines of his own State.1 Douglas, however, knew his rival better than did the people of the East. On hearing that Lincoln would be his opponent, he said to Forney: "I shall have my hands full. He is the strong man of his party—full of wit, facts, dates—and the best stump-speaker, with his droll ways and dry jokes, in
_____________
1 My authorities for this characterization of Lincoln are the Life by Herndon; the History by Nicolay and Hay; the biographies of Lamon, Arnold, Holland, Raymond, and Stoddard; and the Reminiscences published by the North American Review. On his religious views especially, see Herndon, p. 435 et seq.; Lamon, pp. 486,496,499; and for a different view from that taken in the text, though relating to a later period of Lincoln's career, see Holland, p. 236; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 339; Arnold, p. 179; Recollections of President Lincoln, by L. E. Chittenden, pp. 219, 223, 382,428, and chapter xlvi.; see also The Nation, June 4th, 1891.

the West. He is as honest as he is shrewd; and if I beat him, my victory will be hardly won."1 Douglas, in his first speech of the campaign, paid to Lincoln a generous compliment. "I have known," said he, "personally and intimately, for about a quarter of a century, the worthy gentleman who has been nominated for my place, and I will say that I regard him as a kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen, and an honorable opponent."2

The Republican State Convention, meeting at Springfield, June 16th, unanimously nominated Lincoln as the senatorial candidate of the party. He addressed the delegates in the most carefully prepared speech he had ever made.3 Fully aware for some time previous what the action of the convention would be, he had thought earnestly on the principles he should lay down as the key-note of the campaign. As ideas occurred to him, he wrote them down on scraps of paper, and when the convention drew near, after weighing every thought, scrutinizing each sentence, and pondering every word, he fused them together into a connected whole. Esteeming that this would be for him a pregnant opportunity, he paid great attention to the art as well as the matter of his discourse. Drawing inspiration from a careful reading of the greatest of American orations, he modelled the beginning of his speech after Webster's exordium.4

Lincoln began: "If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and
___________
1 Forney's Anecdotes of Public Men, vol. ii. p. 179.
2 Douglas at Chicago, July 9th, Lincoln and Douglas Debates, p. 9.
3 Nicolay and Hay, vol. ii. p. 136.
4 Herndon, pp. 397 and 400.

passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. 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. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new— North as well as South." 1

No Republican of prominence and ability had advanced so radical a doctrine. Lincoln knew that to commit the party of his State to that belief was an important step, and ought not to be taken without consultation and careful reflection. He first submitted the speech to his friend and partner, Herndon. Stopping at the end of each paragraph for comments, when he had read, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," Herndon said: "It is true, but is it wise or politic to say so?" Lincoln replied: "That expression is a truth of all human experience, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' ... I want to use some universally known figure expressed in simple language as universally well known, that may strike home to the minds of men in order to raise them up to the peril of the times; I do not believe I would be right in changing or omitting it. I would rather be defeated with this expression in the speech, and uphold and discuss it before the people, than be victorious without it."

When we consider Lincoln's restless ambition, his yearning for the senatorship, and his knowledge that he was starting on an untrodden path, there is nobility in this response. Two years before he had incorporated a similar avowal in a speech, and had struck it out in obedience to the remonstrance of a political friend. Now, however, actuated by
________________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 1.

devotion to principle, and perhaps feeling that the startling doctrine of 1858 would ere long become the accepted view of the Republican party, he was determined to speak in accordance with his own judgment. Yet as he wanted to hear all that could be said against it, he read the speech to a dozen of his Springfield friends, and invited criticism. None of them approved it. Several severely condemned it. One said it was "a fool utterance," another that the doctrine was " ahead of its time," while a third argued that" it would drive away a good many voters fresh from the Democratic ranks." Herndon, who was an abolitionist, alone approved it, and exclaimed: "Lincoln, deliver that speech as read, and it will make you President."

After listening patiently to the criticisms of his friends, who ardently desired his political advancement, he told them that he had carefully studied the subject and thought on it deeply. "Friends," said he, "this thing has been retarded long enough. The time has come when these sentiments should be uttered; and if it is decreed that I should go down because of this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth—let me die in the advocacy of what is just and right.'1

After his startling exordium, Lincoln described the advance made by the cause of slavery in virtue of the Dred Scott decision, related how different events led up to the announcement of the opinion of this court, and intimated by his well-known allegory that there was a conspiracy among high parties in the State.2 He then addressed himself to the argument now frequently maintained, that the slave power could be best opposed by Republicans enrolling themselves under the leadership of Senator Douglas. "There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends," said he, "and yet whisper us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is" to overthrow "the power of the present political dynasty. . . . They wish us to infer all
__________
1 See Herndon, pp. 398,400.
2 See p. 270.

from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But' a living dog is better than a dead lion.' Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advance of slavery? He does not care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the public heart to carenothing about it. . . . He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property. . . . Clearly he is not now with us—he does not pretend to be, he does not promise ever to be.

"Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work—who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter now?—now when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail—if we stand firm, weshall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come."1

On the 9th of July, Douglas reached his Chicago home. He had a magnificent and enthusiastic reception, in striking contrast to the one of four years previous. It was a worthy tribute on account of the determined fight he had made against the administration; nor was the friendly feeling
_____________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 4, 5.

towards him confined to the Democrats. Besides his present political popularity, his hold on Chicago people was strong, for he was an eminent citizen of this city of enterprise, devoted to its prosperity, and giving gages of his faith by large investments in its real estate. He was generous, too, and had made a gift of ten acres of valuable land to be used as the site for the University of Chicago. Chicago on this day delighted to do honor to its distinguished citizen, and Douglas was proud of his " magnificent welcome."

His speech was in his best manner. He exulted that the Lecompton battle had been won, and that the Republicans had come around to the doctrine of popular sovereignty. In arguments that are familiar to my readers, he vindicated this principle, and pointed to his record from 1854 as displaying consistency and fidelity. He complimented Lincoln personally1 and then seized upon his " house-divided-against itself" doctrine to show the issue that lay between them. With much ingenuity he construed this declaration to mean a desire for uniformity of local institutions all over the country, and as an attack upon State sovereignty and personal liberty. In truth, Douglas averred, "Variety in all our local and domestic institutions is the great safeguard of our liberties." The direct and unequivocal issue between Lincoln and himself was: "He goes for uniformity in our domestic institutions, for a war of sections until one or the other shall be subdued; I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the right of the people to decide for themselves." In regard to Lincoln's criticism of the Dred Scott decision, Douglas said: "I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a constitutional question to the decisions of a tumultuous town meeting;" and "I am free to say to you that, in my opinion, this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be
___________
1 See p. 314.

administered by white men in such manner as they should determine.”1

Lincoln heard this speech, and the next evening replied to it. But his argument was much inferior in force and in diction to that of his speech at Springfield; it showed a want of careful preparation, without which he was never at his best. Douglas replied to him at Bloomington, July 16th, and had much to say about the doctrine of the "house divided against itself." It invited, he maintained, a warfare of the States. Lincoln "has taken his position," he continued, " in favor of sectional agitation and sectional warfare. I have taken mine in favor of securing peace, harmony, and good-will among all the States."2 In this speech, Douglas praised the New York Tribune and the Republicans for the course they had taken during the last session of Congress.

At Springfield, the next day, Lincoln rejoined. He declared that the doctrine of popular sovereignty, as expounded by Douglas, was "the most arrant humbug that had ever been attempted on an intelligent community." He denied the charge that he invited a war of sections. He had only expressed his expectation as to the logical result of the existence of slavery in the country, and not his wish for such an outcome. Moreover, he had again and again expressly disclaimed the intention of interference with slavery in the States. He then charged Douglas himself with being the cause of the present agitation. "Although I have ever been opposed to slavery," said he, " up to the introduction of the Nebraska bill I rested in the hope and belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. For that reason it had been a minor question with me. I might have been mistaken; but I had believed, and now believe, that the whole public mind—that is, the mind of the great majority —had rested in that belief up to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise." He again criticised the Dred Scott decision and exclaimed: "I adhere to the Declaration of Independence.
____________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 10,11,12.
2 Ibid., p. 81.

If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes.”

The opening notes of the campaign were favorable to Douglas. Coming to his home with well-won prestige, the hearty and sincere reception of Chicago seemed to foreshadow that the people of Illinois would say by their votes in November, "Well done, good and faithful servant." The usual means to rouse campaign enthusiasm were not lacking, and at every place he had an ovation. Cannon thundered out a welcome, bands of music greeted him, every evening meeting ended with a display of fireworks. Special trains were at his disposal, and committees of escort attended his every movement. In the decorations of the locomotive that hauled his train and the car on which he rode, on every triumphal arch under which he passed in the cities that welcomed him, and on the banners borne in the processions that turned out to do him honor, was emblazoned the motto " Popular Sovereignty." Money was not lacking to produce the blare and flare of the campaign; for, lavish himself, and mortgaging his Chicago real-estate for means to meet his large expenses, Douglas felt free to accept the contributions of liberal friends. 2

Lincoln's "house-divided-against-itself" declaration was received with joy by the Democrats. By the Republican party workers it was deemed a great mistake. To them, at best, the contest seemed unequal. Their candidate had no right to handicap himself by the assertion of a principle far in advance of his party and of what the occasion demanded. It was apparent to Lincoln and his advisers that the current was setting against him; nevertheless, he had not the slightest
_______________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 57, 59, 60,63.
2 See Life of Douglas, Sheahan; Life of Douglas, by H. M. Flint; Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 55.

regret for the positive manifesto he had put forth. Thinking that the adroit and plausible Douglas could be better answered if they spoke from the same platform, it was determined that Lincoln should challenge him to a series of joint debates. The challenge was accepted and the arrangement made for seven meetings—one in each congressional district, except those districts containing Chicago and Springfield, where both had already spoken.

The places selected were Ottawa and Freeport, which were in strong Republican districts, whose congressmen were Lovejoy and Washburne; Galesburg, representing a locality of moderate Republican strength; Quincy and Charleston, situated in districts that gave fair Democratic majorities; and Alton and Jonesboro, strong Democratic localities. Jonesboro was in what was known as "Egypt;" it gave that year to John A. Logan, the Democratic candidate for congressman, more than 13,000 majority.

In 1856 the vote in Illinois was: For Buchanan, 105,348; for Fremont, 96,189; and for Fillmore, 37,444. The Republican hope of success lay in securing a large proportion of the vote that had been cast for Fillmore. Northern Illinois, in conformity with the general trend of Western settlement, had been peopled from New England, New York, and northern Ohio, and was strongly Republican; while southern Illinois, receiving its population mainly from Virginia and Kentucky, was as strongly Democratic. The central part of this State was the battle-ground. Douglas had an advantage in that eight of the twelve State senators holding over were Democrats; moreover, the legislative apportionment was based on the census of 1850, but the State census of 1855 had shown a much larger proportional increase in the northern part of the State than in the southern.

Lincoln must win the favor of the abolitionists of whom Lovejoy was a type, of the moderate Republicans, and of the old-line Whigs and Americans. He must contend against the opposition of many Eastern Republicans, of whom Greeley was the most outspoken, and against the lukewarmness of others.1 But as the canvass proceeded and the issue became clearly defined, the New York Tribune could not consistently do aught but give Lincoln a hearty support. 2

Appreciating the importance of the old Whig vote, and hoping that his former devotion to that party and its principles would prove a potent influence to attract support, Lincoln was grieved when he learned that Senator Crittenden, of Kentucky, whom he highly esteemed, was favorable to the election of Douglas, and would not remain silent when asked for sympathy.3 Douglas also tried to win the favor of the old-line Whigs, and he gladly referred to his efforts when he "acted side by side with the immortal Clay and the godlike Webster" in favor of the compromise measures of 1850. 4

It seemed at first as if it would be a desperate struggle to keep intact the Democratic vote; for while Douglas had the machinery of the party and practically all of the Democratic press, the patronage of the administration was powerfully used against him. The proscription of Douglas Democrats holding office was relentless. The organ of the administration saw little choice between Lincoln and Douglas, and thought that true Democrats stood in the position of the woman who looked on at the fight between her husband and the bear.5 The rancor of Buchanan against Douglas had by no means abated with the adjournment of Congress, and it was whispered that the bitter abuse of the Little Giant in the editorial columns of the Union was directly inspired by the President from his summer retreat. The administration party had legislative tickets in nearly every
________________
1 See Nicolay and Hay, vol. ii. p. 140; Herndon, pp. 391 and 413; and the file of the New York Times during the contest.
2 See editorial in New York Tribune, July 12th, and the file of that paper to the end of the campaign.
3 Life of Crittenden, Coleman, vol. ii. p. 162.
4 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 39.
5 Washington Union, August 28th.

district, and while they avowed that their object and hope were to elect enough members to hold the balance of power and secure an administration Democrat for senator, every one knew that the only appreciable result of their action was to divide the Democratic party and help the Republicans.1

Douglas several times spoke bitterly of the war that was made upon him within his party. "The Washington Union" he said on one occasion, "is advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. . . . There is an alliance between Lincoln and his supporters, and the federal office-holders of this State and presidential aspirants out of it, to break me down at home."2 In the last debate, referring to the trouble between Douglas and the administration, Lincoln declared: "All I can say now is to recommend to him and to them to prosecute the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them, 'Go it, husband I Go it, bear!' " 3

The two leaders met first at Ottawa, August 21st. That Lincoln was willing to pit himself against Douglas in joint debate showed an abiding confidence in his cause and in his ability to present it. For he had to contend with the ablest debater of the country, the man who in senatorial discussion had overmastered Seward, Chase, and Sumner, and who more recently had discomfited the champions of Lecompton. Lincoln had less of the oratorical gift than Douglas, and he lacked the magnetism that gave the Little Giant such a personal following. Tall, lean, gaunt, and awkward, his appearance as he rose to speak was little fitted to win the sympathy of his hearers. "When he began speaking," writes Herndon," his voice was shrill, piping, and unpleasant. His manner, attitude, his dark, yellow face, wrinkled and dry, his oddity of pose, his diffident movements "4 — all seemed
_____________
1 Life of Douglas, Sheahan, p. 431.
2 At Freeport, Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 105.
3 At Alton, ibid., p. 223.
4 Life of Lincoln, p. 406.

against him. But when he got into the heart of his subject, he forgot his ungainly appearance; his soul, exalted by dwelling upon his cause, illumined his face with earnestness, making it lose "the sad, pained look due to habitual melancholy;" 1 and his voice and gestures became effective. From every speech of Lincoln breathed forth sincerity and devotion to right. Whatever other impressions were received by the crowds who gathered to hear him in the summer and fall of 1858, they were at one in the opinion that they had listened to an honest man.

The conditions of the Ottawa debate were that Douglas should open with an hour's speech, Lincoln to follow for one hour and a half, and Douglas to have thirty minutes to close. In the succeeding debates, the time occupied was the same, but the privilege of opening and closing alternated between the two speakers.

In the speech beginning the discussion, Douglas again sneered at the "house-divided-against-itself" doctrine, charged Lincoln with being an abolitionist because he had opposed the Dred Scott decision and had construed the "all-men-are-created-equal" clause of the Declaration of Independence to include the negro. "I do not believe," declared Douglas, "that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. ... He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position." 2

In calling Lincoln an abolitionist at Ottawa, it was not wholly for the effect it would have on the immediate audience—for the district that sent Lovejoy to Congress, and the people who cheered the doctrine of the " divided house" when Douglas repeated it to condemn it, 3 were not to be affected by that name—but it was rather for the wider audience who would read the speeches in print. If Douglas could fasten on Lincoln the name abolitionist, it would have
____________
1 Ibid., p. 405.
2 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 71.
3 Ibid., p. 70.

an influence in the central part of the State, where the old-line Whigs might turn the scale either way. The Illinois abolitionist differed from those who acknowledged Garrison and Phillips as their leaders, in that he believed in political action, and was not a disunionist; yet political definitions are frequently confused, and if a man were deemed an abolitionist, it would not be unnatural to think that he subscribed to Garrison's dogmas — " The United States Constitution is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," and "No Union with slave-holders." In Illinois as a whole, and, for that matter, generally throughout the North, it was a bar to political preferment to be known as an abolitionist.

Lincoln was not, however, in any sense of the word an abolitionist. He quoted from his Peoria speech of 1854 to show exactly his position, then added: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary; but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence—the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man."1 He continued in the strain, and in almost the words, of his Springfield speech of 1857. 2

Lincoln replied to the criticism on his "house-divided-against-itself" doctrine. "The great variety of the local institutions in the States," said he, "springing from differences in the soil, differences in the face of the country and in the climate, are bonds of union. They do not make 'a
___________________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 75.
2 See p. 266.

house divided against itself,' but they make a house united. If they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord, but bonds of union—true bonds of union. But can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institutions of the country i I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our government, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord, and an element of division in the house."1

It was in the Ottawa speech, when alluding to the vast influence of Douglas, that Lincoln made an oft-quoted remark—the assertion, indeed, of an old political truth, yet a truth not always comprehended, and at this time an important lesson for Republicans to learn. The forcible expression of it by their Illinois leader shows how profoundly he had grasped the situation. "In this and like communities," said he, "public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." 2

The importance of the Freeport debate, which occurred six days after that at Ottawa, arises from the catechising of each candidate by the other. Lincoln answered frankly the seven questions put to him by Douglas. The four important statements were: he was not in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law; was not pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, nor to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States; but he did believe it was the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all of the territories. 3 The crowd of people that listened to the debate at Freeport
_____________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 76.
2 Ibid., p. 82.
3 Ibid., p. 88.

inclined as strongly to abolitionism as any audience that could be gathered in Illinois, and Lincoln's answers regarding his position on the Fugitive Slave law and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia must have been unpalatable to many who heard him. It was ground much less radical than Seward, Chase, and Sumner had taken at different times; for the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, were, after 1850, the demands of Free-soilers and conscience Whigs. But Lincoln had never been through the Free-soil stage. As a Whig, following Clay and influenced by Webster, he had acquiesced in the compromise of 1850,1 and his belief in making political action turn on the slavery question was born of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. His never-varying principle, to which at all times and in all places he adhered, was the prohibition by Congress of slavery in the territories.

Lincoln likewise asked Douglas four questions. In the answer to one, Douglas enunciated what is known as the Freeport doctrine. The question of Lincoln was: "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 ?" 2 It was necessary for Douglas, in his reply, to reconcile his principle of popular sovereignty with the Dred Scott decision. "It matters not," he said, "what way 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 representatives to that body who will by unfriendly
_______________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 120.
2 Ibid., p. 90.

legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave territory or a free territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill.” 1

This answer attracted more attention throughout the country than any statement of Douglas during the campaign; and, while he could not have been elected senator without taking that position, the enunciation of the doctrine was an insuperable obstacle to cementing the division in the Democratic party. The influence of this meeting at Freeport is an example of the greater interest incited by a joint debate than by an ordinary canvass, and illustrates the effectiveness of the Socratic method of reasoning. During this same campaign, Douglas had twice before declared the same doctrine in expressions fully as plain and forcible,2 but without creating any particular remark; while now the country resounded with discussions of the Freeport theory of "unfriendly legislation."

During this debate, Douglas lost the jaunty air that had characterized his previous efforts. Brought to bay by the remorseless logic of Lincoln, he was nettled to the point of interlarding his argument with misrepresentation; and, as the audience was lacking in sympathy with him, his abuse of the "Black Republican party," and of Lincoln and Trumbull, provoked running comments from the crowd, until, at last, apparently losing his temper, he was drawn into an undignified colloquy with some of his hearers.

A passage from Lincoln's concluding speech at Freeport
________________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 95.
2 At Bloomington, July 16th, where he spoke of legislation being "unfriendly;" and at Springfield, July 17th,when he said, " Slavery cannot exist a day in the midst of an unfriendly people with unfriendly laws." —Ibid., pp. 35, 49.

must be cited, as it shows a prevalent opinion about Douglas in Illinois, and was, moreover, not controverted by him during these debates; it likewise confirms what has been previously stated. Judge Douglas, affirmed Lincoln, at the last session of Congress, " had an eye farther North than he has to-day. He was then fighting against people who called him a Black Republican and an abolitionist. . . . But the judge's eye is farther South now. Then it was very peculiarly and decidedly North. His hope rested on the idea of visiting the great 'Black Republican' party, and making it the tail of his new kite. He knows he was then expecting from day to day to turn Republican and place himself at the head of our organization."1

It is interesting to follow these debates in their chronological order as the country in 1858 followed them. It was an intellectual duel between him who represented the best element of the Democratic party and the man who was building up principles, facts, and arguments into a well-defined and harmonious political system. "It was no ordinary contest, in which political opponents skirmished for the amusement of an indifferent audience," said McClernand, who had taken part in the campaign on the side of Douglas; "but it was a great uprising of the people, in which the masses were politically, and to a considerable extent socially, divided and arrayed against each other. In fact, it was a fierce and angry struggle, approximating the character of a revolution." 2

It is not, however, necessary for our purpose to consider every meeting in detail. There was in the debates much of an ephemeral and personal character. In the personal controversy, Lincoln displayed more acerbity than his opponent. This was not surprising, since Douglas did not show entire fairness. When a charge was refuted, he had a way of making it in another shape, so that it was impossible to
______________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 108,109.
2 House of Representatives, March 13th, 1860.

get him to admit that he was mistaken. Although frequently exhibiting a hasty temper, he was usually brimming over with good feeling, and this circumstance, together with his effective manner of reiterating a charge, gave him an evident superiority over Lincoln in this feature of the discussion. There was a great desire, on the part of the debaters, to get the better of one another in the immediate judgment of the actual audience; and this gave rise to personal repartees. Here Lincoln did not appear to advantage, on account of his ungainly way of putting things; nor was Douglas altogether happy, because of his great desire to gain immediate points by employing the debater's tricks.

Douglas, better practised in the amenities of debate, paid Lincoln more than one graceful compliment, but Lincoln had no words of unmeaning praise for his opponent. In his hits at Douglas there are touches of sullen envy mixed with self-depreciation, and laments that fortune should have showered gifts on the Little Giant, while bestowing but meagre favors on himself. He had long envied Douglas, and it galled him that his early rival had succeeded so well in winning fame, while he, conscious of equal intellectual power and of higher moral purpose, should be little known beyond his own State.1

But when the discussion turned on principles, the advantage of Lincoln is manifest. As the contest proceeded it grew hotter; and his bursts of eloquence, under the influence of noble passion, are still read with delight by the lovers of humanity and constitutional government. The positions that Douglas had advanced required a cool head to maintain everywhere an appearance of consistency between them. In the increasing heat of the controversy, he sometimes overlooked this, and was influenced too much by his immediate audience, forgetting for the moment that the whole country was looking on, and would read in tranquil hours his every word.
_______________
1 See, besides the Debates, Lamon, p. 341; Holland, p. 155.

In all the debates, Douglas had little to say on the Lecompton question, although, when he did touch upon it, he spoke well; but, in the main, he seemed again the Douglas of 1854. The radical difference between him and the Republicans appears in every debate; they could agree on anti-Lecompton, but on nothing else; and now that the Lecompton question was settled, it left the former contention in full vigor.

Divested of oratorical flourish, there is little variety in the speeches of Douglas. He scouted continually the idea that the "all-men-are-created-equal" clause of the Declaration of Independence referred to the negro. He charged the Republicans with having formed a sectional party, and in every debate condemned his opponent's doctrine of the "house divided against itself." His most forcible expression on this subject was at Charleston.1 "Why should this government," he asked, " be divided by a geographical line—arraying all men North in one great hostile party against all men South? Mr. Lincoln tells you that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand.' . . . Why cannot this government endure divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it? When this government was established by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, and the other sages and patriots of that day, it was composed of free States and slave States, bound together by one common Constitution. We have existed and prospered from that day to this, thus divided. . . . Why can we not thus continue to prosper ?" 2

Lincoln's reply was forcible: "There is no way," he said, "of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our new territories—to restrict it forever to the old States where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to
________________
1 September 18th.
2 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 155.

the slavery agitation. The other way is for us to surrender, and let Judge Douglas and his friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn towards ultimate extinction, it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt."1

In the Jonesboro debate, Lincoln had made clear the fallacy of the Freeport doctrine. But in the rejoinder, Douglas showed what a powerful argument the Dred Scott decision was against the cardinal Republican principle of prohibition by Congress of slavery in the territories. 2

The great historical importance of these debates lies in the prominence they gave Lincoln. The distinction was well deserved. In the Peoria speech of 1854, the Springfield address of 1857, and his published speeches of the 1858 campaign, we have a body of Republican doctrine which in consistency, cogency, and fitness can nowhere be equalled. Lincoln appealed alike to scholars, men of business, and the common people, for such clearness of statement and irrefragable proofs had not been known since the death of Webster. The simple, plain, natural unfolding of ideas is common to both Lincoln and Webster; and their points are made so clear that, while under the spell, the wonder grows how doubts ever could have arisen about the matter. But while it is the sort of reasoning that seems easy for the

1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 157.
2 Ibid., pp.127,185.
________________
hearer or reader, it is the result of hard work on the part of the author. A distinguished thinker has said that mathematical studies are of immense benefit to the student "by habituating him to precision. It is one of the peculiar excellencies of mathematical discipline that the mathematician is never satisfied with a peu pres. He requires the exact truth;" and the practice of mathematical reasoning "gives wariness of mind; it accustoms us to demand a sure footing." 1 Undoubtedly the days and nights given by Lincoln to Euclid had much to do with fitting him so well for this contest.

His simple and forcible vocabulary was due to the study of the Bible and Shakespeare. In the habitual use of words that were more common before the eighteenth century than since, Webster and Lincoln are alike. With Webster this was a deliberate choice, but Lincoln had found the Elizabethan language a fit vehicle for his thoughts, and his studies had gone no further.

Some further extracts from Lincoln's speeches are necessary in order fully to understand the historical importance of these debates. He said at Galesburg: 2 "The real difference between Judge Douglas and the Republicans ... is that the judge is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty—that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this country for free or slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. If you will take the judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him—as his declaration that he 'don't care whether slavery is voted up or down'— you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do
____________

1 Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, by John Stuart Mill, vol. ii. pp. 310. 311.
2 October 7th.

not admit that slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community want slavery, they have a right to have it. He can say that logically if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. He insists that, upon the score of equality, the owners of slaves and owners of property—of horses and every other sort of property—should be alike and hold them alike in a new territory. That is perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike, and are equally founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong."1

Lincoln had no patience with the new construction of the Declaration of Independence. "Three years ago," he declared, "there had never lived a man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending to believe it, and then asserting it did not include the negro. I believe the first man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of the entire party."2

This remark was made during the last debate at Alton.3 In this city, which looked across the river upon the State of Missouri, where Southern sympathy was strong, and which was famous in abolition annals as the place where Lovejoy had been murdered by a pro-slavery mob, Lincoln reached a greater height of moral power and eloquence than he had attained since his opening Springfield speech. "When that Nebraska bill was brought forward, four years ago last January, was it not," he asked, "for the avowed object of putting an end to the slavery agitation? . . . We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome
___________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 181.
2 Ibid., 225.
3 October 15th.

thing, and that very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. . . . When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than last winter? When was it as great in the country as to-day? There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska policy, which was to clothe the people of the territories with a superior degree of self-government beyond what they had ever had before. . . . But have you ever heard or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its use, the people of Kansas had with this same right of self-government? In its main policy and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day'." 1

Lincoln made a good argument drawn from the letter of the Constitution. "The institution of slavery," he said, "is only mentioned in the Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither of these cases does the word 'slavery' or' negro race' occur; but covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of significance; . . . and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever—when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution of slavery had passed from among us, there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be in the course of ultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is not true that our fathers, as
_________________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 228.

Judge Douglas assumes, made this government part slave and part free. . . . The exact truth is, they found the institution existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making the government they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the difficulty, the absolute impossibility, of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world —the only wise policy—the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon—that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution—I turn upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone."1

The stock complaint about the agitation of slavery was effectively answered. "Judge Douglas has intimated," said Lincoln, "that all this difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of office-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians. ... Is that the truth? How many times have we had danger from this question? . . . Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society—in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible power which for fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it? If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you I will quit before they have half done so. But
_____________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 229.

where is the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened our institutions? I say, where is the philosophy or statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? Yet this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is advocating—that we are to care nothing about it! I ask you if it is not a false philosophy? Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most about ?—a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about ?1

The real issue, Lincoln affirmed, is whether slavery is right or wrong. "That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles which have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle, in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle." 2

The excitement in Illinois mounted up to fever heat. Never had there been such a campaign. That of 1856 was calm by comparison. The debates did not take place in halls, for no halls were large enough. These meetings were held in the afternoon, in groves or on the prairie, and the
______________________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 230, 231.
2 Ibid., p. 234.

audiences were from five thousand to ten thousand. At the Charleston meeting it was estimated twenty thousand were present.1 Everywhere women vied with men in their interest in the contest.

The joint meetings and the speeches of which mention has been made by no means measure the work of the two candidates. Lincoln spoke incessantly. In the hundred days of the campaign, Douglas made one hundred and thirty speeches.2 As the Little Giant had the Republicans and the influence of the administration to fight, his efforts seemed heroic; and during the campaign the opinion was universal that, if successful, it would be because his personal prowess had overcome great odds, while defeat might mean his political death.

A host of lesser Illinois aspirants were constantly engaged in campaign work. Members of Congress were to be chosen at the same election, and the candidates stumped thoroughly their districts. Candidates for the legislature occupied a more conspicuous place than usual, for on the successful party would fall the duty and honor of naming for senator one of the two men who were making Illinois famous. Corwin and Chase came from Ohio, and Colfax from Indiana, to assist Lincoln in this memorable struggle. Money was used on both sides more freely than common in a senatorial campaign, but it was employed only for legitimate purposes.3 Listening to the arguments of Lincoln and Douglas, the meanest voter of Illinois must have felt that he was one of
___________________
1 Arnold, p. 147.
2 Nicolay and Hay, vol. ii. p. 146.
3 Greeley wrote in 1868: "While Lincoln had spent less than a thousand dollars in all, Douglas in the canvass had borrowed and dispensed no less than eighty thousand dollars, incurring a debt which weighed him down to the grave. I presume no dime of this was used to buy up his competitor's voters, but all to organize and draw out his own; still, the debt so improvidently, if not culpably, incurred remained to harass him out of this mortal life."—Century Magazine, July, 1891, p. 375, when this paper of Greeley was first published. I believe this to be a correct statement.

the jury in a case of transcendent importance, and that, inasmuch as the ablest advocates of the country were appealing to him, he would have deemed it base to traffic in his vote. The party managers knew that success lay only in convincing the minds of men.

The contemplation of such a campaign is inspiriting to those who have faith in the people; for, although Lincoln did not succeed, the Republicans made a material gain over 1856, and paved the way for a triumph in 1860.

Personal popularity saved Douglas from defeat; he had a majority of eight in the legislature. But the Republican State ticket was elected, the head of it receiving 125,430 votes, while the Douglas Democrat polled 121,609, and the Buchanan Democrat 5071. The total vote had increased over that of the presidential election—an unusual occurrence. This was due to the great interest awakened by the battle of the giants. The Republicans gained more of the increased vote than the Democrats;1 but many sincere friends of Lincoln thought that the announcement of the "house-divided-against-itself " doctrine had caused his defeat. 2

The exultation of Douglas at his triumph was loud and deep. Lincoln ardently desired a seat in the United States Senate, but, accustomed to defeat, he gave way to no expressions of bitter disappointment. Indeed, he had hardly expected a better result, but he was glad he had made the race. He wrote: "It gave me a hearing on the great and durable question of the age which I could have had in no other way; and though I now sink out of view and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone." 3

Lincoln had no regrets about his first Springfield speech. Sumner asked him a few days before his death if at the time he had any doubt about that declaration. He replied: "Not
_________________
1 Democratic gain measured by the vote for the Douglas ticket, 16,261; Republican gain, 29,241.
2 See Lamon, p. 407.
3 Nicolay and Hay, vol. ii. p. 169.

in the least. It was clearly true."1 Although he had failed to win the senatorship, his speeches had impressed his Illinois friends with the notion that he was a possible candidate for the presidency, and they broached the subject to him. Lincoln's reply was modest and sincere: "What," said he, "is the use of talking of me whilst we have such men as Seward and Chase, and everybody knows them, and scarcely anybody outside of Illinois knows me. Besides, as a matter of justice, is it not due to them? . . . I admit that I am ambitious and would like to be President . . . but there is no such good luck in store for me as the presidency of these United States."2 But there was no question in the mind of Douglas regarding the fitness of Lincoln. Being asked his opinion of his late antagonist by Senator Wilson on the first opportunity after the election, Douglas said: "Lincoln is an able and honest man, one of the ablest men of the nation. I have been in Congress sixteen years, and there is not a man in the Senate I would not rather encounter in debate." 3

Important in its bearing on the future was the impression made by these debates beyond the State of Illinois. The speeches were published in full in the Chicago journals; many of them found a place in the St. Louis, Cincinnati, and New York newspapers,4 and beyond all else, a Western Republican looked for the verdict of New York and New England. Illinois, in 1858, was politically and socially as far from New York city and Boston as Nebraska is to-day.5 The readers of the New York journals were, however, kept well informed as to the progress of the campaign, and enough speeches on each side were published to convey a correct idea of the issue between the debaters.

Yet public attention centred in Douglas. He had now
________________
1 Sumner's Eulogy on Lincoln, Sumner's Works, vol. ix. p. 380.
2 Arnold, p. 155; The Lincoln Memorial, pp. 473-476.
3 Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. p. 577.
4 See Arnold, p. 142; New York Tribune, Times, and Post.
5 In 1892.

with him nine-tenths of the Northern Democrats, and they followed his progress with intense interest. "On the occasion of our recent visit to New York," wrote the editor of the Philadelphia Press, "we had an opportunity of commingling freely with citizens from all parts of the Union, especially during the Cable Carnival,1 and almost the first questions propounded were: 'What is your news from Illinois? When have you heard from Senator Douglas? God speed him! May he be successful!' And this was the language of all parties, almost without exception. The interest of the American people in the extraordinary contest in which Judge Douglas is engaged increases with every day.'2

Even among Republicans of the East the contest seemed noteworthy only because Douglas was engaged in it. Before making the Springfield speech that opened the campaign, Lincoln was generally regarded as a backwoods lawyer who had more temerity than discretion in offering to contest the senatorship with Douglas, against the advice of the wisest Republicans of the East.

But with the publication of the "house-divided-against itself" speech in the Tribune, the eyes of Eastern observers began to be opened to the fact that a new champion had appeared; and when Lincoln challenged Douglas to a joint debate, the public realized that a worthy foeman had entered the lists. The Tribune, in spite of Greeley's deprecating the contest, and the Post gave Lincoln a loyal support. The Times, on the contrary, obviously sympathized with Douglas; while the Springfield Republican only came reluctantly to the support of Lincoln. 3

Lincoln had attentive readers in New England.4 Twenty
_________________
1 The celebration over the completion of the Atlantic cable.
2 Issue of September 7th. Forney was editor of the Press, and probably wrote this article. "Upon Illinois the eyes of the whole Union are now fixed with intense interest." — Forney's Vindication, Philadelphia Press, Sept 30th.
3 See Life of Bowles, Merriam, vol. i. p. 234.
4 See the Boston Atlas during the campaign.

three years afterwards, Longfellow wrote that he well remembered the impression made upon him by Lincoln's speeches in "this famous canvass."1 Parker wrote in August, 1858: "I look with great interest on the contest in your State, and read the speeches, the noble speeches, of Mr. Lincoln with enthusiasm."2 A few days later, however, Parker showed that he did not comprehend the need of sinking unimportant issues, in order that the immediate and practical question should stand clearly forth. "In the Ottawa meeting," he wrote, "to judge from the Tribune report, I thought Douglas had the best of it. He questioned Mr. Lincoln on the great matters of slavery, and put the most radical questions . . . before the people. Mr. Lincoln did not meet the issue. He made a technical evasion. . . . Daniel Webster stood on higher anti-slavery ground than Abraham Lincoln now. Greeley's conduct I think is base. . . . He has no talent for a leader. If the Republicans sacrifice their principle for success, then they will not be lifted up, but blown up. I trust Lincoln will conquer. It is admirable education for the masses, this fight!" 3

The contest was watched with respect and admiration by every one at the North except by the administration party. A thorough discussion of the issues before the country, which was certain in a debate between two representative men, was by no means desired by the President and his friends. His organ thought the debates a " novel and vicious procedure," the campaign disgraced by "indecencies" and "disreputable vituperation." There was little choice between Lincoln and Douglas. Douglas was a renegade, Lincoln "a shallow empiric, an ignorant pretender, or a political knave," and the two "a pair of depraved, blustering, mischievous, low-down demagogues."4
________________
1 Arnold, p. 142.
2 To Herndon, August 28th, Weiss, vol. ii. p. 240.
3 To Herndon, Sept, 9th, Weiss, vol. ii. p. 241.
4 Washington Union, September 2d, 3d, 8th, 16th, 22d.

After the election the tone of the Eastern Republican press was that of paeans to the victor because his success was a severe blow to the administration. Yet sympathy did not lack for the vanquished, who had made for himself, so one heard on all sides, a national reputation.1 As Douglas had won this hard-fought field, he was now the most glorious son of his country. No one came near him in popular estimation; it was generally conceded that he would be the Democratic candidate for President in 1860, and would probably be elected.

Since "nothing succeeds like success," it was for the most part supposed in the East that as Douglas had won the prize, he had overpowered his antagonist in debate. This remained the prevalent opinion until, in 1860, the debates were published in book form. Since then the matured judgment is that in the dialectic contest, Lincoln got the better of Douglas. No one would now undertake to affirm the contrary; but Lincoln had an immense advantage in having the just cause, and the one to which public sentiment was tending. Douglas showed great power, and, had chance or disposition put him on the anti-slavery side, it is certain he would have been an effective champion. This we know in view of the speeches he made in the Lecompton debate when he pleaded for justice and fairness. But we cannot in imagination transpose the two contestants. It is impossible for the mind to conceive Lincoln battling for any cause but that of justice.

The October elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa were decidedly adverse to the administration. That in Pennsylvania attracted especial notice. It was a strong condemnation when the President's own State, usually counted on for a good Democratic majority, emphatically censured his policy. The Republicans, Americans, and anti-Lecompton Democrats united, and won a complete victory. Of twenty-five members of Congress, the administration
____________
1 See the New York Tribune, Times, Post, and Independent.

party elected but three, while in the previous House the Democrats had fifteen. "We have met the enemy in Pennsylvania, and we are theirs," wrote Buchanan to his niece. To her this cold reticent man came nearer to opening his mind than to any other person. He proceeded to relate that a number of congenial friends had dined with him, and " we had a merry time of it, laughing, among other things, over our crushing defeat. It is so great that it is almost absurd." In this letter he reflects on the causes of the change. "Poor bleeding Kansas is quiet," he continued, "and is behaving herself in an orderly manner; but her wrongs have melted the hearts of the sympathetic Pennsylvanians, or rather Philadelphians. In the interior of the State the tariff was the damaging question."1

Between the October and November elections occurred an event of prime importance. Seward delivered at Rochester his celebrated irrepressible-conflict speech; it was a philippic against the Democratic party and its devotion to slavery. As the slave-holders, he said, contributed "in an overwhelming proportion to the capital strength of the Democratic party, they necessarily dictate and prescribe its policy." He exposed the injustice of the slave system, and contrasted the good of freedom with the evil of slavery. He averred that between the two there was a collision. "It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation."2

Few speeches from the stump have attracted so great attention or exerted so great an influence. The eminence of the man combined with the startling character of the doctrine to make it engross the public mind. 3 The Democrats
____________
1 Buchanan to Miss Lane, October 15th, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 241.
2 This speech was delivered October 25th. Seward's Works, vol. iv. p. 3 The same notion may be found in previous speeches of Seward (Life, vol. ii. p. 352); but it is in the shape rather of a suggestion than a forcible and precise declaration.

looked upon Seward as the representative Republican. When, in the Illinois canvass, Douglas referred to a suppositional Republican President, it was to Seward by name. 1 Jefferson Davis called him "the master mind" of the Republican party. 2

The Republicans looked upon the doctrine announced in the Rochester speech as the well-weighed conclusion of a profound thinker and of a man of wide experience, who united the political philosopher with the practical politician. It is true that four months previously the same idea had been expressed by Lincoln, but the promulgation of a principle by the Illinois lawyer was a far different affair from the giving of the key-note by the New York senator. It is not probable that Lincoln's "house-divided-against-itself" speech had any influence in bringing Seward to this position.3 He would at this time have certainly scorned the notion of borrowing ideas from Lincoln; and had he studied the progress of the Illinois canvass, he must have seen that the declaration did not meet with general favor. It must also be borne in mind that in anti-slavery sentiment the people of New York were far in advance of the people of Illinois, and Seward spoke to a sympathetic audience. "The unmistakable outbreaks of zeal which occur all around me," he began, "show that you are earnest men."

In February of this year there had been bodied forth in Seward the politician who sought to discern in which way the tide of opinion was setting. Now, a far-seeing statesman spoke. It would, indeed, be difficult to harmonize the speech of February in the Senate with the declaration at Rochester in October; one was compared to Webster's 7th-of-March speech, and the other commended by the
______________
1 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 48.
2 Speech at Jackson, Miss., November 11th, the Liberator, December 3d.
3 See Lincoln's remarks on this subject at Columbus, September, 1859, Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 244.

abolitionists. The most that can be said is that the earlier expression was a burst of inconsiderate optimism, while the later speech was the earnest conviction of many years, which Seward deemed opportune to proclaim after the signal strength the Republicans had displayed in the October elections. In conclusion, the speaker replied to the charge of scoffers that the Republican party was a party of one idea. "But that idea," he exclaimed, "is a noble one—an idea that fills and expands all generous souls. ... I know, and you know, that a revolution has begun. I know, and all the world knows, that revolutions never go backwards."1

The November elections emphasized what was foreshadowed in October. The North condemned unmistakably the administration, and, except in Pennsylvania, there was but one question before the public mind. There the prostration of the iron industry, a result of the panic of 1857, was charged by the Republicans to the tariff bill enacted in March of that year, and the responsibility of the reduction of duties was cast upon the Democrats.2 Such an argument, presented to laborers who neither had work nor the prospect of any, undoubtedly aided the opposition in carrying the State.3 In New England, New York, and the Northwest, where the defeat of the administration party was overwhelming, the tariff question was regarded with indifference. There was but one explanation of the result. The people intended to censure the Lecompton policy of the President and to show their disapproval of his evident Southern leaning.4

To trace the decomposition of political parties which has been going on since 1852, and the formation of new
________________
1 Seward's Works, vol. iv. p. 302.
2 In a future volume I purpose to discuss the tariff of 1846, and the tariff of 1857, in connection with the material prosperity of the decade of 1850-60.
3 See New York Tribune, October 16th; Washington Union, cited by New York Times, October 26th.
4 See New York Times, November 5th.

combinations which began in 1854, has been a complicated matter, for there have been many streams, seemingly running in independent channels. From the close of 1858 to the beginning of the war, however, the political history is easier to grasp, for the reason that leaders have arisen under whom the people have arrayed themselves, looking to them for guidance. Four leaders represented substantially the political sentiment of the country. Douglas, Seward, Lincoln, and Jefferson Davis were the exponents; and all but former old-line Whigs, Americans, and abolitionists recognized in one of them a leader whom they looked to for education on the issues of the day.

Jefferson Davis, now the leader of the Southern Democrats, was regarded by them with somewhat of the veneration that had been accorded to Calhoun. Like Calhoun, he could depend on a following beyond the Democratic ranks, on account of being the special representative of Southern interests. It was not a vain boast of Senator Hammond when he said that the South "is almost thoroughly united." As he explained, "The abolitionists have at length forced upon us a knowledge of our true position, and compelled us into union—a union not for aggression, but for defence." 1 If the peculiar institutions of the South were threatened, Davis might reckon practically on the support of that whole section; and that being the case, it is of little importance that a party organization in opposition to the regular Democrats was kept up.

Davis had passed the summer at the North, and his speeches in several of the cities had made a profound and favorable impression. He had sought the bracing climate of New England for the improvement of his health, although an unfriendly Southern biographer states that he had
______________
1 Speech at Barnwell Court-house, S. C, October 29th. Speeches and Letters of J. H. Hammond, pp. 352, 356. The Southerners rarely made a distinction between Republicans and abolitionists; but the difference was clear, and always recognized at the North.

caught the presidential fever, and his journey through the North was intended to work up sentiment in his favor.1 His speech at Portland, Maine, called out by a serenade, was a graceful response to people who had shown him "gentle kindness," who had given him a "cordial welcome" and a "hearty grasp." He spoke in eloquent terms of the common possession by the North and the South of the Revolutionary history, praised the Constitution, appealed for the Union, and complimented in felicitous terms Yankee skill and enterprise.2 He addressed the Democrats of Boston and New York, both of which cities received him with enthusiasm. If he had indulged in dreams of the presidency, they were ruthlessly dispelled by the result of the fall elections, which demonstrated that no Southern Democrat could be elected President. It was also said that his Mississippi constituents found fault with the fervent union sentiments he had uttered at the North, and he therefore made a speech at Jackson, Mississippi, to define his position.3 He then asserted that if an abolitionist were elected President—and, in his view, Seward, Lincoln, and Chase were abolitionists—it would be the duty of Mississippi to secede from the Union. 4

The Republicans of New York State and New England were by no means unanimous in endorsing Seward's Rochester speech. The New York Times, once his organ, called the assertion that all the States must ultimately become free or slave a glittering generality. It further maintained that, although the Fremont campaign had been fought out on the platform of demanding congressional prohibition of slavery in the territories, and although it was true that most Republicans thought it the correct principle, yet the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott opinion had denied that right,
________________
1 Life of Jefferson Davis, Pollard, p. 51.
2 This speech, not at all partisan in its nature, is printed in the Life of Davis, Alfriend, p. 122.
3 Boston Atlas, cited by the Liberator, December 3d,
4 The Liberator, December 3d.

and the point must be considered settled. The only way now that slavery could be constitutionally prohibited in the territories was through the operation of the Douglas doctrine of popular sovereignty. Yet there was comfort in the fact that Kansas was certain to be free, and that no dispute now existed regarding the establishment of slavery in any territory. It even appeared that the agitation of slavery was subsiding, and it was quite probable that the campaign of 1860 would be made on other issues.1 The Springfield Republican thought Seward's irrepressible-conflict declaration impolitic, and liable to do him and his party damage. 2

The President sent his message to Congress at the usual time. He showed great satisfaction that the Kansas question no longer troubled the country, and said that we had much reason for gratitude to Almighty Providence that our political condition was calmer than one year ago, for then "the sectional strife between the North and the South on the dangerous subject of slavery had again become so intense as to threaten the peace and perpetuity of the Confederacy." In his discussion of the Kansas question, not the faintest intimation appears that he and the pro-slavery party had made a mistake in their endeavor to force slavery upon Kansas. On the contrary, his action was viewed with complacency, and he maintained that had his advice been followed, the agitation would have been sooner allayed and Kansas would now be a free State instead of a free territory. Referring to his Lecompton policy, the President said: "In the course of my long public life, I have never performed any official act which, in the retrospect, has afforded me more heartfelt satisfaction." The lesson of the elections was lost upon him; he had learned nothing. His discussion of the Kansas matter was a tissue of misrepresentations, although it is probable they imposed on few but himself and his office-holding satellites. It is impossible to
______________
1 See the Times of November 9th, 16th, 19th, 26th, and December 3d. 2 Life of Bowles, vol. i. p. 243.

deny to Buchanan a certain measure of sincerity in his extraordinary utterances; but if he were sincere, he was strangely dull and perverse.

The President referred to the business condition of the country. The hard times, a sequel of the panic of 1857, still continued, but he thought the effects of the revulsion were slowly but surely passing away. The revenue of the government, however, had fallen short of the expenditure, and he recommended an increase of the duties on imports. In dilating upon internal affairs beyond the domain of politics, the President neglected to allude to the yellow-fever epidemic that had visited Mobile and New Orleans. In this he did not follow the example of his predecessor, who had made a sympathetic mention of the ravages caused in 1853 by the dread disease. But there was abundant reason for the difference. The mortality this year was less than in 1853; for while the fever was of the malignant type, it had not so many fresh subjects to prey upon, and was apparently more skilfully treated.1 In any event, therefore, it would not have produced the impression on the public mind that was discernible five years before; and it failed even in the effect its importance warranted, on account of the minds of men being engrossed with political and financial affairs.

The President showed that he was anxious to acquire Cuba, and, with fatuity rather than disingenuousness, he assigned for a reason that as Cuba was "the only spot in the civilized world where the African slave-trade is tolerated," its cession to this country would put an end to that blot upon civilization. Buchanan can now only be looked upon as the tool of Southern Democrats. Every one, except apparently the President, knew that their restless longing for Cuba was prompted by the desire to extend their political power and offset the new free States that were coming into the Union; that, far from wishing the African slave-trade
_____________
1 American Almanac of 1860, p. 386; The Diary of a Samaritan, p. 332.

suppressed, they were now chafing against the United States statutes which forbade it and made it piracy.

While the President said plainly that our national character would not permit us to acquire Cuba in any way except by honorable negotiation, yet he suggested that circumstances might arise where the law of self-preservation would compel us to depart from this course, thereby faintly reaffirming the doctrine of the Ostend Manifesto. As he purposed negotiating for the purchase of the island, he asked Congress for an appropriation of money to be used as an advance payment immediately on the signature of the treaty with Spain, so that he might nail the bargain without waiting the ratification of the Senate.

The response of the Southern Democrats was prompt. Slidell reported a bill from the committee on foreign relations to appropriate thirty million dollars for the purpose requested by the President. On the same day the news came from Spain of the sensation caused by the President's message. It had been made the subject of an interpellation in the Cortes, to which the Minister of State had responded, amidst the enthusiastic cheers of the delegates, that a proposition to dispossess Spain of the least part of her territory would be considered an insult. The Cortes voted unanimously that it would support the government in preserving the integrity of the Spanish dominions.1 Seward called the attention of the Senate to the reception of the President's message in Spain. Had the project been one of honorable negotiation for a peaceful purchase, it would of course have gone no further; but there was an ulterior intention, and the bill was consequently made a special order for the first day of the following week. The subject gave rise to considerable discussion, in which the aims of the annexation party were clearly disclosed. It had been a favorite theory that Spanish officials could be bribed to do what they would emphatically disclaim in the open Cortes; and
__________
1 See New York Tribune, January 24th, 1859.

Doolittle, of Wisconsin, charged that this thirty million dollars was intended to be used in this manner as secret-service money. 1

It came out in the debate that the Southerners were willing to give from one hundred and twenty-five to two hundred millions for the island; but if they could not buy it, they were prepared, as Mallory, of Florida, disclosed, to take Cuba and talk about it afterwards, as Frederic the Great did when he marched into Silesia. 2

The Cuban question was the occasion of one of those bitter controversies between Northern and Southern senators that were now characteristic of every session.' The Homestead bill had passed the House, and the Republicans were eager to have it considered in the Senate; the 25th of February had come; the short session was drawing to a close, and the Cuban bill, which could by no possibility pass the House, had the precedence. Seward urged that it should be laid aside, arguing that the Homestead bill "is a question of homes, of lands for the landless freemen," while "the Cuba bill is the question of slaves for the slave-holders." This irritated Toombs, who, as soon as he could get
______________
1 Congressional Globe, vol. xxxviii. p. 907.
2 Von Hoist, Congressional Globe, vol. xxxviii. p. 1332. I have not discussed foreign relations under the Buchanan administration. Curtis, in his Life of Buchanan, has devoted chapter x. vol. ii., to that subject. For the very important controversy on the right of search, asserted in 1858 by Great Britain in reference to merchantmen suspected of being engaged in the slave-trade, see, also, International Law Digest, Wharton, vol. iii. sect. 327; Letters from London, Dallas, vol. ii. p. 28. 3" In 1859, there was an unspoken feeling of avoidance between the political men of the two sections, and even to some extent between such of their families as had previously associated together. Unconsciously, all tentative subjects were avoided by the well-bred of both sections; it was only when some 'bull in a china shop' galloped over the barriers good-breeding had established that there was anything but the kindest manner apparent. Still, the restraint was unpleasant to both sides, and induced a rather ceremonious intercourse."—Life of Jefferson Davis, by his wife, vol. i. p. 574.

the floor, exclaimed: "Mr. President, there is one class of people whom I despise as American senators, and that is, demagogues; but there is another class that I despise a great deal more, and that is the people who are driven by demagogues. . . . When you have a great question of national policy which appeals to the patriotism of the whole American people, a plain and naked question, then we hear of 'land to the landless.' If you do not wish to give thirty millions for the acquisition of Cuba, say so by your vote, aye or no; and then I will take up your 'land for the landless.' . . . But we do not want to be diverted from a great question of public policy by pretences or by pretexts, or by the shivering in the wind of men in particular localities." Wade, who knew no fear, and was ever ready to take up the gauntlet thrown down by a fiery Southerner, sprang to his feet, excited by worthy passion,1 and exclaimed: "I am very glad that this question has at length come up. I am glad, too, that it has antagonized with this nigger question. We are 'shivering in the wind,' are we, sir, over your Cuba question? You may have occasion to shiver on that question before you are through with it. . . . The question will be, shall we give niggers to the niggerless, or land to the landless? . . . When you come to niggers for the niggerless, all other questions sink into perfect insignificance. But, sir, we will antagonize these measures. I appeal to the country upon them. I ask the people, do you choose that we should go through the earth hunting for niggers, for really that is the whole purpose of the Democratic party. They can no more run their party without niggers than you could run a steam-engine without fuel. That is all there is of Democracy; and when you cannot raise niggers enough for the market, then you must go abroad fishing for niggers through the whole world. Are you going to buy Cuba for land for the landless? What is there? You will find three quarters of a million of niggers,
_______________
1 Life of Wade, Riddle, p. 262.

but you will not find any land—not one foot, not an inch." 1

At the close of the debate this day, for the purpose of testing the sense of the Senate, a motion was made by a friend of the measure to lay the bill on the table. This was negatived by a vote of 30 to 18. The next day Slidell withdrew the bill, as he was satisfied it could not be pressed to a vote without a sacrifice of the appropriation bills, thereby involving an extra session. He asserted, however, that the Senate on the preceding day had as clearly expressed its opinion on the subject as if there had been a final vote.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates had put an end to the project of a union between Douglas and the Republicans. While Eastern men and Republican journals might regret that such a combination had not been effected, it was apparent that after the positions Douglas had been forced to take by the inexorable logic of Lincoln, there remained but little common ground between them. Now, however, as the Lecompton question was out of the way, and the Kansas question no longer before the country, it was a matter of moment whether the breach in the Democratic party could be healed. Shortly after the close of the Illinois canvass, Douglas made a trip through the South and was received with enthusiasm at Memphis and New Orleans, where he made formal speeches. His journey was not so much a bid for support from the South in his presidential aspirations as it was an endeavor to make converts to his doctrine. His line of argument was the same in Tennessee and Louisiana as it had been in Illinois, and there was entire consistency between his speeches.2 It was stated, however, that only a coterie of public men welcomed him at New
___________________
1 Congressional Globe, vol. xxxviii. p. 1354.
2 The New York Times, which still inclined to Douglas, published the Memphis and New Orleans speeches. See the Times of December 17th, 1858, and the Tribune, December 6th, 1858.

Orleans, and that the prominent members of the party, being devoted to the administration, held aloof. From the tone of the Southern press, it is evident that in many sections of the South, Douglas would have been coldly received, for he was looked upon as a traitor to Southern interests.1 The pro-slavery faction at Washington was likewise bitterly opposed to him. The President was represented as implacable; he justly laid at the door of Douglas his mortifying defeat in the attempt to force the Lecompton Constitution upon Kansas, and the repudiation of his policy by the Northern people. The Freeport doctrine of the Illinois senator seemed heresy to those who implicitly believed in the Calhoun principle, especially as they were now preparing to give that principle a further extension. These two forces working together, resentment and a sincere difference in views, resulted in the Democratic caucus deposing Douglas from the chairmanship of the committee on territories, a position he had held ever since he had been in the Senate. This action was taken while Douglas was on his Southern tour. When he returned to the North, he received ovations at New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and was cordially welcomed at Washington. He apparently seemed disposed to submit to his removal in silence. It began to be said that his presidential aspirations were so potent that he was willing to yield some of the points in dispute; and his support of the thirty-million Cuba bill gave color to this belief. 2

But those who thought or hoped that the division in the Democratic party might be cemented were undeceived by the fierce debate of February 23d in the Senate, when it became apparent that the difference was irreconcilable. An amendment by Senator Hale, of New Hampshire, to an appropriation bill, offered probably for the purpose of
____________
1 See extracts from Southern journals. The Liberator, January 7th, 1859.
2 New York Times, February 22d; see also letter of Letcher to Crittenden, Life of Crittenden, Coleman, vol. ii. p. 170.

bringing to the surface the slumbering disagreement, furnished the text for the discussion. The Vice-President, Breckinridge, who more than once had contributed his efforts in the direction of harmony, tried to have a vote taken promptly on the amendment, hoping that as only nine days of the session remained, they might pass without making more pronounced the schism in the party; but Brown, of Mississippi, demanded a hearing, and his sincere expressions were the beginning of a hot debate between the Democratic factions.

"I neither want to cheat nor to be cheated in the great contest that is to come off in 1860," he said. He therefore proposed to give his opinion on a question that would have a most important bearing on the presidential election. "We have," he averred, "a right of protection for our slave property in the territories. The Constitution, as expounded by the Supreme Court, awards it. We demand it, and we mean to have it." If the territorial legislature will not protect us, "the obligation is upon Congress. ... If I cannot," he continued, "obtain the rights guaranteed to me and my people under the Constitution, as expounded by the Supreme Court, my mind will be forced irresistibly to the conclusion that the Constitution is a failure, and the Union a despotism, and then, sir, I am prepared to retire from the concern." Brown wished, moreover, to say that he utterly repudiated the whole doctrine of squatter sovereignty.1 He understood the position of Douglas, since the statement at Freeport of the theory of "unfriendly legislation," but he wanted to know how the other Northern Democratic senators stood on this question. 2

Perhaps if Douglas had been ruled only by his wish to be President, he would have remained silent; but it was not
____________
1 By opponents the principle Douglas advocated was often called squatter sovereignty. He himself made a distinction between " squatter" and "popular" sovereignty. See Cutts, p. 123.
2 Congressional Globe, vol. xxxviii. p. 1241.

his nature to allow such an avowal to pass unnoticed. As soon as Brown sat down, Douglas leaped to the floor, demanded recognition, and defended his doctrine of popular sovereignty in earnest arguments, familiar to the readers of this work. He made the emphatic declaration: "I tell you, gentlemen of the South, in all candor, I do not believe a Democratic candidate can ever carry any one Democratic State of the North on the platform that it is the duty of the federal government to force the people of a territory to have slavery when they do not want it."1

Jefferson Davis replied to Douglas: "The senator asks," said he," will you make a discrimination in the territories?" that is, will you give slave property a greater measure of protection than you would dry-goods, liquors, horses, or cattle? Davis boldly answered: "I say yes. I would discriminate in the territories wherever it is needful to assert the right of a citizen. ... I have heard many a siren's song on this doctrine of non-intervention; a thing shadowy, fleeting, changing its color as often as the chameleon." If the Democratic party, he continued," is to be wrecked by petty controversies in relation to African labor; if a few Africans brought into the United States, where they have been advanced in comfort and civilization and knowledge, are to constitute the element which will divide the Democratic party and peril the vast hopes, not only of our own country but of all mankind, I trust it will be remembered that a few of us, at least, have stood by the old landmarks of those who framed the Constitution and gave us our liberty; that we claim nothing more now from the government than the men who formed it were willing to concede. When this shall become an unpopular doctrine, when men are to lose the great States of the North by announcing it, I wish it to be understood that my vote can be got for no candidate who will not be so defeated. I agree with my colleague that we are not, with our eyes open, to be cheated."
__________
1 Congressional Globe xxxviii. p. 1247.

After several senators had spoken, Douglas got an opportunity to rejoin: "The senator from Mississippi," he exclaimed," says if I am not willing to stand in the party on his platform, I can go out. Allow me to inform him that I stand on the platform, and those that jump off must go out of the party."

An acrimonious colloquy between Douglas and Davis ensued. Davis spoke of men who sought "to build up a political reputation by catering to the prejudice of a majority to exclude the property of a minority;" and Douglas retorted by saying he hated "to see men from other sections of the Union pandering to a public sentiment against what I conceive to be common rights under the Constitution. ... I hold," he continued," that Congress ought not to force slavery on the people of the territories against their will." "I wish to say," Davis replied," that what the government owes to person and property is adequate protection, and the amount of protection which must be given will necessarily vary with the character of the property and the place where it is held; that any attempt, therefore, to create a prejudice by talking about discrimination between different kinds of property is delusive." I tell you, Davis said, addressing himself to Douglas, you, with your opinions, would have no chance to get the vote of Mississippi to-day. "I should have been glad," he continued, " if the senator, when he had appeared in the Senate, had answered the expectation of many of his friends, and by a speech here have removed the doubt which his reported speeches in the last canvass of Illinois created. . . . He has confirmed me, however, in the belief that he is now as full of heresy as he once was of adherence to the doctrine of popular sovereignty, correctly construed." 1

Pugh, Broderick, and Stuart, senators from Ohio, California, and Michigan, agreed with Douglas, and the Southern senators agreed with Davis. This new doctrine of the slave
____________
1 For this debate see Congressional Globe, vol. xxxviii. p. 1255 etseq.

power had been broached in the press before the assembling of Congress;1 now it was given the seal of approval by the party leaders. In the view of the Southern Democrats, it was simply the logical extension of the Calhoun doctrine and the Dred Scott opinion, yet to the Northern mind it was a startling advance. Calhoun and Taney had maintained that Congress had no right or power to prohibit slavery in the territories, while Davis now held that Congress was bound to protect it. One was the denial of a power, the other the assertion of a positive duty. If we recall the steady encroachment of the slave power, no detailed argument will be necessary to show that Douglas and his adherents were nearer to the Democratic faith of 1848-1850 than Davis and his followers. The assertion of this novel doctrine was one more arrogant pretension; it was one step farther towards the nationalization of slavery, and it made permanent the division in the Democratic party. Davis and his followers broke up the Democratic party as a prelude to breaking up the Union. The country fully appreciated the importance of this debate of February 23d, and the general opinion of the public was that it had made the schism irreconcilable. The formation of an independent Northern Democratic party, which would either carry the country or give the victory to the Republicans, was presaged, and a split in the next Democratic national convention, appointed at Charleston, was prophesied. 2

Besides what has been mentioned, other events of the session demonstrated a lack of affinity between Northern and Southern Democrats. The Pacific Railroad scheme, dear to the North, was killed in the Senate by indirection. The Homestead bill passed the House, with, however, only three
_____________
1 Richmond Enquirer, cited by New York Times, November 16th, 1858; Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, Wilson, vol. ii. p. 656.
2 See Pike in the New York Tribune, February 28th; the New York Times, February 25th and March 1st; New York Herald, February 25th.

members from the slave States voting in favor of it; but in the Senate it was overslaughed by the appropriation bills and the Cuba thirty-million measure, and, although persistent efforts were made, it was impossible to get it considered. The Southern Democratic senators were successful in preventing an increase of the tariff, which had been recommended by the President. Although it was represented to them with great force that unless the duties on iron manufactures were raised, Pennsylvania, which the Democrats had lost at the last election, could not be recovered, the argument was unavailing.1
____________
1 See New York Herald, January 30th, February 1st, 3d, 4th, and 7th; Pike to the New York Tribune, February 2d. See Debate on Bigler's Resolutions.


Source: Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States; from the compromise of 1850 to the final restoration of home rule at the south in 1877, v.2. New York: Macmillan, 1910 [c1892].