Deeds of violence are the inevitable precursors of an approaching war.  They are so many expressions of that estrangement which is at the root of all sectional conflicts.  The raid of John Brown upon Harper’s Ferry, like his earlier lawless acts in Kansas, was less the crime of an individual than the manifestation of a deep social unrest.  Occurring on the eve of a momentous presidential election, it threw doubts upon the finality of any appeal to the ballot.  The antagonism between North and South was such as to make an appeal to arms seem a probable last resort.  The political question of the year 1860 was whether the law-abiding habit of the American people and the traditional mode of effecting changes in governmental policy, would be strong enough to withstand the primitive instinct to decide the question of right by an appeal to might.  To actors in the drama the question assumed this simple, concrete form:  could the national Democratic party maintain its integrity and achieve another victory over parties which were distinctly sectional?

The passions aroused by the Harper’s Ferry episode had no time to cool before Congress met.  They were again inflamed by the indorsement of Helper’s “Impending Crisis” by influential Republicans.  As the author was a poor white of North Carolina who hated slavery and desired to prove that the institution was inimical to the interests of his class, the book was regarded by slave-holders as an incendiary publication, conceived in the same spirit as John Brown’s raid.  The contest for the Speakership of the House turned upon the attitude of candidates toward this book.  At the North “The Impending Crisis” had great vogue, passing through many editions.  All events seemed to conspire to prevent sobriety of judgment and moderation in speech.

From a legislative point of view, this exciting session of Congress was barren of results.  The paramount consideration was the approaching party conventions.  What principles and policies would control the action of the Democratic convention at Charleston, depended very largely upon who should control the great body of delegates.  Early in January various State conventions in the Northwest expressed their choice.  Illinois took the lead with a series of resolutions which rang clear and true on all the cardinal points of the Douglas creed.[810] Within the next sixty days every State in the greater Northwest had chosen delegates to the national Democratic convention, pledged to support the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas.[811] It was with the knowledge, then, that he spoke for the Democracy of the Northwest that Douglas took issue with those Southern senators who plumed themselves on their party orthodoxy.