USA > Illinois > Illinois in the fifties; or, A decade of development, 1851-1860 > Part 10
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
151
Gold and Frec-State Emigration
in 1848 when a treaty of peace was made between the two countries and our late enemy ceded to us California and New Mexico, and acquiesced in our possession of Texas.
Thus it came about that John Tyler, a southern presi- dent, aided and abetted by Southern leaders, brought about the annexation of Texas; and. James K. Polk, an- other Southern president, aided and abetted by South- ern leaders, precipitated this country into a war with Mexico-all to extend the area of slave-labor. But,
"There is a divinity that shapes our ends Rough-hew them how we may."
The Southerners had certainly "rough-hewn" their "ends", but a "divinity", which had in no sense en- tered into their calculations, was destined to "shape" them. This last came about in consequence of the dis- covery of gold in California in large quantities and the resulting great emigration to that New El Dorado. Most of the emigrants, however, were from the free States, a fact that had a direct bearing, two years later, when Cal- ifornia applied for admission in the Union as a free State. That California, a part of the domain which the slave holders had regarded as peculiarly their own, should apply for admission as a free State aroused the ire of Southern leaders and as a result there occurred, between the foes and friends of slavery, one of the long- est and most acrimonious discussions in our history ; and the Southerners, as had become their habit, threat- ened to break up the Union.
At this period Clay, Calhoun and Webster, were all in the United States Senate and each bore a conspicuous part in the long-drawn-out discussion following the pro-
.
1
152
The "Omnibus" Bill
posed admission of California. Indeed, this proved to be their last conspicuous service in the Senate, where for many years the mere word of each carried almost the weight of law. They were known as the great "Tri- umvirate" and the upper House of Congress never be- fore and never sinee knew their equals. Henry Clay, long a Senator from Kentucky, although a slave owner, recognized the many evils of the peculiar institution and hoped for the day when it would be abolished. Web- ster, the great Senator from Massachusetts, through the whole of his life was opposed to slavery. Calhoun, who through the most of his public career represented South Carolina in the National Senate, was a defender of slavery and looked upon it as only a little short of a divine institution. Clay and Webster were devoted to the union of the States, and for this were ready to sac- rifice anything but principle. Calhoun, on the contrary, held the peculiar interests of the Southern slaveholding States beyond and above the Union. He loved the Union perhaps, but the South vastly more.
When the discussion over the admission of California had reached a stage of white heat, Clay, who had come to be known as the great "compromiser", sought to pour oil on the troubled waters by introducing a number of measures in the way of compromise, which later came to be known as the "omnibus" bill. In effect these pro- vided that California should be immediately admitted; that the slave-trade should be abolished in the District of Columbia ; that the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia be deemed not advisable ; that the Territory of New Mexico be organized, etc.
In support of these measures Clay made a speech that occupied the greater part of two days and in this he
153
Webster's Seventh of March Speech
brought to bear all his gifts of eloquence and all his in- fluence and varied powers of persnasion. Calhoun pre- pared a carefully written speech, but as he was in poor health and very weak, this was read in the Senate by Senator Mason of Virginia. That Calhoun's speech was able, masterly and, from his viewpoint, logical, need not be said. But in a sense it was the "song of the dying swan"; for in less than four weeks, namely, on March 31, 1850, that great apostle of Southern rights and life- long defender and eulogist of African slavery, breathed his last.
Three days subsequent to the reading of Calhoun's address, Webster delivered in the U. S. Senate his fa- mous Seventh of March speech which was both a reply to Calhoun and an earnest plea for the adoption of Clay's compromise measures. Webster's speech on this occa- sion was a bitter disappointment to most of his life-long friends. Among the latter was the poet Whittier who gave vent to his feelings by writing Ichabod !
"So fallen! So lost! the light withdrawn Which once he wore! The glory gone from his gray hairs Forever more! Of all we loved and honored, naught Save power remains : A fallen angel's pride of thought Still strong in chains."
In his speech Webster advocated a stronger fugitive slave-law and apologized for and, in a sense, justified the institution of slavery and for this many of his old friends never forgave him. In extenuation it may be said that he believed the Union was in danger of disso- lution, and this danger appealed to him, as nothing else
1.
.
154
"There Were Giants in Those Days"
could; for while he loved freedom, he loved the Union more.
In the end California came in the Union as a free State, the fugitive slave-law was made stronger, the Ter- ritory of New Mexico was organized, and, indeed, sub- statntially all of Clay's measures were adopted. How- ever, these were adopted singly and not in the "omni- bus" bill as was Clay's first proposal.
The death of both Clay and Webster occurred in 1852, two years after that of Calhoun. The passing of these great men marked the end of an era, the one which im- mediately followed that of the Revolution. Washing- ton, John Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison were representatives of the Revolutionary era as Clay, Ben- ton, Webster and Calhoun were of that immediately fol- lowing. All of these great men, save Calhoun, knew the evils of slavery, were opposed to its further extension, and hoped for its ultimate extinction.
Calhoun, the great apostle of Southern rights, had not a few things in common with Webster, the eloquent ad- vocate of a permanent and indissoluble Union. Both were born in 1782. Both were intellectual giants. Both were gifted orators who clothed their thoughts in elear, terse English. Both had logical minds and both were disposed to probe a subject to its ultimate depths. But here the similarity ended and divergence begins; Cal- houn hailed from South Carolina and was the idol of the Slave Power. Webster came from Massachusetts and voiced the sentiment of liberty-loving New England. Calhoun asserted the divine right of property in man and urged the necessity of slave labor. Webster pro- claimed the elevating tendeney of free institutions and the sufficiency and dignity of free labor. Calhoun ex-
155
Freedom Versus Slavery
amined the theory of our government, came to believe in the sovereignty of the States, and thought the Union only a compaet. Webster delved yet deeper in the sei- ence of government, searched our early National history, studied the constitution, and proclaimed the wisdom, glory and perpetuity of the Union. Calhoun favored slavery and the Union if practicable, but upheld the South and its interests at all hazards. Webster plead for the prevalence of free institutions, but above all else stood for the Union. Calhoun's tenets were the shifting sands upon which later, the ruins of the "lost eause" were destined to lie scattered in hopeless confusion. Web- ster's teachings were the immovable Rock upon which were laid the enduring foundations of what is today our National Union.
Meanwhile a third generation of Statesmen had come to the front who, as representative of their several con- stituencies, were by no means as conservative on the slavery question as were most of the leaders who pre- ceded them. Seward, Chase, Summer, Wade, Thadeus ("Thad"), Stevens and others from the North, as rad- ically opposed the further advance of slavery as the extension of that institution was earnestly advocated by Jefferson Davis, Toombs, Foote, Yaneey, Benjamin and Alexander H. Stevens of the newer and more radical Sonth that knew not Benton and Clay. But notwith- standing the sharp differences of these men, after the admission of California and the coincident compromise legislation of 1850, the excitement and agitation on the slavery question for the time died away; so that when in 1853 President Pierce was inaugurated, he congratu- lated the country upon the peaceful and quiet state of the public mind and more especially on the happy, and
156
Missouri Compromise
as he believed, permanent settlement of all differences on the slavery question. But these pacific appearances were but a lull in the storm that was to again break upon the country-a storm that was destined to come with re- newed energy, burst with terrific force and envelope the whole land till the political atmosphere was forever cleared of that poisonous taint-slavery.
This storm fell upon the country when on May 30, 1854, less than fifteen months after President Pierce's prediction that the slavery question had been perma- nently settled, the Missouri Compromise was repealed after a long and bitter discussion in which Senator Stephen A. Douglas, prime mover in the matter, bore a leading part.
Here it may not be out of place to say that the Mis- souri Compromise became the law of the land in 1820, and by its provisions African slavery was forbidden to go north of the line, 36°, 30'. By the Free State men, the Missouri Compromise had come to be regarded as a sort of bulwark against the northward encroachments of slavery, consequently, when under the lead of Senator Douglas this compact was repealed there was great in- dignation and excitement throughout the whole of the Northern States. The slavery question was in every one's mind and like Banquo's ghost would not down. Every village, every hamlet, indeed, almost every cross- roads became a center for the consideration and discus- sion of this burning issue.
Speaking of the animus of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise Senator Chase of Ohio said: "It is slavery that renews the strife. It is slavery that again wants room. It is slavery with its insatiate demand for more territory and more Slave States. And what does slavery
157
Horace Greely and The New York Tribune
ask for now? Why, sir, it demands that a sacred and ' time-honored compact shall be rescinded-a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable north and south-a compact by which all have consented to abide."
The New York Tribune was the recognized organ of the Free Soilers and, as elsewhere said, its publisher, Horace Greely, was then in the very prime of his power as a great newspaper editor. It seemed to be his especial delight to show up the almost innumerable evils of slavery and likewise the many unworthy aims and mis- deeds of the slaveholders. Practically all the Free Soil- ers, in what is today the Middle West (then the West), were subscribers to, and close and careful readers of Greely's Tribune. Upon not a few this paper made such a deep impression that they came to rate it next to the Bible. On the other hand no words would suffice to ex- press the contempt and hate felt in some quarters for Greely's organ.
Coincident with the repeal of the Compromise the Ter- ritories of Kansas and Nebraska were organized. Des- perate efforts were made by the South to people Kansas with inhabitants favorable to slavery. But the North was equally determined that freedom should have a voice on the broad prairies of that virgin land, and hence emigrants poured in from the Free State much faster than they possibly could from the South. But what the Slave Power failed to win fairly was sought to be secured by usurpation : And when the first election for a Terri- torial legislature was held, hordes of Missouri residents went over into Kansas, took possession of the ballot boxes at many of the voting places, and thus sought to turn everything in the interests of slavery. It was under these
1
158
A Fraudulent Election
circumstances that six thousand votes were east, not- withstanding the fact that the legal votes of Kansas numbered less than three thousand. Strange to say, these outrages were sustained by the administration at Washington-at the head of which was President Pieree, a native, and life-long resident, of New Hampshire!
We crossed the prairie, as of old The Pilgrims crossed the sea, To make the West, as they the East, The homestead of the free. We go to rear a wall of men . On Freedom's southern line,
And plant beside the cotton-tree The Rugged Northern Pine.
We're flowing from our native hills As our free rivers flow ; The blessing of our Mother-land Is with us as we go. Upbearing like the Ark of God, The Bible in our van, We go to test the truth of God Against the fraud of Man.
No pause, nor rest, save where the streams That feed the Kansas run, Save where our Pilgrim gonfalon Shall flout the setting sun. We'll tread the prairie, as of old Our fathers sailed the sea ; And make the West as they the East The homestead of the free.
-John G. Whittier.
The slavery agitation following the repeal of the Mis- souri Compromise produced some strange and unlooked-
159
Some Political After-Math
for results. Among these none was more striking than its effects upon Senator Benton of Missouri and Senator Cass of Michigan.
Thomas Benton, long a resident and Senator from Missouri, in the face of what he knew to be the public sentiment of that commonwealth, voted against the re- peal of the Missouri Compromise.
Lewis Cass, a native of New Hampshire, long a Sen- ator from and resident of the State of Michigan, voted for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, in opposition to what was known to be the sentiment of his eonstit- uents.
Missouri refused to return Benton to the Senate, and in his place sent James S. Green, an ultra southern Demoerat, who would leave no stone unturned to further the interests of the Slave Power. Likewise, Michigan refused to return Lewis Cass and sent to the National Senate in lieu of him, Zachariah Chandler, a Republican who would oppose the aggressions of the slavery prop- agandists to the extent of his ability.
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise set in motion a sort of political cyclone that upheaved political combi- nations, wrecked political parties and tore asunder the political affiliations of a lifetime. The "Old-Line" Whig party, of which Clay had been the idol and Web- ster the prophet, went down, in the slavery agitation following the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, never to rise again. Meantime many thousands who had been life-long adherents of the Democratic party withdrew from that organization because it endorsed African slavery and either supported or winked at the efforts of slave propagandists. All these dissatisfied elements finally came together and organized the Republican
-
160
Buchanan Inaugurated President
party whose avowed purpose was, if possible, to prevent the further spread of slavery, but with no intent to dis- turb that institution where it lawfully existed.
In 1856 Fremont and Dayton, Republican candidates for President and Vice-President, respectively, carried most of the Northern States, but failed in enough of these to turn the election to James Buchanan, the Dem- ocratic candidate. President Buchanan, a native and life-long resident of Pennsylvania, was inaugurated on March 4, 1857. But notwithstanding his northern birth and association he had not long been in office till he became as subservient to southern interests and slavery aggressions as had been his predecessor, President Pierce who, as we have seen, was a native and life-long resident of New England.
Relative to slavery, there were at this period what might be termed four chief schools of thought. First the old-time Abolitionists who believed that slavery was the worst of evils and its practice a crime; and who had representatives in such men as Wendell Phillips, Garrison, Gerret Smith, and Lovejoy. Seeond, the Re- publicans who were opposed to the further extension of slavery, but were not disposed to interfere with it in the Slave States: Seward, Lincoln, Chase and others were leaders in this view. Third, those who believed in popular sovereignty, familiarly called "squatter sov- ereignty" which contemplated leaving to the inhab- itants of a Territory the decision of the question of whether they should or should not have slavery; but the adherents of popular sovereignty declared that they did not care whether slavery was "voted up, or down" -- Senator Douglas was the great apostle of this view. A fourth school of thought was that founded by John
-
161
The Dred Scott Decision
C. Calhoun who claimed that a slave holder had the same inherent right to take his slaves to a Territory that a man from a Free State had to take his hogs, horses and cattle. Jefferson Davis, Toombs, Yancey, Mason, Slidell and indeed, all the ultra Southern Dem- ocrats held to this view.
The Calhoun school went so far as to claim that slavery , was national and freedom sectional. To give sanction to the idea that slaves were only chattels the ultra slave- holders contrived to have a case in point come up before the United States Supreme Court, and in due time the majority of the members of that body rendered a de- cision to the effect that a black man had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. This was popularly known as the "Dred-Scott" decision, from the fact that Dred Scott was the name of the negro whose status, relative to slavery, gave rise to the legal question in con- troversy. This decision was handed down in 1857, a short time after President Buchanan took the oath of office and by whom it was accepted as final. But this the opponents of slavery refused to do.
At this period things on the surface looked especially encouraging for southern plans and aspirations. James Buchanan, the newly installed chief executive, seemed disposed to go any length to satisfy the demands of the Slave Power and the Dred Scott decision making it legal for slave holders to take their slaves to the territories had just been handed down.
Douglas, the chief exponent of "popular sover- eignty", was a very remarkable man who by sheer ability and industry had risen to be one of the most prominent members of the United States Senate. This prominence was added to by the leading part he bore
162
Illinois Becomes a Political Storm-Center
in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and which in the fullest sense brought hind in the limelight-in the limelight, however, of very much popular disfavor. Douglas had a great deal of personal magnetism, made hosts of friends, and his partisan followers almost wor- shiped him. But the repeal of the Compromise was like the overturning of a hornet's nest. Consequently political friends were converted into pronounced ene- mies, devoted followers were alienated, and the erst- while idol became the victim of the most bitter criticism. Meanwhile the struggle in Kansas kept up and inten- sified the excitement among the people; and in the midst of this the second senatorial term of Douglas was approaching its end. Accordingly in the spring of 1858 he began making speeches to his Illinois constitu- ents in defense of his course in Washington. As a re- sult the "Prairie State" became a veritable storm-cen- ter of the "Question of Questions".
Such was the state of affairs when Abraham Lincoln, a Springfield lawyer whose political experience covered two terms in the Illinois Legislature in the late thirties, and one term in Congress during the Mexican war, be- came deeply interested in what was uppermost in the people's minds, the "Questions of Questions," and chal- lenged Senator Douglas to meet him, and discuss, in public, the various phases of the slavery issue. Douglas accepted the challenge and in the late summer and early fall of 1858 the people of Illinois had the rare privilege of witnessing a contest between two giants and listening to a discussion such as the world had seldom or never heard before.
In all there were seven joint discussions and these occurred respectively at Galesburg, Ottawa, Freeport,
Senator Stephen A. Douglas.
163
The Lincoln-Douglas Debate
in Northern Illinois; Jonesboro, in Southern Illinois; Charleston, in Eastern Illinois, and Alton, Quincy and Galesburg, in Western Illinois. In addition each of the contestants spoke in most of the remaining counties. At that time I was a resident of Bond county where a date was fixed for Lincoln to speak in Greenville, our county seat. As all my people were in accord with Lincoln and as he was recognized as an able exponent of the anti- slavery cause, I very naturally was desirous of hearing him. But unfortunately for me when the long-looked- forward-to day came I was in bed suffering from an acute attack of illness. As will be readily inferred my disappointment was great, so great, indeed, that my re- gret at not being able to hear and see Lincoln when he came to our county, extends to this hour.
But what was my ill-fortune proves to be my readers' good-fortune; for instead of offering them my impres- sions of the greatest character of the nineteenth century, I have had the good luck to secure some Lincoln remin- iscences from a far abler pen than my own-that of Stephen A. Forbes, Ph.D., LL.D., of the University of Illinois, who as a youth was privileged to attend the joint-discussion at Freeport, a graphic account of which follows :
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois, March 27, 1917.
Dr. C. B. Johnson
Champaign, Illinois
Dear Doctor Johnson :
When I was a boy of fourteen I had the good for- tune to see and hear Lincoln in one of his series of historic debates with Douglas-that at Freeport, in Northern Illinois, August 26, 1858. My father, who
-
1
164
Young Forbes Sces and Hears Lincoln
had died four years before, had been an anti-slavery Whig, although not a man of partisan temper, and my brother, eleven years older than I and the head of the family since my father's death, was strongly opposed to slavery. I had myself read Mrs. Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin," shortly after it came out in the numbers of the National Era in 1851, and I suppose, conse- quently, that I must have come up to the Freeport mass meeting with distinct prepossessions in Lincoln's favor. I do not remember, however, that I had any very defi- nite party feeling in any direction, being, in fact, too young, or, rather, too immature, for that, unless inter- ested and aroused by some unusual circumstance. This Lincoln and Douglas debate was such a circumstance ; and I came away from it quite aflame with enthusiasm for the new Republican party and especially for Lin- coln as its champion, and equally incensed against Douglas as the leader and champion of the Democrats. These boyish impressions fixed my polities, as it proved, for life, and did more than anything else to send me into . the Union Army only three years later and to hold me there until the end of the Civil War. As I must have been a "fair sample" of hundreds of youths of the day who had a similar experience, I am writing you now to redeem my promise that I would give you a description of the impressions which led to this result.
The debate at Freeport was held in a natural grove on the outskirts of the town, open enough to permit the growth of a grassy turf, and the great throng assembled from the surrounding country stood, so far as I remem- ber, during the whole debate. At any rate I did so my- self, and having pushed my way, after the fashion of boys, to the very front of the assembly, I was within a
165
"A Great Mind in Vigorous Action"
few feet of the low platform from which the speeches were made, and both heard and saw everything which went on. The contrast between the two speakers was simply immense, not in physique and bearing only, but in their relations to their partisans and to their andi- ence as a whole. Lincoln seemed a man of the people, homelier, simpler, and plainer than the average of those before him-one who had risen above the common level by sheer force of intellect and conspicuous moral worth. His arguments were as direct in their appeal to Demo- crats as to Republicans, and his speech made no call upon the party passion of his followers; he seemed not so much to aim at the vindication of his party as to persuade and convince the fair-minded, the open-minded and the undecided of whatever previous party affilia- tions.
Douglas, on the other hand, was the aggressive, com- bative, defiant party leader seeking to arouse his follow- ers to a kind of party fury, and to brow-beat and cowe his opponents by a violence of bearing and expressions of contempt which were at times little short of insulting.
When Lincoln arose to open the debate, my first feel- ing was a genuine shock of surprise, of disappointment, of chagrin at his homeliness, his awkwardness, his plain- ness of attire-at the farthest remove from the bearing, look, and dress of a boy's ideal; but when he began his argument in his high, penetrating voice, calm, clear, connected, and so simple and lucid that even I could follow it without effort, I got the first impression of my life of a truly lofty character and a great mind in vig- orous action.
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.