THE FREEPORT DOCTRINE
[Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 68.
What has thus far been quoted has been less to illustrate the leading
lines of discussion, than to explain more fully the main historical
incident of the debates. In the first joint discussion at Ottawa, in
the northern or anti-slavery part of Illinois, Douglas read a series of
strong anti-slavery resolutions which he erroneously alleged Lincoln
had taken part in framing and passing. He said: "My object in reading
these resolutions was to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day
whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed and
carry it out.... I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these questions in
order that when I trot him down to lower Egypt[1] I may put the same
questions to him."[2]
[Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 87.
In preparing a powerful appeal to local prejudice, Douglas doubtless
knew he was handling a two-edged sword; but we shall see that he
little appreciated the skill with which his antagonist would wield the
weapon he was placing in his hands. At their second joint meeting, at
Freeport, also in northern Illinois, Lincoln, who now had the opening
speech, said, referring to Douglas's speech at Ottawa: "I do him no
injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in
dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories.
I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon
condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same
number. I give him an opportunity to respond. The judge remains
silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he
answers mine or not; and that after I have done so, I shall propound
mine to him."
Lincoln then read his answers to the seven questions which, had been
asked him, and proposed four in return, the second one of which ran as
follows: "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?"[3]
To comprehend the full force of this interrogatory, the reader must
recall the fact that the "popular sovereignty" of the Nebraska bill
was couched in vague language, and qualified with the proviso that it
was "subject to the Constitution." The caucus which framed this
phraseology agreed, as a compromise between Northern and Southern
Democrats, that the courts should interpret and define the
constitutional limitations, by which all should abide. The Dred Scott
decision declared in terms that Congress could not prohibit slavery in
Territories nor authorize a Territorial Legislature to do so. The Dred
Scott decision had thus annihilated "popular sovereignty," Would
Douglas admit his blunder in law, and his error in statesmanship?
He had already faced and partly evaded this dilemma in his Springfield
speech of 1857, but that was a local declaration and occurred before
his Lecompton revolt, and the ingenious sophism then put forth had
attracted little notice. Since that time things had materially
changed. He had opposed Lecompton, become a party recusant, and been
declared a party apostate. His Senatorial term was closing, and he had
to look to an evenly balanced if not a hostile constituency for
reëlection. The Buchanan Administration was putting forth what feeble
strength it had in Illinois to insure his defeat. His Democratic
rivals were scrutinizing every word he uttered. He stood before the
people to whom he had pledged his word that the voters of Kansas might
regulate their own domestic concerns. They would tolerate no juggling
nor evasion. There remained no resource but to answer _Yes_, and he
could conjure up no justification of such an answer except the hollow
subterfuge he had invented the year before.
[Sidenote] Lincoln to Asbury, July 31, 1858.
Lincoln clearly enough comprehended the dilemma and predicted the
expedient of his antagonist. He had framed his questions and submitted
them to a consultation of shrewd party friends. This one especially
was the subject of anxious deliberation and serious disagreement.
Nearly a month before, Lincoln in a private letter accurately
foreshadowed Douglas's course on this question. "You shall have hard
work to get him directly to the point whether a Territorial
Legislature has or has not the power to exclude slavery. But if you
succeed in bringing him to it--though he will be compelled to say it
possesses no such power--he will instantly take ground that slavery
cannot actually exist in the Territories unless the people desire it,
and so give it protection by Territorial legislation. If this offends
the South, he will let it offend them, as at all events he means to
hold on to his chances in Illinois." There is a tradition that on the
night preceding this Freeport debate Lincoln was catching a few hours'
rest, at a railroad center named Mendota, to which place the
converging trains brought after midnight a number of excited
Republican leaders, on their way to attend the great meeting at the
neighboring town of Freeport. Notwithstanding the late hour, Mr.
Lincoln's bedroom was invaded by an improvised caucus, and the ominous
question was once more brought under consideration. The whole drift of
advice ran against putting the interrogatory to Douglas; but Lincoln
persisted in his determination to force him to answer it. Finally his
friends in a chorus cried out, "If you do, you can never be Senator."
"Gentlemen," replied Lincoln, "I am killing larger game; if Douglas
answers, he can never be President, and the battle of 1860 is worth a
hundred of this."
When Lincoln had finished his opening speech in the Freeport debate,
and Douglas in his reply came to interrogatory number two, which
Lincoln had propounded, he answered as follows:
[Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 95.
The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the
people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wish of any
citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits,
prior to the formation of a State constitution? I answer
emphatically, 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 from their limits,
prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew
that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me
argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in
1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to
be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not
what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract
question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under
the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it
or exclude it, as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot
exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local
police regulations. Those 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
introduction 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.
[Illustration: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.]
The remarkable theory here proposed was immediately taken up and
exhaustively discussed by the leading newspapers in all parts of the
Union, and thereby became definitely known under the terms "unfriendly
legislation" and "Freeport doctrine." Mr. Lincoln effectually disposed
of it in the following fashion in the joint debate at Alton:
[Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 234-5.
I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying
something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he
sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the
Territories can still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I
ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas constantly said,
before the decision, that whether they could or not, was a
question for the Supreme Court. But after the court has made the
decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme
Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can
exclude it? He said it needs "police regulations," and that admits
of "unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right established by
the Constitution of the United States to take a slave into a
Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet
unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation,
and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they
can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition
as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional
obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face
before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the
Territorial Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to
swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States.
His neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves and needs
Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional
right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs
for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the
Constitution of the United States, which he has sworn to support?
Can he withhold it without violating his oath? and more
especially, can he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his
oath? Why this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution
of the United States! There has never been as outlandish or
lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man on earth.
I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a
Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was
improperly made, and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is
furious against those who go for reversing a decision. But he is
for legislating it out of all force, while the law itself stands.
I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine uttered
from the mouth of a respectable man.
The announcement and subsequent defense by Douglas of his "Freeport
doctrine" proved, as Lincoln had predicted, something more important
than a mere campaign incident. It was the turning-point in Douglas's
political fortunes. With the whole South, and with a few prominent
politicians of the North, it served to put him outside the pale of
party fellowship. Compared with this his Lecompton revolt had been a
venial offense. In that case he had merely contended for the machinery
of a fair popular vote. This was the avowal of a principle as
obnoxious to the slavery propaganda as the unqualified abolitionism of
Giddings and Lovejoy. Henceforth all hope of reconciliation,
atonement, or chance of Presidential nomination by the united
Democratic party was out of the question. Before this, newspaper
zealots had indeed denounced him for his Lecompton recusancy as a
traitor and renegade, and the Administration had endeavored to secure
his defeat; now, however, in addition, the party high-priests put him
under solemn ban of excommunication. How they felt and from what
motives they acted is stated with singular force and frankness in a
Senate speech, soon after the Charleston Convention, by Senator Judah
P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, one of the ablest and most persistent of
the conspirators to nationalize slavery, and who, not long after, was
one of the principal actors in the great rebellion:
Up to the years 1857 and 1858 no man in this nation had a higher
or more exalted opinion of the character, the services, and the
political integrity of the Senator from Illinois [Douglas] than I
had.... Sir, it has been with reluctance and sorrow that I have
been obliged to pluck down my idol from his place on high, and to
refuse to him any more support or confidence as a member of the
party. I have done so, I trust, upon no light or unworthy ground.
I have not done so alone. The causes that have operated on me have
operated on the Democratic party of the United States, and have
operated an effect which the whole future life of the Senator will
be utterly unable to obliterate. It is impossible that confidence
thus lost can be restored. On what ground has that confidence been
forfeited, and why is it that we now refuse him our support and
fellowship? I have stated our reasons to-day. I have appealed to
the record. I have not followed him back in the false issue or the
feigned traverse that he makes in relation to matters that are not
now in contest between him and the Democratic party. The question
is not what we all said or believed in 1850 or in 1856. How idle
was it to search ancient precedents and accumulate old quotations
from what Senators may have at different times said in relation to
their principles and views. The precise point, the direct
arraignment, the plain and explicit allegation made against the
Senator from Illinois is not touched by him in all of his speech.
[Sidenote] Benjamin, Senate Speech, May 22, 1860. Pamphlet.
We accuse him for this, to wit: that having bargained with us upon
a point upon which we were at issue, that it should be considered
a judicial point; that he would abide the decision; that he would
act under the decision, and consider it a doctrine of the party;
that having said that to us here in the Senate, he went home, and
under the stress of a local election, his knees gave way; his
whole person trembled. His adversary stood upon principle and was
beaten; and lo! he is the candidate of a mighty party for the
Presidency of the United States. The Senator from Illinois
faltered. He got the prize for which he faltered; but lo! the
grand prize of his ambition to-day slips from his grasp because of
his faltering in his former contest, and his success in the
canvass for the Senate, purchased for an ignoble price, has cost
him the loss of the Presidency of the United States.
[Sidenote] 1858.
The Senatorial canvass in Illinois came to a close with the election
on the 2d of November and resulted in a victory for Douglas. The
Republicans, on their State ticket, polled 125,430 votes; the Douglas
Democrats, 121,609; the Buchanan Democrats, 5071. By this plurality
the Republican State officers were chosen. But in respect to members
of the Legislature the case stood differently, and when in the
following January the Senatorial election took place in joint session
of the two Houses, Douglas received the vote of every Democrat, 54
members, and Lincoln the vote of every Republican, 46 members,
whereupon Douglas was declared elected Senator of the United States
for six years from the 4th of March, 1859.
The main cause of Lincoln's defeat was the unfairness of the existing
apportionment, which was based upon the census of 1850. A fair
apportionment, based on the changes of population which had occurred,
would have given northern Illinois a larger representation; and it was
there the Republicans had recruited their principal strength in the
recent transformation of parties. The Republicans estimated that this
circumstance caused them a loss of six to ten members.
[Sidenote] Lincoln, Cincinnati Speech, Sept. 17, 1859. Debates,
p. 263.
But the unusual political combinations also had a large influence on
the result. Lincoln, in an Ohio speech made in the following year,
addressing himself to Kentuckians, thus summarized the political
forces that contributed to his defeat: "Douglas had three or four very
distinguished men of the most extreme anti-slavery views of any men in
the Republican party expressing their desire for his reëlection to the
Senate last year. That would of itself have seemed to be a little
wonderful, but that wonder is heightened when we see that Wise, of
Virginia, a man exactly opposed to them, a man who believes in the
divine right of slavery, was also expressing his desire that Douglas
should be reëlected; that another man that may be said to be kindred
to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice-President, and of your own State,
was also agreeing with the anti-slavery men in the North, that Douglas
ought to be reëlected. Still to heighten the wonder, a Senator from
Kentucky, whom I have always loved with an affection as tender and
endearing as I have ever loved any man, who was opposed to the
anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed sufficient to him and equally
opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters to Illinois to
secure the reëlection of Douglas. Now that all these conflicting
elements should be brought, while at daggers' points with one another,
to support him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider.
It is quite probable that each of these classes of men thought, by the
reëlection of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain something; it
is probable that the anti-slavery men thought their views would gain
something; that Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their
opinions; that Mr. Crittenden thought that his views would gain
something although he was opposed to both these other men. It is
probable that each and all of them thought they were using Douglas,
and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he was not using them all."
After a hundred consecutive days of excitement, of intense mental
strain, and of unremitting bodily exertion, after speech-making and
parades, music and bonfires, it must be something of a trial to face
at once the mortification of defeat, the weariness of intellectual and
physical reaction, and the dull commonplace of daily routine. Letters
written at this period show that under these conditions Mr. Lincoln
remained composed, patient, and hopeful. Two weeks after election he
wrote thus to Mr. Judd, a member of the Legislature and Chairman of
the Republican State Central Committee: "I have the pleasure to inform
you that I am convalescing and hoping these lines may find you in the
same improving state of health. Doubtless you have suspected for some
time that I entertain a personal wish for a term in the United States
Senate; and had the suspicion taken the shape of the direct charge I
think I could not have truthfully denied it. But let the past as
nothing be. For the future my view is that the fight must go on. The
returns here are not yet complete, but it is believed that Dougherty's
vote will be slightly greater than Miller's majority over Fondey. We
have some 120,000 clear Republican votes. That pile is worth keeping
together. It will elect a State ticket two years hence."
[Sidenote] Lincoln to Judd, Nov. 15, 1858.
"In that day I shall fight in the ranks, but shall be in no one's way
for any of the places. I am especially for Trumbull's reëlection; and,
by the way, this brings me to the principal object of this letter. Can
you not take your draft of an apportionment bill and carefully revise
it till it shall be strictly and obviously just in all particulars,
and then by an early and persistent effort get enough of the enemies'
men to enable you to pass it? I believe if you and Peck make a job of
it, begin early and work earnestly and quietly, you can succeed in it.
Unless something be done, Trumbull is inevitably beaten two years
hence. Take this into serious consideration."
[Sidenote] Ibid., Nov. 16, 1858.
On the following day he received from Mr. Judd a letter informing him
that the funds subscribed for the State Central Committee did not
suffice to pay all the election bills, and asking his help to raise
additional contributions. To this appeal Lincoln replied: "Yours of
the 15th is just received. I wrote you the same day. As to the
pecuniary matter, I am willing to pay according to my ability, but I
am the poorest hand living to get others to pay. I have been on
expenses so long without earning anything that I am absolutely without
money now for even household purposes. Still, if you can put in $250
for me towards discharging the debt of the committee, I will allow it
when you and I settle the private matter between us. This, with what I
have already paid, and with an outstanding note of mine, will exceed
my subscription of $500. This, too, is exclusive of my ordinary
expenses during the campaign, all which being added to my loss of time
and business, bears pretty heavily upon one no better off in world's
goods than I; but as I had the post of honor, it is not for me to be
over-nice. You are feeling badly--'And this too shall pass away.'
Never fear."
[Sidenote] Lincoln to Dr. Henry, Nov. 19, 1858. MS.
The sting of personal defeat is painful to most men, and doubtless it
was so to Lincoln. Yet he regarded the passing struggle as something
more than a mere scramble for office, and drew from it the consolation
which all earnest workers feel in the consciousness of a task well
done. Thus he wrote to a friend on November 19: "You doubtless have
seen ere this the result of the election here. Of course I wished, but
I did not much expect, a better result.... I am glad I made the late
race. It gave me a hearing on the great and durable question of the
age, which I could have had in no other way; and though I now sink out
of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks
which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone."
[Sidenote] Lincoln to Asbury, November 19, 1858.
To these one other letter may be added, showing his never-failing
faith in the political future. To a personal friend in Quincy,
Illinois, who had watched the campaign with unusual attention, Lincoln
wrote that same day: "Yours of the 13th was received some days ago.
The fight must go on. The cause of civil liberty must not be
surrendered at the end of one or even one hundred defeats. Douglas had
the ingenuity to be supported in the late contest, both as the best
means to break down and to uphold the slave interest. No ingenuity can
keep these antagonistic elements in harmony long. Another explosion
will soon come."
[Sidenote] 1858.
Douglas was also greatly exhausted by the wearing labors of the
campaign; but he had the notable triumph of an assured reëlection to
the Senate and the congratulations of his enthusiastic friends to
sustain and refresh him. Being an indefatigable worker, he was already
organizing a new and more ambitious effort. Three weeks after election
he started on a brief tour to the Southern States, making speeches at
Memphis and New Orleans, of which further mention will be made in the
next chapter. Perhaps he deemed it wise not to proceed immediately to
Washington, where Congress convened on the first Monday of December,
and thus to avoid a direct continuance of his battle with the Buchanan
Administration. If so, the device proved ineffectual. The President
and his partisans were determined to put the author of the "Freeport
doctrine" under public ban, and to that end, when Congress organized,
one of the first acts of the Senate majority was to depose Douglas
from his place as chairman of the Committee on Territories, which he
had held in that body for eleven years.
----------
[1] A local nickname by which the southern or pro-slavery portion of
Illinois was familiarly known.
[2] DOUGLAS'S QUESTIONS AND LINCOLN'S ANSWERS.
"_Question_ 1. 'I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as
he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the
fugitive-slave law?'
_Answer_. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the
unconditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law.
_Q_. 2. 'I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day,
as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave-States
into the Union even if the people want them?'
_A_. I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the
admission of any more slave-States into the Union.
_Q_. 3. 'I want to know whether he stands pledged against the
admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution
as the people of that State may see fit to make?'
_A_. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State
into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that
State may see fit to make.
_Q_. 4. 'I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?'
_A_. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia.
_Q_. 5. 'I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the
prohibition of the slave trade between the different States?'
_A_. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade
between the different States.
_Q_. 6. 'I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit
slavery in all the Territories of the United States, north as well
as south of the Missouri Compromise line?'
_A_. I am impliedly if not expressly pledged to a belief in the
right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United
States Territories.
_Q_. 7. 'I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the
acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first
prohibited therein?'
_A_. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of
territory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose
such acquisition accordingly as I might think such acquisition
would or would not aggravate the slavery question among
ourselves."--Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 88.
[3] LINCOLN'S QUESTIONS.
"_Question_ 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely
unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution,
and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the
requisite number of inhabitants according to the English
bill,--some 93,000,--will you vote to admit them?
_Q_. 2. 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?
_Q_. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide
that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in
favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as
a rule of political action?
_Q_. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in
disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the
slavery question?"--Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 90.