USA > Illinois > The era of the Civil War, 1848-1870 > Part 12
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
This evidence reduces the possibility that outside influence, whether from Senator Atchison or from some other source, directly influenced Douglas in reaching this decision; it elimi- nates almost entirely the element of deliberate presidential ambitions as the motive. Douglas had, in a spirit of oppor- tunism, resurrected an old principle which accorded with his 38 Johnson, Stephen A. Douglas, 226, 228; Ray, Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, 186; Congressional Globe, 32 congress, 2 session, 1116-1117.
39 Published in the weekly issue of December 22, 1853. Professor Allen Johnson does not distinguish between the different parts of the weekly issue.
116
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
desire to see Nebraska thrown open to settlement and to rail- road development and to a practical experiment in the realm of this much flaunted principle of popular sovereignty. Thus it was that Douglas and Atchison actuated by different motives worked side by side lending each other aid and comfort in their efforts to reach a common goal.
Douglas made his report on January 4, 1854, presenting the bill in a somewhat amended form. The purpose was to apply the principles of the compromise measures of 1850 to the new territory of Nebraska. Douglas, speaking for the committee, held that the Nebraska country occupied "the same relative position to the slavery question, as did Mexico and Utah, when those territories were organized." Inasmuch, therefore, as the validity of the Missouri compromise restric- tion was seriously questioned by eminent statesmen, without attempting to affirm or repeal that restriction as the matter in controversy, the report held that the principles of 1850 ought to be carried into operation; the bill, accordingly, provided in the language of the Utah and New Mexico acts: "And when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory, or any part of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as this Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." "In order to avoid misconstruction " the famous twenty-first section was attached to the bill as the result of an eleventh hour decision by Douglas.40 It specified the prin- ciples of the compromise measures, which were to be applied in this new legislation, particularly "That all questions per- taining to slavery in the Territories and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate repre- sentatives."
This section was always interpreted by Douglas as having the effect of repealing by supersedure the Missouri compro- mise line of 1820. In this evasive way, purporting to stand for a great principle, he was prepared to wipe out that com- promise which in 1849 he had formally declared to the Illinois legislature had "become canonized in the hearts of the Amer- ican people, as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would
40 Johnson, Stephen A. Douglas, 232-233.
II7
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
ever be reckless enough to disturb." 41 There were others, however, both friends and enemies of the proposition, who desired a less ambiguous reference to the legislation of 1820 and who prepared to compel Douglas to come into the open. Senator Dixon of Kentucky on January 16 moved an amend- ment which forced Douglas' hand. Under the pressure of southern democratic leaders, Douglas prepared amendments, for which as a party and administration measure he secured the approval of President Pierce ; they provided for two organ- ized territories, Kansas and Nebraska, in which, it was an- nounced, the prohibition of slavery in the act of 1820 was specifically "declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domes- tic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."42
For this measure Douglas waged a brilliant fight upon the floor of the senate, aided in the house by his trusted lieutenant, William R. Richardson, of the Quincy district of Illinois, who now occupied Douglas' old post of chairman of the house committee on territories. Honors were high for Illinois, if with all the seeds of agitation that it sowed, the Kansas-Ne- braska act can be looked upon as bestowing honor. Little was said by Senator Shields, Douglas' colleague, or by the Illinois democratic delegation in the house. Wentworth, who opposed the measure, but was so dazed by it as to be unable to determine its party effect, remained silent; his journal, the Chicago Democrat, did not commit itself against the bill until the issue of March 11, when it credited Douglas with a sincere and consistent devotion to the doctrine of the Nicholson letter.
Douglas was at his best when, in a brilliant speech on March 3, he closed the debate in the senate by summing up the arguments in favor of the bill. He courageously and fairly met the thrusts of his opponents and cleared the way for giving the measure a place in a long series of struggles for the American principle of self-government, of popular sovereignty. "This
41 Illinois State Register, November 8, 1849.
42 Statutes at Large, 10: 277-290.
II8
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great Britain; the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded."
None of the Illinois delegation signed Chase's appeal of the "independent democrats" against the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The northern districts were represented by whigs except for Wentworth from Chicago. The Egyptian representatives were party regulars ready to take orders from the adminis- tration- all except William H. Bissell from the Alton and Belleville district. He was firmly opposed to the measure, but did not attempt to participate in the attack upon it. When a final vote was reached in the house on May 22, Wentworth went on record with the four whig congressmen, Elihu B. Washburne, Jesse O. Norton, James Knox, and Yates, as unwilling to follow Douglas in his new lead. Colonel Bissell was confined to his room by illness, but authorized Went- worth to state that had he been present, he would have voted against the bill; as it was, if his vote could bring about its defeat, he was ready to be carried to the house on a cot to cast it. William A. Richardson, Willis Allen of the Cairo district, and James C. Allen of the seventh, cast their votes in favor of the bill.43 The house vote, therefore, would seem to indicate that Illinois was not ready to accept the new Douglas doctrine with all that it implied.
Douglas, however, had declared in one of his speeches that there was a universality of appeal in the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska act that would make it "as popular at the North as at the South, when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed and become well understood." ## If this were true there should have been no question as to Illi- nois, a border state, with a large southern population, trained to follow the lead of the "little giant." Yet there were signs that the adverse vote in the house spoke more correctly for the state than did the two senators - that Douglas in the rôle of prophet was doomed to disappointment.
43 Alton Courier, June 9, 1854; Cairo City Times, June 21, 1854; House Journal, 33 congress, I session, 919-920.
4+ Congressional Globe, 33 congress, I session, appendix, 338.
119
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
The Illinois State Register and the Quincy Herald were the only papers to come out with a prompt indorsement. The Register followed up the editorial of December 16, 1853, with careful explanations of all the forces and principles involved.45 The Quincy Herald, zealously hailing Douglas as the real author of the compromise of 1850, commended the "sacred" principle for which he stood, "one that lies at the root of all governments founded upon the maxim that the people are the true and rightful source of all political power." 46 It labored to show that slavery could never go into Kansas and that the measure was one to extend freedom, not slavery. The Peoria Press, Eastern Illinoisan, and St. Clair Weekly Tribune next entered the thin ranks of active Nebraska sup- porters. Other of the party journals merely acquiesced in the new test of party orthodoxy and allowed Douglas to defend his policy in their columns by printing his speeches. When at length the measure was enacted into law, the Joliet Signal abandoned a colorless support to break out in rejoicing at its triumph.47 The Cairo City Times was aroused to declare : "The Constitution has been vindicated, and the rights of man reasserted." 48
The immediate response of the whig opposition in Illinois to the introduction of the Nebraska bill was a shout of protest. Led by their central organ at Springfield, the Illinois State Journal, they spoke in no uncertain tone. Referring to the reopening of the slavery agitation, the Journal on January 13 declared: "to deliberately raise the flood-gates of those old damned up waters, because Mr. Douglas wants to be Presi- dent, is too much of an infliction for the most forebearing patience." The Chicago Tribune claimed that Douglas' propo- sition put an end to the disposition of citizens to pay passive obedience to the fugitive slave law: "the violators of the Missouri Compromise had forfeited all right to appeal to law to sustain them." The Alton Telegraph declared that 45 Illinois State Register, January 19, 26, February 2, 1854 et seq.
46 Quincy Weekly Herald, January 30, see also January 16, February 6, 20, 27, March 6, 27, 1854, et seq.
47 St. Clair Weekly Tribune, March 8, April 22, 1854; Illinois State Register, February 16, 23, 1854; Morris Gazette clipped in ibid., March 2, 1854; Ottawa Free Trader, February 11, 1854; Joliet Signal, March 7, May 30, 1854.
48 Cairo City Times, May 31, 1854.
I20
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
Douglas had "sprung a mine which will forever blast all his presidential aspirations and cripple his political power." 49 Neutral journals took up the hue and cry. The Canton Register, March 2, announced its regret "that a Senator from our own State should exhibit such recklessness in regard to public feeling and public peace, and such a want of judgment and forethought as has been exhibited by Senator Douglas in this case." 50
More significant, however, were the announcements from democratic journals that they could not follow Douglas in his new lead. Some came out after a considerable delay in which the full consequences of political heresy were considered. The Chicago Democrat waited until March II to express an hon- est difference of opinion with Douglas. When the measure passed, however, the editor declared with feeling: "The wall of 'compromises ' has been broken down -the ' finality' is final no more-the 'wind has been sown' and it may be that the sowers shall reap the whirlwind." 51 The Alton Courier pub- lished the documents in full and the speeches of Douglas, Seward, and Everett in its successive issues from February 13 to March 4; then in a facetious article on April II it stated its refusal to be committed on the Nebraska question; but finally, after the passage of the bill, it made the unequivocal declara- tion : "It sanctions what we recognize as a great principle, but our objection is that in giving this sanction, it opens the door for a great outrage upon human rights, the introduction of slavery into Territory now free, and which we would be glad to have ever remain so." 52 The Belleville Advocate showed the inconsistency of Douglas' position on the Missouri compromise and the extent of the opposition to his new policy.53 Even the Chester Herald and the Greenville Journal came out in opposition in the more truly Egyptian atmosphere of those two towns. The Urbana Union had spoken out with remark-
49 Illinois State Register, February 2, 1854; Chicago Tribune clipped in ibid., March 3, 1854.
50 Canton Weekly Register, March 2, June 1, 22, 1854; the Bloomington Pantagraph, however, deplored the vituperative abuse of Douglas and declared that the logic lay in his course, ibid., March 9, 1854.
51 Chicago Weekly Democrat, May 27, 1854.
52 Alton Courier, May 24, 1854.
53 Belleville Advocate, March 1, 8, April 5, 26, 1854.
121
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
able promptness; on January 26 it questioned the ability of Douglas to settle this matter against all traditions since 1787. A few weeks later it frankly declared the introduction of the new issue "a very wrong and impolitic act unworthy of the head and heart of our distinguished Senator," and prepared to wage war on his bill.54 At the same time the Rock River Democrat and Galena Jeffersonian announced themselves out of sympathy with Douglas in his course and washed their hands of all support of such demagogical proceedings. The Aurora Guardian protested: "It is scarcely a wonder that the people are arising in their majesty to protest against the Bill of Sen- ator Douglas which bids African slavery welcome to the Ter- ritory of Nebraska, when it is considered that the boundaries include an area equal to ten States of the size of New York." "As a bid for the Presidency, Douglas introduces this fire brand." 55
All this opposition was contrary to the belief of Douglas that he had applied a principle which would make the party "stronger than ever " because "united upon principle." "The principles of this bill will form the test of Parties, and the only alternative is either to stand with the Democracy or to rally under Seward, John VanBuren & Co." 56
The official expression of the state through the general assembly, however, was more favorable to Douglas' course. Early in February, at the "little giant's " orders, it was later charged by Lincoln, resolutions indorsing the Nebraska bill were introduced by Senator Omelveny to whip the lukewarm and recalcitrant democrats into line. Inasmuch as it was rep- resented as a mere vote of confidence in the two Illinois senators, the resolutions passed with only a handful of demo- cratic votes in opposition. In the senate the vote of 14 to 8 found five democrats, James M. Campbell, Burton C. Cook, Norman B. Judd, Uri Osgood, and John M. Palmer voting with the three whigs in the negative; in the house eight demo- crats, thirteen whigs, and one free soiler went on record as opposed to the thirty-three democrats and three whigs who
54 Urbana Union, February 16, 23, June 1, 1854.
55 Rock River Democrat, February 14, 21, 1854; Galena Jeffersonian clipped in Belleville Advocate, March 8, 1854; Aurora Guardian, February 16, 23, 1854. 56 Douglas to Lanphier, February 13, 1854, Lanphier manuscripts.
122
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
approved the resolutions adopted by that body, while thirteen democrats and five whigs comprised the list of those not voting. Many an assemblyman, with the rising storm of opposition and agitation, came shortly to regret his vote in favor of the resolutions; John Reynolds, "the old ranger," publicly recanted his vote.57
The Kansas-Nebraska measure was from the start the subject of heated discussion and angry controversy throughout the state. Douglas was burned in effigy on the streets of his home city and huge anti-Nebraska mass meetings were held in Chicago, Ottawa, Rockford, Alton, and Belleville. Although the Nebraska forces countermoved by attempting similar demonstrations in favor of the measure, it was without great success.
The pulpit burst out in wrath against this great assault on freedom; a protest signed by five hundred clergymen of the northwest denounced Douglas for his "want of courtesy and reverence toward man and God." 58 Three preachers in the legislature, to be sure, supported the Nebraska resolutions and the clergy of Egypt were but little affected; but twenty- five Chicago ministers met in March to protest against the Nebraska bill, while Colonel Bissell on April 18 presented in congress the remonstrance of S. Y. McMasters and nine- teen other clergymen of Alton against the repeal of the Mis- souri compromise, and the Reverend W. D. Haley made the chief address of the Alton anti-Nebraska meeting of June 2.59 John Mason Peck, the sage of Rock Spring, held that, while there was a general misunderstanding among the clergy of the north concerning the sacred character of the Missouri com- promise, the Nebraska act was "unwise, uncalled for and ill- timed, with a direct tendency to revive all the sectional jealousies, strife, disunion, and Abolitionism, and even much more than existed in 1850." 60
57 Works of Lincoln, 2:245; Chicago Weekly Democrat, March 11, 1854; House Journal, 1854, p. 168; Belleville Advocate, March 22, 1854.
58 Congressional Globe, 33 congress, I session, appendix, 654.
59 They passed a set of strong resolutions to which Douglas replied in a long letter of eight columns in the Washington Sentinel; Illinois State Register, April 20, 1854; Alton Courier, May 6, June 8, 1854-
60 John Mason Peck to the editor of the Belleville Advocate, March 21, in Belleville Advocate, April 12, 1854.
123
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
Among the most sturdy opponents of the repeal of the Missouri compromise were the German voters of Illinois. They had at once been alienated by the Clayton amendment which denied to foreigners any political rights in the new ter- ritories. The German press of the state promptly rejected Douglas' pet measure. Before the end of January, George Schneider, editor of the Illinois Staats-Zeitung, aggressively committed his organ to the repudiation of the Douglas program. The Quincy Tribune placed its opposition on record in the issue of February 22, followed by the Alton Vorwärts and the other journals.
It has been claimed that the first protest mass meeting to be held was an indignation meeting held by Chicago Germans, January 29, under the leadership of George Schneider. How- ever this may be, the Germans in Cook county promptly placed themselves on record as unwilling to swallow the Nebraska bill. When the legislature visited Chicago in February a com- mittee of German citizens waited upon Lieutenant Governor Koerner and placed in his charge a petition to the legislature signed by several hundred against the repeal of the Missouri compromise. Judd presented in the general assembly a similar petition representing eight hundred German voters of Chicago. On the evening of March 16 a mass meeting of German citi- zens, in which Edward Schlaeger, George Schneider, Alderman Francis Hoffman, and others participated, unanimously con- demned Douglas as "an ambitious and dangerous demagogue " and agreed to take the offensive against the slave power. A later meeting of former German supporters burned Douglas in effigy.61
Thus did the issue of freedom versus slavery become clari- fied in the minds of Illinoisians, and thus did they refuse to follow the lead of their popular senator when he seemed ready to give the advantage to the peculiar institution of the south.
The German stronghold around Belleville and Alton showed similar defection from Douglas democracy, led by Lieu- tenant Governor Koerner and others. The Germans of Taze-
61 Chicago Daily Democratic Press, February 20, March 17, 1854; Illinois Journal, February 21, 1854; McLean County Historical Society, Transactions, 3: 53; Illinois State Historical Society, Transactions, 1912, p. 156-157.
124
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
well county held a spirited meeting at Pekin in which they selected delegates to represent them at a proposed German anti-Nebraska state convention to be held at Bloomington on the twelfth and thirteenth of September, simultaneously with the proposed state "republican " convention.62 The Illinois Staats-Zeitung took a leading part in all these moves ; in its issue of September 20 it made an appeal for a republican party, a great American "liberty " party.
62 Pekin Mirror clipped in Chicago Daily Democratic Press, September 13, 1854
VI. THE ORIGIN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
T HE Kansas-Nebraska act proved a most distracting ques- tion for the democratic organization in Illinois. A new issue had been raised, not by fanatical abolitionists or free soilers but by one who had ever declaimed against agitation. Was this then " a charlatanism as thin as it is contemptible ?" 1 So at least large portions of Douglas' constituency promptly declared. The Rock River Democrat openly repudiated Senator Douglas and "his pampered allies" and declared : "We forbear an expression of our deep indignation, and shall choke the utterance of our abhorrence of the men who have insanely given us as a Democratic party to the contempt of the world." 2 The Chicago Democrat lapsed into pessimism concerning the future of the democracy: "Throughout the North we behold but one prevailing sentiment, and that is in opposition to a great measure which has just been consum- mated, the responsibility of which the democratic party of the nation will be compelled to bear." 3 When Wentworth, who always prided himself on his party regularity, returned to Chicago, however, and the sense of disappointment at the suc- cess of the Kansas-Nebraska act subsided somewhat, the announcement followed that the policy of the democrats was to "beat the enemy handsomely-carry the state gloriously, and thus continue the ascendancy of Democratic principles in her councils." All this might be done if the Nebraska issue was ignored, if the slavery question was left where the national convention of 1852 left it. There were too many signs that this was not to be.4 Some Nebraska democrats were inclined to urge a policy of generosity, but under the influence of Doug-
1 Galena Jeffersonian clipped in Belleville Advocate, March 8, 1854.
2 Rock River Democrat, May 30, 1854-
3 Chicago Weekly Democrat, May 27, 1854.
4 Ibid., June 24, 1854; Chicago Daily Democratic Press, May 24, 1854; Joliet Signal, May 30, 1854.
125
I26
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
las a disposition developed to require approval of the new statute as proof of party orthodoxy. Through the pressure of Douglas' control over federal appointments and under the sting of the party lash, this spirit gained much headway in Illinois.
The issue was fought out in the county conventions pre- paratory to the fall elections. The anti-Nebraskaites pleaded against the application of new tests, but hamstring politicians by press-gang methods generally secured the desired indorse- ment of the Kansas-Nebraska act and of its author. Morgan county seems to have been the only central county where a con- vention frankly laid aside the new issue and applied only the traditional tests of democracy.5 The Nebraska test was applied everywhere in Egypt except in the Alton district; there the convention refused to indorse the Nebraska bill or even to pass a simple resolution of compliment to Douglas and was disrupted before making a nomination.6 In the Chicago dis- trict and elsewhere in the northern tier of counties, the Nebraska and anti-Nebraska forces fought out the issue in primary meetings and county conventions with varying results. When the Nebraskaites could not secure their way in open convention they often seceded and held rival meetings of their own to carry the contest up to the next step in the party organi- zation. The Galena Jeffersonian disgustedly proposed a state democratic convention to consider " formally excommunicating the adherents of Douglas' Nebraska scheme, from the great Democratic brotherhood." 7
It was not surprising that the younger democratic lead- ers-Lyman Trumbull, John M. Palmer, Colonel E. D. Taylor, John A. McClernand, and Jehu Baker-took issue with Douglas on the Kansas-Nebraska act; but it came with a shock when old conservatives like John Reynolds and Sidney Breese spoke out with equal vigor. Breese "repelled with scorn the attempt to foist this bastard plank into the Democratic creed." Even Senator Shields began to waver and the rumor
5 Morgan Journal, July 6, 1854.
6 Alton Courier, September 9, 1854; Chicago Daily Democratic Press, Sep- tember 30, 1854.
1 Galena Jeffersonian clipped in Ottawa Weekly Republican, September 16, 1854.
127
ORIGIN OF REPUBLICAN PARTY
circulated-which he felt in honor bound to deny -that in voting for the bill he merely obeyed the instructions of the legislature.8
Whig leaders directed a bold attack on their enemy; since assemblymen James W. Singleton, William H. Christy, and James M. Randolph had voted for the Nebraska resolutions, the Illinois Journal read the trio out of the party and, with the Chicago Tribune, proclaimed the whig party as the anti- Nebraska stronghold. Singleton unsilenced by the assaults of his party associates, O. H. Browning, and Archibald Williams, continued to defend the Kansas-Nebraska act in the neighbor- hood of Quincy. Minor whig politicians, restive under the yoke of the party moguls, protested as "national whigs" against the attempt to convert the party to any brand of aboli- tionism; a group of them formally renounced their connection with the old party to go for "Douglas, Kansas, and the Union." 9
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.