COPPERHEADISM VS. UNION DEMOCRACY.
When we remember that it was on the night of the 5th of January, 1861,
that the Rebel Conspirators in the United States Senate met and plotted
their confederated Treason, as shown in the Yulee letter, given in the
preceding Chapter of this work, and that on the very next day, January
6, 1861, Fernando Wood, then Mayor of the great city of New York, sent
in to the Common Council of that metropolis, his recommendation that New
York city should Secede from its own State, as well as the United
States, and become "a Free City," which, said he, "may shed the only
light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed
Confederacy," it is impossible to resist the conviction that this
extraordinary movement of his, was inspired and prompted, if not
absolutely directed, by the secret Rebel Conclave at Washington. It
bears within itself internal evidences of such prompting.
Thus, when Mayor Wood states the case in the following words, he seems
to be almost quoting word for word an instruction received by him from
these Rebel leaders--in connection with their plausible argument,
upholding it. Says he:
"Much, no doubt, can be said in favor of the justice and policy of a
separation. It may be said that Secession or revolution in any of the
United States would be subversive of all Federal authority, and, so far
as the central Government is concerned, the resolving of the community
into its original elements--that, if part of the States form new
combinations and, Governments, other States may do the same. Then it
may be said, why should not New York city, instead of supporting by her
contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United
States, become also equally independent? As a Free City, with but
nominal duty on imports, her local Government could be supported without
taxation upon her people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have
cheap goods nearly duty free. In this she would have the whole and
united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States
to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been
true."
That is the persuasive casuistry peculiar to the minds of the Southern
Secession leaders. It is naturally followed by a touch of that
self-confident bluster, also at that time peculiar to Southern lips
--as follows:
"It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square
in the face, and to meet it calmly and bravely. As dreadful as the
severing of the bonds that have hitherto united the States has been in
contemplation, it is now apparently a stern and inevitable fact. We
have now to meet it, with all the consequences, whatever they may be.
If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is dissolved, and it
behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to take
care of themselves.
"When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York
disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master--to a
people and a Party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin
her commerce, taken away the power of self-government, and destroyed the
Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? * * *"
After thus restating, as it were, the views and "arguments" of the Rebel
Junta, as we may presume them to have been pressed on him, he becomes
suddenly startled at the Conclave's idea of meeting "all the
consequences, whatever they may be," and, turning completely around,
with blanching pen, concludes:
"But I am not prepared to recommend the violence implied in these views.
In stating this argument in favor of freedom, 'peaceably if we can,
forcibly if we must,' let me not be misunderstood. The redress can be
found only in appeals to the magnanimity of the people of the whole
State." * * *
If "these views" were his own, and not those of the Rebel Conclave, he
would either have been "prepared to recommend the violence implied in
them," or else he would have suppressed them altogether. But his
utterance is that of one who has certain views for the first time placed
before him, and shrinks from the consequences of their advocacy--shrinks
from "the violence implied" in them--although for some reason he dares
not refuse to place those views before the people.
And, in carrying out his promise to do so--"In stating this argument,"
presumably of the Rebel Conclave, "in favor of freedom, 'peaceably if we
can, forcibly if we must'"--the language used is an admission that the
argument is not his own. Were it his own, would he not have said in
"making" it, instead of in "stating" it? Furthermore, had he been
"making" it of his own accord, he would hardly have involved himself in
such singular contradictions and explanations as are here apparent. He
was plainly "stating" the Rebel Conclave's argument, not making one
himself. He was obeying orders, under the protest of his fears. And
those fears forced his trembling pen to write the saving-clause which
"qualifies" the Conclave's second-hand bluster preceding it.
That the Rebels hoped for Northern assistance in case of Secession, is
very clear from many speeches made prior to and soon after the election
of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency--and from other sources of information.
Thus we find in a speech made by Representative L. M. Keitt, of South
Carolina, in Charleston, November, 1860, the following language,
reported by the Mercury:
"But we have been threatened. Mr. Amos Kendall wrote a letter, in which
he said to Colonel Orr, that if the State went out, three hundred
thousand volunteers were ready to march against her. I know little
about Kendall--and the less the better. He was under General Jackson;
but for him the Federal treasury seemed to have a magnetic attraction.
"Jackson was a pure man, but he had too many around him who made
fortunes far transcending their salaries. [Applause.] And this Amos
Kendall had the same good fortune under Van Buren. He (Kendall)
threatened us on the one side, and John Hickman on the other. John
Hickman said, defiantly, that if we went out of the Union, eighteen
millions of Northern men would bring us back.
"Let me tell you, there are a million of Democrats in the North who,
when the Black Republicans attempt to march upon the South, will be
found a wall of fire in the front. [Cries of 'that's so,' and
applause.]"
Harper's Weekly of May 28, 1864, commenting on certain letters of M. F.
Maury and others, then just come to light, said:
"How far Maury and his fellow-conspirators were justified in their hopes
of seducing New Jersey into the Rebellion, may be gathered from the
correspondence that took place, in the spring of 1861, between
Ex-Governor Price, of New Jersey, who was one of the representatives from
that State in the Peace Congress, and L. W. Burnet, Esq., of Newark.
"Mr. Price, in answering the question what ought New Jersey to do, says:
'I believe the Southern confederation permanent. The proceeding has
been taken with forethought and deliberation--it is no hurried impulse,
but an irrevocable act, based upon the sacred, as was supposed, equality
of the States; and in my opinion every Slave State will in a short
period of time be found united in one Confederacy. * * * Before that
event happens, we cannot act, however much we may suffer in our material
interests. It is in that contingency, then, that I answer the second
part of your question:--What position for New Jersey will best accord
with her interests, honor, and the patriotic instincts of her people? I
say emphatically she would go with the South from every wise,
prudential, and patriotic reason.'
"Ex-Governor Price proceeds to say that he is confident the States of
Pennsylvania and New York will 'choose also to cast their lot with the
South, and after them, the Western and Northwestern States.'"
The following resolution,* was adopted with others, by a meeting of
Democrats held January 16, 1861, at National Hall, Philadelphia, and has
been supposed to disclose "a plan, of which ex-Governor Price was likely
aware:"
"Twelfth--That in the deliberate judgment of the Democracy of
Philadelphia, and, so far as we know it, of Pennsylvania, the
dissolution of the Union by the separation of the whole South, a result
we shall most sincerely lament, may release this Commonwealth to a large
extent from the bonds which now connect her with the Confederacy, except
so far as for temporary convenience she chooses to submit to them, and
would authorize and require her citizens, through a Convention, to be
assembled for that purpose, to determine with whom her lot should be
cast, whether with the North and the East, whose fanaticism has
precipitated this misery upon us, or with our brethren of the South,
whose wrongs we feel as our own; or whether Pennsylvania should stand by
herself, as a distinct community, ready when occasion offers, to bind
together the broken Union, and resume her place of loyalty and
devotion."
Senator Lane of Oregon, replying to Senator Johnson of Tennessee,
December 19, 1860, in the United States Senate, and speaking of and for
the Northern Democracy, said:
"They will not march with him under his bloody banner, or Mr. Lincoln's,
to invade the soil of the gallant State of South Carolina, when she may
withdraw from a Confederacy that has refused her that equality to which
she is entitled, as a member of the Union, under the Constitution. On
the contrary, when he or any other gentleman raises that banner and
attempts to subjugate that gallant people, instead of marching with him,
we will meet him there, ready to repel him and his forces. He shall not
bring with him the Northern Democracy to strike down a people contending
for rights that have been refused them in a Union that ought to
recognize the equality of every member of the Confederacy. * * * I now
serve notice that, when War is made upon that gallant South for
withdrawing from a Union which refuses them their rights, the Northern
Democracy will not join in the crusade. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL HAVE
WAR ENOUGH AT HOME. THE DEMOCRACY OF THE NORTH NEED NOT CROSS THE
BORDER TO FIND AN ENEMY."
The following letter from Ex-President Pierce is in the same misleading
strain:
"CLARENDON HOTEL, January 6, 1860.--[This letter was captured, at Jeff.
Davis's house in Mississippi, by the Union troops.]
"MY DEAR FRIEND:--I wrote you an unsatisfactory note a day or two since.
I have just had a pleasant interview with Mr. Shepley, whose courage and
fidelity are equal to his learning and talents. He says he would rather
fight the battle with you as the standard-bearer in 1860, than under the
auspices of any other leader. The feeling and judgment of Mr. S. in
this relation is, I am confident, rapidly gaining ground in New England.
Our people are looking for 'the coming man,' one who is raised by all
the elements of his character above the atmosphere ordinarily breathed
by politicians, a man really fitted for this exigency by his ability,
courage, broad statesmanship, and patriotism. Colonel Seymour (Thomas
H.) arrived here this morning, and expressed his views in this relation
in almost the identical language used by Mr. Shepley.
"It is true that, in the present state of things at Washington and
throughout the country, no man can predict what changes two or three
months may bring forth. Let me suggest that, in the running debates in
Congress, full justice seems to me not to have been done to the
Democracy of the North. I do not believe that our friends at the South
have any just idea of the state of feeling, hurrying at this moment to
the pitch of intense exasperation, between those who respect their
political obligations and those who have apparently no impelling power
but that which fanatical passion on the subject of Domestic Slavery
imparts.
"Without discussing the question of right, of abstract power to Secede,
I have never believed that actual disruption of the Union can occur
without blood; and if, through the madness of Northern Abolitionism,
that dire calamity must come, THE FIGHTING WILL NOT BE ALONG MASON'S AND
DIXON'S LINE MERELY. IT [WILL] BE WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS, IN OUR OWN
STREETS, BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS TO WHOM I HAVE REFERRED.
Those who defy law and scout Constitutional obligations will, if we ever
reach the arbitrament of arms, FIND OCCUPATION ENOUGH AT HOME.
"Nothing but the state of Mrs. Pierce's health would induce me to leave
the Country now, although it is quite likely that my presence at home
would be of little service.
"I have tried to impress upon our people, especially in New Hampshire
and Connecticut, where the only elections are to take place during the
coming spring, that while our Union meetings are all in the right
direction, and well enough for the present, they will not be worth the
paper upon which their resolutions are written unless we can overthrow
political Abolitionism at the polls and repeal the Unconstitutional and
obnoxious laws which, in the cause of 'personal liberty,' have been
placed upon our statute-books. I shall look with deep interest, and not
without hope, for a decided change in this relation.
"Ever and truly your friend,
"FRANKLIN PIERCE.
"Hon. JEFF. DAVIS,
"Washington, D. C."
But let us turn from contemplating the encouragements to Southern
Treason and Rebellion, held out by Northern Democratic Copperheads, to
the more pleasing spectacle of Loyalty and Patriotism exhibited by the
Douglas wing of Democracy.
Immediately after Sumter, and while the President was formulating his
Message, calling for 75,000 volunteers, Douglas called upon him at the
White House, regretted that Mr. Lincoln did not propose to call for
thrice as many; and on the 18th of April, having again visited the White
House, wrote, and gave the following dispatch to the Associated Press,
for circulation throughout the Country:
"April 18, 1861, Senator Douglas called on the President, and had an
interesting conversation on the present condition of the Country. The
substance of it was, on the part of Mr. Douglas, that while he was
unalterably opposed to the administration in all its political issues,
he was prepared to fully sustain the President in the exercise of all
his Constitutional functions, to preserve the Union, maintain the
Government, and defend the Federal Capital. A firm policy and prompt
action was necessary. The Capital was in danger and must be defended at
all hazards, and at any expense of men and money. He spoke of the
present and future without any reference to the past."
It is stated of this meeting and its immediate results: "The President
was deeply gratified by the interview. To the West, Douglas
telegraphed, 'I am for my Country and against all its assailants.' The
fire of his patriotism spread to the masses of the North, and Democrat
and Republican rallied to the support of the flag. In Illinois the
Democratic and Republican presses vied with each other in the utterance
of patriotic sentiments. * * * Large and numerously attended Mass
meetings met, as it were with one accord, irrespective of parties, and
the people of all shades of political opinions buried their party
hatchets. Glowing and eloquent orators exhorted the people to ignore
political differences in the present crisis, join in the common cause,
and rally to the flag of the Union and the Constitution. It was a noble
truce. From the many resolutions of that great outpouring of patriotic
sentiment, which ignored all previous party ties, we subjoin the
following:
"'Resolved, that it is the duty of all patriotic citizens of Illinois,
without distinction of party or sect, to sustain the Government through
the peril which now threatens the existence of the Union; and of our
Legislature to grant such aid of men and money as the exigency of the
hour and the patriotism of our people shall demand.'
"Governor Yates promptly issued his proclamation, dated the 15th of
April, convening the Legislature for the 23rd inst. in Extraordinary
Session.
* * * * * * *
"On the evening of the 25th of April, Mr. Douglas, who had arrived at
the Capital the day before, addressed the General Assembly and a densely
packed audience, in the Hall of Representatives, in that masterly
effort, which must live and be enshrined in the hearts of his countrymen
so long as our Government shall endure. Douglas had ever delighted in
the mental conflicts of Party strife; but now, when his Country was
assailed by the red hand of Treason, he was instantly divested of his
Party armor and stood forth panoplied only in the pure garb of a true
Patriot.
"He taught his auditory--he taught his Country, for his speeches were
telegraphed all over it--the duty of patriotism at that perilous hour of
the Nation's Life. He implored both Democrats and Republicans to lay
aside their Party creeds and Platforms; to dispense with Party
Organizations and Party Appeals; to forget that they were ever divided
until they had first rescued the Government from its assailants. His
arguments were clear, convincing, and unanswerable; his appeals for the
Salvation of his Country, irresistible. It was the last speech, but
one, he ever made."
Among other pithy and patriotic points made by him in that great speech
--[July 9, 1861.]--were these: "So long as there was a hope of a
peaceful solution, I prayed and implored for Compromise. I have spared
no effort for a peaceful solution of these troubles; I have failed, and
there is but one thing to do--to rally under the flag." "The South has
no cause of complaint." "Shall we obey the laws or adopt the Mexican
system of War, on every election." "Forget Party--all remember only
your Country." "The shortest road to Peace is the most tremendous
preparation for War." "It is with a sad heart and with a grief I have
never before experienced, that I have to contemplate this fearful
Struggle. * * * But it is our duty to protect the Government and the
flag from every assailant, be he who he may."
In Chicago, Douglas repeated his patriotic appeal for the preservation
of the Union, and tersely declared that "There can be no Neutrals in
this War--only Patriots and Traitors." In that city he was taken with a
mortal illness, and expired at the Tremont House, June 3, 1861--just one
month prior to the meeting of the called Session of Congress.
The wonderful influence wielded by Douglas throughout the North, was
well described afterward by his colleague, Judge Trumbull, in the
Senate, when he said: "His course had much to do in producing that
unanimity in support of the Government which is now seen throughout the
Loyal States. The sublime spectacle of twenty million people rising as
one man in vindication of Constitutional Liberty and Free Government,
when assailed by misguided Rebels and plotting Traitors, is, to a
considerable extent due to his efforts. His magnanimous and patriotic
course in this trying hour of his Country's destiny was the crowning act
of his life."
And Senator McDougall of California--his life-long friend--in describing
the shock of the first intelligence that reached him, of his friend's
sudden death, with words of even greater power, continued: "But, as,
powerless for the moment to resist the tide of emotions, I bowed my head
in silent grief, it came to me that the Senator had lived to witness the
opening of the present unholy War upon our Government; that, witnessing
it, from the Capital of his State, as his highest and best position, he
had sent forth a War-cry worthy of that Douglass, who, as ancient
legends tell, with the welcome of the knightly Andalusian King, was
told,
'"Take thou the leading of the van,
And charge the Moors amain;
There is not such a lance as thine
In all the hosts of Spain.'
"Those trumpet notes, with a continuous swell, are sounding still
throughout all the borders of our Land. I heard them upon the mountains
and in the valleys of the far State whence I come. They have
communicated faith and strength to millions. * * * I ceased to grieve
for Douglas. The last voice of the dead Douglas I felt to be stronger
than the voice of multitudes of living men."
And here it may not be considered out of place for a brief reference to
the writer's own position at this time; especially as it has been much
misapprehended and misstated. One of the fairest of these statements*
runs thus:
[Lusk's History of the Politics of Illinois from 1856 to 1884, p.
175.]
"It is said that Logan did not approve the great speech made by Senator
Douglas, at Springfield, in April, 1861, wherein he took the bold ground
that in the contest which was then clearly imminent to him, between the
North and the South, that there could be but two parties, Patriots and
Traitors. But granting that there was a difference between Douglas and
Logan at that time, it did not relate to their adhesion to the Cause of
their Country Logan had fought for the Union upon the plains of Mexico,
and again stood ready to give his life, if need be, for his Country,
even amid the cowardly slanders that were then following his pathway.
"The difference between Douglas and Logan was this: Mr. Douglas was
fresh from an extended campaign in the dissatisfied Sections of the
Southern States, and he was fully apprised of their intention to attempt
the overthrow of the Union, and was therefore in favor of the most
stupendous preparations for War.
"Mr. Logan, on the other hand, believed in exhausting all peaceable
means before a resort to Arms, and in this he was like President
Lincoln; but when he saw there was no alternative but to fight, he was
ready and willing for armed resistance, and, resigning his seat in
Congress, entered the Army, as Colonel of the Thirty-first Illinois
Infantry, and remained in the field in active service until Peace was
declared."
This statement is, in the main, both fair and correct.
It is no more correct, however, in intimating that "Logan did not
approve the great speech made by Senator Douglas, at Springfield, in
April, 1861, wherein he took the bold ground that in the contest which
was then clearly imminent to him, between the North and the South, that
there could be but two parties, Patriots and Traitors," than others have
been in intimating that he was disloyal to the Union, prior to the
breaking out of hostilities--a charge which was laid out flat in the
Senate Chamber, April 19, 1881.
[In Dawson's Life of Logan, pp. 348-353, this matter is thus
alluded to:
"In an early part of this work the base charge that Logan was not
loyal before the War has been briefly touched on. It may be well
here to touch on it more fully. As was then remarked, the only man
that ever dared insinuate to Logan's face that he was a Secession
sympathizer before the War, was Senator Ben Hill of Georgia, in the
United States Senate Chamber, March 30, 1881; and Logan instantly
retorted: 'Any man who insinuates that I sympathized with it at
that time insinuates what is false,' and Senator Hill at once
retracted the insinuation."
"Subsequently, April 19, 1881, Senator Logan, in a speech,
fortified with indisputable record and documentary evidence,
forever set at rest the atrocious calumny. From that record it
appears that on the 17th December, 1860, while still a Douglas
Democrat, immediately after Lincoln's election, and long before his
inauguration, and before even the first gun of the war was fired,
Mr. Logan, then a Representative in the House, voted affirmatively
on a resolution, offered by Morris of Illinois, which declared an
'immovable attachment' to 'our National Union,' and 'that it is our
patriotic duty to stand by it as our hope in peace and our defense
in war;' that on the 7th January, 1861, Mr. Adrian having offered
the following 'Resolved, That we fully approve of the bold and
patriotic act of Major Anderson in withdrawing from Fort Moultrie
to Fort Sumter, and of the determination of the President to
maintain that fearless officer in his present position; and that we
will support the President in all constitutional measures to
enforce the laws and preserve the Union'--Mr. Logan, in casting his
vote, said: 'As the resolution receives my unqualified approval, I
vote Aye;' and that further on the 5th of February, 1861, before
the inauguration of President Lincoln, in a speech made by Logan in
the House in favor of the Crittenden Compromise measures, he used
the following language touching Secession:
"'Sir, I have always denied, and do yet deny, the right of
Secession. There is no warrant for it in the Constitution. It is
wrong, it is unlawful, unconstitutional, and should be called by
the right name--revolution. No good, sir, can result from it, but
much mischief may. It is no remedy for any grievances. I hold
that all grievances can be much easier redressed inside the Union
than out of it.'
"In that same speech he also * * * said:
"'I have been taught that the preservation of this glorious Union,
with its broad flag waving over us as the shield for our protection
on land and on sea, is paramount to all the parties and platforms
that ever have existed or ever can exist. I would, to day, if I
had the power, sink my own party and every other one, with all
their platforms, into the vortex of ruin, without heaving a sigh or
shedding a tear, to save the Union, or even stop the revolution
where it is.'
"In this most complete speech of vindication--which Senator Logan
said he put upon record, 'First, that my children, after me, may
not have these slanders thrown in their faces without the power of
dispelling or refuting them; and second, that they may endure in
this Senate Chamber, so that it may be a notice to Senators of all
parties and all creeds that hereafter, while I am here in the
Senate, no insinuation of that kind will be submitted to by me,'
--the proofs of the falsity of the charge were piled mountain-high,
and among them the following voluntary statements from two
Democratic Senators, who were with him before the War, in the House
of Representatives:
"'United States Senate Chamber,
WASHINGTON, April 14, 1881.
"'DEAR SIR: In a discussion in the Senate a few weeks since you
referred to the fact that a Southern Senator, who had served with
you in Congress before the War, could testify that during your term
of service there you gave no encouragement to the Secession of the
Southern States, adding, however, that you did not ask such
testimony. I was not sure at the time that your reference was to
me, as Senator Pugh of Alabama, was also a member of that Congress.
"'Since then, having learned that your reference was to me, I
propose on the floor of the Senate, should suitable occasion offer,
to state what I know of your position and views at the time
referred to. But, as I may be absent from the Senate for some
time, I deem it best to give you this written statement, with full
authority to use it in any way that seems proper to you.
"'When you first came to Congress in ----, you were a very ardent
and impetuous Democrat. In the division which took place between
Mr. Douglas and his friends, on the one hand, and the Southern
Democrats, on the other, you were a warm and uncompromising
supporter of Mr. Douglas; and in the course of that convention you
became somewhat estranged from your party associates in the South.
In our frequent discussions upon the subjects of difference, I
never heard a word of sympathy from your lips with Secession in
either theory or practice. On the contrary, you were vehement in
your opposition to it.'
"'I remember well a conversation I had with you just before leaving
Washington to become a candidate for the Secession convention. You
expressed the deep regret you felt at my proposed action, and
deplored the contemplated movement in terms as strong as any I
heard from any Republican.'
Yours truly,
"'L. Q. C. LAMAR
"'Hon. JOHN A. LOGAN.
"United States Senate, Washington, D. C.'
"Senate Chamber, April 14, 1881.
"'Having read the above statement of Senator Lamar, I fully concur
with him in my recollection of your expressions and action in
opposition to Secession.
Truly yours, J. L. PUGH.'
"At the conclusion of Senator Logan's speech of refutation, Senator
Brown of Georgia (Democrat) said:
"'Our newspapers may have misrepresented his position. I am now
satisfied they did. I have heard the Senator's statement with
great interest, and I take pleasure in saying--for I had some idea
before that there was some shadow of truth in this report--that I
think his vindication' is full, complete, and conclusive.'
"'I recollect very well during the war, when I was Governor of my
State and the Federal army was invading it, to have had a large
force of militia aiding the Confederate army, and that Gen. Logan
was considered by us as one of the ablest, most gallant, and
skillful leaders of the Federal army. We had occasion to feel his
power, and we learned to respect him.'
"Senator Beck, of Kentucky (Democrat), referring to the fact that
he was kept out of the House at one time, and a great many
suggestions had been made to him as to General Logan, continued:
"'As I said the other day, I never proposed to go into such things,
and never have done so; but at that time General Frank Blair was
here, and I submitted many of the papers I received to him,--I
never thought of using any of them,--and I remember the remark that
he made to me: Beck, John Logan was one of the hardest fighters of
the war; and when many men who were seeking to whistle him down the
wind because of his politics when the war began, were snugly fixed
in safe places, he was taking his life in his hand wherever the
danger was greatest--and I tore up every paper I got, and burnt it
in the fire before his eyes.'
"Senator Dawes of Massachusetts (Republican), also took occasion to
say:
"Mr. President, I do not know that anything which can be said on
this side would be of any consequence to the Senator from Illinois
in this matter. But I came into the House of Representatives at
the same session that the Senator did.
"'He was at that time one of the most intense of Democrats, and I
was there with him when the Rebellion first took root and
manifested itself in open and flagrant war; and I wish to say as a
Republican of that day, when the Senator from Illinois was a
Democrat, that at the earliest possible moment when the Republican
Party was in anxiety as to the position of the Northern Democracy
on the question of forcible assault on the Union, nothing did they
hail with more delight than the early stand which the Senator from
Illinois, from the Democratic side of the House, took upon the
question of resistance to the Government of the United States.
"I feel that it is right that I should state that he was among the
first, if not the very first, of the Northern Democrats who came
out openly and declared, whatever may have been their opinion about
the doctrines of the Republican Party, that when it came to a
question of forcible resistance, they should be counted on the side
of the Government, and in co-operation with the Republican Party in
the attempt to maintain its authority.'
"'I am very glad, whether it be of any service or not, to bear this
testimony to the early stand the Senator from Illinois took while
he was still a Democrat, and the large influence he exerted upon
the Northern Democracy, which kept it from being involved in the
condition and in the work of the Southern Democracy at that
time.'"]
So far from this being the case, the fact is--and it is here mentioned
in part to bring out the interesting point that, had he lived, Douglas
would have been no idle spectator of the great War that was about to be
waged--that when Douglas visited Springfield, Illinois, to make that
great speech in the latter part of April, 1861, the writer went there
also, to see and talk over with him the grave situation of affairs, not
only in the Nation generally, but particularly in Illinois. And on that
occasion Mr. Douglas said to him, substantially: "The time has now
arrived when a man must be either for or against his Country. Indeed so
strongly do I feel this, and that further dalliance with this question
is useless, that I shall myself take steps to join the Array, and fight
for the maintenance of the Union."
To this the writer replied that he was "equally well convinced that each
and every man must take his stand," and that he also "purposed at an
early day to raise a Regiment and draw the sword in that Union's
defense."
This was after Sumter, and only seventy days before Congress was to meet
in Called Session. When that session met, Douglas had, weeks before,
gone down to the grave amid the tears of a distracted Nation, with the
solemn injunction upon his dying lips: "Obey the Laws and Defend the
Constitution"--and the writer had returned to Washington, to take his
seat in Congress, with that determination still alive in his heart.
In fact there had been all along, substantial accord between Mr. Douglas
and the writer. There really was no "difference between Douglas and
Logan" as to "preparations for War," or in "exhausting all Peaceable
means before a resort to Arms," and both were in full accord with
President Lincoln on these points.
Let us see if this is not of record: Take the writer's speech in the
House of Representatives, February 5, 1861, and it will be seen that he
said: "I will go as far as any man in the performance of a
Constitutional duty to put down Rebellion, to suppress Insurrection, and
to enforce the Laws." Again, he said, "If all the evils and calamities
that have ever happened since the World began, could be gathered in one
Great Catastrophe, its horrors could not eclipse, in their frightful
proportions, the Drama that impends over us."
From these extracts it is plain enough that even at this very early day
the writer fully understood the "frightful proportions" of the impending
struggle, and would "go as far as"--not only Mr. Douglas, but--"any man,
to put down Rebellion"--which necessarily involved War, and
"preparations for War." But none the less, but rather the more, because
of the horrors which he foresaw must be inseparable from so terrible a
War, was he anxious by timely mutual Concessions--"by any sacrifice," as
he termed it--if possible, to avert it.
He was ready to sink Party, self, and to accept any of the Propositions
to that end--Mr. Douglas's among them.
[See his speech of February 5, 1861, Congressional Globe]
In this attitude also he was in accord with Mr. Douglas, who, as well as
the writer, was ready to make any sacrifice, of Party or self; to
"exhaust every effort at peaceful adjustment," before resorting to War.
The fact is they were much of the time in consultation, and always in
substantial accord.
In a speech made in the Senate, March 15, 1861, Mr. Douglas had reduced
the situation to the following three alternative points:
"1. THE RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE UNION by such Amendments to
the Constitution as will insure the domestic tranquillity, safety, and
equality of all the States, and thus restore peace, unity, and
fraternity, to the whole Country.
"2. A PEACEFUL DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION by recognizing the Independence
of such States as refuse to remain in the Union without such
Constitutional Amendments, and the establishment of a liberal system of
commercial and social intercourse with them by treaties of commerce and
amity.
"3. WAR, with a view to the subjugation and military occupation of those
States which have Seceded or may Secede from the Union."
As a thorough Union man, he could never have agreed to a "Peaceful
Dissolution of the Union." On the other hand he was equally averse to
War, because he held that "War is Disunion. War is final, eternal
Separation." Hence, all his energies and talents were given to carrying
out his first-stated line of policy, and to persuading the Seceders to
accept what in that line was offered to them by the dominant party.
His speech in the Senate, March 25, 1861, was a remarkable effort in
that respect. Mr. Breckinridge had previously spoken, and had declared
that: "Whatever settlement may be made of other questions, this must be
settled upon terms that will give them [the Southern States] either a
right, in common with others, to emigrate into all the territory, or
will secure to them their rights on a principle of equitable division."
Mr. Douglas replied: "Now, under the laws as they stand, in every
Territory of the United States, without any exception, a Southern man
can go with his Slave-property on equal terms with all other property.
* * * Every man, either from the North or South, may go into the
Territories with his property on terms of exact equality, subject to the
local law; and Slave-property stands on an equal footing with all other
kinds of property in the Territories of the United States. It now
stands on an equal footing in all the Territories for the first time.
"I have shown you that, up to 1859, little more than a year ago, it was
prohibited in part of the Territories. It is not prohibited anywhere
now. For the first time, under Republican rule, the Southern States
have secured that equality of rights in the Territories for their
Slave-property which they have been demanding so long."
He held that the doctrine of Congressional prohibition in all the
Territories, as incorporated in the Wilmot proviso, had now been
repudiated by the Republicans of both Houses of Congress, who had "all
come over to Non-intervention and Popular Sovereignty;" that the "Wilmot
proviso is given up; that Congressional prohibition is given up; that
the aggressive policy is repudiated; and hereafter the Southern man and
the Northern man may move into the Territories with their Property on
terms of entire equality, without excepting Slaves or any other kind of
property."
Continuing, he said: "What more do the Southern States want? What more
can any man demand? Non-intervention is all you asked. Will it be said
the South required in addition to this, laws of Congress to protect
Slavery in the Territories? That cannot be said; for only last May, the
Senate, by a nearly unanimous vote--a unanimous vote of the Southern
men, with one or two exceptions--declared that affirmative legislation
was not needed at this time. * * * What cause is there for further
alarm in the Southern States, so far as the Territories are concerned?
* * *
"I repeat, the South has got all they ever claimed in all the
Territories. * * * Then, sir, according to law, the Slaveholding
States have got equality in the Territories. How is it in fact. * * *
Now, I propose to show that they have got the actual equitable
partition, giving them more than they were disposed to demand.
"The Senator from Kentucky, * * * Mr. Crittenden, introduced a
proposition for an equitable partition. That proposition was, that
north of 36 30' Slavery should be prohibited, and South of it should be
protected, by Territorial law. * * * What is now the case? It is true
the Crittenden proposition has not yet become part of the Constitution;
but it is also true that an equitable partition has been made by the
vote of the people themselves, establishing, maintaining, and protecting
Slavery in every inch of territory South of the thirty-seventh parallel,
giving the South half a degree more than the Crittenden Proposition.
"There stands your Slave-code in New Mexico protecting Slavery up to the
thirty-seventh degree as effectually as laws can be made to protect it.
There it stands the Law of the Land. Therefore the South has all below
the thirty-seventh parallel, while Congress has not prohibited Slavery
even North of it.
* * * * * *
"What more, then, is demanded? Simply that a Constitutional Amendment
shall be adopted, affirming--what? Precisely what every Republican in
both Houses of Congress has voted for within a month. Just do, by
Constitutional Amendment, what you have voted in the Senate and House of
Representatives, that is all. You are not even required to do that, but
merely to vote for a proposition submitting the question to the People
of the States whether they will make a Constitutional Amendment
affirming the equitable partition of the Territories which the People
have already made. * * *
"You may ask, why does the South want us to do it by Constitutional
Amendment, when we have just done it voluntarily by Law? The President
of the United States, in his Inaugural, has told you the reason. He has
informed you that all of these troubles grow out of the absence of a
Constitutional provision defining the power of Congress over the subject
of Slavery. * * * He thinks that the trouble has arisen from the
absence of such a Constitutional Provision, and suggests a National
Convention to enable the People to supply the defect, leaving the People
to say what it is, instead of dictating to them what it shall be."
It may here be remarked that while Mr. Douglas held that "So far as the
doctrine of Popular Sovereignty and Nonintervention is concerned, the
Colorado Bill, the Nevada Bill, and the Dakota Bill, are identically the
same with the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and in its precise language"--these
former Bills having been passed at the last Session of the 36th
Congress--the Republicans, on the contrary, held that neither in these
nor other measures had they abandoned any distinctive Republican
principle; while Breckinridge declared that they had passed those
Territorial Bills, without the Wilmot proviso, because they felt
perfectly secure in those Territories, with all the Federal patronage in
Republican hands.
However that may be, we have here, brought out in strong contrast, the
conciliatory feeling which inspired such Union men as Douglas, and the
strong and persistent efforts they made in behalf of Concession and
Peace up to a period only a few weeks before the bombardment of Sumter;
and the almost total revulsion in their sentiments after that event, as
to the only proper means to preserve the Union. For it was only then
that the truth, as it fell from Douglas's lips at Springfield, was fully
recognized, to wit: that there was no half-way ground betwixt Patriotism
and Treason; that War was an existing fact; and that Patriots must arm
to defend and preserve the Union against the armed Traitors assailing
it.
At last, July 4, 1861, the Congress met, and proceeded at once with
commendable alacrity and patriotism, to the consideration and enactment
of measures sufficient to meet the extraordinary exigency, whether as
regards the raising and equipment of the vast bodies of Union volunteers
needed to put down Rebellion, or in the raising of those enormous
amounts of money which the Government was now, or might thereafter be,
called upon to spend like water in preserving the Union.
It was at this memorable Session, of little over one month, that the
chief of the great "War Measures" as they were termed, were enacted.