But there was no movement on the T-C railroad in that congress whatsoever. We move to 3 years later and the Lecompton constitution which caused a fracture among the Democrats in congress, (and the final death of the Whigs as a national party,) with still no railroad approved by congress.
If there was some agreement between Douglas and Davis to fast track the T-C railroad in 1854, as you contend, I sure see no evidence of it in the record.
What sources can you cite as to this 1854 back room agreement between Davis and Douglas?
I'm sorry -- did my links not post? Or did you read them?
Or are you now demanding a memo? Something like Ward Lamon's book? An eyewitness account by either a) Douglas or b) Jeff Davis?
Did you want that notarized, or will a Xerox of the original daybook from the National Archives do?
This is history, not newspapering, not a court of law. These guys had a deal, and it fell apart on the way to a much, much bigger bustup. That's the story.
Or do you simply refuse to believe the sources I posted in support? At some point that becomes slothful induction.
How would you write up the 1854 deal for a textbook on U.S. history? You've got 250-300 pages to work with, about 120 of them for the 19th century. How much space will you give the 1850's efforts do put together a transcontinental railroad, and how would you characterize the negotiations, and whom would you name as the leading characters? Are you going to explain how Louis Cass had a part, and Thomas Hart Benton had a part, and Stephen Douglas had a part, and Franklin Pierce had a part, and who all the players in the "F Street Mess" were, and what parts they played?
So if I read an account of the negotiations 25 years ago and brought that in, you're going to demand the original article and original documents in support of the article's lacunae, right?
There was no public law that ensued from the failed deal. No file at Interior Department for article writers to mine. It was a political deal, something off the books that was never born. So now you want the participants' pocket notes, the cocktail napkin notes, in support.
Only if you're trying to screw the other poster, and I'm not going to let you give me a Ph.D. dissertation for homework to defend my point.
Is there anything else I can do to help illuminate this point?