It was in behalf of Young America again, that Douglas gave free rein to his vision of national destiny.  Disclaiming any immediate wish for tropical expansion in the direction of either Mexico or Central America, he yet contended that no man could foresee the limits of the Republic.  “You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limits of this giant Republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to prescribe.”  Why, then, pledge our faith never to annex any more of Mexico or any portion of Central America?[404]

For this characteristic Chauvinism Douglas paid the inevitable penalty.  Clayton promptly ridiculed this attitude.  “He is fond of boasting ... that we are a giant Republic; and the Senator himself is said to be a ‘little giant;’ yes, sir, quite a giant, and everything that he talks about in these latter days is gigantic.  He has become so magnificent of late, that he cannot consent to enter into a partnership on equal terms with any nation on earth—­not he!  He must have the exclusive right in himself and our noble selves!"[405]

It was inevitable, too, that Douglas should provoke resentment on his own side of the chamber.  Cass was piqued by his slurs upon Old Fogyism and by his trenchant criticism of the policy of reasserting the Monroe Doctrine.  Badger spoke for the other side of the house, when he declared that Douglas spoke “with a disregard to justice and fairness which I have seldom seen him exhibit.”  It is lamentably true that Douglas exhibited his least admirable qualities on such occasions.  Hatred for Great Britain was bred in his bones.  Possibly it was part of his inheritance from that grandfather who had fought the Britishers in the wars of the Revolution.  Possibly, too, he had heard as a boy, in his native Vermont village, tales of British perfidy in the recent war of 1812.  At all events, he was utterly incapable of anything but bitter animosity toward Great Britain.  This unreasoning prejudice blinded his judgment in matters of diplomacy, and vitiated his utterances on questions of foreign policy.

Replying to Clayton, he said contemptuously, “I do not sympathize with that feeling which the Senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pity to have a difference with a nation so friendly to us as England.  Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship.  It is not in the nature of things that she can be our friend.  It is impossible that she can love us.  I do not blame her for not loving us.  Sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride.  She can never forgive us."[406]