Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics Part 10

Douglas and Breese had sought to prevent Young from contesting their seats in the Senate, by securing a fat office for him. All this is _ex parte_ evidence against Senator Douglas; but there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the story. In these latter days, so comparatively innocent a deal would pa.s.s without comment.

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

An incident at the very outset of his career in the Senate, betrayed some little lack of self-restraint. When Senator Ca.s.s introduced the so-called Ten Regiments bill, Calhoun asked that its consideration might be postponed, in order to give him opportunity to discuss resolutions on the prospective annexation of Mexico. Ca.s.s was disposed to yield for courtesy's sake; but Douglas resented the interruption.

He failed to see why public business should be suspended in order to discuss abstract propositions. He believed that this doctrine of courtesy was being carried to great lengths.[241] Evidently the young Senator, fresh from the brisk atmosphere of the House, was restive under the conventional restraints of the more sedate Senate. He had not yet become acclimated.

Douglas made his first formal speech in the Senate on February 1, 1848. Despite his disclaimers, he had evidently made careful preparation, for his desk was strewn with books and he referred frequently to his authorities. The Ten Regiments bill was known to be a measure of the administration; and for this reason, if for no other, it was bitterly opposed. The time seemed opportune for a vindication of the President's policy. Douglas indignantly repelled the charge that the war had from the outset been a war of conquest. "It is a war of self-defense, forced upon us by our enemy, and prosecuted on our part in vindication of our honor, and the integrity of our territory.

The enemy invaded our territory, and we repelled the invasion, and demanded satisfaction for all our grievances. In order to compel Mexico to do us justice, it was necessary to follow her retreating armies into her territory ... and inasmuch as it was certain that she was unable to make indemnity in money, we must necessarily take it in land. Conquest was not the motive for the prosecution of the war; satisfaction, indemnity, security, was the motive--conquest and territory the means."[242]

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

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

Before a vote could be reached on the Ten Regiments bill, the draft of the Mexican treaty had been sent to the Senate. What transpired in executive session and what part Douglas sustained in the discussion of the treaty, may be guessed pretty accurately by his later admissions.

He was one of an aggressive minority who stoutly opposed the provision of the fifth article of the treaty, which was to this effect: "The boundary-line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the general government of each, in conformity with its own Const.i.tution." This statement was deemed a humiliating avowal that the United States had wrongfully warred upon Mexico, and a solemn pledge that we would never repeat the offense. The obvious retort was that certain consciences now seemed hypersensitive about the war.

However that may be, eleven votes were recorded for conscience' sake against the odious article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

[Footnote 225: February 1, 1848.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 233: The official returns were as follows:

Douglas 9629 Vandeventer 6864 Wilson 395 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER VII

THE MEXICAN CESSION

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

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

At the other pole of political thought, stood the supporters of the Wilmot Proviso, who had twice endeavored to attach a prohibition of slavery to all territory which should be acquired from Mexico, and who had r.e.t.a.r.ded the organization of Oregon by insisting upon a similar concession to the principle of slavery-restriction in that Territory.

Next to these Ultras were those who doubted the necessity of the Wilmot Proviso, believing that slavery was already prohibited in the new acquisitions by Mexican law. Yet not for an instant did they doubt the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories.

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