Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1909-05-20
STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS

One result of the eXaltatiOn Of Lincoln
that has come with the passing years
and the growing esteem in which his
memory is held at the North is IL CORE
spending diminution in the regard for
Stephen \. Douglas. This is improper
and regrettable. 1t is not necessary to
Lincoln's greatness that Douglas should
be discredited and the Democratic leader
TO whom thousands of enthusiastic fol-
lowers in his day gave the endeilring
sObriquet, Little Giant, WAS really ii
man Of ability and one whose name de-
serves to be recorded among those or
the nations great.
Lincoln and Douglas were both citi-
Zens of Illinois, and leaders of opposite
parties. They were opposed in the
memorable Senatorial contest of 1853,
and again in 1860, when both were nom
inees for the Presidency. 1t W., 10y
Douglas downfall that Lincoln succeed
ed, ana for some mistaken reason it has
become the fashion of Lincoln eulogists
TO decry Douglas. This doesn't add
anything to Linculn's fame, and it does
Douglas unwarranted injustice.
The impression might be had from
what is said Of Douglas in the Lincoln
biographies that he was born to wealth
and position. He was fortunate to have
IrogenitorS somewhat higher in the
social scale than were those of Lincoln
(hiS father was IL physician); but he was
loft an orphan and poor ut i'm early age
and acquired an education by his own
personal effort. His SUCCESS ut the ban
was rapid and brilliant and before he
was % years old he had II reputation
that has been eQualcd by no other man
of that age in America except Alexander
Hamilton.
Douglas was Il conservative man at a
time when there was violent contention
between two extremes. and was alter.
nately assailed bv both factions. IL
was the author of the Kansas Nebraska
bill in 1854 which provided that the
people of the Territories might decide
10y vote whether they should enter the
Union as slave or free States, and for
this he was burned in cffigy from Boston
10 Chicago.
Six years later the Southern Scccs-
Nionlsts refused him their support, and
nominated John &. breckenridge. If
the Democrats had united in the support
"f Douglas in 1860, there is strong prob
ability that he W puld have been elect
e. LincOln's electoral vote was larger
than that of his three opponents
(Douglas breckenridge and Bold com
bned, but his pnpula; vote was smaller,
and he would have lost tao electoral
vote of several States that he carried if
the Democrats had not been dcmOralized
Ivy division The election of conscrv; :
tive Union Democrat like Douglas
would have at least delayed secession
and the Civil War. 1t is the fashion TO
Nay that conflict was rreprcssible.
That is theory, but it is unqurstioncd
fact that secession and war were pre-.
ripitatcd by LincDln's clrcSion and
Douglas defeat
However that may be, D,ngla, was Il
great mana much better LAWYER than
lincoln and n more polished orator. He
net and held his own against the rail
, ,plitter" N more than one hardfought
'Ontesi ur the hastings. 1t doesn't add
I % LinCUiu', glory now to dotract from
hat due Douglas, for LincOlns great.
st achievement in his political life was
is demonstrated ability to cope with