Upon one auditor, who to be sure was inexpressibly bored by the whole discussion of the "everlasting general ticket elections," Douglas made an unhappy impression. John Quincy Adams recorded in his diary,--that diary which was becoming a sort of Rogues" Gallery: "He now raved out his hour in abusive invectives upon the members who had pointed out its slanders and upon the Whig party. His face was convulsed, his gesticulation frantic, and he lashed himself into such a heat that if his body had been made of combustible matter, it would have burnt out.
In the midst of his roaring, to save himself from choking, he stripped off and cast away his cravat, and unb.u.t.toned his waist-coat, and had the air and aspect of a half-naked pugilist. And this man comes from a judicial bench, and pa.s.ses for an eloquent orator."[174]
No one will mistake this for an impartial description. Nearly every Democrat who spoke upon this tedious question, according to Adams, either "raved" or "foamed at the mouth." The old gentleman was too wearied and disgusted with the affair to be a fair reporter. But as a caricature, this picture of the young man from Illinois certainly hits off the style which he affected, in common with most Western orators.
Notwithstanding his very substantial services to his party, Douglas had sooner or later to face his const.i.tuents with an answer to the crucial question, "What have you done for us?" It is a hard, brutal question, which has blighted many a promising career in American politics. The interest which Douglas exhibited in the Western Harbors bill was due, in part at least, to his desire to propitiate those by virtue of whose suffrages he was a member of the House of Representatives. At the same time, he was no doubt sincerely devoted to the measure, because he believed profoundly in its national character. Local and national interests were so inseparable in his mind, that he could urge the improvement of the Illinois River as a truly national undertaking. "Through this channel, and this alone," he declared all aglow with enthusiasm, "we have a connected and uninterrupted navigation for steamboats and large vessels from the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, to all the northern lakes."
Considerations of war and defense, as well as of peace and commerce, counselled the proposed expenditure. "We have no fleet upon the lakes; we have no navy-yard there at which we could construct one, and no channel through which we could introduce our vessels from the sea-board. In times of war, those lakes must be defended, if defended at all, by a fleet from the naval depot and a yard on the Mississippi River." After the State of Illinois had expended millions on the Illinois and Michigan ca.n.a.l, was Congress to begrudge a few thousands to remove the sand-bars which impeded navigation in this "national highway by an irrevocable ordinance"?[175]
This special plea for the Illinois River was prefaced by a lengthy exposition of Democratic doctrine respecting internal improvements, for it was inc.u.mbent upon every good Democrat to explain a measure which seemed to countenance a broad construction of the powers of the Federal government. Douglas was at particular pains to show that the bill did not depart from the principles laid down in President Jackson"s famous Maysville Road veto-message.[176] To him Jackson incarnated the party faith; and his public doc.u.ments were a veritable, political testament. In the art of reading consistency into his own, or the conduct of another, Douglas had no equal. To the end of his days he possessed in an extraordinary degree the subtle power of redistributing emphasis so as to produce a desired effect. It was the most effective and the most insidious of his many natural gifts, for it often won immediate ends at the permanent sacrifice of his reputation for candor and veracity. The immediate result of this essay in interpretation of Jacksonian principles, was to bring down upon Douglas"s devoted head the withering charge, peculiarly blighting to a budding statesman, that he was conjuring with names to the exclusion of arguments. With biting sarcasm, Representative Holmes drew attention to the gentleman"s disposition, after the fashion of little men, to advance to the fray under the seven-fold shield of the Telamon Ajax--a cla.s.sical allusion which was altogether lost on the young man from Illinois.
The appropriation for the Illinois River was stricken from the Western Harbors bill much to Douglas"s regret.[177] Still, he had evinced a genuine concern for the interests of his const.i.tuents and his reward was even now at hand. Early in the year the Peoria _Press_ had recommended a Democratic convention to nominate a candidate for Congress.[178] The _State Register_, and other journals friendly to Douglas, took up the cry, giving the movement thus all the marks of spontaneity. The Democratic organization was found to be intact; the convention was held early in May at Pittsfield; and the Honorable Stephen A. Douglas was unanimously re-nominated for Representative to Congress from the Fifth Congressional District.[179]
Soon after this well-ordered convention in the little Western town of Pittsfield, came the national convention of the Democratic party at Baltimore, where the unexpected happened. To Douglas, as to the rank and file of the party, the selection of Polk must have come as a surprise; but whatever predilections he may have had for another candidate, were speedily suppressed.[180] With the platform, at least, he found himself in hearty accord; and before the end of the session he convinced his a.s.sociates on the Democratic side of the House, that he was no lukewarm supporter of the ticket.
While the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriations bill was under discussion in the House, a desultory debate occurred on the politics of Colonel Polk. Such digressions were not unusual on the eve of a presidential election. Seizing the opportunity, Douglas obtained recognition from the Speaker and launched into a turgid speech in defence of Polk, "the standard-bearer of Democracy and freedom." It had been charged that Colonel Polk was "the industrious follower of Andrew Jackson." Douglas turned the thrust neatly by a.s.serting, "He is emphatically a Young Hickory--the unwavering friend of Old Hickory in all his trials--his bosom companion--his supporter and defender on all occasions, in public and private, from his early boyhood until the present moment. No man living possessed General Jackson"s confidence in a greater degree.... That he has been the industrious follower of General Jackson in those glorious contests for the defence of his country"s rights, will not be deemed the unpardonable sin by the American people, so long as their hearts beat and swell with grat.i.tude to their great benefactor. He is the very man for the times--a "chip of the old block"--of the true hickory stump. The people want a man whose patriotism, honesty, ability, and devotion to democratic principles, have been tested and tried in the most stormy times of the republic, and never found wanting. That man is James K. Polk of Tennessee."[181]
There could be no better evidence that Douglas felt sure of his own fences, than his willingness to a.s.sist in the general campaign outside of his own district and State. He not only addressed a ma.s.s-meeting of delegates from many Western States at Nashville, Tennessee,[182] but journeyed to St. Louis and back again, in the service of the Democratic Central Committee, speaking at numerous points along the way with gratifying success, if we may judge from the grateful words of appreciation in the Democratic press.[183] It was while he was in attendance on the convention in Nashville that he was brought face to face with Andrew Jackson. The old hero was then living in retirement at the Hermitage. Thither, as to a Mecca, all good Democrats turned their faces after the convention. Douglas received from the old man a greeting which warmed the c.o.c.kles of his heart, and which, duly reported by the editor of the Illinois _State Register_, who was his companion, was worth many votes at the cross-roads of Illinois. The scene was described as follows:
"Governor Clay, of Alabama, was near General Jackson, who was himself sitting on a sofa in the hall, and as each person entered, the governor introduced him to the hero and he pa.s.sed along. When Judge Douglas was thus introduced, General Jackson raised his still brilliant eyes and gazed for a moment in the countenance of the judge, still retaining his hand. "Are you the Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, who delivered a speech last session on the subject of the fine imposed on me for declaring martial law at New Orleans?"" asked General Jackson.
""I have delivered a speech in the House of Representatives upon that subject," was the modest reply of our friend.
""Then stop," said General Jackson; "sit down here beside me. I desire to return you my thanks for that speech. You are the first man that has ever relieved my mind on a subject which has rested upon it for thirty years. My enemies have always charged me with violating the Const.i.tution of my country by declaring martial law at New Orleans, and my friends have always admitted the violation, but have contended that circ.u.mstances justified me in that violation. I never could understand how it was that the performance of a solemn duty to my country--a duty which, if I had neglected, would have made me a traitor in the sight of G.o.d and man, could properly be p.r.o.nounced a violation of the Const.i.tution. I felt convinced in my own mind that I was not guilty of such a heinous offense; but I could never make out a legal justification of my course, nor has it ever been done, sir, until you, on the floor of Congress, at the late session, established it beyond the possibility of cavil or doubt. I thank you, sir, for that speech. It has relieved my mind from the only circ.u.mstance that rested painfully upon it. Throughout my whole life I never performed an official act which I viewed as a violation of the Const.i.tution of my country; and I can now go down to the grave in peace, with the perfect consciousness that I have not broken, at any period of my life, the Const.i.tution or laws of my country."
"Thus spoke the old hero, his countenance brightened by emotions which it is impossible for us to describe. We turned to look at Douglas--he was speechless. He could not reply, but convulsively shaking the aged veteran"s hand, he rose and left the hall. Certainly General Jackson had paid him the highest compliment he could have bestowed on any individual."[184]
When the August elections had come and gone, Douglas found himself re-elected by a majority of fourteen hundred votes and by a plurality over his Whig opponent of more than seventeen hundred.[185] He was to have another opportunity to serve his const.i.tuents; but the question was still open, whether his talents were only those of an adroit politician intent upon his own advancement, or those of a statesman, capable of conceiving generous national policies which would efface the eager ambitions of the individual and the grosser ends of party.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 163: Poore, Reminiscences, I, pp. 316-317.]
[Footnote 164: Joseph Wallace in the Illinois _State Register_, April 19, 1885.]
[Footnote 165: Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, 1, p. 146.]
[Footnote 166: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 44.]
[Footnote 167: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 1 Sess., App., p. 45.]
[Footnote 168: J.Q. Adams, Memoirs, XI, p. 478.]
[Footnote 169: Richmond _Enquirer_, Jan. 6, 1844.]
[Footnote 170: Act of June 25, 1842; United States Statutes at Large, V, p. 491.]
[Footnote 171: December 14, 1843. _Globe_, 28 Cong. I Sess. p. 36.]
[Footnote 172: Niles" _Register_, Vol. 65, pp. 393-396.]
[Footnote 173: _Globe_, 28 Cong. I Sess. pp. 276-277.]
[Footnote 174: J.Q. Adams, Memoirs, XI, p. 510.]
[Footnote 175: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 549-550. For the trend of public opinion in the district which Douglas represented, see Peoria _Register,_ September 21, 1839.]
[Footnote 176: _Globe,_28 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 527-528]
[Footnote 177: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 534.]
[Footnote 178: Illinois _State Register_, February 9, 1844.]
[Footnote 179: _Ibid._, May 17, 1844.]
[Footnote 180: It was intimated that he had at first aided Tyler in his forlorn hope of a second term.]
[Footnote 181: _Globe_, 28 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 598 ff.]
[Footnote 182: Illinois _State Register_, August 30, 1844.]
[Footnote 183: _Ibid._, September 27, 1844.]
[Footnote 184: Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 70-71.]
[Footnote 185: Official returns in the office of the Secretary of State.]
CHAPTER V
MANIFEST DESTINY
The defeat of President Tyler"s treaty in June, 1844, just on the eve of the presidential campaign, gave the Texas question an importance which the Democrats in convention had not foreseen, when they inserted the re-annexation plank in the platform. The hostile att.i.tude of Whig senators and of Clay himself toward annexation, helped to make Texas a party issue. While it cannot be said that Polk was elected on this issue alone, there was some plausibility in the statement of President Tyler, that "a controlling majority of the people, and a majority of the States, have declared in favor of immediate annexation." At all events, when Congress rea.s.sembled, President Tyler promptly acted on this supposition. In his annual message, and again in a special message a fortnight later, he urged "prompt and immediate action on the subject of annexation." Since the two governments had already agreed on terms of annexation, he recommended their adoption by Congress "in the form of a joint resolution, or act, to be perfected and made binding on the two countries, when adopted in like manner by the government of Texas."[186] A policy which had not been able to secure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate was now to be endorsed by a majority of both houses. In short, a legislative treaty was to be enacted by Congress.
The Hon. Stephen A. Douglas had taken his seat in the House with augmented self-a.s.surance. He had not only secured his re-election and the success of his party in Illinois, but he had served most acceptably as a campaign speaker in Polk"s own State. Surely he was ent.i.tled to some consideration in the councils of his party. In the appointment of standing committees, he could hardly hope for a chairmanship. It was reward enough to be made a member of the Committee of Elections and of the Committee on the Judiciary. On the paramount question before this Congress, he entertained strong convictions, which he had no hesitation in setting forth in a series of resolutions, while older members were still feeling their way. The preamble of these "Joint Resolutions for the annexation of Texas" was in itself a little stump speech: "Whereas the treaty of 1803 had provided that the people of Texas should be incorporated into the Union and admitted as soon as possible to citizenship, and whereas the present inhabitants have signified their willingness to be re-annexed; therefore".... Particular interest attaches to the Eighth Resolution which proposed to extend the Missouri Compromise line through Texas, "inasmuch as the compromise had been made prior to the treaty of 1819, by which Texas was ceded to Spain."[187] The resolutions never commanded any support worth mentioning, attention being drawn to the joint resolution of the Committee on Foreign Affairs which was known to have the sanction of the President. The proposal of Douglas to settle the matter of slavery in Texas in the act of annexation itself, was perhaps his only contribution to the discussion of ways and means. An aggressive Southern group of representatives readily caught up the suggestion.
The debate upon the joint resolution was well under way before Douglas secured recognition from the Speaker. The opposition was led by Winthrop of Ma.s.sachusetts and motived by reluctance to admit slave territory, as well as by const.i.tutional scruples regarding the process of annexation by joint resolution. Douglas spoke largely in rejoinder to Winthrop. A clever retort to Winthrop"s reference to "this odious measure devised for sinister purposes by a President not elected by the people," won for Douglas the good-natured attention of the House.
It was President Adams and not President Tyler, Douglas remonstrated, who had first opened negotiations for annexation; but perhaps the gentleman from Ma.s.sachusetts intended to designate his colleague, Mr.
Adams, when he referred to "a president not elected by the people"![188] Moreover, it was Mr. Adams, who as Secretary of State had urged our claims to all the country as far as the Rio del Norte, under the Treaty of 1803. In spite of these just boundary claims and our solemn promise to admit the inhabitants of the Louisiana purchase to citizenship, we had violated that pledge by ceding Texas to Spain in 1819. These people had protested against this separation, only a few months after the signing of the treaty; they now asked us to redeem our ancient pledge. Honor and violated faith required the immediate annexation of Texas.[189] Had Douglas known, or taken pains to ascertain, who these people were, who protested against the treaty of 1819, he would hardly have wasted his commiseration upon them.
Enough: the argument served his immediate purpose.
To those who contended that Congress had no power to annex territory with a view to admitting new States, Douglas replied that the Const.i.tution not only grants specific powers to Congress, but also general power to pa.s.s acts necessary and proper to carry out the specific powers. Congress may admit new States, but in the present instance Congress cannot exercise that power without annexing territory. "The annexation of Texas is a prerequisite without the performance of which Texas cannot be admitted."[190] The Const.i.tution does not state that the President and Senate may admit new States, nor that they shall make laws for the acquisition of territory in order to enable Congress to admit new States. The Const.i.tution declares explicitly, "_Congress_ may admit new States." "When the grant of power is to Congress, the authority to pa.s.s all laws necessary to its execution is also in Congress; and the treaty-making power is to be confined to those cases where the power is not located elsewhere by the Const.i.tution."[191]
With those weaklings who feared lest the extension of the national domain should react unfavorably upon our inst.i.tutions, and who apprehended war with Mexico, Douglas had no patience. The States of the Union were already drawn closer together than the thirteen original States in the first years of the Union, because of the improved means of communication. Transportation facilities were now multiplying more rapidly than population. "Our federal system," he exclaimed, with a burst of jingoism that won a round of applause from Western Democrats as he resumed his seat, "Our federal system is admirably adapted to the whole continent; and, while I would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in any manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert all legal and honorable means to drive Great Britain and the last vestiges of royal authority from the continent of North America, and extend the limits of the republic from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound republic, and have no more disputes about boundaries, or "red lines"
upon the maps."[192]