There was dross mingled with the gold in this speech of January 3d.  Not all his auditors by any means were ready to admit that the attempt of the Federal government to control the slavery question in the Territories, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants, was the real cause of Southern discontent.  Nor were all willing to concede that “whenever Congress had refrained from such interference, harmony and fraternal feeling had been restored."[911] The history of Kansas was still too recent.  Yet from these premises, Douglas drew the conclusion “that the slavery question should be banished forever from the Halls of Congress and the arena of Federal politics by an irrepealable constitutional provision."[912]

The immediate occasion for revolution in the South was no doubt the outcome of the presidential election; but that it furnished a just cause for the dissolution of the Union, he would not for an instant admit.  No doubt Mr. Lincoln’s public utterances had given some ground for apprehension.  No one had more vigorously denounced these dangerous, revolutionary doctrines than he; but neither Mr. Lincoln nor his party would have the power to injure the South, if the Southern States remained in the Union and maintained full delegations in Congress.  “Besides,” he added, “I still indulge the hope that when Mr. Lincoln shall assume the high responsibilities which will soon devolve upon him, he will be fully impressed with the necessity of sinking the politician in the statesman, the partisan in the patriot, and regard the obligations which he owes to his country as paramount to those of his party."[913]

No one brought the fearful alternatives into view, with such inexorable logic, as Douglas in this same speech.  While he denounced secession as “wrong, unlawful, unconstitutional, and criminal,” he was bound to recognize the fact of secession.  “South Carolina had no right to secede; but she has done it.  The rights of the Federal government remain, but possession is lost.  How can possession be regained, by arms or by a peaceable adjustment of the matters in controversy? Are we prepared for war? I do not mean that kind of preparation which consists of armies and navies, and supplies, and munitions of war; but are we prepared IN OUR HEARTS for war with our own brethren and kindred?  I confess I am not."[914]

These were not mere words for oratorical effect.  They were expressions wrung from a tortured heart, bound by some of the tenderest of human affections to the people of the South.  Buried in the land of her birth rested the mother of his two boys, whom he had loved tenderly and truly.  There in the Southland were her kindred, the kindred of his two boys, and many of his warmest personal friends.  The prospect of war brought no such poignant grief to men whose associations for generations had been confined to the North.

Returning to the necessity of concession and compromise, he frankly admitted that he had thrown consistency to the winds.  The preservation of the Union was of more importance than party platforms or individual records.  “I have no hesitation in saying to senators on all sides of this Chamber, that I am prepared to act on this question with reference to the present exigencies of the case, as if I had never given a vote, or uttered a word, or had an opinion upon the subject."[915]