the homestead bill was voted on, and lost, by yeas 17, nays 28.
At last, wearied out, and convinced that the Republicans were not to
be intimidated or driven into a vote upon the bill without more
discussion, Mr. Slidell, himself, moved an adjournment, at one o'clock
at night, which was of course carried.
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Stephen Arnold Douglas was born in the town of Brandon, Vermont, on
the 23d of April, 1813. His father, S. A. Douglas, was a doctor and
native of Rensselaer County, New York. The father removed to Vermont
in early life, and was educated at Middlebury College. He was a
physician of some eminence. He died suddenly in 1813, leaving two
children--a daughter, twenty months old, and a son (the subject of
this sketch) only two months of age. The mother of Mr. Douglas, was
the daughter of a large farmer in Brandon, Vermont. Upon the death of
her husband, she went back to the old homestead which she inherited
with a bachelor brother. The brother and sister lived for many years
on this retired farm in one of the valleys of the Green Mountains,
caring for the two children with economy, prudence and the most ardent
affection. The farm-property increased in value, and the sister and
mother had no doubt that she could leave her children a comfortable
competence, enough to educate them and help them to an independence in
after life. After fourteen years had elapsed, the uncle visited the
State of New York, and very singularly took the idea into his head of
marriage, and returned with a young and handsome wife, who, at the end
of a year, presented him with a son. Stephen was at this time fifteen
years old, and had received a good common-school education, and he
began at once to prepare for college. His uncle was applied to, who by
this time began to grow selfish, and desired to keep his property for
_his own son_, and he very frankly informed the young man, that he did
not possess property sufficient to warrant him in getting a collegiate
education, and he advised him to stay at work upon the farm. The farm
and all the property attached to it was held in his uncle's name, was
legally his, and his mother only possessed a few worn-out acres,
barely sufficient to support her and her daughter. Until the marriage
of her brother, she had not dreamed of such a contingency and had
relied upon their joint property for her children, who had been great
favorites with the bachelor, who had frequently promised them all he
had. In this change of circumstances, young Stephen did not long
hesitate what to do, but apprenticed himself to a cabinet-maker in
Middlebury. He remained here for some eight months, working hard, but,
at the expiration of that time, he came to some misunderstanding with
his employer, and left him. He came back to his native town and
entered the cabinet-shop of one Deacon Knowlton, where he remained a
year, making French bedsteads of hard, curled maple, which was so
severe labor as to injure his health. He was now obliged to leave his
employer, and, while waiting to regain his health, he became a student
in the Brandon Academy. At the end of another year, he gave up all
hopes of being able to prosecute the cabinet business, and determined
on trying to get an education. His sister had married Julius N.
Granger, and moved to Ontario County, New York. His mother, a little
later, married her daughter's husband's father, Gehazi Granger, and
Stephen accompanied her, joining the Canandaigua Academy, where he
pursued the classical course till the spring of 1833. At the same
time, he was also studying law in the village with the Messrs.
Hubbell. He was at this time, though young, an ardent politician, and
gave abundant evidence that politics would, in after-life, be his
chosen field for action. In the spring of 1833, he turned his face
westward, and entered the law-office of S. T. Andrews, then a member
of Congress. He was here attacked with a bilious fever, and was ill an
entire summer, which threw him out of his place and used up his small
stock of funds. When he finally recovered, he was without place and
money, and in a situation which would completely dishearten most young
men. He started on westward, and seeing no good opening, and being
reduced to great straits, engaged to teach a school in the village of
Winchester, Illinois. When he came there, he had _but thirty-seven and
a half cents in his pocket_, but by a fortunate occurrence he was
enabled to earn a few dollars as clerk before his school opened. The
first Monday in December, 1833, he opened his school of forty
scholars, at a tuition of three dollars each. He studied law evenings,
and, in the course of the following spring, opened a law-office in the
place, having obtained a license upon examination from the Supreme
Court judges. He sprang at once into the full tide of success, for in
less than a year he was elected State's Attorney by the joint vote of
the Legislature? He was but twenty-two years of age, yet, by the very
nature of his office, he was pitted against the ablest and most acute
lawyers in the State. Nothing but the most untiring industry held him
up in this position. He endeavored to make up for his lack of
experience by the closest study and application, and he very naturally
exerted himself to the extent of all his abilities. The result was
that he attained distinguished success. In December, 1836, he was
elected to the Legislature of his State, and resigned the office of
State's Attorney to sit in the Legislature. He was the youngest member
of the House, yet he soon created for himself an excellent reputation
as a legislator. The State was then going mad with speculation and
wild-cat banking. Mr. Douglas opposed the banking institutions--their
increase in any shape or manner--but was overborne by numbers. The
majority were in favor of extending the then vicious system of
banking, and so voted. The very same year, all the banks suspended
specie payments, their paper depreciated to a frightful extent, and
after a few years they were wound up. Mr. Douglas participated in the
great struggle over internal improvements, giving his voice and vote
in favor of any plan of public works which would stand the test of an
examination. No public man could go through this ordeal without making
enemies, for there were rival routes for canals, rival interests, and
Mr. Douglas was too outspoken and independent not to take sides upon
these local questions. Of course, he made temporary enemies. The
railroad mania now began, and Mr. Douglas favored a plan which put the
public works _completely_ in the power of the State. The other plan
was to join the State with individual stockholders, but really give
the control of the works to the private stockholders. In all these
local quarrels Mr. Douglas participated with the enthusiasm and energy
which have always been characteristic of the man.
Soon after the adjournment of the Legislature, Mr. Douglas was
appointed by the President of the United States, Register of the Land
Office at Springfield, Illinois. He desired to return to the law, but
the acceptance of the office would be to his pecuniary advantage, and
he felt it to be his duty to accept.
In November 1837, he was nominated to Congress by a Convention of the
Democratic party in his district. The time was peculiarly unfavorable
to him, for the country was in a whirlpool of agitation and the
Democratic party of Illinois on many questions of the day, sided with
the Whigs, and were against Mr. Van Buren.
The election took place in August, 1838--thirty-six-thousand votes
were cast--and his Whig opponent was elected by a majority of _five
votes_! At the ensuing Presidential election, the same district gave
Harrison a majority of three thousand votes over Van Buren. Mr.
Douglas devoted himself to the law till the Presidential campaign
opened, when he gave himself zealously up to that. He stumped the
State for seven months from one part to the other, making the
acquaintance of almost the entire people. The State went democratic.
In December, 1840, Mr. Douglas was elected Secretary of State, and in
February, 1841, was elected by joint vote of the State Legislature a
judge of the Supreme Court. He was now but twenty-eight years of age,
and at first resolved to decline this fresh honor; but, upon a
reconsideration, he accepted the appointment, though it was to his
pecuniary hurt.
In 1843, Mr. Douglas's health became so impaired that he made a trip
into the Indian country. During his absence he was nominated for
Congress by his friends, and when he returned he resigned his judgship
and went into the canvass with great spirit. Himself and competitor
were soon prostrated with bilious fever, and they were unable to rise
from their beds on election day. The result of the election was the
triumph of Mr. Douglas by four hundred votes. At the next election he
was reelected by nineteen hundred majority, and on the third election
by twenty-nine hundred majority. He did not take his seat in the House
under the last election, for, before the time came for the Congress to
meet, he had been chosen to the U.S. Senate for six years. [Note:
election took place in 1847.]
In April, 1847, M. Douglas was married to a Miss Martin, only daughter
of Col. Robert Martin, of Rockingham County North Carolina. A few
years since, Mr. Douglas lost his wife, and in the winter of 1856-7
married Miss Cutts of Washington, his present accomplished wife. By
his first wife he had several children, and they inherited from their
mother a large property in the South, consisting of land and slaves.
In 1838, Mr. Douglas took strong ground in Illinois against
naturalization as a necessary pre-requisite to voting. He contended in
the State courts--for the question was raised there--that though
Congress has the exclusive right to prescribe uniform naturalization
laws, yet that naturalization has necessarily no connection with the
elective franchise, that being a privilege granted by the States. Mr.
Douglas triumphed through a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois.
In 1841, Mr. Douglas opposed the Bankrupt law of the time, which
became so memorable. In the famous Oregon controversy and excitement
he belonged to the "fifty-four forty or fight" party, and in his
public speeches, as well as in private, took a very determined stand
against the pretensions of Great Britain. Here is a paragraph from a
speech of his in the House at this time:
"It therefore becomes us to put this nation in a state of defence; and
when we are told that this will lead to war, all I have to say is
this: preserve the honor and integrity of this country, but at the
same time assert our right to the last inch, and then if war comes,
let it come. We may regret the necessity which produced it, but when
it does come, I would administer to our citizens Hannibal's oath of
eternal enmity, and not terminate it until the question was all
settled forever. I would blot out the lines on the map which now mark
our national boundaries on this continent and make the area of liberty
as broad as the continent itself."
To show the position of Mr. Douglas on the Oregon question, we will
quote two paragraphs from one of his speeches:
"I choose to be frank and candid in this declaration of my sentiments
on this question. For one, I never will be satisfied with the valley
of the Columbia nor with 49 deg., nor with 54 deg. 40', nor will I be while
Great Britain shall hold possession of one acre on the northwest coast
of America. And I will never agree to any arrangement that shall
recognize her right to one inch of soil upon the northwest coast; and
for this simple reason. Great Britain never did own, she never had a
valid title to one inch of that country. The question was only one of
dispute between Russia, Spain and the United States. England never had
a title to any part of the country. Our Government has always held
that England had no title to it. In 1826, Mr. Clay, in his dispatches
to Mr. Gallatin, said, 'it is not conceived that the British
Government can make out even a colorable title to any part of the
northwest coast!'...
"The value of the Oregon Territory is not to be measured by the number
of miles upon the coast, whether it shall terminate at 49 deg., or at 54 deg.
40', or reach to 61 deg. and the Arctic Ocean. It does not depend on the
character of the country, nor the quality of the soil. It is true that
consideration is not virtually of attention; but the great point at
issue--the great struggle between us and Great Britain--is for the
freedom of the Pacific Ocean; for the trade of China and of Japan, of
the East Indies, and for the maritime ascendency on all these waters.
That is the great point at issue between the two countries, and the
settlement of this Oregon question involves all these interests. And
in order to maintain these interests, and secure all the benefits
resulting from them, we must not only go to 54 deg. 40', but we have got
to exclude Great Britain from the coast _in toto_."
In the course of the debate in committee of the House upon resolutions
giving notice to Great Britain of the abrogation of the treaty between
this country and Great Britain, Mr. Ramsey moved to strike out all
after the word resolved (in one of the resolutions) and insert, "That
the Oregon question is no longer a subject of negotiation or
compromise." We quote from the record:
"Tellers were ordered and _ten_ members passed between them, amid
shouts of laughter, cries of 54 deg. 40' forever, clapping of hands and
stamping of feet, which the chairman was some time in suppressing; and
the negative vote was then taken and stood 146. So the amendment was
_rejected_."
The names of the ten "fifty-four forties," were as follows:
ARCHIBALD BELL, of Arkansas.
ALEXANDER RAMSEY, of Pennsylvania.
WILLIAM SAWYER, of Ohio.
T. B. HOGE, of Illinois.
ROBERT SMITH, of Illinois.
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, of Illinois.
JOHN A. MCCLEELAND, "
JOHN WENTWORTH, "
CORNELIUS DARRAH, of Pennsylvania.
FELIX S. MCCONNEL, of Alabama.
It will be noticed, that then, as now, Mr. Douglas had the faculty of
carrying his State delegation with him.
Mr. Douglas has, while in Congress, favored the appropriation by the
general government of money for internal improvements upon the Jackson
plan of strictly confining such appropriations to objects of national
and general, not of State or local importance.
He has frequently voted for river and harbor bills--voted for the
Independent Treasury bill, and has, in and out of Congress, utterly
denied the power of Congress over the franchise in the States. Mr.
Douglas was an early supporter of the Mexican war. "He opposed the
incorporation of the Wilmot proviso into the two or three million
bills. He believed the people's time had not come for any action on
that subject. Slavery was now prohibited in Mexico. If any portion of
that country should be annexed to the United States without any
stipulation being made on that point, the existing laws would remain
in force. ....If the question was pressed for immediate decision, he
could perceive no other mode of harmonizing conflicting sentiments,
but by the adoption of the Missouri Compromise Line."
Mr. Douglas voted to bring up the Homestead bill which was before the
last Congress and which passed the House, showing that he is in favor
of that important measure.
We now come to the history of Mr. Douglas in connection with the
Kansas-Nebraska bill.
The battle which he waged with his political opponents and won upon
that bill is so fresh in the memory of all our readers that it will
not be safe, or necessary, to go into a minute history of the
struggle. In the winter of 1852-3, Mr. Douglas reported a Nebraska
bill from the Territorial Committee of which he was chairman, which
contained no repeal of the Missouri Compromise or enumeration of his
peculiar Popular Sovereignty doctrines. In the great debate over the
compromise measures in 1850, no one ever called in question the
Missouri Compromise. In the winter of 1852-3, Senator Atchison, of
Missouri, declared in his seat in the Senate that the Missouri
prohibition could never be repealed.
The Kansas-Nebraska bill as reported from the Committee appeared first
without any repeal of the Missouri restriction--on the 7th day of
January it was first presented. On the 16th, Mr. Dixon, a Whig senator
from Kentucky, proposed an amendment to the bill reported from the
committee which repealed the aforesaid compromise. This movement was
at first opposed by leading Democrats and their organ the _Union_, but
in a very few days Mr. Douglas, either because he saw the justice of
the repeal of the restriction or thought it would advance his
political interests, acquiesced in the amendment and made it a part of
his bill. We make a few brief extracts from Mr. Douglas's argument in
the Senate, Jan. 30, 1854, in support of his bill:
"Sir, I wish you to bear in mind, too, that this geographical
line, established by the founders of the Republic between free
territories and slave territories, extended as far westward as our
territory then reached; the object being to avoid all agitation
upon the slavery question by settling that question forever, as
far as our territory extended, which was then to the Mississippi
River.
"When, in 1803, we acquired from France the territory known as
Louisiana, it became necessary to legislate for the protection of
the inhabitants residing therein. It will be seen by looking into
the bill establishing the territorial government in 1805 for the
territory of New Orleans, embracing the same country now known as
the State of Louisiana, that the ordinance of 1787 was expressly
extended to that territory, excepting the sixth section, which
prohibited slavery. Then that act implied that the Territory of
New Orleans was to be a slaveholding territory, by making that
exception in the law. But, sir, when they came to form what was
then called the Territory of Louisiana, subsequently known as the
Territory of Missouri, north of the thirty-third parallel, they
used different language. They did not extend the ordinance of 1787
to it at all. They first provided that it should be governed by
laws made by the governor and the judges, and when, in 1812,
Congress gave to that territory, under the name of the Territory
of Missouri, a territorial government, the people were allowed to
do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to
the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Now,
what is the inference from that legislation? That slavery was, by
implication, recognized south of the thirty-third parallel; and
north of that, the people were left to exercise their own judgment
and do as they pleased upon the subject, without any implication
for or against the existence of the institution.
"This continued to be the condition of the country in the Missouri
territory up to 1820, when the celebrated act which is now called
the Missouri Compromise act was passed. Slavery did not exist in,
nor was it excluded from the country now known as Nebraska. There
was no code of laws upon the subject of slavery either way: First,
for the reason that slavery had never been introduced into
Louisiana and established by positive enactment. It had grown up
there by a sort of common law, and been supported and protected.
When a common law grows up, when an institution becomes
established under a usage, it carries it so far as that usage
actually goes, and no further. If it had been established by
direct enactment, it might have carried it so far as the political
jurisdiction extended; but, be that as it may, by the act of 1812,
creating the territory of Missouri, that territory was allowed to
legislate upon the subject of slavery as it saw proper, subject
only to the limitations which I have stated; and the country not
inhabited or thrown open to settlement was set apart as Indian
country and rendered subject to Indian laws. Hence, the local
legislation of the State of Missouri did not reach into that
Indian country, but was excluded from it by the Indian code and
Indian laws. The municipal regulations of Missouri could not go
there until the Indian title had been extinguished and the country
thrown open to settlement. Such being the case, the only
legislation in existence in Nebraska territory at the time that
the Missouri act passed, namely, the 6th of March, 1820, was a
provision, in effect, that the people should be allowed to do as
they pleased upon the subject of slavery.
"The territory of Missouri having been left in that legal
condition, positive opposition was made to the bill to organize a
state government, with a view to its admission into the Union; and
a senator from my State, Mr. Jesse B. Thomas, introduced an
amendment, known as the eighth section of the bill, in which it
was provided that slavery should be prohibited north of 36 deg. 30'
north latitude, in all that country which we had acquired from
France. What was the object of the enactment of that eighth
section? Was it not to go back to the original policy of
prescribing boundaries to the limitation of free institutions, and
of slave institutions, by a geographical line, in order to avoid
all controversy in Congress upon the subject? Hence, they extended
that geographical line through all the territory purchased from
France, which was as far as our possessions then reached. It was
not simply to settle the question on that piece of country, but it
was to carry out a great principle, by extending that dividing
line as far west as our territory went, and running it onward on
each new acquisition of territory. True, the express enactment of
the eighth section of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri
Compromise act, only covered the territory acquired from France;
but the principles of the act, the objects of its adoption, the
reasons in its support, required that it should be extended
indefinitely westward, so far as our territory might go, whenever
new purchases should be made.
"Thus stood the question up to 1845, when the joint resolution for
the annexation of Texas passed. There was inserted in that a
provision, suggested in the first instance and brought before the
House of Representatives by myself, extending the Missouri
Compromise line indefinitely westward through the territory of
Texas. Why did I bring forward that proposition? Why did the
Congress of the United States adopt it? Not because it was of the
least practical importance, so far as the question of slavery
within the limits of Texas was concerned; for no man ever dreamed
that it had any practical effect there. Then, why was it brought
forward? It was for the purpose of preserving the principle, in
order that it might be extended still further westward, even to
the Pacific Ocean, whenever we should then acquire country that
far. I will here read that clause in the joint resolution for the
annexation of Texas. It is the third article, second section, and
is in these words:
"'New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in
number, in addition to said State of Texas, having sufficient
population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be
formed out of the territory thereof which shall be entitled to
admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said
territory, lying south of 36 deg. 30' north latitude, commonly
known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into
the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State
asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as
shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri
Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for
crime) shall be prohibited.'