Stephen A. Douglas | Page 9

Clean instead of M'Lean. His professional brethren were
greatly amused at this evidence of inexperience; and made merry over
the blunder. Finally, John T. Stuart, subsequently Douglas's political
rival, moved that all the indictments be quashed. Judge Logan asked

the discomfited youth what he had to say to support the indictments.
Smarting under the gibes of Stuart, Douglas replied obstinately that he
had nothing to say, as he supposed the Court would not quash the
indictments until the point had been proven. This answer aroused more
merriment; but the Judge decided that the Court could not rule upon the
matter, until the precise spelling in the statute creating the county had
been ascertained. No one doubted what the result would be; but at least
Douglas had the satisfaction of causing his critics some annoyance and
two days' delay, for the statutes had to be procured from an adjoining
county. To the astonishment of Court and Bar, and of Douglas himself,
it appeared that Douglas had spelled the name correctly. To the
indescribable chagrin of the learned Stuart, the Court promptly
sustained all the indictments. The young attorney was in high feather;
and he made the most of his triumph. The incident taught him a useful
lesson: henceforth he would admit nothing, and require his opponents
to prove everything that bore upon the case in hand. Some time later,
upon comparing the printed statute of the county with the enrolled bill
in the office of the Secretary of State, Douglas found that the printer
had made a mistake and that the name of the county should have been
M'Lean.[44]
On the whole Douglas seems to have discharged his not very onerous
duties acceptably. The more his fellow practitioners saw of him, the
more respect they had for him. Moreover, they liked him personally.
His wholesome frankness disarmed ill-natured opponents; his
generosity made them fast friends. There was not an inn or hostelry in
the circuit, which did not welcome the sight of the talkative,
companionable, young district attorney.
Politically as well as socially, Illinois was in a transitional stage.
Although political parties existed, they were rather loose associations
of men holding similar political convictions than parties in the modern
sense with permanent organs of control. He who would might stand for
office, either announcing his own candidacy in the newspapers, or if his
modesty forbade this course, causing such an announcement to be made
by "many voters." In benighted districts, where the light of the press
did not shine, the candidate offered himself in person. Even after the

advent of Andrew Jackson in national politics, allegiance to party was
so far subordinated to personal ambition, that it was no uncommon
occurrence for several candidates from each party to enter the lists.[45]
From the point of view of party, this practice was strategically faulty,
since there was always the possibility that the opposing party might
unite on a single candidate. What was needed to insure the success of
party was the rationale of an army. But organization was abhorrent to
people so tenacious of their personal freedom as Illinoisans, because
organization necessitated the subordination of the individual to the
centralized authority of the group. To the average man organization
spelled dictation.
The first step in the effective control of nominations by party in Illinois,
was taken by certain Democrats, foremost among whom was S.A.
Douglas, Esq. His rise as a politician, indeed, coincides with this
development of party organization and machinery. The movement
began sporadically in several counties. At the instance of Douglas and
his friend Brooks of the News, the Democrats of Morgan County put
themselves on record as favoring a State convention to choose
delegates to the national convention of 1836.[46] County after county
adopted the suggestion, until the movement culminated in a
well-attended convention at Vandalia in April, 1835. Not all counties
were represented, to be sure, and no permanent organization was
effected; but provision was made for a second convention in December,
to nominate presidential electors.[47] Among the delegates from
Morgan County in this December convention was Douglas, burning
with zeal for the consolidation of his party. Signs were not wanting that
he was in league with other zealots to execute a sort of _coup d'état_
within the party. Early in the session, one Ebenezer Peck, recently from
Canada, boldly proposed that the convention should proceed to
nominate not only presidential electors but candidates for State offices
as well. A storm of protests broke upon his head, and for the moment
he was silenced; but on the second day, he and his confidants
succeeded in precipitating a general discussion of the convention
system. Peck--contemptuously styled "the Canadian" by his
enemies--secured the floor and launched upon a vigorous defense of the
nominating convention as a piece of party machinery. He thought