Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics Part 20

On the 2d of March the Kansas-Nebraska bill went to a third reading by a vote of twenty-nine to twelve; its pa.s.sage was thus a.s.sured.[488]

Debate continued, however, during the afternoon and evening of the next day. Friends of the bill had agreed that it should be brought to a vote on this night. The privilege of closing the debate belonged to the chairman of the Committee on Territories; but in view of the lateness of the hour, he offered to waive his privilege and let a vote be taken. Voices were raised in protest, however, and Douglas yielded to the urgent request of his friends.[489]

The speech of Douglas was a characteristic performance. It abounded in repet.i.tions, and it can hardly be said to have contributed much to the understanding of the issues. Yet it was a memorable effort, because it exhibited the magnificent fighting qualities of the man. He was completely master of himself. He permitted interruptions by his opponents; he invited them; indeed, at times, he welcomed them; but at no time was he at a loss for a reply. Dialectically he was on this occasion more than a match for Chase and Seward. There were no studied effects in his oratory. Knowing himself to be addressing a wider audience than the Senate chamber and its crowded galleries, he appealed with intuitive keenness to certain fundamental traits in his const.i.tuents. Americans admire self-reliance even in an opponent, and the spectacle of a man fighting against personal injustice is often likely to make them forget the principle for which he stands. So Seward, who surely had no love for Douglas and no respect for his political creed, was moved to exclaim in frank admiration, "I hope the Senator will yield for a moment, because I have never had so much respect for him as I have tonight." When Chase a.s.sured Douglas that he always purposed to treat the Senator from Illinois with entire courtesy, Douglas retorted: "The Senator says that he never intended to do me injustice.... Sir, did he not say in the same doc.u.ment to which I have already alluded, that I was engaged, with others, 'in a criminal betrayal of precious rights,' 'in an atrocious plot'?... Did he not say everything calculated to produce and bring upon my head all the insults to which I have been subjected publicly and privately--not even excepting the insulting letters which I have received from his const.i.tuents, rejoicing at my domestic bereavements, and praying that other and similar calamities may befall me!"[490]

In much the same way, he turned upon Sumner, as the collaborator of the _Appeal_. Here was one who had begun his career as an Abolitionist in the Senate, with the words "Strike but hear me first," but who had helped to close the doors of Faneuil Hall against Webster, when he sought to speak in self-defense in 1850, and who now--such was the implication--was denying simple justice to another patriot.[491]

Personalities aside, the burden of his speech was the rea.s.sertion of his principle of popular sovereignty. He showed how far he had traveled since the Fourth of January in no way more strikingly, than when he called in question the substantive character of the Missouri Compromise. In his discussion of the legislative history of the Missouri acts, he easily convicted both Chase and Seward of misapprehensions; but he refused to recognize the truth of Chase's words, that "the facts of the transaction taken together and as understood by the country for more than thirty years, const.i.tute a compact binding in moral force," though expressed only in the terms of ordinary statutes. So far had Douglas gone in his advocacy of his measure that he had lost the measure of popular sentiment. He was so confident of himself and his cause, so well-a.s.sured that he had sacrificed nothing but an empty form, in repealing the slavery restriction, that he forgot the popular mind does not so readily cast aside its prejudices and grasp substance in preference to form. The combative instinct in him was strong. He had entered upon a quarrel; he would acquit himself well. Besides, he had supreme confidence that popular intelligence would slowly approve his course.

Perhaps Douglas's greatest achievement on this occasion was in coining a phrase which was to become a veritable slogan in succeeding years.

That which had hitherto been dubbed "squatter sovereignty," Douglas now dignified with the name "popular sovereignty," and provided with a pedigree. "This was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded.... The Revolution grew out of the a.s.sertion of the right on the part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the colonies.... I will not weary the Senate in multiplying evidence upon this point. It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence had its origin in the violation of the great fundamental principle which secured to the people of the colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way; and that the Revolution resulted in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the right a.s.serted by it."[492]

In conclusion, Douglas said with perfect truthfulness: "I have not brought this question forward as a Northern man or as a Southern man.

I am unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an American Senator, representing a State which is true to this principle, and which has approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska bill. I have brought it forward not as an act of justice to the South more than to the North. I have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those Territories, and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all time to come."[493]

Nor did he seem to entertain a doubt as to the universal appeal which his principle would make: "I say frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North as at the South, when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed and become well understood. The people at the North are attached to the principles of self-government; and you cannot convince them that that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which are forced upon them by a legislature in which they are not represented."[494]

The rising indignation at the North against the Kansas-Nebraska bill was felt much more directly in the House than in the Senate. So strong was the counter-current that the Senate bill was at first referred to the Committee of the Whole, and thus buried for weeks under a ma.s.s of other bills. Many believed that the bill had received a quietus for the session. Not so Douglas and his friend Richardson of Illinois, who was chairman of the Committee on Territories. With a patience born of long parliamentary experience, they bided their time. In the meantime, every possible influence was brought to bear upon recalcitrant Democrats. And just here the wisdom of Douglas, in first securing the support of the administration, was vindicated. All those devices were invoked which President and cabinet could employ through the use of the Federal patronage, so that when Richardson, on the 8th of May, called upon the House to lay aside one by one the eighteen bills which preceded the Kansas-Nebraska bill, he was a.s.sured of a working majority. The House bill having thus been reached, Richardson subst.i.tuted for it the Senate bill, minus the Clayton amendment. When he then announced that only four days would be allowed for debate, the obstructionists could no longer contain themselves. Scenes of wild excitement followed. In the end, the friends of the bill yielded to the demand for longer discussion. Debate was prolonged until May 22d, when the bill pa.s.sed by a vote of 113 to 110, in the face of bitter opposition.

Through all these exciting days, Douglas was constantly at Richardson's side, cautioning and advising. He was well within the truth when he said, in confidential chat with Madison Cutts, "I pa.s.sed the Kansas-Nebraska Act myself. I had the authority and power of a dictator throughout the whole controversy in both houses. The speeches were nothing. It was the marshalling and directing of men, and guarding from attacks, and with a ceaseless vigilance preventing surprises."[495]

The refusal of the House to accept the Clayton amendment brought the Kansas-Nebraska measure again before the Senate. Knowing that a refusal to concur would probably defeat the measure for the session, Southern senators were disposed to waive their objections to allowing aliens to vote in the new Territories. Even Atchison was now disposed to think the matter of little consequence. Foreigners were not the pioneers in the Territories; they followed the pioneers. He did not complete his thought, but it is unmistakable: therefore, native citizens as first-comers, rather than foreigners, would probably decide the question of slavery in the Territories forever. And so, after two days of debate, Douglas again had his way: the Senate voted to recede from the Clayton amendment. On May 30th, the President signed the Kansas-Nebraska bill and it became law.[496]

The outburst of wrath at the North which accompanied the repeal of the Missouri Compromise did not augur well for the future repose of the country. Douglas had antic.i.p.ated angry demonstrations; but even he was disturbed by the vehemence of the protestations which penetrated to the Senate chamber. Had he failed to gauge the depth of Northern public opinion? Senator Everett disturbed the momentary quiet of Congress by presenting a memorial signed by over three thousand New England clergymen, who, "in the name of Almighty G.o.d," protested against the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a great moral wrong and as a breach of faith. This brought Douglas to his feet. With fierce invective he declared this whole movement was instigated by the circulars sent out by the Abolition confederates in the Senate. These preachers had been led by an atrocious falsehood "to desecrate the pulpit, and prost.i.tute the sacred desk to the miserable and corrupting influence of party politics." What right had these misguided men to speak in the name of Almighty G.o.d upon a political question? It was an attempt to establish in this country the doctrine that clergymen have a peculiar right to determine the will of G.o.d in legislative matters. This was theocracy.[497]

Some weeks later, Douglas himself presented another protest, signed by over five hundred clergymen of the Northwest and accompanied by resolutions which denounced the Senator from Illinois for his "want of courtesy and reverence toward man and G.o.d."[498] His comments upon this protest were not calculated to restore him to favor among these "divinely appointed ministers for the declaration and enforcement of G.o.d's will." His public letter to them, however, was much more creditable, for in it he avoided abusive language and appealed frankly to the sober sense of the clergy.[499] Of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, he said again that it was necessary, "in order to recognize the great principle of self-government and State equality.

It does not vary the question in any degree, that human slavery, in your opinion, is a great moral wrong. If so, it is not the only wrong upon which the people of each of the States and Territories of this Union are called upon to act.... You think you are abundantly competent to decide this question now and forever. If you should remove to Nebraska, with a view of making it your permanent home, would you be any less competent to decide it when you should have arrived in the country?"[500]

The obloquy which Douglas encountered in Washington was mere child's play, as compared with the storm of abuse that met him on his return to Chicago. He afterwards said that he could travel from Boston to Chicago by the light of his own effigies.[501] "Traitor,"

"Arnold,"--with a suggestion that he had the blood of Benedict Arnold in his veins,--"Judas," were epithets hurled at him from desk and pulpit. He was presented with thirty pieces of silver by some indignant females in an Ohio village.[502] So incensed were the people of Chicago, that his friends advised him not to return, fearing that he would be a.s.saulted.[503] But fear was a sensation that he had never experienced. He went to Chicago confident that he could silence opposition as he had done four years before.[504]

Three or four days after his return, he announced that on the night of September 1st, he would address his const.i.tuents in front of North Market Hall. The announcement occasioned great excitement. The opposition press cautioned their readers not to be deceived by his sophistries, and hinted broadly at the advisability of breaking up the meeting.[505] Many friends of Douglas believed that personal violence was threatened. During the afternoon flags were hung at half mast on the lake boats; bells were tolled, as the crowds began to gather in the dusk of the evening; some public calamity seemed to impend. At a quarter past eight, Douglas began to address the people. He was greeted with hisses. He paused until these had subsided. But no sooner did he begin again than bedlam broke loose. For over two hours he wrestled with the mob, appealing to their sense of fairness; but he could not gain a hearing. Finally, for the first time in his career, he was forced to admit defeat. Drawing his watch from his pocket and observing that the hour was late, he shouted, in an interval of comparative quiet, "It is now Sunday morning--I'll go to church, and you may go to h.e.l.l!" At the imminent risk of his life, he went to his carriage and was driven through the crowds to his hotel.[506]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 415: House Bill No. 444; 28 Cong., 2 Sess.]

[Footnote 416: Executive Docs., 32 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 124.]

[Footnote 417: House Bill, No. 170; 30 Cong., 1 Sess.]

[Footnote 418: _Globe_, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1161.]

[Footnote 419: _Ibid._, pp. 1684-1685.]

[Footnote 420: _Ibid._, p. 1760. Clingman afterward admitted that the Southern opposition was motived by reluctance to admit new free Territories. "This feeling was felt rather than expressed in words."

Clingman, Speeches and Writings, p. 334.]

[Footnote 421: _Globe_, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1762.]

[Footnote 422: See Davis, Union Pacific Railway, Chap. 3.]

[Footnote 423: See Benton's remarks in the House, _Globe_, 31 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 56.]

[Footnote 424: Connelley, The Provisional Government of the Nebraska Territory, published by the Nebraska State Historical Society, pp.

23-24.]

[Footnote 425: Connelley, Provisional Government, p. 28.]

[Footnote 426: _Globe_, 31 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 56-58.]

[Footnote 427: House Bill No. 353; 32 Cong., 2 Sess.]

[Footnote 428: _Globe_, 32 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 558.]

[Footnote 429: _Ibid._, p. 560.]

[Footnote 430: _Ibid._, p. 565.]

[Footnote 431: _Ibid._, p. 1020.]

[Footnote 432: _Globe_ 32 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 1116-1117.]

[Footnote 433: _Ibid._, p. 1113.]

[Footnote 434: Connelley, Provisional Government, pp. 43 ff.]

[Footnote 435: _Ibid._, pp. 37-41.]

[Footnote 436: Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, p. 183; Connelley, pp. 70-77.]

[Footnote 437: See Hadley D. Johnson's account in the Transactions of the Nebraska Historical Society, Vol. II.]

[Footnote 438: Illinois _State Register_, December 22, 1853.]

[Footnote 439: MS. Letter to the editors of the Illinois _State Register_, dated November 11, 1853.]

[Footnote 440: Washington _Union_, December 3, 1853. See also item showing the interest in Nebraska, in the issue of November 26.]

[Footnote 441: Senate Bill No. 22. The bounds were fixed at 43 on the north; 36 30' on the south, except where the boundary of New Mexico marked the line; the western line of Iowa and Missouri on the east; and the Rocky Mountains on the west.]

[Footnote 442: Illinois _State Register_, December 22, 1853.]

[Footnote 443: New York _Journal of Commerce_, December 30, 1853.]

[Footnote 444: Two years later, Douglas flatly denied that he had brought in the bill at the dictation of Atchison or any one else; and I see no good ground on which to doubt his word. His own statement was that he first consulted with Senator Bright and one other Senator from the Northwest, and then took counsel with Southern friends. See _Globe_, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., App., pp. 392-393; also Rhodes, History of the United States, I, pp. 431-432. Mr. Rhodes is no doubt correct, when he says "the committee on territories was Douglas."]

[Footnote 445: Senate Report No. 15, 33 Cong., 1 Sess.]