While the Supreme Court was dedicating the Territories to slavery
and Douglas was preaching local nullification, anarchy continued
its delirious dance in Kansas. Guerilla warfare continued to vex
the Territory as with unconscious humor the settlers illustrated
the doctrine of popular sovereignty in practical operation.
On January 12th, 1857, the legislature met at Lecompton. On the
same day the pro-slavery party held a convention in which it was
decided that it was useless to continue the struggle. But the
more active and determined leaders were not so easily discouraged
and decided with the aid of the Administration to force a pro-slavery
Constitution upon the people and drag the young Commonwealth into
the Union as a slave State. By the middle of February a bill
passed the legislature providing for the holding of a Constitutional
Convention. It made no provision for submitting the Constitution
to a vote. Governor Geary vetoed it. The bill was at once passed
over the veto. The election of delegates to the Convention was
set for the 15th of June.
Among the earliest acts of the new President was the appointment
of Ex-Senator Robert J. Walker of Mississippi as Governor of the
Territory. Before going to his post of duty, Walker visited Douglas
at Chicago for counsel and showed him his inaugural address, in
which he declared that any Constitution adopted must be submitted
to a vote of the resident citizens of the Territory. Douglas
heartily approved this and with all sincerity wished the new Governor
God-speed in his perilous enterprise. Walker arrived late in May.
In the name of the President he promised that the election of
delegates to the Convention should be free from fraud and violence
and that the Constitution should be fairly submitted to a vote.
Buchanan assured him that on the question of submitting the
Constitution to the bona fide resident settlers he was willing to
stand or fall.
When the election was held the Republicans, who numbered at least
two-thirds of the voters of the Territory, committed the blunder
of refusing to vote. It was within their power to control the
Convention and dictate the Constitution. But their bitter experience
had produced utter distrust of the Federal Government and silent
rebellion against it. They had organized themselves into a band of
rebels bent on maintaining their free State. The election resulted
in the choice of a majority of rabid pro-slavery delegates.
The Convention which met on October 19th produced a unique
Constitution, declaring that the right of property was before and
higher than any constitutional sanction, that the right of the
owner of a slave to such slave and his increase was the same and
as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever,
and provided that it could not be amended before 1865, and then
could not interfere with slavery. With exquisite ingenuity it was
decided to call an election on December 21st and let the people
vote on the question whether they were "for the Constitution with
slavery," or "for the Constitution with no slavery." No vote
against the Constitution was permitted. To make assurance doubly
sure, it was provided that, if "the Constitution with no slavery"
carried, slavery should not exist in the State except that the right
of property in slaves then in the Territory should in no measure
be interfered with.
Walker denounced it as a fraud. Buchanan in his feeble way intended
at fist to support him. But the Southern hotspurs, who understood
the vacillating old man, threatened secession and general ruin
unless he adopted their program. He yielded and threw the whole
influence of his office for the admission of the State with this
Constitution.
But this was too much for the patient Northern Democrats. Murmurs
of criticism, swelling to shouts of denunciation, were heard in
the North without much regard to politics. Douglas, who was in
Chicago when the news arrived of the attempted swindle, immediately
denounced it and promised his strenuous opposition. The situation
of Kansas was tragical. But that of Douglas was still more so. He
had staked his standing as a statesman upon the establishment of
the right of the settlers to mould their own institutions and had
successfully urged the election of Buchanan on the solemn pledge that
the principle of popular sovereignty would be faithfully applied.
He had reached the parting of the ways. At the last election Michigan
had defeated Cass for his political sins and elected the radical
Chandler in his place. Would Illinois' patience last forever? Was
it certain that the cool, deep-plotting Lincoln would not succeed
in overthrowing his power if he accepted the program of his party?
He must stand for reelection next year and Illinois sentiment
could not be trifled with now. The rebellion of Northern Democrats
against Southern policies was not limited to Michigan. If he would
be President, he must retain his Northern Democratic support. He
would gladly have the South, but he must have Illinois.
Already history has rendered a divided verdict upon this period
of his life. He heartily abhorred the Kansas fraud and would
really have liked to see the people given a fair chance to make a
government for themselves. He believed in fair play and despised
sharp practice and pettifogging tricks. He had the sincere faith
in popular wisdom and virtue characteristic of the West. His
cherished doctrine had been embodied in a ghastly abortion. His
pledge to the people had been shamelessly broken. While the course
of honor happened to be that of prudence, Douglas was not incapable
of choosing it from pure and unselfish patriotism.
The people of Kansas, outraged by the proceedings of the Convention,
in large numbers petitioned the Governor to call a special session
of the legislature to remedy the wrong. He summoned it to meet
December 7th and it at once ordered the whole Constitution submitted
to the people on January 4th. The election ordered by the Convention
was held on December 21st. The free-State people declined to vote.
"The Constitution with slavery" carried by a vote of 6,143 to 589.
On January 4th the pro-slavery men took part in the election of
State officers, but refused to vote on the Constitution, holding
that the legislature had no power to submit it. More than ten
thousand votes were cast against the Constitution and another set
of officers for an imaginary state selected.
The Constitution was sent to Buchanan to be submitted to Congress.
This was the beginning of Douglas' official relation to the affair.
Congress met on the 5th of December. When Douglas reached Washington
he called on the President to discuss the program for the winter.
He told him that it would never do to send the Constitution to Congress
for approval. It violated the plighted faith of the President and
his party. His advice was that it be summarily rejected. Buchanan
must submit it and recommend its approval. Douglas told him he
would denounce it in the Senate. The President, excited and alarmed,
rose from his seat and said, with great solemnity:
"Mr. Douglas, I desire you to remember that no Democrat ever yet
differed from an Administration of his own choice without being
crushed;" then he bade him beware of the fate of certain noted
insurgents in the old Jackson-VanBuren days.
"Mr. President," replied Douglas, "I wish you to remember that
General Jackson is dead."
On the 8th of December Buchanan transmitted his first message to
Congress, which satisfied the world that he had abandoned such faint
convictions as he had theretofore had and surrendered unconditionally
to the South. He confessed that he had formerly pledged himself
that the Constitution should be submitted to a vote of the people.
But he said he had reached the conclusion that the only question
upon which it was important to take the popular judgement was that
of slavery. This question could not be more clearly or distinctly
submitted than it would be under the ordinance of the Convention on
December 21st. Should the Constitution without slavery be adopted,
it, of course guarded the right of property in all slaves then in
the Territory; but that was only common justice.
It was a great day in Washington. As a leading statesman declared,
"the Administration had staked their all upon sustaining the Kansas
Constitution, * * * * but Douglas was against it, decidedly, but
not extravagantly." It was felt that a great storm was brewing,
but of so uncertain and mysterious a character that no one knew what
to expect. Douglas, who had theretofore scoffed at moral ideas in
politics, had turned stern moralist, though still protesting his
old cynical indifference, and was declaring inexpiable war on those
whose champion he had been on a hundred hard fought fields. And
strange to say, the allies with whom he was now to join hands, were
Seward and Hale, perhaps even Chase and Sumner.
When the message was read on the 8th, he moved that 15,000 extra
copies of it be printed for the use of the Senate and announced his
intention to attack that part of it relating to Kansas. The next
day when he rose to speak the galleries were thronged with an
eager multitude. He congratulated the country that the President
had not endorsed the Constitution or recommended its approval, but
had only expressed his own satisfaction with it. He patronizingly
apologized for Buchanan's error in supposing that the Kansas-Nebraska
act provided only for the submission of the slavery question to a
vote, recalling the fact that, at the time that act was passed he
was representing the country with great wisdom and distinction at
a foreign court and had never given the matter serious thought.
They had, in fact, repealed the Missouri Compromise and justified
it everywhere on the ground that the people of the Territories had
the right to form all their institutions according to their will.
The President's later doctrine was in error, radical, fundamental,
subversive of the platform on which he was elected. His suggestion
that the Convention, throughout the territorial legislature, had the
implied sanction of Congress, was without foundation. The Toombs
bill expressly authorizing the calling of a Convention had recently
passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House, clearly indicating
that Congress disapproved it. The legislature could not give consent
for Congress which it had itself refused. The Administration of
Jackson solemnly decided in the case of Arkansas that a Territory
had no right to hold a Constitutional Convention until Congress
passed an act authorizing it. The Lecompton Convention differed
from the Topeka Convention only in this; that the latter was called
in opposition to the will of the legislature, while the former was
sanctioned by it. But that body was utterly without authority in
the matter until Congress empowered it to act.
When the delegates to this Convention were elected everyone supposed
that their work would be submitted to a vote. The President and
his Cabinet so understood it. Governor Walker so understood it
and pledged his own word and that of the President that it would
be submitted. A form of submission had been devised such that all
men might come forward freely and vote for the Constitution and no
man was permitted to vote against it. This resembled the French
election when the First Consul sent the soldiers to the polls telling
them to vote just as they pleased; but adding, "if you vote for
Napoleon all is well; if you vote against him you will be shot."
The objection to submitting the Constitution to a vote was that it
would be voted down.
"Sir," he said, "my honor is pledged; and before it shall be tarnished
I will take whatever consequences personal to myself may come; but
never ask me to do an act which the President in his message has
said is a forfeiture of faith, a violation of honor. * * * I will
go as far as any of you to save the party. I have as much heart in
the great cause that binds us together as any man living. I will
sacrifice anything short of principle and honor for the peace of
the party; but if the party will not stand by its principles, its
faith, its pledges, I will stand there and abide whatever consequences
may result from the position. * * * It is none of my business
which way the slavery clause is decided. I care not whether it is
voted up or voted down."
He urged the wisdom of passing a fair enabling act authorizing the
people to hold a Constitutional Convention and providing for the
submission of its work to the people and the orderly admission
of the State. "But if this Constitution is to be forced down our
throats," he continued, "in violation of the fundamental principles
of free government, under a mode of submission that is a mockery
and an insult, I will resist it to the last. I have no fear of
any party associations being severed; * * * but if it must be, if
I cannot act with you and preserve my faith and honor, I will stand
on the great principle of popular sovereignty which declares the
right of all people to be left perfectly free to form and regulate
their institutions in their own way."
This remarkable speech was recognized by all who heard it as
marking an epoch, not merely in the life of the orator, but in the
evolution of party politics at a time when parties were bending
in death grapple and them most portentous civil war in history
was looming in the distance. The speech was a clean, powerful,
dispassionate argument delivered with an air of dignity and fortitude
that greatly mollified the hearts of his old enemies.
Bigler of Pennsylvania, rising to defend the President, reminded
the Senate that only a short year ago Douglas had voted for the
Toombs bill, which provided for the holding of a Constitutional
Convention without submitting its work to the people. Douglas
protested that he did not so understand the bill and challenged
Bigler for evidence that a single Senator so understood it. A
remarkable dialogue followed. Bigler, who was a Democrat and a
humble admirer of Douglas, said:
"I was present when that subject was discussed by Senators before
the bill was introduced, and the question whether the Constitution
when formed should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was
held by those most intelligent on the subject that * * * it would
be better that there should be no (such) provision in the Toombs
bill; and it was my understanding * * * that the Convention would
make a Constitution and send it here without submitting it to the
popular vote."
Douglas inquired, angrily, whether he meant to insinuate that he had
been present at any such conference. Bigler hesitated and sought
to avoid the disclosure of the proceedings at their secret caucus,
but Douglas impetuously released him from all secrecy and challenged
him, if he knew, to declare, that, directly or indirectly, publicly or
privately, anywhere on the face of the earth, he was ever present
at such a consultation when it was called to his attention and
he agreed to approve a Constitution without submitting it to the
people.
Bigler, who had an uneasy suspicion that he was improperly disclosing
party secrets, could not decline the challenge, and replied that he
remembered very well that the question was discussed at a conference
held at Douglas' own house. "It was then urged," he said, "by
Toombs, that there should be no provision for the submission of the
Constitution to the people." He did not remember whether Douglas
took part in the discussion, but his own understanding of the
sense of the caucus was that the Convention should have the right
to make a Constitution and send it directly to Congress for approval.
Douglas protested that he was innocent of any such conspiracy. He
confessed that his attention was called to the fact that no provision
was made in the Toombs bill for the submission of the Constitution,
but his understanding was that, powers not delegated being reserved,
it would, of course, be submitted. Bigler reminded him that, while
he had taken this for granted in the case of Kansas, he had about
the same time drafted a bill for the admission of Minnesota in
which he took care to provide in express terms that the Constitution
must be submitted. If he then thought general principles of law
secured the submission of the Kansas Constitution without providing
for it in the enabling act, why this care to expressly provide for
it in the Minnesota act?
He was now swimming amid perilous breakers. He had thrown down
the gage of battle to his party. In the twinkling of an eye he was
transformed from recognized chief to a rebel; but he was isolated
and unsupported. He could not consort with Republicans. The
rankling wounds of the by-gone years could not heal so suddenly.
Moreover, he did not want their society. He intended to remain
a Democrat and hoped to force upon his party such policies that
Illinois and the Northwest would be solidly at his back. With the
Democratic States of the North standing firmly with him he could
still dictate terms to the South, which would have to choose between
Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans.