Democracy,” read the main article in the newly adopted resolutions, “recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the slavery question, upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservation of the Union, and non-interference of Congress with slavery in the Territories or in the District of Columbia."[531] Douglas deemed it a cause for profound rejoicing that the party was at last united upon principles which could be avowed everywhere, North, South, East, and West.  As the only national party in the Republic, the Democracy had a great mission to perform, for in his opinion “no less than the integrity of the Constitution, the preservation and perpetuity of the Union,” depended upon the result of this election.[532]

No man could have been more magnanimous under defeat and so little resentful at a personal slight.  His manly conduct received favorable comment on all sides.[533] He was still the foremost figure in the Democratic party.  To be sure, James Buchanan was the titular leader, but he stood upon a platform erected by his rival.  His letter of acceptance left no doubt in the minds of all readers that he indorsed the letter and the spirit of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.[534]

A fortnight later the Republican national convention met at Philadelphia, and with great enthusiasm adopted a platform declaring it to be the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories “those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.”  Even in this new party, availability dictated the choice of a presidential candidate.  The real leaders of the party were passed over in favor of John C. Fremont, whose romantic career was believed to be worth many votes.  Pitted against Buchanan and Fremont, was Millard Fillmore who had been nominated months before by the American party, and who subsequently received the indorsement of what was left of the moribund Whig party.[535]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES: 

[Footnote 507:  This aspect of party has been treated at greater length in an article by the writer entitled “The Nationalizing Influence of Party,” Tale Review, November; 1906.]

[Footnote 508:  Sheahan, Douglas, pp. 264-265.]

[Footnote 509:  Ibid., p. 271.]

[Footnote 510:  Ibid., p. 269.]

[Footnote 511:  Cutts, Constitutional and Party Questions, pp. 98-99.]

[Footnote 512:  Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, pp. 641-643.]

[Footnote 513:  See items scattered through the Illinois State Register for these exciting weeks.]

[Footnote 514:  See Illinois State Register, October 6, 1854, and subsequent issues.]

[Footnote 515:  Nearly every biographer of Lincoln has noted this apparent breach of agreement on the part of Douglas, but none has questioned the accuracy of the story, though the unimaginative Lamon betrays some misgivings, as he records Lincoln’s course after the “Peoria truce.”  See Lamon, Lincoln, p. 358.  The statement of Irwin (in Herndon-Weik, Lincoln, II, p. 329) does not seem credible, in the light of all the attendant circumstances.]