event, but prior to this interference, which was after midnight, the foregoing amicable understanding had already been arrived at. We subjoin the memorandum and correspondence: "[MEMORANDA No. 3.] "Met Gen. Shields and Major Cross at 8 o'clock p. m., to arrange terms of combat. Before entering upon business Judge Dawson, of Georgia, and Major Richardson, of Illinois, entered, and proposed submitting to us a proposition which they hoped would obviate a meeting. We consented on both sides to hear it, and the following proposition was then submitted: That all correspondence be withdrawn subsequent to Col. Davis' first letter, and that Col. Bissell add to his first letter a statement (to come in after the word regiment, at the foot of the first page,) as follows, to-wit: But I am willing to award them the credit due to their gallant and distinguished services in that battle.' This being in substance the same proposition offered by me (embraced in memorandum No. 1), of course I expressed my willingness to accept it. After consulting, Gen. Shields and Major Cross expressed their willingness to make the addendum, which was accordingly done. By mutual consnet, all correspondence subsequent to Col. Bissell's amended letter was withdrawn, and thus the difficulty was adjusted. "Washington, D. C., Feb. 27, 1850." S. W. INGE." The matter being adjusted on this basis, the following appeared in the Union, of Feb. 28, 1850: "WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 1850. "Gentlemen: In order to remove any erroneous impression which may have been made o the public mind, by the surmises of letter writers, in relation to a correspondence which has passed between Col. Davis and Col. Bissell, we take the liberty of requesting you to publish the following correspondence, which will show that the matter bas been most honorably adjusted to the gratification and entire satisfaction of the mutual friends. JAMES SHIELDS, After which follow the first two letters subjoined, Bissell's being amended by the words inclosed in brackets in the 2d paragraph: "WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 22. "SIR: I am informed that in yesterday's debate you asserted that at the time it was claimed for the Mississippi regiment, on the field of Buena Vista, to have passed through the scattered files of the 2d Indiana regiment, and to have met the Mexican forces, who had routed and were pursuing that regiment, the Mississippi regiment was not within one mile and a half of that particular spot. Not having been able to find a "report" of your remarks, and being the proper person to answer any charge which a responsible man may make against the Mississippi regiment referred to, I take this mode of asking whether the information I have received is correct. "Yours respectfully, JEFF. DAVIS." "HON. Mr. BISSELL." "WASHINGTON, Feb. 22. "SIR: In your note of this date, you inquire whether I asserted in yesterday's debate that at the time it was claimed for the Mississippi regiment, on the field of Buena Vista, to have passed through the scattered files of the 2d Indiana regiment, and to have met the Mexican forces, who had routed and were pursuing that regiment, the Mississippi regiment was not within one mile and a half of the spot." "The best answer I can give to your inquiry is to state what I did say, which was this, that "at the time the 2d Indiana regiment gave way, the Mississippi regiment was not within a mile and a half of the scene of action. This substantially, was all I said in reference to the Mississippi regiment. I also said that the 2d Kentucky regiment, the 2d Illinois and a portion of the 1st Illinois regiments, were the troops that at that time, met and repulsed the advancing column of the enemy. In my remarks, I referred to what occurred 'at that particular spot' at that particular time. Having answered your inquiry, I deem it due in justice alike to myself and the Mississippi regiment to say that I made no charge against that regiment, [but I am willing to award them the credit due their gallant and distinguished services in that battle]. My only object was to do justice to the character of others, living and dead, whose conduct fell under my own observation on that occasion-a duty imposed upon me, by remarks previously made in the course of the same debate. Very respectfully, yours, &c., W. H. BISSELL." "HON. JEFF DAVIS."* Illinois State Journal, March 2, 1850. Lane and Douglas.-In the spring of 1856, shortly before the National Democratic convention, there was an evident attempt made to chafe and provoke Mr. Douglas into an affair of honor. There were doubtless many anxious to thus embroil Illinois' great senator at that particular juncture of his public career. The occasion of this was the presentation to congress of the Topeka constitution, accompanied by a forged memorial, praying admission into the Union. The genuine memorial took the high, not to say revolutionary, ground, that congress had no power to establish governments for the territories, and that the Kansas Nebraska act was unconstitutional and void; that the people owed no allegiance to them, and that they asserted their inherent right to overthrow the territorial government without the consent and in defiance of the authority of congress. Gen. J. H. Lane had been chosen one of the senators, and naturally desiring to take his seat as such, perceived that this document would probably not tend to further his chances to that end. A forged copy, couched in more obedient phraseology, was therefore presented to congress. The trick was disclosed, however, and Mr. Douglas, as chairman of the committee on territories, denounced it in unmeasured terms, as was his right and duty, as a fraud and forgery, and it was rejected. The quidnunes and Washington letter writers hostile to Mr. Douglas, immediately snuffed a battle from afar. Rumors became rife of an expected hostile meeting according to the code of honor, between the fierce border general and the great champion of popular sovereignty. A determination seemed to be evinced to intensify the affair in every way possible. The time and minutest details of the expected hostile event were carefully an nounced. Mr. Douglas, however, was not deceived. He divined the purpose to be to give the matter notoriety, provoke the send ing of a hostile message, get arrested, and come out of the affair with a name for bravery. When the message of Gen. Lane, therefore, under date of April, 1856, finally came, asking "for such an explanation of your language as will remove all imputation upon the integrity of my action or motives in connection with that memorial," Douglas answered, reiterating in scathing phrase, all the facts of the case and concluded-" My reply is that there are no facts within my knowledge which can remove all imputation upon the integrity of your action or motives in connection with that memorial."* After that there were no further rumors of a duel, but Gen. Lane, sixty days later, published an abusive card in the Washington papers, which injured the author more than Senator Douglas. * See Ill, State Register, May 8, 1856. CHAPTER L. 1852-1856-ORGANIZATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY The Illinois Wilmot Proviso-Dissolution of the Whig Party-Repeal of the Missouri Compromise-Intense Political FeelingDouglas denied Free Speech in Chicago-Know Nothingism-Democratic and Republican Conventions of 1856-Result of the Campaign-Lincoln's Plea for Harmony at the Chicago Banquet. After the Missouri compromise of 1820, the question of slavery, ever an angry one, did not again attain national prominence for something like 30 years. The cause of its revival grew out of the annexation of Texas and the acquisition of territory from Mexico. The object for which the former was sought and secured-involving a war with Mexico; the avowed purpose of the most active friends of the movement, the annexation of Texas being a paramount issue of the national campaign of 1844; the influences which prevailed in securing the administration to the south; and the overt aim and official declarations of its supporters, although foreign to the purpose of this work to either trace or analyze, all point to the extension of slavery. Slavery was distasteful generally to the north, but particularly so to a large portion of the whig party at this time. It was more generally obnoxious in an early day of the government than at a later period, but it did not become a question of party fealty until efforts were made to extend its area; and had slavery not become aggressive for territorial expansion, it would have taken a long time probably for the anti-slavery party to have risen above the contempt with which it was generally regarded in its early days. In August, 1846, pending the deliberations of congress to appropriate $2,000,000 for the executive to prosecute negotiations with Mexico, looking to the acquisition of territory, Mr. Wilmot, of Penn., moved the celebrated proviso (almost in the words of the 6th article of the ordinance of 1787): "Slavery, or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in any territory which may be acquired from Mexico." When this amendment came up for action in the house it preVailed by a majority of 6, the only names from non-slave-holding States recorded against it being from Illinois, viz: Messrs. Douglas, Ficklin, Hoge and McClernand-a fair counterpart to the action of the Illinois senators on the admission of Missouri a quarter of a century before. Mr. Douglas, subsequently, in the senate, moved a substitute for the "proviso," prohibiting slavery in the acquired territory north of 36d. 30m., which was lost. To show that the sentiment of the north was averse to the extension of slavery, and that the northern democracy was not yet wholly in the grasp of the slave propagandists, the legislature (largely democratic), at its regular winter session of 1849, passed joint resolutions instructing our senators and representatives in congress to use all honorable means in their power to procure the enactment of such laws for the government of the territories of the U. S., acquired by the treaty of peace with Mexico as should con- . tain the express declaration that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in said territories otherwise than in punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The "Wilmot proviso" had had much odium cast upon it by this time, and this modification of it by omitting the word "forever" would apply to territorial conditions only, leaving States to be formed out of it free to establish or exclude slavery-a vastly different thing! The discovery of this nice distinction, practically without a difference, it was thought by no means recognized the odious "proviso," fast becoming a party test. A portion of the Illinois democracy at the time held that congress had no constitu tional right to either establish, prohibit, or in anywise interfere with slavery in the territories. The proceedings in both houses incident to the passage of these resolutions of instruction were exciting and protracted, and the debates, in which all the leading members shared, exceedingly able and not without acrimony. They were adopted in the house by 38 to 34, all the whigs (24) and 14 democrats voting for them, while the 34 noes were all democrats; in the senate the vote stood 14 to 11, all the whigs (7) and 7 democrats voting aye, the 11 noes being all democrats. There was some question at the time as to whether our delegates in congress would obey these instructions. Pending the compromise measures of 1850, a mass meeting in Chicago called upon Senator Douglas to obey the resolutions in their spirit as well as technical letter, or resign. Douglas had ever opposed the Wilmot proviso. Now, having written the compromise bills and reported them from the committee on territories without the proviso, an amendment was offered in the precise language of the Illinois instructions. He believed in the right of instruction, but rather than resign his seat and knowing that it would not prevail even with the vote of Illinois, he denounced it in severe terms, and then in obedience to instructions, voted for it. At the session of the legislature in 1851, the so-called Illinois Wilmot proviso resolutions were rescinded. It was further resolved to sustain the executive of the U. S. in his determination to enforce the fugitive slave law; and as the adjustment measures passed by congress, comprising the admission of California, the establishment of territorial governments for Utah and New Mex ico upon the principle of non-intervention, the settlement of the Texan boundary, amendment of the fugitive slave law of 1793, and abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, were eminently calculated to remove all controversy and restore peace, quietude and confidence between the two sections of the country, they met their hearty concurrence. Our delegation in congress was further instructed to resist all attempts to disturb or unsettle them. The resolutions were adopted in the house by a vote of 49 to 11, and in the senate by 22 to 2. The democratic press congratulated the people upon the removal of this stigma from the State, which indicates the advance the question of slavery was making as a party issue. In rescinding the resolutions, both democrats and whigs largely participated, while but two years prior every whig in both houses had voted to adopt them. In the meantime the agitations incident to the great adjustment measures of 1850, which shook the Union to its centre, had taken place and been fraternally settled, and this action of the legislature was an earnest of its acceptance in good faith, and a hearty acquiesence in the national compromise of that period by both whigs and democrats. Under this fraternal feeling the national election of 1852 resulted in favor of the democratic party by an overwhelming majority. This was hardly expected. They had cast their represen tative men overboard and selected Mr. Pierce, at the instance of the South (Virginia bringing him forward in convention) on account of availability, while the whigs had for their candidate a soldier chieftain of renown, who had carried our flag to victory from Canada to the City of Mexico, in the person of Gen. Scott. While many whigs had labored with patriotic zeal in the adoption of the adjustment measures of 1850, there was still a very large anti-slavery element in that party throughout the North, which gave but a sullen acquiescence to the compromise; many of the leaders spit upon the Baltimore platform. Besides, in the election of Taylor in 1848, the whigs had swerved from principle for personal considerations, and while crowned with success, forfeited the confidence of the country. With the overwhelming defeat in 1852, and the northern disaffection in its ranks, symptoms of dissolution in that grand old party were now every where manifest. It was pronounced in articulo mortis by its leaders, and its abandonment daily advocated. In Illinois the democracy were in such ascendency in 1852 that when the whig State convention assembled to put forth a ticket, it was candidly stated by the chairman in his opening speech, that they had no hope of success, but it was highly important to make a decent show, and thus encourage and uphold their friends abroad. After the accession of President Pierce democracy was not without its mutterings of discontent. In the election the Van Buren breach of 1848 was bridged over, it seems largely by the "cohesive power of public plunder" in prospect, but disappointment in the division of the loaves and fishes now caused a wide and deeper hostility than ever, in many portions of the country. The troubles of a country emanate from uneasy and ambitious politicians, its safety reposes in the tranquil masses.* During a period of dead calm in general politics, the opposition for the October contest in Ohio in 1853, sought to fuse all the va rious party factions and unite them against the party in power, and the Republican party was in a manner forshadowed by their platform of principles: opposition to the fugitive slave law and the further extension of slavery; freedom of the public lands; equal taxation and the suppression of intemperance. This was known as the Giddings ukase. The movement met with defeat. Benton, |
