This war of pamphlets was productive of no results. Douglas and Black were wide apart upon their major premises, and diverged inevitably in their conclusions. Holding fast to the premise that a Territory was not -sovereign but a "subordinate dependency," Black ridiculed the attempts of Douglas to clothe it, not with complete sovereignty but with "the attributes of sovereignty."" Then Douglas denounced in scathing terms the absurdity of Black's assumption that property in the Territories would be held by the laws of the State from which it came, while it must look for redress of wrongs to the law of its new domicile.2

3

The Ohio campaign attracted much attention throughout the country, not only because the gubernatorial candidates were thoroughgoing representatives of the Republican party and of Douglas Democracy, but because both Lincoln and Douglas were again brought into the arena. While the latter did not meet in joint debate, their successive appearance at Columbus and Cincinnati gave the campaign the aspect of a prolongation of the Illinois contest. Lincoln devoted no little attention to the Harper's Magazine article, while Douglas defended himself and his doctrine against all comers. There was a disposition in many quarters to concede that popular sovereignty, whether theoretically right or wrong, would settle the question of slavery in the Territories. Apropos of Douglas's

1 One of the most interesting commentaries on Black's argument is his defense of the people of Utah, many years later, against the AntiPolygamy Laws, when he used Douglas's argument without the slightest qualms. See Essays and Speeches, pp. 603, 604, 609.

4

2Flint, Douglas, pp. 172-181 gives extracts from these pamphlets. Rhodes History of United States, II, p. 381.

• Ibid., p. 382.

speech at Columbus, the New York Times admitted that at least his principles were "definite" and uttered in a “frank, gallant and masculine" spirit;1 and his speeches were deemed of enough importance to be printed entire in the columns of this Republican journal. "He means to go to Charleston," guessed the editor shrewdly, "as the unmistakable representative of the Democratic party of the North and to bring this influence to bear upon Southern delegates as the only way to secure their interests against anti-slavery sentiment represented by the Republicans. He will claim that not a single Northern State can be carried on a platform more pro-slavery than his. The Democrats of the North have yielded all they will.'2

While Douglas was in Ohio, he was saddened by the intelligence that Senator Broderick of California, his loyal friend and staunch supporter in the Lecompton fight, had fallen a victim to the animosity of the Southern faction in his State. The Washington Constitution might explain his death as an affair of honor -he was shot in a duel-but intelligent men knew that Broderick's assailant had desired to rid Southern "chivalry" of a hated political opponent. A month later, on the night of October 16th, John Brown of Kansas fame marshalled his little band of eighteen men and descended upon the United States arsenal in Harper's Ferry. What did these events portend? 1New York Times, September 9, 1859.

'Ibid., September 9, 1859.

Rhodes, History of the United States, II, STATE

take which followed, Douglas was beset behind and before. But his fighting blood was up and he promised to return blow for blow, with interest. Let every man make his assault, and when all were through, he would "fire into the lump."" "I am not seeking a nomination," he declared, "I am willing to take one provided I can assume it on principles that I believe to be sound; but in the event of your making a platform that I could not conscientiously execute in good faith if I were elected, I will not stand upon it and be a candidate.' For his part he would like to know "who it is that has the right to say who is in the party and who not?" He believed that he was backed by two-thirds of the Democracy of the United States. Did one-third of the Democratic party propose to read out the remaining two-thirds? "I have no grievances, but I have no concessions. I have no abandonment of position or principle; no recantation to make to any man or body of men on earth."2

Some days later Douglas made it equally clear that he had no recantation to make for the sake of Republican support. Speaking of the need of some measure by which the States might be protected against acts of violence like the Harper's Ferry affair, he roundly denounced that outrage as "the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Congress."" True, they disavowed the act of John Brown, but they should also repudiate and 1 Globe, 36 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 421. 'Ibid., pp. 424-425.

'Ibid., p. 553.

denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the act. Fraternal peace was possible only upon "that good old golden principle which teaches all men to mind their own business and let their neighbors' alone." When men so act, the Union can endure forever as the fathers made it, composed of free and slave States.1 "Then the senator is really indifferent to slavery, as he is reported to have said?" queried Fessenden. "Sir," replied Douglas, "I hold the doctrine that a statesman will adapt his laws to the wants, condi tions, and interests of the people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in one climate and totally useless in another. If I were a citizen of Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, because I believe the good of the people would require it. As a citizen of Illinois I am utterly opposed to it, because our interests would not be promoted by it.""2

The lines upon which the Charleston convention would divide, were sharply drawn by a series of resolutions presented to the Senate by Jefferson Davis. They were intended to serve as an ultimatum, and they were so understood by Northern Democrats. They were deliberately wrought out in conference as the final expression of Southern conviction. In explicit language the right of either Congress or a territorial legislature to impair the constitutional right of property in slaves, was denied. In case of unfriendly legislation, it was declared to be the duty of Congress to provide adequate protection to slave property. Popular sovereignty was completely discarded by the assertion that 1 Globe, 36 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 554-555.

2 Ibid., p. 559.

the people of a Territory might pass upon the question of slavery only when they formed a State constitution.1

As the delegates to the Democratic convention began to gather in the latter part of April, the center of political interest shifted from Washington to Charleston. Here the battle between the factions was to be fought out, but without the presence of the real leaders. The jadvantages of organization were with the Douglas men. The delegations from the Northwest were devoted, heart and soul, to their chief. As they passed through the capital on their journey to the South, they gathered around him with noisy demonstrations of affection; and when they continued on their way, they were more determined than ever to secure his nomination.2 From the South, too, every Douglas man who was likely to carry weight in his community, was brought to Charleston to labor among the Ultras of his section. The Douglas headquarters in Hibernian Hall bore witness to the business-like way in which his candidacy was being promoted. Not the least striking feature within the committee rooms was the ample supply of Sheahan's Life of Stephen A. Douglas, fresh from the press.

5

3

4

Recognized leader of the Douglas forces was Colonel Richardson of Illinois, a veteran in convention warfare, seasoned by years of congressional service and by long practice in managing men. It was he who had led the Douglas cohorts in the Cincinnati convention. The memory of that defeat still rankled, and he was not disposed to yield to like contingencies. Indeed,

2

1 Globe, 36 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 658. For the final version, see p. 935.

* Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 59.

* Ibid., p. 29.

Ibid., p. 5.

• Ibid.,

pp. 9 and 20.