Part 2 (1/2)
Smarting under the gibes of Stuart, Douglas replied obstinately that he had nothing to say, as he supposed the Court would not quash the indictments until the point had been proven. This answer aroused more merriment; but the Judge decided that the Court could not rule upon the matter, until the precise spelling in the statute creating the county had been ascertained. No one doubted what the result would be; but at least Douglas had the satisfaction of causing his critics some annoyance and two days' delay, for the statutes had to be procured from an adjoining county. To the astonishment of Court and Bar, and of Douglas himself, it appeared that Douglas had spelled the name correctly. To the indescribable chagrin of the learned Stuart, the Court promptly sustained all the indictments. The young attorney was in high feather; and he made the most of his triumph. The incident taught him a useful lesson: henceforth he would admit nothing, and require his opponents to prove everything that bore upon the case in hand. Some time later, upon comparing the printed statute of the county with the enrolled bill in the office of the Secretary of State, Douglas found that the printer had made a mistake and that the name of the county should have been M'Lean.[44]
On the whole Douglas seems to have discharged his not very onerous duties acceptably. The more his fellow pract.i.tioners saw of him, the more respect they had for him. Moreover, they liked him personally.
His wholesome frankness disarmed ill-natured opponents; his generosity made them fast friends. There was not an inn or hostelry in the circuit, which did not welcome the sight of the talkative, companionable, young district attorney.
Politically as well as socially, Illinois was in a transitional stage.
Although political parties existed, they were rather loose a.s.sociations of men holding similar political convictions than parties in the modern sense with permanent organs of control. He who would might stand for office, either announcing his own candidacy in the newspapers, or if his modesty forbade this course, causing such an announcement to be made by ”many voters.” In benighted districts, where the light of the press did not s.h.i.+ne, the candidate offered himself in person. Even after the advent of Andrew Jackson in national politics, allegiance to party was so far subordinated to personal ambition, that it was no uncommon occurrence for several candidates from each party to enter the lists.[45] From the point of view of party, this practice was strategically faulty, since there was always the possibility that the opposing party might unite on a single candidate. What was needed to insure the success of party was the rationale of an army. But organization was abhorrent to people so tenacious of their personal freedom as Illinoisans, because organization necessitated the subordination of the individual to the centralized authority of the group. To the average man organization spelled dictation.
The first step in the effective control of nominations by party in Illinois, was taken by certain Democrats, foremost among whom was S.A.
Douglas, Esq. His rise as a politician, indeed, coincides with this development of party organization and machinery. The movement began sporadically in several counties. At the instance of Douglas and his friend Brooks of the _News_, the Democrats of Morgan County put themselves on record as favoring a State convention to choose delegates to the national convention of 1836.[46] County after county adopted the suggestion, until the movement culminated in a well-attended convention at Vandalia in April, 1835. Not all counties were represented, to be sure, and no permanent organization was effected; but provision was made for a second convention in December, to nominate presidential electors.[47] Among the delegates from Morgan County in this December convention was Douglas, burning with zeal for the consolidation of his party. Signs were not wanting that he was in league with other zealots to execute a sort of _coup d'etat_ within the party. Early in the session, one Ebenezer Peck, recently from Canada, boldly proposed that the convention should proceed to nominate not only presidential electors but candidates for State offices as well. A storm of protests broke upon his head, and for the moment he was silenced; but on the second day, he and his confidants succeeded in precipitating a general discussion of the convention system.
Peck--contemptuously styled ”the Canadian” by his enemies--secured the floor and launched upon a vigorous defense of the nominating convention as a piece of party machinery. He thought it absurd to talk of a man's having a right to become a candidate for office without the indors.e.m.e.nt of his party. He believed it equally irrational to allow members of the party to consult personal preferences in voting. The members of the party must submit to discipline, if they expected to secure control of office. Confusion again reigned. The presiding officer left the chair precipitately, denouncing the notions of Peck as anti-republican.[48]
In the exciting wrangle that followed, Douglas was understood to say that he had seen the workings of the nominating convention in New York, and he knew it to be the only way to manage elections successfully. The opposition had overthrown the great DeWitt Clinton only by organizing and adopting the convention system. Gentlemen were mistaken who feared that the people of the West had enjoyed their own opinions too long to submit quietly to the wise regulations of a convention. He knew them better: he had himself had the honor of introducing the nominating convention into Morgan County, where it had already prostrated one individual high in office. These wise admonitions from a mere stripling failed to mollify the conservatives.
The meeting broke up in disorder, leaving the party with divided counsels.[49]
Successful county and district conventions did much to break down the resistance to the system. During the following months, Morgan County, and the congressional district to which it belonged, became a political experiment station. A convention at Jacksonville in April not only succeeded in nominating one candidate for each elective office, but also in securing the support of the disappointed aspirants for office, which under the circ.u.mstances was in itself a triumph.[50]
Taking their cue from the enemy, the Whigs of Morgan County also united upon a ticket for the State offices, at the head of which was John J. Hardin, a formidable campaigner. When the canva.s.s was fairly under way, not a man could be found on the Democratic ticket to hold his own with Hardin on the hustings. The ticket was then reorganized so as to make a place for Douglas, who was already recognized as one of the ablest debaters in the county. Just how this transposition was effected is not clear. Apparently one of the nominees of the convention for State representative was persuaded to withdraw.[51] The Whigs promptly pointed out the inconsistency of this performance.
”What are good Democrats to do?” asked the Sangamo _Journal_ mockingly. Douglas had told them to vote for no man who had not been nominated by a caucus![52]
The Democrats committed also another tactical blunder. The county convention had adjourned without appointing delegates to the congressional district convention, which was to be held at Peoria.
Such of the delegates as had remained in town, together with resident Democrats, were hastily rea.s.sembled to make good this omission.[53]
Douglas and eight others were accredited to the Peoria convention; but when they arrived, they found only four other delegates present, one from each of four counties. Nineteen counties were unrepresented.[54]
Evidently there was little or no interest in this political innovation. In no wise disheartened, however, these thirteen delegates declared themselves a duly authorized district convention and put candidates in nomination for the several offices. Again the Whig press scored their opponents. ”Our citizens cannot be led at the dictation of a dozen unauthorized individuals, but will act as freemen,” said the Sangamo _Journal_.[55] There were stalwart Democrats, too, who refused to put on ”the Caucus collar.” Douglas and his ”Peoria Humbug Convention” were roundly abused on all sides. The young politician might have replied, and doubtless did reply, that the rank and file had not yet become accustomed to the system, and that the bad roads and inclement weather were largely responsible for the slim attendance at Peoria.
The campaign was fought with the inevitable concomitants of an Illinois election. The weapons that slew the adversary were not always forged by logic. In rude regions, where the rougher border element congregated, country stores were subsidized by candidates, and liquor liberally dispensed. The candidate who refused to treat was doomed. He was the last man to get a hearing, when the crowds gathered on Sat.u.r.day nights to hear the candidates discuss the questions at issue.
To speak from an improvised rostrum--”the stump”--to a boisterous throng of men who had already accepted the orator's hospitality at the store, was no light ordeal. This was the school of oratory in which Douglas was trained.[56]
The election of all but one of the Democratic nominees was hailed as a complete vindication of the nominating convention as a piece of party machinery. Douglas shared the elation of his fellow workers, even though he was made to feel that his nomination was not due to this much-vaunted caucus system. At all events, the value of organization and discipline had been demonstrated. The day of the professional politician and of the machine was dawning in the frontier State of Illinois.
During the campaign there had been much wild talk about internal improvements. The mania which had taken possession of the people in most Western States had affected the grangers of Illinois. It amounted to an obsession. The State was called upon to use its resources and unlimited credit to provide a market for their produce, by supplying transportation facilities for every aspiring community. Elsewhere State credit was building ca.n.a.ls and railroads: why should Illinois, so generously endowed by nature, lag behind? Where crops were spoiling for a market, farmers were not disposed to inquire into the mysteries of high finance and the nature of public credit. All doubts were laid to rest by the magic phrase ”natural resources.”[57] Ma.s.s-meetings here and there gave propulsion to the movement.[58] Candidates for State office were forced to make the maddest pledges. A grand demonstration was projected at Vandalia just as the legislature a.s.sembled.
The legislature which met in December, 1836, is one of the most memorable, and least creditable, in the annals of Illinois. In full view of the popular demonstrations at the capital, the members could not remained unmoved and indifferent to the demands of their const.i.tuents, if they wished. Besides, the great majority were already committed in favor of internal improvements in some form. The subject dwarfed all others. For a time two sessions a day were held; and special committees prolonged their labors far into the night.
Pet.i.tions from every quarter deluged the a.s.sembly.[59]
A plan for internal improvements had already taken shape in the mind of the young representative from Morgan County.[60] He made haste to lay it before his colleagues. First of all, he would have the State complete the Illinois and Michigan ca.n.a.l, and improve the navigation of the Illinois and Wabash rivers. Then he would have two railroads constructed which would cross the State from north to south, and from east to west. For these purposes he would negotiate a loan, pledging the credit of the State, and meet the interest payments by judicious sales of the public lands which had been granted by the Federal government for the construction of the Illinois and Michigan ca.n.a.l.
The most creditable feature of these proposals is their moderation.
This youth of twenty-three evinced far more conservatism than many colleagues twice his age.
There was not the slightest prospect, however, that moderate views would prevail. Log-rolling had already begun; the lobby was active; and every member of the legislature who had pledged himself to his const.i.tuents was solicitous that his section of the State should not be pa.s.sed over, in the general scramble for appropriations. In the end a bill was drawn, which proposed to appropriate no less than $10,230,000 for public works. A sum of $500,000 was set aside for river improvements, but the remainder was to be expended in the construction of eight railroads. A sop of $200,000 was tossed to those counties through which no ca.n.a.l or railroad was to pa.s.s.[61] What were prudent men to do? Should they support this bill, which they believed to be thoroughly pernicious, or incur the displeasure of their const.i.tuents by defeating this, and probably every other, project for the session? Douglas was put in a peculiarly trying position. He had opposed this ”mammoth bill,” but he knew his const.i.tuents favored it.
With great reluctance, he voted for the bill.[62] He was not minded to immolate himself on the altar of public economy at the very threshold of his career.[63]
Much the same issue was forced upon Douglas in connection with the Illinois and Michigan ca.n.a.l. Unexpected obstacles to the construction of the ca.n.a.l had been encountered. To allow the waters of Lake Michigan to flow through the projected ca.n.a.l, it was found that a cut eighteen feet deep would have to be made for twenty-eight miles through solid rock. The cost of such an undertaking would exceed the entire appropriation. It was then suggested that a shallow cut might be made above the level of Lake Michigan which would then permit the Calumet River or the Des Plaines, to be used as a feeder. The problem was one for expert engineers to solve; but it devolved upon an ignorant a.s.sembly, which seems to have done its best to reduce the problem to a political equation. A majority of the House--Douglas among them--favored a shallow cut, while the Senate voted for the deep cut. The deadlock continued for some weeks, until a conference committee succeeded in agreeing upon the Senate's programme. As a member of the conferring committee, Douglas vigorously opposed this settlement, but on the final vote in the House he yielded his convictions. In after years he took great satisfaction in pointing out--as evidence of his prescience--that the State became financially embarra.s.sed and had finally to adopt the shallow cut.[64]
The members of the 10th General a.s.sembly have not been wont to point with pride to their record. With a few notable exceptions they had fallen victims to a credulity which had become epidemic. When the a.s.sembly of 1840 repealed this magnificent act for the improvement of Illinois, they encountered an acc.u.mulated indebtedness of over $14,000,000. There are other aspects of the a.s.sembly of 1836-37 upon which it is pleasanter to dwell.
As chairman of a committee on pet.i.tions Douglas rendered a real service to public morality. The general a.s.sembly had been wont upon pet.i.tion to grant divorces by special acts. Before the legislature had been in session ten days, no less than four pet.i.tions for divorces had been received. It was a custom reflecting little credit upon the State.[65] Reporting for his committee, Douglas contended that the legislature had no power to grant divorces, but only to enact salutary laws, which should state the circ.u.mstances under which divorces might be granted by the courts. The existing practice, he argued, was contrary to those provisions of the const.i.tution which expressly separated the three departments of government. Moreover, everyone recognized the injustice and unwisdom of dissolving marriage contracts by act of legislature, upon _ex parte_ evidence.[66] Without expressing an opinion on the const.i.tutional questions involved, the a.s.sembly accepted the main recommendation of the committee, that henceforth the legislature should not grant bills of divorce.[67]
One of the recurring questions during this session was whether the State capital should be moved. Vandalia was an insignificant town, difficult of access and rapidly falling far south of the center of population in the State. Springfield was particularly desirous to become the capital, though there were other towns which had claims equally strong. The Sangamon County delegation was annoyingly aggressive in behalf of their county seat. They were a conspicuous group, not merely because of their stature, which earned for them the nickname of ”the Long Nine,” but also because they were men of real ability and practical shrewdness. By adroit management, a vote was first secured to move the capital from Vandalia, and then to locate it at Springfield. Unquestionably there was some trading of votes in return for special concessions in the Internal Improvements bill. It is said that Abraham Lincoln was the virtual head of the Sangamon delegation, and the chief promoter of the project.[68]