USA > Illinois > The era of the Civil War, 1848-1870 > Part 17
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
The republicans, perceiving their disadvantage, were shrewd enough to propose a joint canvass in true western style. The challenge was promptly sent; 40 Douglas, who for some time feared that the administration candidate might ask admit- tance in order to wage common cause against his seat in the senate, reluctantly indicated a willingness to meet his opponent in each of the remaining congressional districts. He reserved the right to dictate the details: they were to meet at the towns of Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton; the opening speeches were to last one hour, the replies, one and a half, with a half hour rebuttal by the first speaker; Douglas was to have four openings and closes to Lincoln's three.
Meantime Douglas continued to meet his scheduled ap- pointments and Lincoln followed in his wake. Recognizing that it was in the doubtful central counties that the battle had
40 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 59; Illinois State Journal, August 4, 1858.
170
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
to be won or lost, the speech-making tours carried them to almost every town in that region. Douglas, with Lincoln dogging him persistently, addressed his constituents in 57 counties, making 59 set speeches of from two to three hours in length, 17 responses of from 25 to 45 minutes to serenaders, and 37 replies of about equal length to addresses of welcome. Of these speeches all but two were made in the open air, and seven were made or continued during heavy rains. In this tour Douglas crossed, from end to end, every railroad line in the state, excepting three, besides making long journeys by means of horse conveyances and steamboats. His road travels amounted to more than 5,227 miles; by boat he made almost the entire western side of the state and all that portion of the Illinois river which was navigable by steamboats. 41
The first joint debate took place at Ottawa on August 21. As was to be expected, the much heralded event attracted a large holiday crowd, the admirers of both contestants and the curious who were out for the excitement of the occasion. There was twice the noise and enthusiasm of previous meet- ings and after stirring preliminaries the debate began. This first encounter merely prepared the way for the contests that were to follow.
One feature of the debate at Ottawa was significant; Douglas in catechizing Lincoln respecting certain resolutions which he felt showed the dangerously radical character of the republican party, furnished a precedent that gave Lincoln his opportunity. At the second debate at Freeport he in turn put a set of four questions to Douglas; in the second he asked : "Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a State Constitution ? " 42 In this question, which demanded an affirmation or negative answer, Lincoln flashed before Douglas a two-edged sword; let Douglas seize it from either side to the destruction of his political ambidexterity! For him to deny the right would but confirm Lincoln's contention that popular sovereignty was as thin as broth made by boiling the
41 New York Times clipped in Illinois State Register, November 23, 1858. 42 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 90.
171
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES
shadow of a dove that had starved to death; while to affirm the right would alienate proslavery democrats in the south and in Illinois, who clung to the doctrine of the Dred Scott decision.
From previous statements made by Douglas, there could be little doubt that, with certain reservations to evade the lit- eral prohibition of the Dred Scott decision, his answer would be in the affirmative; he had already confronted and evaded the issue in his Springfield speech of June 12, 1857, and in his Bloomington speech of July 16, 1858, in both of which he had carefully elaborated the doctrine of local police regulations and of unfriendly legislation. Furthermore, since his imme- diate game was reelection to the senate, he had to retain the support of Illinois democrats who had been won by his demand for a virile popular sovereignty. Obvious as should have been Douglas' attitude, Lincoln wanted the satisfaction of compel- ling him to promulgate it in as conspicuous a fashion as pos- sible ; he wanted once and for all to cut him off from the asso- ciation and support of the proslavery democrats.
In his eagerness to lay the trap Lincoln seems to have over- looked the fact that at Freeport the audience was one of strong antislavery convictions; the more conservative voters were likely to be attracted by Douglas' explanation as to how slavery might be excluded. Since probably none of the other appointed places for joint debate would have been less favorable, it would, perhaps, have been the part of wisdom to select an audience more representative of the prejudices of old-line whig and national democrats, likely to be alienated by rather than attracted to Douglas' answer. But the Freeport crowd- 15,000 persons, report said-did furnish an opportunity to make Douglas expose his views to the light of pitiless pub- licity in a way that would make further evasion impossible.43
Douglas, without fear or hesitation, made a reply in terms of his doctrine of "unfriendly legislation" which became known immediately as the Freeport doctrine: "I answer em- phatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery
43 Chicago Press and Tribune clipped in Illinois State Journal, September 8, 1858.
172
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
from their limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution.
The people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery can- not exist a day or hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. These police regulations can only be established by the local legislature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the intro- duction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point." 44
No opportunity remained in that debate for Lincoln to present his refutation of this doctrine. His silence was inter- preted even by his friends as acknowledgment of his defeat before the logic of his rival.45 At later meetings, however, he undertook to expose the fallacy of Douglas' reply : slavery did have the vigor to exist, had existed in the past without such local protective legislation as Douglas held to be necessary ; was now, moreover, resistance to constitutional rights by un- friendly legislation a monstrous, anarchistic doctrine-as for himself he was for revising the decision; he could not believe there existed a constitutional right to hold slaves in a territory of the United States.
Over the map of Illinois, the struggle was waged. From the critical battle ground in the central counties they worked by slow stages down into Egypt as far as Jonesboro in Union county, where they faced the smallest audience of the joint debates. Then back they marched to Charleston in eastern Illinois; soon they were in the New England atmosphere of Knox county, which assembled in force at Galesburg. For pure oratory and logical synthesis the independent speeches often surpassed the joint debates: no debate was in itself a
44 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 95.
45 Contrary to popular opinion neither Lincoln nor his friends and sup- porters at this time dreamed that the future had in store for him a presidential career.
173
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES
unit, there were charges and countercharges, sturdy defense was followed by bitter attack, the opening of one debate was the rebuttal of the concluding speech of the preceding. With the closing words at the Alton meeting, October 15, some seri- ous stock-taking could be attempted, but scarcely before that time. Then it seemed that there was neither victor nor van- quished; the two giants appeared only the stronger for the combat that had closed.
Lincoln had a valuable ally in the person of Senator Trum- bull, whose analysis of Douglas' motives in opposing the Lecompton constitution was one of the most important features of the campaign. In speeches at Chicago, at Alton, at Jack- sonville, and at other points in Illinois he charged Douglas with having changed from ground which would have required him to support the Lecompton document to a position of opposition out of purely selfish political considerations. In June, 1856, Douglas, as chairman of the senate committee on territories, had, after consultation with Senator Toombs, struck out from Toombs' bill for the future admission of Kansas a clause providing for the submission of the constitution to the people for their ratification or rejection, and had substituted certain other clauses to prevent a popular vote.46 Corrobo- rative evidence that such was formerly the devotion of Stephen A. Douglas to popular sovereignty was found in his speech at Springfield in June, 1857, and in the declaration of Douglas' personal organ, the Chicago Times, that there would be about as much propriety in submitting the Lecompton constitution to a vote of the inhabitants of the Fiji Islands as to the " free- state men" of Kansas. Eventually these facts were acknowl- edged by democratic organs but they were never satisfactorily explained by Douglas.47
The republican journals took up Trumbull's charges and pressed his point. Evidence was presented that suggested an original sympathy on Douglas' part with the Lecompton method of ratification. It was generally understood at Spring- field and at other points that John Calhoun, the chairman of the
46 Congressional Globe, 35 congress, I session, 127, appendix, 799.
47 Chicago Times clipped in Illinois State Journal, July 29, 1857; Chicago Daily Times, August 13, 1858.
174
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
Lecompton convention, had written to Douglas in the month of September, 1857, asking the advice of his former chief as to the course to be pursued in the submission of the con- stitution. Representative Smith of Virginia made this charge on the floor of congress and declared that there was no evidence that Douglas had discouraged the Lecompton scheme. 48
Why then had Douglas shifted to his aggressive anti- Lecompton ground? Republicans were prone to believe that he had planned the Kansas " fraud" so as to give himself an opportunity to win applause by opposing the abortion. They could make out a plausible case to show that the Buchanan administration had been seeking to destroy the "little giant," that his friends had been neglected in appointments, and the claims of Illinois overlooked; therefore, not intending to be crushed by the administration, Douglas was seeking a basis for new political popularity, that he might maintain his position and groom himself for the presidency.49 Democratic critics, speaking with an air of authority of inside information, had added their testimony to confirm this explanation. Represen- tative Smith of Virginia and Representative Burnett of Ken- tucky had told of a conference of the Illinois democratic delegation at the opening of the session to mark out a course to pursue in order to secure the reelection of Douglas to the senate; in the conference it was determined that opposition to the Lecompton constitution was the only means by which Douglas could sustain himself at home.50 Here, then, an- nounced Trumbull, was the record of the man who stood as the champion of the fundamental principles of free govern- ment, of bona fide popular sovereignty ; these were the motives
48 Illinois State Journal, May 19, 1858. Two years later came unquestioned testimony from members of the convention that the form of submission deter- mined upon was believed by them to have been suggested by Douglas and was known as the " Douglas plan; " they testified that Calhoun had repeatedly referred to a letter in his possession written by Douglas, which authorized a statement of his approval and of his willingness to advocate its passage through congress. Only one member, however, testified to having seen the letter; he was the proposed candidate for lieutenant governor under the new constitution. New Orleans Delta, October 16, 1860, clipped in Canton Weekly Register, October 26, 1860; Aurora Beacon, October 18, 1860.
49 M. W. Delahay to Trumbull, November 28, 1857, Trumbull manuscripts; Chicago Journal clipped in Illinois State Journal, October 14, 1857.
50 Congressional Globe, 35 congress, I session, 1392; Illinois State Journal, April 7, September 1, 1858.
175
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES
of the hero who was braving unpopularity to declare the Lecompton mode of submission a mockery and an insult, who had recorded his preferences for private life in order to pre- serve his own self-respect and manhood to abject and servile submission to executive will.
While the romance of the campaign centered about the figures of Lincoln and Douglas, much of the real work had to be done by the journalists on both sides. . Very inadequate reports of the debates and speeches were printed, but the more effective points made on the platform were sorted out and driven home to the rank and file through the medium of the editorial page. First, an analysis was made of the field of activity. Shrewd politicians on both sides recognized that the independent vote, of great strength in the central counties, where a slight shift would throw the majority to one side or the other, was certain to determine the outcome of the elec- tion. A circle of counties reaching not more than eighty miles from the capital-including especially Sangamon, Morgan, Mason, Logan, and Madison-constituted the real battle- ground; here lived many old-line whigs-timid, shrinking, but able men, from Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and from other southern states.
Democratic editors expressed their confidence that old-line whigs were generally union men and opposed to sectional strife and the doctrine of Negro equality ;51 they could have but little sympathy with " nigger-stealers," "abolitionists," and "incen- diaries." Whigs were assured that the republican machinery was under abolition control. Did not the nomination of Owen Lovejoy, the abolitionist, for congress over Judge Norton, Churchill Coffing, and T. L. Dickey prove it? Did not the revolt headed by Coffing and Dickey against the now abolition- ized republican party prove it? Nine-tenths of the old-line whigs were for Douglas and democracy : there were such men as Cyrus Edwards of Madison who had repeatedly been the whig candidate for governor and United States senator ; Edwin
51 They tried to leave no doubt that the latter was a cardinal doctrine of the republican party. "Keep it before the people of Illinois," they shouted, "that the Abolition-Republican party headed by Abraham Lincoln, are in favor of negro equality, and claim that the Declaration of Independence included the negroes as well as the whites." Illinois State Register, October 13, 1858.
176
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
B. Webb, the last whig candidate for governor; Buckner S. Morris, the last American candidate for governor; John T. Stuart, once a whig representative in congress ; and James W. Singleton, the confidential friend of Clay.52 In Douglas they would find the true successor of Henry Clay; Lincoln was of the same stripe as William Lloyd Garrison, and believed in rooting out slavery from the union by fire and sword.
For their part, republicans pointed out that all Lincoln's past political connections had been with whigs and that he had been an ardent friend and supporter of Henry Clay; in 1844 he had stumped the state for Clay and traveled some four hundred miles on a speech-making tour in Indiana while Douglas was vociferating all over Illinois that Henry Clay had sold his country to Great Britain, that he was a drunkard, a liar, a gambler, and a grossly and notoriously licentious person. Lincoln had clung to that connection even after the anti-Nebraska revolt, down to the Bloomington convention itself. Identified all his life long with the old whig party, he now stood on true Henry Clay ground. He was not an imprac- ticable abolitionist as misrepresented by Douglas ; he conceded the right of each state to regulate slavery itself and had never accepted the Negro equality doctrine. Old whig leaders recog- nized the logic of an affiliation with Lincoln and the republican party -Joseph Gillespie, of Madison, had announced that the position of the republican party harmonized with that of old line whigs better than that of Douglas and the democracy ; and W. W. Danenhower had written a strong letter urging Americans and whigs to vote against Douglas.53
Special appeals were made also to the remnants of the American party, for they together with the whigs had in 1856 cast a vote of over 35,000 for Fillmore; the support of this body of voters was absolutely necessary to develop a winning side. Douglas interlarded his speeches with praise of that
52 Our Constitution, October 23, 1858; Joliet Signal, October 20, 1850; Ottawa Free Trader, August 21, 1858. Senator J. J. Crittenden of Kentucky, the friend and associate of Clay, having cooperated with Douglas in the anti- Lecompton fight, was named as a supporter of Douglas' candidacy. T. Lyle Dickey to Crittenden, July 19, 1858, Herndon to Crittenden, November 1, 1858, Crittenden manuscripts.
53 Joseph Gillespie to Sidney Todd, August 20, 1858; Belleville Advocate, September 22, 1858; Rockford Register, October 30, 1858.
177
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES
" noble band of Americans in the late Congress that opposed Lecompton; " republicans replied by reminding Americans that Douglas had been an early and persistent foe of know nothing- ism. The tendency of these conservative voters was to hold aloof from republican radicalism, and the democrats pressed their advantage by placing former know nothings on their legislative tickets. The republicans in alarm also threw out political sops to attract American support, while they pointed to the Roman Catholic allies of Douglas as evidence of the old union between popery and the slavery propaganda.
Meantime the foreign born voters were prepared for their part in the campaign. Most protestant Germans had by this time become thoroughly attached to the republican cause. They were still subject to appeals from the party of their former allegiance, but the eloquence of leaders like Koerner, Hecker, and Hoffman kept them from wavering. 'Carl Shurz, more- over, came to Illinois to take the stump and aroused consid- erable enthusiasm. Like most of their countrymen the French voters of Chicago, numbering about 400, were largely repub- licans; in Kankakee where they held the balance of power,
their organ, the Journal de L'Illinois, insured for Lincoln the votes of the French population. The Scandinavians of Chicago were generally Lincoln supporters. Against all these, the democrats balanced the Irish vote which was a power in Chicago and in other centers.
The closeness of the fight in the central counties furnished a serious temptation to party politicians. In the closing months of the campaign, both republican and administration demo- cratic journals detailed charges that the Douglas organization had made preparations to colonize doubtful counties with float- ing voters. Evidence was submitted that Irish laborers drawn from Chicago, northern Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and St. Louis were being shipped by the railroads, ostensibly as rail- road hands, to such points as Mattoon, Champaign, Peoria, Carlinville, Bloomington, and Virginia.5+ Governor Matteson, who was interested in the St. Louis and Alton railroad, was said to be party to these colonization schemes. Douglas was baldly characterized as the agent and tool of the Illinois Cen-
54 Tracy, Uncollected Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 93-94.
178
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
tral, that giant monopoly whose interests would one day be found to be diametrically opposed to the best interests of the people of Illinois. It was extensively rumored that the agents of Douglas had appealed to the Tammany Society of New York for material aid and that this organization had set aside $50,000 for the Douglas campaign.55 " Look out for fraudu- lent votes" was the warning cry sounded by republicans everywhere.
Douglas' chief problem, growing out of the split of the democracy, was to maintain control of Egypt, where there were numerous signs of administration strength. An eleventh hour attempt to play the rôle of peacemaker and to close the schism was undertaken by Alexander H. Stephens, the Georgia congressman, friend of Buchanan and of Douglas. When his mission failed, democratic leaders from the southern border states began to pour into Illinois; ex-Senator Jones of Tennes- see, an ex-whig, was one of a large number of slave state democrats who mounted the hustings in Illinois in behalf of Douglas ; by the first of November it was stated that " no less than 41 slave holders" were campaigning for the "little giant." 56
Lincoln was pictured by his opponents as a politician hav- ing little claim to the support of the people of Illinois. In twenty years of unlimited opportunities for public service he had never initiated or seriously influenced the enactment of any measure which had contributed in any substantial fashion to the welfare of the state, or even of the nation. His most conspicuous stand in congress was declared to have been his emphatic opposition to the Mexican War; he was falsely charged with having even voted against sending supplies to the American army in Mexico.
Election day arrived November 2, cold, wet, and raw. The fair weather brigade, preferring the comforts of the fireside to a walk or ride of a mile or more in the rain, was with dif- ficulty induced to present itself at the polls in force. This was especially disastrous to the republican party which seemed to
55 Rockford Republican, September 16, 1858; Chicago Press and Tribune, September 10, 1858; New York Herald, September 15, 1858.
56 Chicago Democrat, November 1, 1858.
JO DAVIES8
ASTEPHENSON WINNEBAGO
MCHENRY LAKE
CARROLL
GLE
DE KALPO
KANE
WHITESIDE
OU PAGEY
COOK
ROCK ISLAND
URLAU
HENRY
LA SALLE
MERCER
GRUNDY
UTNAN
STARE
VIENDERSON
WARREN
KNOX
5
PEORIA
WOODFORD
LIVINGSTON
IROQUOIS
HANCOCK MCDONOUGH
TULTON
TAZEWELL
McLEAN
SCHUYLER
MASON
13
LOGAN
ADAMS
BROWN
CASS
PLATT
MACON
SANCARON
MORGAN
PIKE
SCOTT
COLES
EDGAR
CHRISTIAN
GREENE
ALHOUN
UMBERLAND
CLARK
Vote for Congressmen 1858
FAYETTE EFFINGHAM
JASPER
MADISON
CRAWFORD
Democratic ( Douglas faction )
CLINTON
MARION
RICHLAND
ST CLAIR
WAYNE
WASHINGTON
MONROE
JEFFERSON
Over 75Cc
RANDOLPH
PERRY
HAMILTON
WHITE
-
65-75℃
JACKSON
CALLLANSON
a
55-65℃
UNION
BARDIN
JOHNSON POPB
Less than 5℃
ALEXAN OLR
PULASKI
Administration · Democratic vote over 5%
SHELBY
MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
JERSEY
FOND
Republican
CLAY
LAWRENCE
EDWARDS 1WABASH
GALLATIN
SALINE
KENDALL
WILL
MARSBALL
KANKAKEE
CHAMPAICH VERMILION
DOUGLA
BOONE
FJO DAVIES8
STEPHENSON WINNEBAGO
BOONE
MCHENRY LAKE
CARROLL
OGLE
DE KADEN
2
DU PAGE
WIUTESIDE
LEE
KENDALL
20
ROCK ISLAND
BUREAU
LA SALLE
HENRY
ORUNDY
B MERCER
PUTNAM
STARE
MARSHALL
VIENDERSON
WARREN
FKNOX
S
WOODFORD
PEORIA
IROQUOIS
HANCOCK
MCDONOUGH
FULTON
TAZEWELL
McLEAN
MASON
SCHUYLER
ODE WITT-
ADAMS
BROWN
CASS
PLATT
MACON
SANCANOR
DOUGLAS
COLES
EDOAR
PIKER
SCOTT
CHRISTIAN
COLLE
GREENE
SHELBY
HETCLARK
HOU
JERSEY
EFFINGHAM
JASPER
CRAWFORD
BOND
MADISON
CLAY
RICHLAND
CLINTON
ST CLAIR
WAYNE
WASHINGTON
JEFFERSON
MONROE
Over 75 %
RANDOLPH
PERRY
HITE
65-75%
JACKSON
SALINE
OALLATIN
55-65%
HARDIN
UNION
JOHNSON
POPE
Less than 5%
ALEXAN IDER
PULASKI
MAASACS
Administration - Democratic vote over 5%
-
Vote for Congressmen 1858
MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY
UMBERL
Democratic (Douglas faction )
Republican
PWARDS
WABASH
LAWRENCE
MARION
YOU TRIE
CHAMPAJON VERMILION
MENARD
LOGAN
13
LIVINGSTON
WILL
10
KANKAKEE
MORGAN
FAYETTE
HAMILTON
17.9
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES
have inherited the old whig love of ease in bad weather; the loss of votes was reckoned at fully 10,000. As the election returns came in it became evident first that the republicans had carried Chicago, then that Douglas had been given a majority in both branches of the legislature, although the two republican candidates for state office were elected, indicating that Illinois had at length become a full-fledged republican state.
An analysis of the vote for legislature, moreover, showed that the republican members of the new assembly represented a population larger than the democratic members. This was because an antique apportionment law based upon data that had ceased to be facts eight years before compelled the north- ern counties to produce 1,000 votes to offset 750 in the southern section; this had made the election a contest of Egypt against Canaan; Egypt was returned the victor.
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.