Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Greeley to induce the Republicans of Illinois to desert Lincoln. Replying to the above letter, Mr. Herndon wrote in a mood of mingled hope and gloom-hope for the future of his party in Illinois, with dark forebodings as to the future of the nation :

Mr. Parker.

Springfield, Ill., Sept. 8, 1857.

Dear Sir: I received your very encouraging letter some time since, for which I am obliged. I was in court when it came, or should have answered sooner. . . . In attending to the poor negro's case I felt I was doing my duty, and did not care for personal consequences to myself. I simply asked myself this question, "Is it right?" Having determined that I went into the matter with all my energy and ability, though little and small. Some say it was bold for this section and not very prudent, as I was a kind of Republican school-master, or what not: others say it was outrageously wrong, as it will set a bad example to young lawyers who will follow. God grant they may ever do so. Others, the good and the true, cry "Well done," and so the world wags.

I have been philosophizing on our State lately, and have come to this conclusion: that Illinois is forever gone from the iron-chain Democracy, if the Anti-Slavery men act prudently in putting up brave and good men. The reason why I say Illinois is gone, "hook and line," from the Democracy, is this: five out of every seven Fillmore men will go to the Republican cause: there is about 30,000 of them, and giving the Republicans 21,000 and the Democrats 9,000, and taking Buchanan's majority at 7,000, we have the tyrants on the hip, with a majority in our favor of about 7,000. When we see immigrants coming in, and knowing that four out of five of them are for us, we cannot doubt longer how Illinois is to stand politically in the future. I have talked with others and they wholly agree with me. Some go farther and are more enthusiastic in their calculations than I am. The north of our State is filling up with an unprecedented rapidity, and that section is wholly free, as you know. The South is filling up but slowly, and those who come are generally for freedom a majority are so.

[ocr errors]

The late negro murders butcheries have done us good: it has waked up the idle and indifferent to see. What is to become of this land? I see, but will not talk even to

I

Once more Kansas came to the fore, and again the nation was torn by angry emotions, while an honest, but timid and pliable old man sat in the White House. Emboldened by the Dred Scott decision, the leaders of the South resolved afresh to foist slavery upon that unhappy Territory, and thus add another Slave State to the Union. This had to be done, if done at all, against the will of the people; for by this time the Free-State men so vastly outnumbered the slavery contingent, that even the pro-Slavery party had to admit it. So, in 1857, the Slavery party made its last desperate attempt to capture the Territory by fraud, and the folly of the Free-State men opened the way. It was a terrible blunder, with consequences that were far-reaching for Kansas and for the nation.

Two years before Lincoln had predicted, in his letter to Joshua Speed, that such would be the phase of the Kansas question when it became a practical one, and his prophecy had come true. At an election of delegates to a constitutional convention the Free-State men, very unwisely, refused to vote, on the ground that the number of delegates was based on a defective census and registration. This gave the convention, which met at Lecompton, wholly into the hands of the pro-Slavery party, and they drew the constitution as they wanted it. When the instrument was offered to the people, they were not allowed to vote simply yea or nay, but only "For the constitution with slavery," or "For the constitution with no slavery." Either way the constitution would be adopted, and should the constitution with no slavery be ratified, a clause of the schedule still guaranteed "the right of property in slaves now in this Territory." So that the choice offered to an opponent of slavery was between a document throwing down all barriers against slavery, and a document which sanctioned and protected the full possession of slaves in the Territory, with no assurance as to the status of the natural increase of those slaves. Again the Free-State men refrained from voting, and a few more than six thousand votes were declared to have been cast "For the constitution

with slavery." Over one-third of the votes cast were proved to be fraudulent, but as the residue still exceeded the requisite majority the scheme had the disguise of legal technicality.

Finding themselves tricked by a gambler's device, the FreeState men had in the meantime abandoned their policy of nonresistance, so far at least as to take part in the election of a new Territorial Legislature. They had also decided to make an irregular opportunity to vote for or against the constitution; but this time the pro-Slavery men, considering the matter already legally settled, refused to vote. The result was a majority of ten thousand against the constitution, and an equally decided majority in both chambers of the Legislature. The President had solemnly pledged himself to accept the result of the popular vote; but now he was confronted by two popular votes, one having the better technical showing, while the other undeniably expressed the will of a large majority of the lawful voters. Such was the posture of affairs when Congress convened.

1

Douglas had made himself sponsor for justice to Kansas, not only by his advocacy of "popular sovereignty" in the abstract, but by the fact that he had become personally responsible for the conduct of John C. Calhoun, the leader of the Lecompton party- having secured for him, through Governor Walker, the office of Surveyor General of the Territory. He had swallowed the Dred Scott decision without wincing, denouncing all who questioned its righteousness as revolutionists, while at the same time showing how it might be thwarted by unfriendly local legislation; but the Lecompton outrage nauseated him, and he let it be known to his friends that he would oppose the admission of Kansas, either as Free or Slave State, on a constitution adopted by such methods. Rumors were afloat that the Lecompton scheme was approved by the admin

1 Robert J. Walker, former Secretary of the Treasury, a Southern man appointed by Mr. Buchanan and endorsed by Douglas. When Governor Walker was on his way to Kansas he passed through Chicago, and Senator Douglas consulted him about submitting the constitution of Kansas to a fair vote; and it was so agreed. Covode Report, pp. 105-6. Speech of Douglas at Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 14, 1860.

istration, and Douglas hastened to Washington, determined to know the mind of the President at once; his own was made up. Their interview, as the Senator recounted it, was dramatic indeed when he found that Buchanan was under the spell of a group of Southern men who were bent on making Kansas a Slave State at any cost. Whereat Douglas threw down the gauntlet, announcing with great earnestness that he would fight the scheme publicly and to the bitter end.

"Mr. Douglas," said the President, rising to his feet excitedly, "I desire you to remember that no Democrat ever yet differed from an administration of his own choice without being crushed. Beware of the fate of Tallmadge and Rives!"

"Mr. President," rejoined Douglas also rising, "I wish you to remember that General Jackson is dead!" 1

Such a retort-contrasting the weakest of Presidents with the most headstrong was all the more stinging when we recall that, from 1852 to 1860, Douglas was by far the most noteworthy figure on the national political scene. Webster, Clay, and Calhoun had passed off the stage. Seward, Sumner, and Chase, though influential and able, had not yet come to their own. This interval of eight years belonged to Douglas, and it was neither vanity nor vehemence for him to imagine that he could defy the President. We have also to remember that he and Buchanan had been rivals for the same high office, the latter securing it partly because, as Minister to England, he had not been involved in the Nebraska agitation, and partly because he was less aggressive and more pliable. Douglas, whatever else he may have been, was not of that stripe. Astute and ambitious, he was at once masterful and persuasive, a born leader of men, skilled in all the devious arts of politics, and an orator who combined "something of the impressiveness of Webster with the roughness and readiness of the stump speaker." His break with the President meant a battle royal

1 Stephen A. Douglas, by Allen Johnson, pp. 327-8 (1908). Also, Milwaukee speech of Senator Douglas, Oct. 14, 1860, Chicago Times and Herald, Oct. 17, 1860.

2 Abraham Lincoln, by J. T. Morse, Vol. I, p. 106 (1896).

to the last ditch, for never was there a more resourceful or a more plucky fighter.

On the evening of December 9th, Douglas backed up his threat by a speech in the Senate, and so eager was the desire to hear him, that, from the time the Senate adjourned in the afternoon, until it re-assembled in the evening, the people kept their seats. For three hours he held his audience in rapt attention, broken only by peals of applause, while with more than his usual gravity and earnestness he denounced the Lecompton fraud, appealed for fair play, and flayed the President for attempting to dictate the duties of a Senator. His sense of justice was too deeply outraged for him to remain in a conciliatory mood, and at times his vehemence carried him further than he had meant to go. He compared the Kansas election to that held under the First Consul, when, so his enemies averred, Napoleon addressed his troops after this fashion: "Now, my soldiers, you are to go to the election and vote freely just as you please. If you vote for Napoleon, all is well; vote against him, and you are to be instantly shot!" That was a fair election!

This election, said Douglas with bitter irony, is to be equally fair! All men in favor of the constitution may vote for it

- all men against it shall not vote at all! Why not let them vote against it? . . . Consult the poll books on a fair election held in pursuance of law; consult private citizens from there; consult whatever source of information you please, and you get the same answer - that this constitution does not embody the will, is not the act and deed of the people, does not represent their wishes; and hence, I deny your right, your authority, to make it their organic law. . . Will you force it on them against their will simply because they would have voted it down if you had consulted them? If you will, are you going to force it upon them under the plea of leaving them perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way? Is that the mode in which I am called upon to carry out the principle of self-government and popular sovereignty in the Territories? . . . If Kansas wants a Slave constitution she has a right to it, if she wants a Free-State constitution she has a

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »