The Life of Lyman Trumbull Part 6

And he continued, ringing the changes on this alleged inconsistency through two entire columns of the _Globe_, as though a compact could not be made respecting a territory as well as for a state, and ignoring the fact that if slaves were prevented from coming into the territory, the material for forming a slave state would not exist when the people should apply for admission to the Union. If the word "forever" had, as Trumbull believed, applied only to the territory, it nevertheless answered all practical purposes forever, by moulding the future state, as the potter moulds the clay.[26]

The remainder of Douglas's speech was founded upon the doings of Governor Reeder, whom he first used to b.u.t.tress and sustain the bogus legislature in its acts, and then turned upon and rent in pitiable fragments, calling him "your Governor," as though the Republicans and not their opponents had appointed him.

June 9, 1856, the two Senators drifted into debate on the Kansas question again, and Trumbull put to Douglas the question which Lincoln put to him with such momentous consequences in the Freeport debate two years later: whether the people of a territory could lawfully exclude slavery prior to the formation of a state const.i.tution. Trumbull said that the Democratic party was not harmonious on this point. He had heard Brown, of Mississippi, argue on the floor of the Senate that slavery could not be excluded from the territories, while in the formative condition, by the territorial legislature, and he had heard Ca.s.s, of Michigan, maintain exactly the opposite doctrine. He would like to know what his colleague's views were upon that point:

My colleague [he said] has no sort of difficulty in deciding the const.i.tutional question as to the right of the people of a territory, when they form their const.i.tution, to establish or prohibit slavery. Now will he tell me whether they have the right _before_ they form a state const.i.tution?[27]

Douglas did not answer this interrogatory. He insisted that it was purely a judicial question, and that he and all good Democrats were in harmony and would sustain the decision of the highest tribunal when it should be rendered. The Dred Scott case was pending in the Supreme Court, but that fact was not mentioned in the debate. The right of the people of a territory to exclude slavery before arriving at statehood was already the crux of the political situation, but its significance was not generally perceived at that time. That Trumbull had grasped the fact was shown by his concluding remarks in this debate, to wit:

My colleague says that the persons with whom he is acting are perfectly agreed on the questions at issue. Why, sir, all of them in the South say that they have a right to take their slaves into a territory and to hold them there as such, while all in the North deny it. If that is an agreement, then I do not know what Bedlam would be.

Bedlam came at Charleston four years later. It is worthy of remark that in this debate Douglas held that a negro could bring an action for personal freedom in a territory and have it presented to the Supreme Court of the United States for decision. In the Dred Scott case, subsequently decided, the court held that a negro could not bring an action in a court of the United States.

The Senate debate on Kansas affairs in the first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress was partic.i.p.ated in by nearly all the members of the body. The best speech on the Republican side was made by Seward.

This was a carefully prepared, fa.r.s.eeing philosophical oration, in which the South was warned that the stars in their courses were fighting against slavery and that the inst.i.tution took a step toward perdition when it appealed to lawless violence. Sumner's speech, which in its consequences became more celebrated, was soph.o.m.orical and vituperative and was not calculated to help the cause that its author espoused; but the a.s.sault made upon him by Preston S. Brooks maddened the North and drew attention away from its defects of taste and judgment. Collamer, of Vermont, made a notable speech in addition to his notable minority report from the Committee on Territories. Wilson, of Ma.s.sachusetts, and Hale, of New Hamps.h.i.+re, received well-earned plaudits for the thoroughness with which they exposed the frauds and violence of the Border Ruffians, and commented on the vacillation and stammering of President Pierce. That Trumbull had the advantage of his wily antagonist must be the conclusion of impartial readers at the present day.

If a newcomer in the Senate to-day should plunge _in medias res_ and deliver a three-hours' speech as soon as he could get the floor, he would probably be made aware of the opinion of his elders that he had been over-hasty. It was not so in the exciting times of the decade before the Civil War. All help was eagerly welcomed. Moreover, Trumbull's const.i.tuents would not have tolerated any delay on his part in getting into the thickest of the fight. Any signs of hanging back would have been construed as timidity. The anti-Nebraska Democrats of Illinois required early proof that their Senator was not afraid of the Little Giant, but was his match at cut-and-thrust debate as well as his superior in dignity and moral power. The North rang with the praises of Trumbull, and some persons, whose admiration of Lincoln was unbounded and unchangeable, were heard to say that perhaps Providence had selected the right man for Senator from Illinois. Although Lincoln's personality was more magnetic, Trumbull's intellect was more alert, his diction the more incisive, and his temper was the more combative of the two.

From a ma.s.s of letters and newspapers commending Mr. Trumbull on his first appearance on the floor of the Senate, a few are selected for notice.

The New York _Tribune_, March 15, 1856, Was.h.i.+ngton letter signed "H.

G.," p. 4, col. 5:

Mr. Trumbull's review of Senator Douglas's pro-slavery Kansas report is hailed with enthusiasm, as calculated to do honor to the palmiest days of the Senate. Though three hours long, it commanded full galleries, and the most fixed attention to the close. It was searching as well as able, and was at once dignified and convincing.

When Mr. Trumbull closed, Mr. Douglas rose, in bad temper, to complain that the attack had been commenced in his absence, and to ask the Senate to fix a day for his reply. He said Mr.

Trumbull had claimed to be a Democrat; but that claim would be considered a libel by the Democracy of Illinois. Here Mr.

Crittenden rose to a question of order, and a most exciting pa.s.sage ensued; the flash of the Kentuckian's eye and the sternness of his bearing were such as are rarely seen in the Senate.

The New York _Daily Times_, Was.h.i.+ngton letter, dated June 9:

Douglas was much disconcerted to-day by Senator Trumbull's keen exposure of his Nebraska sophism. He was directly asked if he believed that the people of the territories have the right to exclude slavery before forming a state government, but he refused to give his opinion, saying that it was a question to be determined by the Supreme Court. Trumbull then exposed with great force Douglas's equivocal platform of popular sovereignty, which means one thing at the South and another at the North. The "Little Giant" was fairly smoked out.

Charles Sumner writes to E. L. Pierce, March 21:

Trumbull is a hero, and more than a match for Douglas.

Illinois, in sending him, has done much to make me forget that she sent Douglas. You will read the main speech which is able; but you can hardly appreciate the ready courage and power with which he grappled with his colleague and throttled him. We are all proud of his work.

S. P. Chase, Executive Office, Columbus, Ohio, April 14, 1856, writes:

I have read your speech with great interest. It was timely--exactly at the right moment and its logic and statement are irresistible. How I rejoice that Illinois has sent you to the Senate.

John Johnson, Mount Vernon, Illinois, writes:

I wish I could express the pleasure that I and many other of your friends feel when we remember that we have such a man as yourself in Congress, who loves liberty and truth and is not ashamed or afraid to speak. Let me say that I thank the Ruler of the Universe that we have got such a man into the Senate of the United States.... Your influence will tell on the interests of the nation in years to come.

John H. Bryant, Princeton, writes:

The expectations of those who elected Mr. Trumbull to the Senate have been fully met by his course in that body, those of Democratic antecedents being satisfied and the Whigs very happily disappointed. For Mr. Lincoln the people have great respect, and great confidence in his ability and integrity.

Still the feeling here is that you have filled the place at this particular time better than he could have done.[28]

At this time Trumbull received a letter from one of the Ohio River counties which, by reason of the singularity of its contents as well as of the subsequent distinction of the writer, merits preservation:

Green B. Raum, Golconda, Pope Co., Feb. 9, '57, wishes Trumbull to find out why he cannot get his pay for taking depositions at the instance of the Secretary of the Interior in a lawsuit involving the freedom of sixty negroes legally manumitted, but still held in slavery in Crawford County, Arkansas. The witnesses whose depositions were taken were living in Pope Co., Ill. Raum advanced $43.25 for witness fees and costs and was engaged one month in the work, for which he charged $300. This was done in May, 1855, but he had never been paid even the amount that he advanced out of his own pocket.[29]

In April, 1857, Trumbull received an urgent appeal from Cyrus Aldrich, George A. Nourse, and others in Minnesota asking him to come to that territory and make speeches for one month to help the Republicans carry the convention which had been called to frame a state const.i.tution. He responded to this call and took an active part in the campaign, which resulted favorably to the Republican party.

FOOTNOTES:

[20] Edited by B. F. Stringfellow, author of _African Slavery no Evil_, St. Louis, 1854.

[21] Cited in Villard's _John Brown_, p. 94.

[22] _Cong. Globe_, Appendix, 1856. p. 118.

[23] The writer of this book was intimately acquainted with the doings of the Emigrant Aid Societies of the country, having been connected with the National Kansas Committee at Chicago. The emigrants usually went up the Missouri River by rail from St. Louis to Jefferson City and thence by steamboat to Kansas City, Wyandotte, or Leavenworth. They were cautioned to conceal as much as possible their ident.i.ty and destination, in order to avoid trouble. Such caution was not necessary, however, since the emigrants knew that their own success depended largely upon keeping that avenue of approach to Kansas open. Later, in the summer of 1856, it was closed, not in consequence of any threatening language or action on the part of the emigrants, but because the Border Ruffians were determined to cut off reinforcements to the Free State men in Kansas. The tide of travel then took the road through Iowa and Nebraska, a longer, more circuitous, and more expensive route.

[24] Appendix, p. 200.

[25] _Cong. Globe_, 34th Congress, Appendix, p. 281.

[26] In this debate Clayton, of Delaware, contended that the word "forever" was meant to apply to any future political body, whether territory or state, occupying the ground embraced in the defined limits.

Hence he considered the Missouri Compromise unconst.i.tutional, but he had opposed the Nebraska Bill because he was not willing to reopen the slavery agitation. _Cong. Globe_, 34th Congress, Appendix, p. 777.

[27] _Cong. Globe_, 1856, p. 1371.

[28] John H. Bryant, a man of large influence in central Illinois, brother of William Cullen Bryant.

[29] Green B. Raum, Lawyer, Democrat, brigadier-general in the Union army in the Civil War.

CHAPTER V

THE LECOMPTON FIGHT

In June, 1856, Lincoln wrote to Trumbull urging him to attend the Republican National Convention which had been called to meet in Philadelphia to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President and suggesting that he labor for the nomination of a conservative man for President. Trumbull went accordingly and cooperated with N. B. Judd, Leonard Swett, William B. Archer, and other delegates from Illinois in the proceedings which led up to the futile nominations of Fremont and Dayton. The only part of these proceedings which interests us now is the fact that Abraham Lincoln, who was not a candidate for any place, received one hundred and ten votes for Vice-President. This result was brought about by Mr. William B. Archer, an Illinois Congressman, who conceived the idea of proposing his name only a short time before the voting began, and secured the cooperation of Mr. Allison, of Pennsylvania, to nominate him. Archer wrote to Lincoln that if this bright idea had occurred to him a little earlier he could have obtained a majority of the convention for him. When the news first reached Lincoln at Urbana, Illinois, where he was attending court, he thought that the one hundred and ten votes were cast for Mr. Lincoln, of Ma.s.sachusetts.

He wrote to Trumbull on the 27th saying, "It would have been easier for us, I think, had we got McLean" (instead of Fremont), but he was not without high hopes of carrying the state. He was confident of electing Bissell for governor at all events. In August, Lincoln wrote again saying that he had just returned from a speaking tour in Edgar, Coles, and Shelby counties, and that he had found the chief embarra.s.sment in the way of Republican success was the Fillmore ticket. "The great difficulty," he says, "with anti-slavery-extension Fillmore men is that they suppose Fillmore as good as Fremont on that question; and it is a delicate point to argue them out of it, they are so ready to think you are abusing Mr. Fillmore." The Fillmore vote in Illinois was 37,444.

The Republican state ticket, headed by William H. Bissell for governor, was elected, but Buchanan and Breckinridge, the Democratic nominees, received the electoral vote of the state and were successful in the country at large. The defeat of Fremont caused intense disappointment to the Republicans at the time, but it was fortunate for the party and for the country that he was beaten. He was not the man to deal with the grave crisis impending. Disunion was a club already held in reserve to greet any Republican President. Senator Mason, of Virginia, frankly said so to Trumbull in a Senate debate (December 2, 1856), after the election:

MR. MASON: What I said was this, that if that [Republican]

party came into power avowing the purpose that it did avow, it would necessarily result in the dissolution of the Union, whether they desired it or not. It was utterly immaterial who was their President; he might have been a man of straw. I allude to the purposes of the party.

MR. TRUMBULL: Why, sir, neither Colonel Fremont nor any other person can be elected President of the United States except in the const.i.tutional mode, and if any individual is elected in the mode prescribed in the Const.i.tution, is that cause for dissolution of the Union? a.s.suredly not. If it be, the Const.i.tution contains within itself the elements of its own destruction.[30]