Stephen Douglas’ Fictitious Case: Immigrant Voting in Antebellum Illinois

Both sides agreed on the facts. Both sides, the Whigs and the Democrats,  agreed that on August 6, 1838, Jeremiah Kyle went to the window of a polling booth in Galena, Illinois. Both sides agreed that when Kyle arrived at the window of the polling booth, he submitted his vote to an election judge named Thomas Spragins. Both sides agreed that upon receipt, Judge Spragins certified Kyle’s vote in every election on the ballot, from the governor’s race all the way down to the county constable.[1] Both sides agreed on these facts.

Most controversially, however, both sides also agreed that when Kyle voted, he was not a U.S. citizen.[2] Kyle, a native of Ireland in his late twenties, settled in Galena around 1836 with his wife, Elizabeth, and their three children.[3] After moving to Galena, Kyle worked as a farmer and occasionally took jobs clearing timber.[4]

In the years before Kyle arrived, northwestern Illinois had attracted a large Irish population. These immigrants played a significant role in developing the region’s lead mining industry.[5] As early as 1829, the Galena-based Miner’s Journal reported local St. Patrick’s Day celebrations that included “a procession, accompanied by music [and] . . . a sumptuous dinner.”[6] The feast also toasted “a Sprig of Shillealeh” in honor of the newly inaugurated president, Andrew Jackson, demonstrating the Democratic sympathies of most Irish immigrants. [7]  By the late 1830s, Galena’s Irish population had become a vocal and politically active minority.

 

In the 1820s and 1830s, Irish immigrants played a key role in developing Illinois’ lead mining industry.[8]

 

The Irish immigrants faced opposition from native-born U.S. citizens, especially Whig supporters. Galena’s pro-Whig media lamented the loss of local jobs to Irish immigrants, criticizing one businessman who “re-lets his jobs to partizan Irish laborers at half-price.”[9]  Opposing Irish immigration assumed greater urgency after the Whigs lost the 1838 Illinois governor’s race. As Illinois, and the nation overall, developed during this era, debates over what role new immigrants could play in American politics grew more pronounced.

One Whig editor, Horace H. Houghton, objected to the fact that non-citizens like Kyle had voted for Democrats. Houghton, a Vermont-born former farmer, moved to Galena in 1835 to work for a local newspaper.[10] He actively participated in Whig politics and temperance advocacy, hobbies unlikely to endear him to the Irish community. [11] After the Whigs’ 1838 defeat, Houghton met with Judge Spragins, the election official who had certified Kyle’s ballot, to strategize ways of limiting Irish votes.

In Spragins, Houghton teamed with one of Galena’s most formidable Whigs. Born in 1798 in the frontier settlement of Cub Creek, Virginia, Spragins moved to Illinois just before the Black Hawk War and gained a reputation for “fearless manliness.”[12] Following the war Spragins remained “active and outspoken, both in politics and religion.”[13] In addition to serving as an election judge, Spragins also sat on the Whig General Committee of Jo Daviess County.[14] As a staunch Whig partisan, Spragins willingly collaborated with Houghton to oppose Irish voters.

The two Whigs developed a plan whereby Houghton would sue Spragins. Houghton agreed to file an action of debt alleging that Spragins had committed “manifest misbehavior”[15] as election judge by counting Kyle’s ballot. This suit would place the question of non-citizen voting rights before the courts. In fact, Spragins likely certified Kyle’s ballot with the deliberate intention of instigating a lawsuit.[16] Because Whigs controlled both the Circuit Court and the Illinois Supreme Court, Houghton and Spragins had a strong chance of success in their “collusive suit.”[17]

Still, the pair left nothing to chance. On May 29, 1839, they stage-managed a Spragins v. Houghton hearing at the Jo Daviess County Courthouse in downtown Galena. The hearing could not have taken much time- “argument was never had . . . nor brief nor authorities furnished.”[18] Instead, the pro-Whig judge, Dan Stone, “waiv[ed] all process . . . and all pleadings.”[19] After dispensing with the need for jurisprudence, the bench reached its inevitable conclusion that, as a non-citizen, Kyle held no voting rights. The ruling improved Whig electoral prospects by removing non-naturalized residents from the voting rolls- exactly as Spragins and Houghton intended.

 

Opened in 1839, just as the Spragins v. Houghton proceedings began, the Jo Daviess County Courthouse in Galena, Illinois remains in use today. The courthouse completed its latest round of renovations in October 2025.[20]

 

A Democratic attorney named Stephen Douglas appealed the verdict. Douglas, like Houghton a native Vermonter, was then serving as the Illinois Register of the Land Office.[21] However, this anodyne title belied the twenty-seven year old’s rising influence in state politics. Douglas had already gained reputation for “excellence in writing and debating,”[22] skills that won him election to the state legislature just three years after moving to Illinois. Narrowly losing an 1838 congressional race only reinforced his tendencies as “a workaholic who enjoyed politics.”[23] For Douglas, restoring non-citizen voting rights would bolster both the Democrats’ electoral prospects and his own reputation.

Douglas planned a strategy of delay. In that era Illinois Supreme Court justices, appointed by the General Assembly, openly flaunted party loyalties without any pretense of impartiality.[24] The court’s three-to-one Whig majority offered little chance for Douglas to reverse the initial ruling. However, the Democrats had strong prospects of reclaiming Illinois’ legislature in 1840. If Douglas could postpone a final ruling until after the election, the newly Democratic legislature could appoint sympathetic justices to the bench.[25] Douglas managed to stall the first appellate hearing until June 1840.

In the initial appellate round, Douglas caught a significant break. The pro-Whig filing erroneously dated Kyle’s vote as August 6, 1839, rather than 1838.[26] This minor slipup had significant consequences. Taken at face value, the Whig filing asserted that Kyle’s vote occurred after the initial May 1839 hearing about that very vote. This filing therefore created “an impossible fact, one which could not have transpired.”[27] Due to the incoherent timeline, Justice Theophilus Smith described the case as “fictitious” and postponed the hearing until the Supreme Court’s “next term” later in the year.[28]  Thanks to Spragins’ and Houghton’s miscue, Douglas had delayed a final ruling until after the 1840 elections.

 

By the time Stephen Douglas led the appeal of Spragins v. Houghton, the twenty-seven year old had already become one of Illinois’ leading Democratic politicians.[29]

 

When the court met in the new state capital, Springfield, for the final hearing in December 1840, it faced a profoundly changed political landscape. Although Whig general William Henry Harrison had won November’s presidential election, the Democrats stood triumphant in Illinois, where Martin Van Buren claimed the state’s five electoral votes. The Democrats also flipped both chambers of the state legislature[30] and immediately began working to restructure the court system.[31] Douglas had personally benefited from the election, earning an appointment as Illinois Secretary of State.[32] As Spragins, Houghton, Kyle, and all four Illinois Supreme Court justices filed into the red-domed state capitol building for final arguments, Douglas’ seemingly impossible appeal now had a chance of success.

The final hearing rested on the legal question of whether non-citizens can vote. Arguing alongside his mentor,Murray McConnel, Douglas focused on the constitutional antecedents of Illinois election law. [33] According to Douglas, the original Northwest Ordinance “permitted alien inhabitants to vote.”[34] Douglas further claimed that the Constitution upheld this right, noting that “whenever the constitution speaks of a voter, or elector, it uses the word ‘inhabitant’ and not ‘citizen’ of the United States,” and that these words “are not used as synonymous terms.”[35] Therefore, inhabitants may vote even before they become citizens.

Justin Butterfield, a Chicago-based Whig, led the counterargument.[36]Butterfield began by dismissing Douglas’ claim that “inhabitant” and “citizen” have different meanings. He pointed to the state constitutions of New York, New Hampshire, and Ohio which “by law restricted the right of voting to such inhabitants as are citizens.”[37] Butterfield found Douglas’ discussion of the Northwest Ordinance irrelevant, claiming that “it would be absurd to contend that the states formed out of the northwest territory possess any other or different rights than the original states.”[38] Overall, Butterfield claimed that “the admission of alien votes is a violation of the spirit and meaning of the constitution.”[39]

Beyond the legal details, Butterfield also argued that allowing non-citizen votes threatened the integrity of American elections. If states could eliminate citizenship voting requirements, theoretically they could “altogether dispense with the condition of residence, and extend the right of voting to aliens . . . on the same day of landing on our shores.”[40] Taken to this logical extreme, an expanded voter pool would render citizenship meaningless. Butterfield concluded with a peroration on the sanctity of elections, stating that because the nation’s “health and perpetuity depend on [elections’] purity, they should be guarded as with a flaming sword.”[41]

The court published its decision in Spragins v. Houghton on the last day of 1840. Douglas must have been relieved to see that the sole Democratic justice, Theophilus Smith, penned the decision. Smith agreed with Douglas’ reading of the Constitution, finding that “when the qualifications for a voter or elector are named, it uses the word inhabitant and no reference to that of citizen.”[42] Therefore, citizenship is not a Constitutional requirement for voting. After a thorough review of historic congressional debates on voting eligibility, Smith aimed some barbed comments at the defendant, Spragins. To Smith, the fact that Spragins knowingly counted what he considered as an ineligible ballot reflected “a novel attitude, to use no stronger expression.”[43] Hinting disdain for the collusive nature of the case, Smith found that Spragins’ behavior leads to “inferences [that] can not but be peculiar in their nature.”[44] After landing these subtle gibes, Smith stated a clear and decisive verdict- “Jeremiah Kyle was a person legally qualified under the constitution and laws of the state of Illinois to vote.”[45]

The ruling sent shockwaves through Illinois politics. Most immediately, the newly empowered Democratic legislature passed a Judiciary Act to expand and pack the state Supreme Court.[46] Douglas’ victory in the case and active role in shaping the legislation gained him appointment to one of the new Supreme Court seats and marked him as the state’s leading Democratic tactician.[47] Later in the decade, Illinois Democrats and Whigs reached a compromise on voting eligibility. This compromise, codified in a new 1848 state constitution, appealed to Democrats by granting voting rights to all “white male inhabitants at the time of the adoption of this constitution,” including non-citizens.[48] However for the Whigs, the Constitution reserved future voting rights exclusively for citizens.[49] Citizenship had become a formal requirement for suffrage, a requirement that remains in the present Illinois constitution.[50] The controversy surrounding this case demonstrates that, in the early republic, citizenship was not universally understood as a requirement to vote.

 

[1] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[2]Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[3] “Census Records.” Jo Daviess County, Illinois. 1840. (The census lists Kyle’s profession as “agriculture.”

[4] “Taken Up.” Illinois State Register and People’s Advocate (Vandalia, IL), April 26, 1839.

[5] “Cead Mile Failte! The Irish in the Old Lead Mine District: History and Music,” Galena Public Library District, Published March 14, 2024. Accessed September 2025 at https://galenalibrary.org/event/cead-mile-cead-mile-failte-the-irish-in-the-old-lead-mine-district/#:~:text=The%20Irish%20in%20the%20Old%20Lead%20Mine%20District:%20History%20and%20Music, March%2014%2C%202024&text=Weave%20your%20way%20through%20the,and%20as%20immigrants%20to%20America.&text=Tracey%20Roberts%2C%20Historian%20and%20Caitriona,and%20US%20Grant%20History%20Museum.

[6] “Celebration of St. Patrick’s Day.” Miner’s Journal (Galena, IL), March 21, 1829.

[7] “Celebration of St. Patrick’s Day.” Miner’s Journal (Galena, IL), March 21, 1829.

[8] R.K. Cunningham. “200 Years of Illinois: Lead is Galena and Galena is Lead.” September 30, 2016. Accessed November 2025 at https://www.press.uillinois.edu/wordpress/200-years-of-illinois-the-glory-of-lead/.

[9] North Western Gazette and Galena Advertiser, (Galena, IL), April 11, 1839. Italics were in the original.

[10] “Horace H. Houghton,” Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Accessed September 14, 2025, https://papersofabrahamlincoln.org/persons/HO40885.

[11] “Horace H. Houghton,” Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Accessed September 14, 2025, https://papersofabrahamlincoln.org/persons/HO40885.

[12] “Death of a Former Well Known Resident of Jo Daviess County,” Galena Daily Gazette, February 13, 1883.

[13] “Death of a Former Well Known Resident of Jo Daviess County,” Galena Daily Gazette, February 13, 1883.

[14] “Whig Meeting,” North Western Gazette and Daily Advertiser (Galena, IL), March 14, 1839.

[15] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Circuit Court. 1840.

[16] Allen Johnson, “Stephen A. Douglas: a Study in American Politics” (New York: Macmillan, 1908), accessed September 2025 via Project Gutenberg at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15508/15508-h/15508-h.htm#FNanchor_109_109.

[17] Allen Johnson, “Stephen A. Douglas: a Study in American Politics” (New York: Macmillan, 1908), accessed September 2025 via Project Gutenberg at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15508/15508-h/15508-h.htm#FNanchor_109_109.

[18] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Circuit Court. June 1840.

[19] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Circuit Court. June 1840.

[20] John Deacon. “Jo Daviess County.” American Courthouses: A Photo Archive by John Deacon. Accessed November 2025 at https://courthouses.co/us-states/h-l/illinois/jo-daviess-county/.

[21] “Stephen A. Douglas,” North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Published January 3, 2024, https://www.dncr.nc.gov/blog/2024/01/03/stephen-douglas-j-14.

[22] “Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, and their Friend John Calhoun,” Abraham Lincoln’s Classroom, the Lehrman Institute, Accessed October 2025 at https://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincolns-contemporaries/abraham-lincoln-stephen-a-douglas-and-their-friend-john-calhoun/index.html#int. Note: the actual quote says “excellent,” I removed the brackets for the changed tenses for clarity.

[23] “Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, and their Friend John Calhoun,” Abraham Lincoln’s Classroom, the Lehrman Institute, Accessed October 2025 at https://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincolns-contemporaries/abraham-lincoln-stephen-a-douglas-and-their-friend-john-calhoun/index.html#int.

[24] Allen Johnson, “Stephen A. Douglas: a Study in American Politics” (New York: Macmillan, 1908), accessed September 2025 via Project Gutenberg at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15508/15508-h/15508-h.htm#FNanchor_109_109.

[25] Allen Johnson, “Stephen A. Douglas: a Study in American Politics” (New York: Macmillan, 1908), accessed September 2025 via Project Gutenberg at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15508/15508-h/15508-h.htm#FNanchor_109_109.

[26] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Circuit Court. June 1840.

[27] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Circuit Court. June 1840.

[28] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Circuit Court. June 1840.

[29] “Stephen Arnold Douglas.” HarpWeek. Accessed November 2025 at https://elections.harpweek.com/1860/bio-1860-Full.asp?UniqueID=6.

[30] “1840 Illinois State Elections,” Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Accessed September 14, 2025, https://papersofabrahamlincoln.org/events/E4018085#:~:text=Coming%20in%20the%20midst%20of,funding%20the%20internal%20improvement%20system.

[31] “Illinois Judiciary Act of 1841,” Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Accessed September 16, 2025 at https://papersofabrahamlincoln.org/events/E4016150.

[32] Allen Johnson, “Stephen A. Douglas: a Study in American Politics” (New York: Macmillan, 1908), accessed September 2025 via Project Gutenberg at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15508/15508-h/15508-h.htm#FNanchor_109_109.

[33] Michael Woods, “Stephen A. Douglas, ‘Little Giant’ had Deep Roots in City,” Journal-Courier (Jacksonville, IL), August 2, 2025.

[34] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[35] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[36] Thomas F. Schwartz, “‘An Egregious Political Blunder: Justin Butterfield, Lincoln, and Illinois Whiggery,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 8, no. 1 (1986): 9-19.

[37] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[38] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[39] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[40] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[41] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[42] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[43] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[44] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[45] Spragins v. Houghton. Illinois Supreme Court. 1840.

[46] “Illinois Judiciary Act of 1841” Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Accessed October 6, 2025, at at https://papersofabrahamlincoln.org/events/E4016150.

[47] Mark E. Steiner, “Abraham Lincoln, Nativism, and Citizenship,” Journal of the University of Latvia Law 13 (2020): 15-32.

[48] ”Constitution of the State of Illinois,” Article VI. 1848. Accessed October 2025 at https://www.idaillinois.org/digital/collection/isl2/id/211.

[49] ”Constitution of the State of Illinois,” Article VI. 1848. Accessed October 2025 at https://www.idaillinois.org/digital/collection/isl2/id/211.

[50] ”1970 Illinois Constitution Annotated for Legislators,” Illinois General Assembly Legislative Research Unit, ed. 5, published December 2018, accessed October 2025 at https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/ilconstitution2018.pdf. The specific section on citizen voting requirement is in Article III, Section 1.