USA > Illinois > The era of the Civil War, 1848-1870 > Part 18
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
Douglas defeated the republicans for the right to take the lead in administering a rebuke to the proslavery position of the national administration. Republican leaders regretted that the profit to Douglas from the aid and comfort given him by their eastern associates had more than covered the loss of the " Buchaneers." 57 The latter indeed proved to be an impo- tent faction, strong in the post offices, but polling only two per cent of the total vote. The election of a democratic legislature did not absolutely guarantee the return of Douglas to the United States senate, for the "Danites" were determined to defeat Douglas and worked to tie up the legislature so that no choice of a senator could be made. Three holdover sen- ators were said to be national democrats; and also, it was claimed that, while the "Danites " had failed to elect any of their own legislative candidates, three or four representatives might be induced to see the danger of supporting the ambitious man whom the Buchanan administration considered the most dangerous enemy of the democratic party. Agents of the administration were said to have been sent to Springfield to influence members to shelve Douglas.58
Most democrats were too well aware, however, that the
57 J. M. Palmer to Trumbull, December 9, 1858, Trumbull manuscripts. 58 Chicago Herald clipped in Illinois State Journal, November 17, 1858; Ottawa Free Trader, January 7, 1859.
ISO
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
defeat of Douglas meant playing too much into the hands of the republicans; to the relief of Douglas' friends the joint bal- loting on January 6 revealed a rigid party line with all demo- cratic votes cast in his favor. "Glory to God and the Sucker Democracy, Douglas 54, Lincoln 41," was the word tele- graphed to Douglas. "Announcement followed by shouts of immense crowd present. Town wild with excitement. Demo- crats firing salute. Guns, music and whisky rampant." 59 Back over the wires to Springfield flashed the laconic comment of the victor, "Let the voice of the people rule."
59 C. H. Lanphier to Douglas, January 5, 1859, Lanphier manuscripts. The official vote was 54 to 46, House Journal, 1859, P. 32-33.
VIII. THE ELECTION OF IS60
D EMOCRATIC enjoyment of the fruits of the victory of 1858 was sharply interrupted by Governor Bissell's mes- sage of January 5, 1859. His review of the state's affairs- concise, clear, and convincing - revealed a sympathetic appre- ciation of all progressive movements at work in Illinois.1 To the democrats it came as a painful reminder not only that the popular vote was now in the hands of the republicans but that as a result the control of the legislature might slip out of their hands and with it the choice of the next United States senator. The demand for a new apportionment law furnished them an opportunity to try to save themselves from this calamity ; with- out consulting republican members of the committee, they at once constructed a gerrymandering apportionment bill that would sustain the ascendancy of their party and undertook to place it upon the statute books. Republican leaders fought it on the floor with every known filibustering device,2 for the proposition was regarded as worse than the infamous old measure that had defeated Lincoln. Despite all opposition and protest, however, it passed both houses by strict party vote and was sent to Governor Bissell. After holding it in his hands for several days the governor returned it with a stinging veto message. 3 In order to leave the house without a quorum, most of the republican members had withdrawn so that the democrats were unable to pass the bill over the veto. This revolutionary action forced the adjournment of the session without action on various appropriation items and on several hundred proposed bills.+
1 House Journal, 1859, p. 20-29.
2 Rockford Republican, February 3, 1859.
8 Illinois State Journal, February 23, 1859.
4 B. C. Cook to Trumbull, January 14, Trumbull to B. C. Cook, January 20, 1859, Trumbull manuscripts; Alton Courier, February 25, 1859; Chicago Press and Tribune, March 3, 1859; Ottawa Free Trader, March 12, 1859.
181
182
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
The summer of 1859, an off-year as far as elections were concerned, was devoid of any real political excitement. The municipal elections, which were held in the chief cities of the state during the spring months, resulted in significant republi- can victories in Chicago, Quincy, and Rockford." These were all regions of normal democratic strength, and these victories were held to foreshadow unmistakably the success of the repub- lican ticket in 1860. County elections in November had little significance since personal considerations generally overbore political preferences and party rules. In Ottawa, however, excitement was aroused by an attempted fugitive slave rendition which ended in a famous rescue case and as a result the repub- licans rallied to the polls to reverse a normal democratic major- ity.6 In the Springfield district a special congressional election resulted in a victory for John A. McClernand, democrat, over John M. Palmer, republican; in this as in the general political development the outcome was doubtless affected by the reaction that followed the John Brown raid on Harper's Ferry.7
Like wildfire the news of this astonishing attempt had spread over the country; John Brown, a fanatical abolitionist with some twenty men, black and white, had treasonably seized a United States arsenal, had raised the standard of revolt and liberation, had placed guns in the hands of Negroes-of slaves-and had sought to deal a blow at all the forces of law and order. Defeated in his mad purpose, he had fallen into the hands of the state authorities. What then did all this mean? Democrats, eager to exploit the inci- dent for political purposes, inquired peremptorily whether this revolutionary attempt could be construed as anything but the logical fruit of republicanism, of the "irrepressible conflict" doctrine of Abe Lincoln and Senator Seward! The republican party, they declared, means nothing more nor less than open defiance of the laws and authority of the United States and in the end, as a natural consequence, revolution and anarchy. After all, is there any real distinc-
5 Illinois State Journal, April 13, 27, May 18, 1859.
6 Ottawa Free Trader, November, 1859; Rockford Register, November 19, 1859.
" Illinois State Journal, November 2, 16, 1859.
183
THE ELECTION OF 1860
tion between abolitionists and "black" republicans on the subject of slavery ? 8
All this was extremely embarrassing to Illinois republicans, who had generally regarded the raid as the product of a dis- ordered brain. Unable adequately to refute these charges, they involuntarily became admirers of the bravery and daring involved in the exploit; if it was not the result of an insanity, for which allowances should be made, it was a new brand of courage such as the country had rarely known. John Brown was pictured as a mild, inoffensive, peaceable citizen trans- formed by his sufferings in Kansas at the hands of proslavery cutthroats into a patriarchal, though misguided, champion of freedom who planned to wreak a bloody revenge upon the institution of slavery. When with Spartan courage the stern old Puritan paid with his life the penalty for his rashness, the reaction became even more marked. Solemn public meetings of protest were held in several northern Illinois cities on the day of the execution, prayers were offered up for his soul, and the church bells tolled in commemoration of the martyr to the "irrepressible conflict."
As the campaign of 1860 drew near, Douglas made plans for his own presidential nomination and election. His political success since the Kansas-Nebraska act had been the result of a two-faced interpretation of his pet doctrine which gave him the advantage of appearing both to break down and to uphold the slave interest. His republican opponents realized, how- ever, that no ingenuity could long keep these antagonistic elements in harmony.º The Freeport doctrine had under- mined his popularity in the slave states. Southerners who accepted, as well as those who rejected his explanation, pointed out that it merely demonstrated the need of congress giving more adequate protection to slavery-in the territories- a tacit demand that Douglas accept the idea of congressional intervention to protect slavery. 10
8 Ottawa Free Trader, October 22, 29, 1859; Rockford Republican, Octo- ber 27, 1859; Mound City Emporium, November 3, 1859; Belleville Democrat, November 5, 1859; Joliet Signal, December 6, 1859.
Writings of Lincoln, 5: 18, 19.
10 Richmond Enquirer, September 10, clipped in Illinois State Journal, September 29, 1858.
184
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
Douglas was not prone to overlook the political necessity of courting the south. Promptly after his victory in Novem- ber, 1858, he had left for the southland, ostensibly on business and in pursuit of health, but in part to feel the pulse of the slave states. All his energies were bent toward making him- self agreeable to the hospitable planters who welcomed him; his references to the Dred Scott decision indicated unqualified acceptance, while the version of the Freeport doctrine which he presented was of innocuous innocence. He announced him- self in sympathy with the manifest destiny of the United States to acquire Mexico, Central America, and Cuba.
When he found, however, that the south was so far ready to accept him at his word as to look to him for a champion of congressional intervention to protect slavery, Douglas made haste to backwater. Only on the matter of Cuban annexation, which he had always supported, could he stand squarely with the southern democrats.11 For the rest he had hardly returned to Washington before he was breaking lances with Jefferson Davis and other southern democratic champions who argued in favor of protective legislation for slavery in the territories. 12 Douglas declared himself unwilling to support any proposi- tion to interfere with territorial regulation of property rights, whether in horses, mules, or Negroes; he was even unwilling to indorse congressional intervention to prevent polygamy in Utah. Further, in the face of a growing demand in the south for the reopening of the African slave trade, he placed himself on record as opposed to the illicit traffic that was beginning to assume such large proportions. The fact that he was by such a course manifestly alienating political support was made more potent by President Buchanan's efforts to stir up the southern democrats against him. Douglas' leadership of the democratic party the president persistently challenged; upon his arrival
11 His own party in Illinois backed him on this proposition. Joliet Signal, February 1, March 1, 1859. While republican leaders and journals naturally inclined to oppose, some felt that inasmuch as " acquisition is a trait of American character," it was good strategy to come out for territorial expansion and to lead off boldly for the spread of the free institutions of the country. Belleville Advocate, December 29, 1858, February 9, 1859; . Ilton Courier, January 21, 1859; J. M. Palmer to Trumbull, December 9, 1858 ; J. P. Cooper to Trumbull, December 14, 1858, Trumbull to B. C. Cook, January 20, 1859, Trumbull manuscripts.
12 Congressional Globe, 35 congress, 2 session, 1243-1245, 1259.
185
THE ELECTION OF 1860
in Washington the Illinoisian found that the democratic con- gressional caucus at Buchanan's instigation had deposed him from the chairmanship of the committee on territories.
Such a thrust must have rankled in the heart of the "little giant," especially since the practical issue before the country was the territorial question. To clear up his position on that subject Douglas wrote a labored exposition of his views for Harper's Magazine ; obviously facing northward, he sought to establish firmer constitutional foundation for the Freeport doc- trine. 13 Here at last, in Douglas' labors to maintain his strength north of Mason and Dixon's line, was a tacit admis- sion of the effect of the attacks of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, meanwhile, pressed the offensive; campaigning in Ohio in the fall of 1859, he made the point that Douglas' doctrine of unfriendly legislation was equivalent to saying that "a thing may be lawfully driven away from where it has the lawful right to be. " 14 At Cincinnati he analyzed Douglas' record in a speech which was printed with the title, "Douglas an enemy to the North. Reasons why the North should oppose Judge Douglas. His duplicity exposed." So scathing was the indict- ment that it was later circulated by Douglas' supporters in the south in order to win popularity there.
All these developments were bringing Lincoln into the limelight. Up to this time he had not been a prominent figure in national politics. To be sure, in the Philadelphia conven- tion of 1856 he had displayed strength in the race for vice presidential nomination, second only to the victor, William L. Dayton. Yet his name was not mentioned in connection with the presidency. As late as June, 1858, the republican delegates journeying to the state convention at Springfield had found from a straw vote that their preferences for the presidency were overwhelmingly for Seward; Lincoln received only a casual vote.15 The Lincoln-Douglas campaign, however, worked a revolution in sentiment, in large part because of the resentment of the Illinois leaders at the advice of eastern republicans that Douglas be returned to the senate. In view
13 Harper's Magazine, 19: 519-537.
14 Chicago Press and Tribune, October 6, 1859.
15 Missouri Republican, June 24, 1858, clipped in Sparks, Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, 3: 24.
186
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
of the feeling that "Seward, Greeley & Co." had materially contributed to Lincoln's defeat, the decision was reached that Illinois ought to throw its strength to anyone rather than Seward.16 Lincoln stock boomed immediately. After a few timid suggestions by party journals that Lincoln's name ought to have a place on the presidential ticket in 1860, the Olney Times, November 19, 1858, boldly printed "Abram Lincoln for President for 1860" at the head of its editorial columns. By the following summer Lincoln in the minds of Illinoisians had become first-rate presidential timber.17 Impressed with this development by the little coterie of Springfield politicians, he allowed himself to be groomed for the coming race, though he modestly admitted that he did not consider himself "fit for the Presidency." 18 The radical edges were- carefully smoothed off; he placed himself on record as opposed to the repeal of the fugitive slave law; in his Ohio speeches he sought to convince conservatives that his "house-divided " prophecy was neither novel nor sectional doctrine; he declared himself willing to support a national ticket in 1860 with the name of a southerner at either end. He assumed the rôle of peace- maker in the republican party. The German republicans were restless as a result of an amendment to the Massachusetts con- stitution, adopted, it was said, under republican auspices, which provided for political restrictions upon newly naturalized citi- zens. Lincoln therefore gave assurances that he was opposed to the Massachusetts provision; and the republican state com- mittee through its chairman, N. B. Judd, published a strong letter of repudiation.19 The conviction grew that "Old Abe" was the man about whom to rally to full strength of the repub- lican party. The republican club of Springfield resolved itself into a "Lincoln club" to use all honorable means to secure the nomination of Abraham Lincoln.20 The movement spread and Lincoln clubs appeared on every hand.
16 E. Peck to Trumbull, November 22, 1858, Trumbull manuscripts.
17 Chicago Democrat, November 11, 1858; Illinois State Journal, Novem- ber 17, 1858; Rockford Republican, December 9, 1858.
18 Writings of Lincoln, 5: 31.
19 Ibid., 5: 26; Koerner, Memoirs, 2: 75.
20 Canton Weekly Register, November 1, 1859; Aurora Beacon, Novem- ber 10, 1859; Central Illinois Gazette, December 7, 1859; Illinois State Journal, January 18, 1860.
187,
THE ELECTION OF 1860
Chief attention in national politics was centering on the fate of Douglas at the hands of the democratic party; the family quarrel was steadily growing more bitter and the two wings voiced their open defiance of each other. Douglas, charged with apostasy from the party creed and with a desire for self-aggrandizement, was convinced that the proper method to clear himself was to secure the democratic nomination at Charleston upon such a platform as he could accept. Though he stood firmly against congressional intervention in the terri- tories, he admitted the need of some measure to protect the states and territories against acts of violence like the Harper's Ferry conspiracy.21
The party machinery in Illinois was set in motion to enable Douglas to put his full strength into the field; a list of every able supporter who could be present at Charleston in the capacity of delegate or alternate was made up and completed at the state democratic convention.22 In order to outmaneuver the "nationals" the Douglas wing had fixed an early date of meeting, lest the latter might act first and set up an embar- rassing claim to speak for the Illinois democracy. On January 4, 1860, therefore, the Douglasite convention adopted resolu- tions which reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform of 1856, objected to any attempt to force upon the party new issues and new tests, and referred all controverted questions to the adjudication of the supreme court; it also pledged the Illinois democracy to support any candidate nominated at Charleston.23
The "Danites " held their conclave six days later and, as the Douglasites feared, selected a delegation to claim admission to the seats at Charleston allotted to Illinois. Their platform contained a clear-cut repudiation of the Freeport doctrine, affirmed the Calhoun theory, and upheld the decision of the supreme court in the case of Dred Scott; the policy of the Buchanan administration, especially on the slavery question, was given unqualified approval. There was a platform without equivocation : there was none of the trimming practiced by the
21 See his speech of January 23, 1860, Congressional Globe, 36 congress, I session, 553-555.
22 Douglas to Lanphier, October 1, 1859, January 1, 1860, Lanphier manu- scripts.
23 Illinois State Register, January 5, 1860.
188
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
Douglasites, "'here a streak of lean and there a streak of fat,' now 'a little turtle and now a little pork,'" as one critic put it; 24 but it was the work of an impotent and discontented minority destined to count for little in the active campaign.
These were practically the lines upon which the Charleston convention later divided and rent the party in twain. The Douglas platform underwent no change; it was the work of the Illinois democratic delegation in congress under the direc- tion of Senator Douglas himself. It represented every con- cession that it was deemed possible to make to the south; the Illinois delegation, moreover, was selected so as to include the " men with the best political record on the Slavery question," men " especially favorably known at the South." 25 The plat- form supported by the southern wing at Charleston covered the ground of the "Danite" resolutions, with an additional plank incorporating Jefferson Davis' declaration of the duty of congress to provide adequate protection to slave property in the territories. The leader of the Illinois Douglas delega- tion at Charleston was Colonel William A. Richardson, whose abilities in political management and manipulation were suffi- ciently recognized to give him the larger rôle of leader of the Douglas forces in general. Fresh from Washington and from close contact with Douglas, he conducted an aggressive cam- paign to capture the machinery of organization. In the preliminary skirmishing the Douglas men drew first blood; technical points were decided in their favor, and the conven- tion refused to admit the contesting " Danite " delegation from Illinois headed by Isaac Cook. The real test came on the adoption of a platform. Douglas had instructed Richardson to be prepared to withdraw his name in the event of a victory for the Davis doctrine. When, however, the southern majority report was rejected for the Douglas minority resolutions, the southern hotspurs voiced their defiance and promptly seceded. Under the two-thirds rule, the "rump" convention balloted in vain; Douglas led with a large majority until it was voted to adjourn to meet June 18 at Baltimore.
24 Illinois State Journal, January 18, 1860.
25 Douglas to Lanphier, October 1, December 31, 1859, January 1, 1860, Lanphier manuscripts.
189
THE ELECTION OF 1860
In the interim Lincoln had his innings. A fortunate com- bination of forces in Illinois operated to bring his name to the fore. There had been for some time a growing fear of Seward's radicalism with a consequent decline in the stock of the New York leader. Old-line whigs in the central part of the state had never been reconciled to Seward's strength; Egypt was beginning to break with the democracy, but any tendency to go over to the republicans would end if a candidate tainted with abolitionism headed the ticket. Conservative Illinois busi- ness men objected to Seward's analysis of "labor" states and "capital" or "slave" states, since there was more capital in good old New England than in the southern states combined ; 26 they inclined to favor Edward Bates of Missouri, but his name could not be considered if the votes of the Germans were to be obtained. The German vote preferred Seward or Fremont but would go enthusiastically for Lincoln.27 In fact Lincoln's moderation appealed to all factions, and his zealous supporters were meeting undreamed-of success. County convention after county convention indorsed his candidacy as the choice of the republican party. Encouraged by this success, his Illinois sup- porters began a quiet but active campaign in a larger field. They won a preliminary victory when Chicago was selected as the place of meeting of the national nominating convention, although at the time this city was considered fairly neutral ground, since Illinois was not yet, in national councils, regarded as having any strong presidential candidate. By March, how- ever, not only Illinois but a steadily widening circle of states in the northwest were flying Lincoln's colors. "It seems as if the whole West was about to rise en masse in favor of the nomination of Abraham Lincoln by the Chicago Convention. Never did the proposal of any man's name elicit such an over- whelming testimonial to his fitness and the propriety of his nomination. Paper after paper throughout not only Illinois but the whole northwest, has put his name at the mast head, until the ones which have not done so are the marked exceptions." 28
26 Russel Hinckley to Trumbull, March 28, 1860, Trumbull manuscripts.
27 G. Koerner to Trumbull, March 15, April 16, 1860, ibid.
28 Central Illinois Gazette, March 28, 1860.
190
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
State politics temporarily attracted the attention of the republicans from the developments in the national canvass. The previous winter had witnessed a sharp struggle in repub- lican circles over the gubernatorial nomination. Norman B. Judd, for sixteen years senator from Cook county, was put forward as the representative of the old democratic element of the party; his rival was Leonard Swett, who was cham- pioned by republicans of whig antecedents who claimed that the principle of rotation ought to be recognized in the governor- ship. Judd was the stronger and abler candidate but suffered from a set of scathing articles against him in the Chicago Democrat, which voiced the feelings of John Wentworth, his rival in the republican as of yore in the democratic ranks.29 The preconvention contest furnished an excellent opportunity for a dark horse to enter the field; one appeared in the person of Richard Yates of Jacksonville, a devoted and capable repub- lican, who had been a member of congress as a whig at the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. To the sur- prise of almost everyone, Judd was defeated when the repub- lican state convention was held at Decatur on May 9; and the nomination given to Yates. Francis H. Hoffman was nomi- nated for lieutenant governor by acclamation to honor the German vote that he represented. The rest of the state officers were renominated for their respective stations. The general platform reaffirmed the Bloomington and Springfield platforms of 1856 and 1858, declared against change in the naturaliza- tion laws and against discrimination between native born and naturalized citizens, commended the proposed homestead law, and demanded an economical administration of the state government.30
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.