Chapter 9 The Freeport Doctrine - Abraham Lincoln Vol.2, by Hay & Nicolay

CHAPTER IX
THE FREEPORT DOCTRINE
   [Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 68.
What has thus far been quoted has been less to illustrate the leading lines of discussion, than to explain more fully the main historical incident of the debates. In the first joint discussion at Ottawa, in the northern or anti-slavery part of Illinois, Douglas read a series of strong anti-slavery resolutions which he erroneously alleged Lincoln had taken part in framing and passing. He said: "My object in reading these resolutions was to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed and carry it out.... I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these questions in order that when I trot him down to lower Egypt[1] I may put the same questions to him."[2]
  [Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 87.
In preparing a powerful appeal to local prejudice, Douglas doubtless knew he was handling a two-edged sword; but we shall see that he little appreciated the skill with which his antagonist would wield the weapon he was placing in his hands. At their second joint meeting, at Freeport, also in northern Illinois, Lincoln, who now had the opening speech, said, referring to Douglas's speech at Ottawa: "I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an opportunity to respond. The judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not; and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him."
Lincoln then read his answers to the seven questions which, had been asked him, and proposed four in return, the second one of which ran as follows: "Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a State constitution?"[3]
To comprehend the full force of this interrogatory, the reader must recall the fact that the "popular sovereignty" of the Nebraska bill was couched in vague language, and qualified with the proviso that it was "subject to the Constitution." The caucus which framed this phraseology agreed, as a compromise between Northern and Southern Democrats, that the courts should interpret and define the constitutional limitations, by which all should abide. The Dred Scott decision declared in terms that Congress could not prohibit slavery in Territories nor authorize a Territorial Legislature to do so. The Dred Scott decision had thus annihilated "popular sovereignty," Would Douglas admit his blunder in law, and his error in statesmanship?
He had already faced and partly evaded this dilemma in his Springfield speech of 1857, but that was a local declaration and occurred before his Lecompton revolt, and the ingenious sophism then put forth had attracted little notice. Since that time things had materially changed. He had opposed Lecompton, become a party recusant, and been declared a party apostate. His Senatorial term was closing, and he had to look to an evenly balanced if not a hostile constituency for reëlection. The Buchanan Administration was putting forth what feeble strength it had in Illinois to insure his defeat. His Democratic rivals were scrutinizing every word he uttered. He stood before the people to whom he had pledged his word that the voters of Kansas might regulate their own domestic concerns. They would tolerate no juggling nor evasion. There remained no resource but to answer _Yes_, and he could conjure up no justification of such an answer except the hollow subterfuge he had invented the year before.
  [Sidenote] Lincoln to Asbury, July 31, 1858.
Lincoln clearly enough comprehended the dilemma and predicted the expedient of his antagonist. He had framed his questions and submitted them to a consultation of shrewd party friends. This one especially was the subject of anxious deliberation and serious disagreement. Nearly a month before, Lincoln in a private letter accurately foreshadowed Douglas's course on this question. "You shall have hard work to get him directly to the point whether a Territorial Legislature has or has not the power to exclude slavery. But if you succeed in bringing him to it--though he will be compelled to say it possesses no such power--he will instantly take ground that slavery cannot actually exist in the Territories unless the people desire it, and so give it protection by Territorial legislation. If this offends the South, he will let it offend them, as at all events he means to hold on to his chances in Illinois." There is a tradition that on the night preceding this Freeport debate Lincoln was catching a few hours' rest, at a railroad center named Mendota, to which place the converging trains brought after midnight a number of excited Republican leaders, on their way to attend the great meeting at the neighboring town of Freeport. Notwithstanding the late hour, Mr. Lincoln's bedroom was invaded by an improvised caucus, and the ominous question was once more brought under consideration. The whole drift of advice ran against putting the interrogatory to Douglas; but Lincoln persisted in his determination to force him to answer it. Finally his friends in a chorus cried out, "If you do, you can never be Senator." "Gentlemen," replied Lincoln, "I am killing larger game; if Douglas answers, he can never be President, and the battle of 1860 is worth a hundred of this."
When Lincoln had finished his opening speech in the Freeport debate, and Douglas in his reply came to interrogatory number two, which Lincoln had propounded, he answered as follows:
  [Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 95.
    The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the     people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wish of any     citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits,     prior to the formation of a State constitution? I answer     emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times     from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a     Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits,     prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew     that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me     argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in     1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to     be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not     what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract     question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under     the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it     or exclude it, as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot     exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local     police regulations. Those police regulations can only be     established by the local Legislature, and if the people are     opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body     who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the     introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are     for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no     matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that     abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave     Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the     Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on     that point.
[Illustration: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.]
The remarkable theory here proposed was immediately taken up and exhaustively discussed by the leading newspapers in all parts of the Union, and thereby became definitely known under the terms "unfriendly legislation" and "Freeport doctrine." Mr. Lincoln effectually disposed of it in the following fashion in the joint debate at Alton:
  [Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 234-5.
    I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying     something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he     sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the     Territories can still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I     ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas constantly said,     before the decision, that whether they could or not, was a     question for the Supreme Court. But after the court has made the     decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme     Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can     exclude it? He said it needs "police regulations," and that admits     of "unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right established by     the Constitution of the United States to take a slave into a     Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet     unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation,     and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they     can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition     as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional     obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face     before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the     Territorial Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to     swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States.     His neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves and needs     Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional     right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs     for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the     Constitution of the United States, which he has sworn to support?     Can he withhold it without violating his oath? and more     especially, can he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his     oath? Why this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution     of the United States! There has never been as outlandish or     lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man on earth.     I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a     Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was     improperly made, and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is     furious against those who go for reversing a decision. But he is     for legislating it out of all force, while the law itself stands.     I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine uttered     from the mouth of a respectable man.
The announcement and subsequent defense by Douglas of his "Freeport doctrine" proved, as Lincoln had predicted, something more important than a mere campaign incident. It was the turning-point in Douglas's political fortunes. With the whole South, and with a few prominent politicians of the North, it served to put him outside the pale of party fellowship. Compared with this his Lecompton revolt had been a venial offense. In that case he had merely contended for the machinery of a fair popular vote. This was the avowal of a principle as obnoxious to the slavery propaganda as the unqualified abolitionism of Giddings and Lovejoy. Henceforth all hope of reconciliation, atonement, or chance of Presidential nomination by the united Democratic party was out of the question. Before this, newspaper zealots had indeed denounced him for his Lecompton recusancy as a traitor and renegade, and the Administration had endeavored to secure his defeat; now, however, in addition, the party high-priests put him under solemn ban of excommunication. How they felt and from what motives they acted is stated with singular force and frankness in a Senate speech, soon after the Charleston Convention, by Senator Judah P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, one of the ablest and most persistent of the conspirators to nationalize slavery, and who, not long after, was one of the principal actors in the great rebellion:
    Up to the years 1857 and 1858 no man in this nation had a higher     or more exalted opinion of the character, the services, and the     political integrity of the Senator from Illinois [Douglas] than I     had.... Sir, it has been with reluctance and sorrow that I have     been obliged to pluck down my idol from his place on high, and to     refuse to him any more support or confidence as a member of the     party. I have done so, I trust, upon no light or unworthy ground.     I have not done so alone. The causes that have operated on me have     operated on the Democratic party of the United States, and have     operated an effect which the whole future life of the Senator will     be utterly unable to obliterate. It is impossible that confidence     thus lost can be restored. On what ground has that confidence been     forfeited, and why is it that we now refuse him our support and     fellowship? I have stated our reasons to-day. I have appealed to     the record. I have not followed him back in the false issue or the     feigned traverse that he makes in relation to matters that are not     now in contest between him and the Democratic party. The question     is not what we all said or believed in 1850 or in 1856. How idle     was it to search ancient precedents and accumulate old quotations     from what Senators may have at different times said in relation to     their principles and views. The precise point, the direct     arraignment, the plain and explicit allegation made against the     Senator from Illinois is not touched by him in all of his speech.
  [Sidenote] Benjamin, Senate Speech, May 22, 1860. Pamphlet.
    We accuse him for this, to wit: that having bargained with us upon     a point upon which we were at issue, that it should be considered     a judicial point; that he would abide the decision; that he would     act under the decision, and consider it a doctrine of the party;     that having said that to us here in the Senate, he went home, and     under the stress of a local election, his knees gave way; his     whole person trembled. His adversary stood upon principle and was     beaten; and lo! he is the candidate of a mighty party for the     Presidency of the United States. The Senator from Illinois     faltered. He got the prize for which he faltered; but lo! the     grand prize of his ambition to-day slips from his grasp because of     his faltering in his former contest, and his success in the     canvass for the Senate, purchased for an ignoble price, has cost     him the loss of the Presidency of the United States.
  [Sidenote] 1858.
The Senatorial canvass in Illinois came to a close with the election on the 2d of November and resulted in a victory for Douglas. The Republicans, on their State ticket, polled 125,430 votes; the Douglas Democrats, 121,609; the Buchanan Democrats, 5071. By this plurality the Republican State officers were chosen. But in respect to members of the Legislature the case stood differently, and when in the following January the Senatorial election took place in joint session of the two Houses, Douglas received the vote of every Democrat, 54 members, and Lincoln the vote of every Republican, 46 members, whereupon Douglas was declared elected Senator of the United States for six years from the 4th of March, 1859.
The main cause of Lincoln's defeat was the unfairness of the existing apportionment, which was based upon the census of 1850. A fair apportionment, based on the changes of population which had occurred, would have given northern Illinois a larger representation; and it was there the Republicans had recruited their principal strength in the recent transformation of parties. The Republicans estimated that this circumstance caused them a loss of six to ten members.
  [Sidenote] Lincoln, Cincinnati Speech, Sept. 17, 1859. Debates,   p. 263.
But the unusual political combinations also had a large influence on the result. Lincoln, in an Ohio speech made in the following year, addressing himself to Kentuckians, thus summarized the political forces that contributed to his defeat: "Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extreme anti-slavery views of any men in the Republican party expressing their desire for his reëlection to the Senate last year. That would of itself have seemed to be a little wonderful, but that wonder is heightened when we see that Wise, of Virginia, a man exactly opposed to them, a man who believes in the divine right of slavery, was also expressing his desire that Douglas should be reëlected; that another man that may be said to be kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice-President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the anti-slavery men in the North, that Douglas ought to be reëlected. Still to heighten the wonder, a Senator from Kentucky, whom I have always loved with an affection as tender and endearing as I have ever loved any man, who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed sufficient to him and equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters to Illinois to secure the reëlection of Douglas. Now that all these conflicting elements should be brought, while at daggers' points with one another, to support him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider. It is quite probable that each of these classes of men thought, by the reëlection of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain something; it is probable that the anti-slavery men thought their views would gain something; that Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their opinions; that Mr. Crittenden thought that his views would gain something although he was opposed to both these other men. It is probable that each and all of them thought they were using Douglas, and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he was not using them all."
After a hundred consecutive days of excitement, of intense mental strain, and of unremitting bodily exertion, after speech-making and parades, music and bonfires, it must be something of a trial to face at once the mortification of defeat, the weariness of intellectual and physical reaction, and the dull commonplace of daily routine. Letters written at this period show that under these conditions Mr. Lincoln remained composed, patient, and hopeful. Two weeks after election he wrote thus to Mr. Judd, a member of the Legislature and Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee: "I have the pleasure to inform you that I am convalescing and hoping these lines may find you in the same improving state of health. Doubtless you have suspected for some time that I entertain a personal wish for a term in the United States Senate; and had the suspicion taken the shape of the direct charge I think I could not have truthfully denied it. But let the past as nothing be. For the future my view is that the fight must go on. The returns here are not yet complete, but it is believed that Dougherty's vote will be slightly greater than Miller's majority over Fondey. We have some 120,000 clear Republican votes. That pile is worth keeping together. It will elect a State ticket two years hence."
  [Sidenote] Lincoln to Judd, Nov. 15, 1858.