Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics Part 3

The executive talents of Douglas were much in demand. First he was made a member of the Sangamon County delegation to the State convention;[104] then chairman of the State Central Committee; and finally, virtual manager of the Democratic campaign in Illinois.[105]

He was urged to stand for election to the legislature; but he steadily refused this nomination. "Considerations of a private nature," he wrote, "constrain me to decline the nomination, and leave the field to those whose avocations and private affairs will enable them to devote the requisite portion of their time to the canva.s.s."[106] Inasmuch as Sangamon County usually sent a Whig delegation to the legislature, this declination could hardly have cost him many hours of painful deliberation.[107] At all events his avocations did not prevent him from making every effort to carry the State for the Democratic party.

An unfortunate legal complication had cost the Democrats no end of worry. Hitherto the party had counted safely on the vote of the aliens in the State; that is, actual inhabitants whether naturalized or not.[108] The right of unnaturalized aliens to vote had never been called in question. But during the campaign, two Whigs of Galena inst.i.tuted a collusive suit to test the rights of aliens, hoping, of course, to embarra.s.s their opponents.[109] The Circuit Court had already decided the case adversely, when Douglas a.s.sumed direction of the campaign. If the decision were allowed to stand, the Democratic ticket would probably lose some nine thousand votes and consequently the election. The case was at once appealed.[110] Douglas and his old friend and benefactor, Murray McConnell, were retained as counsel for the appellant. The opposing counsel were Whigs. The case was argued in the winter term of the Supreme Court, but was adjourned until the following June, a scant six months before the elections.

It was regrettable that a case, which from its very nature was complicated by political considerations, should have arisen in the midst of a campaign of such unprecedented excitement as that of 1840.

It was taken for granted, on all sides, that the judges would follow their political predilections--and what had Democrats to expect from a bench of Whigs? The counsel for the appellant strained every nerve to secure another postponement. Fortune favored the Democrats. When the court met in June, Douglas, prompted by Judge Smith, the only Democrat on the bench, called attention to clerical errors in the record, and on this technicality moved that the case be dismissed. Protracted arguments _pro and con_ ensued, so that the whole case finally was adjourned until the next term of court in November, after the election.[111] Once more, at all events, the Democrats could count on the alien vote. Did ever lawyer serve politician so well?

As Chairman of the State Central Committee, Douglas had no perfunctory position. The Whigs were displaying unusual aggressiveness. Their leaders were adroit politicians and had taken a leaf from Democratic experience in the matter of party organization. The processions, the torch-light parades, the barbecues and other noisy demonstrations of the Whigs, were very disconcerting. Such performances could not be lightly dismissed as "Whig Humb.u.g.g.e.ry," for they were alarmingly effective in winning votes. In self-defense, the Democratic managers were obliged to set on foot counter-demonstrations. On the whole, the Democrats were less successful in manufacturing enthusiasm. When one convention of young Democrats failed, for want of support, Douglas saved the situation only by explaining that hard-working Democrats could not leave their employment to go gadding. They preferred to leave noise and sham to their opponents, knowing that in the end "the quiet but certain influence of truth and correct principles" would prevail.[112] And when the Whigs unwittingly held a great demonstration for "Tippecanoe and Tyler too," on the birthday of King George III, Douglas saw to it that an address was issued to voters, warning them against the chicane of unpatriotic demagogues. As a counter-blast, "All Good Democrats" were summoned to hold ma.s.s-meetings in the several counties on the Fourth of July. "We select the Fourth of July," read this p.r.o.nunciamento, "not to desecrate it with unhallowed shouts ... but in cool and calm devotion to our country, to renew upon the altars of its liberties, a sacred oath of fidelity to its principles."[113]

Both parties now drew upon their reserves. Douglas went to the front whenever and wherever there was hard fighting to be done.[114] He seemed indefatigable. Once again he met Major Stuart on the platform.[115] He was pitted against experienced campaigners like ex-Governor Duncan and General Ewing of Indiana. Douglas made a fearless defence of Democratic principles in a joint debate with both these Whig champions at Springfield.[116] The discussion continued far into the night. In his anxiety to let no point escape, Douglas had his supper brought to him; and it is the testimony of an old Whig who heard the debate, that Duncan was "the worst used-up man" he ever saw.[117] Whether Douglas took the field as on this occasion, or directed the campaign from headquarters, he was cool, collected, and resourceful. If the sobriquet of "the Little Giant" had not already been fastened upon him, it was surely earned in this memorable campaign of 1840. The victory of Van Buren over Harrison in Illinois was little less than a personal triumph for Douglas, for Democratic reverses elsewhere emphasized the already conspicuous fact that Illinois had been saved only by superior organization and leaders.h.i.+p.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 36: Joseph Wallace in a letter to the Illinois _State Register_, April 30, 1899.]

[Footnote 37: Illinois _State Register_, April 30, 1899.]

[Footnote 38: Sheahan, Life of Douglas, pp. 16-17.]

[Footnote 39: Sheahan's account of this incident (pp. 18-20) is confused. The episode is told very differently in the MS.

Autobiography.]

[Footnote 40: MS. Autobiography.]

[Footnote 41: In the Autobiography, Douglas makes a vigorous defense of his connection with the whole affair.]

[Footnote 42: Just when he dropped the final s, I am unable to say.

Joseph Wallace thinks that he did so soon after coming to Illinois.

See Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1901, p.

114.]

[Footnote 43: Joseph Wallace in the Illinois _State Register_, April 30, 1899.]

[Footnote 44: Douglas tells the story with great relish in his autobiography. The t.i.tle of the act reads "An Act creating M'Lean County," but the body of the act gives the name as McLean. Douglas had used the exact letters of the name, though he had twisted the capital letters, writing a capital C for a capital L.]

[Footnote 45: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 285-286; see contemporary newspapers.]

[Footnote 46: Illinois _Advocate_, May 4, 1835.]

[Footnote 47: _Ibid._, May 6, 1835.]

[Footnote 48: Illinois _Advocate_, Dec. 17, 1835; Sangamo _Journal_, Feb. 6, 1836.]

[Footnote 49: Sangamo _Journal_, February 6, 1836.]

[Footnote 50: There was one exception, see Sheahan, Douglas, p. 26.]

[Footnote 51: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 26; Wheeler, Biographical History, p. 67; Sangamo _Journal_, May 7, 1836.]

[Footnote 52: Sangamo _Journal_, May 7, 1836.]

[Footnote 53: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 54: _Ibid._, May 14, 1836.]

[Footnote 55: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 56: Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 103-105.]

[Footnote 57: See letter of "M--" in the Illinois _State Register_, July 29, 1836.]

[Footnote 58: Illinois _State Register_, October 28, 1836.]

[Footnote 59: _Ibid._, December 8, 1836.]

[Footnote 60: Sheahan, Douglas, p. 29; MS. Autobiography.]

[Footnote 61: Act of February 27, 1837.]

[Footnote 62: In his Autobiography Douglas says that the friends of the bill persuaded his const.i.tuents to instruct him to vote for the bill; hence his affirmative vote was the vote of his const.i.tuents.]

[Footnote 63: Douglas was in good company at all events. Abraham Lincoln was one of those who voted for the bill.]

[Footnote 64: See Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, Chapter 40; Wheeler, Biographical History, pp. 68-70; Sheahan, Douglas, pp.

32-33.]

[Footnote 65: But it was no worse than the English custom before the Act of 1857.]

[Footnote 66: House Journal, p. 62.]

[Footnote 67: The a.s.sembly subst.i.tuted the word "inexpedient" for "unconst.i.tutional," in the resolution submitted by Douglas. House Journal, p. 62.]

[Footnote 68: Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, I, pp. 137-138.]

[Footnote 69: _Ibid._, p. 139.]

[Footnote 70: Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1901, p. 111.]

[Footnote 71: Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1901, pp. 111-112. The Sangamo _Journal_, August 5, 1837, says that Douglas owed his appointment to the efforts of Senator Young in his behalf.]

[Footnote 72: Sangamo _Journal_, August 29, 1837.]

[Footnote 73: Douglas describes his duties in Cutts, Const. and Party Questions, pp. 160 ff.]

[Footnote 74: Conversation with Charles A. Keyes, Esq., of Springfield, and with Dr. A.W. French, also of Springfield, Illinois.]

[Footnote 75: Sangamo _Journal_, July 1, 1837. The newspaper accounts of this affair are confusing; but they are in substantial agreement as to the causes and outcome of the attack upon the office of the _Republican_.]