ns had gained some liberties in 1830. But
when Paris broke into shouts for freedom in 1848, the news went across
the Rhine and the German liberals arose and demanded a constitutional
government. Metternich was obliged to flee the country. The Emperor
Ferdinand abdicated in favor of his nephew, and the people's
constitution was granted. There were rioting and bloodshed in the
streets of Berlin.

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 eli