2: The Party of Political Evasion
<< 1: The Two Nations of the Republic || 3: The Politicians and the New Day >>
In order to understand Douglas one must understand the Democratic
party of 1854 in which Douglas was a conspicuous leader. The
Democrats boasted that they were the only really national party
and contended that their rivals, the Whigs and the Know-Nothings,
were merely the representatives of localities or classes.
Sectionalism was the favorite charge which the Democrats brought
against their enemies; and yet it was upon these very Democrats
that the slaveholders had hitherto relied, and it was upon
certain members of this party that the label, "Northern men with
Southern principles," had been bestowed.
The label was not, however, altogether fair, for the motives of
the Democrats were deeply rooted in their own peculiar
temperament. In the last analysis, what had held their
organization together, and what had enabled them to dominate
politics for nearly the span of a generation, was their faith in
a principle that then appealed powerfully, and that still
appeals, to much in the American character. This was the
principle of negative action on the part of the government—the
old idea that the government should do as little as possible and
should confine itself practically to the duties of the policeman.
This principle has seemed always to express to the average mind
that traditional individualism which is an inheritance of the
Anglo-Saxon race. In America, in the middle of the nineteenth
century, it reenforced that tradition of local independence which
was strong throughout the West and doubly strong in the South.
Then, too, the Democratic party still spoke the language of the
theoretical Democracy inherited from Jefferson. And Americans
have always been the slaves of phrases!
Furthermore, the close alliance of the Northern party machine
with the South made it, generally, an object of care for all
those Northern interests that depended on the Southern market.
As to the Southerners, their relation with this party has two
distinct Chapters. The first embraced the twenty years preceding
the Compromise of 1850, and may be thought of as merging into the
second during three or four years following the great
equivocation. In that period, while the antislavery crusade was
taking form, the aim of Southern politicians was mainly negative.
"Let us alone," was their chief demand. Though aggressive in
their policy, they were too far-sighted to demand of the North
any positive course in favor of slavery. The rise of a new type
of Southern politician, however, created a different situation
and began a second Chapter in the relation between the South and
the Democratic party machine in the North. But of that
hereafter.
Until 1854, it was the obvious part of wisdom for Southerners to
cooperate as far as possible with that party whose cardinal idea
was that the government should come as near as conceivable to a
system of non-interference; that it should not interfere with
business, and therefore oppose a tariff; that it should not
interfere with local government, and therefore applaud states
rights; that it should not interfere with slavery, and therefore
frown upon militant abolition. Its policy was, to adopt a
familiar phrase, one of masterly inactivity. Indeed it may well
be called the party of political evasion. It was a huge, loose
confederacy of differing political groups, embracing paupers and
millionaires, moderate anti-slavery men and slave barons, all of
whom were held together by the unreliable bond of an agreement
not to tread on each other's toes.
Of this party Douglas was the typical representative, both in
strength and weakness. He had all its pliability, its good
humor, its broad and easy way with things, its passion for
playing politics. Nevertheless, in calling upon the believers in
political evasion to consent for this once to reverse their
principle and to endorse a positive action, he had taken a great
risk. Would their sporting sense of politics as a gigantic game
carry him through successfully? He knew that there was a hard
fight before him, but with the courage of a great political
strategist, and proudly confident in his hold upon the main body
of his party, he prepared for both the attacks and the defections
that were inevitable.
Defections, indeed, began at once. Even before the bill had been
passed, the "Appeal of the Independent Democrats" was printed in
a New York paper, with the signatures of members of Congress
representing both the extreme anti-slavery wing of the Democrats
and the organized Free-Soil party. The most famous of these
names were those of Chase and Sumner, both of whom had been sent
to the Senate by a coalition of Free-Soilers and Democrats. With
them was the veteran abolitionist, Giddings of Ohio. The
"Appeal" denounced Douglas as an "unscrupulous politician" and
sounded both the warcries of the Northern masses by accusing him
of being engaged in "an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast
unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers
from our own States."
The events of the spring and summer of 1854 may all be grouped
under two heads—the formation of an antiNebraska party, and the
quick rush of sectional patriotism to seize the territory laid
open by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The instantaneous refusal of
the Northerners to confine their settlement to Nebraska, and
their prompt invasion of Kansas; the similar invasion from the
South; the support of both movements by societies organized for
that purpose; the war in Kansas all the details of this thrilling
story have been told elsewhere.(1) The political story alone
concerns us here.
1. See Jesse Macy, "The Anti-Slavery Crusade". (In "The Chronicles
of America".)
When the fight began there were four parties in the field: the
Democrats, the Whigs, the Free-Soilers, and the Know-Nothings.
The Free-Soil party, hitherto a small organization, had sought to
make slavery the main issue in politics. Its watchword was "Free
soil, free speech, free labor, and free men." It is needless to
add that it was instantaneous in its opposition to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act.
The Whigs at the moment enjoyed the greatest prestige, owing to
the association with them of such distinguished leaders as
Webster and Clay. In 1854, however, as a party they were dying,
and the very condition that had made success possible for the
Democrats made it impossible for the Whigs, because the latter
stood for positive ideas, and aimed to be national in reality and
not in the evasive Democratic sense of the term. For, as a
matter of fact, on analysis all the greater issues of the day
proved to be sectional. The Whigs would not, like the Democrats,
adopt a negative attitude toward these issues, nor would they
consent to become merely sectional. Yet at the moment negation
and sectionalism were the only alternatives, and between these
millstones the Whig organization was destined to be ground to
bits and to disappear after the next Presidential election.
Even previous to 1854, numbers of Whigs had sought a desperate
outlet for their desire to be positive in politics and had
created a new party which during a few years was to seem a
reality and then vanish together with its parent. The one chance
for a party which had positive ideas and which wished not to be
sectional was the definite abandonment of existing issues and the
discovery of some new issue not connected with sectional feeling.
Now, it happened that a variety of causes, social and religious,
had brought about bad blood between native and foreigner, in some
of the great cities, and upon the issue involved in this
condition the failing spirit of the Whigs fastened. A secret
society which had been formed to oppose the naturalization of
foreigners quickly became a recognized political party. As the
members of the Society answered all questions with "I do not
know," they came to be called "Know-Nothings," though they called
themselves "Americans." In those states where the Whigs had been
strongest —Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania—this last
attempt to apply their former temper, though not their
principles, had for a moment some success; but it could not
escape the fierce division which was forced on the country by
Douglas. As a result, it rapidly split into factions, one of
which merged with the enemies of Douglas, while the other was
lost among his supporters.
What would the great dying Whig party leave behind it? This was
the really momentous question in 1854. Briefly, this party
bequeathed the temper of political positivism and at the same
time the dread of sectionalism. The inner clue to American
politics during the next few years is, to many minds, to be found
largely in the union of this old Whig temper with a new-born
sectional patriotism, and, to other minds, in the gradual and
reluctant passing of the Whig opposition to a sectional party.
But though this transformation of the wrecks of Whiggism began
immediately, and while the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was still being
hotly debated in Congress, it was not until 1860 that it was
completed.
In the meantime various incidents had shown that the sectional
patriotism of the North, the fury of the abolitionists, and the
positive temper in politics, were all drawing closer together.
Each of these tendencies can be briefly illustrated. For
example, the rush to Kansas had begun, and the Massachusetts
Emigrant Aid Society was preparing to assist settlers who were
going west. In May, there occurred at Boston one of the most
conspicuous attempts to rescue a fugitive slave, in which a mob
led by Thomas Wentworth Higginson attacked the guards of Anthony
Burns, a captured fugitive, killed one of them, but failed to get
the slave, who was carried to a revenue cutter between lines of
soldiers and returned to slavery. Among numerous details of the
hour the burning of Douglas in effigy is perhaps worth passing
notice. In duly the anti-Nebraska men of Michigan held a
convention, at which they organized as a political party and
nominated a state ticket. Of their nominees, two had hitherto
ranked themselves as Free-Soilers, three as anti-slavery
Democrats, and five as Whigs. For the name of their party they
chose "Republican," and as the foundation of their platform the
resolution "That, postponing and suspending all differences with
regard to political economy or administrative policy," they would
"act cordially and faithfully in unison," opposing the extension
of slavery, and would "cooperate and be known as 'Republicans'
until the contest be terminated."
The history of the next two years is, in its main outlines, the
story of the war in Kansas and of the spread of this new party
throughout the North. It was only by degrees, however, that the
Republicans absorbed the various groups of anti-Nebraska men.
What happened at this time in Illinois may be taken as typical,
and it is particularly noteworthy as revealing the first real
appearance of Abraham Lincoln in American history.
Though in 1854 he was not yet a national figure, Lincoln was
locally accredited with keen political insight, and was, regarded
in Illinois as a strong lawyer. The story is told of him that,
while he was attending court on the circuit, he heard the news of
the Kansas-Nebraska Act in a tavern and sat up most of the night
talking about it. Next morning he used a phrase destined to
become famous. "I tell you," said he to a fellow lawyer, "this
nation cannot exist half slave and half free."
Lincoln, however, was not one of the first to join the
Republicans. In Illinois, in 1854, Lincoln resigned his seat in
the legislature to become the Whig candidate for United States
senator, to succeed the Democratic colleague of Douglas. But
there was little chance of his election, for the real contest was
between the two wings of the Democrats, the Nebraska men and the
anti-Nebraska men, and Lincoln withdrew in favor of the candidate
of the latter, who was elected.
During the following year, from the midst of his busy law
practice, Lincoln watched the Whig party go to pieces. He saw a
great part of its vote lodge temporarily among the Know-Nothings,
but before the end of the year even they began to lose their
prominence. In the autumn, from the obscurity of his provincial
life, he saw, far off, Seward, the most astute politician of the
day, join the new movement. In New York, the Republican state
convention and the Whig state convention merged into one, and
Seward pronounced a baptismal oration upon the Republican party
of New York.
In the House of Representatives which met in December, 1855, the
anti-Nebraska men were divided among themselves, and the
Know-Nothings held the balance of power. No candidate for the
speakership, however, was able to command a majority, and
finally, after it had been agreed that a plurality would be
sufficient, the contest closed, on the one hundred and
thirty-third ballot, with the election of a Republican, N. P.
Banks. Meanwhile in the South, the Whigs were rapidly leaving
the party, pausing a moment with the Know-Nothings, only to find
that their inevitable resting-place, under stress of sectional
feeling, was with the Democrats.
On Washington's birthday, 1856, the Know-Nothing national
convention met at Philadelphia. It promptly split upon the
subject of slavery, and a portion of its membership sent word
offering support to another convention which was sitting at
Pittsburgh, and which had been called to form a national
organization for the Republican party. A third assembly held on
this same day was composed of the newspaper editors of Illinois,
and may be looked upon as the organization of the Republican
party in that state. At the dinner following this informal
convention, Lincoln, who was one of the speakers, was toasted as
"the next United States Senator."
Some four months afterward, in Philadelphia, the Republicans held
their first national convention. Only a few years previous its
members had called themselves by various names—Democrats,
Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Whigs. The old hostilities of these
different groups had not yet died out. Consequently, though
Seward was far and away the most eminent member of the new party,
he was not nominated for President. That dangerous honor was
bestowed upon a dashing soldier and explorer of the Rocky
Mountains and the Far West, John C. Fremont.2
2. For an account of Fremont, see Stewart Edward White, "The
Forty-Niners" (in "The Chronicles of America"), Chapter II.
The key to the political situation in the North, during that
momentous year, was to be found in the great number of able Whigs
who, seeing that their own party was lost but refusing to be
sidetracked by the make-believe issue of the Know-Nothings, were
now hesitating what to do. Though the ordinary politicians among
the Republicans doubtless wished to conciliate these unattached
Whigs, the astuteness of the leaders was too great to allow them
to succumb to that temptation. They seem to have feared the
possible effect of immediately incorporating in their ranks,
while their new organization was still so plastic, the bulk of
those conservative classes which were, after all, the backbone of
this irreducible Whig minimum.
The Republican campaign was conducted with a degree of passion
that had scarcely been equaled in America before that day. To
the well-ordered spirit of the conservative classes the tone
which the Republicans assumed appeared shocking. Boldly
sectional in their language, sweeping in their denunciation of
slavery, the leaders of the campaign made bitter and effective
use of a number of recent events. "Uncle Tom's Cabin", published
in 1852, and already immensely popular, was used as a political
tract to arouse, by its gruesome picture of slavery, a hatred of
slaveholders. Returned settlers from Kansas went about the North
telling horrible stories of guerrilla warfare, so colored as to
throw the odium all on one side. The scandal of the moment was
the attack made by Preston Brooks on Sumner, after the latter's
furious diatribe in the Senate, which was published as "The Crime
Against Kansas". With double skill the Republicans made equal
capital out of the intellectual violence of the speech and the
physical violence of the retort. In addition to this, there was
ready to their hands the evidence of Southern and Democratic
sympathy with a filibustering attempt to conquer the republic of
Nicaragua, where William Walker, an American adventurer, had
recently made himself dictator. Walker had succeeded in having
his minister acknowledged by the Democratic Administration, and
in obtaining the endorsement of a great Democratic meeting which
was held in New York. It looked, therefore, as if the party of
political evasion had an anchor to windward, and that, in the
event of their losing in Kansas, they intended to placate their
Southern wing by the annexation of Nicaragua.
Here, indeed, was a stronger political tempest than Douglas,
weatherwise though he was, had foreseen. How was political
evasion to brave it? With a courage quite equal to the boldness
of the Republicans, the Democrats took another tack and steered
for less troubled waters. Their convention at Cincinnati was
temperate and discreet in all its expressions, and for President
it nominated a Northerner, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, a man
who was wholly dissociated in the public mind from the struggle
over Kansas.
The Democratic party leaders knew that they already had two
strong groups of supporters. Whatever they did, the South would
have to go along with them, in its reaction against the furious
sectionalism of the Republicans. Besides the Southern support,
the Democrats counted upon the aid of the professional
politicians—those men who considered politics rather as a
fascinating game than as serious and difficult work based upon
principle. Upon these the Democrats could confidently rely, for
they already had, in Douglas in the North and Toombs in the
South, two master politicians who knew this type and its impulses
intimately, because they themselves belonged to it. But the
Democrats needed the support of a third group. If they could
only win over the Northern remnant of the Whigs that was still
unattached, their position would be secure. In their efforts to
obtain this additional and very necessary reinforcement, they
decided to appear as temperate and restrained as possible—a well
bred party which all mild and conservative men could trust.
This attitude they formulated in connection with Kansas, which at
that time had two governments: one, a territorial government, set
up by emigrants from the South; the other, a state government,
under the constitution drawn up at Topeka by emigrants from the
North. One authorized slavery; the other prohibited slavery; and
both had appealed to Washington for recognition. It was with
this quite definite issue that Congress was chiefly concerned in
the spring of 1856. During the summer Toombs introduced a bill
securing to the settlers of Kansas complete freedom of action and
providing for an election of delegates to a convention to draw up
a state constitution which would determine whether slavery or
freedom was to prevail—in other words, whether Kansas was to be
annexed to the South or to the North. This bill was merely the
full expression of what Douglas had aimed at in 1854 and of what
was nicknamed "popular sovereignty"—the right of the locality to
choose for itself between slave and free labor.
Two years before, such a measure would have seemed radical. But
in politics time is wonderfully elastic. Those two years had
been packed with turmoil. Kansas had been the scene of a bloody
conflict. Regardless of which side had a majority on the ground,
extremists on each side had demanded recognition for the
government set up by their own party. By contrast, Toombs's
offer to let the majority rule appeared temperate.
The Republicans saw instantly that they must discredit the
proposal or the ground would be cut from under them. Though the
bill passed the Senate, they were able to set it aside in the
House in favor of a bill admitting Kansas as a free state with
the Topeka constitution. The Democrats thereupon accused the
Republicans of not wanting peace and of wishing to keep up the
war-cry "Bleeding Kansas" until election time.
That, throughout the country, the two parties continued on the
lines of policy they had chosen may be seen from an illustration.
A House committee which had gone to Kansas to investigate
submitted two reports, one of which, submitted by a Democratic
member, told the true story of the murders committed by John
Brown at Pottawatomie. And yet, while the Republicans spread
everywhere their shocking tales of murders of free-state
settlers, the Democrats made practically no use of this equally
shocking tale of the murder of slaveholders. Apparently they
were resolved to appear temperate and conservative to the bitter
end.
And they had their reward. Or, perhaps the fury of the
Republicans had its just deserts. From either point of view, the
result was a choice of evils on the part of the reluctant Whigs,
and that choice was expressed in the following words by as
typical a New Englander as Rufus Choate: "The first duty of
Whigs," wrote Choate to the Maine State central committee, "is to
unite with some organization of our countrymen to defeat and
dissolve the new geographical party calling itself Republican....
The question for each and every one of us is...by what vote can I
do most to prevent the madness of the times from working its
maddest act the very ecstasy of its madness—the permanent
formation and the actual triumph of a party which knows one half
of America only to hate and dread it. If the Republican party,"
Choate continued, "accomplishes its object and gives the
government to the North, I turn my eyes from the consequences.
To the fifteen states of the South that government will appear an
alien government. It will appear worse. It will appear a
hostile government. It will represent to their eye a vast region
of states organized upon anti-slavery, flushed by triumph,
cheered onward by the voice of the pulpit, tribune, and press;
its mission, to inaugurate freedom and put down the oligarchy;
its constitution, the glittering and sounding generalities of
natural right which make up the Declaration of Independence....
Practically the contest, in my judgment, is between Mr. Buchanan
and Colonel Fremont. In these circumstances, I vote for Mr.
Buchanan."
The party of political evasion thus became the refuge of the old
original Whigs who were forced to take advantage of any port in a
storm. Buchanan was elected by an overwhelming majority. To the
careless eye, Douglas had been justified by results; his party
had triumphed as perhaps never before; and yet, no great
political success was ever based upon less stable foundations.
To maintain this position, those Northerners who reasoned as
Choate did were a necessity; but to keep them in the party of
political evasion would depend upon the ability of this party to
play the game of politics without acknowledging sectional bias.
Whether this difficult task could be accomplished would depend
upon the South. Toombs, on his part, was anxious to continue
making the party of evasion play the great American game of
politics, and in his eagerness he perhaps overestimated his hold
upon the South. This, however, remains to be seen.
Already another faction had formed around William L. Yancey of
Alabama—a faction as intolerant of political evasion as the
Republicans themselves, and one that was eager to match the
sectional Northern party by a sectional Southern party. It had
for the moment fallen into line with the Toombs faction because,
like the Whigs, it had not the courage to do otherwise. The
question now was whether it would continue fearful, and whether
political evasion would continue to reign.
The key to the history of the next four years is in the growth of
this positive Southern party, which had the inevitable result of
forcing the Whig remainder to choose, not as in 1856 between a
positive sectional policy and an evasive nonsectional policy, but
in 1860 between two policies both of which were at once positive
and sectional.
<< 1: The Two Nations of the Republic || 3: The Politicians and the New Day >>