The Douglas Democracy and the Crisis of Disunion

THE DOUGLAS DEMOCRACY AND THE CRISIS OF DISUNION Robert W. Johannsen Sunday, April 14, 1861, was a day of excitement and agitation in die national capital. Telegraphic dispatches had been received die night before announcing the surrender of die smaU Federal garrison in Fort Sumter to the authorities of the Confederate States. To some die news was received widi a sense of rehef that the uncertainty and suspense of die preceding montiis had passed; to otiiers, the faU of Fort Sumter was a crushing blow to their hope that the nation could bereconstructed and die Union restored by peaceable measures. AU eyes turned anxiously to die new President in die White House. Sharing this anxiety was George Ashmun of Massachusetts, former Congressman and chairman of the Republican national nominating convention in Chicago the year before. Ashmun determined late diat Sunday afternoon to persuade Stephen A. Douglas to make a public demonstration of his support of the administration in order to encourage national confidence in President Lincoln. Ashmun spoke widi Douglas for about an hour at the latter's house, finally suggesting that the President would welcome an interview with the IUinois Senator. Douglas at first remonstrated. "Mr. Lincoln," he told Ashmun, "has dealt hardly widi me, in removing some of my friends from office, and I don't know as he wants my advice or aid." After further persuasion, during which Ashmun was joined by Douglas' wife, Douglas agreed to call on die President. Lincoln was alone at die White House when Douglas arrived. Drawing from his desk a draft of die proclamation he intended to issue die following day, Lincoln opened die conversation. Douglas concurred in die policy die President intended to pursue, although he thought the number of volunteers called for a little low. He urged diat die administration follow a firm, forceful course toward die seceded states. Lincoln and Douglas conferred for nearly two hours. Each had come a Robert W. Johannsen is chairman of the history department at the University of Illinois and editor of the recently published Letters of Stephen A. Douglas. 229 230ROBERT W. JOHANNSEN long way from the time of their first meeting in Vandalia, Illinois, in the 1830's. Their paths had crossed frequendy during the intervening years, and on each occasion diey found diemselves assuming opposite positions . In this moment of crisis, however, no two men, according to Ashmun , "parted . . . widi a more cordial feeUng of a united, friendly, and patriotic purpose than Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas." Douglas later penned a report of his discussion with the President which he released to die press. Striking a note of concord, he declared diat he and Lincoln "spoke of die present & future, without reference to the past." "The substance of the conversation," Douglas wrote, "was that while Mr. D was unalterably opposed to die administration on all its political issues, he was prepared to sustain die President in the exercise of aU his constitutional functions to preserve the Union, and maintain die government, and defend die Federal Capital." "A firm policy and prompt action," he added, "was necessary."1 The fall of Fort Sumter and Douglas' public avowal of support to the Lincoln administration cUmaxed several years of struggle during which the Illinois Senator sought to forestall the sectionaUzation of poUtics and die disunion he felt would inevitably follow. He had occupied a central position in the sectional conflict as he pushed and defended die only solution to die problem of the expansion of slavery that he was convinced would be fair to both North and Soudi. By I860, popular sovereignty—allowing the people of the territories to determine the status of slavery for themselves—had become an obsession with Douglas. No odier formula, he felt, could hold both his party and his country together. That he failed in his object was not die result of any lack of sincerity or energy on his part, but was rather due to his failure to appreciate the deptii of feeling and emotional commitment among Northerners and Soudierners and his inabüity to recognize that forces were at work which no single man could control. The breakup of the Democratic party in the spring of...