When we remember that it was on the night of the 5th of January, 1861, that the Rebel Conspirators in the United States Senate met and plotted their confederated Treason, as shown in the Yulee letter, given in the preceding Chapter of this work, and that on the very next day, January 6, 1861, Fernando Wood, then Mayor of the great city of New York, sent in to the Common Council of that metropolis, his recommendation that New York city should Secede from its own State, as well as the United States, and become “a Free City,” which, said he, “may shed the only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed Confederacy,” it is impossible to resist the conviction that this extraordinary movement of his, was inspired and prompted, if not absolutely directed, by the secret Rebel Conclave at Washington.  It bears within itself internal evidences of such prompting.

Thus, when Mayor Wood states the case in the following words, he seems to be almost quoting word for word an instruction received by him from these Rebel leaders ­in connection with their plausible argument, upholding it.  Says he: 

“Much, no doubt, can be said in favor of the justice and policy of a separation.  It may be said that Secession or revolution in any of the United States would be subversive of all Federal authority, and, so far as the central Government is concerned, the resolving of the community into its original elements ­that, if part of the States form new combinations and, Governments, other States may do the same.  Then it may be said, why should not New York city, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent?  As a Free City, with but nominal duty on imports, her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her people.  Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free.  In this she would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.”

That is the persuasive casuistry peculiar to the minds of the Southern Secession leaders.  It is naturally followed by a touch of that self-confident bluster, also at that time peculiar to Southern lips ­as follows: 

“It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square in the face, and to meet it calmly and bravely.  As dreadful as the severing of the bonds that have hitherto united the States has been in contemplation, it is now apparently a stern and inevitable fact.  We have now to meet it, with all the consequences, whatever they may be.  If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is dissolved, and it behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to take care of themselves.

“When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master ­to a people and a Party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self-government, and destroyed the Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? ”

After thus restating, as it were, the views and “arguments” of the Rebel Junta, as we may presume them to have been pressed on him, he becomes suddenly startled at the Conclave’s idea of meeting “all the consequences, whatever they may be,” and, turning completely around, with blanching pen, concludes: 

“But I am not prepared to recommend the violence implied in these views.  In stating this argument in favor of freedom, ’peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must,’ let me not be misunderstood.  The redress can be found only in appeals to the magnanimity of the people of the whole State.”

If “these views” were his own, and not those of the Rebel Conclave, he would either have been “prepared to recommend the violence implied in them,” or else he would have suppressed them altogether.  But his utterance is that of one who has certain views for the first time placed before him, and shrinks from the consequences of their advocacy ­shrinks from “the violence implied” in them ­although for some reason he dares not refuse to place those views before the people.

And, in carrying out his promise to do so ­“In stating this argument,” presumably of the Rebel Conclave, “in favor of freedom, ’peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must’” ­the language used is an admission that the argument is not his own.  Were it his own, would he not have said in “making” it, instead of in “stating” it?  Furthermore, had he been “making” it of his own accord, he would hardly have involved himself in such singular contradictions and explanations as are here apparent.  He was plainly “stating” the Rebel Conclave’s argument, not making one himself.  He was obeying orders, under the protest of his fears.  And those fears forced his trembling pen to write the saving-clause which “qualifies” the Conclave’s second-hand bluster preceding it.

That the Rebels hoped for Northern assistance in case of Secession, is very clear from many speeches made prior to and soon after the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency ­and from other sources of information.  Thus we find in a speech made by Representative L. M. Keitt, of South Carolina, in Charleston, November, 1860, the following language, reported by the Mercury: 

“But we have been threatened.  Mr. Amos Kendall wrote a letter, in which he said to Colonel Orr, that if the State went out, three hundred thousand volunteers were ready to march against her.  I know little about Kendall ­and the less the better.  He was under General Jackson; but for him the Federal treasury seemed to have a magnetic attraction.

“Jackson was a pure man, but he had too many around him who made fortunes far transcending their salaries. [Applause.] And this Amos Kendall had the same good fortune under Van Buren.  He (Kendall) threatened us on the one side, and John Hickman on the other.  John Hickman said, defiantly, that if we went out of the Union, eighteen millions of Northern men would bring us back.

“Let me tell you, there are a million of Democrats in the North who, when the Black Republicans attempt to march upon the South, will be found a wall of fire in the front. [Cries of ‘that’s so,’ and applause.]”

Harper’s Weekly of May 28, 1864, commenting on certain letters of M. F. Maury and others, then just come to light, said: 

“How far Maury and his fellow-conspirators were justified in their hopes of seducing New Jersey into the Rebellion, may be gathered from the correspondence that took place, in the spring of 1861, between Ex-Governor Price, of New Jersey, who was one of the representatives from that State in the Peace Congress, and L. W. Burnet, Esq., of Newark.

“Mr. Price, in answering the question what ought New Jersey to do, says:  ’I believe the Southern confederation permanent.  The proceeding has been taken with forethought and deliberation ­it is no hurried impulse, but an irrevocable act, based upon the sacred, as was supposed, equality of the States; and in my opinion every Slave State will in a short period of time be found united in one Confederacy. Before that event happens, we cannot act, however much we may suffer in our material interests.  It is in that contingency, then, that I answer the second part of your question: ­What position for New Jersey will best accord with her interests, honor, and the patriotic instincts of her people?  I say emphatically she would go with the South from every wise, prudential, and patriotic reason.’

“Ex-Governor Price proceeds to say that he is confident the States of Pennsylvania and New York will ’choose also to cast their lot with the South, and after them, the Western and Northwestern States.’”

The following resolution, was adopted with others, by a meeting of Democrats held January 16, 1861, at National Hall, Philadelphia, and has been supposed to disclose “a plan, of which ex-Governor Price was likely aware:” 

“Twelfth ­That in the deliberate judgment of the Democracy of Philadelphia, and, so far as we know it, of Pennsylvania, the dissolution of the Union by the separation of the whole South, a result we shall most sincerely lament, may release this Commonwealth to a large extent from the bonds which now connect her with the Confederacy, except so far as for temporary convenience she chooses to submit to them, and would authorize and require her citizens, through a Convention, to be assembled for that purpose, to determine with whom her lot should be cast, whether with the North and the East, whose fanaticism has precipitated this misery upon us, or with our brethren of the South, whose wrongs we feel as our own; or whether Pennsylvania should stand by herself, as a distinct community, ready when occasion offers, to bind together the broken Union, and resume her place of loyalty and devotion.”

Senator Lane of Oregon, replying to Senator Johnson of Tennessee, December 19, 1860, in the United States Senate, and speaking of and for the Northern Democracy, said: 

“They will not march with him under his bloody banner, or Mr. Lincoln’s, to invade the soil of the gallant State of South Carolina, when she may withdraw from a Confederacy that has refused her that equality to which she is entitled, as a member of the Union, under the Constitution.  On the contrary, when he or any other gentleman raises that banner and attempts to subjugate that gallant people, instead of marching with him, we will meet him there, ready to repel him and his forces.  He shall not bring with him the Northern Democracy to strike down a people contending for rights that have been refused them in a Union that ought to recognize the equality of every member of the Confederacy. I now serve notice that, when War is made upon that gallant South for withdrawing from a Union which refuses them their rights, the Northern Democracy will not join in the crusade.  The republican party will have war enough at home.  The democracy of the north need not cross the border to find an enemy.”

The following letter from Ex-President Pierce is in the same misleading strain: 

“Clarendon hotel, January 6, 1860. ­[This letter was captured, at Jeff.  Davis’s house in Mississippi, by the Union troops.]

“My dear friend: ­I wrote you an unsatisfactory note a day or two since.  I have just had a pleasant interview with Mr. Shepley, whose courage and fidelity are equal to his learning and talents.  He says he would rather fight the battle with you as the standard-bearer in 1860, than under the auspices of any other leader.  The feeling and judgment of Mr. S. in this relation is, I am confident, rapidly gaining ground in New England.  Our people are looking for ‘the coming man,’ one who is raised by all the elements of his character above the atmosphere ordinarily breathed by politicians, a man really fitted for this exigency by his ability, courage, broad statesmanship, and patriotism.  Colonel Seymour (Thomas H.) arrived here this morning, and expressed his views in this relation in almost the identical language used by Mr. Shepley.

“It is true that, in the present state of things at Washington and throughout the country, no man can predict what changes two or three months may bring forth.  Let me suggest that, in the running debates in Congress, full justice seems to me not to have been done to the Democracy of the North.  I do not believe that our friends at the South have any just idea of the state of feeling, hurrying at this moment to the pitch of intense exasperation, between those who respect their political obligations and those who have apparently no impelling power but that which fanatical passion on the subject of Domestic Slavery imparts.

“Without discussing the question of right, of abstract power to Secede, I have never believed that actual disruption of the Union can occur without blood; and if, through the madness of Northern Abolitionism, that dire calamity must come, the fighting will not be along mason’s and Dixon’s line merely.  It [will] be within our own borders, in our own streets, between the two classes of citizens to whom I have referred. Those who defy law and scout Constitutional obligations will, if we ever reach the arbitrament of arms, find occupation enough at home.

“Nothing but the state of Mrs. Pierce’s health would induce me to leave the Country now, although it is quite likely that my presence at home would be of little service.

“I have tried to impress upon our people, especially in New Hampshire and Connecticut, where the only elections are to take place during the coming spring, that while our Union meetings are all in the right direction, and well enough for the present, they will not be worth the paper upon which their resolutions are written unless we can overthrow political Abolitionism at the polls and repeal the Unconstitutional and obnoxious laws which, in the cause of ‘personal liberty,’ have been placed upon our statute-books.  I shall look with deep interest, and not without hope, for a decided change in this relation.

                    “Ever and truly your friend,                                         “Franklin Pierce.

“Hon. Jeff.  Davis, “Washington, D. C.”

But let us turn from contemplating the encouragements to Southern Treason and Rebellion, held out by Northern Democratic Copperheads, to the more pleasing spectacle of Loyalty and Patriotism exhibited by the Douglas wing of Democracy.

Immediately after Sumter, and while the President was formulating his Message, calling for 75,000 volunteers, Douglas called upon him at the White House, regretted that Mr. Lincoln did not propose to call for thrice as many; and on the 18th of April, having again visited the White House, wrote, and gave the following dispatch to the Associated Press, for circulation throughout the Country: 

“April 18, 1861, Senator Douglas called on the President, and had an interesting conversation on the present condition of the Country.  The substance of it was, on the part of Mr. Douglas, that while he was unalterably opposed to the administration in all its political issues, he was prepared to fully sustain the President in the exercise of all his Constitutional functions, to preserve the Union, maintain the Government, and defend the Federal Capital.  A firm policy and prompt action was necessary.  The Capital was in danger and must be defended at all hazards, and at any expense of men and money.  He spoke of the present and future without any reference to the past.”

It is stated of this meeting and its immediate results:  “The President was deeply gratified by the interview.  To the West, Douglas telegraphed, ‘I am for my Country and against all its assailants.’  The fire of his patriotism spread to the masses of the North, and Democrat and Republican rallied to the support of the flag.  In Illinois the Democratic and Republican presses vied with each other in the utterance of patriotic sentiments. Large and numerously attended Mass meetings met, as it were with one accord, irrespective of parties, and the people of all shades of political opinions buried their party hatchets.  Glowing and eloquent orators exhorted the people to ignore political differences in the present crisis, join in the common cause, and rally to the flag of the Union and the Constitution.  It was a noble truce.  From the many resolutions of that great outpouring of patriotic sentiment, which ignored all previous party ties, we subjoin the following: 

“’Resolved, that it is the duty of all patriotic citizens of Illinois, without distinction of party or sect, to sustain the Government through the peril which now threatens the existence of the Union; and of our Legislature to grant such aid of men and money as the exigency of the hour and the patriotism of our people shall demand.’

“Governor Yates promptly issued his proclamation, dated the 15th of April, convening the Legislature for the 23rd inst. in Extraordinary Session.

“On the evening of the 25th of April, Mr. Douglas, who had arrived at the Capital the day before, addressed the General Assembly and a densely packed audience, in the Hall of Representatives, in that masterly effort, which must live and be enshrined in the hearts of his countrymen so long as our Government shall endure.  Douglas had ever delighted in the mental conflicts of Party strife; but now, when his Country was assailed by the red hand of Treason, he was instantly divested of his Party armor and stood forth panoplied only in the pure garb of a true Patriot.

“He taught his auditory ­he taught his Country, for his speeches were telegraphed all over it ­the duty of patriotism at that perilous hour of the Nation’s Life.  He implored both Democrats and Republicans to lay aside their Party creeds and Platforms; to dispense with Party Organizations and Party Appeals; to forget that they were ever divided until they had first rescued the Government from its assailants.  His arguments were clear, convincing, and unanswerable; his appeals for the Salvation of his Country, irresistible.  It was the last speech, but one, he ever made.”

Among other pithy and patriotic points made by him in that great speech ­[July 9, 1861.] ­were these:  “So long as there was a hope of a peaceful solution, I prayed and implored for Compromise.  I have spared no effort for a peaceful solution of these troubles; I have failed, and there is but one thing to do ­to rally under the flag.”  “The South has no cause of complaint.”  “Shall we obey the laws or adopt the Mexican system of War, on every election.”  “Forget Party ­all remember only your Country.”  “The shortest road to Peace is the most tremendous preparation for War.”  “It is with a sad heart and with a grief I have never before experienced, that I have to contemplate this fearful Struggle. But it is our duty to protect the Government and the flag from every assailant, be he who he may.”

In Chicago, Douglas repeated his patriotic appeal for the preservation of the Union, and tersely declared that “There can be no Neutrals in this War ­only Patriots and Traitors.”  In that city he was taken with a mortal illness, and expired at the Tremont House, June 3, 1861 ­just one month prior to the meeting of the called Session of Congress.

The wonderful influence wielded by Douglas throughout the North, was well described afterward by his colleague, Judge Trumbull, in the Senate, when he said:  “His course had much to do in producing that unanimity in support of the Government which is now seen throughout the Loyal States.  The sublime spectacle of twenty million people rising as one man in vindication of Constitutional Liberty and Free Government, when assailed by misguided Rebels and plotting Traitors, is, to a considerable extent due to his efforts.  His magnanimous and patriotic course in this trying hour of his Country’s destiny was the crowning act of his life.”

And Senator McDougall of California ­his life-long friend ­in describing the shock of the first intelligence that reached him, of his friend’s sudden death, with words of even greater power, continued:  “But, as, powerless for the moment to resist the tide of emotions, I bowed my head in silent grief, it came to me that the Senator had lived to witness the opening of the present unholy War upon our Government; that, witnessing it, from the Capital of his State, as his highest and best position, he had sent forth a War-cry worthy of that Douglass, who, as ancient legends tell, with the welcome of the knightly Andalusian King, was told,

               ’"Take thou the leading of the van,                And charge the Moors amain;                There is not such a lance as thine                In all the hosts of Spain.’

“Those trumpet notes, with a continuous swell, are sounding still throughout all the borders of our Land.  I heard them upon the mountains and in the valleys of the far State whence I come.  They have communicated faith and strength to millions. I ceased to grieve for Douglas.  The last voice of the dead Douglas I felt to be stronger than the voice of multitudes of living men.”

And here it may not be considered out of place for a brief reference to the writer’s own position at this time; especially as it has been much misapprehended and misstated.  One of the fairest of these statements runs thus: 

     [Lusk’s History of the Politics of Illinois from 1856 to 1884, p.      175.]

“It is said that Logan did not approve the great speech made by Senator Douglas, at Springfield, in April, 1861, wherein he took the bold ground that in the contest which was then clearly imminent to him, between the North and the South, that there could be but two parties, Patriots and Traitors.  But granting that there was a difference between Douglas and Logan at that time, it did not relate to their adhesion to the Cause of their Country Logan had fought for the Union upon the plains of Mexico, and again stood ready to give his life, if need be, for his Country, even amid the cowardly slanders that were then following his pathway.

“The difference between Douglas and Logan was this:  Mr. Douglas was fresh from an extended campaign in the dissatisfied Sections of the Southern States, and he was fully apprised of their intention to attempt the overthrow of the Union, and was therefore in favor of the most stupendous preparations for War.

“Mr. Logan, on the other hand, believed in exhausting all peaceable means before a resort to Arms, and in this he was like President Lincoln; but when he saw there was no alternative but to fight, he was ready and willing for armed resistance, and, resigning his seat in Congress, entered the Army, as Colonel of the Thirty-first Illinois Infantry, and remained in the field in active service until Peace was declared.”

This statement is, in the main, both fair and correct.

It is no more correct, however, in intimating that “Logan did not approve the great speech made by Senator Douglas, at Springfield, in April, 1861, wherein he took the bold ground that in the contest which was then clearly imminent to him, between the North and the South, that there could be but two parties, Patriots and Traitors,” than others have been in intimating that he was disloyal to the Union, prior to the breaking out of hostilities ­a charge which was laid out flat in the Senate Chamber, April 19, 1881.

     [In Dawson’s Life of Logan, pp. 348-353, this matter is thus      alluded to: 

“In an early part of this work the base charge that Logan was not loyal before the War has been briefly touched on.  It may be well here to touch on it more fully.  As was then remarked, the only man that ever dared insinuate to Logan’s face that he was a Secession sympathizer before the War, was Senator Ben Hill of Georgia, in the United States Senate Chamber, March 30, 1881; and Logan instantly retorted:  ’Any man who insinuates that I sympathized with it at that time insinuates what is false,’ and Senator Hill at once retracted the insinuation.”

“Subsequently, April 19, 1881, Senator Logan, in a speech, fortified with indisputable record and documentary evidence, forever set at rest the atrocious calumny.  From that record it appears that on the 17th December, 1860, while still a Douglas Democrat, immediately after Lincoln’s election, and long before his inauguration, and before even the first gun of the war was fired, Mr. Logan, then a Representative in the House, voted affirmatively on a resolution, offered by Morris of Illinois, which declared an ‘immovable attachment’ to ‘our National Union,’ and ’that it is our patriotic duty to stand by it as our hope in peace and our defense in war;’ that on the 7th January, 1861, Mr. Adrian having offered the following ’Resolved, That we fully approve of the bold and patriotic act of Major Anderson in withdrawing from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, and of the determination of the President to maintain that fearless officer in his present position; and that we will support the President in all constitutional measures to enforce the laws and preserve the Union’ ­Mr. Logan, in casting his vote, said:  ’As the resolution receives my unqualified approval, I vote Aye;’ and that further on the 5th of February, 1861, before the inauguration of President Lincoln, in a speech made by Logan in the House in favor of the Crittenden Compromise measures, he used the following language touching Secession: 

“’Sir, I have always denied, and do yet deny, the right of Secession.  There is no warrant for it in the Constitution.  It is wrong, it is unlawful, unconstitutional, and should be called by the right name ­revolution.  No good, sir, can result from it, but much mischief may.  It is no remedy for any grievances.  I hold that all grievances can be much easier redressed inside the Union than out of it.’

     “In that same speech he also said: 

“’I have been taught that the preservation of this glorious Union, with its broad flag waving over us as the shield for our protection on land and on sea, is paramount to all the parties and platforms that ever have existed or ever can exist.  I would, to day, if I had the power, sink my own party and every other one, with all their platforms, into the vortex of ruin, without heaving a sigh or shedding a tear, to save the Union, or even stop the revolution where it is.’

“In this most complete speech of vindication ­which Senator Logan said he put upon record, ’First, that my children, after me, may not have these slanders thrown in their faces without the power of dispelling or refuting them; and second, that they may endure in this Senate Chamber, so that it may be a notice to Senators of all parties and all creeds that hereafter, while I am here in the Senate, no insinuation of that kind will be submitted to by me,’ ­the proofs of the falsity of the charge were piled mountain-high, and among them the following voluntary statements from two Democratic Senators, who were with him before the War, in the House of Representatives: 

                    “’United States Senate Chamber,                          Washington, April 14, 1881.

“’Dear sir:  In a discussion in the Senate a few weeks since you referred to the fact that a Southern Senator, who had served with you in Congress before the War, could testify that during your term of service there you gave no encouragement to the Secession of the Southern States, adding, however, that you did not ask such testimony.  I was not sure at the time that your reference was to me, as Senator Pugh of Alabama, was also a member of that Congress.

“’Since then, having learned that your reference was to me, I propose on the floor of the Senate, should suitable occasion offer, to state what I know of your position and views at the time referred to.  But, as I may be absent from the Senate for some time, I deem it best to give you this written statement, with full authority to use it in any way that seems proper to you.

“’When you first came to Congress in ­, you were a very ardent and impetuous Democrat.  In the division which took place between Mr. Douglas and his friends, on the one hand, and the Southern Democrats, on the other, you were a warm and uncompromising supporter of Mr. Douglas; and in the course of that convention you became somewhat estranged from your party associates in the South.  In our frequent discussions upon the subjects of difference, I never heard a word of sympathy from your lips with Secession in either theory or practice.  On the contrary, you were vehement in your opposition to it.’

     “’I remember well a conversation I had with you just before leaving      Washington to become a candidate for the Secession convention.  You      expressed the deep regret you felt at my proposed action, and      deplored the contemplated movement in terms as strong as any I      heard from any Republican.’                                Yours truly,                                    “’L.  Q. C. Lamar

     “’Hon. John A. Logan.       “United States Senate, Washington, D. C.’

“Senate Chamber, April 14, 1881.

     “’Having read the above statement of Senator Lamar, I fully concur      with him in my recollection of your expressions and action in      opposition to Secession.                           Truly yours, J. L. Pugh.’

     “At the conclusion of Senator Logan’s speech of refutation, Senator      Brown of Georgia (Democrat) said: 

“’Our newspapers may have misrepresented his position.  I am now satisfied they did.  I have heard the Senator’s statement with great interest, and I take pleasure in saying ­for I had some idea before that there was some shadow of truth in this report ­that I think his vindication’ is full, complete, and conclusive.’

“’I recollect very well during the war, when I was Governor of my State and the Federal army was invading it, to have had a large force of militia aiding the Confederate army, and that Gen. Logan was considered by us as one of the ablest, most gallant, and skillful leaders of the Federal army.  We had occasion to feel his power, and we learned to respect him.’

     “Senator Beck, of Kentucky (Democrat), referring to the fact that      he was kept out of the House at one time, and a great many      suggestions had been made to him as to General Logan, continued: 

“’As I said the other day, I never proposed to go into such things, and never have done so; but at that time General Frank Blair was here, and I submitted many of the papers I received to him, ­I never thought of using any of them, ­and I remember the remark that he made to me:  Beck, John Logan was one of the hardest fighters of the war; and when many men who were seeking to whistle him down the wind because of his politics when the war began, were snugly fixed in safe places, he was taking his life in his hand wherever the danger was greatest ­and I tore up every paper I got, and burnt it in the fire before his eyes.’

     “Senator Dawes of Massachusetts (Republican), also took occasion to      say: 

“Mr. President, I do not know that anything which can be said on this side would be of any consequence to the Senator from Illinois in this matter.  But I came into the House of Representatives at the same session that the Senator did.

“’He was at that time one of the most intense of Democrats, and I was there with him when the Rebellion first took root and manifested itself in open and flagrant war; and I wish to say as a Republican of that day, when the Senator from Illinois was a Democrat, that at the earliest possible moment when the Republican Party was in anxiety as to the position of the Northern Democracy on the question of forcible assault on the Union, nothing did they hail with more delight than the early stand which the Senator from Illinois, from the Democratic side of the House, took upon the question of resistance to the Government of the United States.

“I feel that it is right that I should state that he was among the first, if not the very first, of the Northern Democrats who came out openly and declared, whatever may have been their opinion about the doctrines of the Republican Party, that when it came to a question of forcible resistance, they should be counted on the side of the Government, and in co-operation with the Republican Party in the attempt to maintain its authority.’

“’I am very glad, whether it be of any service or not, to bear this testimony to the early stand the Senator from Illinois took while he was still a Democrat, and the large influence he exerted upon the Northern Democracy, which kept it from being involved in the condition and in the work of the Southern Democracy at that time.’”]

So far from this being the case, the fact is ­and it is here mentioned in part to bring out the interesting point that, had he lived, Douglas would have been no idle spectator of the great War that was about to be waged ­that when Douglas visited Springfield, Illinois, to make that great speech in the latter part of April, 1861, the writer went there also, to see and talk over with him the grave situation of affairs, not only in the Nation generally, but particularly in Illinois.  And on that occasion Mr. Douglas said to him, substantially:  “The time has now arrived when a man must be either for or against his Country.  Indeed so strongly do I feel this, and that further dalliance with this question is useless, that I shall myself take steps to join the Array, and fight for the maintenance of the Union.”

To this the writer replied that he was “equally well convinced that each and every man must take his stand,” and that he also “purposed at an early day to raise a Regiment and draw the sword in that Union’s defense.”

This was after Sumter, and only seventy days before Congress was to meet in Called Session.  When that session met, Douglas had, weeks before, gone down to the grave amid the tears of a distracted Nation, with the solemn injunction upon his dying lips:  “Obey the Laws and Defend the Constitution” ­and the writer had returned to Washington, to take his seat in Congress, with that determination still alive in his heart.

In fact there had been all along, substantial accord between Mr. Douglas and the writer.  There really was no “difference between Douglas and Logan” as to “preparations for War,” or in “exhausting all Peaceable means before a resort to Arms,” and both were in full accord with President Lincoln on these points.

Let us see if this is not of record:  Take the writer’s speech in the House of Representatives, February 5, 1861, and it will be seen that he said:  “I will go as far as any man in the performance of a Constitutional duty to put down Rebellion, to suppress Insurrection, and to enforce the Laws.”  Again, he said, “If all the evils and calamities that have ever happened since the World began, could be gathered in one Great Catastrophe, its horrors could not eclipse, in their frightful proportions, the Drama that impends over us.”

From these extracts it is plain enough that even at this very early day the writer fully understood the “frightful proportions” of the impending struggle, and would “go as far as” ­not only Mr. Douglas, but ­“any man, to put down Rebellion” ­which necessarily involved War, and “preparations for War.”  But none the less, but rather the more, because of the horrors which he foresaw must be inseparable from so terrible a War, was he anxious by timely mutual Concessions ­“by any sacrifice,” as he termed it ­if possible, to avert it.

He was ready to sink Party, self, and to accept any of the Propositions to that end ­Mr. Douglas’s among them.

In this attitude also he was in accord with Mr. Douglas, who, as well as the writer, was ready to make any sacrifice, of Party or self; to “exhaust every effort at peaceful adjustment,” before resorting to War.  The fact is they were much of the time in consultation, and always in substantial accord.

In a speech made in the Senate, March 15, 1861, Mr. Douglas had reduced the situation to the following three alternative points: 

“1.  The restoration and preservation of the union by such Amendments to the Constitution as will insure the domestic tranquillity, safety, and equality of all the States, and thus restore peace, unity, and fraternity, to the whole Country.

“2.  A peaceful dissolution of the union by recognizing the Independence of such States as refuse to remain in the Union without such Constitutional Amendments, and the establishment of a liberal system of commercial and social intercourse with them by treaties of commerce and amity.

“3.  War, with a view to the subjugation and military occupation of those States which have Seceded or may Secede from the Union.”

As a thorough Union man, he could never have agreed to a “Peaceful Dissolution of the Union.”  On the other hand he was equally averse to War, because he held that “War is Disunion.  War is final, eternal Separation.”  Hence, all his energies and talents were given to carrying out his first-stated line of policy, and to persuading the Seceders to accept what in that line was offered to them by the dominant party.

His speech in the Senate, March 25, 1861, was a remarkable effort in that respect.  Mr. Breckinridge had previously spoken, and had declared that:  “Whatever settlement may be made of other questions, this must be settled upon terms that will give them [the Southern States] either a right, in common with others, to emigrate into all the territory, or will secure to them their rights on a principle of equitable division.”

Mr. Douglas replied:  “Now, under the laws as they stand, in every Territory of the United States, without any exception, a Southern man can go with his Slave-property on equal terms with all other property. Every man, either from the North or South, may go into the Territories with his property on terms of exact equality, subject to the local law; and Slave-property stands on an equal footing with all other kinds of property in the Territories of the United States.  It now stands on an equal footing in all the Territories for the first time.

“I have shown you that, up to 1859, little more than a year ago, it was prohibited in part of the Territories.  It is not prohibited anywhere now.  For the first time, under Republican rule, the Southern States have secured that equality of rights in the Territories for their Slave-property which they have been demanding so long.”

He held that the doctrine of Congressional prohibition in all the Territories, as incorporated in the Wilmot proviso, had now been repudiated by the Republicans of both Houses of Congress, who had “all come over to Non-intervention and Popular Sovereignty;” that the “Wilmot proviso is given up; that Congressional prohibition is given up; that the aggressive policy is repudiated; and hereafter the Southern man and the Northern man may move into the Territories with their Property on terms of entire equality, without excepting Slaves or any other kind of property.”

Continuing, he said:  “What more do the Southern States want?  What more can any man demand?  Non-intervention is all you asked.  Will it be said the South required in addition to this, laws of Congress to protect Slavery in the Territories?  That cannot be said; for only last May, the Senate, by a nearly unanimous vote ­a unanimous vote of the Southern men, with one or two exceptions ­declared that affirmative legislation was not needed at this time. What cause is there for further alarm in the Southern States, so far as the Territories are concerned?

“I repeat, the South has got all they ever claimed in all the Territories. Then, sir, according to law, the Slaveholding States have got equality in the Territories.  How is it in fact. Now, I propose to show that they have got the actual equitable partition, giving them more than they were disposed to demand.

“The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Crittenden, introduced a proposition for an equitable partition.  That proposition was, that north of 36 30’ Slavery should be prohibited, and South of it should be protected, by Territorial law. What is now the case?  It is true the Crittenden proposition has not yet become part of the Constitution; but it is also true that an equitable partition has been made by the vote of the people themselves, establishing, maintaining, and protecting Slavery in every inch of territory South of the thirty-seventh parallel, giving the South half a degree more than the Crittenden Proposition.

“There stands your Slave-code in New Mexico protecting Slavery up to the thirty-seventh degree as effectually as laws can be made to protect it.  There it stands the Law of the Land.  Therefore the South has all below the thirty-seventh parallel, while Congress has not prohibited Slavery even North of it.

“What more, then, is demanded?  Simply that a Constitutional Amendment shall be adopted, affirming ­what?  Precisely what every Republican in both Houses of Congress has voted for within a month.  Just do, by Constitutional Amendment, what you have voted in the Senate and House of Representatives, that is all.  You are not even required to do that, but merely to vote for a proposition submitting the question to the People of the States whether they will make a Constitutional Amendment affirming the equitable partition of the Territories which the People have already made.

“You may ask, why does the South want us to do it by Constitutional Amendment, when we have just done it voluntarily by Law?  The President of the United States, in his Inaugural, has told you the reason.  He has informed you that all of these troubles grow out of the absence of a Constitutional provision defining the power of Congress over the subject of Slavery. He thinks that the trouble has arisen from the absence of such a Constitutional Provision, and suggests a National Convention to enable the People to supply the defect, leaving the People to say what it is, instead of dictating to them what it shall be.”

It may here be remarked that while Mr. Douglas held that “So far as the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty and Nonintervention is concerned, the Colorado Bill, the Nevada Bill, and the Dakota Bill, are identically the same with the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and in its precise language” ­these former Bills having been passed at the last Session of the 36th Congress ­the Republicans, on the contrary, held that neither in these nor other measures had they abandoned any distinctive Republican principle; while Breckinridge declared that they had passed those Territorial Bills, without the Wilmot proviso, because they felt perfectly secure in those Territories, with all the Federal patronage in Republican hands.

However that may be, we have here, brought out in strong contrast, the conciliatory feeling which inspired such Union men as Douglas, and the strong and persistent efforts they made in behalf of Concession and Peace up to a period only a few weeks before the bombardment of Sumter; and the almost total revulsion in their sentiments after that event, as to the only proper means to preserve the Union.  For it was only then that the truth, as it fell from Douglas’s lips at Springfield, was fully recognized, to wit:  that there was no half-way ground betwixt Patriotism and Treason; that War was an existing fact; and that Patriots must arm to defend and preserve the Union against the armed Traitors assailing it.

At last, July 4, 1861, the Congress met, and proceeded at once with commendable alacrity and patriotism, to the consideration and enactment of measures sufficient to meet the extraordinary exigency, whether as regards the raising and equipment of the vast bodies of Union volunteers needed to put down Rebellion, or in the raising of those enormous amounts of money which the Government was now, or might thereafter be, called upon to spend like water in preserving the Union.

It was at this memorable Session, of little over one month, that the chief of the great “War Measures” as they were termed, were enacted.