Talk:Stephen A. Douglas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Douglas as promoter of slavery = POV

Not many historians portrayer Douglas as a supporter of the South. He was a compromiser who in 1850 and 1854 found compromises esp for Northern and southern Dems. see Nevins, Johanssen, Potter, for example. The Southerners did not think so either--as McPherson notes: "on February 23, 1859, southern senators lashed out at Douglas in language usually reserved for Black Republicans. The Little Giant's sin was an assertion that he would never vote for a slave code to enforce bondage in a territory against the will of a majority living there. Popular sovereignty, said Jefferson Davis, who led the attack on Douglas, was "full of heresy." Rjensen 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He was a compromiser; but as McPherson and Nichols both say, his first draft of the Kansas-Nebraska bill had already tended to Southern interests to get passed; the final text conceded far more. That was in 1854. By 1859, however, the Southerners were demanding more than Kansas-Nebraska gave them - a slave code imposed on unwilling Territories by Federal legislation. Douglas refused to collaborate with that, and it is at that point and not before, that they showered him with venom; a technique not unknown since.

As for promoting slavery: the present text does not say he did (even in permitting it in Kansas, as the Compromise did not). Does Rjensen claim otherwise? and if so, which sentence is subject to such misreading? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Shaped the Third Party System and other Original Research

Douglas failed to shape anything. The system he tried to shape came apart in his hands at Charleston; and it more closely resembled the Age of Jackson, in which slavery was not a political issue, than the politics of and after the Civil War.

This extract was also original research;

He developed the doctrine of popular sovereignty as a means of removing the slavery issue from national politics, where it threatened to rip the nation apart. Constructed as an alternative to the more extreme solutions of direct federal control or blanket protection of slavery, the doctrine left the decision to the inhabitants of the territories. Douglas' support of the bill was based on his commitment to the principle of sovereignty and local self-government. He believed in the ability of individuals to regulate their own affairs, a clear reflection of his adherence to the idea of Manifest Destiny and US expansionist policies. Essentially, he was betting that the good consequences would outweigh the bad and that the nation would withstand the collateral antagonisms, a position proven incorrect by events leading up to the Civil War.

Nichols' 50-year-old survey paper can source the last sentence of the paragraph (not included), about the Slave Power; but of the many negative, and few positive views, of Douglas he surveys, none are as positive as this. More importantly, they are very much not his own view, the last half of his paper, which is that Douglas was not alone responsible for Kansas-Nebraska as passed; that was a confluence of many legislative forces. Explaining it as an outcome of Douglas's philosophy in therefore completely unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

removed clause

I removed this:

a position strongly supported by all southern Democrats and (probably) a majority of northern Democrats, but strenuously opposed by northern Whigs and by Free Soil Democrats.

largely because it made the paragraph clumsy, but it does have other problems:

• It doesn't really belong in this article.
• The claim about northern Democrats is unsourced and speculative. How can anyone know what was a majority opinion of a party in 1854? Consensus party opinions may be visible, but this was before opinion polls.
• it omits the southern Whigs.
• it omits the Cotton Whigs.
• it omits the reason the Conscience Whigs and Free Soilers opposed it; this will be obvious to an intelligent reader; but then an intelligent reader would expect everything said here.

Why not put in a paragraph in popular sovereignty instead? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Douglas's beliefs

What I find most baffling is the picture of Douglas as a doctrinaire politician, driven by a democratic ideology. Why Douglas, of all men? Of the Northerners of his time, most would fit that picture more easily. Except Simon Cameron, perhaps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

was Douglas doctrinaire? Dean (1995) makes a good case for it, ending his article: "The much maligned senator for Illinois deserves to be remembered for the fervor of his convictions as well as his devotion to the Union: I will stand on the great principle of popular sovereignty, which declares the right of all people to be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. I will follow that principle wherever its logical consequences may take me and I will endeavor to defend it against assault from any and all quarters."[speech of December 9, 1857] Rjensen 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No one denies Douglas had good rhetoric. But even if Dean convinces me, the more usual view should be given due weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Anderson 1999 is an essay by a high-school student. We don't need sources like this for something obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a high school teacher. In any case it's a useful, non-controversial summary for the readers (many of whom are middle and high school students). Rjensen 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

Under the legacy section, there is a list of places supposedly named after Stephen Douglas, but there are no references. This should be deleted, unless someone can find a source. I'll see if I can, but frankly I'm not optimistic. Faithlessthewonderboy 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dred Scott?

This article claims that Douglas both supported and opposed the Dred Scott ruling. Someone with knowledge of Douglas should fix this and clarify what aspects he supported/opposed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.128.158 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Kansas Nebraska Act.

The article reports "Leading Southern Senators...insisted on popular soverignity as a condition of their support for bill." In fact Southern Senators were bitterly opposed to popular soverignity because it would allow a territory to deny their right to property in slaves. They believed they had as much right to bring a slave into a territory as another man had to bring a horse and wagon and that the Constitution protected the right to all property, whether in slaves or of any other kind.

What the Southern Senators demanded and got from Stephen Douglas was the explicit repeal of the Missouri Compromise. That repeal opened all United States territory to slavery.

Douglas did argue that the people of a territory had the right to decide the slavery question but he carefully added that the right was "Subject only to the Constitution." He knew full well that as long as slaves were property both the US government and the territorial legislature were Constitutionally bound to protect property in slaves. Abraham Lincoln would later point out that popular soverignity gave a territory the right to admit slavery but it denied the territory the right to exclude slavery.

Actually Douglas had a lot to do with the final text of the Kansas Nebraska Act. He tried several times to get it passed without the repeal of the Missouri Compromise but the Southern Democrats held fast. On a Sunday Morning in May, 1854 he called on the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis and asked Davis to take him to see the President, Franklin Pierce. Pierce was a religious man and he did not conduct government business on Sunday so at first Davis refused. Then Douglas told him he wanted to add the clause repealing the Missouri Compromise. Davis went with him and got him an entrance. Douglas added the clause to the bill using blue paper for a hand written correction. Pierce agreed with him to support it. Douglas then returned to the Senate and in the following days twisted the arms of enough Northern Democrats to get passage of the bill with repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Later he would boast that he and he alone had pushed the bill through the Senate.

The above information is from my own reading, especially Sean Wilentz's "American Democracy." I request that the Kansas Nebraska Act section be reconsidered. John Rydberg 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Douglas as a Visionary

Stephen Douglas's vision of America was of a nation that spanned the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific and was connected by rail roads. His efforts were responsible for the Mobile and Ohio Rail Road which linked to the Illinois Central and was the first north-south rail line in the country. He secure passage--actually rammed through--the Kansas Nebraska Act in order to provide a route for the first transcontinental rail road through Kansas to San Francisco. The issue of slavery in the territories denied Douglas the ability to obtain his vision in his own lifetime. When the transcontinental rail road was finally built in the late 1860's it cut travel time across the country from 6 months to 6 days. The rail road stopped France and England from scheming to have an empire in the western US and in Mexico. And the rail road built the econimic base that still sustains the country. Stephen Douglas foresaw all of this and his whole lifetime was a tireless effort to bring rail roads to the United States of America. John Rydberg 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For or Against Slavery?

"For a century and a half, historians have debated whether or not Douglas opposed slavery...."

Stephen Douglas repeatedly said "I care not whether slavery is voted up or voted down." He believed the Founding Fathers created a country which allowed for diverse views on slavery and the actual decion on this "domestic institution" had to be left to the individual states. In his debate at Quincy he expanded on this position.

This position was brilliant. It was based on our history as almost everyone (except Lincoln) understood our history. And after all individual states had for 80 years existed with diverse positions on their domestic institutions why couldn't they go on that way? He pointed out that Lincoln's postion, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," was based on the Holy Scriptures. He argued this was inappropriate; we must base our law on the Constitution. It was a mistake to substitute the Bible for the Constitution. He warned that this kind of arguement could only lead to Civil War. John Rydberg 01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

standard format

i use wikipedia for reports and such and i have found that information is hard to get without reading the whole article. could someone come up with an improved standard format for biographies. just some stuff at the begining that shows why they are considered to have the positions they have and some stuff at the end about personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.3.220 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

nobody should be using a standard format plus stephen douglas, THE LITTLE GIANT was almost as good a man as HONEST ABE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.197.198 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Let the people rule! - battle cry?

I have a few problems with this statement:

"Let the people rule!" was his battle cry

The line is generally attributed to Andrew Jackson, who used it as a campaign slogan during his 1928 presidential campaign. It was also used by William Jennings Bryan in his 1908 presidential campaign. I know that Douglas used this line in a speech (Concord, New Hampshire, July 31, 1860), but using a line once does not make it his and it does not make it his "battle cry". Does anyone have a citation to support the claim that he used this regularly?

Even if the line was strongly associated with Douglas, I don't think the phrase "battle cry" is appropriate in an encyclopedia article - perhaps the word "slogan" would be better.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word "battle", since that was just added. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many factual Mistakes

This article is filled with factual mistakes. I don't think Douglas died anytime in the past fifty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.118.192 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Kansas Nebraska Act

"Leading Southern Senators had met with Douglas, and had insisted on popular sovereignty as a condition for their support of the bill."

I think this is inaccurate. Princeton Historian Sean Wilentz in "The Rise of American Democracy" says that Southern Senators insisted on repealing the Missouri Compromise if they were to support Nebraska. Douglas resisted but finally gave in to them to pass the act.

Southern Senators actually opposed Popular Soverignity. They believed the territories were jointly owned by all of the states. The Constitution provided that the official acts of any state (such as the purchase of property) were equally binding on all states. There was a right to carry property including property in slaves into any territory and that right was protected by the Constitution.

Douglas argued that any such right was a "barren right" if the citizens of a territory opposed slavery because they would not pass the local police laws necessary maintain slaves.

Southern Senators disagreed. They believed that local territorial government had an obligation to uphold the Constitution and could not legally fail to protect property legally acquired.

Lincoln agreed with the southerners. He argued that Popular Soverignity did give territories the right to have slavery but "It don't give them the right not to have slavery if they don't want it." 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

But Kansas voted against slavery, and entered the Union as a free state. Valetude (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Second wife

Did Adele survive him? If so, what happened to her? Valetude (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Diacritic in spelling of first wife's name

I have reverted the addition of spelling changes which introduce diacritics. In short, reliable sources when considered on a whole do not spell it that way. Please see this Ngram comparison to see that the diacritic spelling doesn't merit mention in the graph.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We should probably get her headstone replaced at Arlington National Cemetery. Obviously, she and her children had no idea how to spell her name and we should rely on the internet for spelling in this case. http://www.ourfamtree.org/attach/w/i/williams,robert,adele-cutts,james1.jpg

Don't change the headstone but do change your glasses...that photo has the word Adele with the diacritic on the last "e" and not the first "e" so your own source shoots your argument in the foot. Your changes were wrong from the beginning. I looked at a blow up of that photo of the headstone to see that. The person who wrote this looks to have made a spelling mistake...and you were going to propagate it. Leave off diacritics, period. Stone carvers were never known as great spellers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a whole thread that you can edit. Apparently there is an umlaut on the pages for Wurttemberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_W%C3%BCrttemberg. Also, could you maybe not be such a condescending prick? Thanks!!

That is rich coming from the one who posted this. Nothing in my original post above was so snarky and sarcastic as your demeanor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is another page that uses an umlaut in the article for Claus von Bülow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_B%C3%BClow You should edit that, as well, since this is SUCH an important thing. I'm sure von Bülow himself is no authority on the spelling of his own name....

Charlotte Brontë: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Bront%C3%AB Emily Brontë: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bront%C3%AB Noël Coward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No%C3%ABl_Coward Emeli Sandé: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeli_Sand%C3%A9 Beyoncé: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyonc%C3%A9 Renée Zellweger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger

And a few other words you MUST fix to adhere to your personal tastes: exposé, lamé, maté, öre, øre, pâté, and rosé.

Also, I'm sorry, but with Von Bülow, plenty of sources omitted the umlaut...So which is correct?

Here is your source: https://archive.org/stream/famousamericanbe00peac#page/178/mode/2up

My comments above about leaving diacritics off are pertaining to this article. Try using sources that deal with the subject of this article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, here is your source. It's from a book. That counts, right? https://archive.org/stream/famousamericanbe00peac#page/178/mode/2up

Yes, that is one. The overwhelming majority of books seem to have left the diacritic off. This search reflects that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, again, people omit the diacritic - just like with Beyoncé and Von Bülow. However, her tombstone and this book seem to back this up, would you like me to find OTHER sources? I'm getting the feeling that even if I do find overwhelming evidence, like bringing her back from the dead, you would still have a problem with this.

The tombstone makes an argument for a diacritic on the latter "e" and so isn't really a good source here. Other sources do exist with the diacritic on the first "e" and aren't necessary. I concede that sources do exist but my argument is that they are in the minority. If we were to have an article on her then we would use the most common name for recognizability.

We should wait for other editors to chime in and offer opinions which may take several days to a week. No hurry.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Fancy a cup of hot cocoa while we wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jollygreenjoshy (talk • contribs) 14:35, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Judge

Lincoln mentions that Douglas is a "judge" but it is not mentioned that Douglas served on the state supreme court for a few years. Can someone confirm and add that into the profile? Gautam ^Discuss 07:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

it's there at footnote 13: was appointed an associate justice of the Illinois Supreme Court in 1841, at age 27.[13] Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Article leans too heavily on just one source.

This article appears to lean FAR too heavily on one, single source:

Morris, Jr., Roy (2008). The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln's Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Soul of America. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0060852092.

Douglas is a significant figure in American history, and should be covered with a more substantial variety of solid sources (the reality being, of course, that his enigmatic and variable political leanings, and the extreme political stakes of his positions and actions -- at the pivot point of Confederate Secession -- mean that there will be a LOT of differing views on him).

That, of course, will make sourcing and editing very difficult for the conscientious editor. But no Wikipedia article on such a major historical figure should ever have so narrow and limited a sourcing, IMHO.

~ Penlite (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)