bridge, and Douglas hesitated what to do. He knew that the people of Kansas would vote down the land bribe, but he feared that he could not convince his constituency in Illinois that it was not treacherous to yield. Hence the attitude of Greeley in his letter to Mr. Herndon; but when Douglas decided to stand firm Greeley renewed his advice to the Illinois Republicans. Herndon wrote to Parker:

Friend Parker.

Springfield, Ill., May 29, 1858.

Dear Sir:-Yours of the 13th is before me and in answer to which let me say: I would have been highly pleased to have met at your house a few friends, but as it was I did not. My object in visiting Boston was education, and the purposes to which that education was to be specially applied was - Liberty speeches. I expect to be a Republican elector in 1860. I wanted to see the places of Revolutionary memory, and the three living institutions of Boston - Garrison, Parker, and Phillips. So that when I wanted to speak of things I could talk knowingly; and when such men as you were thrown in the way of the Republican march, for base purposes, and by mean men for infamous ends, I wanted to say to the vile slanderers, "You lie!" It is all right. I do not complain, though I must say that I was somewhat disappointed. Do you suppose that this will alter my respect for you? God forbid! You know me to little purpose if you think I am so small as that. Here is my hand and my heart. Let this matter drop from your fingers into the ocean.

We are to have a Republican convention here, in this city, on June 16th. The Buchanan convention comes off here on June 7th. We expect to have fun at the latter. Douglas, it is said, is to be crushed by the Administration: it does not look that way, if we are to judge from what has lately happened in Congress. Friend Greeley seems determined that this shall not be, if he can help it, though he sacrified the Republicans in Illinois. Politicians will use other people's paws to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. Greeley injures us in Illinois while he is trying to sustain Douglas. I have made two political speeches since I saw you - one in this city and one at Petersburg - took high grounds for Freedom. Your friend, W. H. HERNDON.

On the following day Mr. Herndon received a letter from Greeley, in reply to a stinging protest against the interference of the latter in Illinois politics. If the Republicans will not support Douglas for the Senate, he hopes they will stand by Harris for the House. The letter reads:

Friend Herndon:

New York, May 29, 1858.

I have yours of the 7th. I have not proposed to instruct the Republicans of Illinois in their political duties, and I doubt very much that even so much as is implied in your letter can be fairly deduced from anything I have written.

Let me make one prediction. If you run a candidate against Harris and he is able to canvass, he will beat you badly. He is more of a man, at heart and morally, than Douglas, and has gone into the fight with more earnestness and less calculation. Of the whole Douglas party, he is the truest and best. I never have spoken a dozen words with him in my life, having met him but once; but if I lived in his district I should vote for him. As I have never spoken of him in my paper, and suppose I never shall, I take the liberty to say this much to you. Now paddle your own dugout. HORACE GREELEY.

Yours,

If he had actually left the Illinois Republicans to paddle their own canoe, the result might have been different in the autumn, but he kept on tossing logs into the stream. By this time it had been determined that Lincoln was to make the race for the Senate, and, in the picturesque Illinois phrase, "set the prairies afire" against Douglas. Herndon wrote to Mr. Parker describing the situation:

Friend Parker:

Springfield, Ill., June 1, 1858.

I want to talk politics with you a moment, leaving all other things "way behind." Do you remember, when I was in Boston, I told you that Douglas said, "Do not put any confidence in what Greeley says about his information in relation to the non-passage of the Lecompton constitution?" Has not Douglas proved a prophet once in his villainous life? He told me at the same time that he and the Republicans would work together, soon, on some moves that is, Cuba and Central Mexican affairs; and now as his

word was good in one particular, let us put a little confidence in "Hell's dread prophet on this assertion of his about Cuba and Mexico. This is a great world, is it not, my friend?

66

We, the Republicans, out here are comparing hands, seeing how we feel and stand, so that we may go into the great battle" of 1858-9 in Illinois, between Slavery and Freedom, Douglas and Lincoln, Democracy and Republicanism. It will be a life and death fight, so far as Democracy is concerned. If she goes gurgling down beneath the red waves of slaughter, she is gone forever. Not so with Republicanism; she is young, vital and energetic, and so can survive defeat yea, frown on it; it will stiffen her backbone, harden her pulpy frame. I will do all I can to hold the leader's hands up! Your friend, W. H. HERNDON.

So matters stood on the eve of the great debates, in which Shiloh was fought at Ottawa and Gettysburg at Freeport. Had Lincoln been a guileless Parsifal in politics, as so many have portrayed him, he could not have saved his party in that critical hour when the voices of expediency, and the advice of friends, pleaded for a lowering of the ideal. Still less could he have met the astute, artful, masterful Douglas, whose resourcefulness was only surpassed by his unctuous and persuasive sophistry. If personal ambition played its part with Lincoln, as it has with all men great and small, far more potent was the ambition to serve the truth as God gave him to see it. Nor did any man ever have a truer partner, a more faithful friend, or a more tireless fellow-worker than Herndon.

CHAPTER VI

The Great Debates

So much has been written of the Lincoln and Douglas debates that the details of the contest are, for the most part, familiar to all. It was indeed a memorable campaign, alike for the importance of the issues involved and for the genius and skill of the debaters though to the nation at large, as compared with his opponent, Lincoln seemed, in 1858, to emerge suddenly and unexpectedly from a profound obscurity. His later fame has irradiated every detail of his early career; but it was the position of Senator Douglas in national affairs, his revolt from his party, his obvious ambition for the highest honors, together with his power as a debater, that really enchained the attention of the nation. One must needs keep this in mind, so completely has the perspective of time reversed the aspects of the scene.

Scarcely less interesting than the debates themselves were the preliminary meetings, the manoeuvering of forces, and the

1 Perhaps the best individual account of the campaign is the chapter contributed by Mr. Horace White to the second edition of the Herndon and Weik biography of Lincoln, in 1892 (Vol. II, Chap. IV). Mr. White was employed as correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, then called the Press and Tribune, and wrote from notes made when he was following the debaters. But for comprehensiveness and vividness of detail, for careful comparison of the texts of the speeches, not less than for newspaper excerpts reproducing the human color and partisan rancor of the contest, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, edited by E. E. Sparks, and published under the auspices of the Illinois Historical Society, is by far the best portrayal of the campaign. (Collections of the State Historical Library of Illinois, Vol. III, Lincoln Series, Vol. I, 1908.) The speeches are given with all the interruptions, also the songs and slogans of the day, together with editorial fulminations, descriptions by correspondents, local scenes, and the press comment throughout the country - all with admirable discrimination and impartiality.

marshaling of ideas. The Democratic convention, which met in April, was a poltroon assembly, as Herndon described it in his letter to Parker. Though largely attended and very enthusiastic in its speeches, it was lamentably weak in its resolutions, endorsing the course of Douglas, indeed, but expressing not the slightest disapproval of the Buchanan régime. A motion to record regret at the course of the Administration in removing the friends of Douglas from office in the State, was promptly tabled. This was doubtless on the advice of Douglas himself, who wished to avoid open rupture, while leaving the door ajar for a possible reconciliation. Only two offices were at stake-State Treasurer and the Superintendency of Public Instruction and W. B. Fondy and former Governor French were named for those posts. After which the convention adjourned in a mood of contempt for the bolters, mingled with fear lest the contagion spread.

66

Of the rump "' convention of Buchanan henchmen in Springfield on June 9th, little need be said. It was a miserable farce, representing only forty-eight of the one hundred counties in the State, and, as the Chicago Times added, "Considering that the delegates were self-appointed, and that offices under the federal government were promised to all who would attend, the fact that in fifty-two counties there could not be found men mean enough to participate in the proceedings," was a tribute to Illinois. Dougherty and Reynolds were named for the offices, and resolutions were adopted denouncing Douglas and characterizing his fight against Buchanan as "an act of overweening conceit." John C. Breckenridge and Daniel S. Dickinson had been announced as speakers, but neither of them appeared. But a telegram was read from Dickinson, sending "a thousand greetings," and this, as the Douglas men said, was surely liberal enough, being about ten to each delegate. Aside from its disclosure of disgustingly dirty methods in politics, including lying, bribery, and underhanded skunkishness, this movement cut very little figure in the campaign.