Although victorious in the greatest battle of his life the position
of Douglas was not easy. The people of Illinois were evidently no
longer in sympathy with him. The Buchanan Administration and the
Southern extremists had openly declared war on him for his cool
indifference to the special interests of the South, his carelessness
whether slavery was voted up or voted down in the Territories, and
his hostility to their plans for planting it in Kansas. He was
preparing for his last struggle for the Presidency. Having won
this doubtful victory at home, he decided to make a tour of the
South in the hope of stimulating its waning enthusiasm. In order
to hold the Senatorship it had been necessary to please Illinois,
even though the South were alienated. In order to win the Presidency
he now resolved to satisfy the South, even though he offended
Illinois. Moreover, being at war with the Administration, he
hoped to return to Washington with the prestige of a re-election
and a great Southern ovation. He intended to force Buchanan and
his Cabinet to sue for peace. He was political strategist enough
to understand the importance of a bold front and an imposing display
of power at the outset of his next campaign.
He took boat at St. Louis for New Orleans and enjoyed the leisurely
autumn trip down the River. He spoke at Memphis on November
29th, and at New Orleans on December 6th. He sailed to Havana and
thence to New York, where he received a royal welcome. On reaching
Philadelphia he was formally welcomed at Independence Hall. He
then went to Baltimore and spoke in Monument Square on the evening
of January 5th, returning to Washington next day. On the 10th he
resumed his seat in the Senate.
He had told the people of Illinois that, in spite of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court, the President and Congress, it was within the
power of the inhabitants of a Territory to prohibit slavery by their
unfriendly attitude. This doctrine was utterly abhorrent to the
South, which now rested its entire case on the judicial interpretation
of the Constitution and regarded all attempts to evade the full
force of the Dred Scott decision as little less than treason. The
net result of the struggles of a decade had been the establishment
of a principle that the Constitution carried slavery with it wherever
it went. To lightly treat the Constitution as a thing that could
be quietly defied and annulled by the squatters, was to strip their
great victory of all value and snatch from them the fruit of their
labors. Had this doctrine of local nullification been sound, it
was not to be expected that it would be received with enthusiasm
or even with patience by men whose dearest hopes it must obviously
defeat and whose subtle art and long protracted labors it utterly
thwarted. But that daring sophism which attacked the very foundation
of all legal authority, did violence to every sound principle of
philosophy, and was utterly subversive of the peculiar and cherished
doctrines of the South, should have been resorted to by Douglas to
avoid defeat in Illinois, was viewed as a shameless outrage. It
was believed that he had sacrificed their sacred cause in order to
avoid a local reverse; that his seat in the Senate was dearer to
him than their most valued interests.
It was probable that in his eagerness to win the Illinois campaign
he had not considered seriously the irreconcilable repugnance of
his distinctive dogma to the compact body of Southern political
philosophy. It was now necessary to present it to the South in
such dress that it might, if possible, gain acceptance, at least
that it might not shock the deepest prejudices of that section.
In addressing his Southern audiences he attempted to take the
sting out of his obnoxious doctrine by showing that it was entirely
harmless. The people of the Territories, he said, doubtless had
the practical power, in spite of the Constitution, statutes and
decisions, to exclude slavery by their unfriendly attitude toward
it. But what would determine their attitude? Clearly their selfish
interests. If slavery would be profitable, their attitude would be
friendly and it would take root and flourish under the protection of
the law. If by reason of soil or climate it would be unprofitable,
their attitude would be unfriendly and neither laws nor Constitutions
could successfully foster it. But it could not injure the South
to exclude slavery from regions where it could only be maintained
at a loss. It was not a question of ethics, but purely of physical
geography. Where soil and climate rendered it profitable, it would
spring up in precisely the same way as pine trees or maize.
But it was clear to his keen eye that these feats of ingenuity
were taken at their real worth. While the people treated him with
gracious courtesy, they prudently reserved their judgement. They
paid generous honor to the great leader whom they would gladly use
but dared not trust. He had chosen to hold Illinois and had lost
the South.
While he was vainly trying to woo back the alienated South,
a significant event occurred in Washington. When the Senate was
organized during his absence, he was removed from the chairmanship
of the Committee on Territories, which he had held since his first
election. This was done by the Democratic caucus and indicated a
deeper resentment than he had suspected. The Puritans of Illinois
had once risen in insurrection against him. The Cavaliers of the
South were now sternly protesting against his easy political morals.
For six weeks he preserved almost complete silence. His situation
was anomalous. The quarrel with the Administration was implacable.
A few months before, the Republicans were inclined to court him;
but the desperate battle with Lincoln had made it clear that his
quarrel with them was on perennial questions of principle. Solitary
and out of touch with all parties, he was yet recognized as the
chief of the Northern Democrats and a formidable candidate for the
Presidency.
While diplomatically awaiting developments, he was suddenly drawn into
an important debate. On February 23rd Senator Brown of Mississippi
discussed with great plainness his attitude on the slavery question.
With ill concealed contempt for men whose opinions shaped themselves
to suit the demands of political strategy he said:
"I at least am no spoilsman. I would rather settle one sound
principle in a presidential contest than secure all the patronage
of all the Presidents who have ever been elected to or retired
from the office. * * * The Constitution never gave us rights and
denied us the means of protecting and defending those rights. The
Supreme Court has decided that we have a right to carry our slaves
into the Territories and, necessarily, to have them protected after
we get there. * * * I neither want to cheat nor to be cheated in
the great contest that is to come off in 1860. * * * I think I
understand the position of the Senator from Illinois and I dissent
from it. * * * He thinks that a territorial legislature may, by
non-action or unfriendly action, rightfully exclude slavery. I
do not think so. * * * * The Senator from Illinois thinks the
territorial legislature has the right, by non-action or by unfriendly
action to exclude us with our slaves. * * * We have a right of
protection for our slave property in the Territories. The Constitution
as expounded by the Supreme Court awards it. We demand it, and we
mean to have it."
Douglas at once answered. He said that his obnoxious doctrine
only meant that the territorial legislature by the exercise of the
taxing power and other functions within the limits of the Constitution
could adopt unfriendly legislation which would practically drive
slavery out. The real demand of the South was for a congressional
slave code for the Territories. But no Northern man, whether Democrat
or Republican, would ever vote for such a code. The inhabitants
would protect slavery if they wanted it, if the climate were
such that they could not cultivate the soil without it. It was a
question of climate, of production, of self-interest, and not of
constitutional law. The slave owner had no higher rights than the
owner of liquor or inferior cattle, which the territorial legislature
could exclude. Under the doctrine of the Kansas-Nebraska act the
Territories had the right to pass such laws as they pleased, subject
only to the Constitution.
If their laws conflicted with that it was the business, not of
Congress, but of the Courts to decide their nullity. When Buchanan
accepted the nomination in 1856, he declared that the people of
a Territory, like those of a State, should decide for themselves
whether slavery should exist within its limits. He could not have
carried half the Democratic vote in any free State if the people had
not so understood him. "I intend to use language," he continued,
"which can be repeated in Chicago as well as in New Orleans, in
Charleston as well as in Boston. * * * No political creed is sound
or safe which cannot be proclaimed in the same sense wherever the
American Flag waves over American soil. If the North and the South
cannot come to a common ground on the slavery question the sooner
we know it the better. * * * I tell you, gentlemen of the South,
in all candor, I do not believe a Democratic candidate can ever carry
one Democratic State of the North on the platform that it is the
duty of the Federal Government to force the people of a Territory
to have slavery when they do not want it."
Davis, the leader of the Southern Democracy, answered him. He
reminded the Senate that Congress had no power to exclude slavery
from a Territory and the legislature had no power except that
given it by Congress. Hence it could not possibly have the power
to exclude it. Douglas could not claim more than this unless he
could illustrate the philosophical problem of getting more out of
a tub than it contained. Congress, having no power to prohibit
slavery, was bound to see that it was fully enjoyed.
"I agree with my colleague," he continued, "that we are not, with
our eyes open, to be cheated, and that we have no more respect for
that man who seeks to evade the performance of a constitutional
duty than for one who openly wars upon constitutional rights."
Mason, of Virginia, insisted that the Constitution construed by the
Supreme Court denied Congress the power to exclude slavery form a
Territory. Douglas admitted that the legislature derived all its
power from Congress. Hence, he must admit that it had no power to
interfere with slavery.
Green, of Missouri, the new chairman of the Committee on Territories,
next attacked him. Slaves, he declared, were property, as decided
by the Supreme Court. The Territories of Kansas and Nebraska could
not, by either direct or indirect legislation, prohibit or abolish
slavery; and if they should undertake to do either it would be the
duty of Congress to interpose. The legislature had no more power,
by direct or indirect means to prohibit the introduction of slaves
than the introduction of horses or mules, and it was a dishonest
subterfuge to say that it could be done.
"What is meant by unfriendly legislation? I had thought that rights
of person and property were beyond the power of legislation. * *
* There never was a legislative body in existence on the face of
the globe that could justly take any right of person or property
from a citizen without rendering a just compensation." He reminded
the Senators that in 1857 Douglas had urged the interposition
of Congress in Utah affairs, even to the extent of repealing the
organic act, thus recognizing that Territories were mere dependencies
of the Federal Government. Why this tenderness about Kansas? A
Territory had no power except what was conferred by Congress.
Douglas said that all legislative power not inconsistent with the
Constitution, was conferred. But if the power to destroy any kind
of property was conferred, it would be consistent with the Constitution
and the grant would be void. If all power not inconsistent with
the Constitution was conferred by the organic act, then the power
to call the Lecompton Convention and draft a Constitution was conferred.
"All the power the Territory has is derived from Congress and can
be resumed at pleasure. The creature can never be equal to its
creator."
Douglas said, that if the people of a Territory wanted slavery they
would protect it. But suppose the majority did not want it? The
Constitution still declared slaves to be property and forbade
the majority to take away the property in a slave from a single
individual. If they had no right to take it away, what right
had they by unfriendly legislation to render it valueless? If a
Territory persistently attempted to destroy a species of property
protected by the Constitution, ought not Congress to intervene for
the protection of the citizens?
Douglas replied to these deadly attacks. He reminded them that when
they repealed the Missouri Compromise they had agreed to leave all
these questions to the people of the Territories and the decision of
the Supreme Court. This was the true Democratic doctrine. Davis
and Mason had both said that no man holding his views could receive
the support of the South for the Presidency. Yet this was the
doctrine of Cass when candidate for President, but the whole South
gave him their votes. When did this change of creed occur?
Davis answered briefly, regretting that Douglas had not denied or
explained any of his Illinois speeches, and said he was now satisfied
that he was as full of heresy as he once was of the true theory of
popular sovereignty. He declared that this doctrine was "offensive
to every idea of conservatism and sound government; a thing offensive
to every idea of the supremacy of the laws of the United States,"
and announced plainly that the South would not support him for
President. He persistently pressed him to say whether he meant to
abide by the Dred Scott decision.
The Court, answered Douglas, had decided that neither Congress nor
the territorial legislature could prohibit the settler from bringing
his slaves to a Territory. "In other words, the right of transit
is clear, the right of entry is clear. * * * You have the same
right to hold them as other property, subject to such local laws as
the legislature may constitutionally enact. If those laws render
it impracticable to HOLD your property, whether it be your horse
or your slave, why, it is your misfortune."
He had reached the brink of the abyss. The South was preparing
for treason and rebellion. Its mood was altogether too tragic to
be even amused by his philosophic refinements. It rejected them now,
not with contempt, but with horror. The North, too, was in stern
mood. Its abhorrence of slavery had intensified with constant
agitation. It was grimly earnest in its resolve to resist all further
extension of it and resented the indifference of the statesman who
did not care whether the burning crime of the ages was voted up or
voted down.
Douglas, who regarded the ethics of this question with indifference
and who supremely desired to conciliate the South without alienating
the North, blundered in plunging into this debate. The Southern
Senators were unanswerably right. Since the Dred Scott decision
his position was so clearly untenable that to insist upon it amid
conditions so threatening seemed to them the most intolerable
trifling. The Republicans looked on as pleased spectators while
the battle raged between Northern and Southern Democrats and the
party was hopelessly torn asunder. It was clear the part of prudence
to restrain his impulsive pugnacity for the remaining weeks of
the session. But when challenged to defend himself his impatient
eagerness to speak was uncontrollable.