Stephen Douglas: The Last Years, 1857-1861 (review)

book reviews353 legible, the product of some automated process, which hardly does justice to the man whose 1872 campaign biography was dedicated "To the Workingmen of America." Davtd Montgomery University of Pittsburgh Stephen Douglas: The Last Years, 1857-1861. By Damon Wells. (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1971. Pp. xvi, 342. $10.00.) The final four years of Stephen A. Douglas' life are a study in futility, frustration, and failure. While he strove mightily for the twin goals of the presidency and preservation of the Union as it was, he failed spectacularly. Why? Professor Damon Wells concludes "that Douglas was for too long out of step with his times. . . . He sought to be a nationalist in an age of sectionalism; he preached the value of compromise when most Americans suspected the notion." (p. xiii). Thus in 1860, Douglas' conception of nationalism was unacceptable to a majority of Americans. His final months were spent, first, in attempting to prevent secession; then, according to Wells, in efforts to find a way to allow the renegade states to secede peacefully in the hope they would return at a later date; and finally, in rallying public support to preservation of the Union by force of arms. Appropriately, much of the discussion centers on Douglas' concept of popular sovereignty as a vehicle for his political aspirations and a panacea for the nation's discord. Wells is never quite able, however, to accept the notion that Douglas' twin goals might have been compatible ; that his own ambitions might well have coincided with national interest. While consciously avoiding the old blundering generation vs. irrepressible conflict dichotomy, Wells believes that forces at work during Douglas' final four years made it impossible for him to secure the broad support necessary to win a national victory in 1860 and thus avert secession. It is questionable, however, whether the Union would have survived a Douglas victory much more successfully than it did that of Lincoln. Like a number of other historians, Wells acknowledges the narrow range of differences that actually existed between the "Tall Sucker" and the "Little Giant" from the Illinois prairie. Despite their similarity on many issues, attention is focused on efforts by Lincoln and Douglas to differentiate their positions and the political struggle for dominance. Wells also devotes considerable attention to the reasons for the growing animosity between Douglas, and Buchanan, southerners , and many northerners. It is always difficult to assess a career filled with as many "mighthave -beens" as that of Douglas. While Wells has done a highly creditable job, there are occasional slips. He states that responsibility for interpreting the Constitution rested primarily with the Supreme Court. Indeed, politicians and historians have frequently taken this view, but 354CIVIL WAR HISTORY it has not always been acquiesced in by others. On several occasions, Presidents, congressmen, and scholars have insisted that responsibility for interpreting the Constitution rested with each of the coordinate parts of the federal government. In the 1850's there were those who believed that state governments shared this responsibility equally with the federal government. Wells' contention that Douglas' strong political support along major midwestem rivers was owing in part to his championship of river improvement projects overlooks strong opposition in these same areas to financing such improvements with a tonnage tax. Believing Douglas was primarily a political being bent on political advancement, Wells gives slight attention to the "Little Giant's" positive legislative accomplishments. Consequently, the view of Douglas' final years is not as complete as it might otherwise have been. Douglas emerges as an anchronistic leader of a party "hell-bent" on self-destruction. His economic nationalism and amoral attitude toward slavery were insufficient in an age of politicians appealing to moral absolutes. Throughout the 1850's an ever increasing number of northerners found slavery incompatible with republican institutions. Simultaneously , growing numbers of southerners believed slavery necessary, not only to their economy, but also to maintain control of an allegedly inferior race. Consequently, his pragmatism and his conservatism were out of step with the times—not far enough for the South, too far for the North. This thoroughly researched, well-written monograph should find a prominent place on the shelf of all...