USA > Illinois > The era of the Civil War, 1848-1870 > Part 11
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
8 Illinois Journal, April 29, 1852.
9 Illinois State Register, May 13, 1852; Illinois Journal, June 22, 1852; Wentworth to French, March 5, 1848, French manuscripts.
10 Illinois Journal, April 24, May 15, 1852; Quincy Whig, April 26, May 3. 1852; Rockford Forum, May 12, 1852.
11 Gregg to Morris, May 12, in Quincy Whig, May 24, 1852; Illinois Journal, May 26, 1852 ; Illinois State Register, May 27, 1852. "Governor " Zadoc Casey had argued against Gregg on the score of his religious connections. Preston to French, January 20, 1852, French manuscripts.
12 Quincy Whig, December 9, 30, 1851, April 12, 1852.
IO5
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
The county conventions in the spring months developed considerable whig enthusiasm and prepared the way for the state and national elections. The party recovered from a severe fright when Ninian W. Edwards, assemblyman from Sangamon county, after abjuring his whiggery and resigning his seat, was defeated for reelection by James C. Conkling, the regular whig candidate. A state nominating convention was held on July 7; its deliberations resulted in agreement upon a ticket with Edwin B. Webb of White county for governor, Colonel J. L. D. Morrison of St. Clair county for lieutenant governor, Francis Arenz for treasurer, and Charles A. Betts for auditor. 13
The presidential canvass was now well under way and attention was diverted from the state contest. It seemed in the spring of 1852 that the young and able Stephen A. Douglas was to come into his own by receiving the highest honor within the gift of his party, a nomination which was equivalent to an election. For a year the state democratic press and the rank and file of the Illinois democracy had been shouting for Doug- las. His rapid promotion from a "favorite son candidacy " attested his leading place in the national councils of the party. He was supported as emphatically "a national man;" "he was born in New England and reared in New York, resides in Illinois and was married in North Carolina, and it can be truthfully said that he is connected with every section of the Union." "Place of birth accidental; of rearing, arbitrary; of immigration, choice; and of marriage only indicating his love for the Union." 14 Such was the rôle assigned to him by his enthusiastic followers.
Only one important democratic paper looked elsewhere for a candidate. This was John Wentworth's Chicago Democrat, which declared that Douglas was not the party's strongest candidate. The antislavery predilections and radical western sympathies of the editor made him favor a less orthodox can- didate. He turned, therefore, to that great western figure,
13 Illinois Journal, April 9, 27, 30, May 11, July 9, 10, 1852; Illinois State Register, April 29, May 6, June 10, 1852; Quincy Whig, July 19, 1852; see also Koerner, Memoirs, 1 : 587.
14 Freeport Prairie Democrat and Knoxville Journal clipped in Quincy W hig, July 22, 1851.
106
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
Thomas H. Benton of Missouri, the veteran senator recently denied reelection because of his bold stand against the southern fire eaters. But the Cairo Sun and other journals speaking for the southern democracy promptly declared that Benton could command no real support south of Mason and Dixon's line, where his "political trickery and faithlessness," and "his pandering to the wishes of northern fanatics" was held in abhorrence. This revelation with the astounding strength that Douglas developed swept the Chicago Democrat into line. Since Douglas as a young man was likely to be more liberal, if not more radical, than some of the old fogies, Wentworth was content.15
This was precisely the strength of Douglas outside of Illinois. He was looked upon as the candidate of "Young America." An active group of young progressive democrats were booming Douglas, using the Democratic Review as their organ.16 They defined the ideal candidate in terms of Ste- phen A. Douglas. No broken-down politician would do, no second or third rate general, no conservative representative of "old fogyism." He must be a "statesman who can bring young blood, young ideas, and young hearts to the councils of the Republic." "Old fogyism," however, still sought to con- tinue its leadership; the delegations sent to Baltimore showed their skill in keeping young America out of control of the party machinery. Cass and Buchanan were the chief contenders; the former might easily have been nominated but for the cus- tomary two-thirds rule. It was expected that the northwest would go strongly for Douglas. The Illinois democracy was urged by Douglas to be represented in force at Baltimore.17 Only eleven delegates, however, presented themselves; while they clung loyally to their favorite they received too little sup- port from outside. Douglas started out with twenty votes, only four from the west in addition to Illinois. His total reached ninety-two on the thirty-first and thirty-second ballot, when he was leading the field, but without the slightest pros- pect of securing the nomination. His vote dropped off imme- 15 Chicago Daily Journal, April 29, May 6, 1851; Illinois State Register, May 16, 1850; Cairo Sun, May 29, 1851 ; Chicago Democrat, March 31, 1852.
16 Democratic Review, 30: 12.
17 Douglas to Lanphier, February 25, 1852, Lanphier manuscripts.
107
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
diately; on the thirty-fifth, delegations began to break for Franklin Pierce, who received the nomination on the forty- ninth ballot.
Douglas, ready to prove himself a good loser, gener- ously accepted his defeat with good grace. In his congratu- latory telegram to the convention he promised that Illinois would give Pierce a larger majority than any other state in the union. The promise, however, was not redeemed; Illinois voters were too little content with convention politics to acquiesce so easily in a victory over their favorite by a dark horse. Instead there were wry faces all over the state and disgusted ejaculations of the inevitable question, "Who is Franklin Pierce ?"
The general gloom did not disappear until it was demon- strated in the national convention of the whigs that they were to enter the campaign with little more harmony and enthusiasm. Illinois whiggery, however, was less affected by factionalism than many sections of the party. No marked preference for a presidential candidate had been expressed; President Fill- more's administration was generally indorsed even in county conventions that recommended General Winfield Scott as their first choice. At Baltimore the Illinois delegates, who had generally supported Scott, rejoiced in his nomination. The conservative whig forces had first insisted on the adoption of a resolution acquiescing in the finality of the compromise meas- ures; when after a stirring debate the vote was taken the Illinois delegation supported the resolution, though by the barest majority.
Approval of these proceedings was passed by the whig state convention in July. The nomination of Scott was indorsed as the first choice of the whigs of Illinois.18 It seems to have been the intention of the leaders to give the " finality " resolution of the Baltimore platform the "goby." A ratifying resolu- tion, however, was introduced which the convention did not dare to reject; it was adopted because of the danger of alienat- ing union men if defeated. One of the members proposed that it be omitted in the published proceedings. It happened that it did not appear in the official proceedings, when first
18 Illinois Journal, July 9, 10, 1852.
108
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
published in the Illinois Journal, although they were later reprinted in corrected and finished form.19
Relatively slight success attended the determined effort of whig politicians to arouse enthusiasm for the famous hero; Scott clubs with their "soup songs" did not overcome an apathetic indifference. Actual and open disaffection was rare. Alfred Dutch, editor of the Chicago Commercial Advertiser, was one of the few disgruntled Fillmore and Webster conserva- tives. He had found himself outmaneuvered by his rival, Charles Wilson, of the Chicago Journal, when a Scott delegate was appointed to the national convention and when Cyrus Aldrich was selected as congressional candidate for the Chicago district. Condemning "the rotten machinery of primary elec- tions and delegate conventions," he announced himself as an independent candidate for congress, but failed to make much of a race.20
With the congressional nominations the troubles of the democrats increased. In the Chicago district, because "Long John" Wentworth seemed inclined to repudiate the Baltimore platform, Ebenezer Peck bitterly fought his nomination.21 In the Alton district the rift threatened to be even more serious. After William H. Bissell, the popular congressman, had an- nounced himself a candidate for reelection, Sidney Breese undertook to challenge his claims. Under the influence of Breese a legislative caucus of half the members from the dis- trict called a convention to meet at Carlyle, the town of Breese's residence. This call received little publicity and did not give Bissell time to return to exert a personal influence. Meantime a new democratic journal, the Alton Courier, began to oppose Bissell's nomination on the ground of his neglect of duties in order to serve the Illinois Central railroad in the capacity of attorney. The friends of Bissell consequently decided that there was not time for an adequate representation at the Car- lyle convention ; when that body met, therefore, it was a bobtail meeting without delegates from certain counties. After a hard
19 Illinois State Register, July 15, 1852.
20 Joliet Signal, May 25, 1852; Chicago Democrat, September 22, October 13, 1852; Illinois State Register, September 30, 1852.
21 Illinois State Register, July 29, September 30, 1852; Chicago Democrat, September 16, 1852.
109
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
race, in which Breese led for thirty-one ballots, Philip B. Fouke of Belleville was nominated, probably to pacify Bissell's friends at that place. The latter, however, condemned the clique management and scheming and brought out their favorite as a bolter. The hot fight which ensued encouraged the whigs, whose candidate, Joseph Gillespie, made an active canvass.22
These local contests diverted attention from the presiden- tial canvass, in which cudgels were being vigorously wielded. Pierce was represented by his opponents as the bitter enemy of the west : had he not turned his face against appropriations designed to obtain for the people of the west secure harbors and navigable rivers ? No river and harbor bills would become laws in case Pierce were elected.23 Such doctrine appealed to southern Illinois, which insisted that all the benefits went to the northern part of the state; but along the upper Mississippi, the Illinois, and the lake front, Wentworth and democrats generally held that this was not a party issue and boldly cham- pioned river and harbor improvements, ignoring the record of the democratic candidate. Douglas sought to appeal to this same demand on democratic ground; in his "tonnage duties " scheme he proposed that the improvements be made by each town and city on the basis of the duties collected, thus taking the "pork barrel" out of politics.24 Pierce and King were pictured as the enemies of the landless poor, voting against a homestead policy which was solidly supported by western members of congress.25 On the tariff question there was no clear party issue; the democratic party, however, was desig- nated as the "British party," because the English press was favoring Pierce's election in order to connect a democratic tariff with British interests.26
Charges of nativism and abolitionism were the two effective points scored against General Scott. On account of a "native
22 Belleville Advocate, July 21, 28, August 4, 11, 18, September 8, October 20, 1852; Alton Courier, August 4, 5, 12, October 11, 13, 14, 19, 23, 25, 29, 1852. 23 Illinois Journal, June 28, September 3, 22, 1852; Alton Telegraph, August 2, 17, 1852; Chicago Daily Journal, June 23, August 27, 1852.
2+ Chicago Democrat, April 10, 1851; Chicago Daily Journal, October 2, 1851; Joliet Signal, September 21, 1851; Alton Courier, July 31, August 3, 6, October 30, 1852; Jacksonville Constitutionist, November 6, 1852.
25 Illinois Journal, July 20, 1852; Chicago Daily Journal, August 27, 1852. 26 Illinois Journal, August 31, 1852.
IIO
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
American " letter he was charged with being tinctured with an "ism" that would be fatal to the success of any candidate in the northwestern states. Scott's supporters countermoved by pointing out that Illinois democrats had considered Catholicism sufficient to disqualify their leading candidate for the guber- natorial nomination.27 In the meantime German votes were solicited on the strength of Koerner's name on the democratic state ticket, while the nomination of Arenz made a similar appeal for the whigs. Again, Scott was accused of abolition- ism; it was pointed out that Senator Seward of "higher law" fame was his sponsor, that he was unwilling to give an unequiv- ocal indorsement of the finality of the compromise measures. Both parties in Illinois made a two-faced campaign. In the upper counties they appealed to the free soil voters for their support on strong antislavery grounds ; in Egypt they talked in terms of the finality resolutions adopted by their respective national conventions and deplored further agitation. The poli- ticians in the central districts were called upon to show a skill in political gymnastics for which many of them were too inade- quately trained. It was no easy matter to know when to desig- nate one's party as the true free soil party, or the true compromise party, or when to keep mum on the slavery issue.
When in November the returns slowly came in, it was found that Pierce and the state ticket had carried in Illinois by over 15,000 votes, that the new legislature was overwhelm- ingly democratic, but that the whigs, under the new redistrict- ing of the state, had won three additional seats in congress. The Illinois Journal, November 19, commenting on the election, ascribed the result of the presidential contest to the disappoint- ment of Fillmore's friends and to the disastrous effects upon the whigs of the "isms " of the day. "Every ISM was against them - Free soilism, Abolitionism, Native Americanism, Se- cessionism, Anti-Rentism, Free Public Landism, Intervention- ism, Filibusterism-in a word, all the little factions in the country." This was doubtless true of the national election, but in the northern districts of Illinois the whigs had profited by their free soilism and their bids for antislavery votes. It
27 Illinois State Register, June 17, 1852 ff ; Illinois Journal, June 4, 12, 21, 1852.
III
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
was there that the new seats in congress were gained; Richard Yates was returned from the Springfield district over John Calhoun, who suffered somewhat from democratic defection; but Elihu B. Washburne's victory in the first district, Jesse O. Norton's in the third, and James Knox's in the fourth were made possible by free soil pledges, just as John Wentworth's victory in the Chicago district was made possible by his anti- slavery views. In the three new whig districts, the majorities were less than the difference between the free soil vote for president and for congressmen; only one had a whig presi- dential plurality.
This election proved to be the fatal crisis for whiggery in Illinois. It had never secured a strong hold on the pioneer population of the western prairies. It was the party par excellence of the wealth and intelligence, the respectability and dignity of the state. Though it drew upon the industrial dependents of whig employers, and upon the socially and polit- ically ambitious elements of the population, it was unable to develop real strength outside of industrial centers except as it came forward with a "log cabin and hard cider" or "mili- tary hero " appeal.28 No new popular reform ever emanated from the party to save it from withering decay under its proud record for aristocratic conservatism.
The year, 1853, was a year of general political calm-the lull before a storm. Political activity in Illinois was confined to the general assembly, where the democrats outnumbered the whigs nearly four to one. The whigs deplored blind servitude to party leadership; even the democrats were not in a humor to utilize their majority to draw party lines. Local and private rather than general or party considerations determined the issues presented and their fate at the hands of the legislators.29 Liquor and bank legislation had their advocates and opponents. Railroad development was the chief subject of discussion, emphasizing the sectional interests within the state.30 The quarrels of rival sections even threatened for a time to jeopar- dize Douglas' reelection to the United States senate by involv-
28 Brown to French, December 8, 1851, French manuscripts; Illinois State Register, February 5, 1852.
29 Illinois Journal, January 8, 1853.
30 See chapter II.
-
II2
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
ing him in the quarrel over railroad policy.31 The session had no sooner closed before the disappointed faction began to agitate a called session, which was approved or condemned, not according to party lines, but according to local interests. When Governor Matteson finally summoned the legislature the strug- gle was resumed under the new nonpartisan alignment.
Democratic politicians concerned themselves chiefly with the fruits of victory. The numerous spoilsmen engaged in a mad scramble at Springfield to secure the indorsement of the electoral college for their respective claims upon the Pierce administration. Soon the obvious disappointment of the un- successful began to find expression. Some voiced it calmly in a demand for the popular election of postmasters. In Egypt, however, feeling became intense because it was felt that Went- worth and other northern politicians were dictating the appoint- ments and that the plums were going to democrats of anti- slavery proclivities. Many of the democratic papers of the state were soon engaged in a guerilla warfare in which the "old hunker" forces sought to drive the free soil element out of the party. Meantime party interest waned to the extent that in this " off " year a special judgeship election in Chicago went to the whig candidate by default, in spite of the efforts of the Democrat to get a candidate into the field. Critics of the convention system began to appear, while some persons condemned all party organization on the score of corrupting and anti-republican tendencies. 32
Whig dissolution was well under way. In central and southern Illinois, numbers of " silver grey " conservatives were leaving the ranks upon the evidence that in the northern part of the state most whigs were trying to effect a union with the free soilers. This movement even split the party in some of the northern counties, where "silver greys " refused to permit such leadership. Other whig reorganization plans were in the air, in Illinois as in other parts of the union. There was some inclination to take up the temperance issue, while the more vague "people's party" was the favorite dodge of many.
31 Chicago Weekly Democrat, January 1, 1853.
32 Ibid., January 15, April 9, 23, 30, 1853; Illinois Journal, July 14, August 18, 1853; Southern Illinoisan clipped in Alton Courier, August 12, see also May 10, 1853; Joliet Signal, September 6, 1853, February 7, 1854.
II3
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
Democratic leaders naturally welcomed this opportunity to whip party laggards into line and played up these tendencies to revive the old fear of the opposition.33
It was into this atmosphere of party disorganization that Douglas exploded the issue that killed off the whig party and left the democratic ranks rent in twain. Almost without warn- ing came the crash as the territorial issue was launched in a form more insidious than had ever appeared in American poli- tics. The land across the Missouri river was still the hunting ground of the American redskin, but emigrants from Illinois and neighboring states were beginning to pour in to dispute their rights. Douglas now proposed to open up the territory of Nebraska to all settlers-to the Yankee pioneer of the north and northwest, to the immigrant from European oppres- sion, and to the southern planter with his drove of ebony-hued retainers. Proclaiming the broad principle of local self- government, of popular sovereignty, he hoped to ignore a solemn pact of nearly a quarter century's standing which dedi- cated to freedom the very territory into which he now sought to establish an unqualified "open door."
The possibility of such an issue was foreseen two months before Douglas' famous report on the Nebraska situation. A government diplomatic agent had been sent in to arrange treaties with the Indians to secure their lands, but he seemed to procrastinate and merely reported the Indians ready to sell out. A shrewd observer saw in the situation the reflection of a heated contest between two Missouri rivals, ex-Senator Ben- ton, the champion of westward expansion on free soil, and Senator Atchison, the proslavery fire eater, who was anxious to prevent the growth of the political strength of the north. But the quarrel was now in danger of assuming " such a degree of importance as to threaten a renewal in Congress, with all its fury, of the ' Wilmot Proviso' agitation which it was hoped was settled by the compromise measures of 1850."34
The question of the origin of the repeal of the Missouri compromise is a controverted one. Senator Douglas is looked
33 Aurora Guardian, October 12, 19, 1853; Joliet Signal, October 18, 1853; Chicago Weekly Democrat, July 23, 1853.
34 Ibid., November 12, 1853.
II4
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
upon by orthodox historians as the responsible party, although they differ as to his motive: did he act on the high and broad ground of principle-the principle of local autonomy, of popular sovereignty; was he, because of his presidential aspira- tions, throwing out a sop to the south; or, because of his interest in and zeal for a transcontinental railroad, was he anxious to see the new territory opened to railroad develop- ment under any form of organization which could pass both houses of congress, particularly the senate ? 35 Another view of the matter is that Senator Atchison of Missouri is entirely to be credited with the authorship of the repeal, with Douglas nothing more or less than his tool.36
In the fall of 1853 Douglas returned to Washington after a summer abroad and immediately took up the political prob- lems he had temporarily laid aside. While analyzing the work which would come before the session of congress to meet in December he wrote his well-known letter of November II to the editors of the Illinois State Register.37 In this letter he first disposed of rumors concerning his presidential candidacy. Stressing the obligations that were due to the party in its "dis- tracted condition," in order to secure the consolidation of its strength and the perpetuity of its principles he waived aside all talk of the coming contest and declared his intention of remain- ing entirely noncommittal.
In this announcement he let fall the mysterious statement : " I think such a state of things will exist that I shall not desire the nomination." What, then, did this mean? The issues that would require attention were tariff reduction "to a legiti- mate revenue standard," the river and harbor question, which he proposed to solve by a well-devised system of tonnage duties, and the Pacific railroad, which he felt the federal government could aid only by a land grant modelled after the Illinois Central precedent.
No mention was made of the organization of Nebraska territory or of popular sovereignty. Does this silence warrant
35 Hodder, "The Genesis of the Kansas-Nebraska Act," Wisconsin State Historical Society, Proceedings, 60: 69-86.
36 Ray, Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
37 Douglas to Walker and Lanphier, November 11, 1853, Lanphier manu- scripts.
115
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
the conclusion that Douglas was not alive to the significance of the territorial issue in its new form? This is scarcely pos- sible inasmuch as the organization of Nebraska had been repeatedly before congress and had been a leading question in the last session, when Douglas, as chairman of the senate committee on territories, had exerted his influence in favor of the proposed legislation.38 Letters may have gone forward to his confidants at Springfield taking note of the territorial issue. At any rate, the editors of the State Register were able on December 16 to publish an editorial condemning the agita- tion in the south for the establishment and in the north for the prohibition by congress of slavery in the new territory. "The territories should be permitted to exercise, as nearly as prac- ticable, all the rights claimed by the states, and to adopt all such political regulations and institutions, as their wisdom may suggest. This liberty is calculated to attach them to the Union. We therefore hope that no slavery provisos will be attached to any territorial bill."39 By this time a Nebraska bill had been introduced by Senator Dodge of Iowa and re- ferred to the committee on territories; inasmuch, however, as the measure was referred on the afternoon of the fourteenth, the interval was not sufficiently great for Douglas to react on the bill and influence the editorial cited if he had waited for the measure to reach his hands. The editors, moreover, would have realized the danger of embarrassing the senator, whose confidence they enjoyed, if they had attempted to formulate a policy for themselves in the absence of some statement from Douglas. It seems, therefore, that an opinion must have developed in his mind at a rather early date and that the editors of the Register were promptly informed of his views.
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.