Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics - novelonlinefull.com
You’re read light novel Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics Part 9 online at NovelOnlineFull.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit NovelOnlineFull.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
[Footnote 196: Linn's Story of the Mormons, Chs. 10-20, gives in great detail the facts connected with this Mormon emigration. I have borrowed freely from this account for the following episode.]
[Footnote 197: Linn, Story of the Mormons, pp. 340-341.]
[Footnote 198: Lyman, History of Oregon, III, p. 188.]
[Footnote 199: See the letter of a New England Correspondent in the Peoria _Register_, May, 1839.]
[Footnote 200: Peoria _Register_, June 8, 1839.]
[Footnote 201: _Globe_,28 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 198 and 201.]
[Footnote 202: Greenhow, Northwest Coast of North America, p. 200.]
[Footnote 203: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 41.]
[Footnote 204: _Ibid._, p. 173.]
[Footnote 205: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 63.]
[Footnote 206: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 225-226.]
[Footnote 207: His capacity for leadership was already recognized. His colleagues conceded that he was "a man of large faculties." See Hilliard, Politics and Pen Pictures, p. 129.]
[Footnote 208: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 25.]
[Footnote 209: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 39.]
[Footnote 210: _Ibid._, p. 65.]
[Footnote 211: _Ibid._, p. 259.]
[Footnote 212: _Ibid._, p. 86.]
[Footnote 213: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 260.]
[Footnote 214: _Ibid._, pp. 258-259.]
[Footnote 215: Illinois _State Register_, Jan. 15, 1846.]
[Footnote 216: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 347; Wheeler, History of Congress, pp. 114-115.]
[Footnote 217: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess. p. 497.]
[Footnote 218: _Ibid._, pp. 85, 189, 395, 690-691.]
[Footnote 219: Polk, MS. Diary, Entry for June 17, 1846.]
[Footnote 220: _Globe_, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1203.]
[Footnote 221: He voted for a similar amendment in 1844; see _Globe_, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 236.]
[Footnote 222: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 284.]
CHAPTER VI
WAR AND POLITICS
A long and involved diplomatic history preceded President Polk's simple announcement that "Mexico has pa.s.sed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil." Rightly to evaluate these words, the reader should bear in mind that the mission of John Slidell to Mexico had failed; that the hope of a peaceable adjustment of the Texas boundary and of American claims against Mexico had vanished; and that General Taylor had been ordered to the Rio Grande in disregard of Mexican claims to that region. One should also know that, from the beginning of his administration, Polk had hoped to secure from our bankrupt neighbor the cession of California as an indemnity.[223] A motive for forbearance in dealing with the distraught Mexican government was thus wholly absent from the mind of President Polk.
Such of these facts as were known at the time, supplied the Whig opposition in Congress with an abundance of ammunition against the administration. Language was used which came dangerously near being unparliamentary. So the President was willing to sacrifice Oregon to prosecute this "illegal, unrighteous and d.a.m.nable war" for Texas, sneered Delano. "Where did the gentleman from Illinois stand now? Was he still in favor of 61?" This sally brought Douglas to his feet and elicited one of his cleverest extempore speeches. He believed that such words as the gentleman had uttered could come only from one who desired defeat for our arms. "All who, after war is declared, condemn the justice of our cause, are traitors in their hearts. And would to G.o.d that they would commit some overt act for which they could be dealt with according to their deserts." Patriots might differ as to the expediency of entering upon war; but duty and honor forbade divided counsels after American blood had been shed on American soil.
Had he foreseen the extraordinary turn of the discussion, he a.s.sured his auditors, he could have presented "a catalogue of aggressions and insults; of outrages on our national flag--on persons and property of our citizens; of the violation of treaty stipulations, and the murder, robbery, and imprisonment of our countrymen." These were all anterior to the annexation of Texas, and perhaps alone would have justified a declaration of war; but "magnanimity and forbearance toward a weak and imbecile neighbor" prevented hostilities. The recent outrages left the country no choice but war. The invasion of the country was the last of the c.u.mulative causes for war.
But was the invaded territory properly "our country"? This was the _crux_ of the whole matter. On this point Douglas was equally confident and explicit. Waiving the claims which the treaty of San Ildefonso may have given to the boundary of the Rio Grande, he rested the whole case upon "an immutable principle"--the Republic of Texas held the country on the left bank of that river by virtue of a successful revolution. The United States had received Texas as a State with all her territory, and had no right to surrender any portion of it.[224]
The evidence which Douglas presented to confirm these claims is highly interesting. The right of Texas to have and to hold the territory from the Nueces to the Rio Grande was, in his opinion, based incontrovertibly on the treaty made by Santa Anna after the battle of San Jacinto, which acknowledged the independence of Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as its boundary. To an inquiry whether the treaty was ever ratified by the government of Mexico, Douglas replied that he was not aware that it had been ratified by anyone except Santa Anna, for the very good reason that he was the government at the time.
"Has not that treaty with Santa Anna been since discarded by the Mexican government?" asked the venerable J.Q. Adams. "I presume it has," replied Douglas, "for I am not aware of any treaty or compact which that government ever entered into that has not either been violated or repudiated by them afterwards." But Santa Anna, as recognized dictator, was the _de facto_ government, and the acts of a _de facto_ government were binding on the nation as against foreign nations. "It is immaterial, therefore, whether Mexico has or has not since repudiated Santa Anna's treaty with Texas. It was executed at the time by competent authority. She availed herself of all its benefits." Forthwith Texas established counties beyond the Nueces, even to the Rio Grande, and extended her jurisdiction over that region, while in a later armistice Mexico recognized the Rio Grande as the boundary. It was in the clear light of these facts that Congress had pa.s.sed an act extending the revenue laws of the United States over the country between the Rio Grande and the Nueces--the very country in which American soldiers had been slain by an invading force.
All things considered, Douglas's line of argument was as well sustained as any presented by the supporters of the war. The absence of any citations to substantiate important points was of course due to the impromptu nature of the speech. Two years later,[225] in a carefully prepared speech constructed on much the same principles, he made good these omissions, but without adding much, it must be confessed, to the strength of his argument. The chain of evidence was in fact no stronger than its weakest link, which was the so-called treaty of Santa Anna with the President of the Republic of Texas.
Nowhere in the articles, public or secret, is there an express recognition of the independence of the Republic, nor of the boundary.
Santa Anna simply pledged himself to do his utmost to bring about a recognition of independence, and an acknowledgment of the claims of Texas to the Rio Grande as a boundary.[226] Did Douglas misinterpret these articles, or did he chance upon an unauthentic version of them?
In the subsequent speech to which reference has been made, he cited specific articles which supported his contention. These citations do not tally with either the public or secret treaty. It may be doubted whether the secret articles were generally known at this time; but the open treaty had been published in Niles' _Register_ correctly, and had been cited by President Polk.[227] The inference would seem to be that Douglas unwittingly used an unauthenticated version, and found in it a conclusive argument for the claim of Texas to the disputed territory.
Mr. John Quincy Adams had followed Douglas with the keenest interest, for with all the vigor which his declining strength permitted, he had denounced the war as an aggression upon a weaker neighbor. He had repeatedly interrupted Douglas, so that the latter almost insensibly addressed his remarks to him. They presented a striking contrast: the feeble, old man and the ardent, young Westerner. When Douglas alluded to the statement of Mr. Adams in 1819, that "our t.i.tle to the Rio del Norte is as clear as to the island of New Orleans," the old man replied testily, "I never said that our t.i.tle was good to the Rio del Norte from its mouth to its source." But the gentleman surely did claim the Rio del Norte in general terms as the boundary under the Louisiana treaty, persisted Douglas. "I have the official evidence over his own signature.... It is his celebrated dispatch to Don Onis, the Spanish minister." "I wrote that dispatch as Secretary of State,"
responded Mr. Adams, somewhat disconcerted by evidence from his own pen, "and endeavored to make out the best case I could for my own country, as it was my duty; but I utterly deny that I claimed the Rio del Norte in its whole extent. I only claimed it as the line a short distance up, and then took a line northward, some distance from the river." "I have heard of this line to which the gentleman refers,"
replied Douglas. "It followed a river near the gorge of the mountains, certainly more than a hundred miles above Matamoras. Consequently, taking the gentleman on his own claim, the position occupied by General Taylor opposite Matamoras, and every inch of the ground upon which an American soldier has planted his foot, were clearly within our own territory as claimed by him in 1819."[228]
It seemed to an eyewitness of this encounter that the veteran statesman was decidedly worsted. "The House was divided between admiration for the new actor on the great stage of national affairs and reverence for the retiring chief," wrote a friend in after years, with more loyalty than accuracy.[229] The Whig side of the chamber was certainly in no mood to waste admiration on any Democrat who defended "Polk the Mendacious."
Hardly had the war begun when there was a wild scramble among Democrats for military office. It seemed to the distressed President as though every Democratic civilian became an applicant for some commission. Particularly embarra.s.sing was the pa.s.sion for office that seized upon members of Congress. Even Douglas felt the spark of military genius kindling within him. His friends, too, were convinced that he possessed qualities which would make him an intrepid leader and a tactician of no mean order. The entire Illinois delegation united to urge his appointment as Brigadier Major of the Illinois volunteers. Happily for the President, his course in this instance was clearly marked out by a law, which required him to select only officers already in command of State militia.[230] Douglas was keenly disappointed. He even presented himself in person to overrule the President's objection. The President was kind, but firm. He advised Douglas to withdraw his application. In his judgment, Mr. Douglas could best serve his country in Congress. Shortly afterward Douglas sent a letter to the President, withdrawing his application--"like a sensible man," commented the relieved Executive.[231] It is not likely that the army lost a great commander by this decision.
In a State like Illinois, which had been staunchly Democratic for many years, elections during a war waged by a Democratic administration were not likely to yield any surprises. There was perhaps even less doubt of the result of the election in the Fifth Congressional District. By the admission of his opponents Douglas was stronger than he had been before.[232] Moreover, the war was popular in the counties upon whose support he had counted in other years. He had committed no act for which he desired general oblivion; his warlike utterances on Oregon, which had cost him some humiliation at Washington, so far from forfeiting the confidence of his followers, seem rather to have enhanced his popularity. Douglas carried every county in his district but one, and nearly all by handsome majorities. He had been first sent to Congress by a majority over Browning of less than five hundred votes; in the following canva.s.s he had tripled his majority; and now he was returned to Congress by a majority of over twenty-seven hundred votes.[233] He had every reason to feel gratified with this showing, even though some of his friends were winning military glory on Mexican battlefields. So long as he remained content with his seat in the House, there were no clouds in his political firmament. Not even the agitation of Abolitionists and Native Americans need cause him any anxiety, for the latter were wholly a negligible political quant.i.ty and the former practically so.[234] Everywhere but in the Seventh District, from which Lincoln was returned, Democratic Congressmen were chosen; and to make the triumph complete, a Democratic State ticket was elected and a Democratic General a.s.sembly again a.s.sured.
Early in the fall, on his return from a Southern trip, Douglas called upon the President in Washington. He was cordially welcomed, and not a little flattered by Polk's readiness to talk over the political situation before Congress met.[235] Evidently his support was earnestly desired for the contemplated policies of the administration.
It was needed, as events proved. No sooner was Congress a.s.sembled than the opposition charged Polk with having exceeded his authority in organizing governments in the territory wrested from Mexico. Douglas sprang at once to the President's defense. He would not presume to speak with authority in the matter, but an examination of the accessible official papers had convinced him that the course of the President and of the commanders of the army was altogether defensible.
"In conducting the war, conquest was effected, and the right growing out of conquest was to govern the subdued provinces in a temporary and provisional manner, until the home government should establish a government in another form."[236] And more to this effect, uttered in the heated language of righteous indignation.
For thus throwing himself into the breach, Douglas was rewarded by further confidences. Before Polk replied to the resolution of inquiry which the House had voted, he summoned Douglas and a colleague to the White House, to acquaint them with the contents of his message and with the doc.u.ments which would accompany it, so "that they might be prepared to meet any attacks." And again, with four other members of the House, Douglas was asked to advise the President in the matter of appointing Colonel Benton to the office of lieutenant-general in command of the armies in the field. At the same time, the President laid before them his project for an appropriation of two millions to purchase peace; _i.e._ to secure a cession of territory from Mexico.
With one accord Douglas and his companions advised the President not to press Benton's appointment, but all agreed that the desired appropriation should be pushed through Congress with all possible speed.[237] Yet all knew that such a bill must run the gauntlet of amendment by those who had attached the Wilmot Proviso to the two-million-dollar bill of the last session.
While Douglas was thus rising rapidly to the leadership of his party in the House, the Legislature of his State promoted him to the Senate.
For six years he had been a potential candidate for the office, despite his comparative youth.[238] What transpired in the Democratic caucus which named him as the candidate of the party, history does not record. That there was jealousy on the part of older men, much heart-burning among the younger aspirants, and bargaining on all sides, may be inferred from an incident recorded in Polk's diary.[239]
Soon after his election, Douglas repaired to the President's office to urge the appointment of Richard M. Young of Illinois as Commissioner of the General Land Office. This was not the first time that Douglas had urged the appointment, it would seem. The President now inquired of Senator Breese, who had accompanied Douglas and seconded his request, whether the appointment would be satisfactory to the Illinois delegation. Both replied that it would, if Mr. Hoge, a member of the present Congress, who had been recommended at the last session, could not be appointed. The President repeated his decision not to appoint members of Congress to office, except in special cases, and suggested another candidate. Neither Douglas nor Breese would consent. Polk then spoke of a diplomatic charge for Young, but they would not hear of it.
Next morning Douglas returned to the attack, and the President, under pressure, sent the nomination of Young to the Senate; before five o'clock of the same day, Polk was surprised to receive a notification from the Secretary of the Senate that the nomination had been confirmed. The President was a good deal mystified by this unusual promptness, until three members of the Illinois delegation called some hours later, in a state of great excitement, saying that Douglas and Breese had taken advantage of them. They had no knowledge that Young's nomination was being pressed, and McClernand in high dudgeon intimated that this was all a bargain between Young and the two Senators.