His closing words were marked with much the same perfervid rhetoric, only less objectionable because they were charged with genuine emotion:  “Can gentlemen see nothing to admire, nothing to commend, in the closing scenes, when, fresh from the battlefield, the victorious general—­the idol of his army and the acknowledged savior of his countrymen—­stood before Judge Hall, and quelled the tumult and indignant murmurs of the multitude by telling him that ’the same arm which had defended the city from the ravages of a foreign enemy should protect him in the discharge of his duty?’ Is this the conduct of a lawless desperado, who delights in trampling upon Constitution, and law, and right?  Is there no reverence for the supremacy of the laws and the civil institutions of the country displayed on this occasion?  If such acts of heroism and moderation, of chivalry and submission, have no charms to excite the admiration or soften the animosities of gentlemen in the Opposition, I have no desire to see them vote for this bill.  The character of the hero of New Orleans requires no endorsement from such a source.  They wish to fix a mark, a stigma of reproach, upon his character, and send him to his grave branded as a criminal.  His stern, inflexible adherence to Democratic principles, his unwavering devotion to his country, and his intrepid opposition to her enemies, have so long thwarted their unhallowed schemes of ambition and power, that they fear the potency of his name on earth, even after his spirit shall have ascended to heaven.”

“An eloquent, sophistical speech, prodigiously admired by the slave Democracy of the House,” was the comment of John Quincy Adams; words of high praise, for the veteran statesman had little patience with the style of oratory affected by this “homunculus."[168] A correspondent of a Richmond newspaper wrote that this effort had given Douglas high rank as a debater.[169] Evidence on every hand confirms the impression that by a single, happy stroke the young Illinoisan had achieved enviable distinction; but whether he had qualities which would secure an enduring reputation, was still open to question.

In the long run, the confidence of party associates is the surest passport to real influence in the House.  It might easily happen, indeed, that Douglas, with all his rough eloquence, would remain an impotent legislator.  The history of Congress is strewn with oratorical derelicts, who have often edified their auditors, but quite as often blocked the course of legislation.  No one knew better than Douglas, that only as he served his party, could he hope to see his wishes crystallize into laws, and his ambitions assume the guise of reality.  His opportunity to render effective service came also in this first session.