As a result of all this, thousands of Europeans were fleeing to America, the land of the free.  Yet there were the slave markets in Washington, New Orleans, all through the South.  And Congress was about to consider the new territory which had come as a result of the Mexican War and the Oregon settlement.  How would Douglas react to these world movements?  How would he interpret them?  Who could stand against this world-wide avalanche?  With the North now greatly the superior of the South in wealth, in railroads, mines, in agricultural productiveness, what could the South do for her slaves and her cotton?  What would the Titans—­iron, coal, gold, copper, wheat, corn—­do to the Giant of cotton?

I heard Douglas’ first speech in the Senate and interpreted it against this background.  He had already been made chairman of the committee on territories, and thus placed in the very midst of the fight touching the annexations.  The great Webster was here.  He had opposed the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War, and was the spokesman of the Whig party.  He had split metaphysical hairs with Calhoun, also here.  Calhoun declared that the Constitution was over the territory and by that fact carried slavery into it; no imperialism in America.  To this Webster rejoined that the territory was the property of the United States and not a part of it.  Hence the Constitution was not over it and slavery could be kept out of it.  This was implied powers in favor of liberty.  Calhoun’s doctrine was:  Constitutional government in the interests of slavery.  To such dialectics had the matter come.  Mazzini might contend for liberty, equality, and fraternity for individuals and nations.  Here in America the questions were more subtle.  Clay was not here but soon to be here.  Hale of New Hampshire was here, an astringent personality, eager to challenge young Douglas from Illinois.

The question was the Mexican treaty.  Senator Hale injected abolitionism into Douglas’ speech.  Calhoun characterized Douglas’ retort to Hale as equal in offensiveness to Hale’s remark, which elicited the retort.  The battle was on.  We now had occasion to be proud of our friend.  He stood forth with such self-possession, such dignity.  With great emphasis he announced that he had no sympathy with abolitionism; but neither did he look with favor upon the extreme view of the South.  “We protest,” said Douglas, in his great musical voice, facing the southern Senators, “against being made puppets in this slavery excitement, which can operate only against your interests and the building up of those who wish to put you down.  In the North it is not expected that we should take the position that slavery is a positive good, a positive blessing.  If we did assume such a position it would be a very pertinent inquiry, why do you not adopt this institution?  We have moulded our institutions in the North as we have thought proper; and now we say to you of the South, if slavery be a blessing, it is your blessing; if it be a curse, it is your curse; enjoy it—­on you rests all the responsibility.  We are prepared to aid you in the maintenance of all your constitutional rights; and I apprehend that no man, South or North, has shown more constantly than I a disposition to do so.  But I claim the privilege of pointing out to you how you give strength and encouragement to the Abolitionists of the North.”