It would put forward a southern slave owner to
catch the southern Whigs, and at the same time use his war record to
move the pure-blooded and American vote.
Would the Abolitionists put up a ticket? Perhaps. What would come of
arraying section against section? Suppose slavery could be put to a
vote. In 1840 the Abolitionists had polled 7,000 votes in the country.
In 1844, 60,000. This proved that it was not difficult to throw a
firebrand into America's affairs. Suppose this vote grew and an
Abolitionist President should ultimately be elected? What of American
progress in such a contingency? What of a wrecked republic before the
greedy eyes of England, the envious hands of kings? Why should such
folly be? Let the slavery question alone. Keep it out of the way of
American development. Let the territories decide for themselves whether
they would have slavery or not; let the states coming in do so, with
slavery or without, as they chose.
We took a drink every now and then, and Douglas turned to the subject
of railroad extension. He told me of a certain Asa Whitney. Whitney had
lived in China. He had returned to America in 1844, urging that a
railroad across the continent would bring the trade of China to the
United States and enable American merchants to control it. If a canal
were built, supplemented by a railroad across that part of the Isthmus
of Panama not traversed by the canal, about 115 miles, the distance
between New York and San Francisco would be shortened by 1100 miles, and
from New Orleans to San Francisco by 1700 miles.
Pages:
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261