Talk:Stephen A. Douglas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen A. Douglas is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Illinois.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Douglas as promoter of slavery = POV 2 Shaped the Third Party System and other Original Research 3 removed clause 4 Douglas's beliefs

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)