USA > Illinois > Illinois, historical and statistical, comprising the essential facts of its planting and growth as a province, county, territory, and state, Vol. II > Part 7
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81
Such political discussions had been introduced in this State when it was admitted into the Union and had always been favor- ably regarded by the people. Unless a candidate at all accus- tomed to public speaking-and few others were selected, was able and willing to meet his opponent on the stump, his pros- pect of success was slim. The custom had been brought from Kentucky and was regarded as a necessity of the times. There were no daily and but few weekly newspapers in those pioneer days, and in no other way could the people be so well informed and placed in possession of reliable current political informa- tion as this. In order that no candidate should have an oppor- tunity of misleading his constituents and of making misstate- ments, it was insisted that both sides should be fairly heard at the same time.
As the election day drew nigh, field days were appointed, at , which the candidates appeared, took the stand, and set forth their claims "by word of mouth." During the holding of the circuit-courts, the lawyers, nearly all of whom were politicians and good speakers, would deliver speeches on alternate nights. In this way Douglas had met Stuart, Browning, and Woodson, all of whom had been his competitors for congress, and also his present opponent.
* Herndon's "Lincoln, " II, 400.
613
LINCOLN VERSUS DOUGLAS.
Now although the reason for these joint discussions had mainly passed away through the multiplication of newspapers, both daily and weekly, and of magazines, and through the establishment of public libraries, there yet remained a feeling among the people that perhaps after all the best way of arriv- ing at the merits of a political controversy was to hear the arguments of able leaders delivered in the presence of each other.
When Judge Douglas came home to Chicago in July, Lin- coln, knowing that he would signalize his return by making a well-prepared opening speech, decided to hear him and take the measure of his opponent under the partially changed aspect of the issue. The judge's reception by his followers was ex- ceedingly gratifying, even enthusiastic. He spoke from the balcony of the Tremont House to an immense audience, taking for his text the opening sentence of Lincoln's speech at the late republican convention. The judge spoke for two hours and was loudly cheered throughout. Lincoln replied from the same place, where a still larger crowd gathered, on the fol- lowing night. His appearance on the stand was greeted with a storm of applause which was repeated at every telling point. One of these occurred in the beginning of his speech. Judge Douglas had said, referring to the alleged alliance existing be- tween the republicans and the federal office-holders, that he would deal with the unholy alliance as the Russians had with the allies in the Crimean war, not stopping to inquire when they fired a broadside, whether they hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Mr. Lincoln happily retorted, and, while denying that there was any such alliance as that charged, continued, "but if he will have it so, and that we stand in the attitude of the English, French, and Turks, he occupying the position of the Russians, I beg he will indulge us while we barely suggest to him that the allies took Sebastopol."
The senator left Chicago, July 16, for Springfield on a train decorated with flags and banners, and was received at the prin- cipal stations by large crowds amid the booming of cannon and the blare of martial music. He spoke at Bloomington, and addressed a large mass-meeting at Springfield on the 17th. Mr. Lincoln, who had been on the same train, replied to him again
614
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
at Springfield. By this time although either party had been waiting for the other to make the advance, it became apparent that a face to face contest must be substituted for this method of shooting at long range. Accordingly, on July 24, Mr. Lin- coln issued his challenge, and an arrangement for joint discus- sions at seven different points in the State was finally con- cluded July 31.
This discussion was regarded with national interest, and the fate of parties, as well as that of the principals engaged, if not of the Union itself, hung upon the result.
In point of education and previous experience in debate, Douglas undoubtedly had the advantage. He had now been in congress fifteen years, and had frequently met in the intellect- ual arena Seward, Chase, Trumbull, Hale, and Fessenden, lead- ing republicans, and latterly Jefferson Davis, Toombs, Benja- min, Green, Mason, and Hunter, of his own party, on the Le- compton issue. For a controversy he was always prepared, and to be involved in one was ever to him to be in his native element. No man was better furnished with the weapons of debate or exhibited more skill in their use than he. As a. popular speaker, in the art of managing a mixed audience and in carrying off the honors of the hour, in his ability to bridge- over or avoid hard places in an argument, and to make the most of his adversary's weak points, he was the superior of Mr. Lincoln or any of his compeers in the senate.
Lincoln had been known as a public speaker since 1838, having been three times a presidential elector, in which capac- ity he canvassed the State for Harrison, Clay, and Fremont. Neither was he without experience as a debater, a kind of contest which he believed in and enjoyed. He had already measured swords with his great rival, and each had thus received a taste of the other's metal. He was a born logician, and sought to reach the point of demonstration in speaking on leading public questions; but his controlling advantage in the present contest consisted in the fact of the sincerity of his belief and the earnestness and fearlessness with which he sought to enforce his convictions, that free labor was prefera- ble to slave labor, and that slavery in itself was inherently wrong; at once appealing to the economic instincts and reach- ing the moral sense of the people.
615
LINCOLN VERSUS DOUGLAS.
The contrast between the great champions physically was no less striking than that politically and intellectually. Lincoln was tall and lank and lean, while Douglas was short, round, and robust. The voice of Lincoln was sharp and thin, though of large compass, while that of his opponent was sonorous and full. Lincoln possessed an inexhaustible stock of anecdotes which he told admirably by way of illustration, but although humorous, did not possess that readiness of sparkling repartee which enabled Douglas to make pointed and happy turns of thought against an opponent. The senator was always forci- ble, self-asserting, and plausible, while Lincoln, though gener- ally confining himself to the closest reasoning, rose at times to impassioned bursts of the highest eloquence.
The questions for discussion all related to slavery, and grew out of the repeal of the Missouri compromise and the substitu- tion therefor by the democrats, in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, of the doctrine of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the territories, and leaving the people thereof "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States." To this the republicans were opposed, taking the ground that it was the duty of congress to prohibit the extension of slavery into putative states. On the main question, the respective positions of the contestants, as stated by themselves at Alton, were as follows:
Mr. Lincoln said :- "He [Douglas] contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he can not say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go in a new territory like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no dif- ference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, his argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to insti- tute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like argu-
616
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
ments-it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. That is the real issue. 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 that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of human- ity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it developes 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."
To which Judge Douglas replied :- "He [Lincoln] says that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished everywhere. I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business-not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the peo- ple to rule, than I do for all the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the perpetuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white man for all the negroes that ever existed."
The supreme court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, had decided that slaves being property their owners had the right to take them to the territories the same as any other property and hold them as such; that congress transcended its power in the passage of the Missouri compromise, prohibiting slavery north of 36" 30', and that "if congress itself could not do this, if it is beyond the powers conferred by the federal government, it must be admitted that it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise them." Douglas had endorsed this decision-Lincoln opposed it.
Under this opinion slavery already existed in Kansas, not- withstanding the expressed will of the people, and when the
617
LINCOLN VERSUS DOUGLAS.
judge was asked to reconcile his doctrine of popular sover- eignty in its practical workings with the decision, he was forced to take the position that slavery required protection by the adoption of police regulations, and that it could not exist if these were withheld by unfriendly legislation; thus practically conceding that it was in the power of territorial legislation to accomplish indirectly what the court had declared it had not the right to attempt directly. Of course the weak points on both sides were thoroughly exposed and ventilated.
As had been anticipated by Lincoln's friends, when they heard his speech on "the house divided against itself," it was boldly attacked and dissected by his watchful antagonist in his first speech at Chicago, and formed the objective point of his subsequent efforts. He charged that Lincoln had committed himself to the position that there must be a uniformity of institutions of the several states, which would lead to con- solidation and despotism, and with great force and vehemence insisted that according to Lincoln, the formation by our fathers of the Union out of states that were partly free and partly slave was in violation of the law of God, and as they could not thus exist, the proposition committed his opponent to the duty of going into the slave states and making them free.
These objections were pointed out to Lincoln when the speech was delivered, and it was insisted by his friends that to utter such a sentiment was to commit a political blunder. But it must be remembered that Judge Douglas had been a promi- nent candidate for the presidency, and that if he could hold his party together, every indication pointed toward his nomina- tion and elevation to the executive chair in 1860. Keeping this fact in view, Lincoln uniformly answered, "Well, per- haps it was a mistake so far as the present canvass is con- cerned, but in my opinion it will develop in the course of its discussion such statements and admissions on the part of Douglas as will widen the gap which already exists between him and the democrats of the southern states, and make his nomination and election as president impossible." What the ultimate result would be upon himself he refrained from stating, if, indeed, he had any opinion upon that point at that time. It was supposed by some, however, that a vivid conception of the
40
618
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
possibilities of his own future success was not excluded from the view.
Lincoln's defence of his "divided-house" proposition was that our fathers left the institution of slavery in the course of its ultimate extinction; that their policy was to prohibit its spread into territories where it had not before existed; that this policy was abandoned by the repeal of the Missouri compromise, thus placing it on the new basis not only of perpetuity but also of practically unlimited extension.
The first joint discussion was held at Ottawa, August 21. The crowd in attendance was estimated at 12,000; the speakers were met at the depot on their arrival by their friends, with large processions headed by brass bands, firing of cannon, and the fluttering of flags, banners, and emblematic devices from windows and house-tops on every street. Judge Douglas led off in a speech of one hour, Lincoln replying in an hour and a half, and the judge closing in thirty minutes. The admirers of each were enthusiastic in their demonstrations, Mr. Lincoln at the conclusion of the meeting, being seized by a party of friends and borne off through the crowd on their shoulders.
The side issues brought into the discussion attracted as much interest as did the main question. These were numerous and interesting, and owing to greater care and prudence were gen- erally turned by Lincoln in his own favor. Douglas charged, for instance, that his opponent was present at the Lovejoy- Codding meeting at Springfield, in October, 1854, and read a set of resolutions which he alleged Lincoln helped to frame, when, in fact, the latter was not present at the meeting, and the resolutions alleged to have been passed by it were, in fact, adopted at a meeting held in Kane County. Of course no little capital was made out of these erroneous statements.
At Freeport, before an immense throng of listeners, Lincoln was the first speaker. He at once proceeded to answer seriatim the seven questions propounded to him by his opponent at Ottawa, relating to his position on the fugitive-slave law, the admission of new states into the Union, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different states, the prohibition of slavery in the territories, and the acquisition of new slave-territory. He then
619
LINCOLN VERSUS DOUGLAS.
in turn propounded four interrogatories to the judge. One of these was as follows: "Can the people of a United-States terri- tory in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to tlie for- mation of a state constitution?" which brought out the fatal answer, that the local legislature by unfriendly legislation might effectually prevent the introduction of slavery into any territory. This position being in conflict with the Dred-Scott decision, which he had always upheld and defended, was heralded over the southern states as evidence that he had been two-faced on the subject, contending for the extension of slavery under the decision, and for its exclusion under his new doctrine.
The policy of propounding the question which had brought forth the answer had been submitted by Lincoln to some confidential friends, who advised against it. They even besieged his room the day before the discussion came off and insisted that the answer of his opponent would be such as to affect his fortunes in the State, without regard to the South, and urged him not to risk the interrogatory, saying in chorus, "if you do you can never be senator." But Lincoln, persisting in his determination to force an answer, replied, "Gentlemen, I am killing larger game; if Douglas answers, he can never be presi- dent, and the coming battle of 1860 is worth a hundred of this."*
At Jonesboro, Sept. 15, the audience was not so great, only about 2000 being present, but the meetings at Charleston, three days thereafter, and at Galesburg, Oct. 7, Quincy, Oct. 13, and at Alton, Oct. 15, were all attended by large and enthusiastic crowds.
In addition to the joint discussions, both candidates made speeches at mass meetings and barbecues, in nearly every county in the State, sometimes the appointments clashing, when nothing but the intervention of the two champions prevented a collision. It was a memorable campaign, abounding in debates, full of personalities, and in which individuals and newspapers were not over-nice in their choice of epithets. The arguments of the principals were taken up by their respective followers and repeated and threshed over and over again. Every town had its set of the Congressional Globe, and the number of constitu-
* "Abraham Lincoln: a History," The Century Magazine, XXXIV, 393.
620
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
tional lawyers was limited only by the number of the members of the bar.
The victory in the discussion was claimed by both sides; but the immediate result at the polls was, that while the republican state ticket was again elected, Douglas once more succeeded, under the existing apportionment in carrying the legislature- the senate standing fourteen to eleven and the house forty to thirty-five in his favor. But there was a more important and far- reaching effect, and one which had been partially foreseen by the victorious contestant. His utterances during the canvass had cleft the democracy of the Nation in twain; thus not only ren- dering possible the nomination and election of his great antag- onist in 1860, but effectually precluding the possibility of a united democracy in favor of armed secession.
James Miller, republican, for state treasurer received 125,430 votes, and Wm. B. Fondey, 121,609, Dougherty, the administra- tion candidate, receiving 5071. Both the ex-governors, Reynolds and French, running for superintendent of public instruction, were defeated, the latter by only 2143 votes.
The twenty-first general assembly convened Jan. 3, 1859. The new senators were, Henry W. Blodgett, John P. Richmond, Samuel A. Buckmaster, Chauncey L. Higbee-these four hav- ing formerly served in the house-Richard F. Adams, Zenos Applington, George C. Bestor, Anthony L. Knapp, Thomas A. Marshall, and Austin Brooks. John H. Addams began his second, and Andrew J. Kuykendall his third, term.
The house was very largely composed of new members, only twelve of those who had served previously being returned. Among these were Wm. R .ยท Morrison, Wm. B. Anderson, Vital Jarrot, Cyrus Epler, M. M. Bane, L. S. Church, and, after a long interval, Ebenezer Peck. Among those elected for the first time were, Leonard Swett, Alonzo W. Mack, Alex. Camp- bell, Stephen A. Hurlbut, VanH. Higgins, Wm. H. Green, Wm. A. Hacker, and Elijah M. Haines who then entered upon his long and eventful legislative career. John E. Detrich and Wm. B. Plato had been members of the eighteenth senate.
Wm. R. Morrison was elected speaker over Vital Jarrot, and James M. Blades, doorkeeper. Finney D. Preston was chosen secretary of the senate and David J. Waggoner for the second time, sergeant-at-arms.
621
RE-ELECTION OF SENATOR DOUGLAS.
Gov. Bissell's message was a concise yet comprehensive state paper, containing many valuable statistics and recommenda- tions, among these being the establishment by the State of an asylum for imbecile children and a reform school for juvenile offenders.
Knowing that the political issues involved in the last cam- paign would have to be again contested in the coming one of 1860, which the former had simply foreshadowed, the tension of feeling created thereby had not been relaxed, nor had its heart- burnings and acerbities ceased. Each side, confident of final victory, was unyielding, determined, and "ready for the fray."
The predominant question which the legislature was required to settle-the selection of a United-States senator-admitting of no delay in the minds of the majority, was brought to a speedy conclusion within three days of assembling. The result already anticipated was the election of Judge Douglas, who received fifty-four votes to forty-six for Mr. Lincoln.
For a few days after the recording of this great political ver- dict, good humor prevailed, the proceedings were peaceable and orderly, and the small amount of legislative business of this session was transacted. But upon the introduction by the demo- crats, on January 27, of their senatorial and representative appor- tionment bill, the fight commenced. Still smarting under the defeat of this measure in the preceding legislature, they now presented a bill still more objectionable to the republicans, and with it the alternative of passing this or none. They were met by their opponents in the same spirit and with equal determina- tion.
The republicans claimed that the bill introduced - which finally passed both houses-was so framed as to enable the democrats to retain their ascendancy in the legislature notwith- standing they were in a minority in the popular vote. The constitution required that legislative districts should be formed out of contiguous and compact territory, while the districts created by the bill were in some instances made to extend over two degrees of latitude. The republican counties, with a popu- lation of 646,748, were allowed thirty-four representatives, while the democratic counties, with a population of 477,678, were given forty-one. All other business was made subordi-
622
ILLINOIS-HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL.
nate to the passage of this measure, every step of its progress being contested.
It was understood that this apportionment bill, if passed, would be returned to the house by the governor with his objec- tions. It could not be again passed unless a quorum was pres- ent, and this the republicans resolved to prevent, rather than to permit such a gerrymandering bill to become a law. They accordingly, to be prepared for this event, antagonized the measure with the general appropriation bill, but were foiled in their efforts to secure the latter's passage.
The bill was passed on the 15th and was retained by the governor until the morning of the 22d, when he returned it to the house with his veto. The governor's private secretary was announced and commenced reading the message amid much confusion, the speaker stating that no quorum was present and ordering the sergeant-at-arms to remove the private secre- tary; but he persisted until he had finished the reading, when he handed both bill and message to a page, to be delivered to the speaker. That officer directed the page to return the docu- ments to the private secretary, who in turn declined to accept them, and they fell at his feet, from which position they were rescued by a member and placed on the desk of the speaker, who at once brushed them off upon the floor. A call of the house showed no quorum, and it adjourned amid great excite- ment.
Messrs. Hurlbut, Swett, Mack, Church, and John A. Davis filed a protest against the action of the speaker and house in thus refusing to receive the governor's veto, which, although objected to, was finally allowed to be entered upon the journal together with a democratic protest against the same, signed by Messrs. Campbell, Barrett, Detrich, Sloss, James M. Davis, and Green. No quorum thereafter appeared during this ses- sion. Nearly all the republicans departed for their homes, thus not only defeating the apportionment scheme but also prevent- ing the passage of the general appropriation bill and many other important measures. After waiting two days for the return of the recalcitrant members, the legislature adjourned sine die.
Fortunately, however, appropriations for the northern peni-
623
THE GREAT EMBEZZLEMENT.
tentiary and the state institutions at Jacksonville had been passed early in the session, and also a bill for the payment of the interest on the state debt, and as the judges could draw their salaries under existing law, not very much inconvenience or hardship followed.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.